Citește Biblia

{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":42459,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Jewish Leaders","title_en":"Jewish Leaders","content_ro":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","summary_ro":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","summary_en":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70085,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Jewish Leaders","title_en":"Jewish Leaders","content_ro":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","summary_ro":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","summary_en":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97711,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Jewish Leaders","title_en":"Jewish Leaders","content_ro":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","summary_ro":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","summary_en":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125337,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Jewish Leaders","title_en":"Jewish Leaders","content_ro":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","summary_ro":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","summary_en":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19666,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Teachings of Jesus Christ","title_en":"Teachings of Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of<\/h3>\n<p>Because of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? What did he mean when he spoke about the kingdom? What light does his teaching throw on the meaning of his death? What did he say about the Holy Spirit? How did he describe human beings and their needs? Did he anticipate the Christian church? Did he teach anything about the end of the world? What were the main features of his moral teaching? The following sections will seek to answer these important questions.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about God<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Himself<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about His Own Death<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Humanity<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Church<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Future<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutGod\">Teachings about God<\/p>\n<p>Anyone who comes to the teachings of Jesus after reading the OT will at once recognize that much of his teaching about God is the same. Since Jesus, as all orthodox Jews of his day, accepted the testimony of the OT as inspired, it is not surprising that his approach to God was similar. This is especially true of his assumption that God was Creator. He taught a special providential care over the created order and affirmed that God watched over such small creatures as the sparrow (Mt 10:29). There is no support in the teachings of Jesus for the view that God is uninterested in the world he made.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most characteristic titles Jesus used for God was Father. This was not new, for the idea occurs in the OT, where God is seen as Father of his people Israel. This kind of fatherhood was national rather than personal. In the intertestamental period the Jews came to regard God as so holy that he was removed from direct contact with human affairs. There had to be mediators between God and people. This exalted notion of God was not conducive to the idea of God as Father, and it is against this background that the uniqueness of the personal fatherhood of God in the teaching of Jesus must be seen. There is some evidence in Judaism that prayer to God as “Our Father” was known, but what distinguishes Jesus’ teachings from that of his contemporaries is that the fatherhood of God was central to what he taught.<\/p>\n<p>The father-son relationship is particularly vivid in John’s Gospel, where Jesus as Son is seen to be in close communion with God as Father. This comes out strongly in Jesus’ prayer in John 17 and in the frequent assertions that the Father had sent the Son and that the Son was doing the will of the Father. It is this strong relationship between God and Jesus in terms of fatherhood and sonship that led Jesus to teach men to approach God in the same way. The Lord’s Prayer at once recognizes this in its opening words. It is particularly important to note that “Our Father” precedes “hallowed be thy name,” for the more intimate idea prepares the way for the more remote. Jesus never taught men to approach God with terror.<\/p>\n<p>Although there is a connection between the way in which Jesus addressed God as Father and the way in which he taught his disciples to approach God, there is also a distinction. Jesus spoke of “my Father and your Father” when he appeared to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection (Jn 20:17), but he did not say “our Father.” His sonship was unique, for he claimed that he and the Father were one (Jn 10:30).<\/p>\n<p>In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus assured his followers that their heavenly Father knows about their needs (Mt 6:32; Lk 12:30), on the strength of which they are exhorted not to be anxious. This gives some insight into the way in which Jesus’ teachings about God has a bearing on practical issues.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHimself\">Teachings about Himself<\/p>\n<p>What Jesus said about himself is of great importance, for this undoubtedly formed the basis of what the early church came to teach about him.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus used certain titles of himself or accepted them as descriptions of himself when they were used by others. The most widely used is Son of Man. This title was used by Jesus to refer to himself but was not used by anyone else. It was used, moreover, in several different kinds of sayings. Sometimes the sayings related directly to the public ministry of Jesus, like the saying that the Son of Man was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28), or that the Son of Man had authority to forgive sins (v 10). Sometimes the sayings had a direct bearing on the Passion, as when Jesus said that the Son of Man must suffer many things (Mk 8:31; note that Mt 16:21 has “he” instead of “Son of Man”). At other times the reference is to a future appearance, as when Jesus declared to the high priest that he would see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Mk 14:62). What did Jesus mean by the title, and why did he use it?<\/p>\n<p>The title “Son of Man” had been used before. The phrase occurs in Psalm 8:4, where it refers to man or humans. Again, the expression is used many times in Ezekiel as a mode of address to the prophet, but here also it means man. A rather different use occurs in Daniel 7:13, where one like a son of man comes with the clouds before the Ancient of Days. There is a strong similarity between this passage and the words of Jesus in Mark 14:62. But an important difference is that whereas Son of Man becomes a title in Mark, it is not so in Daniel. There is some evidence for the title in Jewish apocalyptic literature (e.g., in the Similitudes of Enoch), where it represents a preexistent being who will come to judge and overthrow the enemies of God. It seems evident from this that Jesus’ use of Son of Man as a title is unique.<\/p>\n<p>The Son of Man sayings are distributed throughout the four Gospels, and there are no appreciable differences in their uses. What is at first astonishing is that though the title is so widespread in the Gospels on the lips of Jesus, it never became a name by which Jesus was known by the early Christians. In fact, only in Acts 7:56 does the title appear, in this case used by Stephen. It is clear, therefore, that it had a special meaning for Jesus that it did not have for others. There is no doubt that he was referring to himself and not to someone else, as a careful study of all the Son of Man sayings shows. Those who think that Jesus was referring to someone else arrive at this conclusion only after first dispensing with some of the sayings. The most probable reason why he used the title Son of Man was because he wanted to avoid a term like Messiah, which carried with it too many political overtones. But what did Son of Man mean to Jesus? It is rich with the idea of humanness, possibly allusions to Daniel’s “son of man,” and perhaps a touch of the Suffering Servant idea from Isaiah 53. It is most likely that Jesus saw it in terms of his mission in a way that his hearers could not fully appreciate. It is also probable that the early church preferred Messiah because this title carried the meaning of a royal deliverer; also, after the death of Jesus, there would be no further fear of political misunderstanding.<\/p>\n<p>The term Messiah, or Christ, does not belong strictly to the teachings of Jesus, since he himself never used it. The most striking instance where he accepted the ascription of Messiah was in Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi. All the synoptic Gospels record the confession “You are the Christ,” while Matthew adds the significant comment by Jesus that flesh and blood had not revealed it but “my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17). He certainly accepted the confession and regarded it as revelation. One other case in the Synoptics where he does not specifically refute messiahship is his answer to the high priest’s question “Are you the Messiah?” (Mk 14:61). In John’s Gospel, Andrew tells Peter that he had found the Messiah (Jn 1:41); the woman at Samaria talks to Jesus, and he reveals that he is the Messiah (4:25-26). There was a widespread expectation among the Jews that a deliverer would come to overthrow their political enemies, the Romans. There were various ideas about his origin (a military leader or a heavenly warrior) and his methods (the Zealots believed that deliverance could come only through armed revolution). The reticence of Jesus concerning messiahship is therefore readily understandable.<\/p>\n<p>Another title of utmost importance is Son of God, although it occurs mainly in John’s Gospel. That both Mark and John regarded Jesus in this light is clear from explicit statements in their Gospels (cf. Mk 1:1; Jn 20:30-31). There are certainly passages where Messiah is linked with Son of God and where Jesus rejects neither title (cf. Mt 16:16). But in the teachings of Jesus one passage makes abundantly clear the special relationship that Jesus had with God as Son—namely, Matthew 11:27 (also Lk 10:22, a parallel passage), where Jesus implies that he is the Son of the Father.<\/p>\n<p>Many similar passages in John’s Gospel are, however, more explicit. The Son is unquestionably preexistent, because he knows he came from the Father and returns to the Father. It is not possible from the many references to sonship in John’s Gospel to come to any other conclusion than that Jesus regarded himself as divine. It is particularly important to note that it is also in this Gospel that Jesus is portrayed most clearly in his human nature with its attendant weaknesses. Nowhere in the teachings of Jesus did he explain how God could become man, but he assumed this as a fact. He taught with the authority of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheKingdomofGod\">Teachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\n<p>No one can read the synoptic Gospels without being impressed with the frequency with which the expression “kingdom of God” (or of heaven) occurs. It was clearly an important theme in the whole teaching of Jesus. It is less evident in John’s Gospel but is nevertheless still present. Many of the parables of Jesus are specifically called parables of the kingdom. Jesus’ concept of the kingdom provided a foundational idea to the Christian gospel.<\/p>\n<p>The main idea is the rule of God over people rather than a realm that belongs to God. In other words, the emphasis is on the active reigning of the King. This is important because it means that the kingdom is inextricably affected by relationships between the members and the King. It also means the kingdom will not be expressed in institutional terms.<\/p>\n<p>There is one problem with the kingdom teachings that must be faced: its timing. Some sayings imply that it is already present, while others suggest that it will not come until the future. Some scholars disavow the idea that present and future can be held together; therefore, they reject one and concentrate on the other. Those who maintain a present understanding of the kingdom developed the idea of a social gospel, since Christianity was defined as the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. According to this view, there is no place for a future arrival of the kingdom. On the other hand, some have denied altogether the present aspect and concentrate on the future. In this case, it is difficult to see in what sense the kingdom teachings are relevant.<\/p>\n<p>Yet others have insisted that since both present and future aspects are found in the Gospel records, no explanation is satisfying that denies one at the expense of the other. One possible solution is to regard the present aspects as applying to this age but as not reaching their fulfillment until the future establishment of the kingdom. A similar solution, expressed differently, is to maintain that the reality is a future kingdom but that it has spilled over into the present. Jesus intentionally included both present and future aspects.<\/p>\n<p>That the kingdom was a theme of common interest is clear from Luke 17:20-21, where the Pharisees asked Jesus when it was coming. His answer, that it was among them, shows unmistakably a present idea. This is equally true of the statement that in the exorcism of evil spirits the kingdom had arrived (Mt 12:28; Lk 11:20). Moreover, Jesus mentioned that the kingdom has been forcefully advancing (Mt 11:12), by which he did not mean by revolutionary methods, although he clearly implied that something dynamic was already happening. This idea of dynamic power is one of the most characteristic features of the kingdom. Jesus spoke of binding the strong, armed man (Lk 11:21-22), which shows that in his ministry he expected to give a powerful demonstration against the forces of darkness.<\/p>\n<p>It is evident that the kingdom Jesus proclaimed was a kingdom in which God was supreme. It was inseparably linked with his redemptive mission, in which God was bringing spiritual deliverance to his people. Moreover, the kingdom teachings of Jesus cannot be regarded in isolation. It is part of the total message; no part of that message can be divorced from any other part without distorting the whole.<\/p>\n<p>The clearest teachings on the future aspect of the kingdom are to be found in some of the parables (Mt 13) and in the discourse on the Mt of Olives (Mt 24–25; Mk 13; Lk 21). In the latter, Jesus spoke of the future using imagery drawn from Jewish literature, like the references to clouds, to glory, and to angels in relation to the coming of the Son of Man (Mk 13:26-27). In Matthew’s account there is reference to a trumpet call, another familiar feature (Mt 24:31).<\/p>\n<p>Various features from the kingdom parables give the clearest idea of the nature of the kingdom. Membership in the kingdom is not considered to be universal, for in the parable of the sower not all the soils are productive. The same separation is seen in the parable of the tares and the parable of the dragnet. The tares are destroyed and only the wheat is harvested, while the bad fish are discarded. The members of the kingdom are those who hear and understand the word of the kingdom (Mt 13:23). It is clear, therefore, that a response is necessary if the benefits of the kingdom are to be enjoyed.<\/p>\n<p>There is an emphasis on growth in the parable of the mustard seed, where rapid development occurs from small beginnings. The parables of the treasure and the pearl are intended to underline the value of the kingdom. The universal character of the kingdom comes out sharply in the parable of the vineyard, where the kingdom is said to be taken away from the Jews and given to another “nation,” presumably an allusion to the Gentiles (Mt 21:43). This is in line with the great commission Jesus gave to his disciples to preach to all nations (28:19). A universal kingdom would certainly be entirely different from the messianic kingdom idea of Judaism, in which Israel was to be the central unit. It is not easy to appreciate how revolutionary the idea was of a worldwide kingdom with Gentiles and Jews on the same footing.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHisOwnDeath\">Teachings about His Own Death<\/p>\n<p>The announcement of the kingdom must be linked with Jesus’ approach to his own death. Did Jesus see his death as an integral part of his mission? Some have maintained that he ended his life in disillusionment, but a brief survey of his teaching about his own destiny is sufficient to dispel such a theory. To the further question, “What meaning did Jesus attach to his forthcoming death?” he gave a series of passing indications that, when taken together, supply us with a basis on which to reconstruct some idea of the place of his death within the entire range of his mission.<\/p>\n<p>It is important to note that many times Jesus showed his awareness that details of his life were a fulfillment of Scripture (cf. Mt 26:24, 56; Mk 9:12; Lk 18:31; 24:25-27, 44-45). In all the instances cited, the suffering of Jesus is referred to as the subject of OT prophecy. This must mean that he had reflected on OT predictions and recognized that they could be fulfilled only through his own sufferings. In this case the Passion must be regarded as an indispensable part of Jesus’ consciousness of his own mission.<\/p>\n<p>This emphasis on fulfillment of Scripture is also seen in John’s Gospel. His statement that the Son of Man must be lifted up even as Moses lifted up the serpent (Jn 3:14) illustrates this point. Most of the passages where fulfillment of Scripture is mentioned are the comments of the Evangelist, John. But there can be no doubt that the fulfillment motive played a vital part both in Jesus’ own understanding of his mission and in the early Christians’ understanding of his death. In this connection, some hold that John puts more stress on the Incarnation as a means of salvation in that he sees it as an illumination of the mind. But this is only part of the truth, for there is more on the meaning of the death of Jesus in John’s Gospel than in the others.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospels emphasize the divine necessity of the death of Jesus. In addition to the fulfillment motive, the idea of necessity is strong in the first prediction by Jesus of his approaching death. In John’s Gospel Jesus speaks of his “hour” several times in the earlier stages of his ministry as “not yet,” but in the later stages as having arrived. There is a sense of definite movement toward a climax, the hour undoubtedly being the hour of the Passion (cf. Jn 17:1). There is not room for any disillusionment here. Jesus knew that only through the hour of death could the Father be glorified. The climax was according to an orderly plan.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus evidently regarded his death as in some ways a sacrifice. The clearest indication of this is in the words of institution at the Last Supper. The cup is connected with the blood of the new covenant, which is said to be for the “remission of sins” (Mt 26:26-28). No explanation is given of the way in which the coming death, signified by the broken bread and poured-out wine, would bring about forgiveness of sins. But the immediate realization by the early church that Christ died for our sins (cf. 1 Cor 15:3) shows that the importance of what Jesus said had been clearly grasped. The new covenant idea is parallel to the old covenant, which according to Exodus 24 was sealed with sacrificial blood; there can be little doubt that Jesus had this in mind when he spoke the words about the new covenant. It was also akin to the ideas expressed in Jeremiah 31, referring to a covenant written on the heart rather than graven in stone.<\/p>\n<p>Another aspect of the death of Christ seen especially in John’s Gospel is the sense of completion that went with it. In Jesus’ prayer in John 17, as he faces the cross, he declares that he has finished the work that the Father had given him to do (Jn 17:4). This is reinforced by the cry from the cross, “It is finished,” which only John records (19:30). This sense of accomplishment gives an air of triumph to what might otherwise have been considered a disaster.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheHolySpirit\">Teachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n<p>At several of the major events in the life of Jesus, the Evangelists note the activity of the Spirit (e.g., the Virgin Birth, the Baptism, the Temptation). It is to be expected, therefore, that Jesus would have instructed his disciples about the Spirit. However, there is surprisingly little in the synoptic Gospels on this theme. Most of the teachings come from John’s Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus began his preaching ministry in Nazareth, according to Luke, he read the statement in Isaiah 61:1-2 about the Spirit of God and applied it to himself. He saw his ministry as being inaugurated by the Spirit. This becomes clear in the way in which he responded to the charge that he cast out demons by means of Beelzebub, prince of the demons. He identified the reality of the coming of the kingdom by the fact that he was casting out evil spirits by the Spirit of God (Mt 12:28). He was, moreover, sensitive to the seriousness of blaspheming the Spirit, which he implies his accusers were in danger of doing. Whatever he did in his ministry he saw as an activity of the Spirit, and this was especially so in the contest with evil spirits.<\/p>\n<p>While warning his disciples that they would meet with opposition, Jesus assured them of the Spirit’s support when they were forced to appear before kings or governors (Mt 10:19-20; Mk 13:11). Indeed, he told them that the Spirit would speak through them, thus emphasizing that he expected a continuation of the Spirit’s activity in the future. Luke records one instance in which Jesus comments on what fathers will do for their children and asks whether God will not give the Holy Spirit to those who ask (Lk 11:13). The assumption is that God regards the Holy Spirit as the best gift to give his children. On yet another occasion, Jesus recognized that David was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote Psalm 110 (Mk 12:36), reflecting Jesus’ belief in the Spirit’s agency in the production of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of John provides a more detailed development of what Jesus taught about the Spirit. Teachings about the Spirit are usually linked to Jesus’ teachings about giving eternal life to those who believe in him and receive him. At the same time he spoke of the new birth and eternal life to Nicodemus, Jesus also spoke of the Spirit (Jn 3:3-8, 15-16). When he spoke of water of life to the Samaritan woman, he also spoke of the Spirit (4:14, 23-24). The same holds true for the discourses on the bread of life (6:48-63) and river of life (7:37-39). Throughout the Gospel, Jesus declares to various people that he can give them eternal life if they would believe in him. He promises them the water of life, the bread of life, and the light of life, but no one could really partake of these until after the Lord was resurrected. As a foretaste, as a sample, they could receive a certain measure of life via the Lord’s words, because his words were themselves spirit and life (6:63), but it was not until the Spirit would become available that the believers could actually become the recipients of the divine, eternal life.<\/p>\n<p>After the Lord’s discourse in John 6 (a discourse that was very troubling and offensive to most of his disciples), Jesus said, “It is the Spirit who gives eternal life” (6:63). When the Spirit became available, they could have life. Again, Jesus offered the water of life—even life flowing like rivers of living water—to the Jews assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles. He told them to come and drink of him. But no one could, then and there, come and drink of him. So John added a note: “This He spoke of the Spirit, . . . for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39, <span>nasb<\/span>). Once Jesus would be glorified through resurrection, the Spirit of the glorified Jesus would be available for men to drink. In John 6, Jesus offered himself as the bread of life to be eaten by men; and in John 7, he offered himself as the water of life to refresh men. But no one could eat of him or drink of him until the Spirit of the glorified Jesus was made available, as was intimated in John 6:63 and then stated plainly in John 7:39.<\/p>\n<p>In John 14:16-18, Jesus went one step further in identifying himself with the Spirit. He told the disciples that he would give them another Comforter. Then he told them that they should know who this Comforter was because he was, then and there, abiding with them and would, in the near future, be in them. Who else but Jesus was abiding with them at that time? Then after telling the disciples that the Comforter would come to them, he said, “I am coming to you.” First he said that the Comforter would come to them and abide in them, and then in the same breath he said that he would come to them and abide in them (see 14:20). In short, the coming of the Comforter to the disciples was one and the same as the coming of Jesus to the disciples. The Comforter who was dwelling with the disciples that night was the Spirit in Christ; the Comforter who would be in the disciples (after the resurrection) would be Christ in the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>On the evening of the resurrection, the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples and then breathed into them the Holy Spirit. This inbreathing, reminiscent of God’s breathing into Adam the breath of life (Gn 2:7), became the fulfillment of all that had been promised and anticipated earlier in John’s Gospel. Through this impartation, the disciples were regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This historical event marked the genesis of the new creation. Jesus could now be realized as the bread of life, the water of life, and the light of life. The believers now possessed his divine, eternal, risen life. From that time forward, Christ as Spirit indwelt his believers. Thus, in his first epistle John could say, “We know he lives in us because the Holy Spirit lives in us” (1 Jn 3:24).<\/p>\n<p>The indwelling Spirit helped the disciples remember Jesus’ words and actions (Jn 14:26) so that they could teach and write about them with acumen. This means that Jesus did not intend that the preservation of his teachings should be left to chance. All too often theories attempting to explain the way in which the traditions about Jesus and his teachings were transmitted in the period before there were any written Gospels are suggested without any reference to the Holy Spirit. It is not acceptable to concentrate on so-called laws of oral tradition and pay no attention to the unique factor in this case—the Holy Spirit. It is part of the Spirit’s mission to preserve and transmit the teaching of Jesus. What Jesus says in this passage about the Spirit has far-reaching significance for the formation of the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Another important function is the activity of the Spirit in the world. Jesus made it clear that the Spirit would convict of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment (Jn 16:8). Without the activity of the Spirit, there would be no possibility of the disciples making any impact on the world. Nevertheless, Jesus warned that the world could not receive the Spirit because it did not know him (14:17). The mystery of the Spirit is that he dwells in every believer. This indwelling aspect is of great importance and was particularly developed in the writings of Paul.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHumanity\">Teachings about Humanity<\/p>\n<p>Jesus taught about God’s providential care over all human beings. A person’s hairs are all numbered (Mt 10:30), which is a vivid way of saying that God is concerned about the details of human life. But God is far more concerned with the eternal soul. Jesus made it clear that it would be unprofitable for anyone to gain the world and to lose his or her soul (Mt 16:26; Mk 8:36; Lk 9:25). The focus falls on what a person is and not what he or she has. Jesus even said that a maimed body was preferable to a forfeited life (Mk 9:43-47). One’s total fulfillment depends more on one’s spiritual condition than on one’s environment or physical well-being. He was not, of course, unconcerned about people’s physical state, as his many healings show, but his major concern was with people’s relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus never viewed humans as isolated individuals. Within God’s community people were expected to have responsibility toward one another. The Sermon on the Mount illustrated this social emphasis in the teaching of Jesus. Those who are merciful to others will obtain mercy (Mt 5:7). There is special commendation for peacemakers (v 9). The disciples of Jesus are expected to bring light to others (v 16). They are expected to give more than expected (v 40). Jesus is clearly saying that people have responsibility beyond themselves.<\/p>\n<p>The relation of people to God is one of dependence. Jesus taught men and women to pray to God for daily bread (Mt 6:11) as a reminder that they cannot be wholly self-sufficient. He allowed no place in his teaching for humans to boast in their own achievements.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had some specific things to say about home life. He accepted the sanctity of the marriage contract (Mt 5:31-32; cf. 19:3-9) and therefore showed a high regard for the honor and rights of the wife. It was more in his actions and attitudes rather than his specific teachings that Jesus showed his regard for the status of women. When he spoke of men, he often used the term in the sense of people, including both men and women. There is no suggestion that in matters of faith women were in the least inferior to men. Moreover, Luke points out how many women supported Jesus and his disciples in their travels.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had a high view of the human potential but also acknowledged their present condition. The stress on repentance (Mt 4:17) shows a sinfulness of which people need to repent. This sense of need is implicit in the instances where Jesus pronounces forgiveness (e.g., to the paralytic, Mt 9:1-8; and to the woman who anointed him, Lk 7:47-48). In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus instructs his disciples to pray for forgiveness (Mt 6:12; Lk 11:4). He takes for granted that they need it and desire to obtain it.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus gives no support to any self-righteousness in men or women. This is the burden of his criticism of the religious leaders in various sayings, but particularly in Matthew 23. He was critical of Jewish teachers because they placed so much importance on works of merit as contributing to salvation. His whole approach depended on humans casting themselves on the mercy of God. This is vividly illustrated in the parable about the Pharisee and the tax collector at prayer (Lk 18:10-14). It was the latter who threw himself on the mercy of God and who was commended by Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Undoubtedly, Jesus regarded sin as universal. He never suggested that there was anyone who was exempt from it. The major concept of sin in his teachings was alienation from God. This comes out clearly in John’s Gospel, with its strong antithesis between light and darkness, life and death (cf. Jn 5:24). Indeed, the “world” in John’s Gospel represents the system that takes no account of God. But sin is also seen as enslavement to Satan. The life and teachings of Jesus are seen against the background of spiritual conflict. Jesus can even say to his opponents, “You are of your father the devil” (Jn 8:44). He assumes throughout that there are hostile forces bringing man into subjection.<\/p>\n<p>In the parable of the prodigal son, sin against God is linked with sin before the father. In other words, it is regarded in terms of rebellion and revolt (Lk 15:21). This is a different assessment of the son’s offense than the one arrived at by the elder brother, who could see it only in terms of property. The view that humans are essentially in a state of rebellion against God is a basic tenet of Paul’s theological position, and it is important to note that it finds its root in the teachings of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>There is no question that Jesus had much to say about condemnation. Those who did not believe and were therefore outside the provision of salvation that Jesus had made are declared to be already condemned (Jn 3:18). At various times Jesus mentioned judgment to come, which shows that a person’s destiny is related to his or her present spiritual condition. Against this background of humanity’s spiritual need, the whole mission of Jesus must be seen. A person, if left to himself or herself, would be totally unable to achieve salvation, but Jesus came to offer eternal life to those who believe in him (Jn 3:16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheChurch\">Teachings about the Church<\/p>\n<p>Some have supposed that Jesus did not predict that there would be a church. But on two occasions he used the word “church,” which means a people called out by God. On one of the occasions—at Caesarea Philippi—Jesus told Peter that he would build his church upon the rock (Mt 16:16-19). It seems most probable that “rock” was intended to link the foundation of the church to Peter’s particular confession about Jesus. It is certain that the later church was a community that affirmed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is important to note that it is Christ himself who is the builder of the church. He assured his disciples that it would be impregnable (the gates of hades would not overcome it). Moreover, one of the functions of the church was to proclaim forgiveness of sins, and this is implied in what Jesus said to Peter. That the words were not intended to refer exclusively to him is clear from Matthew 18:18, where similar words were addressed to all the disciples. The church, according to Matthew 18:17, was to be a community that could settle disputes between believers.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to these specific references to the church, Jesus assumed that his followers would meet together in his name (Mt 18:19-20). In his final words in Matthew’s account, he commissioned them to teach what he had taught them and to baptize new disciples (Mt 28:19-20). He promised his presence would be with them. The command to baptize was reinforced by Jesus’ own example in submitting to John’s baptism. One other special rite that Jesus expected his disciples to observe was the Lord’s Supper. His instructions about this presuppose a later community that could observe it. Since the form of words used in the institution point to the meaning of the death of Christ, it is clear that Jesus intended the future community to be frequently reminded of the center of the faith. The Christian church was to be a group of people who knew that through Christ they had entered into a new relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Although there are no references to the church in John’s Gospel, there are certainly hints that support the community idea. Jesus introduced himself as the Shepherd and spoke of his followers as forming a flock (Jn 10:16). The sheep imagery occurs again in this Gospel when Peter is instructed three times by the risen Lord to feed the sheep (Jn 21:15-17). Another figure of speech that Jesus used to bring out the group idea is that of the many branches that draw their life from the vine, and therefore belong to each other because of their common life in the vine.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus recognized that the future community would need the aid of the Spirit. His teachings on this subject laid the foundation for the evident dependence of the early church on the Spirit, as seen in the book of Acts. Finally, it should be noted that there is a close connection between the church and the kingdom, although they are not identical. The kingdom is more comprehensive than the church, which is included within it.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheFuture\">Teachings about the Future<\/p>\n<p>Jesus thought of the kingdom in terms of both present realization and future hope. The future aspect is related to the end of the age. Although he did not spell it out in specific terms, Jesus did not leave his disciples without any knowledge of how the present age would end. He gave firm assurance that he would return at some time in the future.<\/p>\n<p>He told the disciples that the Son of Man would come with his angels in his Father’s glory (Mt 16:27). In the discourse in which he answers the disciples’ question about the end of the world, he speaks again of the Son of Man coming in clouds with power and glory (Mk 13:26), probably drawn from the familiar language of Daniel 7. Jesus described various signs that would precede his own coming. He spoke of wars, conflicts, earthquakes, famines, and disturbances in the heavens. The gospel was to be preached to all nations. At the same time many false Christs would arise.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus gave such details about his return to encourage his disciples in the face of persecution. The future hope had a definitely practical purpose. The disciples were urged to watch. The coming would happen as unexpectedly as a thief in the night. Jesus said that even he himself did not know when the coming would take place (Mk 13:32).<\/p>\n<p>Another important theme affecting the future is emphasized in Jesus’ teachings about resurrection. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the body. They attempted to trap Jesus with a question about a woman who had been married seven times. They wanted to know whose husband she would be at the resurrection (Mk 12:18-27). Jesus pointed out that there would be no marriage when the dead rise. The Sadducees’ idea about resurrection was clearly wrong. Jesus’ teaching was that the resurrected would be like the angels. There is no doubt about the resurrection of the dead, although no information is given about the resurrection body. Jesus told a story about a rich man and a poor man who both died (Lk 16:19-31). In the afterlife the rich man cries out in torment, while the poor man enjoys a state of blessedness. What is most clear from this is the certainty of the afterlife and the fact of a distinction between the two men, although we are not told on what grounds the distinction is made. Elsewhere in his teachings, Jesus suggested that the most vital requirement is faith in himself. The conversation between Jesus and the dying thief on the cross suggests that paradise for the latter consisted in an awareness of the presence of Jesus (Lk 23:42-43).<\/p>\n<p>The theme of rewards and punishment occurs in many passages. In Matthew 16:27 Jesus says that the Son of Man will reward everyone according to what he or she has done. Those who are worthless are promised punishment in darkness (Mt 25:30). Moreover, Jesus spoke of a day of judgment on which men and women must give an account, even of all their careless words (12:36-37). In the parable of the sheep and the goats, he spoke of a separation that the Son of Man will make when he comes. Those commended are those who have shown concern for the believers (25:31-46).<\/p>\n<p>Among Jesus’ most solemn statements are those that speak of hell. There is no way of getting around his teachings about eternal punishment for the unrighteous (as in Mt 25:41, 46), which is opposite to the eternal life promised to the righteous. He taught that his disciples would have a place prepared for them in heaven (Jn 14:2), and spoke of a Book of Life in which the names of his disciples were written (Lk 10:20).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutMoralIssues\">Teachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\n<p>Much of the teaching of Jesus is concerned with moral issues—so much so that some scholars have concluded that this was the main burden of his teaching. But the moral teachings cannot be considered apart from the many facets of his teachings outlined above. It has been said that there are close parallels between the teachings of Jesus and the moral teachings of Judaism. What is distinctive about Jesus’ teachings about morality is that the motive and power behind moral conduct is not conceived in terms of laws that must be obeyed. Right conduct is seen to be the result of a right relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was himself the pattern for moral behavior. He made clear that his aim was to fulfill the will of God. There is no sense of legalism in his approach to ethical decisions. When—in the Sermon on the Mount—he compared his own teaching with that of Moses, he showed the importance of penetrating to the inner meaning (cf. Mt 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32). On the face of it, Jesus made more rigorous demands than the Mosaic law, because he was concerned with probing the motives as well as the actions. Many have dismissed the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount as entirely impractical, but Jesus never intended that his teaching would be easy; he set as a target nothing less than the perfection of God himself (Mt 5:48). Nevertheless, he called his yoke easy and his burden light (11:29-30), which suggests that he was not setting out an impossible ethical pattern. It must be remembered that he was not producing a manifesto for society. His concern was that each individual should have powerful motives for right decisions on matters of conduct. His reaction against a rigid application of Sabbath observance at the expense of the welfare of a needy person illustrates this point. Concern for others was rated higher than ritual correctness.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>No account of the life and teachings of Jesus would be complete without some indication of the place that Jesus Christ gained in the developing church. Such a quest naturally takes us outside the scope of the Gospels into the testimony of the book of Acts and Paul’s letters. There we can see whether the predictions of Jesus were fulfilled and whether in fact the early Christians took his teaching seriously. Although there can be no question that Jesus Christ became central to the faith of the early Christians, he was regarded from many points of view. He was seen as Messiah in the sense of a spiritual deliverer, as Lord in the sense of being sovereign over his people, as Servant in the sense of his obedience to suffering, as Son in his relation to his Father. In many ways the full understanding of what and who he was could not have occurred until after the resurrection. Therefore, we find that many facets of his teachings about himself were more fully developed in the reflections of his people. This is true in a special sense of the writings of the apostle Paul.<\/p>\n<p>Many have found a problem in linking the Gospels with their detailed presentation of the acts and teachings of Jesus with the Christ who is so central in Paul’s beliefs. The problem arises because the apostle does not refer to any specific incident in the life of Jesus and does not reflect in his epistles any acquaintance with the large amount of teaching material in the Gospels. Does this suggest that Paul had no interest in the historical Jesus? Or could it be maintained that he knew nothing about him? Those who have driven a wedge between Paul and Jesus have not given sufficient weight to those incidental indications that Paul knew a great deal more about the historical Jesus than he states in his letters. He writes, for instance, about the meekness and gentleness of Christ (2 Cor 10:1), suggesting that he knew that Jesus had said of himself that he was meek and lowly of heart (Mt 11:29). Moreover, Paul speaks of the poverty of Christ (2 Cor 8:9) and must have known that the Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head. He certainly knows the details of how Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:23-26), and he knows of his death by crucifixion. It seems reasonable to conclude that Paul assumes that his readers will be acquainted with the Gospel material.<\/p>\n<p>It is perhaps useful in this connection to inquire whether the life and teachings of Jesus played a significant part in the early Christian proclamation. One passage that is valuable in this respect is Acts 10:36-38. In Peter’s address to Cornelius, he spoke of God’s having anointed Jesus of Nazareth, and of Jesus’ having gone about doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil. It is clear that some account of the acts of Jesus was included in the early preaching, and there is no reason to suppose that this was not a regular procedure.<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that the example of Jesus was a powerful motive for promoting right behavior. Peter appeals to it in encouraging Christians who were suffering for their faith (1 Pt 2:21). Paul also knows the value of imitation (1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thes 1:6). Since Jesus was recognized as being a man who did not sin (cf. 2 Cor 5:21), his behavior patterns would have proved invaluable for those who needed a new standard for moral action. While this idea of example is unquestionably present in the Epistles, it would be quite wrong to suppose that it formed a major part of Christian doctrine.<\/p>\n<p>There are a few references to the teachings of Jesus in the non-Gospel portion of the NT. In the Letter of James, which is almost wholly practical, there are more allusions to the teachings of Jesus than anywhere else in the NT. This is especially true in echoes of the Sermon on the Mount, and it shows the strong contribution that the moral teaching of Jesus had on the ethical values of the early Christians. Most of the expositions of doctrine in the Epistles find their basis in some aspect of the teachings of Jesus. These teachings have an ongoing significance for the development of the church.<\/p>\n<p>To what extent is knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus relevant to the 21st century? Existential theologians have driven such a wedge between the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history that the latter has ceased to have any importance for them. Christians today, no less than their first-century predecessors, need to know that the object of their faith is the same one who lived and taught in Galilee and Judea.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Ascension of Christ; Christ; Christology; Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Incarnation; Jesus Christ; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven; Messiah; Parable; Savior; Son of God; Son of Man; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of<\/h3>\n<p>Because of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? What did he mean when he spoke about the kingdom? What light does his teaching throw on the meaning of his death? What did he say about the Holy Spirit? How did he describe human beings and their needs? Did he anticipate the Christian church? Did he teach anything about the end of the world? What were the main features of his moral teaching? The following sections will seek to answer these important questions.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about God<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Himself<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about His Own Death<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Humanity<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Church<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Future<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutGod\">Teachings about God<\/p>\n<p>Anyone who comes to the teachings of Jesus after reading the OT will at once recognize that much of his teaching about God is the same. Since Jesus, as all orthodox Jews of his day, accepted the testimony of the OT as inspired, it is not surprising that his approach to God was similar. This is especially true of his assumption that God was Creator. He taught a special providential care over the created order and affirmed that God watched over such small creatures as the sparrow (Mt 10:29). There is no support in the teachings of Jesus for the view that God is uninterested in the world he made.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most characteristic titles Jesus used for God was Father. This was not new, for the idea occurs in the OT, where God is seen as Father of his people Israel. This kind of fatherhood was national rather than personal. In the intertestamental period the Jews came to regard God as so holy that he was removed from direct contact with human affairs. There had to be mediators between God and people. This exalted notion of God was not conducive to the idea of God as Father, and it is against this background that the uniqueness of the personal fatherhood of God in the teaching of Jesus must be seen. There is some evidence in Judaism that prayer to God as “Our Father” was known, but what distinguishes Jesus’ teachings from that of his contemporaries is that the fatherhood of God was central to what he taught.<\/p>\n<p>The father-son relationship is particularly vivid in John’s Gospel, where Jesus as Son is seen to be in close communion with God as Father. This comes out strongly in Jesus’ prayer in John 17 and in the frequent assertions that the Father had sent the Son and that the Son was doing the will of the Father. It is this strong relationship between God and Jesus in terms of fatherhood and sonship that led Jesus to teach men to approach God in the same way. The Lord’s Prayer at once recognizes this in its opening words. It is particularly important to note that “Our Father” precedes “hallowed be thy name,” for the more intimate idea prepares the way for the more remote. Jesus never taught men to approach God with terror.<\/p>\n<p>Although there is a connection between the way in which Jesus addressed God as Father and the way in which he taught his disciples to approach God, there is also a distinction. Jesus spoke of “my Father and your Father” when he appeared to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection (Jn 20:17), but he did not say “our Father.” His sonship was unique, for he claimed that he and the Father were one (Jn 10:30).<\/p>\n<p>In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus assured his followers that their heavenly Father knows about their needs (Mt 6:32; Lk 12:30), on the strength of which they are exhorted not to be anxious. This gives some insight into the way in which Jesus’ teachings about God has a bearing on practical issues.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHimself\">Teachings about Himself<\/p>\n<p>What Jesus said about himself is of great importance, for this undoubtedly formed the basis of what the early church came to teach about him.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus used certain titles of himself or accepted them as descriptions of himself when they were used by others. The most widely used is Son of Man. This title was used by Jesus to refer to himself but was not used by anyone else. It was used, moreover, in several different kinds of sayings. Sometimes the sayings related directly to the public ministry of Jesus, like the saying that the Son of Man was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28), or that the Son of Man had authority to forgive sins (v 10). Sometimes the sayings had a direct bearing on the Passion, as when Jesus said that the Son of Man must suffer many things (Mk 8:31; note that Mt 16:21 has “he” instead of “Son of Man”). At other times the reference is to a future appearance, as when Jesus declared to the high priest that he would see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Mk 14:62). What did Jesus mean by the title, and why did he use it?<\/p>\n<p>The title “Son of Man” had been used before. The phrase occurs in Psalm 8:4, where it refers to man or humans. Again, the expression is used many times in Ezekiel as a mode of address to the prophet, but here also it means man. A rather different use occurs in Daniel 7:13, where one like a son of man comes with the clouds before the Ancient of Days. There is a strong similarity between this passage and the words of Jesus in Mark 14:62. But an important difference is that whereas Son of Man becomes a title in Mark, it is not so in Daniel. There is some evidence for the title in Jewish apocalyptic literature (e.g., in the Similitudes of Enoch), where it represents a preexistent being who will come to judge and overthrow the enemies of God. It seems evident from this that Jesus’ use of Son of Man as a title is unique.<\/p>\n<p>The Son of Man sayings are distributed throughout the four Gospels, and there are no appreciable differences in their uses. What is at first astonishing is that though the title is so widespread in the Gospels on the lips of Jesus, it never became a name by which Jesus was known by the early Christians. In fact, only in Acts 7:56 does the title appear, in this case used by Stephen. It is clear, therefore, that it had a special meaning for Jesus that it did not have for others. There is no doubt that he was referring to himself and not to someone else, as a careful study of all the Son of Man sayings shows. Those who think that Jesus was referring to someone else arrive at this conclusion only after first dispensing with some of the sayings. The most probable reason why he used the title Son of Man was because he wanted to avoid a term like Messiah, which carried with it too many political overtones. But what did Son of Man mean to Jesus? It is rich with the idea of humanness, possibly allusions to Daniel’s “son of man,” and perhaps a touch of the Suffering Servant idea from Isaiah 53. It is most likely that Jesus saw it in terms of his mission in a way that his hearers could not fully appreciate. It is also probable that the early church preferred Messiah because this title carried the meaning of a royal deliverer; also, after the death of Jesus, there would be no further fear of political misunderstanding.<\/p>\n<p>The term Messiah, or Christ, does not belong strictly to the teachings of Jesus, since he himself never used it. The most striking instance where he accepted the ascription of Messiah was in Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi. All the synoptic Gospels record the confession “You are the Christ,” while Matthew adds the significant comment by Jesus that flesh and blood had not revealed it but “my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17). He certainly accepted the confession and regarded it as revelation. One other case in the Synoptics where he does not specifically refute messiahship is his answer to the high priest’s question “Are you the Messiah?” (Mk 14:61). In John’s Gospel, Andrew tells Peter that he had found the Messiah (Jn 1:41); the woman at Samaria talks to Jesus, and he reveals that he is the Messiah (4:25-26). There was a widespread expectation among the Jews that a deliverer would come to overthrow their political enemies, the Romans. There were various ideas about his origin (a military leader or a heavenly warrior) and his methods (the Zealots believed that deliverance could come only through armed revolution). The reticence of Jesus concerning messiahship is therefore readily understandable.<\/p>\n<p>Another title of utmost importance is Son of God, although it occurs mainly in John’s Gospel. That both Mark and John regarded Jesus in this light is clear from explicit statements in their Gospels (cf. Mk 1:1; Jn 20:30-31). There are certainly passages where Messiah is linked with Son of God and where Jesus rejects neither title (cf. Mt 16:16). But in the teachings of Jesus one passage makes abundantly clear the special relationship that Jesus had with God as Son—namely, Matthew 11:27 (also Lk 10:22, a parallel passage), where Jesus implies that he is the Son of the Father.<\/p>\n<p>Many similar passages in John’s Gospel are, however, more explicit. The Son is unquestionably preexistent, because he knows he came from the Father and returns to the Father. It is not possible from the many references to sonship in John’s Gospel to come to any other conclusion than that Jesus regarded himself as divine. It is particularly important to note that it is also in this Gospel that Jesus is portrayed most clearly in his human nature with its attendant weaknesses. Nowhere in the teachings of Jesus did he explain how God could become man, but he assumed this as a fact. He taught with the authority of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheKingdomofGod\">Teachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\n<p>No one can read the synoptic Gospels without being impressed with the frequency with which the expression “kingdom of God” (or of heaven) occurs. It was clearly an important theme in the whole teaching of Jesus. It is less evident in John’s Gospel but is nevertheless still present. Many of the parables of Jesus are specifically called parables of the kingdom. Jesus’ concept of the kingdom provided a foundational idea to the Christian gospel.<\/p>\n<p>The main idea is the rule of God over people rather than a realm that belongs to God. In other words, the emphasis is on the active reigning of the King. This is important because it means that the kingdom is inextricably affected by relationships between the members and the King. It also means the kingdom will not be expressed in institutional terms.<\/p>\n<p>There is one problem with the kingdom teachings that must be faced: its timing. Some sayings imply that it is already present, while others suggest that it will not come until the future. Some scholars disavow the idea that present and future can be held together; therefore, they reject one and concentrate on the other. Those who maintain a present understanding of the kingdom developed the idea of a social gospel, since Christianity was defined as the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. According to this view, there is no place for a future arrival of the kingdom. On the other hand, some have denied altogether the present aspect and concentrate on the future. In this case, it is difficult to see in what sense the kingdom teachings are relevant.<\/p>\n<p>Yet others have insisted that since both present and future aspects are found in the Gospel records, no explanation is satisfying that denies one at the expense of the other. One possible solution is to regard the present aspects as applying to this age but as not reaching their fulfillment until the future establishment of the kingdom. A similar solution, expressed differently, is to maintain that the reality is a future kingdom but that it has spilled over into the present. Jesus intentionally included both present and future aspects.<\/p>\n<p>That the kingdom was a theme of common interest is clear from Luke 17:20-21, where the Pharisees asked Jesus when it was coming. His answer, that it was among them, shows unmistakably a present idea. This is equally true of the statement that in the exorcism of evil spirits the kingdom had arrived (Mt 12:28; Lk 11:20). Moreover, Jesus mentioned that the kingdom has been forcefully advancing (Mt 11:12), by which he did not mean by revolutionary methods, although he clearly implied that something dynamic was already happening. This idea of dynamic power is one of the most characteristic features of the kingdom. Jesus spoke of binding the strong, armed man (Lk 11:21-22), which shows that in his ministry he expected to give a powerful demonstration against the forces of darkness.<\/p>\n<p>It is evident that the kingdom Jesus proclaimed was a kingdom in which God was supreme. It was inseparably linked with his redemptive mission, in which God was bringing spiritual deliverance to his people. Moreover, the kingdom teachings of Jesus cannot be regarded in isolation. It is part of the total message; no part of that message can be divorced from any other part without distorting the whole.<\/p>\n<p>The clearest teachings on the future aspect of the kingdom are to be found in some of the parables (Mt 13) and in the discourse on the Mt of Olives (Mt 24–25; Mk 13; Lk 21). In the latter, Jesus spoke of the future using imagery drawn from Jewish literature, like the references to clouds, to glory, and to angels in relation to the coming of the Son of Man (Mk 13:26-27). In Matthew’s account there is reference to a trumpet call, another familiar feature (Mt 24:31).<\/p>\n<p>Various features from the kingdom parables give the clearest idea of the nature of the kingdom. Membership in the kingdom is not considered to be universal, for in the parable of the sower not all the soils are productive. The same separation is seen in the parable of the tares and the parable of the dragnet. The tares are destroyed and only the wheat is harvested, while the bad fish are discarded. The members of the kingdom are those who hear and understand the word of the kingdom (Mt 13:23). It is clear, therefore, that a response is necessary if the benefits of the kingdom are to be enjoyed.<\/p>\n<p>There is an emphasis on growth in the parable of the mustard seed, where rapid development occurs from small beginnings. The parables of the treasure and the pearl are intended to underline the value of the kingdom. The universal character of the kingdom comes out sharply in the parable of the vineyard, where the kingdom is said to be taken away from the Jews and given to another “nation,” presumably an allusion to the Gentiles (Mt 21:43). This is in line with the great commission Jesus gave to his disciples to preach to all nations (28:19). A universal kingdom would certainly be entirely different from the messianic kingdom idea of Judaism, in which Israel was to be the central unit. It is not easy to appreciate how revolutionary the idea was of a worldwide kingdom with Gentiles and Jews on the same footing.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHisOwnDeath\">Teachings about His Own Death<\/p>\n<p>The announcement of the kingdom must be linked with Jesus’ approach to his own death. Did Jesus see his death as an integral part of his mission? Some have maintained that he ended his life in disillusionment, but a brief survey of his teaching about his own destiny is sufficient to dispel such a theory. To the further question, “What meaning did Jesus attach to his forthcoming death?” he gave a series of passing indications that, when taken together, supply us with a basis on which to reconstruct some idea of the place of his death within the entire range of his mission.<\/p>\n<p>It is important to note that many times Jesus showed his awareness that details of his life were a fulfillment of Scripture (cf. Mt 26:24, 56; Mk 9:12; Lk 18:31; 24:25-27, 44-45). In all the instances cited, the suffering of Jesus is referred to as the subject of OT prophecy. This must mean that he had reflected on OT predictions and recognized that they could be fulfilled only through his own sufferings. In this case the Passion must be regarded as an indispensable part of Jesus’ consciousness of his own mission.<\/p>\n<p>This emphasis on fulfillment of Scripture is also seen in John’s Gospel. His statement that the Son of Man must be lifted up even as Moses lifted up the serpent (Jn 3:14) illustrates this point. Most of the passages where fulfillment of Scripture is mentioned are the comments of the Evangelist, John. But there can be no doubt that the fulfillment motive played a vital part both in Jesus’ own understanding of his mission and in the early Christians’ understanding of his death. In this connection, some hold that John puts more stress on the Incarnation as a means of salvation in that he sees it as an illumination of the mind. But this is only part of the truth, for there is more on the meaning of the death of Jesus in John’s Gospel than in the others.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospels emphasize the divine necessity of the death of Jesus. In addition to the fulfillment motive, the idea of necessity is strong in the first prediction by Jesus of his approaching death. In John’s Gospel Jesus speaks of his “hour” several times in the earlier stages of his ministry as “not yet,” but in the later stages as having arrived. There is a sense of definite movement toward a climax, the hour undoubtedly being the hour of the Passion (cf. Jn 17:1). There is not room for any disillusionment here. Jesus knew that only through the hour of death could the Father be glorified. The climax was according to an orderly plan.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus evidently regarded his death as in some ways a sacrifice. The clearest indication of this is in the words of institution at the Last Supper. The cup is connected with the blood of the new covenant, which is said to be for the “remission of sins” (Mt 26:26-28). No explanation is given of the way in which the coming death, signified by the broken bread and poured-out wine, would bring about forgiveness of sins. But the immediate realization by the early church that Christ died for our sins (cf. 1 Cor 15:3) shows that the importance of what Jesus said had been clearly grasped. The new covenant idea is parallel to the old covenant, which according to Exodus 24 was sealed with sacrificial blood; there can be little doubt that Jesus had this in mind when he spoke the words about the new covenant. It was also akin to the ideas expressed in Jeremiah 31, referring to a covenant written on the heart rather than graven in stone.<\/p>\n<p>Another aspect of the death of Christ seen especially in John’s Gospel is the sense of completion that went with it. In Jesus’ prayer in John 17, as he faces the cross, he declares that he has finished the work that the Father had given him to do (Jn 17:4). This is reinforced by the cry from the cross, “It is finished,” which only John records (19:30). This sense of accomplishment gives an air of triumph to what might otherwise have been considered a disaster.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheHolySpirit\">Teachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n<p>At several of the major events in the life of Jesus, the Evangelists note the activity of the Spirit (e.g., the Virgin Birth, the Baptism, the Temptation). It is to be expected, therefore, that Jesus would have instructed his disciples about the Spirit. However, there is surprisingly little in the synoptic Gospels on this theme. Most of the teachings come from John’s Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus began his preaching ministry in Nazareth, according to Luke, he read the statement in Isaiah 61:1-2 about the Spirit of God and applied it to himself. He saw his ministry as being inaugurated by the Spirit. This becomes clear in the way in which he responded to the charge that he cast out demons by means of Beelzebub, prince of the demons. He identified the reality of the coming of the kingdom by the fact that he was casting out evil spirits by the Spirit of God (Mt 12:28). He was, moreover, sensitive to the seriousness of blaspheming the Spirit, which he implies his accusers were in danger of doing. Whatever he did in his ministry he saw as an activity of the Spirit, and this was especially so in the contest with evil spirits.<\/p>\n<p>While warning his disciples that they would meet with opposition, Jesus assured them of the Spirit’s support when they were forced to appear before kings or governors (Mt 10:19-20; Mk 13:11). Indeed, he told them that the Spirit would speak through them, thus emphasizing that he expected a continuation of the Spirit’s activity in the future. Luke records one instance in which Jesus comments on what fathers will do for their children and asks whether God will not give the Holy Spirit to those who ask (Lk 11:13). The assumption is that God regards the Holy Spirit as the best gift to give his children. On yet another occasion, Jesus recognized that David was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote Psalm 110 (Mk 12:36), reflecting Jesus’ belief in the Spirit’s agency in the production of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of John provides a more detailed development of what Jesus taught about the Spirit. Teachings about the Spirit are usually linked to Jesus’ teachings about giving eternal life to those who believe in him and receive him. At the same time he spoke of the new birth and eternal life to Nicodemus, Jesus also spoke of the Spirit (Jn 3:3-8, 15-16). When he spoke of water of life to the Samaritan woman, he also spoke of the Spirit (4:14, 23-24). The same holds true for the discourses on the bread of life (6:48-63) and river of life (7:37-39). Throughout the Gospel, Jesus declares to various people that he can give them eternal life if they would believe in him. He promises them the water of life, the bread of life, and the light of life, but no one could really partake of these until after the Lord was resurrected. As a foretaste, as a sample, they could receive a certain measure of life via the Lord’s words, because his words were themselves spirit and life (6:63), but it was not until the Spirit would become available that the believers could actually become the recipients of the divine, eternal life.<\/p>\n<p>After the Lord’s discourse in John 6 (a discourse that was very troubling and offensive to most of his disciples), Jesus said, “It is the Spirit who gives eternal life” (6:63). When the Spirit became available, they could have life. Again, Jesus offered the water of life—even life flowing like rivers of living water—to the Jews assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles. He told them to come and drink of him. But no one could, then and there, come and drink of him. So John added a note: “This He spoke of the Spirit, . . . for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39, <span>nasb<\/span>). Once Jesus would be glorified through resurrection, the Spirit of the glorified Jesus would be available for men to drink. In John 6, Jesus offered himself as the bread of life to be eaten by men; and in John 7, he offered himself as the water of life to refresh men. But no one could eat of him or drink of him until the Spirit of the glorified Jesus was made available, as was intimated in John 6:63 and then stated plainly in John 7:39.<\/p>\n<p>In John 14:16-18, Jesus went one step further in identifying himself with the Spirit. He told the disciples that he would give them another Comforter. Then he told them that they should know who this Comforter was because he was, then and there, abiding with them and would, in the near future, be in them. Who else but Jesus was abiding with them at that time? Then after telling the disciples that the Comforter would come to them, he said, “I am coming to you.” First he said that the Comforter would come to them and abide in them, and then in the same breath he said that he would come to them and abide in them (see 14:20). In short, the coming of the Comforter to the disciples was one and the same as the coming of Jesus to the disciples. The Comforter who was dwelling with the disciples that night was the Spirit in Christ; the Comforter who would be in the disciples (after the resurrection) would be Christ in the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>On the evening of the resurrection, the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples and then breathed into them the Holy Spirit. This inbreathing, reminiscent of God’s breathing into Adam the breath of life (Gn 2:7), became the fulfillment of all that had been promised and anticipated earlier in John’s Gospel. Through this impartation, the disciples were regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This historical event marked the genesis of the new creation. Jesus could now be realized as the bread of life, the water of life, and the light of life. The believers now possessed his divine, eternal, risen life. From that time forward, Christ as Spirit indwelt his believers. Thus, in his first epistle John could say, “We know he lives in us because the Holy Spirit lives in us” (1 Jn 3:24).<\/p>\n<p>The indwelling Spirit helped the disciples remember Jesus’ words and actions (Jn 14:26) so that they could teach and write about them with acumen. This means that Jesus did not intend that the preservation of his teachings should be left to chance. All too often theories attempting to explain the way in which the traditions about Jesus and his teachings were transmitted in the period before there were any written Gospels are suggested without any reference to the Holy Spirit. It is not acceptable to concentrate on so-called laws of oral tradition and pay no attention to the unique factor in this case—the Holy Spirit. It is part of the Spirit’s mission to preserve and transmit the teaching of Jesus. What Jesus says in this passage about the Spirit has far-reaching significance for the formation of the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Another important function is the activity of the Spirit in the world. Jesus made it clear that the Spirit would convict of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment (Jn 16:8). Without the activity of the Spirit, there would be no possibility of the disciples making any impact on the world. Nevertheless, Jesus warned that the world could not receive the Spirit because it did not know him (14:17). The mystery of the Spirit is that he dwells in every believer. This indwelling aspect is of great importance and was particularly developed in the writings of Paul.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHumanity\">Teachings about Humanity<\/p>\n<p>Jesus taught about God’s providential care over all human beings. A person’s hairs are all numbered (Mt 10:30), which is a vivid way of saying that God is concerned about the details of human life. But God is far more concerned with the eternal soul. Jesus made it clear that it would be unprofitable for anyone to gain the world and to lose his or her soul (Mt 16:26; Mk 8:36; Lk 9:25). The focus falls on what a person is and not what he or she has. Jesus even said that a maimed body was preferable to a forfeited life (Mk 9:43-47). One’s total fulfillment depends more on one’s spiritual condition than on one’s environment or physical well-being. He was not, of course, unconcerned about people’s physical state, as his many healings show, but his major concern was with people’s relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus never viewed humans as isolated individuals. Within God’s community people were expected to have responsibility toward one another. The Sermon on the Mount illustrated this social emphasis in the teaching of Jesus. Those who are merciful to others will obtain mercy (Mt 5:7). There is special commendation for peacemakers (v 9). The disciples of Jesus are expected to bring light to others (v 16). They are expected to give more than expected (v 40). Jesus is clearly saying that people have responsibility beyond themselves.<\/p>\n<p>The relation of people to God is one of dependence. Jesus taught men and women to pray to God for daily bread (Mt 6:11) as a reminder that they cannot be wholly self-sufficient. He allowed no place in his teaching for humans to boast in their own achievements.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had some specific things to say about home life. He accepted the sanctity of the marriage contract (Mt 5:31-32; cf. 19:3-9) and therefore showed a high regard for the honor and rights of the wife. It was more in his actions and attitudes rather than his specific teachings that Jesus showed his regard for the status of women. When he spoke of men, he often used the term in the sense of people, including both men and women. There is no suggestion that in matters of faith women were in the least inferior to men. Moreover, Luke points out how many women supported Jesus and his disciples in their travels.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had a high view of the human potential but also acknowledged their present condition. The stress on repentance (Mt 4:17) shows a sinfulness of which people need to repent. This sense of need is implicit in the instances where Jesus pronounces forgiveness (e.g., to the paralytic, Mt 9:1-8; and to the woman who anointed him, Lk 7:47-48). In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus instructs his disciples to pray for forgiveness (Mt 6:12; Lk 11:4). He takes for granted that they need it and desire to obtain it.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus gives no support to any self-righteousness in men or women. This is the burden of his criticism of the religious leaders in various sayings, but particularly in Matthew 23. He was critical of Jewish teachers because they placed so much importance on works of merit as contributing to salvation. His whole approach depended on humans casting themselves on the mercy of God. This is vividly illustrated in the parable about the Pharisee and the tax collector at prayer (Lk 18:10-14). It was the latter who threw himself on the mercy of God and who was commended by Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Undoubtedly, Jesus regarded sin as universal. He never suggested that there was anyone who was exempt from it. The major concept of sin in his teachings was alienation from God. This comes out clearly in John’s Gospel, with its strong antithesis between light and darkness, life and death (cf. Jn 5:24). Indeed, the “world” in John’s Gospel represents the system that takes no account of God. But sin is also seen as enslavement to Satan. The life and teachings of Jesus are seen against the background of spiritual conflict. Jesus can even say to his opponents, “You are of your father the devil” (Jn 8:44). He assumes throughout that there are hostile forces bringing man into subjection.<\/p>\n<p>In the parable of the prodigal son, sin against God is linked with sin before the father. In other words, it is regarded in terms of rebellion and revolt (Lk 15:21). This is a different assessment of the son’s offense than the one arrived at by the elder brother, who could see it only in terms of property. The view that humans are essentially in a state of rebellion against God is a basic tenet of Paul’s theological position, and it is important to note that it finds its root in the teachings of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>There is no question that Jesus had much to say about condemnation. Those who did not believe and were therefore outside the provision of salvation that Jesus had made are declared to be already condemned (Jn 3:18). At various times Jesus mentioned judgment to come, which shows that a person’s destiny is related to his or her present spiritual condition. Against this background of humanity’s spiritual need, the whole mission of Jesus must be seen. A person, if left to himself or herself, would be totally unable to achieve salvation, but Jesus came to offer eternal life to those who believe in him (Jn 3:16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheChurch\">Teachings about the Church<\/p>\n<p>Some have supposed that Jesus did not predict that there would be a church. But on two occasions he used the word “church,” which means a people called out by God. On one of the occasions—at Caesarea Philippi—Jesus told Peter that he would build his church upon the rock (Mt 16:16-19). It seems most probable that “rock” was intended to link the foundation of the church to Peter’s particular confession about Jesus. It is certain that the later church was a community that affirmed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is important to note that it is Christ himself who is the builder of the church. He assured his disciples that it would be impregnable (the gates of hades would not overcome it). Moreover, one of the functions of the church was to proclaim forgiveness of sins, and this is implied in what Jesus said to Peter. That the words were not intended to refer exclusively to him is clear from Matthew 18:18, where similar words were addressed to all the disciples. The church, according to Matthew 18:17, was to be a community that could settle disputes between believers.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to these specific references to the church, Jesus assumed that his followers would meet together in his name (Mt 18:19-20). In his final words in Matthew’s account, he commissioned them to teach what he had taught them and to baptize new disciples (Mt 28:19-20). He promised his presence would be with them. The command to baptize was reinforced by Jesus’ own example in submitting to John’s baptism. One other special rite that Jesus expected his disciples to observe was the Lord’s Supper. His instructions about this presuppose a later community that could observe it. Since the form of words used in the institution point to the meaning of the death of Christ, it is clear that Jesus intended the future community to be frequently reminded of the center of the faith. The Christian church was to be a group of people who knew that through Christ they had entered into a new relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Although there are no references to the church in John’s Gospel, there are certainly hints that support the community idea. Jesus introduced himself as the Shepherd and spoke of his followers as forming a flock (Jn 10:16). The sheep imagery occurs again in this Gospel when Peter is instructed three times by the risen Lord to feed the sheep (Jn 21:15-17). Another figure of speech that Jesus used to bring out the group idea is that of the many branches that draw their life from the vine, and therefore belong to each other because of their common life in the vine.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus recognized that the future community would need the aid of the Spirit. His teachings on this subject laid the foundation for the evident dependence of the early church on the Spirit, as seen in the book of Acts. Finally, it should be noted that there is a close connection between the church and the kingdom, although they are not identical. The kingdom is more comprehensive than the church, which is included within it.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheFuture\">Teachings about the Future<\/p>\n<p>Jesus thought of the kingdom in terms of both present realization and future hope. The future aspect is related to the end of the age. Although he did not spell it out in specific terms, Jesus did not leave his disciples without any knowledge of how the present age would end. He gave firm assurance that he would return at some time in the future.<\/p>\n<p>He told the disciples that the Son of Man would come with his angels in his Father’s glory (Mt 16:27). In the discourse in which he answers the disciples’ question about the end of the world, he speaks again of the Son of Man coming in clouds with power and glory (Mk 13:26), probably drawn from the familiar language of Daniel 7. Jesus described various signs that would precede his own coming. He spoke of wars, conflicts, earthquakes, famines, and disturbances in the heavens. The gospel was to be preached to all nations. At the same time many false Christs would arise.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus gave such details about his return to encourage his disciples in the face of persecution. The future hope had a definitely practical purpose. The disciples were urged to watch. The coming would happen as unexpectedly as a thief in the night. Jesus said that even he himself did not know when the coming would take place (Mk 13:32).<\/p>\n<p>Another important theme affecting the future is emphasized in Jesus’ teachings about resurrection. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the body. They attempted to trap Jesus with a question about a woman who had been married seven times. They wanted to know whose husband she would be at the resurrection (Mk 12:18-27). Jesus pointed out that there would be no marriage when the dead rise. The Sadducees’ idea about resurrection was clearly wrong. Jesus’ teaching was that the resurrected would be like the angels. There is no doubt about the resurrection of the dead, although no information is given about the resurrection body. Jesus told a story about a rich man and a poor man who both died (Lk 16:19-31). In the afterlife the rich man cries out in torment, while the poor man enjoys a state of blessedness. What is most clear from this is the certainty of the afterlife and the fact of a distinction between the two men, although we are not told on what grounds the distinction is made. Elsewhere in his teachings, Jesus suggested that the most vital requirement is faith in himself. The conversation between Jesus and the dying thief on the cross suggests that paradise for the latter consisted in an awareness of the presence of Jesus (Lk 23:42-43).<\/p>\n<p>The theme of rewards and punishment occurs in many passages. In Matthew 16:27 Jesus says that the Son of Man will reward everyone according to what he or she has done. Those who are worthless are promised punishment in darkness (Mt 25:30). Moreover, Jesus spoke of a day of judgment on which men and women must give an account, even of all their careless words (12:36-37). In the parable of the sheep and the goats, he spoke of a separation that the Son of Man will make when he comes. Those commended are those who have shown concern for the believers (25:31-46).<\/p>\n<p>Among Jesus’ most solemn statements are those that speak of hell. There is no way of getting around his teachings about eternal punishment for the unrighteous (as in Mt 25:41, 46), which is opposite to the eternal life promised to the righteous. He taught that his disciples would have a place prepared for them in heaven (Jn 14:2), and spoke of a Book of Life in which the names of his disciples were written (Lk 10:20).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutMoralIssues\">Teachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\n<p>Much of the teaching of Jesus is concerned with moral issues—so much so that some scholars have concluded that this was the main burden of his teaching. But the moral teachings cannot be considered apart from the many facets of his teachings outlined above. It has been said that there are close parallels between the teachings of Jesus and the moral teachings of Judaism. What is distinctive about Jesus’ teachings about morality is that the motive and power behind moral conduct is not conceived in terms of laws that must be obeyed. Right conduct is seen to be the result of a right relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was himself the pattern for moral behavior. He made clear that his aim was to fulfill the will of God. There is no sense of legalism in his approach to ethical decisions. When—in the Sermon on the Mount—he compared his own teaching with that of Moses, he showed the importance of penetrating to the inner meaning (cf. Mt 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32). On the face of it, Jesus made more rigorous demands than the Mosaic law, because he was concerned with probing the motives as well as the actions. Many have dismissed the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount as entirely impractical, but Jesus never intended that his teaching would be easy; he set as a target nothing less than the perfection of God himself (Mt 5:48). Nevertheless, he called his yoke easy and his burden light (11:29-30), which suggests that he was not setting out an impossible ethical pattern. It must be remembered that he was not producing a manifesto for society. His concern was that each individual should have powerful motives for right decisions on matters of conduct. His reaction against a rigid application of Sabbath observance at the expense of the welfare of a needy person illustrates this point. Concern for others was rated higher than ritual correctness.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>No account of the life and teachings of Jesus would be complete without some indication of the place that Jesus Christ gained in the developing church. Such a quest naturally takes us outside the scope of the Gospels into the testimony of the book of Acts and Paul’s letters. There we can see whether the predictions of Jesus were fulfilled and whether in fact the early Christians took his teaching seriously. Although there can be no question that Jesus Christ became central to the faith of the early Christians, he was regarded from many points of view. He was seen as Messiah in the sense of a spiritual deliverer, as Lord in the sense of being sovereign over his people, as Servant in the sense of his obedience to suffering, as Son in his relation to his Father. In many ways the full understanding of what and who he was could not have occurred until after the resurrection. Therefore, we find that many facets of his teachings about himself were more fully developed in the reflections of his people. This is true in a special sense of the writings of the apostle Paul.<\/p>\n<p>Many have found a problem in linking the Gospels with their detailed presentation of the acts and teachings of Jesus with the Christ who is so central in Paul’s beliefs. The problem arises because the apostle does not refer to any specific incident in the life of Jesus and does not reflect in his epistles any acquaintance with the large amount of teaching material in the Gospels. Does this suggest that Paul had no interest in the historical Jesus? Or could it be maintained that he knew nothing about him? Those who have driven a wedge between Paul and Jesus have not given sufficient weight to those incidental indications that Paul knew a great deal more about the historical Jesus than he states in his letters. He writes, for instance, about the meekness and gentleness of Christ (2 Cor 10:1), suggesting that he knew that Jesus had said of himself that he was meek and lowly of heart (Mt 11:29). Moreover, Paul speaks of the poverty of Christ (2 Cor 8:9) and must have known that the Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head. He certainly knows the details of how Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:23-26), and he knows of his death by crucifixion. It seems reasonable to conclude that Paul assumes that his readers will be acquainted with the Gospel material.<\/p>\n<p>It is perhaps useful in this connection to inquire whether the life and teachings of Jesus played a significant part in the early Christian proclamation. One passage that is valuable in this respect is Acts 10:36-38. In Peter’s address to Cornelius, he spoke of God’s having anointed Jesus of Nazareth, and of Jesus’ having gone about doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil. It is clear that some account of the acts of Jesus was included in the early preaching, and there is no reason to suppose that this was not a regular procedure.<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that the example of Jesus was a powerful motive for promoting right behavior. Peter appeals to it in encouraging Christians who were suffering for their faith (1 Pt 2:21). Paul also knows the value of imitation (1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thes 1:6). Since Jesus was recognized as being a man who did not sin (cf. 2 Cor 5:21), his behavior patterns would have proved invaluable for those who needed a new standard for moral action. While this idea of example is unquestionably present in the Epistles, it would be quite wrong to suppose that it formed a major part of Christian doctrine.<\/p>\n<p>There are a few references to the teachings of Jesus in the non-Gospel portion of the NT. In the Letter of James, which is almost wholly practical, there are more allusions to the teachings of Jesus than anywhere else in the NT. This is especially true in echoes of the Sermon on the Mount, and it shows the strong contribution that the moral teaching of Jesus had on the ethical values of the early Christians. Most of the expositions of doctrine in the Epistles find their basis in some aspect of the teachings of Jesus. These teachings have an ongoing significance for the development of the church.<\/p>\n<p>To what extent is knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus relevant to the 21st century? Existential theologians have driven such a wedge between the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history that the latter has ceased to have any importance for them. Christians today, no less than their first-century predecessors, need to know that the object of their faith is the same one who lived and taught in Galilee and Judea.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Ascension of Christ; Christ; Christology; Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Incarnation; Jesus Christ; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven; Messiah; Parable; Savior; Son of God; Son of Man; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of Because of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? Wh...","summary_en":"JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of Because of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? Wh...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20218,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of John","title_en":"Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>JOHN, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>The fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospels. (See discussion above on John, the Apostle.)<\/p>\n\n<p>The Gospel appears to have been written by one who knew the Jews and the Palestine of Jesus’ day well. He was familiar with Jewish messianic expectations (e.g., Jn 1:20-21; 4:25; 7:40-42; 12:34). He knew of the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (4:9) and the contempt the Pharisees had for “the people of the land” (7:49). He knew of the importance attached to the religious schools (v 15). He knew the way the Sabbath was observed and was aware of the provision that the obligation to circumcise on the eighth day overrides the Sabbath regulations (vv 22-23). Throughout the Gospel he moved with certainty in the vast range of Jewish ideas and customs.<\/p>\n<p>It is the same with topography. The writer mentioned many places, and his place-names all seem to be used correctly. He referred to Cana, a village not mentioned in any earlier literature known to us, which means that the reference almost certainly came from someone who actually knew the place. He located Bethany with some precision as about 15 stadia from Jerusalem (about 2 miles, or 3.2 kilometers, 11:18). He had several references to places in or near Jerusalem, such as Bethesda (5:2), Siloam (9:7), and the Kidron Valley (18:1). Of course, this does not rule out some contemporary of John’s, but it makes it difficult to think of the author as a much later individual writing at a distance from Palestine. The evidence as we have it indicates that the writer was a Jew in the Palestine of Jesus’ day.<\/p>\n<p>To many careful readers, it seems that the Gospel bears the stamp of an eyewitness. For example, Jesus was teaching “in the treasury” (8:20). Nothing is made of the point; the incident could easily have been told without it. It looks like a reminiscence of someone who sees the scene in his mind’s eye as he writes. The fact that the house was filled with fragrance when the woman broke the perfume jar (12:3) does not materially affect the account but is the kind of detail that one who was there would remember. The author noted that the loaves used in the feeding of the multitude were barley loaves (6:9) and that Jesus’ tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top to bottom (19:23). He told us that the branches with which Jesus was greeted were palm branches (12:13), and that it was night when Judas went out (13:30). Such touches are found throughout the Gospel, and it seems unjustified to treat them as no more than an attempt to create verisimilitude. They seem much more like indications that the author was writing about events in which he had himself taken part.<\/p>\n<p>The early church accepted Johannine authorship without question. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all see the apostle as the author. The first to quote this Gospel by name was Theophilus of Antioch, about <span>AD<\/span> 180.<\/p>\n<p>Those who object to Johannine authorship emphasize the differences between this Gospel and the Synoptics. The argument is that if Jesus was anything like the Christ portrayed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he could not be like the Christ of the fourth Gospel. This is a completely subjective argument, ignoring the fact that any great man will appear differently to different people. The judgment of the church throughout the centuries has been that Jesus was large enough to inspire both portraits. To put the same point another way, we have no reason for holding that the first three Evangelists tell us all there is to know about Jesus. There is no contradiction. John simply brings out other aspects of Jesus’ life and teachings.<\/p>\n<p>While we cannot prove beyond all doubt that John the apostle was the author, we can say that there is more reason for holding to this view than to any other.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateOriginandDestination\">Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>It has been usual for conservatives and liberals alike to date this writing in the last decade of the first century or early in the second. Some liberal scholars have put it well into the second century, but this is not common, and it is remarkable that there has been such a considerable measure of agreement.<\/p>\n<p>It is said that this Gospel is dependent on the Synoptics, which means that it must be dated sometime after them. But this argument has been widely abandoned in recent times. There is so much in John that is without parallel in the other three Gospels, and conversely so much in the other three that John might have used had he known it, that it is very difficult indeed to hold that this writer had any of the other Gospels before him when he wrote, or even that he had read them. Such resemblances as there are seem better explained by common use of oral tradition.<\/p>\n<p>It is also argued that there is a very developed theology in John and that we must allow time for its development. Granted, the theology of this Gospel is profound, but this does not require that we must wait for it until the end of the first century. The theology of the Letter to the Romans is also profound, and there is no reason for dating that writing later than the 50s. On the ground of development, then, there is no reason for putting John later than Romans. Development is a slippery argument at best, for it usually takes place at uneven rates, and we have no means of knowing how fast it took place in the area where the author lived.<\/p>\n<p>Other arguments for a late date are no more conclusive. For example, it is urged that the ecclesiastical system presupposed by the Gospel is too late for the time of the apostle John, and that the sacramental system of chapters 3 and 6 must have taken time to develop. But John does not mention any sacrament. It is true that many scholars think these chapters refer to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but the fact is that John mentions neither.<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising in view of the way the traditional arguments have crumbled away that many in recent times are arguing that John must have been written before the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it were later, why does not John have some reference to it? Some of his language appears to be earlier. In 5:2 he says there “is” (not “was”) a pool called Bethesda. And he often refers to the Twelve as Jesus’ disciples, or “his” disciples, or the like. In later times Christians usually said “the” disciples, for they saw no need to say whose the disciples were. But in the early days, when Christians were in contact with rabbis (each of whom had his disciples), it was important to show that Jesus’ disciples were in mind. It is important also that John makes no reference to any of the synoptic Gospels. The simplest explanation is that he had not seen them. They were not yet widely circulated.<\/p>\n<p>None of this enables us to date this Gospel with precision. But the weight of evidence points to an early date (before <span>AD<\/span> 70).<\/p>\n<p>The author was John the apostle, a Jew. However, the writing gives evidence of contact with Greek thought, for example, in the reference to Christ as “the Word” in chapter 1 and the translation of words like “rabbi” (1:38). It is almost universally held that such considerations compel us to see the work as originating in a center of Greek culture, and Ephesus has traditionally been favored. Before the end of the second century we have Irenaeus writing that John published the Gospel during his residence at Ephesus.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars point to similarities between John and the Odes of Solomon, which they think came from Syria. As there are also some resemblances in the language of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in the early second century, this is held to show that John was written in Syria, probably at Antioch. Others again think that Egypt was the place, and they support this by pointing out that the oldest fragment of a manuscript of this Gospel was found there. There is no real evidence, and we are left with probabilities. There is much to be said for accepting the evidence of Irenaeus and seeing Ephesus as the place of origin, but we can scarcely say more.<\/p>\n<p>There is no real indication of the intended destination. From 20:31 we learn that the book was written that the readers might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, God’s Son, and that by believing they might have life. The Gospel, then, has an evangelistic aim. But it is also possible that “believe” means “keep on believing”—“go on in faith,” rather than “begin to believe.” That is to say, the book may have been meant from the beginning to build people up in the faith. Probably we should not distinguish between these aims too sharply. Both may well be in mind.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>Several possible backgrounds to the Gospel have been suggested. The Greek interest is obvious, and this writing has sometimes been called the Gospel of the Hellenists. The suggestion is that we should look to Greek writings, perhaps the works of the philosophers or Philo of Alexandria, to find the right background against which to understand what John has written. This approach may be seen in the work of Rudolf Bultmann, who thought specifically of Gnosticism. Indeed, for Bultmann one of the sources of this Gospel was a discourse source that he thought was taken from non-Christian Gnosticism. Not many have been prepared to follow Bultmann, but a number of recent commentators have discerned some form of Gnosticism as the backdrop to John.<\/p>\n<p>While such views are put forward seriously, there are some substantial objections. One is that, despite the confident assertions of some scholars, Gnosticism has never been shown to be earlier than Christianity. In the form in which it comes before us in history, it is a Christian heresy, and of course, the Christian faith must appear before a Christian heresy is possible. Another objection is that there is a basic difference between the two systems. Gnosticism is concerned with knowledge (the very word is derived from the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span><em>,<\/em> “knowledge”). Its “redeemer” is one who comes from heaven with knowledge. But John does not subscribe to the view that man is saved by knowledge. The Redeemer comes to take away the sin of the world (1:29). Gnosticism tells people that life is an upward struggle; Christianity tells of a Savior who came down to raise them up. It is not easy to see any form of Gnosticism as the essential background to Christianity.<\/p>\n<p>Much more significant is John’s Semitic background. Especially important here is the OT, accepted as sacred Scripture by Jew and Christian alike. It lies constantly behind John’s statements, and it must be studied carefully if John is to be understood. It is plain that John knew and loved the Septuagint, the translation into Greek of the Hebrew OT. Again and again, the Septuagint can be shown to lie behind what John says.<\/p>\n<p>In modern times important discoveries have been made at Qumran, in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. Among the scrolls unearthed in the caves of this area are several that have affinities with John. Indeed, one of the interesting facts about the scrolls is that they have more parallels with John than with any other part of the NT, a fact difficult to explain if John was written late and at a distance from Palestine. The resemblances to the Qumran writings must be viewed with care, for there is often a linguistic resemblance where the thinking is quite different. For example, both use the unusual expression “the Spirit of truth.” But where John means one of the persons of the Trinity, the scrolls speak of “a spirit of truth” and “a spirit of error” striving in the souls of people. The connection is real, but John is clearly not dependent on the scrolls for his thinking. The contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they afford additional evidence that this Gospel is basically Palestinian and must be understood against a background of first-century Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>Other backgrounds have been suggested, such as the Hermetic literature. This is a group of writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus (“Hermes Thrice-greatest”), a designation of the Egyptian god Thoth. There are indeed some points of contact with John, but they are few in comparison with those of writings rooted in Palestine. It is difficult to take such suggestions seriously. John is essentially Palestinian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The writer told us that Jesus did many “signs” (or miracles) that he had not recorded, but “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life” (Jn 20:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). John wrote to show that Jesus is the Messiah. But he did not do this simply with a view to conveying interesting information. He wanted his readers to see this knowledge as a challenge to faith; when they believe, they will have life. John sought to bring men and women to Christ; he had an evangelistic aim. That does not exhaust what he was trying to do, for his words have meaning for believers. It is important that believers have a right knowledge of Jesus and that they continue to believe.<\/p>\n<p>The main theological teaching of this Gospel, then, is that God has sent his Messiah, Jesus. He is the very Son of God, and he comes to bring life (3:16). Though Jesus told the woman at the well that he was the Messiah, this is not often said so specifically. The avoidance of the term might well be because of the political overtones it had acquired among the Jews at large. They looked for a Messiah who would fight the Romans. He would defeat them and set up a mighty world empire with its capital in Jerusalem. Jesus was not aiming at anything like that, and it was important that he avoid the kind of language that would give that impression. But though the conventional messianic terminology is avoided, John left no doubt that Jesus was God’s chosen one. Again and again he depicted Jesus as fulfilling messianic functions. For example, in the long discourse in chapter 6 we see Jesus as the bread from heaven, fulfilling the expectation that when Messiah came, he would renew the manna; and in the giving of sight to the blind man (ch 9) we have another messianic function (cf. Is 35:5).<\/p>\n<p>With this greatness of Jesus, John also combined teaching about his lowliness. A continuing, though unobtrusive, strand of Johannine teaching is that Jesus depends on the Father for everything. Apart from the Father, Jesus said, he could do nothing (Jn 5:30). His very food is to do the Father’s will (4:34). He lives through the Father (6:57). It is the Father who gives him his disciples (6:37, 44; 17:6). It is the Father who bears witness to him (5:32, 37). John insists that Jesus is in no sense independent of the Father. In the mission of Jesus, John sees the working out of the purpose of the Father.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Prologue and Chapter 1<\/h5>\n<p>John begins with a prologue (1:1-18) that is unlike anything in any of the other Gospels. In it he refers to Jesus as “the Word,” a term that has points of contact with both Greek and Hebrew thinking. As John uses it, it conveys the thought that Jesus is the expression of the mind of the Father. John speaks of the Word as God (1:1), sees him as active in creation (1:3-5), goes on to the witness borne to him by John the Baptist (1:6-8), speaks of the coming of the Word into the world (1:9-14), and finishes with a section on the greatness of the Word (1:15-18). In this prologue he briefly introduces some of the great themes that will be developed throughout the Gospel. It is a majestic introduction to the whole.<\/p>\n<p>Next we have the beginnings of Jesus’ public ministry (1:19-51). Jesus’ work was preceded by that of John the Baptist, and the Evangelist tells us first about the kind of witness that the Baptist gave to Jesus. Witness is one of his important concepts, and witness is all that John the Baptist does in this Gospel. From this witness we move to the way the first disciples came to Jesus. We learn something of how Andrew and Peter came to know the Lord. We read also of Philip and Nathanael, of whom we learn little or nothing in the other Gospels.<\/p>\n<h5>The Signs and Discourses (2:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The public ministry of Jesus is described in a very distinctive way in this Gospel. John has a long section (chs 2–12) in which he tells of a number of miracles Jesus did, interweaving into his account a series of discourses. Sometimes these are addresses given to groups of people, and sometimes they are talks with individuals. Some scholars call this section of the Gospel the Book of Signs, thus emphasizing the prominent place given to seven miracles. For John they are not simply wonders. They are meaningful; in the literal sense of the term they are <em>sign<\/em>ificant.<\/p>\n<p>The first of them is the turning of the water into wine at a marriage in Cana of Galilee (2:1-11). The water in question is connected with Jewish rites of purification (v 6), and the story is surely to teach us that Jesus transforms life. He changes the water of the law into the wine of the gospel. As a result of this “sign,” his disciples believed in him (v 11). John went on to tell how Jesus went up to Jerusalem and drove the traders out of the temple. They were selling animals for sacrifice and changing money. But their business was being done in the Court of the Gentiles, the only place in the temple where a Gentile could come to meditate and pray.<\/p>\n<p>The first discourse is on the new birth (3:1-21). Jesus talked with Nicodemus, a leading Pharisee, about the necessity for radical renewal if one is to enter the kingdom. Jesus was speaking of God’s regenerating activity, not some human reformation. Following this, John records a dispute between some of John’s disciples with a Jew on the subject of purification. This opens the way for a section that shows the superiority of Jesus over John the Baptist—by the Baptist’s own confession (3:22-36).<\/p>\n<p>The second discourse is really a long conversation Jesus had with the woman of Samaria, whom he met by a well (4:1-42). It turns on “the water of life,” a term that is not fully explained in this chapter but which we later find points to the life-giving Spirit (7:38-39). This leads to the story of the second sign, the healing of the nobleman’s son (4:46-54), notable for the fact that Jesus healed at a distance.<\/p>\n<p>The third sign is the healing of the lame man by the pool of Bethesda (5:1-18). This man had spent many years waiting for healing at the moving of the water. Jesus told him to get up and walk, and he did. Because it was done on a Sabbath, the Pharisees objected. This leads to Jesus’ third discourse, that on the divine Son (5:19-47). Here the closeness of the relationship of Jesus to the Father is stressed, and his place in the judgment is brought out. There is emphasis also on the variety of witness who encountered Jesus, which shows how reasonable it is to accept him as God’s own Son.<\/p>\n<p>John’s fourth sign is the one miracle (apart from the resurrection) found in all four Gospels: the feeding of the 5,000 (6:1-15). It is followed by Jesus’ walking on water (vv 16-21), which seems to be meant as the fifth sign (though some scholars think not; if they are right, there are only six signs). Then comes the fourth discourse, the great sermon on the bread of life (vv 22-59). Jesus is this bread, which he gives to all men and women who believe in him. There are references to eating his flesh and drinking his blood (vv 50-58), which point to his death. Some have seen in them a reference to Communion, but it is hard to see why Jesus should refer in this way to an as-yet-nonexistent sacrament. Moreover, much the same effect is attributed in the same discourse to believing (vv 35, 47). It seems best to understand Jesus as meaning that people must believe in him as the one who would die for them in order for them to have life.<\/p>\n<p>There is a section detailing Peter’s affirmation of loyalty in the face of some who drifted away from the Master (6:67-71). Then we come to the fifth discourse, on the life-giving Spirit (7:1-52). John has an important explanatory point of his own when he tells us that at the time the Spirit had not been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified (v 39). The fullness of the Spirit depends on the completion of the work of Christ in his death and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>The sixth discourse tells of the light of the world (8:12-59). This aspect of Jesus’ person and ministry is dramatically brought out in the sixth sign, the healing of the man born blind (ch 9). It is a lively narrative, as the healed man conducts a spirited defense against the Pharisees who belittled Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most beautiful of all the illustrations of Jesus’ relations to his people is that on which he dwells in the seventh discourse, where he speaks of himself as the good shepherd (ch 10). There is the obvious truth that sheep depend entirely on their shepherd, but Jesus says something else. Whereas earthly shepherds live to meet the needs of their sheep, Jesus laid down his life for his sheep.<\/p>\n<p>The final sign is the raising of Lazarus (11:1-44), a man who had been dead for four days. The story graphically brings out Jesus’ power over death and his readiness to confer the gift of life. Jesus speaks of himself as “the resurrection and the life” (v 25); death cannot defeat him. He brings life to the dead, to the spiritually dead as well as to physically dead Lazarus. John goes on to note the reaction to this miracle: some believed, but some opposed Jesus (vv 45-57). He includes a notable saying of Caiaphas, the high priest, that one man should die for the people (vv 50-52). Caiaphas was speaking as a cynical politician (better one dead, however innocent, than the whole nation be troubled). But John saw in the words the deeper meaning that Jesus’ death would bring salvation to many.<\/p>\n<p>John rounds off his account of the ministry with the story of the anointing of Jesus by a woman in Bethany, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the coming of some Greeks to Jesus, and his final summary of what he had taught (ch 12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Last Supper<\/h5>\n<p>The account of what went on in the upper room on the night before the Crucifixion is the fullest of all the four Gospels. Curiously, John says nothing about the institution of Communion, a fact that has never been satisfactorily explained. But he tells us how Jesus washed the feet of the disciples (13:1-17), an action splendidly exemplifying the spirit of lowly service so soon to be shown on the cross. Then comes the prophecy of the betrayal, an action that set in motion the events that would lead to the cross (vv 18-30).<\/p>\n<p>In the long discourse that follows, Jesus dealt with some questions posed by his followers and went on to teach them some important truths, for example, that he is the way, the truth, and the life (14:6). He develops the thought that he is the true vine, the disciples being vitally joined to him as branches to the vine. It is important for the branches to remain in the vine if they are to have life (15:1-16). Then come some words about suffering that would be of help to them in times of persecution (vv 17-25). Jesus goes on to speak about the Holy Spirit (15:26–16:15). This is a very important passage, for it contains much more about the Spirit than we find elsewhere in Jesus’ words. Jesus calls the Spirit the “Paraclete,” a title not easy to understand. It is in origin a legal term, and at least we can say that it indicates that the Spirit brings friendship, encouragement, and help. Jesus went on to speak of his approaching departure from the disciples and to prepare them for the trying time ahead (16:16-33). This part of the Gospel concludes with Jesus’ great High Priestly prayer. He prayed for the disciples to be one, as he commended them to the care of the heavenly Father (ch 17).<\/p>\n<h5>The Cross and Resurrection<\/h5>\n<p>When the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, he went forward to meet them and they fell to the ground (18:1-11). He gave himself over to them; they did not take him over. At the outset of his passion narrative, John was making the point that Jesus is sovereign. He was not being defeated by the march of events but was sovereignly doing the will of the Father. John is the only one to tell us that Jesus was taken before Annas, father-in-law to Caiaphas, the reigning high priest (18:12-14, 19-24). He tells also of Peter’s three denials of Jesus (vv 15-27). He did not spend much time on the Jewish trial, but he was much more explicit than the other Evangelists in his account of the Roman trial. Clearly, he had some special knowledge of what went on before Pilate. He presents a magnificent picture of Jesus talking with Pilate about kingship—the Son of God discussing with the representative of Caesar the meaning of sovereignty (vv 33-40).<\/p>\n<p>In his account of the Crucifixion John has a number of touches of his own, notably the way Jesus commended Mary to the care of the beloved disciple (19:26-27), the fact that the cry Jesus uttered as he died was “It is finished” (v 30), and the piercing of his side by a soldier’s spear (vv 31-37).<\/p>\n<p>John proceeds to the narrative of the burial (vv 38-42) and of the empty tomb (20:1-10). He speaks of appearances of the risen Lord to Mary Magdalene (vv 11-18), and to the disciples—both without (vv 19-23) and with Thomas (vv 24-29).<\/p>\n<p>The final chapter, an epilogue, tells of a miraculous catch of fish (21:1-14) and goes on to the moving account of Peter’s threefold declaration of love to Jesus and his restoration.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> John, The Apostle.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOHN, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>The fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospels. (See discussion above on John, the Apostle.)<\/p>\n\n<p>The Gospel appears to have been written by one who knew the Jews and the Palestine of Jesus’ day well. He was familiar with Jewish messianic expectations (e.g., Jn 1:20-21; 4:25; 7:40-42; 12:34). He knew of the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (4:9) and the contempt the Pharisees had for “the people of the land” (7:49). He knew of the importance attached to the religious schools (v 15). He knew the way the Sabbath was observed and was aware of the provision that the obligation to circumcise on the eighth day overrides the Sabbath regulations (vv 22-23). Throughout the Gospel he moved with certainty in the vast range of Jewish ideas and customs.<\/p>\n<p>It is the same with topography. The writer mentioned many places, and his place-names all seem to be used correctly. He referred to Cana, a village not mentioned in any earlier literature known to us, which means that the reference almost certainly came from someone who actually knew the place. He located Bethany with some precision as about 15 stadia from Jerusalem (about 2 miles, or 3.2 kilometers, 11:18). He had several references to places in or near Jerusalem, such as Bethesda (5:2), Siloam (9:7), and the Kidron Valley (18:1). Of course, this does not rule out some contemporary of John’s, but it makes it difficult to think of the author as a much later individual writing at a distance from Palestine. The evidence as we have it indicates that the writer was a Jew in the Palestine of Jesus’ day.<\/p>\n<p>To many careful readers, it seems that the Gospel bears the stamp of an eyewitness. For example, Jesus was teaching “in the treasury” (8:20). Nothing is made of the point; the incident could easily have been told without it. It looks like a reminiscence of someone who sees the scene in his mind’s eye as he writes. The fact that the house was filled with fragrance when the woman broke the perfume jar (12:3) does not materially affect the account but is the kind of detail that one who was there would remember. The author noted that the loaves used in the feeding of the multitude were barley loaves (6:9) and that Jesus’ tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top to bottom (19:23). He told us that the branches with which Jesus was greeted were palm branches (12:13), and that it was night when Judas went out (13:30). Such touches are found throughout the Gospel, and it seems unjustified to treat them as no more than an attempt to create verisimilitude. They seem much more like indications that the author was writing about events in which he had himself taken part.<\/p>\n<p>The early church accepted Johannine authorship without question. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all see the apostle as the author. The first to quote this Gospel by name was Theophilus of Antioch, about <span>AD<\/span> 180.<\/p>\n<p>Those who object to Johannine authorship emphasize the differences between this Gospel and the Synoptics. The argument is that if Jesus was anything like the Christ portrayed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he could not be like the Christ of the fourth Gospel. This is a completely subjective argument, ignoring the fact that any great man will appear differently to different people. The judgment of the church throughout the centuries has been that Jesus was large enough to inspire both portraits. To put the same point another way, we have no reason for holding that the first three Evangelists tell us all there is to know about Jesus. There is no contradiction. John simply brings out other aspects of Jesus’ life and teachings.<\/p>\n<p>While we cannot prove beyond all doubt that John the apostle was the author, we can say that there is more reason for holding to this view than to any other.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateOriginandDestination\">Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>It has been usual for conservatives and liberals alike to date this writing in the last decade of the first century or early in the second. Some liberal scholars have put it well into the second century, but this is not common, and it is remarkable that there has been such a considerable measure of agreement.<\/p>\n<p>It is said that this Gospel is dependent on the Synoptics, which means that it must be dated sometime after them. But this argument has been widely abandoned in recent times. There is so much in John that is without parallel in the other three Gospels, and conversely so much in the other three that John might have used had he known it, that it is very difficult indeed to hold that this writer had any of the other Gospels before him when he wrote, or even that he had read them. Such resemblances as there are seem better explained by common use of oral tradition.<\/p>\n<p>It is also argued that there is a very developed theology in John and that we must allow time for its development. Granted, the theology of this Gospel is profound, but this does not require that we must wait for it until the end of the first century. The theology of the Letter to the Romans is also profound, and there is no reason for dating that writing later than the 50s. On the ground of development, then, there is no reason for putting John later than Romans. Development is a slippery argument at best, for it usually takes place at uneven rates, and we have no means of knowing how fast it took place in the area where the author lived.<\/p>\n<p>Other arguments for a late date are no more conclusive. For example, it is urged that the ecclesiastical system presupposed by the Gospel is too late for the time of the apostle John, and that the sacramental system of chapters 3 and 6 must have taken time to develop. But John does not mention any sacrament. It is true that many scholars think these chapters refer to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but the fact is that John mentions neither.<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising in view of the way the traditional arguments have crumbled away that many in recent times are arguing that John must have been written before the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it were later, why does not John have some reference to it? Some of his language appears to be earlier. In 5:2 he says there “is” (not “was”) a pool called Bethesda. And he often refers to the Twelve as Jesus’ disciples, or “his” disciples, or the like. In later times Christians usually said “the” disciples, for they saw no need to say whose the disciples were. But in the early days, when Christians were in contact with rabbis (each of whom had his disciples), it was important to show that Jesus’ disciples were in mind. It is important also that John makes no reference to any of the synoptic Gospels. The simplest explanation is that he had not seen them. They were not yet widely circulated.<\/p>\n<p>None of this enables us to date this Gospel with precision. But the weight of evidence points to an early date (before <span>AD<\/span> 70).<\/p>\n<p>The author was John the apostle, a Jew. However, the writing gives evidence of contact with Greek thought, for example, in the reference to Christ as “the Word” in chapter 1 and the translation of words like “rabbi” (1:38). It is almost universally held that such considerations compel us to see the work as originating in a center of Greek culture, and Ephesus has traditionally been favored. Before the end of the second century we have Irenaeus writing that John published the Gospel during his residence at Ephesus.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars point to similarities between John and the Odes of Solomon, which they think came from Syria. As there are also some resemblances in the language of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in the early second century, this is held to show that John was written in Syria, probably at Antioch. Others again think that Egypt was the place, and they support this by pointing out that the oldest fragment of a manuscript of this Gospel was found there. There is no real evidence, and we are left with probabilities. There is much to be said for accepting the evidence of Irenaeus and seeing Ephesus as the place of origin, but we can scarcely say more.<\/p>\n<p>There is no real indication of the intended destination. From 20:31 we learn that the book was written that the readers might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, God’s Son, and that by believing they might have life. The Gospel, then, has an evangelistic aim. But it is also possible that “believe” means “keep on believing”—“go on in faith,” rather than “begin to believe.” That is to say, the book may have been meant from the beginning to build people up in the faith. Probably we should not distinguish between these aims too sharply. Both may well be in mind.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>Several possible backgrounds to the Gospel have been suggested. The Greek interest is obvious, and this writing has sometimes been called the Gospel of the Hellenists. The suggestion is that we should look to Greek writings, perhaps the works of the philosophers or Philo of Alexandria, to find the right background against which to understand what John has written. This approach may be seen in the work of Rudolf Bultmann, who thought specifically of Gnosticism. Indeed, for Bultmann one of the sources of this Gospel was a discourse source that he thought was taken from non-Christian Gnosticism. Not many have been prepared to follow Bultmann, but a number of recent commentators have discerned some form of Gnosticism as the backdrop to John.<\/p>\n<p>While such views are put forward seriously, there are some substantial objections. One is that, despite the confident assertions of some scholars, Gnosticism has never been shown to be earlier than Christianity. In the form in which it comes before us in history, it is a Christian heresy, and of course, the Christian faith must appear before a Christian heresy is possible. Another objection is that there is a basic difference between the two systems. Gnosticism is concerned with knowledge (the very word is derived from the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span><em>,<\/em> “knowledge”). Its “redeemer” is one who comes from heaven with knowledge. But John does not subscribe to the view that man is saved by knowledge. The Redeemer comes to take away the sin of the world (1:29). Gnosticism tells people that life is an upward struggle; Christianity tells of a Savior who came down to raise them up. It is not easy to see any form of Gnosticism as the essential background to Christianity.<\/p>\n<p>Much more significant is John’s Semitic background. Especially important here is the OT, accepted as sacred Scripture by Jew and Christian alike. It lies constantly behind John’s statements, and it must be studied carefully if John is to be understood. It is plain that John knew and loved the Septuagint, the translation into Greek of the Hebrew OT. Again and again, the Septuagint can be shown to lie behind what John says.<\/p>\n<p>In modern times important discoveries have been made at Qumran, in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. Among the scrolls unearthed in the caves of this area are several that have affinities with John. Indeed, one of the interesting facts about the scrolls is that they have more parallels with John than with any other part of the NT, a fact difficult to explain if John was written late and at a distance from Palestine. The resemblances to the Qumran writings must be viewed with care, for there is often a linguistic resemblance where the thinking is quite different. For example, both use the unusual expression “the Spirit of truth.” But where John means one of the persons of the Trinity, the scrolls speak of “a spirit of truth” and “a spirit of error” striving in the souls of people. The connection is real, but John is clearly not dependent on the scrolls for his thinking. The contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they afford additional evidence that this Gospel is basically Palestinian and must be understood against a background of first-century Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>Other backgrounds have been suggested, such as the Hermetic literature. This is a group of writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus (“Hermes Thrice-greatest”), a designation of the Egyptian god Thoth. There are indeed some points of contact with John, but they are few in comparison with those of writings rooted in Palestine. It is difficult to take such suggestions seriously. John is essentially Palestinian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The writer told us that Jesus did many “signs” (or miracles) that he had not recorded, but “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life” (Jn 20:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). John wrote to show that Jesus is the Messiah. But he did not do this simply with a view to conveying interesting information. He wanted his readers to see this knowledge as a challenge to faith; when they believe, they will have life. John sought to bring men and women to Christ; he had an evangelistic aim. That does not exhaust what he was trying to do, for his words have meaning for believers. It is important that believers have a right knowledge of Jesus and that they continue to believe.<\/p>\n<p>The main theological teaching of this Gospel, then, is that God has sent his Messiah, Jesus. He is the very Son of God, and he comes to bring life (3:16). Though Jesus told the woman at the well that he was the Messiah, this is not often said so specifically. The avoidance of the term might well be because of the political overtones it had acquired among the Jews at large. They looked for a Messiah who would fight the Romans. He would defeat them and set up a mighty world empire with its capital in Jerusalem. Jesus was not aiming at anything like that, and it was important that he avoid the kind of language that would give that impression. But though the conventional messianic terminology is avoided, John left no doubt that Jesus was God’s chosen one. Again and again he depicted Jesus as fulfilling messianic functions. For example, in the long discourse in chapter 6 we see Jesus as the bread from heaven, fulfilling the expectation that when Messiah came, he would renew the manna; and in the giving of sight to the blind man (ch 9) we have another messianic function (cf. Is 35:5).<\/p>\n<p>With this greatness of Jesus, John also combined teaching about his lowliness. A continuing, though unobtrusive, strand of Johannine teaching is that Jesus depends on the Father for everything. Apart from the Father, Jesus said, he could do nothing (Jn 5:30). His very food is to do the Father’s will (4:34). He lives through the Father (6:57). It is the Father who gives him his disciples (6:37, 44; 17:6). It is the Father who bears witness to him (5:32, 37). John insists that Jesus is in no sense independent of the Father. In the mission of Jesus, John sees the working out of the purpose of the Father.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Prologue and Chapter 1<\/h5>\n<p>John begins with a prologue (1:1-18) that is unlike anything in any of the other Gospels. In it he refers to Jesus as “the Word,” a term that has points of contact with both Greek and Hebrew thinking. As John uses it, it conveys the thought that Jesus is the expression of the mind of the Father. John speaks of the Word as God (1:1), sees him as active in creation (1:3-5), goes on to the witness borne to him by John the Baptist (1:6-8), speaks of the coming of the Word into the world (1:9-14), and finishes with a section on the greatness of the Word (1:15-18). In this prologue he briefly introduces some of the great themes that will be developed throughout the Gospel. It is a majestic introduction to the whole.<\/p>\n<p>Next we have the beginnings of Jesus’ public ministry (1:19-51). Jesus’ work was preceded by that of John the Baptist, and the Evangelist tells us first about the kind of witness that the Baptist gave to Jesus. Witness is one of his important concepts, and witness is all that John the Baptist does in this Gospel. From this witness we move to the way the first disciples came to Jesus. We learn something of how Andrew and Peter came to know the Lord. We read also of Philip and Nathanael, of whom we learn little or nothing in the other Gospels.<\/p>\n<h5>The Signs and Discourses (2:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The public ministry of Jesus is described in a very distinctive way in this Gospel. John has a long section (chs 2–12) in which he tells of a number of miracles Jesus did, interweaving into his account a series of discourses. Sometimes these are addresses given to groups of people, and sometimes they are talks with individuals. Some scholars call this section of the Gospel the Book of Signs, thus emphasizing the prominent place given to seven miracles. For John they are not simply wonders. They are meaningful; in the literal sense of the term they are <em>sign<\/em>ificant.<\/p>\n<p>The first of them is the turning of the water into wine at a marriage in Cana of Galilee (2:1-11). The water in question is connected with Jewish rites of purification (v 6), and the story is surely to teach us that Jesus transforms life. He changes the water of the law into the wine of the gospel. As a result of this “sign,” his disciples believed in him (v 11). John went on to tell how Jesus went up to Jerusalem and drove the traders out of the temple. They were selling animals for sacrifice and changing money. But their business was being done in the Court of the Gentiles, the only place in the temple where a Gentile could come to meditate and pray.<\/p>\n<p>The first discourse is on the new birth (3:1-21). Jesus talked with Nicodemus, a leading Pharisee, about the necessity for radical renewal if one is to enter the kingdom. Jesus was speaking of God’s regenerating activity, not some human reformation. Following this, John records a dispute between some of John’s disciples with a Jew on the subject of purification. This opens the way for a section that shows the superiority of Jesus over John the Baptist—by the Baptist’s own confession (3:22-36).<\/p>\n<p>The second discourse is really a long conversation Jesus had with the woman of Samaria, whom he met by a well (4:1-42). It turns on “the water of life,” a term that is not fully explained in this chapter but which we later find points to the life-giving Spirit (7:38-39). This leads to the story of the second sign, the healing of the nobleman’s son (4:46-54), notable for the fact that Jesus healed at a distance.<\/p>\n<p>The third sign is the healing of the lame man by the pool of Bethesda (5:1-18). This man had spent many years waiting for healing at the moving of the water. Jesus told him to get up and walk, and he did. Because it was done on a Sabbath, the Pharisees objected. This leads to Jesus’ third discourse, that on the divine Son (5:19-47). Here the closeness of the relationship of Jesus to the Father is stressed, and his place in the judgment is brought out. There is emphasis also on the variety of witness who encountered Jesus, which shows how reasonable it is to accept him as God’s own Son.<\/p>\n<p>John’s fourth sign is the one miracle (apart from the resurrection) found in all four Gospels: the feeding of the 5,000 (6:1-15). It is followed by Jesus’ walking on water (vv 16-21), which seems to be meant as the fifth sign (though some scholars think not; if they are right, there are only six signs). Then comes the fourth discourse, the great sermon on the bread of life (vv 22-59). Jesus is this bread, which he gives to all men and women who believe in him. There are references to eating his flesh and drinking his blood (vv 50-58), which point to his death. Some have seen in them a reference to Communion, but it is hard to see why Jesus should refer in this way to an as-yet-nonexistent sacrament. Moreover, much the same effect is attributed in the same discourse to believing (vv 35, 47). It seems best to understand Jesus as meaning that people must believe in him as the one who would die for them in order for them to have life.<\/p>\n<p>There is a section detailing Peter’s affirmation of loyalty in the face of some who drifted away from the Master (6:67-71). Then we come to the fifth discourse, on the life-giving Spirit (7:1-52). John has an important explanatory point of his own when he tells us that at the time the Spirit had not been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified (v 39). The fullness of the Spirit depends on the completion of the work of Christ in his death and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>The sixth discourse tells of the light of the world (8:12-59). This aspect of Jesus’ person and ministry is dramatically brought out in the sixth sign, the healing of the man born blind (ch 9). It is a lively narrative, as the healed man conducts a spirited defense against the Pharisees who belittled Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most beautiful of all the illustrations of Jesus’ relations to his people is that on which he dwells in the seventh discourse, where he speaks of himself as the good shepherd (ch 10). There is the obvious truth that sheep depend entirely on their shepherd, but Jesus says something else. Whereas earthly shepherds live to meet the needs of their sheep, Jesus laid down his life for his sheep.<\/p>\n<p>The final sign is the raising of Lazarus (11:1-44), a man who had been dead for four days. The story graphically brings out Jesus’ power over death and his readiness to confer the gift of life. Jesus speaks of himself as “the resurrection and the life” (v 25); death cannot defeat him. He brings life to the dead, to the spiritually dead as well as to physically dead Lazarus. John goes on to note the reaction to this miracle: some believed, but some opposed Jesus (vv 45-57). He includes a notable saying of Caiaphas, the high priest, that one man should die for the people (vv 50-52). Caiaphas was speaking as a cynical politician (better one dead, however innocent, than the whole nation be troubled). But John saw in the words the deeper meaning that Jesus’ death would bring salvation to many.<\/p>\n<p>John rounds off his account of the ministry with the story of the anointing of Jesus by a woman in Bethany, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the coming of some Greeks to Jesus, and his final summary of what he had taught (ch 12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Last Supper<\/h5>\n<p>The account of what went on in the upper room on the night before the Crucifixion is the fullest of all the four Gospels. Curiously, John says nothing about the institution of Communion, a fact that has never been satisfactorily explained. But he tells us how Jesus washed the feet of the disciples (13:1-17), an action splendidly exemplifying the spirit of lowly service so soon to be shown on the cross. Then comes the prophecy of the betrayal, an action that set in motion the events that would lead to the cross (vv 18-30).<\/p>\n<p>In the long discourse that follows, Jesus dealt with some questions posed by his followers and went on to teach them some important truths, for example, that he is the way, the truth, and the life (14:6). He develops the thought that he is the true vine, the disciples being vitally joined to him as branches to the vine. It is important for the branches to remain in the vine if they are to have life (15:1-16). Then come some words about suffering that would be of help to them in times of persecution (vv 17-25). Jesus goes on to speak about the Holy Spirit (15:26–16:15). This is a very important passage, for it contains much more about the Spirit than we find elsewhere in Jesus’ words. Jesus calls the Spirit the “Paraclete,” a title not easy to understand. It is in origin a legal term, and at least we can say that it indicates that the Spirit brings friendship, encouragement, and help. Jesus went on to speak of his approaching departure from the disciples and to prepare them for the trying time ahead (16:16-33). This part of the Gospel concludes with Jesus’ great High Priestly prayer. He prayed for the disciples to be one, as he commended them to the care of the heavenly Father (ch 17).<\/p>\n<h5>The Cross and Resurrection<\/h5>\n<p>When the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, he went forward to meet them and they fell to the ground (18:1-11). He gave himself over to them; they did not take him over. At the outset of his passion narrative, John was making the point that Jesus is sovereign. He was not being defeated by the march of events but was sovereignly doing the will of the Father. John is the only one to tell us that Jesus was taken before Annas, father-in-law to Caiaphas, the reigning high priest (18:12-14, 19-24). He tells also of Peter’s three denials of Jesus (vv 15-27). He did not spend much time on the Jewish trial, but he was much more explicit than the other Evangelists in his account of the Roman trial. Clearly, he had some special knowledge of what went on before Pilate. He presents a magnificent picture of Jesus talking with Pilate about kingship—the Son of God discussing with the representative of Caesar the meaning of sovereignty (vv 33-40).<\/p>\n<p>In his account of the Crucifixion John has a number of touches of his own, notably the way Jesus commended Mary to the care of the beloved disciple (19:26-27), the fact that the cry Jesus uttered as he died was “It is finished” (v 30), and the piercing of his side by a soldier’s spear (vv 31-37).<\/p>\n<p>John proceeds to the narrative of the burial (vv 38-42) and of the empty tomb (20:1-10). He speaks of appearances of the risen Lord to Mary Magdalene (vv 11-18), and to the disciples—both without (vv 19-23) and with Thomas (vv 24-29).<\/p>\n<p>The final chapter, an epilogue, tells of a miraculous catch of fish (21:1-14) and goes on to the moving account of Peter’s threefold declaration of love to Jesus and his restoration.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> John, The Apostle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOHN, Gospel of The fourth Gospel. Preview • Author • Date, Origin, and Destination • Background • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Author At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospe...","summary_en":"JOHN, Gospel of The fourth Gospel. Preview • Author • Date, Origin, and Destination • Background • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Author At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospe...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36226,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Spirit of Jesus Christ","title_en":"Spirit of Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\n<p>The Spirit as identified with Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The most important development and element in earliest Christian understanding of the Spirit is that the Spirit is now the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pt 1:11; see also Jn 7:38; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Rv 3:1; 5:6). The Spirit is to be identified as the Spirit that bears witness to Jesus (Jn 15:26; 16:13-15; Acts 5:32; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2; 5:7-8; Rv 19:10), but also, and more profoundly, as the Spirit that inspired and empowered Jesus himself. This Spirit became available to the believers after Christ’s resurrection.<\/p>\n<p> The apostles John and Paul were quite clear in their writings about Christ becoming spirit through resurrection. The keynote verses penned by John are John 6:63; 7:37-39; 14:16-18; 20:22; and 1 John 3:24; 4:13. The critical passages written by Paul are Romans 8:9-10; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18; and 1 Corinthians 6:17.<\/p>\n<p>Revelation concerning the Spirit of Jesus is progressive in the Gospel of John. John does not tell us from the beginning that people could not actually receive eternal life until the hour of Christ’s glorification. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus declares to various people that he can give them eternal life if they would believe in him. He promises them the water of life, the bread of life, and the light of life. But no one could really partake of these until after the Lord had risen. As a foretaste, as a sample, they could receive life via the Lord’s words because his words were themselves spirit and life (Jn 6:63); however, it was not until the Spirit would become available that believers could actually become the recipients of the divine, eternal life. After the Lord’s discourse in John 6, Jesus said, “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing” (v 63). In the flesh Jesus could not give them the bread of life, but when the Spirit became available, they could have life. Again, Jesus offered the water of life—even life flowing like rivers of living water—to the Jews assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles. He told them to come and drink of him. But no one could, then and there, come and drink of him. So John added a note: “But this he spoke concerning the Spirit, for the Spirit was not yet because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39). Once Jesus would be glorified through resurrection, the Spirit of the glorified Jesus would be available for people to drink. In John 6, Jesus offered himself as the bread of life to be eaten by people; and in John 7, he offered himself as the water of life to refresh men. But no one could eat him or drink him until he became spirit, as was intimated in John 6:63 and then stated plainly in John 7:39.<\/p>\n\n<p>In John 14:16-18, Jesus went one step further in identifying himself with the Spirit. He told the disciples that he would give them another Comforter. Then he told them that they should know who this Comforter was because he was, then and there, abiding with them and would, in the near future, be in them. Who else but Jesus was abiding with them at that time? Then after telling the disciples that the Comforter would come to them, he said, “I am coming to you.” First he said that the Comforter would come to them and abide in them, and then in the same breath he said that he would come to them and abide in them (see 14:20). In short, the coming of the Comforter to the disciples was one and the same as the coming of Jesus to the disciples. The Comforter who was dwelling with the disciples that night was the Spirit in Christ; the Comforter who would be in the disciples (after the resurrection) would be Christ in the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>On the evening of the resurrection, the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples and then breathed into them the Holy Spirit. This inbreathing, reminiscent of God’s breathing into Adam the breath of life (Gn 2:7), became the fulfillment of all that had been promised and anticipated earlier in John’s Gospel. Through this impartation, the disciples became regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This historical event marked the genesis of the new creation. Jesus could now be realized as the bread of life, the water of life, and the light of life. The believers now possessed his divine, eternal, risen life. From that time forward, Christ as spirit indwelt his believers. Thus, in his first epistle John could say, “And hereby we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he gave to us” (1 Jn 3:24), and again, “Hereby we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit” (4:13).<\/p>\n<p>The apostles had quite an adjustment to make after Christ’s resurrection. They had become so accustomed to his physical presence that it was difficult for them to learn how to live by his spiritual, indwelling presence. All through the 40 days after his resurrection, from the time the apostles received the inbreathing of the Spirit, Christ was teaching the disciples to make the transfer. He would physically appear and then disappear intermittently. His appearances were very frequent in the beginning and then they steadily diminished. His aim was to guide the apostles into knowing him in his invisible presence. However, this was so new to them that he had to keep appearing to them in order to strengthen and reassure them. But his real desire was to help them live by faith and not by sight. When he appeared to the disciples as they were all together the second time, with Thomas present, he chided Thomas for his unbelief. Then he prounounced this blessing, “Blessed are those who do not see me and yet believe” (Jn 20:29).<\/p>\n<p>The apostle Paul was such a “blessed” one. He did not know Christ in the flesh. He knew only the risen Christ (2 Cor 5:15-16). In this regard, he had an advantage over the early apostles. They had a great adjustment to make, but from the very beginning, Paul knew the risen Christ as Spirit. Paul became the forerunner of all those Christians who have never seen Jesus in the flesh and who have come to experience him in the Spirit. Yes, Paul had seen the risen Lord; he was the last one to do so (1 Cor 15:8). And from that time onward he realized that Jesus was a glorified man, exalted far above all. Paul wrote much concerning this, but his writings did not leave the far-above-all Jesus far away because this was not what Paul experienced. Any experienced Christian should be able to testify that the Christ in the heavens is also the Christ in the heart.<\/p>\n<p>In his writings, Paul often speaks of the Spirit and Christ synonymously. This is evident in Romans 8:9-10. The terms “Spirit of God,” “Spirit of Christ,” and “Christ” are all used interchangeably. The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of Christ is Christ. In these verses, it is evident that Paul identified the Spirit with Christ because in Christian experience they are absolutely identical. There is no such thing as an experience of Christ apart from the Spirit. The separation and\/or distinction does exist in Trinitarian theology—and for very good reasons—but the separation is nearly nonexistent in actual experience. Several of Paul’s statements are written from the vantage point of experience.<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Corinthians 15:45, Paul says that the risen Jesus became life-giving spirit. Notice the verse does not say Jesus became the Spirit, as if the second person of the Trinity became the third, but that Jesus became spirit in the sense that his mortal existence and form were metamorphosed into a spiritual existence and form. Jesus’ person was not changed through the resurrection, only his form. With this changed spiritual form, Jesus regained the essential state of being he had emptied himself of in becoming a man. Before he became a man, he subsisted in the form of God (Phil 2:6), which form is Spirit and thereby was united to the Spirit (the third of the Trinity), while still remaining distinct. Thus, when the scripture says that the Lord “became life-giving spirit,” it does not mean that the Son became the Holy Spirit. But it does indicate that Christ, via resurrection, appropriated a new, spiritual form (while still retaining a body—a glorified one) that enabled him to commence a new spiritual existence (see 1 Pt 3:18).<\/p>\n<p>In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul explains that the NT ministry is a ministry carried out by the Spirit of the living God (v 3), who is the Spirit that gives life (v 6). In fact, the whole NT economy is characterized as “the ministry of the Spirit” (v 8). At the same time, Paul emphasizes that the function of the NT ministry is to bring God’s people to see and experience the glorious Christ (3:3, 14, 16-18; 4:4-6). It is in this context that Paul boldly declares, “The Lord is the Spirit” (3:17). He who turns his heart to the Lord is, in effect, turning his heart to the Spirit. lf the Lord were not the Spirit abiding in the believers, how could they turn their hearts to him? And how could they be transformed into the same image? Second Corinthians 3:18 says, “But we all, with unveiled face mirroring the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord-Spirit.” According to the Greek, the last phrase of this verse could be rendered “the Lord, the Spirit” (see <span>asv<\/span>) or “the Lord, who is the Spirit” (see <span>rsv<\/span>, <span>niv<\/span>) because the expression “the Spirit” is in direct apposition to “the Lord” (i.e., it is a further description of the Lord). Thus, the Lord is the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, when the Scriptures identify the Spirit with Christ and vice versa, the identification is not equivocation. Christ is not the Holy Spirit. Christ and the Spirit are distinct persons of the Trinity, as is affirmed by the overall teaching of the Word. But the Scriptures do identify Christ and the Spirit in the context of Christian experience. It would be accurate to say that Christians experience Christ through his Spirit, the Spirit of Christ. One cannot know Jesus apart from the Spirit or other than through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Resurrection.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\n<p>The Spirit as identified with Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The most important development and element in earliest Christian understanding of the Spirit is that the Spirit is now the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pt 1:11; see also Jn 7:38; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Rv 3:1; 5:6). The Spirit is to be identified as the Spirit that bears witness to Jesus (Jn 15:26; 16:13-15; Acts 5:32; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2; 5:7-8; Rv 19:10), but also, and more profoundly, as the Spirit that inspired and empowered Jesus himself. This Spirit became available to the believers after Christ’s resurrection.<\/p>\n<p> The apostles John and Paul were quite clear in their writings about Christ becoming spirit through resurrection. The keynote verses penned by John are John 6:63; 7:37-39; 14:16-18; 20:22; and 1 John 3:24; 4:13. The critical passages written by Paul are Romans 8:9-10; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18; and 1 Corinthians 6:17.<\/p>\n<p>Revelation concerning the Spirit of Jesus is progressive in the Gospel of John. John does not tell us from the beginning that people could not actually receive eternal life until the hour of Christ’s glorification. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus declares to various people that he can give them eternal life if they would believe in him. He promises them the water of life, the bread of life, and the light of life. But no one could really partake of these until after the Lord had risen. As a foretaste, as a sample, they could receive life via the Lord’s words because his words were themselves spirit and life (Jn 6:63); however, it was not until the Spirit would become available that believers could actually become the recipients of the divine, eternal life. After the Lord’s discourse in John 6, Jesus said, “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing” (v 63). In the flesh Jesus could not give them the bread of life, but when the Spirit became available, they could have life. Again, Jesus offered the water of life—even life flowing like rivers of living water—to the Jews assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles. He told them to come and drink of him. But no one could, then and there, come and drink of him. So John added a note: “But this he spoke concerning the Spirit, for the Spirit was not yet because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39). Once Jesus would be glorified through resurrection, the Spirit of the glorified Jesus would be available for people to drink. In John 6, Jesus offered himself as the bread of life to be eaten by people; and in John 7, he offered himself as the water of life to refresh men. But no one could eat him or drink him until he became spirit, as was intimated in John 6:63 and then stated plainly in John 7:39.<\/p>\n\n<p>In John 14:16-18, Jesus went one step further in identifying himself with the Spirit. He told the disciples that he would give them another Comforter. Then he told them that they should know who this Comforter was because he was, then and there, abiding with them and would, in the near future, be in them. Who else but Jesus was abiding with them at that time? Then after telling the disciples that the Comforter would come to them, he said, “I am coming to you.” First he said that the Comforter would come to them and abide in them, and then in the same breath he said that he would come to them and abide in them (see 14:20). In short, the coming of the Comforter to the disciples was one and the same as the coming of Jesus to the disciples. The Comforter who was dwelling with the disciples that night was the Spirit in Christ; the Comforter who would be in the disciples (after the resurrection) would be Christ in the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>On the evening of the resurrection, the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples and then breathed into them the Holy Spirit. This inbreathing, reminiscent of God’s breathing into Adam the breath of life (Gn 2:7), became the fulfillment of all that had been promised and anticipated earlier in John’s Gospel. Through this impartation, the disciples became regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This historical event marked the genesis of the new creation. Jesus could now be realized as the bread of life, the water of life, and the light of life. The believers now possessed his divine, eternal, risen life. From that time forward, Christ as spirit indwelt his believers. Thus, in his first epistle John could say, “And hereby we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he gave to us” (1 Jn 3:24), and again, “Hereby we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit” (4:13).<\/p>\n<p>The apostles had quite an adjustment to make after Christ’s resurrection. They had become so accustomed to his physical presence that it was difficult for them to learn how to live by his spiritual, indwelling presence. All through the 40 days after his resurrection, from the time the apostles received the inbreathing of the Spirit, Christ was teaching the disciples to make the transfer. He would physically appear and then disappear intermittently. His appearances were very frequent in the beginning and then they steadily diminished. His aim was to guide the apostles into knowing him in his invisible presence. However, this was so new to them that he had to keep appearing to them in order to strengthen and reassure them. But his real desire was to help them live by faith and not by sight. When he appeared to the disciples as they were all together the second time, with Thomas present, he chided Thomas for his unbelief. Then he prounounced this blessing, “Blessed are those who do not see me and yet believe” (Jn 20:29).<\/p>\n<p>The apostle Paul was such a “blessed” one. He did not know Christ in the flesh. He knew only the risen Christ (2 Cor 5:15-16). In this regard, he had an advantage over the early apostles. They had a great adjustment to make, but from the very beginning, Paul knew the risen Christ as Spirit. Paul became the forerunner of all those Christians who have never seen Jesus in the flesh and who have come to experience him in the Spirit. Yes, Paul had seen the risen Lord; he was the last one to do so (1 Cor 15:8). And from that time onward he realized that Jesus was a glorified man, exalted far above all. Paul wrote much concerning this, but his writings did not leave the far-above-all Jesus far away because this was not what Paul experienced. Any experienced Christian should be able to testify that the Christ in the heavens is also the Christ in the heart.<\/p>\n<p>In his writings, Paul often speaks of the Spirit and Christ synonymously. This is evident in Romans 8:9-10. The terms “Spirit of God,” “Spirit of Christ,” and “Christ” are all used interchangeably. The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of Christ is Christ. In these verses, it is evident that Paul identified the Spirit with Christ because in Christian experience they are absolutely identical. There is no such thing as an experience of Christ apart from the Spirit. The separation and\/or distinction does exist in Trinitarian theology—and for very good reasons—but the separation is nearly nonexistent in actual experience. Several of Paul’s statements are written from the vantage point of experience.<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Corinthians 15:45, Paul says that the risen Jesus became life-giving spirit. Notice the verse does not say Jesus became the Spirit, as if the second person of the Trinity became the third, but that Jesus became spirit in the sense that his mortal existence and form were metamorphosed into a spiritual existence and form. Jesus’ person was not changed through the resurrection, only his form. With this changed spiritual form, Jesus regained the essential state of being he had emptied himself of in becoming a man. Before he became a man, he subsisted in the form of God (Phil 2:6), which form is Spirit and thereby was united to the Spirit (the third of the Trinity), while still remaining distinct. Thus, when the scripture says that the Lord “became life-giving spirit,” it does not mean that the Son became the Holy Spirit. But it does indicate that Christ, via resurrection, appropriated a new, spiritual form (while still retaining a body—a glorified one) that enabled him to commence a new spiritual existence (see 1 Pt 3:18).<\/p>\n<p>In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul explains that the NT ministry is a ministry carried out by the Spirit of the living God (v 3), who is the Spirit that gives life (v 6). In fact, the whole NT economy is characterized as “the ministry of the Spirit” (v 8). At the same time, Paul emphasizes that the function of the NT ministry is to bring God’s people to see and experience the glorious Christ (3:3, 14, 16-18; 4:4-6). It is in this context that Paul boldly declares, “The Lord is the Spirit” (3:17). He who turns his heart to the Lord is, in effect, turning his heart to the Spirit. lf the Lord were not the Spirit abiding in the believers, how could they turn their hearts to him? And how could they be transformed into the same image? Second Corinthians 3:18 says, “But we all, with unveiled face mirroring the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord-Spirit.” According to the Greek, the last phrase of this verse could be rendered “the Lord, the Spirit” (see <span>asv<\/span>) or “the Lord, who is the Spirit” (see <span>rsv<\/span>, <span>niv<\/span>) because the expression “the Spirit” is in direct apposition to “the Lord” (i.e., it is a further description of the Lord). Thus, the Lord is the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, when the Scriptures identify the Spirit with Christ and vice versa, the identification is not equivocation. Christ is not the Holy Spirit. Christ and the Spirit are distinct persons of the Trinity, as is affirmed by the overall teaching of the Word. But the Scriptures do identify Christ and the Spirit in the context of Christian experience. It would be accurate to say that Christians experience Christ through his Spirit, the Spirit of Christ. One cannot know Jesus apart from the Spirit or other than through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Resurrection.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST The Spirit as identified with Jesus Christ. The most important development and element in earliest Christian understanding of the Spirit is that the Spirit is now the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pt 1:11; see also Jn 7:38; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Rv 3:1; 5:6). The Spirit is to be identified as the Spirit that bears witness to Jesus (Jn 15:26; 16:13-15; Acts 5:32; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2; 5:7-8; Rv 19:10), but also, and more profoundly, as t...","summary_en":"SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST The Spirit as identified with Jesus Christ. The most important development and element in earliest Christian understanding of the Spirit is that the Spirit is now the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pt 1:11; see also Jn 7:38; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Rv 3:1; 5:6). The Spirit is to be identified as the Spirit that bears witness to Jesus (Jn 15:26; 16:13-15; Acts 5:32; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2; 5:7-8; Rv 19:10), but also, and more profoundly, as t...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37624,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Travel","title_en":"Travel","content_ro":"<h3>TRAVEL<\/h3>\n<p>In biblical times travelers found roads bad and often impassable. Sea voyages were made in comparatively small ships, usually by military and commercial personnel, and hardly ever for simple tourist traffic. With little reason to travel, ordinary citizens tended to remain in fairly limited areas. From time to time, there were group migrations, and sometimes people traveled for religious festivals or fled from war or famine.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TravelinOldTestamentTimes\">Travel in Old Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>Several accounts depict the people of Israel moving over restricted areas to graze their flocks. Joseph’s brothers took their flocks from the south of the land up to Shechem and then to Dothan (Gn 37:12-17), but this was a mere 60 miles (96.5 kilometers). David traveled around Palestine and even went to Moab (1 Sm 22:3). The Danites moved from their home southwest of Jerusalem to the north, just south of the Lebanon Mountains (Jgs 18).<\/p>\n<p>Examples of travel for pasturage, migration, and protection could be multiplied. Such travelers would normally walk, though the ass was used both for riding and as a pack animal. The ox was employed for transporting heavy loads and sometimes for people (Gn 46:5). Later the camel came into general use (1 Kgs 10:2; 2 Kgs 8:9). Little is known of resting places for travelers in OT times. There are only a few references to a “lodging place” (<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">malon<\/span>) in OT narratives (Gn 42:27; 43:21; Ex 4:24).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TravelinNewTestamentTimes\">Travel in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>The Roman world knew a great deal of travel: to fulfill religious obligations at festival time, for trade, for government administration, for military purposes. Not the least among first-century travelers were the early Christian missionaries.<\/p>\n<p>The advent of Roman peace and authority and the construction of well-made stone roads made travel relatively safe and quick. The modes of travel improved over that known in OT times. Long distances were traveled within the Roman Empire over good roads and in comparative safety. There were some hazards, however, notably in sea travel, from wind, storms, and pirates (Acts 15:39; 18:18-22; Rom 15:24-25; 2 Cor 11:25-26). Paul’s sea journey to Rome, for example, was perilous (Acts 27:1–28:14).<\/p>\n<p>The NT mentions a number of journeys on foot. Mary journeyed from Galilee to Judea to visit Elizabeth (Lk 1:39-40, 56). The baby Jesus was born in Bethlehem during the census (2:1-7); Jesus was brought to Jerusalem to comply with the Jewish purification law (v 22). Thus three trips were made from Nazareth to Jerusalem, a distance of about 70 miles (112.6 kilometers), from the time of Jesus’ conception to Mary’s purification. The annual Passover visit was made by Joseph and Mary (vv 41-51). Other journeys are mentioned (Jn 2:13; 5:1; 7:1-10; 12:1). Jesus himself walked to Jericho from Galilee (Mk 1:1-11) and also to the region of Tyre and Sidon (7:24). He was in Samaria more than once (Lk 17:11; Jn 4:4). His last journey to Jerusalem was via Jericho and up through the hills to Jerusalem (Mk 10:1, 46; 11:1). His last journey after the resurrection was to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-35).<\/p>\n<p>Paul traveled by sea on each of his missionary journeys (Acts 13:1-14; 15:41–18:22; 18:23–21:17), generally accompanied by friends. He also made many journeys on foot in Palestine, Asia Minor, and the Greek peninsula. But not all travel was on foot in NT times. The ass, used for carrying loads, often carried people. Jesus once rode from Bethphage to Jerusalem, a short but highly symbolic journey (Mt 21:2-7; Mk 11:1-11; Jn 12:12-15). When Joseph traveled with his pregnant wife, Mary, to Bethlehem for the census at the time of Jesus’ birth, Mary probably rode on an ass. The Ethiopian eunuch was riding in a chariot after worshiping at Jerusalem and was joined by Philip traveling on foot (Acts 8:26-38). Roman soldiers both marched and made wide use of horses. When Paul was brought to Caesarea from Jerusalem, mounts were prepared for him (23:23-24).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"RoadsandSeaLanes\">Roads and Sea Lanes<\/p>\n<p>The roads of biblical times figured prominently in the geography, topography, and history of Palestine—a land that served as a bridge between Egypt and centers of civilization and trade in the Middle East. Many of the roads were strategically important, both commercially and militarily. Some roads gained significance as pilgrim routes to facilitate travel to religious centers like Jerusalem. Roads in biblical times were of three main types: long-distance international roads, medium-distance intraregional roads, and a variety of roads inside each region or state.<\/p>\n<h5>Great International Roads<\/h5>\n<p>These linked the Mediterranean coast to the northern Tigris Valley and southern Mesopotamia. Some linked Mesopotamia to Asia Minor, while others led south to Egypt, either along the coast or east of the Jordan River and the Dead Sea and across the Sinai Peninsula. There were trade routes between Anatolia and Assyria early in the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>. Apparently the military campaign referred to in Genesis 14 aimed to secure the great trade route, the King’s Highway, from northern Mesopotamia to Egypt. Military invaders and travelers from Babylonia, Assyria, and Persia would head across the hinterlands of Syria toward the coast before turning south into Palestine and Egypt. The advent of European powers, Greece and Rome, into the Middle East opened up another vast network of international roads for the peoples of the East. Until Roman times, these roads were not surfaced with stone but were cleared pathways. They were very rough, ungraded, and in wet weather, impassable in many places. But they were evidently well defined by “waymarks” and “guideposts” (Jer 31:21). With the coming of the Romans, important roads were built with deep foundations and with large blocks of flat stone at the surface. The remains of these roads are still seen in many places in the Middle East and in Europe. Distance markers or milestones were regularly placed along the roads.<\/p>\n<h5>International North-South Roads in Palestine<\/h5>\n<p>The roads that linked countries to the north with Egypt passed through Palestine, a natural land bridge. There were three major roads. The coastal road began in Damascus and passed via Hazor across the plain of Esdraelon, through the Megiddo Pass, down the coast past Gaza and into Egypt. This was probably “the way of the sea” (Is 9:1). The Sinai road led from Egypt into the southern Negev and then to Kadesh-barnea, Beersheba, Hebron, Jerusalem, Shechem, Acco, Tyre, and Sidon. The Red Sea road entered the Palestine area from the Gulf of Aqaba, where the ancient port of Elath and Solomon’s port of Ezion-geber stood (Nm 33:35; 2 Chr 8:17). From there it led through the mountainous areas of Transjordan, crossing the deep wadis and then north through the Hauran region to Damascus. This was the road taken by caravans from southern Arabia to Damascus, the ancient King’s Highway (Nm 20:17; 21:22).<\/p>\n<p>There were other north-south roads of lesser importance. One coastal road led from Joppa via Caesarea and Dor to Acco, where it linked with the Sinai road. Evidently it was not very significant until Roman times, when the port of Caesarea was built. The marshes in the plain of Sharon posed many problems. The plain of Esdraelon was also marshy and interrupted the roads north in bad seasons. A raised road across the swampy sections was eventually constructed. Another road led north from Hazor, branching off the main trunk road to Damascus. The Jordan Valley road skirted the southwestern part of Galilee and led down the Jordan Valley to Jericho.<\/p>\n<h5>East-West Roads<\/h5>\n<p>Several important roads ran east-west, intersecting the larger roads leading north. One such road led from Gaza to Beersheba and then down the Arabah, with an offshoot to Petra. Another led from Ashkelon, via Gath, to Hebron and on to En-gedi on the Dead Sea. Another road led from Joppa east up the valley of Aijalon (Jos 10:6-14) to Bethel and on to Jericho. One well-used road led from Joppa to Shechem, across the Jordan at Adam (3:16) and into Gilead in Transjordan. Other roads led from Acco eastward to Galilee and also up the coast to Tyre and Sidon. There were, indeed, numerous east-west roads that provided contact between various parts of Palestine. In Roman times, when the speedy movement of armies was essential, some of the old roads were greatly improved and new ones built.<\/p>\n<h5>Sea Lanes<\/h5>\n<p>The people of Israel, unlike the Phoenicians, seldom used the sea lanes. When Solomon planned to send ships down the Red Sea to Ophir (1 Kgs 9:26-28), he used Phoenician seamen. Jehoshaphat planned a similar expedition, but his ships were wrecked (22:48-49). Coastal traffic in OT times was in the hands of Philistines and Phoenicians. There were several ports along the Mediterranean Sea coast, such as Gaza, Joppa, Dor, and Acco, but none was very good. There were also sea lanes linking the Mediterranean coast with Egypt and distant Tarshish (probably Spain). The other coastal water was the Gulf of Aqaba with its two ports—Ezion-geber for Transjordan, and Elath for west of the Jordan. Solomon’s fleet used Ezion-geber as its home port.<\/p>\n\n<p>In NT times things changed considerably. The Middle East produced commodities used by peoples farther west, especially the Romans. Alexandria in Egypt and Antioch in Syria handled both cargo and travelers. Smaller ports like those in Palestine and many others around the coast of Asia Minor provided a haven for ships. One ingenious scheme to avoid a 200-mile (321.8-kilometer) journey around the Greek peninsula was to drag small boats across the five-mile- (8-kilometer-) wide isthmus at Corinth. Even the largest ship in NT times was in danger from wind and storm at sea (Acts 27), so sea travel was undertaken preferably when the risk of storms was minimal, roughly from November to March. There was a lot of sea traffic in the Mediterranean Sea at appropriate seasons, largely for trade. Grain ships crossed regularly from Rome to Egypt and to the east.<\/p>\n<p>Ships were driven by sail power supplemented as necessary by oars operated by slaves. Some indication of the size of ships comes from the discovery of ancient wrecks and from Latin and Greek literature. An old dry dock 130 feet (39.6 meters) long found near Athens was once used for Greek war vessels, which were smaller than the cargo vessels. The Roman writer Lucian refers to an Alexandrian grain ship 180 feet (54.9 meters) long, suggesting a capacity of about 1,200 tons (1,088.6 metric tons). Paul’s ship carried 276 persons (Acts 27:37). Modern underwater archaeology is providing valuable information about these ancient ships.<\/p>\n<h5>Reasons for Travel<\/h5>\n<p>The most important reason for travel in NT times was for trade and commerce, which involved far more than merely transporting goods. There were agents, supervisors, insurers of cargo, bankers, and a whole range of people involved in the acquisition and safe delivery of the cargo.<\/p>\n<p>Military travel was considerable. A wide variety of tasks had to be undertaken in the way of reconnaissance, procuring of supplies, forward arrangements for the bivouacking of troops, and the transport of both troops and equipment.<\/p>\n<p>Some travelers were tradespeople changing their place of employment, like Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2-3). Aquila had traveled from Pontus on the Black Sea to Rome and then, in a time of persecution, he had fled to Corinth with his wife. Many others traveled for similar reasons.<\/p>\n<p>People on religious pilgrimage traveled by land or sea. Jews from many lands journeyed to Jerusalem for the annual Passover festivities (cf. Acts 2:5-11). Non-Jews went to religious centers at Ephesus, Athens, and Eleusis, where there were important temples. Many minor temples also attracted pilgrims. The construction of new temples and a variety of government administration buildings brought craftsmen from afar. Often the materials used in construction had to be transported to the site. Some people made trips for health reasons to temples famed for healing miracles or to enjoy the benefits of hot springs like those at Capernaum or Tiberias. Athletes traveled to centers for important contests like the Olympic games, and crowds of people flocked to witness the spectacle. Some travelers were students or teachers going to great centers of learning—the universities of those times. Yet others traveled as official emissaries bearing important government and commercial documents. Despite all this activity, vast numbers of ordinary citizens hardly ever traveled more than a few miles from their homes.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TRAVEL<\/h3>\n<p>In biblical times travelers found roads bad and often impassable. Sea voyages were made in comparatively small ships, usually by military and commercial personnel, and hardly ever for simple tourist traffic. With little reason to travel, ordinary citizens tended to remain in fairly limited areas. From time to time, there were group migrations, and sometimes people traveled for religious festivals or fled from war or famine.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TravelinOldTestamentTimes\">Travel in Old Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>Several accounts depict the people of Israel moving over restricted areas to graze their flocks. Joseph’s brothers took their flocks from the south of the land up to Shechem and then to Dothan (Gn 37:12-17), but this was a mere 60 miles (96.5 kilometers). David traveled around Palestine and even went to Moab (1 Sm 22:3). The Danites moved from their home southwest of Jerusalem to the north, just south of the Lebanon Mountains (Jgs 18).<\/p>\n<p>Examples of travel for pasturage, migration, and protection could be multiplied. Such travelers would normally walk, though the ass was used both for riding and as a pack animal. The ox was employed for transporting heavy loads and sometimes for people (Gn 46:5). Later the camel came into general use (1 Kgs 10:2; 2 Kgs 8:9). Little is known of resting places for travelers in OT times. There are only a few references to a “lodging place” (<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">malon<\/span>) in OT narratives (Gn 42:27; 43:21; Ex 4:24).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TravelinNewTestamentTimes\">Travel in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>The Roman world knew a great deal of travel: to fulfill religious obligations at festival time, for trade, for government administration, for military purposes. Not the least among first-century travelers were the early Christian missionaries.<\/p>\n<p>The advent of Roman peace and authority and the construction of well-made stone roads made travel relatively safe and quick. The modes of travel improved over that known in OT times. Long distances were traveled within the Roman Empire over good roads and in comparative safety. There were some hazards, however, notably in sea travel, from wind, storms, and pirates (Acts 15:39; 18:18-22; Rom 15:24-25; 2 Cor 11:25-26). Paul’s sea journey to Rome, for example, was perilous (Acts 27:1–28:14).<\/p>\n<p>The NT mentions a number of journeys on foot. Mary journeyed from Galilee to Judea to visit Elizabeth (Lk 1:39-40, 56). The baby Jesus was born in Bethlehem during the census (2:1-7); Jesus was brought to Jerusalem to comply with the Jewish purification law (v 22). Thus three trips were made from Nazareth to Jerusalem, a distance of about 70 miles (112.6 kilometers), from the time of Jesus’ conception to Mary’s purification. The annual Passover visit was made by Joseph and Mary (vv 41-51). Other journeys are mentioned (Jn 2:13; 5:1; 7:1-10; 12:1). Jesus himself walked to Jericho from Galilee (Mk 1:1-11) and also to the region of Tyre and Sidon (7:24). He was in Samaria more than once (Lk 17:11; Jn 4:4). His last journey to Jerusalem was via Jericho and up through the hills to Jerusalem (Mk 10:1, 46; 11:1). His last journey after the resurrection was to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-35).<\/p>\n<p>Paul traveled by sea on each of his missionary journeys (Acts 13:1-14; 15:41–18:22; 18:23–21:17), generally accompanied by friends. He also made many journeys on foot in Palestine, Asia Minor, and the Greek peninsula. But not all travel was on foot in NT times. The ass, used for carrying loads, often carried people. Jesus once rode from Bethphage to Jerusalem, a short but highly symbolic journey (Mt 21:2-7; Mk 11:1-11; Jn 12:12-15). When Joseph traveled with his pregnant wife, Mary, to Bethlehem for the census at the time of Jesus’ birth, Mary probably rode on an ass. The Ethiopian eunuch was riding in a chariot after worshiping at Jerusalem and was joined by Philip traveling on foot (Acts 8:26-38). Roman soldiers both marched and made wide use of horses. When Paul was brought to Caesarea from Jerusalem, mounts were prepared for him (23:23-24).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"RoadsandSeaLanes\">Roads and Sea Lanes<\/p>\n<p>The roads of biblical times figured prominently in the geography, topography, and history of Palestine—a land that served as a bridge between Egypt and centers of civilization and trade in the Middle East. Many of the roads were strategically important, both commercially and militarily. Some roads gained significance as pilgrim routes to facilitate travel to religious centers like Jerusalem. Roads in biblical times were of three main types: long-distance international roads, medium-distance intraregional roads, and a variety of roads inside each region or state.<\/p>\n<h5>Great International Roads<\/h5>\n<p>These linked the Mediterranean coast to the northern Tigris Valley and southern Mesopotamia. Some linked Mesopotamia to Asia Minor, while others led south to Egypt, either along the coast or east of the Jordan River and the Dead Sea and across the Sinai Peninsula. There were trade routes between Anatolia and Assyria early in the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>. Apparently the military campaign referred to in Genesis 14 aimed to secure the great trade route, the King’s Highway, from northern Mesopotamia to Egypt. Military invaders and travelers from Babylonia, Assyria, and Persia would head across the hinterlands of Syria toward the coast before turning south into Palestine and Egypt. The advent of European powers, Greece and Rome, into the Middle East opened up another vast network of international roads for the peoples of the East. Until Roman times, these roads were not surfaced with stone but were cleared pathways. They were very rough, ungraded, and in wet weather, impassable in many places. But they were evidently well defined by “waymarks” and “guideposts” (Jer 31:21). With the coming of the Romans, important roads were built with deep foundations and with large blocks of flat stone at the surface. The remains of these roads are still seen in many places in the Middle East and in Europe. Distance markers or milestones were regularly placed along the roads.<\/p>\n<h5>International North-South Roads in Palestine<\/h5>\n<p>The roads that linked countries to the north with Egypt passed through Palestine, a natural land bridge. There were three major roads. The coastal road began in Damascus and passed via Hazor across the plain of Esdraelon, through the Megiddo Pass, down the coast past Gaza and into Egypt. This was probably “the way of the sea” (Is 9:1). The Sinai road led from Egypt into the southern Negev and then to Kadesh-barnea, Beersheba, Hebron, Jerusalem, Shechem, Acco, Tyre, and Sidon. The Red Sea road entered the Palestine area from the Gulf of Aqaba, where the ancient port of Elath and Solomon’s port of Ezion-geber stood (Nm 33:35; 2 Chr 8:17). From there it led through the mountainous areas of Transjordan, crossing the deep wadis and then north through the Hauran region to Damascus. This was the road taken by caravans from southern Arabia to Damascus, the ancient King’s Highway (Nm 20:17; 21:22).<\/p>\n<p>There were other north-south roads of lesser importance. One coastal road led from Joppa via Caesarea and Dor to Acco, where it linked with the Sinai road. Evidently it was not very significant until Roman times, when the port of Caesarea was built. The marshes in the plain of Sharon posed many problems. The plain of Esdraelon was also marshy and interrupted the roads north in bad seasons. A raised road across the swampy sections was eventually constructed. Another road led north from Hazor, branching off the main trunk road to Damascus. The Jordan Valley road skirted the southwestern part of Galilee and led down the Jordan Valley to Jericho.<\/p>\n<h5>East-West Roads<\/h5>\n<p>Several important roads ran east-west, intersecting the larger roads leading north. One such road led from Gaza to Beersheba and then down the Arabah, with an offshoot to Petra. Another led from Ashkelon, via Gath, to Hebron and on to En-gedi on the Dead Sea. Another road led from Joppa east up the valley of Aijalon (Jos 10:6-14) to Bethel and on to Jericho. One well-used road led from Joppa to Shechem, across the Jordan at Adam (3:16) and into Gilead in Transjordan. Other roads led from Acco eastward to Galilee and also up the coast to Tyre and Sidon. There were, indeed, numerous east-west roads that provided contact between various parts of Palestine. In Roman times, when the speedy movement of armies was essential, some of the old roads were greatly improved and new ones built.<\/p>\n<h5>Sea Lanes<\/h5>\n<p>The people of Israel, unlike the Phoenicians, seldom used the sea lanes. When Solomon planned to send ships down the Red Sea to Ophir (1 Kgs 9:26-28), he used Phoenician seamen. Jehoshaphat planned a similar expedition, but his ships were wrecked (22:48-49). Coastal traffic in OT times was in the hands of Philistines and Phoenicians. There were several ports along the Mediterranean Sea coast, such as Gaza, Joppa, Dor, and Acco, but none was very good. There were also sea lanes linking the Mediterranean coast with Egypt and distant Tarshish (probably Spain). The other coastal water was the Gulf of Aqaba with its two ports—Ezion-geber for Transjordan, and Elath for west of the Jordan. Solomon’s fleet used Ezion-geber as its home port.<\/p>\n\n<p>In NT times things changed considerably. The Middle East produced commodities used by peoples farther west, especially the Romans. Alexandria in Egypt and Antioch in Syria handled both cargo and travelers. Smaller ports like those in Palestine and many others around the coast of Asia Minor provided a haven for ships. One ingenious scheme to avoid a 200-mile (321.8-kilometer) journey around the Greek peninsula was to drag small boats across the five-mile- (8-kilometer-) wide isthmus at Corinth. Even the largest ship in NT times was in danger from wind and storm at sea (Acts 27), so sea travel was undertaken preferably when the risk of storms was minimal, roughly from November to March. There was a lot of sea traffic in the Mediterranean Sea at appropriate seasons, largely for trade. Grain ships crossed regularly from Rome to Egypt and to the east.<\/p>\n<p>Ships were driven by sail power supplemented as necessary by oars operated by slaves. Some indication of the size of ships comes from the discovery of ancient wrecks and from Latin and Greek literature. An old dry dock 130 feet (39.6 meters) long found near Athens was once used for Greek war vessels, which were smaller than the cargo vessels. The Roman writer Lucian refers to an Alexandrian grain ship 180 feet (54.9 meters) long, suggesting a capacity of about 1,200 tons (1,088.6 metric tons). Paul’s ship carried 276 persons (Acts 27:37). Modern underwater archaeology is providing valuable information about these ancient ships.<\/p>\n<h5>Reasons for Travel<\/h5>\n<p>The most important reason for travel in NT times was for trade and commerce, which involved far more than merely transporting goods. There were agents, supervisors, insurers of cargo, bankers, and a whole range of people involved in the acquisition and safe delivery of the cargo.<\/p>\n<p>Military travel was considerable. A wide variety of tasks had to be undertaken in the way of reconnaissance, procuring of supplies, forward arrangements for the bivouacking of troops, and the transport of both troops and equipment.<\/p>\n<p>Some travelers were tradespeople changing their place of employment, like Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2-3). Aquila had traveled from Pontus on the Black Sea to Rome and then, in a time of persecution, he had fled to Corinth with his wife. Many others traveled for similar reasons.<\/p>\n<p>People on religious pilgrimage traveled by land or sea. Jews from many lands journeyed to Jerusalem for the annual Passover festivities (cf. Acts 2:5-11). Non-Jews went to religious centers at Ephesus, Athens, and Eleusis, where there were important temples. Many minor temples also attracted pilgrims. The construction of new temples and a variety of government administration buildings brought craftsmen from afar. Often the materials used in construction had to be transported to the site. Some people made trips for health reasons to temples famed for healing miracles or to enjoy the benefits of hot springs like those at Capernaum or Tiberias. Athletes traveled to centers for important contests like the Olympic games, and crowds of people flocked to witness the spectacle. Some travelers were students or teachers going to great centers of learning—the universities of those times. Yet others traveled as official emissaries bearing important government and commercial documents. Despite all this activity, vast numbers of ordinary citizens hardly ever traveled more than a few miles from their homes.<\/p>","summary_ro":"TRAVEL In biblical times travelers found roads bad and often impassable. Sea voyages were made in comparatively small ships, usually by military and commercial personnel, and hardly ever for simple tourist traffic. With little reason to travel, ordinary citizens tended to remain in fairly limited areas. From time to time, there were group migrations, and sometimes people traveled for religious festivals or fled from war or famine. Travel in Old Testament Times Several accounts depict the peop...","summary_en":"TRAVEL In biblical times travelers found roads bad and often impassable. Sea voyages were made in comparatively small ships, usually by military and commercial personnel, and hardly ever for simple tourist traffic. With little reason to travel, ordinary citizens tended to remain in fairly limited areas. From time to time, there were group migrations, and sometimes people traveled for religious festivals or fled from war or famine. Travel in Old Testament Times Several accounts depict the peop...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":39977,"type":"textbox","type_label":"Notă explicativă","type_icon":"💡","type_color":"#8b5cf6","title_ro":"Brothers, Stepbrothers, or Cousins?","title_en":"Brothers, Stepbrothers, or Cousins?","content_ro":"<h3>Brothers, Stepbrothers, or Cousins?<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>Whether the “brothers of Jesus” were half brothers (children of Mary by Joseph), stepbrothers (children of Joseph by a former marriage), or cousins (children of Mary’s sister) is a matter of controversy. The Protestant position maintains that the brothers were actual half brothers of Jesus. The Roman Catholic position asserts that the four were cousins of Jesus. The Greek Orthodox position agrees with the Roman Catholic stance that Mary and Joseph had no other children, but assumes that the brothers and sisters were Joseph’s by a former wife.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Protestants contend that not only the four brothers but at least two sisters were the children of Mary and Joseph. The plain sense of several passages is in favor of the usual meaning of the word “brother,” since no instance of a wider use of that word for actual kinship appears in the NT. Consistent with that understanding of “brother,” wherever brothers and sisters of Jesus are mentioned (except Jn 7 and 1 Cor 9), is their appearance in close connection with Jesus and his mother, evidently one family under Mary’s care. That closeness could possibly fit their being Mary’s stepchildren, but it makes it less likely that they were only cousins of Jesus.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Brothers, Stepbrothers, or Cousins?<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>Whether the “brothers of Jesus” were half brothers (children of Mary by Joseph), stepbrothers (children of Joseph by a former marriage), or cousins (children of Mary’s sister) is a matter of controversy. The Protestant position maintains that the brothers were actual half brothers of Jesus. The Roman Catholic position asserts that the four were cousins of Jesus. The Greek Orthodox position agrees with the Roman Catholic stance that Mary and Joseph had no other children, but assumes that the brothers and sisters were Joseph’s by a former wife.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Protestants contend that not only the four brothers but at least two sisters were the children of Mary and Joseph. The plain sense of several passages is in favor of the usual meaning of the word “brother,” since no instance of a wider use of that word for actual kinship appears in the NT. Consistent with that understanding of “brother,” wherever brothers and sisters of Jesus are mentioned (except Jn 7 and 1 Cor 9), is their appearance in close connection with Jesus and his mother, evidently one family under Mary’s care. That closeness could possibly fit their being Mary’s stepchildren, but it makes it less likely that they were only cousins of Jesus.<\/p>","summary_ro":"Brothers, Stepbrothers, or Cousins? Whether the “brothers of Jesus” were half brothers (children of Mary by Joseph), stepbrothers (children of Joseph by a former marriage), or cousins (children of Mary’s sister) is a matter of controversy. The Protestant position maintains that the brothers were actual half brothers of Jesus. The Roman Catholic position asserts that the four were cousins of Jesus. The Greek Orthodox position agrees with the Roman Catholic stance that Mary and Joseph had no ot...","summary_en":"Brothers, Stepbrothers, or Cousins? Whether the “brothers of Jesus” were half brothers (children of Mary by Joseph), stepbrothers (children of Joseph by a former marriage), or cousins (children of Mary’s sister) is a matter of controversy. The Protestant position maintains that the brothers were actual half brothers of Jesus. The Roman Catholic position asserts that the four were cousins of Jesus. The Greek Orthodox position agrees with the Roman Catholic stance that Mary and Joseph had no ot...","source":"Textboxes\/Textboxes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":56457,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:1-52<\/strong> This chapter is another account of Jesus during a Jewish festival, the Festival of Shelters. Jesus used elements of the festival to reveal his true identity to his Jewish compatriots and to show that he had fulfilled the festival’s essential meaning (see 7:37-39; 8:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:1-52<\/strong> This chapter is another account of Jesus during a Jewish festival, the Festival of Shelters. Jesus used elements of the festival to reveal his true identity to his Jewish compatriots and to show that he had fulfilled the festival’s essential meaning (see 7:37-39; 8:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:1-52 This chapter is another account of Jesus during a Jewish festival, the Festival of Shelters. Jesus used elements of the festival to reveal his true identity to his Jewish compatriots and to show that he had fulfilled the festival’s essential meaning (see 7:37-39; 8:12).","summary_en":"7:1-52 This chapter is another account of Jesus during a Jewish festival, the Festival of Shelters. Jesus used elements of the festival to reveal his true identity to his Jewish compatriots and to show that he had fulfilled the festival’s essential meaning (see 7:37-39; 8:12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":84083,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:1-52<\/strong> This chapter is another account of Jesus during a Jewish festival, the Festival of Shelters. Jesus used elements of the festival to reveal his true identity to his Jewish compatriots and to show that he had fulfilled the festival’s essential meaning (see 7:37-39; 8:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:1-52<\/strong> This chapter is another account of Jesus during a Jewish festival, the Festival of Shelters. Jesus used elements of the festival to reveal his true identity to his Jewish compatriots and to show that he had fulfilled the festival’s essential meaning (see 7:37-39; 8:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:1-52 This chapter is another account of Jesus during a Jewish festival, the Festival of Shelters. Jesus used elements of the festival to reveal his true identity to his Jewish compatriots and to show that he had fulfilled the festival’s essential meaning (see 7:37-39; 8:12).","summary_en":"7:1-52 This chapter is another account of Jesus during a Jewish festival, the Festival of Shelters. Jesus used elements of the festival to reveal his true identity to his Jewish compatriots and to show that he had fulfilled the festival’s essential meaning (see 7:37-39; 8:12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":111709,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:1-52<\/strong> This chapter is another account of Jesus during a Jewish festival, the Festival of Shelters. Jesus used elements of the festival to reveal his true identity to his Jewish compatriots and to show that he had fulfilled the festival’s essential meaning (see 7:37-39; 8:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:1-52<\/strong> This chapter is another account of Jesus during a Jewish festival, the Festival of Shelters. Jesus used elements of the festival to reveal his true identity to his Jewish compatriots and to show that he had fulfilled the festival’s essential meaning (see 7:37-39; 8:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:1-52 This chapter is another account of Jesus during a Jewish festival, the Festival of Shelters. Jesus used elements of the festival to reveal his true identity to his Jewish compatriots and to show that he had fulfilled the festival’s essential meaning (see 7:37-39; 8:12).","summary_en":"7:1-52 This chapter is another account of Jesus during a Jewish festival, the Festival of Shelters. Jesus used elements of the festival to reveal his true identity to his Jewish compatriots and to show that he had fulfilled the festival’s essential meaning (see 7:37-39; 8:12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":139335,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:1-52<\/strong> This chapter is another account of Jesus during a Jewish festival, the Festival of Shelters. Jesus used elements of the festival to reveal his true identity to his Jewish compatriots and to show that he had fulfilled the festival’s essential meaning (see 7:37-39; 8:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:1-52<\/strong> This chapter is another account of Jesus during a Jewish festival, the Festival of Shelters. Jesus used elements of the festival to reveal his true identity to his Jewish compatriots and to show that he had fulfilled the festival’s essential meaning (see 7:37-39; 8:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:1-52 This chapter is another account of Jesus during a Jewish festival, the Festival of Shelters. Jesus used elements of the festival to reveal his true identity to his Jewish compatriots and to show that he had fulfilled the festival’s essential meaning (see 7:37-39; 8:12).","summary_en":"7:1-52 This chapter is another account of Jesus during a Jewish festival, the Festival of Shelters. Jesus used elements of the festival to reveal his true identity to his Jewish compatriots and to show that he had fulfilled the festival’s essential meaning (see 7:37-39; 8:12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"2":[{"id":42653,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"James, Brother of Jesus","title_en":"James, Brother of Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>James, Brother of Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>James, one of Jesus’ brothers (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal 1:19; cp. Jude 1:1), became the recognized leader of the church in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ resurrection. He is traditionally recognized as the author of the book of James.<\/p>\n<p>Though Jesus’ brothers were initially skeptical of his claims (John 7:2-5), they later became believers (Acts 1:14). James’s personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor 15:7) might have helped convince him. Two of Jesus’ brothers (James and Jude) are known to have played significant roles in the early Christian community. James quickly rose to the position of leader of the church in Jerusalem. At the council in Jerusalem, James was instrumental in getting the Jewish church leaders to accept Gentile believers without requiring that they be circumcised—a decision of major importance for Paul and the early mission to Gentiles (Acts 15:13-21). Paul visited James in Jerusalem after his third missionary trip (Acts 21:18), just as he had done earlier, following his conversion (Gal 1:19).<\/p>\n<p>Like most Jewish Christians, James continued to observe the law of Moses. He emphasized the need for believers to observe certain key laws when among Jews (Acts 15:20-21; 21:18-25). James acknowledged the validity of Paul’s missionary calling and emphasis on salvation by faith alone (Gal 2:6-9), but many Jewish Christians did not. These Jewish believers—whom Paul does link with James on one occasion (see Gal 2:12)—demanded that Gentile converts be circumcised and observe the law of Moses in order to join the Christian community.<\/p>\n<p>James’s Jewish background is reflected in his letter, which is full of wise, practical advice for living, much of it in line with the traditional wisdom teaching of Jewish Scripture. One paragraph of his letter (Jas 5:1-6) reads very much like the work of the Old Testament prophets (e.g., cp. Amos 5:21-24; 6:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>James, titled “the Just” by his contemporaries, was apparently put to death for his faith by Jewish priests in Jerusalem (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 20.9; Eusebius, <em>Church History<\/em> 2.23.4–18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Acts 12:17; 15:13-21; 21:18-25; 1 Cor 15:7; Gal 2:9, 12; Jas 1:1–5:20; Jude 1:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>James, Brother of Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>James, one of Jesus’ brothers (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal 1:19; cp. Jude 1:1), became the recognized leader of the church in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ resurrection. He is traditionally recognized as the author of the book of James.<\/p>\n<p>Though Jesus’ brothers were initially skeptical of his claims (John 7:2-5), they later became believers (Acts 1:14). James’s personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor 15:7) might have helped convince him. Two of Jesus’ brothers (James and Jude) are known to have played significant roles in the early Christian community. James quickly rose to the position of leader of the church in Jerusalem. At the council in Jerusalem, James was instrumental in getting the Jewish church leaders to accept Gentile believers without requiring that they be circumcised—a decision of major importance for Paul and the early mission to Gentiles (Acts 15:13-21). Paul visited James in Jerusalem after his third missionary trip (Acts 21:18), just as he had done earlier, following his conversion (Gal 1:19).<\/p>\n<p>Like most Jewish Christians, James continued to observe the law of Moses. He emphasized the need for believers to observe certain key laws when among Jews (Acts 15:20-21; 21:18-25). James acknowledged the validity of Paul’s missionary calling and emphasis on salvation by faith alone (Gal 2:6-9), but many Jewish Christians did not. These Jewish believers—whom Paul does link with James on one occasion (see Gal 2:12)—demanded that Gentile converts be circumcised and observe the law of Moses in order to join the Christian community.<\/p>\n<p>James’s Jewish background is reflected in his letter, which is full of wise, practical advice for living, much of it in line with the traditional wisdom teaching of Jewish Scripture. One paragraph of his letter (Jas 5:1-6) reads very much like the work of the Old Testament prophets (e.g., cp. Amos 5:21-24; 6:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>James, titled “the Just” by his contemporaries, was apparently put to death for his faith by Jewish priests in Jerusalem (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 20.9; Eusebius, <em>Church History<\/em> 2.23.4–18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Acts 12:17; 15:13-21; 21:18-25; 1 Cor 15:7; Gal 2:9, 12; Jas 1:1–5:20; Jude 1:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"James, Brother of Jesus James, one of Jesus’ brothers (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal 1:19; cp. Jude 1:1), became the recognized leader of the church in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ resurrection. He is traditionally recognized as the author of the book of James. Though Jesus’ brothers were initially skeptical of his claims (John 7:2-5), they later became believers (Acts 1:14). James’s personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor 15:7) might have helped convince him. Two of Jesus’ brother...","summary_en":"James, Brother of Jesus James, one of Jesus’ brothers (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal 1:19; cp. Jude 1:1), became the recognized leader of the church in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ resurrection. He is traditionally recognized as the author of the book of James. Though Jesus’ brothers were initially skeptical of his claims (John 7:2-5), they later became believers (Acts 1:14). James’s personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor 15:7) might have helped convince him. Two of Jesus’ brother...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70279,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"James, Brother of Jesus","title_en":"James, Brother of Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>James, Brother of Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>James, one of Jesus’ brothers (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal 1:19; cp. Jude 1:1), became the recognized leader of the church in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ resurrection. He is traditionally recognized as the author of the book of James.<\/p>\n<p>Though Jesus’ brothers were initially skeptical of his claims (John 7:2-5), they later became believers (Acts 1:14). James’s personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor 15:7) might have helped convince him. Two of Jesus’ brothers (James and Jude) are known to have played significant roles in the early Christian community. James quickly rose to the position of leader of the church in Jerusalem. At the council in Jerusalem, James was instrumental in getting the Jewish church leaders to accept Gentile believers without requiring that they be circumcised—a decision of major importance for Paul and the early mission to Gentiles (Acts 15:13-21). Paul visited James in Jerusalem after his third missionary trip (Acts 21:18), just as he had done earlier, following his conversion (Gal 1:19).<\/p>\n<p>Like most Jewish Christians, James continued to observe the law of Moses. He emphasized the need for believers to observe certain key laws when among Jews (Acts 15:20-21; 21:18-25). James acknowledged the validity of Paul’s missionary calling and emphasis on salvation by faith alone (Gal 2:6-9), but many Jewish Christians did not. These Jewish believers—whom Paul does link with James on one occasion (see Gal 2:12)—demanded that Gentile converts be circumcised and observe the law of Moses in order to join the Christian community.<\/p>\n<p>James’s Jewish background is reflected in his letter, which is full of wise, practical advice for living, much of it in line with the traditional wisdom teaching of Jewish Scripture. One paragraph of his letter (Jas 5:1-6) reads very much like the work of the Old Testament prophets (e.g., cp. Amos 5:21-24; 6:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>James, titled “the Just” by his contemporaries, was apparently put to death for his faith by Jewish priests in Jerusalem (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 20.9; Eusebius, <em>Church History<\/em> 2.23.4–18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Acts 12:17; 15:13-21; 21:18-25; 1 Cor 15:7; Gal 2:9, 12; Jas 1:1–5:20; Jude 1:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>James, Brother of Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>James, one of Jesus’ brothers (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal 1:19; cp. Jude 1:1), became the recognized leader of the church in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ resurrection. He is traditionally recognized as the author of the book of James.<\/p>\n<p>Though Jesus’ brothers were initially skeptical of his claims (John 7:2-5), they later became believers (Acts 1:14). James’s personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor 15:7) might have helped convince him. Two of Jesus’ brothers (James and Jude) are known to have played significant roles in the early Christian community. James quickly rose to the position of leader of the church in Jerusalem. At the council in Jerusalem, James was instrumental in getting the Jewish church leaders to accept Gentile believers without requiring that they be circumcised—a decision of major importance for Paul and the early mission to Gentiles (Acts 15:13-21). Paul visited James in Jerusalem after his third missionary trip (Acts 21:18), just as he had done earlier, following his conversion (Gal 1:19).<\/p>\n<p>Like most Jewish Christians, James continued to observe the law of Moses. He emphasized the need for believers to observe certain key laws when among Jews (Acts 15:20-21; 21:18-25). James acknowledged the validity of Paul’s missionary calling and emphasis on salvation by faith alone (Gal 2:6-9), but many Jewish Christians did not. These Jewish believers—whom Paul does link with James on one occasion (see Gal 2:12)—demanded that Gentile converts be circumcised and observe the law of Moses in order to join the Christian community.<\/p>\n<p>James’s Jewish background is reflected in his letter, which is full of wise, practical advice for living, much of it in line with the traditional wisdom teaching of Jewish Scripture. One paragraph of his letter (Jas 5:1-6) reads very much like the work of the Old Testament prophets (e.g., cp. Amos 5:21-24; 6:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>James, titled “the Just” by his contemporaries, was apparently put to death for his faith by Jewish priests in Jerusalem (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 20.9; Eusebius, <em>Church History<\/em> 2.23.4–18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Acts 12:17; 15:13-21; 21:18-25; 1 Cor 15:7; Gal 2:9, 12; Jas 1:1–5:20; Jude 1:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"James, Brother of Jesus James, one of Jesus’ brothers (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal 1:19; cp. Jude 1:1), became the recognized leader of the church in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ resurrection. He is traditionally recognized as the author of the book of James. Though Jesus’ brothers were initially skeptical of his claims (John 7:2-5), they later became believers (Acts 1:14). James’s personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor 15:7) might have helped convince him. Two of Jesus’ brother...","summary_en":"James, Brother of Jesus James, one of Jesus’ brothers (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal 1:19; cp. Jude 1:1), became the recognized leader of the church in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ resurrection. He is traditionally recognized as the author of the book of James. Though Jesus’ brothers were initially skeptical of his claims (John 7:2-5), they later became believers (Acts 1:14). James’s personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor 15:7) might have helped convince him. Two of Jesus’ brother...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97905,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"James, Brother of Jesus","title_en":"James, Brother of Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>James, Brother of Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>James, one of Jesus’ brothers (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal 1:19; cp. Jude 1:1), became the recognized leader of the church in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ resurrection. He is traditionally recognized as the author of the book of James.<\/p>\n<p>Though Jesus’ brothers were initially skeptical of his claims (John 7:2-5), they later became believers (Acts 1:14). James’s personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor 15:7) might have helped convince him. Two of Jesus’ brothers (James and Jude) are known to have played significant roles in the early Christian community. James quickly rose to the position of leader of the church in Jerusalem. At the council in Jerusalem, James was instrumental in getting the Jewish church leaders to accept Gentile believers without requiring that they be circumcised—a decision of major importance for Paul and the early mission to Gentiles (Acts 15:13-21). Paul visited James in Jerusalem after his third missionary trip (Acts 21:18), just as he had done earlier, following his conversion (Gal 1:19).<\/p>\n<p>Like most Jewish Christians, James continued to observe the law of Moses. He emphasized the need for believers to observe certain key laws when among Jews (Acts 15:20-21; 21:18-25). James acknowledged the validity of Paul’s missionary calling and emphasis on salvation by faith alone (Gal 2:6-9), but many Jewish Christians did not. These Jewish believers—whom Paul does link with James on one occasion (see Gal 2:12)—demanded that Gentile converts be circumcised and observe the law of Moses in order to join the Christian community.<\/p>\n<p>James’s Jewish background is reflected in his letter, which is full of wise, practical advice for living, much of it in line with the traditional wisdom teaching of Jewish Scripture. One paragraph of his letter (Jas 5:1-6) reads very much like the work of the Old Testament prophets (e.g., cp. Amos 5:21-24; 6:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>James, titled “the Just” by his contemporaries, was apparently put to death for his faith by Jewish priests in Jerusalem (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 20.9; Eusebius, <em>Church History<\/em> 2.23.4–18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Acts 12:17; 15:13-21; 21:18-25; 1 Cor 15:7; Gal 2:9, 12; Jas 1:1–5:20; Jude 1:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>James, Brother of Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>James, one of Jesus’ brothers (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal 1:19; cp. Jude 1:1), became the recognized leader of the church in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ resurrection. He is traditionally recognized as the author of the book of James.<\/p>\n<p>Though Jesus’ brothers were initially skeptical of his claims (John 7:2-5), they later became believers (Acts 1:14). James’s personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor 15:7) might have helped convince him. Two of Jesus’ brothers (James and Jude) are known to have played significant roles in the early Christian community. James quickly rose to the position of leader of the church in Jerusalem. At the council in Jerusalem, James was instrumental in getting the Jewish church leaders to accept Gentile believers without requiring that they be circumcised—a decision of major importance for Paul and the early mission to Gentiles (Acts 15:13-21). Paul visited James in Jerusalem after his third missionary trip (Acts 21:18), just as he had done earlier, following his conversion (Gal 1:19).<\/p>\n<p>Like most Jewish Christians, James continued to observe the law of Moses. He emphasized the need for believers to observe certain key laws when among Jews (Acts 15:20-21; 21:18-25). James acknowledged the validity of Paul’s missionary calling and emphasis on salvation by faith alone (Gal 2:6-9), but many Jewish Christians did not. These Jewish believers—whom Paul does link with James on one occasion (see Gal 2:12)—demanded that Gentile converts be circumcised and observe the law of Moses in order to join the Christian community.<\/p>\n<p>James’s Jewish background is reflected in his letter, which is full of wise, practical advice for living, much of it in line with the traditional wisdom teaching of Jewish Scripture. One paragraph of his letter (Jas 5:1-6) reads very much like the work of the Old Testament prophets (e.g., cp. Amos 5:21-24; 6:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>James, titled “the Just” by his contemporaries, was apparently put to death for his faith by Jewish priests in Jerusalem (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 20.9; Eusebius, <em>Church History<\/em> 2.23.4–18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Acts 12:17; 15:13-21; 21:18-25; 1 Cor 15:7; Gal 2:9, 12; Jas 1:1–5:20; Jude 1:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"James, Brother of Jesus James, one of Jesus’ brothers (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal 1:19; cp. Jude 1:1), became the recognized leader of the church in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ resurrection. He is traditionally recognized as the author of the book of James. Though Jesus’ brothers were initially skeptical of his claims (John 7:2-5), they later became believers (Acts 1:14). James’s personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor 15:7) might have helped convince him. Two of Jesus’ brother...","summary_en":"James, Brother of Jesus James, one of Jesus’ brothers (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal 1:19; cp. Jude 1:1), became the recognized leader of the church in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ resurrection. He is traditionally recognized as the author of the book of James. Though Jesus’ brothers were initially skeptical of his claims (John 7:2-5), they later became believers (Acts 1:14). James’s personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor 15:7) might have helped convince him. Two of Jesus’ brother...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125531,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"James, Brother of Jesus","title_en":"James, Brother of Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>James, Brother of Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>James, one of Jesus’ brothers (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal 1:19; cp. Jude 1:1), became the recognized leader of the church in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ resurrection. He is traditionally recognized as the author of the book of James.<\/p>\n<p>Though Jesus’ brothers were initially skeptical of his claims (John 7:2-5), they later became believers (Acts 1:14). James’s personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor 15:7) might have helped convince him. Two of Jesus’ brothers (James and Jude) are known to have played significant roles in the early Christian community. James quickly rose to the position of leader of the church in Jerusalem. At the council in Jerusalem, James was instrumental in getting the Jewish church leaders to accept Gentile believers without requiring that they be circumcised—a decision of major importance for Paul and the early mission to Gentiles (Acts 15:13-21). Paul visited James in Jerusalem after his third missionary trip (Acts 21:18), just as he had done earlier, following his conversion (Gal 1:19).<\/p>\n<p>Like most Jewish Christians, James continued to observe the law of Moses. He emphasized the need for believers to observe certain key laws when among Jews (Acts 15:20-21; 21:18-25). James acknowledged the validity of Paul’s missionary calling and emphasis on salvation by faith alone (Gal 2:6-9), but many Jewish Christians did not. These Jewish believers—whom Paul does link with James on one occasion (see Gal 2:12)—demanded that Gentile converts be circumcised and observe the law of Moses in order to join the Christian community.<\/p>\n<p>James’s Jewish background is reflected in his letter, which is full of wise, practical advice for living, much of it in line with the traditional wisdom teaching of Jewish Scripture. One paragraph of his letter (Jas 5:1-6) reads very much like the work of the Old Testament prophets (e.g., cp. Amos 5:21-24; 6:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>James, titled “the Just” by his contemporaries, was apparently put to death for his faith by Jewish priests in Jerusalem (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 20.9; Eusebius, <em>Church History<\/em> 2.23.4–18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Acts 12:17; 15:13-21; 21:18-25; 1 Cor 15:7; Gal 2:9, 12; Jas 1:1–5:20; Jude 1:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>James, Brother of Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>James, one of Jesus’ brothers (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal 1:19; cp. Jude 1:1), became the recognized leader of the church in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ resurrection. He is traditionally recognized as the author of the book of James.<\/p>\n<p>Though Jesus’ brothers were initially skeptical of his claims (John 7:2-5), they later became believers (Acts 1:14). James’s personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor 15:7) might have helped convince him. Two of Jesus’ brothers (James and Jude) are known to have played significant roles in the early Christian community. James quickly rose to the position of leader of the church in Jerusalem. At the council in Jerusalem, James was instrumental in getting the Jewish church leaders to accept Gentile believers without requiring that they be circumcised—a decision of major importance for Paul and the early mission to Gentiles (Acts 15:13-21). Paul visited James in Jerusalem after his third missionary trip (Acts 21:18), just as he had done earlier, following his conversion (Gal 1:19).<\/p>\n<p>Like most Jewish Christians, James continued to observe the law of Moses. He emphasized the need for believers to observe certain key laws when among Jews (Acts 15:20-21; 21:18-25). James acknowledged the validity of Paul’s missionary calling and emphasis on salvation by faith alone (Gal 2:6-9), but many Jewish Christians did not. These Jewish believers—whom Paul does link with James on one occasion (see Gal 2:12)—demanded that Gentile converts be circumcised and observe the law of Moses in order to join the Christian community.<\/p>\n<p>James’s Jewish background is reflected in his letter, which is full of wise, practical advice for living, much of it in line with the traditional wisdom teaching of Jewish Scripture. One paragraph of his letter (Jas 5:1-6) reads very much like the work of the Old Testament prophets (e.g., cp. Amos 5:21-24; 6:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>James, titled “the Just” by his contemporaries, was apparently put to death for his faith by Jewish priests in Jerusalem (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 20.9; Eusebius, <em>Church History<\/em> 2.23.4–18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Acts 12:17; 15:13-21; 21:18-25; 1 Cor 15:7; Gal 2:9, 12; Jas 1:1–5:20; Jude 1:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"James, Brother of Jesus James, one of Jesus’ brothers (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal 1:19; cp. Jude 1:1), became the recognized leader of the church in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ resurrection. He is traditionally recognized as the author of the book of James. Though Jesus’ brothers were initially skeptical of his claims (John 7:2-5), they later became believers (Acts 1:14). James’s personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor 15:7) might have helped convince him. Two of Jesus’ brother...","summary_en":"James, Brother of Jesus James, one of Jesus’ brothers (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal 1:19; cp. Jude 1:1), became the recognized leader of the church in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ resurrection. He is traditionally recognized as the author of the book of James. Though Jesus’ brothers were initially skeptical of his claims (John 7:2-5), they later became believers (Acts 1:14). James’s personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor 15:7) might have helped convince him. Two of Jesus’ brother...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19488,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jesus Christ","title_en":"Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\n<p>Messiah, Savior, and founder of the Christian church.<\/p>\n<p>In providing a biography of Jesus Christ it must be borne in mind that each of the Gospels has its own distinctive purpose. Matthew, for instance, presents Jesus as the messianic King, whereas the emphasis in Mark is more on Jesus as the servant of all. Luke tends to present Jesus in a softer light, showing particularly his amazing compassion to the less fortunate, whereas John plunges the reader into a deeper and more spiritual understanding of Jesus. These different aims caused the four Evangelists to select and arrange the events of Jesus’ life differently, resulting in a fourfold portrait of the same man. It was undoubtedly for this reason that the Christian church preserved four Gospels instead of only one.<\/p>\n<p>The following sections present the main events in what may be regarded as the chief stages of the life of Jesus. These stages show a definite progression from Christ’s incarnation to his cross. The amount of space devoted to each stage in each of the Gospels is dictated by theological rather than biographical interest. The whole presentation of Christ’s life centers on the cross and the subsequent triumphant resurrection and is more an account of God’s message to humanity than a plain historic account of the life of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Incarnation<\/p>\n<p>• The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>• Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n<p>• Preparatory Events<\/p>\n<p>• The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n<p>• The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n<p>• On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n<p>• The Trial<\/p>\n<p>• The Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>• The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheIncarnation\">The Incarnation<\/p>\n<p>The major event of this initial stage was the Incarnation. Only Matthew and Luke give accounts of Jesus’ birth. John goes back and reflects on what preceded the birth.<\/p>\n<p>It may seem strange that John began his Gospel with a reference to the Word (Jn 1:1), but it is in this way that he delivers to the reader an exalted view of Jesus. John saw Jesus as existing even before the creation of the world (v 2). In fact, he saw him as having a part in the act of creation (v 3). Therefore, when Jesus was born, it was both an act of humiliation and an act of illumination. The light shone, but the world preferred to remain in darkness (vv 4-5, 10). Therefore, anyone coming to John’s records of the life of Jesus would know at once, before even being introduced to the man named Jesus, that here was the record of no ordinary man. The account of his life and teachings that followed could not be properly understood except against this background of his preexistence.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBirthofJesus\">The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>John simply wrote that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Matthew and Luke fill in some of the details of how this happened. There is little in common between the two accounts. Each approaches the subject from a different point of view, but the supernatural is evident in both. The coming of Jesus is announced beforehand, through dreams to Joseph in Matthew’s account (Mt 1:20-21) and through an angel to Mary in Luke’s account (Lk 1:26-33). Matthew leaves his readers in no doubt that the one to be born had a mission to accomplish—to save people from their sins (Mt 1:21). Luke sets his story of Jesus’ coming in an atmosphere of great rejoicing. This is seen in the inclusion of some exquisite songs, which have formed part of the church’s worship ever since (Lk 1:46-55, 68-79). The homage of the wise men in Matthew 2:1-12 is significant because it sets the scene for a universalistic emphasis that links the beginning of the Gospel to its ending (cf. Mt 28:19-20). A similar emphasis is introduced in the angel’s announcement to the shepherds in Luke 2:14 and in Simeon’s song (Lk 2:32), where he predicts that Jesus would be a light for Gentiles as well as a glory for Israel. The flight into Egypt for safety (Mt 2:13-15) shows the contribution of a gentile nation in providing protection for a Jewish child.<\/p>\n<p>One feature of the birth stories in Matthew and Luke is that they are both linked to genealogies. It is difficult to harmonize these genealogies since they appear to be drawn from different sources, but the purpose in both cases is to show that Jesus was descended from Abraham and David. The latter fact gave rise to Jesus’ title Son of David.<\/p>\n<p>Luke was the only Gospel writer who attempted to link the coming of Jesus with events in secular history. Although problems arise over the dating of the census of Quirinius (Lk 2:1-2), the firm setting of the contemporary scene is highly significant because the Christian faith is a historic faith centered on a historic person.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LifeinNazareth\">Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n<p>The years of Jesus Christ’s human development are given only a few lines in the Gospels. Details are given of only one incident belonging to the period of childhood, the discussion of the 12-year-old Jesus with the Jewish teachers in the temple (Lk 2:41-50). This event is a pointer to one of the most characteristic features of Jesus’ later ministry: his display of irrefutable wisdom in dialogue with his Jewish contemporaries. It also reveals that at an early age Jesus was acutely aware of a divine mission. Nevertheless, Luke notes that in Jesus’ formative years he was obedient to his parents (v 51). It is assumed that during 30 years at Nazareth Jesus learned the carpenter’s trade from Joseph and became the village carpenter after Joseph’s death. However, there is no account of this period in the Gospels. This has led to many fantastic imaginings about Jesus’ childhood. Many of these fables are recorded in apocryphal gospels, but Luke’s account is unembellished. Its remarkable reserve is a strong indication of its historical reliability.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PreparatoryEvents\">Preparatory Events<\/p>\n<p>All four Gospels refer to a brief preparatory period that immediately preceded the commencement of Christ’s public ministry. This period focused on three important events.<\/p>\n<h5>The Preaching of John the Baptist<\/h5>\n<p>John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness and caused an immediate stir in Judea, particularly as a result of his call to repentance and to baptism (Mt 3:1-6). John was like one of the OT prophets, but he disclaimed any importance in his own office except as the herald of a greater person to come. His stern appearance and uncompromising moral challenge effectively prepared the way for the public appearance of Jesus (Lk 3:4-6). It is important to note that John the Baptist’s announcement of the imminent coming of the kingdom (Mt 3:2) was the same theme with which Jesus began his own ministry (4:17). This shows that John the Baptist’s work was an integral part of the preparation for the public ministry of Jesus. The same may be said of the rite of baptism, although John recognized that Jesus would add a new dimension in that he would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (3:11). As the forerunner of Jesus Christ, John proclaimed that the one to follow would not only be greater than he but would also come with high standards of judgment (v 12). The stage was therefore set in stern terms for the initial public act of Jesus—his willingness to be baptized (Mt 3:13-15; Lk 3:21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Baptism of Jesus<\/h5>\n<p>John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. Since Jesus submitted to this, are we to suppose that Jesus himself needed to repent? If this were the case, it would involve the assumption that Jesus had sinned. This is contrary to other evidence in the NT. But if Jesus did not need to repent, what was the point of his requesting baptism at the hands of John? Jesus had come on a mission to others, and it is possible that he deliberately submitted to John’s baptism in order to show that he was prepared to take the place of others. This explanation is in line with Paul’s later understanding of the work of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 5:21). Matthew is the one Evangelist who records John’s hesitation to baptize Jesus (Mt 3:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>The most important part of the baptism of Jesus was the heavenly voice, which declared pleasure in the beloved Son (Mt 3:17). This announcement by God was the real starting point of the public ministry of Jesus. It revealed that the ministry was no accident or sudden inspiration on the part of Jesus. He went into his work with the full approval of the Father. A further important feature is the part played by the Holy Spirit in this scene. The dovelike description is full of symbolic meaning (v 16). It was not just an inner experience that Jesus had. The activity of the Spirit in the ministry of Jesus, although not much emphasized in the Gospels, is nevertheless sufficiently evident to be indispensable to a true understanding of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temptation of Jesus<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus’ baptism showed the nature of his mission. The temptation showed the nature of the environment in which he was to minister (Mt 4:1; Lk 4:1-2). Confrontation with adverse spiritual forces characterized Jesus’ whole ministry. Only Matthew and Luke record details of the temptations to which Jesus was subjected by the devil. All these temptations present shortcuts that, if pursued, would have deflected Jesus from his vocation. The record leaves us in no doubt that Jesus gained the victory. Both Gospels show that he accomplished this by appealing to Scripture. Jesus is also seen in this event as a genuine human who, like all other humans, was subject to temptation. The writer of the Letter to the Hebrews notes that this fact qualified Jesus to act as High Priest and to intercede on behalf of his people (Heb 2:18; 4:15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheEarlyMinistryofJesusinJudeaandSamaria\">The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n<p>Only John’s Gospel tells of the work of Jesus in Judea following his baptism. It first describes his calling of two disciples, John and Andrew (Jn 1:35-39). This event is set against the background of John the Baptist’s announcement of Jesus as the Lamb of God who was to take away the sin of the world (v 29). These first two disciples were soon joined by three others: Peter, Philip, and Nathanael (vv 41-51). These five formed part of the nucleus of Jesus’ followers who came to be known as the Twelve. One feature of John’s account is the early recognition by the disciples of Jesus as Messiah (Jn 1:41) and Son of God (v 49).<\/p>\n<p>Soon after Jesus began his ministry in Jerusalem, John relates an incident at Cana in Galilee in which water was turned into wine (Jn 2:1-10). This event is important in John’s account because it is the first of the signs that he records (v 11). He saw Jesus’ miracles as “signs” of the truth of the gospel rather than as mere wonders.<\/p>\n<p>John sets two incidents at Jerusalem in this initial period. The first is the cleansing of the temple (Jn 2:13-16). Matthew, Mark, and Luke all place this event just before Jesus’ trial, but John places it at this early stage. The moral intention of Jesus’ work is seen in his driving out the money changers who were profiting from worshipers more than was appropriate. This was apparently acceptable to Judaism but was unacceptable to Jesus. The other Evangelists imply that this authoritative act was the event that sparked the final hostility of his opponents. John tells the story for a theological reason; to him, the cleansing of the temple was a parable telling of what Jesus had come to do.<\/p>\n<p>The other incident in Jerusalem is the meeting between Jesus and Nicodemus (Jn 3). Nicodemus was closely associated with Judaism, yet he was also searching for truth. He was unable to understand, however, the spiritual truth about being born again through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>John’s story then moves from Judea to Samaria and the story of the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn 4:1-42). Jesus used her physical thirst to point to her deeper spiritual thirst. She realized that Jesus had something to offer her that she had not previously known. As a result of this woman’s experience and testimony, many of the Samaritan people came to believe in Jesus as the Savior of the world (v 42). In this case John intends that his readers would appreciate the fuller significance of the words of Jesus by viewing them in the light of the resurrection.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePeriodoftheGalileanMinistry\">The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n\n<p>Almost all the information on this period is found in the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke.) It may be conveniently divided into three sections. The first briefly outlines the events leading up to the choosing of the Twelve; the second deals with Jesus’ withdrawal from northern Galilee; and the third deals with his departure for Jerusalem. While the synoptic Gospels concentrate exclusively on the events in Galilee, John’s account indicates that there were some visits by Jesus to Jerusalem during this period. Also, John records another incident at Cana, where the son of a Capernaum official was healed. This is noted as the second of Jesus’ signs (Jn 4:54). It is chiefly important because of the extraordinary faith of the father, who was prepared to take Jesus at his word.<\/p>\n<h5>The Calling of the Disciples<\/h5>\n<p>In the synoptic Gospels there is an account of the initial call to four of the disciples to leave their fishing boats and to become fishers of men (Mt 4:18-22; Mk 1:16-20; Lk 5:1-11). They had already met Jesus and must have had some idea what was involved in following him. Jesus did not at this time appoint them to be apostles, but this call was an indispensable step toward the establishment of the Twelve as a group. Setting apart a particular number of disciples formed an important part of the ministry of Jesus. The miraculous catch of fish, which preceded the call of the disciples in Luke’s account, served to highlight the superiority of the spiritual task of catching people rather than fish.<\/p>\n<p>Another significant call came to Levi, otherwise known as Matthew (Mt 9:9; Mk 2:13-14; Lk 5:27-28). As a tax collector, he was of a different type from most of the other disciples. He would certainly have been despised by his Jewish contemporaries because of his profession. But his inclusion in the special circle of Jesus’ disciples shows the broad basis on which these men were chosen. One of the others, Simon the Zealot, may have belonged to a group of revolutionaries who were religious as well as political. Even a man like Judas Iscariot was numbered among the Twelve, and he would later betray Jesus to his enemies for a small sum of money. Jesus accepted them as they were and molded them into men who later came to learn how to be totally dependent on God and the power of his Spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>Sermon on the Mount<\/h5>\n<p>The Gospel of Matthew presents a substantial sample of Jesus’ teachings commonly called the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:1–7:29). Some of the same material occurs in Luke in a different context and different arrangement. It is possible that Jesus often repeated his teachings on different occasions and with different combinations. Matthew’s record of the Sermon on the Mount presents an impressive body of teaching, mainly of an ethical character. In it Jesus upholds the Mosaic law and at the same time goes beyond it. The beginning of this sermon has been called the Beatitudes (5:3-12). It commends moral and spiritual values. The teachings recorded in this section were radical, but not in a political sense. The Sermon on the Mount may be taken as a fair sample of the kind of discourses that must have abounded in the ministry of Jesus.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus as Healer<\/h5>\n<p>Throughout the Gospels there are records of miracles involving Jesus healing people. There are more of these miracles than any other type. In a section in Matthew devoted to a sequence of healings (Mt 8:1–9:34), a leper, a centurion’s servant, Peter’s mother-in-law, a demoniac, a paralytic, a woman with a hemorrhage, blind men, and a man who was mute—all were healed. In addition, Jairus’s daughter was raised from the dead. This concentration of healings focuses on Jesus as a miracle worker, but throughout the Gospels there is no suggestion that Jesus healed by magical means. In some cases an individual’s faith was acknowledged (8:10; 9:22). In at least one incident, the healing was accompanied by an announcement of the forgiveness of the sins of the one healed (Mt 9:2; Mk 2:5). This shows that Jesus considered spiritual needs to be of greater consequence than the physical problems.<\/p>\n<p>In view of the widespread belief in the powerful influence of evil spirits over human lives, it is of great significance that Jesus is seen exercising his power of exorcism over demons. Jesus’ ministry was set in an atmosphere of spiritual conflict, so the confrontations between the forces of darkness and the Light of the World were to be expected. Those who explain away these cases of demon-possession in psychiatric terms miss this key feature of Jesus’ ministry. Each time he exorcised a demon, he was demonstrating victory, which reached its most dramatic expression in his victory over death at his resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the healing miracles in this early section, one nature miracle is recorded, that of the stilling of the storm (Mt 8:23-27; Mk 4:35-41; Lk 8:22-25). This miracle focused both on the lack of faith in the disciples and the mysterious power of the presence of Jesus.<\/p>\n<h5>The Reaction to Jesus by His Contemporaries<\/h5>\n<p>In the early stages of his ministry, Jesus was very popular with the ordinary people. There are several notices to this effect (Mt 4:23-25; Mk 3:7-8). This popularity showed no appreciation of the spiritual purpose of Jesus’ mission (Lk 13:17). Nevertheless, it stands in stark contrast to the nit-picking opposition of the religious leaders, who even plotted to kill Jesus in the early period of his ministry (Mk 3:6).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus and the religious leaders often clashed over the observance of the Sabbath (Mt 12:1-14; Lk 13:10-17; Jn 5:9-18). Jesus adopted a more liberal view than the rigid and often illogical interpretation of some of his religious contemporaries—as in the instances when he was criticized for healing on the Sabbath even though the Jewish law allowed the rescuing of trapped animals on the Sabbath (Mt 12:11; Lk 13:15). To the Pharisaic mind, Jesus was a lawbreaker. The Pharisees feared that it would undermine their authority if his teaching were permitted to permeate popular opinion.<\/p>\n<h5>Preparing the Twelve<\/h5>\n<p>The synoptic Gospels supply lists of the names of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:2-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16). Both Matthew and Mark name them in the context of their exercising authority over evil spirits, thereby showing that these men were being called to enter the same spiritual conflict as Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The synoptic Gospels also give details of the instructions Jesus gave to these disciples before sending them to minister in Israel (Mt 10:5-42; Mk 6:7-13; Lk 9:1-6). Matthew included material in his discourse that appears in a different context in Mark and Luke, but the discourse still shows the concern of Jesus to prepare his disciples for their future work. They were to proclaim the kingdom as he had done, but they were not to suppose that all would respond to it. They were warned about coming hostility and even persecution. It is important to note that Jesus warned his disciples against encumbering themselves with material possessions. Although the instructions given related immediately to a ministry tour, he was laying the foundation for the future work of the church.<\/p>\n<h5>The Relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist<\/h5>\n<p>For a while there were parallel preaching and parallel baptisms by John the Baptist with his followers and Jesus with his disciples (Jn 4:1-2). After John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod because of his uncompromising condemnation of Herod’s marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife (Mt 14:3-4), John began to have doubts about Jesus (Mt 11:1-19; Lk 7:18-35). He may have been expecting Jesus, if he really was the Messiah, to come to his rescue. When John sent his disciples to Jesus to express his doubts, Jesus took the opportunity to tell the crowds of the greatness of John the Baptist. He said there was none born of women who was greater than John.<\/p>\n<h5>Various Controversies<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus did not hesitate to confront his contemporaries on issues that involved moral or religious questions. The controversy recorded in John’s Gospel concerning the keeping of the Sabbath that arose when a lame man was healed on that day (Jn 5:1-18) shows once again that ritual observance of the Sabbath was regarded as of greater importance than a compassionate concern for the physical welfare of the lame man. This was typical of the Jewish approach and led at once to a persecuting attitude toward Jesus, particularly because he claimed to be doing the work of God.<\/p>\n<p>A similar conflict arose after Jesus’ disciples had plucked grain in the fields on the Sabbath day (Mt 12:1-8). The Pharisees assumed that this act constituted work and saw it as a sufficient reason to plot how to destroy Jesus. After this event, he healed a paralytic on the same Sabbath day (vv 9-14). The Jewish leaders clearly regarded him as a direct threat to their position among the people.<\/p>\n<p>The rising opposition did not deter Jesus from further healings (Mt 12:15-32), which Matthew depicts as the fulfillment of Scripture. But when Jesus healed a blind and mute demoniac, the Pharisees charged him with casting out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of the demons. Jesus told them that to blaspheme the Holy Spirit was an unforgivable sin. This incident not only brings out the perversity of the religious leaders but also shows that the ministry of Jesus was under the direct control of the Spirit. Other notable miracles were the healing of the centurion’s servant, as recorded by Luke (Lk 7:1-10), and the raising from the dead of the widow’s son at Nain (vv 11-17). The former of these is notable because of the remarkable faith of a Gentile.<\/p>\n<p>Another example of the Pharisees’ criticism was when Jesus attended a meal in Simon the Pharisee’s house (Lk 7:36-50). His host had not provided for the usual courtesies toward guests and yet was critical of Jesus for allowing an immoral woman to wash his feet with tears, dry them with her hair, and anoint them with ointment. There is no doubt that most of Simon’s colleagues would have shared his reaction, but Jesus did not stop the woman because he knew that the motive impelling her to do it was love. He told Simon a parable to press home his point.<\/p>\n<p>John records two visits by Jesus to Jerusalem. These are difficult to date, but they probably occurred during the early period of the ministry. He attended the Feast of Tabernacles (Jn 7:2) and the Feast of Dedication (10:22). At these times Jesus taught in the temple area and entered into dialogue with the religious leaders. The chief priests became alarmed at his presence and sent officers to arrest him (7:32). They were unable to do so; instead, they themselves were captivated by his teachings. More discussions with the Jewish leaders followed. They charged Jesus with being demon-possessed (8:48). Both in this case and in the event of the healing of the blind man (ch 9), the hostility of the Jewish leaders to Jesus surfaces. When Jesus spoke of himself as the Shepherd, his teaching again raised the anger of his Jewish hearers, who took up stones to kill him (10:31).<\/p>\n<h5>Teaching in Parables<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew’s Gospel gives a sample of a continuous discourse by Jesus (Mt 5:1–7:29), but Jesus more often spoke in parables. Matthew collected into a group some of the parables that concern the theme of the kingdom (ch 13). Luke tends to preserve parables of a different kind that are not specially linked to the kingdom. Mark has the least number of parables among the synoptic Gospels, but his writing shows little interest in Jesus as a teacher. John does not relate any parables, although he does preserve two allegories—the Sheepfold and the Vine—which could be regarded as extended parables. The parable was a form of teaching particularly characteristic of Jesus. In addition, Jesus interspersed even his discourses with metaphors akin to the parabolic form. The parable was valuable because it could stimulate thought and challenge the hearer. This is because the form of the parable is easy to retain in the mind. Jesus did not speak in parables in order to obscure his meaning. This would be contrary to all that he aimed to do through his work and teaching.<\/p>\n<h5>Significant Events in Galilee<\/h5>\n<p>In Nazareth there was a striking instance of the unwillingness to respond to the ministry of Jesus. The people of his hometown proved so hostile that he could perform very few miracles there (Mt 13:53-58; Mk 6:1-6). This incident is important because it shows that faith was especially necessary for people to receive his healing miracles.<\/p>\n<p>The one miracle performed by Jesus that all four Evangelists describe is the feeding of the 5,000 (Mt 14:13-21; Mk 6:30-44; Lk 9:10-17; Jn 6:1-15). This occasion shows the great popularity of Jesus at this stage of his ministry. It also reveals that he was not unmindful of the physical needs of people. After this miracle, some wanted to make Jesus king. This casts considerable light on their real motives. They were more concerned with material and political expediency than with spiritual truth. This is why Jesus immediately withdrew from them. When the people found him the next day, he proceeded to instruct them about the spiritual bread that comes from heaven (Jn 6:25-40).<\/p>\n<p>At this point in John’s Gospel, Jesus is often seen in dialogue with his opponents. This style of teaching is different from the synoptic parables but familiar in Jewish-style debate. Many of the people found the spiritual themes in the teaching of Jesus too difficult to accept and consequently ceased to be his disciples (Jn 6:51-52, 60, 66). This incident demonstrates the unique challenge presented by Jesus and his teaching. Another miracle closely linked with this is when Jesus walked on the water, demonstrating his power in the natural world. Many have sought to rationalize the event by supposing that Jesus was really walking on the shore, and that the disciples did not realize this in the haze. But this miracle is no more extraordinary than the massive multiplication of loaves and fishes, nor is it inconceivable if the miracle worker was all that he claimed to be.<\/p>\n<h5>Leaving Northern Galilee<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus spent a brief time in the region of Tyre and Sidon, where he performed further healings and made it clear that his main mission was to the house of Israel (Mt 15:21-28). He then moved on to Caesarea Philippi; this was the turning point of his ministry (Mt 16:13-20; Mk 8:27-38; Lk 9:18-27). It was there that Jesus asked his disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” This caused Peter to confess: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This impressive confession led Jesus to promise that he would build his church on “this rock.” There has been much discussion about the meaning of this saying. It is open to some doubt whether Jesus intended to build his church on Peter, on his confession, or on Peter making the confession. Historically, Peter was the instrument God used for the entrance into the church of both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 2, 10). There is no doubt about Jesus’ intention to found a church, since the word occurs again in Matthew 18:17. Despite the glorious revelation of Jesus on this occasion, he took it as an opportunity to begin to inform his disciples of his death and resurrection (Mt 16:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>This revelation of Jesus was considerably reinforced by the event known as the Transfiguration, when Jesus was transformed in the presence of three of his disciples (Mt 17:1-8). It was natural for them to want to keep this glorious vision of Jesus for themselves, but the vision vanished as rapidly as it came. Its purpose was evidently to show the three leading disciples something of the nature of Jesus, which was obscured by his normal human form. A further feature of the vision was the appearance with Jesus of Moses and Elijah, representatives of the Law and the Prophets.<\/p>\n<p>After the Transfiguration, Jesus made two predictions concerning his approaching death. These announcements were a total perplexity to the disciples. In Matthew 16, when Jesus mentioned his death, Peter attempted to rebuke Jesus and was rebuked by Jesus in kind. When Jesus mentioned his death again in chapter 17, Matthew noted that the disciples were greatly distressed (Mt 17:23), while Mark and Luke mentioned the disciples’ lack of understanding (Mk 9:32; Lk 9:45). Jesus was approaching the cross with no support from those closest to him. It is not surprising that when the hour arrived they all forsook him.<\/p>\n<p>After the Transfiguration revealed that Jesus was greater than Moses and Elijah and in fact was the beloved Son of God, he was asked to pay the temple tax (Mt 17:24-27). This incident illustrates the attitude of Jesus toward the authorities and practical responsibilities. He paid the tax, although he did not acknowledge any obligation to do so. The method of payment was extraordinary, for it involved the miracle of the coin in the fish. But the greater importance of the incident is the light it throws on Jesus’ independence from the Jewish law.<\/p>\n<p>Luke devotes more than half his Gospel to the period that begins with Jesus leaving Galilee and ends with his death and resurrection in Jerusalem. In this section of his Gospel, Luke introduces a great deal of material that does not occur elsewhere. We can do no more than summarize some of the more striking items that throw light on the life of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the mission of the Twelve, Luke records the mission of the Seventy (or Seventy-two—see Lk 10:17-20). Special parables are recorded by Luke in this section—the Good Samaritan (vv 29-37), the lost sheep (15:3-7), the lost coin (vv 8-10), and the prodigal son (vv 11-32). As Jesus moved toward Jerusalem, he was concerned with developing the spiritual life of his disciples. He was mindful of the fact that he would not be with them long and wished to prepare them for the future. He taught them about prayer (11:1-13), the Father’s care for them (12:13-34), and preparation for the coming of the Son of Man (vv 35-56).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OntheWaytoJerusalem\">On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>On the approach to Jerusalem, Jesus visited both Jericho and Bethany. At Jericho he healed Bartimaeus (Lk 18:35-43) and had a fruitful encounter with Zacchaeus, who reformed his ways as a tax collector (19:1-10). Bethany was the home of Mary, Martha, and their brother, Lazarus, whom Jesus had raised from the dead (Jn 11). Jesus spent his remaining days in Jerusalem but returned each night to stay at Simon the Leper’s house in Bethany in the presence of those who loved him (Mt 26:6). It was there that a woman anointed his body with costly ointment. This was a controversial and prophetic act preparing Jesus for his burial and enhancing the gospel with loving consecration (vv 6-13).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFinalDaysinJerusalem\">The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>All four Gospels relate the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem (Mt 21:1-11; Mk 11:1-10; Lk 19:29-38; Jn 12:12-15). At this time multitudes greeted Jesus with praises acclaiming him as their king. This welcome stands in stark contrast with the crowd’s later cry for his crucifixion. In fact, it was the second crowd that was doing God’s bidding, since Jesus had not come to Jerusalem to reign but to die.<\/p>\n<p>The synoptic Gospels place the cleansing of the temple as the first main event following Jesus’ entry into the city (Mt 21:12-13; Mk 11:15-17; Lk 19:45-46). The clouds of opposition had been thickening, but the audacity of Jesus in clearing out the money changers from the temple area was too much for the authorities (Mk 11:18; Lk 19:47). The die was cast and the Crucifixion loomed closer.<\/p>\n<p>It was during this period that further controversies developed between Jesus and the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 21:23–22:45). In several cases trick questions were posed in order to trap Jesus, but with consummate skill he turned their questions against them. His opposers eventually reached the point where they dared not ask him any more questions (22:46).<\/p>\n<p>Nearing his final hour, Jesus took the opportunity to instruct his disciples about future events, especially the end of the world. He reiterated the certainty of his return and mentioned various signs that would precede that coming (Mt 24–25; Mk 13; Lk 21). The purpose of this teaching was to provide a challenge to the disciples to be watchful (Mt 25:13) and diligent (vv 14-30). This section prepares the way for the events of the arrest, the trial, the scourging, and the cross carrying and crucifixion that followed soon after. But first we must note the importance of the Last Supper.<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus sat at the table with his disciples on the night before he died, he wished to give them a simple means by which the significance of his death could be grasped (Mt 26:26-30; Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-26). The use of the bread and wine for this purpose was a happy choice because they were basic elements in everyday life. Through this symbolic significance Jesus gave an interpretation of his approaching death—his body broken and his blood poured out for others. It was necessary for Jesus to provide this reminder that his sacrificial death would seal a completely new covenant. It was to be an authentic memorial to prevent the church from losing sight of the centrality of the cross.<\/p>\n<p>John’s Gospel does not relate the institution of the Last Supper. Nevertheless, it does record a significant act in which Jesus washed the feet of the disciples as an example of humility (Jn 13:1-20). He impressed on the disciples the principle of service to others. John follows this display of humility with a series of teachings Jesus gave on the eve of the Passion (chs 14–16). The most important feature of this teaching was the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit to the disciples after Jesus had gone. Even with his mind occupied by thoughts of approaching death, Jesus showed himself more concerned about his disciples than about himself. This is evident in the prayer of Jesus in John 17. All the Evangelists refer in advance to the betrayal by Judas (Mt 26:21-25; Mk 14:18-21; Lk 22:21-23; Jn 13:21-30), which prepares readers for the final stages of the way of Jesus to the cross.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBetrayalandArrest\">The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n<p>There is a sense in which the whole gospel story has been working up to a climax of rejection. The various outbursts of popular support were soon over and the determined opposition emerged as seemingly in control. In John’s Gospel the sense of approaching climax is expressed in terms of “his hour” (Jn 13:1). When this at length comes, the betrayal and arrest are seen as part of a larger plan. From the upper room where the Last Supper was eaten, Jesus went straight to the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:36-46; Mk 14:32-42; Lk 22:40-46), where he prayed to his Father with deep intensity and agony. In this we see part of what it cost Jesus to identify himself with man’s need. He prayed for the cup of suffering to pass from him but at the same time submitted to the Father’s will. The three disciples he took with him all fell asleep, while one of his other disciples, having betrayed his master, appeared at the gates at the head of the group who had come to arrest him. At the moment of confrontation with Judas, Jesus exhibits an amazing dignity when he addressed the betrayer as his “friend” (Mt 26:50). He offered no resistance when he was arrested and chided the crowd of people for their swords and clubs (v 55).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTrial\">The Trial<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was first taken to the house of Annas, one of the high priests, for a preliminary examination (Jn 18:13). During his trial, he was scorned by his enemies, and one of his disciples, Peter, denied him three times (Mt 26:69-75; Mk 14:66-72; Lk 22:54-62; Jn 18:15-27), as Jesus predicted he would (Mt 26:34; Mk 14:30; Jn 13:38). The official trial before the Sanhedrin was presided over by Caiaphas, who was nonplussed when Jesus at first refused to speak. At length Jesus predicted that the Son of Man would come on the clouds of heaven; this was enough to make the high priest charge him with blasphemy (Mk 14:62-64). Although he was spat upon and his face was struck, Jesus remained calm and dignified. He showed how much greater he was than those who were treating him with contempt.<\/p>\n<p>The further examinations before Pilate (Mt 27:1-2; Mk 15:1; Lk 23:1; Jn 18:28) and Herod (Lk 23:7-12) were no better examples of impartial justice. Again Jesus did not answer when asked about the charges before either Pilate (Mt 27:14) or Herod (Lk 23:9). He remained majestically silent, except to make a comment to Pilate about the true nature of his kingship (Jn 18:33-38). The pathetic governor declared Jesus innocent, offered the crowds the release of either Jesus or Barabbas, and then publicly disclaimed responsibility by washing his hands. Pilate then cruelly scourged Jesus and handed him over to be crucified. This judge has ever since been judged by the prisoner.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCrucifixion\">The Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>The reader of this scene cannot help but see man’s inhumanity to man—even the man of all men, Jesus Christ. The soldiers’ ribald mockery of Jesus (Mt 27:27-30), mixing a royal robe with a hurtful crown of thorns (Mk 15:17), compelling a passerby to carry the cross (Lk 23:26), the cruel procedure of nailing Jesus to the cross, the callous casting of lots for his garment (Jn 19:23-24), and the scornful challenge to him to use his power to escape (Mt 27:40-44)—all expose the cruelty of Jesus opponents. But against this is Jesus’ concern about the repentant criminal who was crucified with him (Lk 23:39-43), his concern for his mother (Jn 19:25-27), his prayer for forgiveness for those responsible for the Crucifixion (Lk 23:34), and his final triumphant cry (Mk 15:37)—all of which show a nobility of mind that contrasted strongly with the meanness of those about him. A few observers showed a better appreciation, like the centurion who was convinced of Jesus’ innocence (Mk 15:39) and the women who followed him and stood at a distance (Mt 27:55-56). There was one dark moment, as far as Jesus was concerned—his forsaken cry, which quickly passed (Mk 15:34). There was an accompanying darkness and an earthquake, as if nature itself were acknowledging the significance of the event. Even the temple veil was torn in two, as if it had no longer any right to bar the way into the Holy of Holies (Mt 27:51).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBurialResurrectionandAscension\">The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ body was placed in a tomb that belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, who was assisted by Nicodemus in laying the body to rest (Mt 27:57-60; Jn 19:39). But the tomb played only an incidental part in the resurrection. The Evangelists concentrate on the appearances of Jesus not only on the day of resurrection but also subsequently. The disciples were convinced that Jesus was alive. Some, like Thomas, had doubts to overcome (Jn 20:24-29). Others, like John, were more ready to believe when they saw the empty tomb (vv 2-10). It is not without significance that the first to see the risen Lord was a woman, Mary Magdalene (Mt 27:61; 28:1, 5-9), whose presence at the cross put to shame those disciples who had run away (Mt 26:56; Jn 19:25).<\/p>\n<p>We may note that in his glorified, risen state Jesus was in a human form, although he was not at once recognized (Jn 20:15-16). There was a definite continuity with the Jesus the disciples had known. The appearances were occasions of both joy and instruction (cf. Lk 24:44 and Acts 1:3). The resurrection, in fact, had transformed the Crucifixion from a tragedy into a triumph. Forty days after his resurrection, Jesus ascended into heaven to join his Father in glory (Lk 24:51; Jn 20:17; Acts 1:9-11).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\n<p>Messiah, Savior, and founder of the Christian church.<\/p>\n<p>In providing a biography of Jesus Christ it must be borne in mind that each of the Gospels has its own distinctive purpose. Matthew, for instance, presents Jesus as the messianic King, whereas the emphasis in Mark is more on Jesus as the servant of all. Luke tends to present Jesus in a softer light, showing particularly his amazing compassion to the less fortunate, whereas John plunges the reader into a deeper and more spiritual understanding of Jesus. These different aims caused the four Evangelists to select and arrange the events of Jesus’ life differently, resulting in a fourfold portrait of the same man. It was undoubtedly for this reason that the Christian church preserved four Gospels instead of only one.<\/p>\n<p>The following sections present the main events in what may be regarded as the chief stages of the life of Jesus. These stages show a definite progression from Christ’s incarnation to his cross. The amount of space devoted to each stage in each of the Gospels is dictated by theological rather than biographical interest. The whole presentation of Christ’s life centers on the cross and the subsequent triumphant resurrection and is more an account of God’s message to humanity than a plain historic account of the life of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Incarnation<\/p>\n<p>• The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>• Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n<p>• Preparatory Events<\/p>\n<p>• The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n<p>• The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n<p>• On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n<p>• The Trial<\/p>\n<p>• The Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>• The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheIncarnation\">The Incarnation<\/p>\n<p>The major event of this initial stage was the Incarnation. Only Matthew and Luke give accounts of Jesus’ birth. John goes back and reflects on what preceded the birth.<\/p>\n<p>It may seem strange that John began his Gospel with a reference to the Word (Jn 1:1), but it is in this way that he delivers to the reader an exalted view of Jesus. John saw Jesus as existing even before the creation of the world (v 2). In fact, he saw him as having a part in the act of creation (v 3). Therefore, when Jesus was born, it was both an act of humiliation and an act of illumination. The light shone, but the world preferred to remain in darkness (vv 4-5, 10). Therefore, anyone coming to John’s records of the life of Jesus would know at once, before even being introduced to the man named Jesus, that here was the record of no ordinary man. The account of his life and teachings that followed could not be properly understood except against this background of his preexistence.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBirthofJesus\">The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>John simply wrote that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Matthew and Luke fill in some of the details of how this happened. There is little in common between the two accounts. Each approaches the subject from a different point of view, but the supernatural is evident in both. The coming of Jesus is announced beforehand, through dreams to Joseph in Matthew’s account (Mt 1:20-21) and through an angel to Mary in Luke’s account (Lk 1:26-33). Matthew leaves his readers in no doubt that the one to be born had a mission to accomplish—to save people from their sins (Mt 1:21). Luke sets his story of Jesus’ coming in an atmosphere of great rejoicing. This is seen in the inclusion of some exquisite songs, which have formed part of the church’s worship ever since (Lk 1:46-55, 68-79). The homage of the wise men in Matthew 2:1-12 is significant because it sets the scene for a universalistic emphasis that links the beginning of the Gospel to its ending (cf. Mt 28:19-20). A similar emphasis is introduced in the angel’s announcement to the shepherds in Luke 2:14 and in Simeon’s song (Lk 2:32), where he predicts that Jesus would be a light for Gentiles as well as a glory for Israel. The flight into Egypt for safety (Mt 2:13-15) shows the contribution of a gentile nation in providing protection for a Jewish child.<\/p>\n<p>One feature of the birth stories in Matthew and Luke is that they are both linked to genealogies. It is difficult to harmonize these genealogies since they appear to be drawn from different sources, but the purpose in both cases is to show that Jesus was descended from Abraham and David. The latter fact gave rise to Jesus’ title Son of David.<\/p>\n<p>Luke was the only Gospel writer who attempted to link the coming of Jesus with events in secular history. Although problems arise over the dating of the census of Quirinius (Lk 2:1-2), the firm setting of the contemporary scene is highly significant because the Christian faith is a historic faith centered on a historic person.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LifeinNazareth\">Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n<p>The years of Jesus Christ’s human development are given only a few lines in the Gospels. Details are given of only one incident belonging to the period of childhood, the discussion of the 12-year-old Jesus with the Jewish teachers in the temple (Lk 2:41-50). This event is a pointer to one of the most characteristic features of Jesus’ later ministry: his display of irrefutable wisdom in dialogue with his Jewish contemporaries. It also reveals that at an early age Jesus was acutely aware of a divine mission. Nevertheless, Luke notes that in Jesus’ formative years he was obedient to his parents (v 51). It is assumed that during 30 years at Nazareth Jesus learned the carpenter’s trade from Joseph and became the village carpenter after Joseph’s death. However, there is no account of this period in the Gospels. This has led to many fantastic imaginings about Jesus’ childhood. Many of these fables are recorded in apocryphal gospels, but Luke’s account is unembellished. Its remarkable reserve is a strong indication of its historical reliability.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PreparatoryEvents\">Preparatory Events<\/p>\n<p>All four Gospels refer to a brief preparatory period that immediately preceded the commencement of Christ’s public ministry. This period focused on three important events.<\/p>\n<h5>The Preaching of John the Baptist<\/h5>\n<p>John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness and caused an immediate stir in Judea, particularly as a result of his call to repentance and to baptism (Mt 3:1-6). John was like one of the OT prophets, but he disclaimed any importance in his own office except as the herald of a greater person to come. His stern appearance and uncompromising moral challenge effectively prepared the way for the public appearance of Jesus (Lk 3:4-6). It is important to note that John the Baptist’s announcement of the imminent coming of the kingdom (Mt 3:2) was the same theme with which Jesus began his own ministry (4:17). This shows that John the Baptist’s work was an integral part of the preparation for the public ministry of Jesus. The same may be said of the rite of baptism, although John recognized that Jesus would add a new dimension in that he would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (3:11). As the forerunner of Jesus Christ, John proclaimed that the one to follow would not only be greater than he but would also come with high standards of judgment (v 12). The stage was therefore set in stern terms for the initial public act of Jesus—his willingness to be baptized (Mt 3:13-15; Lk 3:21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Baptism of Jesus<\/h5>\n<p>John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. Since Jesus submitted to this, are we to suppose that Jesus himself needed to repent? If this were the case, it would involve the assumption that Jesus had sinned. This is contrary to other evidence in the NT. But if Jesus did not need to repent, what was the point of his requesting baptism at the hands of John? Jesus had come on a mission to others, and it is possible that he deliberately submitted to John’s baptism in order to show that he was prepared to take the place of others. This explanation is in line with Paul’s later understanding of the work of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 5:21). Matthew is the one Evangelist who records John’s hesitation to baptize Jesus (Mt 3:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>The most important part of the baptism of Jesus was the heavenly voice, which declared pleasure in the beloved Son (Mt 3:17). This announcement by God was the real starting point of the public ministry of Jesus. It revealed that the ministry was no accident or sudden inspiration on the part of Jesus. He went into his work with the full approval of the Father. A further important feature is the part played by the Holy Spirit in this scene. The dovelike description is full of symbolic meaning (v 16). It was not just an inner experience that Jesus had. The activity of the Spirit in the ministry of Jesus, although not much emphasized in the Gospels, is nevertheless sufficiently evident to be indispensable to a true understanding of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temptation of Jesus<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus’ baptism showed the nature of his mission. The temptation showed the nature of the environment in which he was to minister (Mt 4:1; Lk 4:1-2). Confrontation with adverse spiritual forces characterized Jesus’ whole ministry. Only Matthew and Luke record details of the temptations to which Jesus was subjected by the devil. All these temptations present shortcuts that, if pursued, would have deflected Jesus from his vocation. The record leaves us in no doubt that Jesus gained the victory. Both Gospels show that he accomplished this by appealing to Scripture. Jesus is also seen in this event as a genuine human who, like all other humans, was subject to temptation. The writer of the Letter to the Hebrews notes that this fact qualified Jesus to act as High Priest and to intercede on behalf of his people (Heb 2:18; 4:15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheEarlyMinistryofJesusinJudeaandSamaria\">The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n<p>Only John’s Gospel tells of the work of Jesus in Judea following his baptism. It first describes his calling of two disciples, John and Andrew (Jn 1:35-39). This event is set against the background of John the Baptist’s announcement of Jesus as the Lamb of God who was to take away the sin of the world (v 29). These first two disciples were soon joined by three others: Peter, Philip, and Nathanael (vv 41-51). These five formed part of the nucleus of Jesus’ followers who came to be known as the Twelve. One feature of John’s account is the early recognition by the disciples of Jesus as Messiah (Jn 1:41) and Son of God (v 49).<\/p>\n<p>Soon after Jesus began his ministry in Jerusalem, John relates an incident at Cana in Galilee in which water was turned into wine (Jn 2:1-10). This event is important in John’s account because it is the first of the signs that he records (v 11). He saw Jesus’ miracles as “signs” of the truth of the gospel rather than as mere wonders.<\/p>\n<p>John sets two incidents at Jerusalem in this initial period. The first is the cleansing of the temple (Jn 2:13-16). Matthew, Mark, and Luke all place this event just before Jesus’ trial, but John places it at this early stage. The moral intention of Jesus’ work is seen in his driving out the money changers who were profiting from worshipers more than was appropriate. This was apparently acceptable to Judaism but was unacceptable to Jesus. The other Evangelists imply that this authoritative act was the event that sparked the final hostility of his opponents. John tells the story for a theological reason; to him, the cleansing of the temple was a parable telling of what Jesus had come to do.<\/p>\n<p>The other incident in Jerusalem is the meeting between Jesus and Nicodemus (Jn 3). Nicodemus was closely associated with Judaism, yet he was also searching for truth. He was unable to understand, however, the spiritual truth about being born again through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>John’s story then moves from Judea to Samaria and the story of the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn 4:1-42). Jesus used her physical thirst to point to her deeper spiritual thirst. She realized that Jesus had something to offer her that she had not previously known. As a result of this woman’s experience and testimony, many of the Samaritan people came to believe in Jesus as the Savior of the world (v 42). In this case John intends that his readers would appreciate the fuller significance of the words of Jesus by viewing them in the light of the resurrection.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePeriodoftheGalileanMinistry\">The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n\n<p>Almost all the information on this period is found in the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke.) It may be conveniently divided into three sections. The first briefly outlines the events leading up to the choosing of the Twelve; the second deals with Jesus’ withdrawal from northern Galilee; and the third deals with his departure for Jerusalem. While the synoptic Gospels concentrate exclusively on the events in Galilee, John’s account indicates that there were some visits by Jesus to Jerusalem during this period. Also, John records another incident at Cana, where the son of a Capernaum official was healed. This is noted as the second of Jesus’ signs (Jn 4:54). It is chiefly important because of the extraordinary faith of the father, who was prepared to take Jesus at his word.<\/p>\n<h5>The Calling of the Disciples<\/h5>\n<p>In the synoptic Gospels there is an account of the initial call to four of the disciples to leave their fishing boats and to become fishers of men (Mt 4:18-22; Mk 1:16-20; Lk 5:1-11). They had already met Jesus and must have had some idea what was involved in following him. Jesus did not at this time appoint them to be apostles, but this call was an indispensable step toward the establishment of the Twelve as a group. Setting apart a particular number of disciples formed an important part of the ministry of Jesus. The miraculous catch of fish, which preceded the call of the disciples in Luke’s account, served to highlight the superiority of the spiritual task of catching people rather than fish.<\/p>\n<p>Another significant call came to Levi, otherwise known as Matthew (Mt 9:9; Mk 2:13-14; Lk 5:27-28). As a tax collector, he was of a different type from most of the other disciples. He would certainly have been despised by his Jewish contemporaries because of his profession. But his inclusion in the special circle of Jesus’ disciples shows the broad basis on which these men were chosen. One of the others, Simon the Zealot, may have belonged to a group of revolutionaries who were religious as well as political. Even a man like Judas Iscariot was numbered among the Twelve, and he would later betray Jesus to his enemies for a small sum of money. Jesus accepted them as they were and molded them into men who later came to learn how to be totally dependent on God and the power of his Spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>Sermon on the Mount<\/h5>\n<p>The Gospel of Matthew presents a substantial sample of Jesus’ teachings commonly called the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:1–7:29). Some of the same material occurs in Luke in a different context and different arrangement. It is possible that Jesus often repeated his teachings on different occasions and with different combinations. Matthew’s record of the Sermon on the Mount presents an impressive body of teaching, mainly of an ethical character. In it Jesus upholds the Mosaic law and at the same time goes beyond it. The beginning of this sermon has been called the Beatitudes (5:3-12). It commends moral and spiritual values. The teachings recorded in this section were radical, but not in a political sense. The Sermon on the Mount may be taken as a fair sample of the kind of discourses that must have abounded in the ministry of Jesus.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus as Healer<\/h5>\n<p>Throughout the Gospels there are records of miracles involving Jesus healing people. There are more of these miracles than any other type. In a section in Matthew devoted to a sequence of healings (Mt 8:1–9:34), a leper, a centurion’s servant, Peter’s mother-in-law, a demoniac, a paralytic, a woman with a hemorrhage, blind men, and a man who was mute—all were healed. In addition, Jairus’s daughter was raised from the dead. This concentration of healings focuses on Jesus as a miracle worker, but throughout the Gospels there is no suggestion that Jesus healed by magical means. In some cases an individual’s faith was acknowledged (8:10; 9:22). In at least one incident, the healing was accompanied by an announcement of the forgiveness of the sins of the one healed (Mt 9:2; Mk 2:5). This shows that Jesus considered spiritual needs to be of greater consequence than the physical problems.<\/p>\n<p>In view of the widespread belief in the powerful influence of evil spirits over human lives, it is of great significance that Jesus is seen exercising his power of exorcism over demons. Jesus’ ministry was set in an atmosphere of spiritual conflict, so the confrontations between the forces of darkness and the Light of the World were to be expected. Those who explain away these cases of demon-possession in psychiatric terms miss this key feature of Jesus’ ministry. Each time he exorcised a demon, he was demonstrating victory, which reached its most dramatic expression in his victory over death at his resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the healing miracles in this early section, one nature miracle is recorded, that of the stilling of the storm (Mt 8:23-27; Mk 4:35-41; Lk 8:22-25). This miracle focused both on the lack of faith in the disciples and the mysterious power of the presence of Jesus.<\/p>\n<h5>The Reaction to Jesus by His Contemporaries<\/h5>\n<p>In the early stages of his ministry, Jesus was very popular with the ordinary people. There are several notices to this effect (Mt 4:23-25; Mk 3:7-8). This popularity showed no appreciation of the spiritual purpose of Jesus’ mission (Lk 13:17). Nevertheless, it stands in stark contrast to the nit-picking opposition of the religious leaders, who even plotted to kill Jesus in the early period of his ministry (Mk 3:6).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus and the religious leaders often clashed over the observance of the Sabbath (Mt 12:1-14; Lk 13:10-17; Jn 5:9-18). Jesus adopted a more liberal view than the rigid and often illogical interpretation of some of his religious contemporaries—as in the instances when he was criticized for healing on the Sabbath even though the Jewish law allowed the rescuing of trapped animals on the Sabbath (Mt 12:11; Lk 13:15). To the Pharisaic mind, Jesus was a lawbreaker. The Pharisees feared that it would undermine their authority if his teaching were permitted to permeate popular opinion.<\/p>\n<h5>Preparing the Twelve<\/h5>\n<p>The synoptic Gospels supply lists of the names of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:2-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16). Both Matthew and Mark name them in the context of their exercising authority over evil spirits, thereby showing that these men were being called to enter the same spiritual conflict as Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The synoptic Gospels also give details of the instructions Jesus gave to these disciples before sending them to minister in Israel (Mt 10:5-42; Mk 6:7-13; Lk 9:1-6). Matthew included material in his discourse that appears in a different context in Mark and Luke, but the discourse still shows the concern of Jesus to prepare his disciples for their future work. They were to proclaim the kingdom as he had done, but they were not to suppose that all would respond to it. They were warned about coming hostility and even persecution. It is important to note that Jesus warned his disciples against encumbering themselves with material possessions. Although the instructions given related immediately to a ministry tour, he was laying the foundation for the future work of the church.<\/p>\n<h5>The Relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist<\/h5>\n<p>For a while there were parallel preaching and parallel baptisms by John the Baptist with his followers and Jesus with his disciples (Jn 4:1-2). After John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod because of his uncompromising condemnation of Herod’s marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife (Mt 14:3-4), John began to have doubts about Jesus (Mt 11:1-19; Lk 7:18-35). He may have been expecting Jesus, if he really was the Messiah, to come to his rescue. When John sent his disciples to Jesus to express his doubts, Jesus took the opportunity to tell the crowds of the greatness of John the Baptist. He said there was none born of women who was greater than John.<\/p>\n<h5>Various Controversies<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus did not hesitate to confront his contemporaries on issues that involved moral or religious questions. The controversy recorded in John’s Gospel concerning the keeping of the Sabbath that arose when a lame man was healed on that day (Jn 5:1-18) shows once again that ritual observance of the Sabbath was regarded as of greater importance than a compassionate concern for the physical welfare of the lame man. This was typical of the Jewish approach and led at once to a persecuting attitude toward Jesus, particularly because he claimed to be doing the work of God.<\/p>\n<p>A similar conflict arose after Jesus’ disciples had plucked grain in the fields on the Sabbath day (Mt 12:1-8). The Pharisees assumed that this act constituted work and saw it as a sufficient reason to plot how to destroy Jesus. After this event, he healed a paralytic on the same Sabbath day (vv 9-14). The Jewish leaders clearly regarded him as a direct threat to their position among the people.<\/p>\n<p>The rising opposition did not deter Jesus from further healings (Mt 12:15-32), which Matthew depicts as the fulfillment of Scripture. But when Jesus healed a blind and mute demoniac, the Pharisees charged him with casting out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of the demons. Jesus told them that to blaspheme the Holy Spirit was an unforgivable sin. This incident not only brings out the perversity of the religious leaders but also shows that the ministry of Jesus was under the direct control of the Spirit. Other notable miracles were the healing of the centurion’s servant, as recorded by Luke (Lk 7:1-10), and the raising from the dead of the widow’s son at Nain (vv 11-17). The former of these is notable because of the remarkable faith of a Gentile.<\/p>\n<p>Another example of the Pharisees’ criticism was when Jesus attended a meal in Simon the Pharisee’s house (Lk 7:36-50). His host had not provided for the usual courtesies toward guests and yet was critical of Jesus for allowing an immoral woman to wash his feet with tears, dry them with her hair, and anoint them with ointment. There is no doubt that most of Simon’s colleagues would have shared his reaction, but Jesus did not stop the woman because he knew that the motive impelling her to do it was love. He told Simon a parable to press home his point.<\/p>\n<p>John records two visits by Jesus to Jerusalem. These are difficult to date, but they probably occurred during the early period of the ministry. He attended the Feast of Tabernacles (Jn 7:2) and the Feast of Dedication (10:22). At these times Jesus taught in the temple area and entered into dialogue with the religious leaders. The chief priests became alarmed at his presence and sent officers to arrest him (7:32). They were unable to do so; instead, they themselves were captivated by his teachings. More discussions with the Jewish leaders followed. They charged Jesus with being demon-possessed (8:48). Both in this case and in the event of the healing of the blind man (ch 9), the hostility of the Jewish leaders to Jesus surfaces. When Jesus spoke of himself as the Shepherd, his teaching again raised the anger of his Jewish hearers, who took up stones to kill him (10:31).<\/p>\n<h5>Teaching in Parables<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew’s Gospel gives a sample of a continuous discourse by Jesus (Mt 5:1–7:29), but Jesus more often spoke in parables. Matthew collected into a group some of the parables that concern the theme of the kingdom (ch 13). Luke tends to preserve parables of a different kind that are not specially linked to the kingdom. Mark has the least number of parables among the synoptic Gospels, but his writing shows little interest in Jesus as a teacher. John does not relate any parables, although he does preserve two allegories—the Sheepfold and the Vine—which could be regarded as extended parables. The parable was a form of teaching particularly characteristic of Jesus. In addition, Jesus interspersed even his discourses with metaphors akin to the parabolic form. The parable was valuable because it could stimulate thought and challenge the hearer. This is because the form of the parable is easy to retain in the mind. Jesus did not speak in parables in order to obscure his meaning. This would be contrary to all that he aimed to do through his work and teaching.<\/p>\n<h5>Significant Events in Galilee<\/h5>\n<p>In Nazareth there was a striking instance of the unwillingness to respond to the ministry of Jesus. The people of his hometown proved so hostile that he could perform very few miracles there (Mt 13:53-58; Mk 6:1-6). This incident is important because it shows that faith was especially necessary for people to receive his healing miracles.<\/p>\n<p>The one miracle performed by Jesus that all four Evangelists describe is the feeding of the 5,000 (Mt 14:13-21; Mk 6:30-44; Lk 9:10-17; Jn 6:1-15). This occasion shows the great popularity of Jesus at this stage of his ministry. It also reveals that he was not unmindful of the physical needs of people. After this miracle, some wanted to make Jesus king. This casts considerable light on their real motives. They were more concerned with material and political expediency than with spiritual truth. This is why Jesus immediately withdrew from them. When the people found him the next day, he proceeded to instruct them about the spiritual bread that comes from heaven (Jn 6:25-40).<\/p>\n<p>At this point in John’s Gospel, Jesus is often seen in dialogue with his opponents. This style of teaching is different from the synoptic parables but familiar in Jewish-style debate. Many of the people found the spiritual themes in the teaching of Jesus too difficult to accept and consequently ceased to be his disciples (Jn 6:51-52, 60, 66). This incident demonstrates the unique challenge presented by Jesus and his teaching. Another miracle closely linked with this is when Jesus walked on the water, demonstrating his power in the natural world. Many have sought to rationalize the event by supposing that Jesus was really walking on the shore, and that the disciples did not realize this in the haze. But this miracle is no more extraordinary than the massive multiplication of loaves and fishes, nor is it inconceivable if the miracle worker was all that he claimed to be.<\/p>\n<h5>Leaving Northern Galilee<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus spent a brief time in the region of Tyre and Sidon, where he performed further healings and made it clear that his main mission was to the house of Israel (Mt 15:21-28). He then moved on to Caesarea Philippi; this was the turning point of his ministry (Mt 16:13-20; Mk 8:27-38; Lk 9:18-27). It was there that Jesus asked his disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” This caused Peter to confess: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This impressive confession led Jesus to promise that he would build his church on “this rock.” There has been much discussion about the meaning of this saying. It is open to some doubt whether Jesus intended to build his church on Peter, on his confession, or on Peter making the confession. Historically, Peter was the instrument God used for the entrance into the church of both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 2, 10). There is no doubt about Jesus’ intention to found a church, since the word occurs again in Matthew 18:17. Despite the glorious revelation of Jesus on this occasion, he took it as an opportunity to begin to inform his disciples of his death and resurrection (Mt 16:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>This revelation of Jesus was considerably reinforced by the event known as the Transfiguration, when Jesus was transformed in the presence of three of his disciples (Mt 17:1-8). It was natural for them to want to keep this glorious vision of Jesus for themselves, but the vision vanished as rapidly as it came. Its purpose was evidently to show the three leading disciples something of the nature of Jesus, which was obscured by his normal human form. A further feature of the vision was the appearance with Jesus of Moses and Elijah, representatives of the Law and the Prophets.<\/p>\n<p>After the Transfiguration, Jesus made two predictions concerning his approaching death. These announcements were a total perplexity to the disciples. In Matthew 16, when Jesus mentioned his death, Peter attempted to rebuke Jesus and was rebuked by Jesus in kind. When Jesus mentioned his death again in chapter 17, Matthew noted that the disciples were greatly distressed (Mt 17:23), while Mark and Luke mentioned the disciples’ lack of understanding (Mk 9:32; Lk 9:45). Jesus was approaching the cross with no support from those closest to him. It is not surprising that when the hour arrived they all forsook him.<\/p>\n<p>After the Transfiguration revealed that Jesus was greater than Moses and Elijah and in fact was the beloved Son of God, he was asked to pay the temple tax (Mt 17:24-27). This incident illustrates the attitude of Jesus toward the authorities and practical responsibilities. He paid the tax, although he did not acknowledge any obligation to do so. The method of payment was extraordinary, for it involved the miracle of the coin in the fish. But the greater importance of the incident is the light it throws on Jesus’ independence from the Jewish law.<\/p>\n<p>Luke devotes more than half his Gospel to the period that begins with Jesus leaving Galilee and ends with his death and resurrection in Jerusalem. In this section of his Gospel, Luke introduces a great deal of material that does not occur elsewhere. We can do no more than summarize some of the more striking items that throw light on the life of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the mission of the Twelve, Luke records the mission of the Seventy (or Seventy-two—see Lk 10:17-20). Special parables are recorded by Luke in this section—the Good Samaritan (vv 29-37), the lost sheep (15:3-7), the lost coin (vv 8-10), and the prodigal son (vv 11-32). As Jesus moved toward Jerusalem, he was concerned with developing the spiritual life of his disciples. He was mindful of the fact that he would not be with them long and wished to prepare them for the future. He taught them about prayer (11:1-13), the Father’s care for them (12:13-34), and preparation for the coming of the Son of Man (vv 35-56).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OntheWaytoJerusalem\">On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>On the approach to Jerusalem, Jesus visited both Jericho and Bethany. At Jericho he healed Bartimaeus (Lk 18:35-43) and had a fruitful encounter with Zacchaeus, who reformed his ways as a tax collector (19:1-10). Bethany was the home of Mary, Martha, and their brother, Lazarus, whom Jesus had raised from the dead (Jn 11). Jesus spent his remaining days in Jerusalem but returned each night to stay at Simon the Leper’s house in Bethany in the presence of those who loved him (Mt 26:6). It was there that a woman anointed his body with costly ointment. This was a controversial and prophetic act preparing Jesus for his burial and enhancing the gospel with loving consecration (vv 6-13).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFinalDaysinJerusalem\">The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>All four Gospels relate the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem (Mt 21:1-11; Mk 11:1-10; Lk 19:29-38; Jn 12:12-15). At this time multitudes greeted Jesus with praises acclaiming him as their king. This welcome stands in stark contrast with the crowd’s later cry for his crucifixion. In fact, it was the second crowd that was doing God’s bidding, since Jesus had not come to Jerusalem to reign but to die.<\/p>\n<p>The synoptic Gospels place the cleansing of the temple as the first main event following Jesus’ entry into the city (Mt 21:12-13; Mk 11:15-17; Lk 19:45-46). The clouds of opposition had been thickening, but the audacity of Jesus in clearing out the money changers from the temple area was too much for the authorities (Mk 11:18; Lk 19:47). The die was cast and the Crucifixion loomed closer.<\/p>\n<p>It was during this period that further controversies developed between Jesus and the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 21:23–22:45). In several cases trick questions were posed in order to trap Jesus, but with consummate skill he turned their questions against them. His opposers eventually reached the point where they dared not ask him any more questions (22:46).<\/p>\n<p>Nearing his final hour, Jesus took the opportunity to instruct his disciples about future events, especially the end of the world. He reiterated the certainty of his return and mentioned various signs that would precede that coming (Mt 24–25; Mk 13; Lk 21). The purpose of this teaching was to provide a challenge to the disciples to be watchful (Mt 25:13) and diligent (vv 14-30). This section prepares the way for the events of the arrest, the trial, the scourging, and the cross carrying and crucifixion that followed soon after. But first we must note the importance of the Last Supper.<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus sat at the table with his disciples on the night before he died, he wished to give them a simple means by which the significance of his death could be grasped (Mt 26:26-30; Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-26). The use of the bread and wine for this purpose was a happy choice because they were basic elements in everyday life. Through this symbolic significance Jesus gave an interpretation of his approaching death—his body broken and his blood poured out for others. It was necessary for Jesus to provide this reminder that his sacrificial death would seal a completely new covenant. It was to be an authentic memorial to prevent the church from losing sight of the centrality of the cross.<\/p>\n<p>John’s Gospel does not relate the institution of the Last Supper. Nevertheless, it does record a significant act in which Jesus washed the feet of the disciples as an example of humility (Jn 13:1-20). He impressed on the disciples the principle of service to others. John follows this display of humility with a series of teachings Jesus gave on the eve of the Passion (chs 14–16). The most important feature of this teaching was the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit to the disciples after Jesus had gone. Even with his mind occupied by thoughts of approaching death, Jesus showed himself more concerned about his disciples than about himself. This is evident in the prayer of Jesus in John 17. All the Evangelists refer in advance to the betrayal by Judas (Mt 26:21-25; Mk 14:18-21; Lk 22:21-23; Jn 13:21-30), which prepares readers for the final stages of the way of Jesus to the cross.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBetrayalandArrest\">The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n<p>There is a sense in which the whole gospel story has been working up to a climax of rejection. The various outbursts of popular support were soon over and the determined opposition emerged as seemingly in control. In John’s Gospel the sense of approaching climax is expressed in terms of “his hour” (Jn 13:1). When this at length comes, the betrayal and arrest are seen as part of a larger plan. From the upper room where the Last Supper was eaten, Jesus went straight to the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:36-46; Mk 14:32-42; Lk 22:40-46), where he prayed to his Father with deep intensity and agony. In this we see part of what it cost Jesus to identify himself with man’s need. He prayed for the cup of suffering to pass from him but at the same time submitted to the Father’s will. The three disciples he took with him all fell asleep, while one of his other disciples, having betrayed his master, appeared at the gates at the head of the group who had come to arrest him. At the moment of confrontation with Judas, Jesus exhibits an amazing dignity when he addressed the betrayer as his “friend” (Mt 26:50). He offered no resistance when he was arrested and chided the crowd of people for their swords and clubs (v 55).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTrial\">The Trial<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was first taken to the house of Annas, one of the high priests, for a preliminary examination (Jn 18:13). During his trial, he was scorned by his enemies, and one of his disciples, Peter, denied him three times (Mt 26:69-75; Mk 14:66-72; Lk 22:54-62; Jn 18:15-27), as Jesus predicted he would (Mt 26:34; Mk 14:30; Jn 13:38). The official trial before the Sanhedrin was presided over by Caiaphas, who was nonplussed when Jesus at first refused to speak. At length Jesus predicted that the Son of Man would come on the clouds of heaven; this was enough to make the high priest charge him with blasphemy (Mk 14:62-64). Although he was spat upon and his face was struck, Jesus remained calm and dignified. He showed how much greater he was than those who were treating him with contempt.<\/p>\n<p>The further examinations before Pilate (Mt 27:1-2; Mk 15:1; Lk 23:1; Jn 18:28) and Herod (Lk 23:7-12) were no better examples of impartial justice. Again Jesus did not answer when asked about the charges before either Pilate (Mt 27:14) or Herod (Lk 23:9). He remained majestically silent, except to make a comment to Pilate about the true nature of his kingship (Jn 18:33-38). The pathetic governor declared Jesus innocent, offered the crowds the release of either Jesus or Barabbas, and then publicly disclaimed responsibility by washing his hands. Pilate then cruelly scourged Jesus and handed him over to be crucified. This judge has ever since been judged by the prisoner.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCrucifixion\">The Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>The reader of this scene cannot help but see man’s inhumanity to man—even the man of all men, Jesus Christ. The soldiers’ ribald mockery of Jesus (Mt 27:27-30), mixing a royal robe with a hurtful crown of thorns (Mk 15:17), compelling a passerby to carry the cross (Lk 23:26), the cruel procedure of nailing Jesus to the cross, the callous casting of lots for his garment (Jn 19:23-24), and the scornful challenge to him to use his power to escape (Mt 27:40-44)—all expose the cruelty of Jesus opponents. But against this is Jesus’ concern about the repentant criminal who was crucified with him (Lk 23:39-43), his concern for his mother (Jn 19:25-27), his prayer for forgiveness for those responsible for the Crucifixion (Lk 23:34), and his final triumphant cry (Mk 15:37)—all of which show a nobility of mind that contrasted strongly with the meanness of those about him. A few observers showed a better appreciation, like the centurion who was convinced of Jesus’ innocence (Mk 15:39) and the women who followed him and stood at a distance (Mt 27:55-56). There was one dark moment, as far as Jesus was concerned—his forsaken cry, which quickly passed (Mk 15:34). There was an accompanying darkness and an earthquake, as if nature itself were acknowledging the significance of the event. Even the temple veil was torn in two, as if it had no longer any right to bar the way into the Holy of Holies (Mt 27:51).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBurialResurrectionandAscension\">The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ body was placed in a tomb that belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, who was assisted by Nicodemus in laying the body to rest (Mt 27:57-60; Jn 19:39). But the tomb played only an incidental part in the resurrection. The Evangelists concentrate on the appearances of Jesus not only on the day of resurrection but also subsequently. The disciples were convinced that Jesus was alive. Some, like Thomas, had doubts to overcome (Jn 20:24-29). Others, like John, were more ready to believe when they saw the empty tomb (vv 2-10). It is not without significance that the first to see the risen Lord was a woman, Mary Magdalene (Mt 27:61; 28:1, 5-9), whose presence at the cross put to shame those disciples who had run away (Mt 26:56; Jn 19:25).<\/p>\n<p>We may note that in his glorified, risen state Jesus was in a human form, although he was not at once recognized (Jn 20:15-16). There was a definite continuity with the Jesus the disciples had known. The appearances were occasions of both joy and instruction (cf. Lk 24:44 and Acts 1:3). The resurrection, in fact, had transformed the Crucifixion from a tragedy into a triumph. Forty days after his resurrection, Jesus ascended into heaven to join his Father in glory (Lk 24:51; Jn 20:17; Acts 1:9-11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"JESUS CHRIST Messiah, Savior, and founder of the Christian church. In providing a biography of Jesus Christ it must be borne in mind that each of the Gospels has its own distinctive purpose. Matthew, for instance, presents Jesus as the messianic King, whereas the emphasis in Mark is more on Jesus as the servant of all. Luke tends to present Jesus in a softer light, showing particularly his amazing compassion to the less fortunate, whereas John plunges the reader into a deeper and more spiritu...","summary_en":"JESUS CHRIST Messiah, Savior, and founder of the Christian church. In providing a biography of Jesus Christ it must be borne in mind that each of the Gospels has its own distinctive purpose. Matthew, for instance, presents Jesus as the messianic King, whereas the emphasis in Mark is more on Jesus as the servant of all. Luke tends to present Jesus in a softer light, showing particularly his amazing compassion to the less fortunate, whereas John plunges the reader into a deeper and more spiritu...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":56458,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:2","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:2","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:2<\/strong> Jewish men were required to come to the Temple for the <em>Festival of Shelters<\/em> (Exod 23:14-17; Deut 16:16), an annual seven-day autumn harvest festival in Jerusalem six months after Passover (John 6:4). People lived in temporary shelters for the seven days as a reminder of the tents Israel used for forty years in the wilderness.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:2<\/strong> Jewish men were required to come to the Temple for the <em>Festival of Shelters<\/em> (Exod 23:14-17; Deut 16:16), an annual seven-day autumn harvest festival in Jerusalem six months after Passover (John 6:4). People lived in temporary shelters for the seven days as a reminder of the tents Israel used for forty years in the wilderness.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:2 Jewish men were required to come to the Temple for the Festival of Shelters (Exod 23:14-17; Deut 16:16), an annual seven-day autumn harvest festival in Jerusalem six months after Passover (John 6:4). People lived in temporary shelters for the seven days as a reminder of the tents Israel used for forty years in the wilderness.","summary_en":"7:2 Jewish men were required to come to the Temple for the Festival of Shelters (Exod 23:14-17; Deut 16:16), an annual seven-day autumn harvest festival in Jerusalem six months after Passover (John 6:4). People lived in temporary shelters for the seven days as a reminder of the tents Israel used for forty years in the wilderness.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":84084,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:2","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:2","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:2<\/strong> Jewish men were required to come to the Temple for the <em>Festival of Shelters<\/em> (Exod 23:14-17; Deut 16:16), an annual seven-day autumn harvest festival in Jerusalem six months after Passover (John 6:4). People lived in temporary shelters for the seven days as a reminder of the tents Israel used for forty years in the wilderness.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:2<\/strong> Jewish men were required to come to the Temple for the <em>Festival of Shelters<\/em> (Exod 23:14-17; Deut 16:16), an annual seven-day autumn harvest festival in Jerusalem six months after Passover (John 6:4). People lived in temporary shelters for the seven days as a reminder of the tents Israel used for forty years in the wilderness.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:2 Jewish men were required to come to the Temple for the Festival of Shelters (Exod 23:14-17; Deut 16:16), an annual seven-day autumn harvest festival in Jerusalem six months after Passover (John 6:4). People lived in temporary shelters for the seven days as a reminder of the tents Israel used for forty years in the wilderness.","summary_en":"7:2 Jewish men were required to come to the Temple for the Festival of Shelters (Exod 23:14-17; Deut 16:16), an annual seven-day autumn harvest festival in Jerusalem six months after Passover (John 6:4). People lived in temporary shelters for the seven days as a reminder of the tents Israel used for forty years in the wilderness.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":111710,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:2","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:2","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:2<\/strong> Jewish men were required to come to the Temple for the <em>Festival of Shelters<\/em> (Exod 23:14-17; Deut 16:16), an annual seven-day autumn harvest festival in Jerusalem six months after Passover (John 6:4). People lived in temporary shelters for the seven days as a reminder of the tents Israel used for forty years in the wilderness.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:2<\/strong> Jewish men were required to come to the Temple for the <em>Festival of Shelters<\/em> (Exod 23:14-17; Deut 16:16), an annual seven-day autumn harvest festival in Jerusalem six months after Passover (John 6:4). People lived in temporary shelters for the seven days as a reminder of the tents Israel used for forty years in the wilderness.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:2 Jewish men were required to come to the Temple for the Festival of Shelters (Exod 23:14-17; Deut 16:16), an annual seven-day autumn harvest festival in Jerusalem six months after Passover (John 6:4). People lived in temporary shelters for the seven days as a reminder of the tents Israel used for forty years in the wilderness.","summary_en":"7:2 Jewish men were required to come to the Temple for the Festival of Shelters (Exod 23:14-17; Deut 16:16), an annual seven-day autumn harvest festival in Jerusalem six months after Passover (John 6:4). People lived in temporary shelters for the seven days as a reminder of the tents Israel used for forty years in the wilderness.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":139336,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:2","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:2","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:2<\/strong> Jewish men were required to come to the Temple for the <em>Festival of Shelters<\/em> (Exod 23:14-17; Deut 16:16), an annual seven-day autumn harvest festival in Jerusalem six months after Passover (John 6:4). People lived in temporary shelters for the seven days as a reminder of the tents Israel used for forty years in the wilderness.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:2<\/strong> Jewish men were required to come to the Temple for the <em>Festival of Shelters<\/em> (Exod 23:14-17; Deut 16:16), an annual seven-day autumn harvest festival in Jerusalem six months after Passover (John 6:4). People lived in temporary shelters for the seven days as a reminder of the tents Israel used for forty years in the wilderness.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:2 Jewish men were required to come to the Temple for the Festival of Shelters (Exod 23:14-17; Deut 16:16), an annual seven-day autumn harvest festival in Jerusalem six months after Passover (John 6:4). People lived in temporary shelters for the seven days as a reminder of the tents Israel used for forty years in the wilderness.","summary_en":"7:2 Jewish men were required to come to the Temple for the Festival of Shelters (Exod 23:14-17; Deut 16:16), an annual seven-day autumn harvest festival in Jerusalem six months after Passover (John 6:4). People lived in temporary shelters for the seven days as a reminder of the tents Israel used for forty years in the wilderness.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"3":[{"id":56459,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:3","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:3-5<\/strong> <em>Jesus’ brothers<\/em> (see also Mark 3:31) reminded him of his religious obligation to celebrate the festival. Their words were cynical because at this time they didn’t <em>believe in him<\/em> (John 7:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:3-5<\/strong> <em>Jesus’ brothers<\/em> (see also Mark 3:31) reminded him of his religious obligation to celebrate the festival. Their words were cynical because at this time they didn’t <em>believe in him<\/em> (John 7:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:3-5 Jesus’ brothers (see also Mark 3:31) reminded him of his religious obligation to celebrate the festival. Their words were cynical because at this time they didn’t believe in him (John 7:5).","summary_en":"7:3-5 Jesus’ brothers (see also Mark 3:31) reminded him of his religious obligation to celebrate the festival. Their words were cynical because at this time they didn’t believe in him (John 7:5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":84085,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:3","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:3-5<\/strong> <em>Jesus’ brothers<\/em> (see also Mark 3:31) reminded him of his religious obligation to celebrate the festival. Their words were cynical because at this time they didn’t <em>believe in him<\/em> (John 7:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:3-5<\/strong> <em>Jesus’ brothers<\/em> (see also Mark 3:31) reminded him of his religious obligation to celebrate the festival. Their words were cynical because at this time they didn’t <em>believe in him<\/em> (John 7:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:3-5 Jesus’ brothers (see also Mark 3:31) reminded him of his religious obligation to celebrate the festival. Their words were cynical because at this time they didn’t believe in him (John 7:5).","summary_en":"7:3-5 Jesus’ brothers (see also Mark 3:31) reminded him of his religious obligation to celebrate the festival. Their words were cynical because at this time they didn’t believe in him (John 7:5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":111711,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:3","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:3-5<\/strong> <em>Jesus’ brothers<\/em> (see also Mark 3:31) reminded him of his religious obligation to celebrate the festival. Their words were cynical because at this time they didn’t <em>believe in him<\/em> (John 7:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:3-5<\/strong> <em>Jesus’ brothers<\/em> (see also Mark 3:31) reminded him of his religious obligation to celebrate the festival. Their words were cynical because at this time they didn’t <em>believe in him<\/em> (John 7:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:3-5 Jesus’ brothers (see also Mark 3:31) reminded him of his religious obligation to celebrate the festival. Their words were cynical because at this time they didn’t believe in him (John 7:5).","summary_en":"7:3-5 Jesus’ brothers (see also Mark 3:31) reminded him of his religious obligation to celebrate the festival. Their words were cynical because at this time they didn’t believe in him (John 7:5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":139337,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:3","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:3-5<\/strong> <em>Jesus’ brothers<\/em> (see also Mark 3:31) reminded him of his religious obligation to celebrate the festival. Their words were cynical because at this time they didn’t <em>believe in him<\/em> (John 7:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:3-5<\/strong> <em>Jesus’ brothers<\/em> (see also Mark 3:31) reminded him of his religious obligation to celebrate the festival. Their words were cynical because at this time they didn’t <em>believe in him<\/em> (John 7:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:3-5 Jesus’ brothers (see also Mark 3:31) reminded him of his religious obligation to celebrate the festival. Their words were cynical because at this time they didn’t believe in him (John 7:5).","summary_en":"7:3-5 Jesus’ brothers (see also Mark 3:31) reminded him of his religious obligation to celebrate the festival. Their words were cynical because at this time they didn’t believe in him (John 7:5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65811,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John","title_en":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2).<\/p>\n<p>John, however, does not use the popular term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sēmeion<\/span>), an event that has a deeper meaning. John also describes Jesus’ miracles as “works” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">erga<\/span>, see John 10:38; see also 7:3, translated “miracles”; 9:3, translated “power”). Christ’s miracles were part of the work that God gave him to do (17:4), revealing the Father to the world.<\/p>\n<p>John selectively records seven miraculous signs that occurred during Jesus’ ministry: (1) changing water to wine (2:1-11); (2) healing an official’s son (4:46-54); (3) healing a paralyzed man (5:1-17); (4) feeding five thousand (6:1-15); (5) walking on water (6:16-21); (6) healing a blind man (9:1-41); and (7) raising Lazarus from the dead (11:1-44). John also records a miraculous catch of fish after Jesus’ resurrection (21:4-14). Most of the seven signs were met with belief (2:11; 4:53; 11:45-48). However, Jesus’ purposes extended beyond the signs themselves. The miraculous signs are like physical roadsigns: They are messages that point to a greater reality. Thus, a miraculous sign is usually accompanied by a discourse from Jesus in which he explains the truth that the sign points to. For example, Jesus fed the five thousand not just to meet their needs but also so that people would see him as the bread of life (6:35), given for them when he died on the cross (6:51).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:8-31; 7:3; Num 14:11, 22; Deut 4:34; Pss 74:9; 78:43; Matt 12:38-39; John 2:1-11, 18, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 15:24; 20:30; Acts 2:43; 4:16, 22, 30; 5:12; 8:6; 14:3; 15:12; Rom 15:19<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2).<\/p>\n<p>John, however, does not use the popular term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sēmeion<\/span>), an event that has a deeper meaning. John also describes Jesus’ miracles as “works” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">erga<\/span>, see John 10:38; see also 7:3, translated “miracles”; 9:3, translated “power”). Christ’s miracles were part of the work that God gave him to do (17:4), revealing the Father to the world.<\/p>\n<p>John selectively records seven miraculous signs that occurred during Jesus’ ministry: (1) changing water to wine (2:1-11); (2) healing an official’s son (4:46-54); (3) healing a paralyzed man (5:1-17); (4) feeding five thousand (6:1-15); (5) walking on water (6:16-21); (6) healing a blind man (9:1-41); and (7) raising Lazarus from the dead (11:1-44). John also records a miraculous catch of fish after Jesus’ resurrection (21:4-14). Most of the seven signs were met with belief (2:11; 4:53; 11:45-48). However, Jesus’ purposes extended beyond the signs themselves. The miraculous signs are like physical roadsigns: They are messages that point to a greater reality. Thus, a miraculous sign is usually accompanied by a discourse from Jesus in which he explains the truth that the sign points to. For example, Jesus fed the five thousand not just to meet their needs but also so that people would see him as the bread of life (6:35), given for them when he died on the cross (6:51).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:8-31; 7:3; Num 14:11, 22; Deut 4:34; Pss 74:9; 78:43; Matt 12:38-39; John 2:1-11, 18, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 15:24; 20:30; Acts 2:43; 4:16, 22, 30; 5:12; 8:6; 14:3; 15:12; Rom 15:19<\/p>","summary_ro":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word dunamis (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2). John, however, does not use the popular term dunamis in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek sēmeion), an event that has a deeper meaning...","summary_en":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word dunamis (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2). John, however, does not use the popular term dunamis in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek sēmeion), an event that has a deeper meaning...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93437,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John","title_en":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2).<\/p>\n<p>John, however, does not use the popular term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sēmeion<\/span>), an event that has a deeper meaning. John also describes Jesus’ miracles as “works” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">erga<\/span>, see John 10:38; see also 7:3, translated “miracles”; 9:3, translated “power”). Christ’s miracles were part of the work that God gave him to do (17:4), revealing the Father to the world.<\/p>\n<p>John selectively records seven miraculous signs that occurred during Jesus’ ministry: (1) changing water to wine (2:1-11); (2) healing an official’s son (4:46-54); (3) healing a paralyzed man (5:1-17); (4) feeding five thousand (6:1-15); (5) walking on water (6:16-21); (6) healing a blind man (9:1-41); and (7) raising Lazarus from the dead (11:1-44). John also records a miraculous catch of fish after Jesus’ resurrection (21:4-14). Most of the seven signs were met with belief (2:11; 4:53; 11:45-48). However, Jesus’ purposes extended beyond the signs themselves. The miraculous signs are like physical roadsigns: They are messages that point to a greater reality. Thus, a miraculous sign is usually accompanied by a discourse from Jesus in which he explains the truth that the sign points to. For example, Jesus fed the five thousand not just to meet their needs but also so that people would see him as the bread of life (6:35), given for them when he died on the cross (6:51).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:8-31; 7:3; Num 14:11, 22; Deut 4:34; Pss 74:9; 78:43; Matt 12:38-39; John 2:1-11, 18, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 15:24; 20:30; Acts 2:43; 4:16, 22, 30; 5:12; 8:6; 14:3; 15:12; Rom 15:19<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2).<\/p>\n<p>John, however, does not use the popular term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sēmeion<\/span>), an event that has a deeper meaning. John also describes Jesus’ miracles as “works” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">erga<\/span>, see John 10:38; see also 7:3, translated “miracles”; 9:3, translated “power”). Christ’s miracles were part of the work that God gave him to do (17:4), revealing the Father to the world.<\/p>\n<p>John selectively records seven miraculous signs that occurred during Jesus’ ministry: (1) changing water to wine (2:1-11); (2) healing an official’s son (4:46-54); (3) healing a paralyzed man (5:1-17); (4) feeding five thousand (6:1-15); (5) walking on water (6:16-21); (6) healing a blind man (9:1-41); and (7) raising Lazarus from the dead (11:1-44). John also records a miraculous catch of fish after Jesus’ resurrection (21:4-14). Most of the seven signs were met with belief (2:11; 4:53; 11:45-48). However, Jesus’ purposes extended beyond the signs themselves. The miraculous signs are like physical roadsigns: They are messages that point to a greater reality. Thus, a miraculous sign is usually accompanied by a discourse from Jesus in which he explains the truth that the sign points to. For example, Jesus fed the five thousand not just to meet their needs but also so that people would see him as the bread of life (6:35), given for them when he died on the cross (6:51).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:8-31; 7:3; Num 14:11, 22; Deut 4:34; Pss 74:9; 78:43; Matt 12:38-39; John 2:1-11, 18, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 15:24; 20:30; Acts 2:43; 4:16, 22, 30; 5:12; 8:6; 14:3; 15:12; Rom 15:19<\/p>","summary_ro":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word dunamis (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2). John, however, does not use the popular term dunamis in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek sēmeion), an event that has a deeper meaning...","summary_en":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word dunamis (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2). John, however, does not use the popular term dunamis in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek sēmeion), an event that has a deeper meaning...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":121063,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John","title_en":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2).<\/p>\n<p>John, however, does not use the popular term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sēmeion<\/span>), an event that has a deeper meaning. John also describes Jesus’ miracles as “works” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">erga<\/span>, see John 10:38; see also 7:3, translated “miracles”; 9:3, translated “power”). Christ’s miracles were part of the work that God gave him to do (17:4), revealing the Father to the world.<\/p>\n<p>John selectively records seven miraculous signs that occurred during Jesus’ ministry: (1) changing water to wine (2:1-11); (2) healing an official’s son (4:46-54); (3) healing a paralyzed man (5:1-17); (4) feeding five thousand (6:1-15); (5) walking on water (6:16-21); (6) healing a blind man (9:1-41); and (7) raising Lazarus from the dead (11:1-44). John also records a miraculous catch of fish after Jesus’ resurrection (21:4-14). Most of the seven signs were met with belief (2:11; 4:53; 11:45-48). However, Jesus’ purposes extended beyond the signs themselves. The miraculous signs are like physical roadsigns: They are messages that point to a greater reality. Thus, a miraculous sign is usually accompanied by a discourse from Jesus in which he explains the truth that the sign points to. For example, Jesus fed the five thousand not just to meet their needs but also so that people would see him as the bread of life (6:35), given for them when he died on the cross (6:51).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:8-31; 7:3; Num 14:11, 22; Deut 4:34; Pss 74:9; 78:43; Matt 12:38-39; John 2:1-11, 18, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 15:24; 20:30; Acts 2:43; 4:16, 22, 30; 5:12; 8:6; 14:3; 15:12; Rom 15:19<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2).<\/p>\n<p>John, however, does not use the popular term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sēmeion<\/span>), an event that has a deeper meaning. John also describes Jesus’ miracles as “works” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">erga<\/span>, see John 10:38; see also 7:3, translated “miracles”; 9:3, translated “power”). Christ’s miracles were part of the work that God gave him to do (17:4), revealing the Father to the world.<\/p>\n<p>John selectively records seven miraculous signs that occurred during Jesus’ ministry: (1) changing water to wine (2:1-11); (2) healing an official’s son (4:46-54); (3) healing a paralyzed man (5:1-17); (4) feeding five thousand (6:1-15); (5) walking on water (6:16-21); (6) healing a blind man (9:1-41); and (7) raising Lazarus from the dead (11:1-44). John also records a miraculous catch of fish after Jesus’ resurrection (21:4-14). Most of the seven signs were met with belief (2:11; 4:53; 11:45-48). However, Jesus’ purposes extended beyond the signs themselves. The miraculous signs are like physical roadsigns: They are messages that point to a greater reality. Thus, a miraculous sign is usually accompanied by a discourse from Jesus in which he explains the truth that the sign points to. For example, Jesus fed the five thousand not just to meet their needs but also so that people would see him as the bread of life (6:35), given for them when he died on the cross (6:51).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:8-31; 7:3; Num 14:11, 22; Deut 4:34; Pss 74:9; 78:43; Matt 12:38-39; John 2:1-11, 18, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 15:24; 20:30; Acts 2:43; 4:16, 22, 30; 5:12; 8:6; 14:3; 15:12; Rom 15:19<\/p>","summary_ro":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word dunamis (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2). John, however, does not use the popular term dunamis in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek sēmeion), an event that has a deeper meaning...","summary_en":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word dunamis (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2). John, however, does not use the popular term dunamis in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek sēmeion), an event that has a deeper meaning...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148689,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John","title_en":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2).<\/p>\n<p>John, however, does not use the popular term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sēmeion<\/span>), an event that has a deeper meaning. John also describes Jesus’ miracles as “works” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">erga<\/span>, see John 10:38; see also 7:3, translated “miracles”; 9:3, translated “power”). Christ’s miracles were part of the work that God gave him to do (17:4), revealing the Father to the world.<\/p>\n<p>John selectively records seven miraculous signs that occurred during Jesus’ ministry: (1) changing water to wine (2:1-11); (2) healing an official’s son (4:46-54); (3) healing a paralyzed man (5:1-17); (4) feeding five thousand (6:1-15); (5) walking on water (6:16-21); (6) healing a blind man (9:1-41); and (7) raising Lazarus from the dead (11:1-44). John also records a miraculous catch of fish after Jesus’ resurrection (21:4-14). Most of the seven signs were met with belief (2:11; 4:53; 11:45-48). However, Jesus’ purposes extended beyond the signs themselves. The miraculous signs are like physical roadsigns: They are messages that point to a greater reality. Thus, a miraculous sign is usually accompanied by a discourse from Jesus in which he explains the truth that the sign points to. For example, Jesus fed the five thousand not just to meet their needs but also so that people would see him as the bread of life (6:35), given for them when he died on the cross (6:51).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:8-31; 7:3; Num 14:11, 22; Deut 4:34; Pss 74:9; 78:43; Matt 12:38-39; John 2:1-11, 18, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 15:24; 20:30; Acts 2:43; 4:16, 22, 30; 5:12; 8:6; 14:3; 15:12; Rom 15:19<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2).<\/p>\n<p>John, however, does not use the popular term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sēmeion<\/span>), an event that has a deeper meaning. John also describes Jesus’ miracles as “works” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">erga<\/span>, see John 10:38; see also 7:3, translated “miracles”; 9:3, translated “power”). Christ’s miracles were part of the work that God gave him to do (17:4), revealing the Father to the world.<\/p>\n<p>John selectively records seven miraculous signs that occurred during Jesus’ ministry: (1) changing water to wine (2:1-11); (2) healing an official’s son (4:46-54); (3) healing a paralyzed man (5:1-17); (4) feeding five thousand (6:1-15); (5) walking on water (6:16-21); (6) healing a blind man (9:1-41); and (7) raising Lazarus from the dead (11:1-44). John also records a miraculous catch of fish after Jesus’ resurrection (21:4-14). Most of the seven signs were met with belief (2:11; 4:53; 11:45-48). However, Jesus’ purposes extended beyond the signs themselves. The miraculous signs are like physical roadsigns: They are messages that point to a greater reality. Thus, a miraculous sign is usually accompanied by a discourse from Jesus in which he explains the truth that the sign points to. For example, Jesus fed the five thousand not just to meet their needs but also so that people would see him as the bread of life (6:35), given for them when he died on the cross (6:51).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:8-31; 7:3; Num 14:11, 22; Deut 4:34; Pss 74:9; 78:43; Matt 12:38-39; John 2:1-11, 18, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 15:24; 20:30; Acts 2:43; 4:16, 22, 30; 5:12; 8:6; 14:3; 15:12; Rom 15:19<\/p>","summary_ro":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word dunamis (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2). John, however, does not use the popular term dunamis in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek sēmeion), an event that has a deeper meaning...","summary_en":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word dunamis (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2). John, however, does not use the popular term dunamis in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek sēmeion), an event that has a deeper meaning...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"4":[{"id":5801,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of Jesus*, Brothers","title_en":"of Jesus*, Brothers","content_ro":"<h3>BROTHERS OF JESUS*<\/h3>\n<p>James, Joses (or Joseph), Simon, and Judas, identified in the NT as members of Jesus’ own family (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). They are described as visiting Jesus with Mary, his mother (Mt 12:47-50; Mk 3:34-35; Lk 8:19-21), and hearing Jesus’ statement that all who did the will of God were brother, sister, and mother to him.<\/p>\n<p>They were well enough known in Nazareth that when Jesus returned to preach there, the people said, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” (Mk 6:3, <span>rsv<\/span>). In Matthew’s Gospel the order of the names of the last two brothers is reversed (Mt 13:55). When Jesus and his disciples went to Capernaum, they were accompanied by Mary and his brothers (Jn 2:12). Just before the Feast of Tabernacles the brothers visited Jesus to persuade him to go to Jerusalem for the festival. Although they were skeptical about his miracles, they said he should perform his feats in public to gain recognition (Jn 7:4). Jesus acknowledged opposition from within his family when he said, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his own family” (Mt 13:57, <span>nlt<\/span>). His brothers or other friends from home thought him to be losing touch with reality when crowds were first attracted to him (Mk 3:21).<\/p>\n<p>In spite of their earlier skepticism, however, the brothers became active members of the Jerusalem church during its earliest days. They are mentioned as being frequently at prayer in an upper room with Mary, showing a sharp reversal from their earlier lack of faith (Acts 1:14). One of the resurrection appearances was made to James (1 Cor 15:7). On Paul’s return to Jerusalem after his conversion, he met Peter and James, “the Lord’s brother,” but not the other apostles (Gal 1:19). When the apostle Peter was released from prison, he went to the home of Mary the mother of John Mark, and despite the excitement of the occasion, he immediately asked the group to “tell this to James and to the brethren” (Acts 12:17, <span>rsv<\/span>). A number of references in Acts show James as a strong, respected leader of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:13-21; 21:18). In the council at Jerusalem, he expressed a strong opinion on the acceptance of Gentiles into the church; he was later visited by Paul, who told him about his ministry and the many conversions among the Gentiles. Although James is mentioned more often by name, all the brothers seem to have been well respected at that time. Thus, their actions were used as an example by Paul when he argued that it would be appropriate for him also to have a wife accompany him on his journeys, as Jesus’ brothers did (1 Cor 9:5).<\/p>\n<p>The author of the Epistle of James is generally assumed to be the Lord’s brother, although he does not identify himself specifically that way (1:1). It seems clear, though, that the author wrote as a recognized leader in the church; hence, to identify him as the Lord’s brother seems logical. The author of the Epistle of Jude identifies himself as the brother of James. The reference would most logically be to James, the leader mentioned in Acts and probably the author of the other epistle. The author thus seems to be the Judas named as the brother of the Lord in the Gospels (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the NT the group of the 12 apostles is consistently distinguished from the brothers of the Lord. Luke named the apostles and then said, “All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers” (Acts 1:13-14). The apostle Paul pointed to the brothers of the Lord as a group separate from the apostles (1 Cor 9:5); each mention of them in the Gospels describes them as family members and distinct from the disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> James (Person) #1; Joseph #7; Jude (Person); Mary #1.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BROTHERS OF JESUS*<\/h3>\n<p>James, Joses (or Joseph), Simon, and Judas, identified in the NT as members of Jesus’ own family (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). They are described as visiting Jesus with Mary, his mother (Mt 12:47-50; Mk 3:34-35; Lk 8:19-21), and hearing Jesus’ statement that all who did the will of God were brother, sister, and mother to him.<\/p>\n<p>They were well enough known in Nazareth that when Jesus returned to preach there, the people said, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” (Mk 6:3, <span>rsv<\/span>). In Matthew’s Gospel the order of the names of the last two brothers is reversed (Mt 13:55). When Jesus and his disciples went to Capernaum, they were accompanied by Mary and his brothers (Jn 2:12). Just before the Feast of Tabernacles the brothers visited Jesus to persuade him to go to Jerusalem for the festival. Although they were skeptical about his miracles, they said he should perform his feats in public to gain recognition (Jn 7:4). Jesus acknowledged opposition from within his family when he said, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his own family” (Mt 13:57, <span>nlt<\/span>). His brothers or other friends from home thought him to be losing touch with reality when crowds were first attracted to him (Mk 3:21).<\/p>\n<p>In spite of their earlier skepticism, however, the brothers became active members of the Jerusalem church during its earliest days. They are mentioned as being frequently at prayer in an upper room with Mary, showing a sharp reversal from their earlier lack of faith (Acts 1:14). One of the resurrection appearances was made to James (1 Cor 15:7). On Paul’s return to Jerusalem after his conversion, he met Peter and James, “the Lord’s brother,” but not the other apostles (Gal 1:19). When the apostle Peter was released from prison, he went to the home of Mary the mother of John Mark, and despite the excitement of the occasion, he immediately asked the group to “tell this to James and to the brethren” (Acts 12:17, <span>rsv<\/span>). A number of references in Acts show James as a strong, respected leader of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:13-21; 21:18). In the council at Jerusalem, he expressed a strong opinion on the acceptance of Gentiles into the church; he was later visited by Paul, who told him about his ministry and the many conversions among the Gentiles. Although James is mentioned more often by name, all the brothers seem to have been well respected at that time. Thus, their actions were used as an example by Paul when he argued that it would be appropriate for him also to have a wife accompany him on his journeys, as Jesus’ brothers did (1 Cor 9:5).<\/p>\n<p>The author of the Epistle of James is generally assumed to be the Lord’s brother, although he does not identify himself specifically that way (1:1). It seems clear, though, that the author wrote as a recognized leader in the church; hence, to identify him as the Lord’s brother seems logical. The author of the Epistle of Jude identifies himself as the brother of James. The reference would most logically be to James, the leader mentioned in Acts and probably the author of the other epistle. The author thus seems to be the Judas named as the brother of the Lord in the Gospels (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the NT the group of the 12 apostles is consistently distinguished from the brothers of the Lord. Luke named the apostles and then said, “All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers” (Acts 1:13-14). The apostle Paul pointed to the brothers of the Lord as a group separate from the apostles (1 Cor 9:5); each mention of them in the Gospels describes them as family members and distinct from the disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> James (Person) #1; Joseph #7; Jude (Person); Mary #1.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BROTHERS OF JESUS* James, Joses (or Joseph), Simon, and Judas, identified in the NT as members of Jesus’ own family (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). They are described as visiting Jesus with Mary, his mother (Mt 12:47-50; Mk 3:34-35; Lk 8:19-21), and hearing Jesus’ statement that all who did the will of God were brother, sister, and mother to him. They were well enough known in Nazareth that when Jesus returned to preach there, the people said, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of Ja...","summary_en":"BROTHERS OF JESUS* James, Joses (or Joseph), Simon, and Judas, identified in the NT as members of Jesus’ own family (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). They are described as visiting Jesus with Mary, his mother (Mt 12:47-50; Mk 3:34-35; Lk 8:19-21), and hearing Jesus’ statement that all who did the will of God were brother, sister, and mother to him. They were well enough known in Nazareth that when Jesus returned to preach there, the people said, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of Ja...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"5":[{"id":5766,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Brother","title_en":"Brother","content_ro":"<h3>BROTHER<\/h3>\n<p>Man or boy in his relationship to the other children of his parents; also a close male friend or fellow member of the same race, creed, profession, organization, and the like; a kinsman.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the Hebrew word translated “brother” describes the relationship between male children who have at least one parent in common. Joseph and Benjamin were children of Jacob and Rachel (Gn 35:24), but the other sons born to Jacob are also called Joseph’s brothers (42:6). The love Joseph had for Benjamin is not always found between brothers. Cain killed his brother Abel (4:8), and Esau hated his brother, Jacob (27:41). A brother may be a bad influence (Dt 13:6-7), but ideally he is one who helps in times of need (Prv 17:17). The law of levirate marriage required that if a man died leaving a childless widow, the man’s brother had to raise up children through her to perpetuate the family name (Dt 25:5).<\/p>\n<p>David spoke affectionately of his “brother” Jonathan, although they were not related (2 Sm 1:26). A fellow Israelite could be called brother. The relationship required certain obligations: money could not be loaned to a brother at interest, and a brother could not be enslaved (Lv 25:35-43).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the Greek word is used to describe natural brothers, such as Andrew and Peter (Jn 1:41). Four brothers of Jesus are named (Mk 6:3). (The Roman Catholic view is that they were really Jesus’ cousins, but the Greek language has several words for cousin, and the word “brother” is used here; thus, it refers either to children or foster children of Mary and Joseph.) Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him at first (Jn 7:5), but after the resurrection they were meeting with the Christian community (Acts 1:14). Jesus taught that his disciples had one Father (God) and were therefore brothers (Mt 23:8-9), and he graciously identified himself with the disciples as their brother (28:10).<\/p>\n<p>Early in the history of the church it became customary for Christians to address one another as brother (Acts 9:17; Col 1:1); on two occasions the Christian community is called “the brotherhood” (1 Pt 2:17; 5:9, <span>rsv<\/span>). Specific duties and responsibilities accompany Christian brotherhood. A Christian’s love for his brother will be demonstrated in the restraint of sexual passions (1 Thes 4:6), provision of material goods when needed (Jas 2:15-16), and determination not to offend (Rom 14:13). A Christian must not “go to law” against a brother (1 Cor 6:5-6), but brothers must resolve their problems either personally or within the church group (Mt 18:15-17). The relationship between Christians is significant because a Christian cannot offer worship to God if he is out of harmony with his brother (Mt 5:23-24).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Family Life and Relations; Brothers (and Sisters).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BROTHER<\/h3>\n<p>Man or boy in his relationship to the other children of his parents; also a close male friend or fellow member of the same race, creed, profession, organization, and the like; a kinsman.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the Hebrew word translated “brother” describes the relationship between male children who have at least one parent in common. Joseph and Benjamin were children of Jacob and Rachel (Gn 35:24), but the other sons born to Jacob are also called Joseph’s brothers (42:6). The love Joseph had for Benjamin is not always found between brothers. Cain killed his brother Abel (4:8), and Esau hated his brother, Jacob (27:41). A brother may be a bad influence (Dt 13:6-7), but ideally he is one who helps in times of need (Prv 17:17). The law of levirate marriage required that if a man died leaving a childless widow, the man’s brother had to raise up children through her to perpetuate the family name (Dt 25:5).<\/p>\n<p>David spoke affectionately of his “brother” Jonathan, although they were not related (2 Sm 1:26). A fellow Israelite could be called brother. The relationship required certain obligations: money could not be loaned to a brother at interest, and a brother could not be enslaved (Lv 25:35-43).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the Greek word is used to describe natural brothers, such as Andrew and Peter (Jn 1:41). Four brothers of Jesus are named (Mk 6:3). (The Roman Catholic view is that they were really Jesus’ cousins, but the Greek language has several words for cousin, and the word “brother” is used here; thus, it refers either to children or foster children of Mary and Joseph.) Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him at first (Jn 7:5), but after the resurrection they were meeting with the Christian community (Acts 1:14). Jesus taught that his disciples had one Father (God) and were therefore brothers (Mt 23:8-9), and he graciously identified himself with the disciples as their brother (28:10).<\/p>\n<p>Early in the history of the church it became customary for Christians to address one another as brother (Acts 9:17; Col 1:1); on two occasions the Christian community is called “the brotherhood” (1 Pt 2:17; 5:9, <span>rsv<\/span>). Specific duties and responsibilities accompany Christian brotherhood. A Christian’s love for his brother will be demonstrated in the restraint of sexual passions (1 Thes 4:6), provision of material goods when needed (Jas 2:15-16), and determination not to offend (Rom 14:13). A Christian must not “go to law” against a brother (1 Cor 6:5-6), but brothers must resolve their problems either personally or within the church group (Mt 18:15-17). The relationship between Christians is significant because a Christian cannot offer worship to God if he is out of harmony with his brother (Mt 5:23-24).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Family Life and Relations; Brothers (and Sisters).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BROTHER Man or boy in his relationship to the other children of his parents; also a close male friend or fellow member of the same race, creed, profession, organization, and the like; a kinsman. In the OT the Hebrew word translated “brother” describes the relationship between male children who have at least one parent in common. Joseph and Benjamin were children of Jacob and Rachel (Gn 35:24), but the other sons born to Jacob are also called Joseph’s brothers (42:6). The love Joseph had for B...","summary_en":"BROTHER Man or boy in his relationship to the other children of his parents; also a close male friend or fellow member of the same race, creed, profession, organization, and the like; a kinsman. In the OT the Hebrew word translated “brother” describes the relationship between male children who have at least one parent in common. Joseph and Benjamin were children of Jacob and Rachel (Gn 35:24), but the other sons born to Jacob are also called Joseph’s brothers (42:6). The love Joseph had for B...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":18362,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"James (Person)","title_en":"James (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>JAMES (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. James, brother of Jesus; leading elder in the church at Jerusalem; author of the epistle bearing his name.<\/li>\n<p>The only two references to James in the Gospels mention him with his brothers Joseph (Greek Joses), Simon, and Judas (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). This James may have been, after Jesus, the oldest of the brothers. The question has been raised about whether these were indeed full brothers of Jesus by Mary, for such a situation has created difficulty for those who cannot square it with their views on the perpetual virginity of Mary. But there seems to be no good reason to challenge the fact from Scripture. As with the other brothers, James apparently did not accept Jesus’ authority during his earthly life (Jn 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>There is no specific mention of James’s conversion; it may have dated from Jesus’ appearance to him and the others after Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor 15:7). He became head of the church at Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 21:18; Gal 2:9). Although Jesus had always taught the relative subordination of family ties (Mt 12:48-50; Mk 3:33-35; Lk 8:21), it is hard to believe that James’s authority was not somehow enhanced because of his relationship to the Master.<\/p>\n<p>James was regarded as an apostle (Gal 1:19), although he was not one of the Twelve. Some suggest he was a replacement for the martyred son of Zebedee; others infer his apostleship by widening the scope of that term to embrace both “the Twelve” and “all the apostles” (see the two separate categories cited in 1 Cor 15:5, 7).<\/p>\n<p>Tradition stated that James was appointed the first bishop of Jerusalem by the Lord himself as well as the apostles. What is certain is that he presided over the first Council of Jerusalem, called to consider the terms for admission of Gentiles into the Christian church, and he may have formulated the decree that met with the approval of all his colleagues and was sent to the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (Acts 15:19-20). James evidently regarded his own special ministry as being to the Jews, and his was a mediating role in the controversy that arose in the young church around the place of the law for those who had become Christians, from both Gentile and Jewish origins.<\/p>\n<p>That he continued to have strong Jewish-Christian sympathies is apparent from the request made to Paul when the latter visited Jerusalem for the last time (Acts 21:18-25). This was also the last mention in Acts of James’s career. His name also occurs in the NT as the traditional author of the Epistle of James, where he describes himself as “a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Jas 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>According to Hegesippus (c. 180), James’s faithful adherence to the Jewish law and his austere lifestyle led to the designation “the Just.” It seems clear that James suffered martyrdom. Josephus places it in the year 61, when there was a Jewish uprising after the death of Festus the procurator and before his successor had been appointed.<\/p>\n<li>2. James, son of Alphaeus; one of the 12 apostles.<\/li>\n<p>James, son of Alphaeus, is always listed as one of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13), but nothing is known for certain about him. Levi (also known as Matthew) is also described as the son of Alphaeus (Mk 2:14), but it is improbable that he and James were brothers. Many scholars have identified him with the one called “James the less” or “James the smaller.” The description “the less” seems to have been given to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee, and it may signify that he was either smaller or younger than Zebedee’s son (the Greek word can cover both interpretations).<\/p>\n<li>3. James, son of Zebedee. One of the 12 apostles; the first of them to be martyred (<span>AD<\/span> 44).<\/li>\n<p>James was a Galilean fisherman whose circumstances we can suppose to have been comfortable (Mk 1:19-20) and who was called to be one of the disciples at the same time as his brother John (Mt 4:21; Mk 1:19-20). It is reasonable to assume that he was older than John, both because he is nearly always mentioned first and because John is sometimes identified as “the brother of James” (Mt 10:2; 17:1; Mk 3:17; 5:37).<\/p>\n<p>James, John, and Simon Peter, who were part of a fishing partnership that included Andrew, Simon’s brother (Lk 5:10), were a trio who attained in some sense a place of primacy among the disciples. They are found at the center of things—for example, when Jairus’s daughter was raised (Mk 5:37; Lk 8:51), at the Transfiguration (Mt 17:1; Mk 9:2; Lk 9:28), on the Mount of Olives (Mk 13:3), and in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:37; Mk 14:33). It was James and John, moreover, who had earlier accompanied Jesus to the home of Simon and Andrew (Mk 1:29).<\/p>\n<p>James and John were given by Jesus the nickname Boanerges, or “sons of thunder” (Mk 3:17), when they were rebuked by the Lord for impetuous speech and for having totally misconceived the purpose of his coming. This may have been the consequence of the suggestion made by them that they should pray for the destruction of the Samaritan village, the inhabitants of which had rejected the Lord’s messengers (Lk 9:54; cf. Mk 9:38; Lk 9:49).<\/p>\n<p>The presumptuous and ill-considered thinking of the two brothers was obvious also when, after asking with his brother for a place of honor in the kingdom, James was corecipient of the prophecy that they would drink the cup their Master was to drink (Mk 10:35-40; cf. Mt 20:20-23). The two sons of Zebedee are also assumed to have been present with the other disciples when the risen Christ appeared by the Sea of Galilee (Jn 21:1), though curiously James’s name is nowhere mentioned in the fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>We know nothing about James’s career subsequently until about the year 44, when Jesus’ prophecy was fulfilled: James was killed “by the sword” by Herod Agrippa I, and thus became the first of the Twelve whose martyrdom was referred to in the NT (Acts 12:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>The wife of Zebedee was Salome (Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40), who may have been a sister of the Lord’s mother (Jn 19:25). If this were so, it would mean that James and John were first cousins of Jesus and that they may have considered themselves to have been in a privileged position.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JAMES (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. James, brother of Jesus; leading elder in the church at Jerusalem; author of the epistle bearing his name.<\/li>\n<p>The only two references to James in the Gospels mention him with his brothers Joseph (Greek Joses), Simon, and Judas (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). This James may have been, after Jesus, the oldest of the brothers. The question has been raised about whether these were indeed full brothers of Jesus by Mary, for such a situation has created difficulty for those who cannot square it with their views on the perpetual virginity of Mary. But there seems to be no good reason to challenge the fact from Scripture. As with the other brothers, James apparently did not accept Jesus’ authority during his earthly life (Jn 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>There is no specific mention of James’s conversion; it may have dated from Jesus’ appearance to him and the others after Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor 15:7). He became head of the church at Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 21:18; Gal 2:9). Although Jesus had always taught the relative subordination of family ties (Mt 12:48-50; Mk 3:33-35; Lk 8:21), it is hard to believe that James’s authority was not somehow enhanced because of his relationship to the Master.<\/p>\n<p>James was regarded as an apostle (Gal 1:19), although he was not one of the Twelve. Some suggest he was a replacement for the martyred son of Zebedee; others infer his apostleship by widening the scope of that term to embrace both “the Twelve” and “all the apostles” (see the two separate categories cited in 1 Cor 15:5, 7).<\/p>\n<p>Tradition stated that James was appointed the first bishop of Jerusalem by the Lord himself as well as the apostles. What is certain is that he presided over the first Council of Jerusalem, called to consider the terms for admission of Gentiles into the Christian church, and he may have formulated the decree that met with the approval of all his colleagues and was sent to the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (Acts 15:19-20). James evidently regarded his own special ministry as being to the Jews, and his was a mediating role in the controversy that arose in the young church around the place of the law for those who had become Christians, from both Gentile and Jewish origins.<\/p>\n<p>That he continued to have strong Jewish-Christian sympathies is apparent from the request made to Paul when the latter visited Jerusalem for the last time (Acts 21:18-25). This was also the last mention in Acts of James’s career. His name also occurs in the NT as the traditional author of the Epistle of James, where he describes himself as “a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Jas 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>According to Hegesippus (c. 180), James’s faithful adherence to the Jewish law and his austere lifestyle led to the designation “the Just.” It seems clear that James suffered martyrdom. Josephus places it in the year 61, when there was a Jewish uprising after the death of Festus the procurator and before his successor had been appointed.<\/p>\n<li>2. James, son of Alphaeus; one of the 12 apostles.<\/li>\n<p>James, son of Alphaeus, is always listed as one of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13), but nothing is known for certain about him. Levi (also known as Matthew) is also described as the son of Alphaeus (Mk 2:14), but it is improbable that he and James were brothers. Many scholars have identified him with the one called “James the less” or “James the smaller.” The description “the less” seems to have been given to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee, and it may signify that he was either smaller or younger than Zebedee’s son (the Greek word can cover both interpretations).<\/p>\n<li>3. James, son of Zebedee. One of the 12 apostles; the first of them to be martyred (<span>AD<\/span> 44).<\/li>\n<p>James was a Galilean fisherman whose circumstances we can suppose to have been comfortable (Mk 1:19-20) and who was called to be one of the disciples at the same time as his brother John (Mt 4:21; Mk 1:19-20). It is reasonable to assume that he was older than John, both because he is nearly always mentioned first and because John is sometimes identified as “the brother of James” (Mt 10:2; 17:1; Mk 3:17; 5:37).<\/p>\n<p>James, John, and Simon Peter, who were part of a fishing partnership that included Andrew, Simon’s brother (Lk 5:10), were a trio who attained in some sense a place of primacy among the disciples. They are found at the center of things—for example, when Jairus’s daughter was raised (Mk 5:37; Lk 8:51), at the Transfiguration (Mt 17:1; Mk 9:2; Lk 9:28), on the Mount of Olives (Mk 13:3), and in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:37; Mk 14:33). It was James and John, moreover, who had earlier accompanied Jesus to the home of Simon and Andrew (Mk 1:29).<\/p>\n<p>James and John were given by Jesus the nickname Boanerges, or “sons of thunder” (Mk 3:17), when they were rebuked by the Lord for impetuous speech and for having totally misconceived the purpose of his coming. This may have been the consequence of the suggestion made by them that they should pray for the destruction of the Samaritan village, the inhabitants of which had rejected the Lord’s messengers (Lk 9:54; cf. Mk 9:38; Lk 9:49).<\/p>\n<p>The presumptuous and ill-considered thinking of the two brothers was obvious also when, after asking with his brother for a place of honor in the kingdom, James was corecipient of the prophecy that they would drink the cup their Master was to drink (Mk 10:35-40; cf. Mt 20:20-23). The two sons of Zebedee are also assumed to have been present with the other disciples when the risen Christ appeared by the Sea of Galilee (Jn 21:1), though curiously James’s name is nowhere mentioned in the fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>We know nothing about James’s career subsequently until about the year 44, when Jesus’ prophecy was fulfilled: James was killed “by the sword” by Herod Agrippa I, and thus became the first of the Twelve whose martyrdom was referred to in the NT (Acts 12:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>The wife of Zebedee was Salome (Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40), who may have been a sister of the Lord’s mother (Jn 19:25). If this were so, it would mean that James and John were first cousins of Jesus and that they may have considered themselves to have been in a privileged position.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JAMES (Person) 1. James, brother of Jesus; leading elder in the church at Jerusalem; author of the epistle bearing his name. The only two references to James in the Gospels mention him with his brothers Joseph (Greek Joses), Simon, and Judas (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). This James may have been, after Jesus, the oldest of the brothers. The question has been raised about whether these were indeed full brothers of Jesus by Mary, for such a situation has created difficulty for those who cannot square it ...","summary_en":"JAMES (Person) 1. James, brother of Jesus; leading elder in the church at Jerusalem; author of the epistle bearing his name. The only two references to James in the Gospels mention him with his brothers Joseph (Greek Joses), Simon, and Judas (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). This James may have been, after Jesus, the oldest of the brothers. The question has been raised about whether these were indeed full brothers of Jesus by Mary, for such a situation has created difficulty for those who cannot square it ...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":21130,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Judas","title_en":"Judas","content_ro":"<h3>JUDAS<\/h3>\n<li>1. Simon’s son, surnamed Iscariot; one of the 12 disciples of Jesus. The derivation of Iscariot is uncertain. In all probability it designated the place of his birth, the town of Kerioth. His childhood home was perhaps Kerioth of Moab, east of the Jordan (Jer 48:24; Am 2:2), or Kerioth-hezron of southern Judah, also known as Hazor (Jos 15:25). A less feasible suggestion identifies Iscariot with an Aramaic word meaning “assassin,” a word eventually attached to Judas’s name because of his betrayal of Jesus.<\/li>\n<p>Judas Iscariot’s name appears last in the list of disciples (Mt 10:4; Mk 3:19; Lk 6:16), perhaps indicating his ignominy in the minds of later believers rather than his original importance among the Twelve. During Jesus’ public ministry, he managed the treasury of the group (Jn 13:29), from which he was known to pilfer money (12:6). As a betrayer, Judas contracted to turn Jesus over to the chief priests for 30 pieces of silver. He accomplished this act of treachery by singling out Jesus with a kiss in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:14-47; Mk 14:10-46; Lk 22:3-48; Jn 18:2-5).<\/p>\n<p>Various suggestions have been offered to explain Judas’s traitorous deed. (1) In keeping with his patriotic zeal, Judas turned Jesus over to the authorities after realizing that his Master did not intend to overthrow the Roman order and establish a Jewish state. (2) Judas believed Jesus to be the Messiah and planned his arrest in hope of urging Jesus to usher in his kingdom. (3) He was a scoundrel who had plotted wickedness since the start of Jesus’ public ministry. (4) Prompted by a satanic impulse, Judas betrayed Jesus; however, after recognizing that he was deceived, out of remorse he took his own life. (5) With damaged pride and humiliated ego from Jesus’ caustic rebukes, Judas, originally a loyal disciple, turned against him. (6) Judas, moved by his own greed, yielded to his selfish instincts, not realizing that Jesus would consequently be tried and killed; upon learning the outcome of his betrayal, he repented in despair and committed suicide.<\/p>\n<p>Judas, despondent over his act of betrayal, went out and hung himself in a field bought with his 30 pieces of silver (Mt 27:3-10). Acts 1:18 gruesomely adds that his body burst open, spilling out his intestines; for this reason the field was called the “Field of Blood” (Acts 1:19). Matthias later took Judas Iscariot’s place among the Twelve (v 26).<\/p>\n<li>2. Son of Joseph and Mary, and the brother of Jesus, James, Joseph, and Simon (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). Evidently Judas and his brothers rejected Jesus as Messiah (Jn 7:5) until after his resurrection (Acts 1:14). Later, it is thought, Judas (English “Jude”) authored the epistle named Jude.<\/li>\n<li>3. Son of James and one of the 12 disciples (Lk 6:16; Jn 14:22; Acts 1:13). He is identifiable with Thaddeus in Matthew 10:3 and Mark 3:18. <em>See<\/em> Thaddaeus, The Apostle.<\/li>\n<li>4. Galilean who led a Jewish revolt against the Romans because of the census taken by Quirinius in <span>AD<\/span> 6. In Acts 5:37 the Pharisee Gamaliel mentioned Judas as an example of one who unsuccessfully tried to gain the support of the Jewish people. Josephus credited him with founding the Jewish Zealot party, an extreme revolutionary movement that attempted to throw off Roman rule and to reestablish Jewish autonomy (<em>War<\/em> 2.8.1).<\/li>\n<li>5. Owner of a house along the street called Straight in Damascus. Here, following his conversion, Saul (Paul) found lodging and had his vision restored by Ananias (Acts 9:11).<\/li>\n<li>6. Prophet and leader in the early Jerusalem church. Judas, surnamed Barsabbas, was selected with Silas to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, where they confirmed the Jerusalem Council’s decision regarding the gentile church and subsequently encouraged its believers (Acts 15:22-32). <em>See<\/em> Joseph #12.<\/li>\n<li>7. KJV spelling of Judah, Jacob’s son (Mt 1:2-3). <em>See<\/em> Judah (Person) #1.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JUDAS<\/h3>\n<li>1. Simon’s son, surnamed Iscariot; one of the 12 disciples of Jesus. The derivation of Iscariot is uncertain. In all probability it designated the place of his birth, the town of Kerioth. His childhood home was perhaps Kerioth of Moab, east of the Jordan (Jer 48:24; Am 2:2), or Kerioth-hezron of southern Judah, also known as Hazor (Jos 15:25). A less feasible suggestion identifies Iscariot with an Aramaic word meaning “assassin,” a word eventually attached to Judas’s name because of his betrayal of Jesus.<\/li>\n<p>Judas Iscariot’s name appears last in the list of disciples (Mt 10:4; Mk 3:19; Lk 6:16), perhaps indicating his ignominy in the minds of later believers rather than his original importance among the Twelve. During Jesus’ public ministry, he managed the treasury of the group (Jn 13:29), from which he was known to pilfer money (12:6). As a betrayer, Judas contracted to turn Jesus over to the chief priests for 30 pieces of silver. He accomplished this act of treachery by singling out Jesus with a kiss in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:14-47; Mk 14:10-46; Lk 22:3-48; Jn 18:2-5).<\/p>\n<p>Various suggestions have been offered to explain Judas’s traitorous deed. (1) In keeping with his patriotic zeal, Judas turned Jesus over to the authorities after realizing that his Master did not intend to overthrow the Roman order and establish a Jewish state. (2) Judas believed Jesus to be the Messiah and planned his arrest in hope of urging Jesus to usher in his kingdom. (3) He was a scoundrel who had plotted wickedness since the start of Jesus’ public ministry. (4) Prompted by a satanic impulse, Judas betrayed Jesus; however, after recognizing that he was deceived, out of remorse he took his own life. (5) With damaged pride and humiliated ego from Jesus’ caustic rebukes, Judas, originally a loyal disciple, turned against him. (6) Judas, moved by his own greed, yielded to his selfish instincts, not realizing that Jesus would consequently be tried and killed; upon learning the outcome of his betrayal, he repented in despair and committed suicide.<\/p>\n<p>Judas, despondent over his act of betrayal, went out and hung himself in a field bought with his 30 pieces of silver (Mt 27:3-10). Acts 1:18 gruesomely adds that his body burst open, spilling out his intestines; for this reason the field was called the “Field of Blood” (Acts 1:19). Matthias later took Judas Iscariot’s place among the Twelve (v 26).<\/p>\n<li>2. Son of Joseph and Mary, and the brother of Jesus, James, Joseph, and Simon (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). Evidently Judas and his brothers rejected Jesus as Messiah (Jn 7:5) until after his resurrection (Acts 1:14). Later, it is thought, Judas (English “Jude”) authored the epistle named Jude.<\/li>\n<li>3. Son of James and one of the 12 disciples (Lk 6:16; Jn 14:22; Acts 1:13). He is identifiable with Thaddeus in Matthew 10:3 and Mark 3:18. <em>See<\/em> Thaddaeus, The Apostle.<\/li>\n<li>4. Galilean who led a Jewish revolt against the Romans because of the census taken by Quirinius in <span>AD<\/span> 6. In Acts 5:37 the Pharisee Gamaliel mentioned Judas as an example of one who unsuccessfully tried to gain the support of the Jewish people. Josephus credited him with founding the Jewish Zealot party, an extreme revolutionary movement that attempted to throw off Roman rule and to reestablish Jewish autonomy (<em>War<\/em> 2.8.1).<\/li>\n<li>5. Owner of a house along the street called Straight in Damascus. Here, following his conversion, Saul (Paul) found lodging and had his vision restored by Ananias (Acts 9:11).<\/li>\n<li>6. Prophet and leader in the early Jerusalem church. Judas, surnamed Barsabbas, was selected with Silas to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, where they confirmed the Jerusalem Council’s decision regarding the gentile church and subsequently encouraged its believers (Acts 15:22-32). <em>See<\/em> Joseph #12.<\/li>\n<li>7. KJV spelling of Judah, Jacob’s son (Mt 1:2-3). <em>See<\/em> Judah (Person) #1.<\/li>","summary_ro":"JUDAS 1. Simon’s son, surnamed Iscariot; one of the 12 disciples of Jesus. The derivation of Iscariot is uncertain. In all probability it designated the place of his birth, the town of Kerioth. His childhood home was perhaps Kerioth of Moab, east of the Jordan (Jer 48:24; Am 2:2), or Kerioth-hezron of southern Judah, also known as Hazor (Jos 15:25). A less feasible suggestion identifies Iscariot with an Aramaic word meaning “assassin,” a word eventually attached to Judas’s name because of his...","summary_en":"JUDAS 1. Simon’s son, surnamed Iscariot; one of the 12 disciples of Jesus. The derivation of Iscariot is uncertain. In all probability it designated the place of his birth, the town of Kerioth. His childhood home was perhaps Kerioth of Moab, east of the Jordan (Jer 48:24; Am 2:2), or Kerioth-hezron of southern Judah, also known as Hazor (Jos 15:25). A less feasible suggestion identifies Iscariot with an Aramaic word meaning “assassin,” a word eventually attached to Judas’s name because of his...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"6":[{"id":56460,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:6","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:6","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:6-8<\/strong> Jesus said that it was <em>not the right time<\/em> for him to go publicly to Jerusalem, although he later went secretly (7:10; cp. study note on 12:23).<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:6-8<\/strong> Jesus said that it was <em>not the right time<\/em> for him to go publicly to Jerusalem, although he later went secretly (7:10; cp. study note on 12:23).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:6-8 Jesus said that it was not the right time for him to go publicly to Jerusalem, although he later went secretly (7:10; cp. study note on 12:23).","summary_en":"7:6-8 Jesus said that it was not the right time for him to go publicly to Jerusalem, although he later went secretly (7:10; cp. study note on 12:23).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":84086,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:6","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:6","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:6-8<\/strong> Jesus said that it was <em>not the right time<\/em> for him to go publicly to Jerusalem, although he later went secretly (7:10; cp. study note on 12:23).<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:6-8<\/strong> Jesus said that it was <em>not the right time<\/em> for him to go publicly to Jerusalem, although he later went secretly (7:10; cp. study note on 12:23).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:6-8 Jesus said that it was not the right time for him to go publicly to Jerusalem, although he later went secretly (7:10; cp. study note on 12:23).","summary_en":"7:6-8 Jesus said that it was not the right time for him to go publicly to Jerusalem, although he later went secretly (7:10; cp. study note on 12:23).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":111712,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:6","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:6","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:6-8<\/strong> Jesus said that it was <em>not the right time<\/em> for him to go publicly to Jerusalem, although he later went secretly (7:10; cp. study note on 12:23).<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:6-8<\/strong> Jesus said that it was <em>not the right time<\/em> for him to go publicly to Jerusalem, although he later went secretly (7:10; cp. study note on 12:23).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:6-8 Jesus said that it was not the right time for him to go publicly to Jerusalem, although he later went secretly (7:10; cp. study note on 12:23).","summary_en":"7:6-8 Jesus said that it was not the right time for him to go publicly to Jerusalem, although he later went secretly (7:10; cp. study note on 12:23).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":139338,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:6","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:6","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:6-8<\/strong> Jesus said that it was <em>not the right time<\/em> for him to go publicly to Jerusalem, although he later went secretly (7:10; cp. study note on 12:23).<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:6-8<\/strong> Jesus said that it was <em>not the right time<\/em> for him to go publicly to Jerusalem, although he later went secretly (7:10; cp. study note on 12:23).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:6-8 Jesus said that it was not the right time for him to go publicly to Jerusalem, although he later went secretly (7:10; cp. study note on 12:23).","summary_en":"7:6-8 Jesus said that it was not the right time for him to go publicly to Jerusalem, although he later went secretly (7:10; cp. study note on 12:23).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"7":[{"id":66048,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The World","title_en":"The World","content_ro":"<h3>The World<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most frequently used words in John is “world” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kosmos<\/span>). In Greek-speaking Jewish thought, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kosmos<\/span> refers to the heavens and the earth as created by God (Gen 1; see also John 1:3, 10; 17:5, 24). John extends the concept to include the world of humanity (e.g., 1:10; 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>Although it was created as good, the human world is hostile to God (1:10-11; 3:19-20; 12:37-41). It is controlled by a darkness that cannot comprehend the light and, in fact, resists the light (3:19). The world is dead and needs life (6:33, 51), yet it hates the one who can save it (7:7). The world is under the dominion of Satan (12:31), who will one day be judged.<\/p>\n<p>God loves the world of humanity, despite its hostility and rebellion against him. Jesus died to take away the sin of the world (1:29; 3:16-17; 1 Jn 2:2). But God’s love for the world he created stands alongside his necessary judgment of the world (John 3:18-21, 36; 5:27-30; 12:47-48). Christ’s followers experience this same tension in their mission. We are called into the world to bring the message of God’s love, but we will experience conflict because the world will be hostile to our message (see 15:18-27; 17:13-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 6:11-12; Pss 2:1-6; 9:8; Isa 61:11; 66:16; Matt 5:14; 13:38-40; John 1:9-10; 3:16-19; 7:7; 8:12; 14:17-19; 15:18-19; 16:7-9, 33; John 17:5-26; Acts 17:31; 1 Cor 1:20-28; 3:3; 6:2; 2 Cor 5:19; Eph 2:2; Col 2:20; Jas 4:4; 2 Pet 1:4; 2:20; 1 Jn 2:15-16; 4:3-5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The World<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most frequently used words in John is “world” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kosmos<\/span>). In Greek-speaking Jewish thought, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kosmos<\/span> refers to the heavens and the earth as created by God (Gen 1; see also John 1:3, 10; 17:5, 24). John extends the concept to include the world of humanity (e.g., 1:10; 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>Although it was created as good, the human world is hostile to God (1:10-11; 3:19-20; 12:37-41). It is controlled by a darkness that cannot comprehend the light and, in fact, resists the light (3:19). The world is dead and needs life (6:33, 51), yet it hates the one who can save it (7:7). The world is under the dominion of Satan (12:31), who will one day be judged.<\/p>\n<p>God loves the world of humanity, despite its hostility and rebellion against him. Jesus died to take away the sin of the world (1:29; 3:16-17; 1 Jn 2:2). But God’s love for the world he created stands alongside his necessary judgment of the world (John 3:18-21, 36; 5:27-30; 12:47-48). Christ’s followers experience this same tension in their mission. We are called into the world to bring the message of God’s love, but we will experience conflict because the world will be hostile to our message (see 15:18-27; 17:13-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 6:11-12; Pss 2:1-6; 9:8; Isa 61:11; 66:16; Matt 5:14; 13:38-40; John 1:9-10; 3:16-19; 7:7; 8:12; 14:17-19; 15:18-19; 16:7-9, 33; John 17:5-26; Acts 17:31; 1 Cor 1:20-28; 3:3; 6:2; 2 Cor 5:19; Eph 2:2; Col 2:20; Jas 4:4; 2 Pet 1:4; 2:20; 1 Jn 2:15-16; 4:3-5<\/p>","summary_ro":"The World One of the most frequently used words in John is “world” (Greek kosmos). In Greek-speaking Jewish thought, kosmos refers to the heavens and the earth as created by God (Gen 1; see also John 1:3, 10; 17:5, 24). John extends the concept to include the world of humanity (e.g., 1:10; 3:16). Although it was created as good, the human world is hostile to God (1:10-11; 3:19-20; 12:37-41). It is controlled by a darkness that cannot comprehend the light and, in fact, resists the light (3:19)...","summary_en":"The World One of the most frequently used words in John is “world” (Greek kosmos). In Greek-speaking Jewish thought, kosmos refers to the heavens and the earth as created by God (Gen 1; see also John 1:3, 10; 17:5, 24). John extends the concept to include the world of humanity (e.g., 1:10; 3:16). Although it was created as good, the human world is hostile to God (1:10-11; 3:19-20; 12:37-41). It is controlled by a darkness that cannot comprehend the light and, in fact, resists the light (3:19)...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93674,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The World","title_en":"The World","content_ro":"<h3>The World<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most frequently used words in John is “world” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kosmos<\/span>). In Greek-speaking Jewish thought, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kosmos<\/span> refers to the heavens and the earth as created by God (Gen 1; see also John 1:3, 10; 17:5, 24). John extends the concept to include the world of humanity (e.g., 1:10; 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>Although it was created as good, the human world is hostile to God (1:10-11; 3:19-20; 12:37-41). It is controlled by a darkness that cannot comprehend the light and, in fact, resists the light (3:19). The world is dead and needs life (6:33, 51), yet it hates the one who can save it (7:7). The world is under the dominion of Satan (12:31), who will one day be judged.<\/p>\n<p>God loves the world of humanity, despite its hostility and rebellion against him. Jesus died to take away the sin of the world (1:29; 3:16-17; 1 Jn 2:2). But God’s love for the world he created stands alongside his necessary judgment of the world (John 3:18-21, 36; 5:27-30; 12:47-48). Christ’s followers experience this same tension in their mission. We are called into the world to bring the message of God’s love, but we will experience conflict because the world will be hostile to our message (see 15:18-27; 17:13-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 6:11-12; Pss 2:1-6; 9:8; Isa 61:11; 66:16; Matt 5:14; 13:38-40; John 1:9-10; 3:16-19; 7:7; 8:12; 14:17-19; 15:18-19; 16:7-9, 33; John 17:5-26; Acts 17:31; 1 Cor 1:20-28; 3:3; 6:2; 2 Cor 5:19; Eph 2:2; Col 2:20; Jas 4:4; 2 Pet 1:4; 2:20; 1 Jn 2:15-16; 4:3-5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The World<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most frequently used words in John is “world” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kosmos<\/span>). In Greek-speaking Jewish thought, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kosmos<\/span> refers to the heavens and the earth as created by God (Gen 1; see also John 1:3, 10; 17:5, 24). John extends the concept to include the world of humanity (e.g., 1:10; 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>Although it was created as good, the human world is hostile to God (1:10-11; 3:19-20; 12:37-41). It is controlled by a darkness that cannot comprehend the light and, in fact, resists the light (3:19). The world is dead and needs life (6:33, 51), yet it hates the one who can save it (7:7). The world is under the dominion of Satan (12:31), who will one day be judged.<\/p>\n<p>God loves the world of humanity, despite its hostility and rebellion against him. Jesus died to take away the sin of the world (1:29; 3:16-17; 1 Jn 2:2). But God’s love for the world he created stands alongside his necessary judgment of the world (John 3:18-21, 36; 5:27-30; 12:47-48). Christ’s followers experience this same tension in their mission. We are called into the world to bring the message of God’s love, but we will experience conflict because the world will be hostile to our message (see 15:18-27; 17:13-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 6:11-12; Pss 2:1-6; 9:8; Isa 61:11; 66:16; Matt 5:14; 13:38-40; John 1:9-10; 3:16-19; 7:7; 8:12; 14:17-19; 15:18-19; 16:7-9, 33; John 17:5-26; Acts 17:31; 1 Cor 1:20-28; 3:3; 6:2; 2 Cor 5:19; Eph 2:2; Col 2:20; Jas 4:4; 2 Pet 1:4; 2:20; 1 Jn 2:15-16; 4:3-5<\/p>","summary_ro":"The World One of the most frequently used words in John is “world” (Greek kosmos). In Greek-speaking Jewish thought, kosmos refers to the heavens and the earth as created by God (Gen 1; see also John 1:3, 10; 17:5, 24). John extends the concept to include the world of humanity (e.g., 1:10; 3:16). Although it was created as good, the human world is hostile to God (1:10-11; 3:19-20; 12:37-41). It is controlled by a darkness that cannot comprehend the light and, in fact, resists the light (3:19)...","summary_en":"The World One of the most frequently used words in John is “world” (Greek kosmos). In Greek-speaking Jewish thought, kosmos refers to the heavens and the earth as created by God (Gen 1; see also John 1:3, 10; 17:5, 24). John extends the concept to include the world of humanity (e.g., 1:10; 3:16). Although it was created as good, the human world is hostile to God (1:10-11; 3:19-20; 12:37-41). It is controlled by a darkness that cannot comprehend the light and, in fact, resists the light (3:19)...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":121300,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The World","title_en":"The World","content_ro":"<h3>The World<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most frequently used words in John is “world” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kosmos<\/span>). In Greek-speaking Jewish thought, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kosmos<\/span> refers to the heavens and the earth as created by God (Gen 1; see also John 1:3, 10; 17:5, 24). John extends the concept to include the world of humanity (e.g., 1:10; 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>Although it was created as good, the human world is hostile to God (1:10-11; 3:19-20; 12:37-41). It is controlled by a darkness that cannot comprehend the light and, in fact, resists the light (3:19). The world is dead and needs life (6:33, 51), yet it hates the one who can save it (7:7). The world is under the dominion of Satan (12:31), who will one day be judged.<\/p>\n<p>God loves the world of humanity, despite its hostility and rebellion against him. Jesus died to take away the sin of the world (1:29; 3:16-17; 1 Jn 2:2). But God’s love for the world he created stands alongside his necessary judgment of the world (John 3:18-21, 36; 5:27-30; 12:47-48). Christ’s followers experience this same tension in their mission. We are called into the world to bring the message of God’s love, but we will experience conflict because the world will be hostile to our message (see 15:18-27; 17:13-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 6:11-12; Pss 2:1-6; 9:8; Isa 61:11; 66:16; Matt 5:14; 13:38-40; John 1:9-10; 3:16-19; 7:7; 8:12; 14:17-19; 15:18-19; 16:7-9, 33; John 17:5-26; Acts 17:31; 1 Cor 1:20-28; 3:3; 6:2; 2 Cor 5:19; Eph 2:2; Col 2:20; Jas 4:4; 2 Pet 1:4; 2:20; 1 Jn 2:15-16; 4:3-5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The World<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most frequently used words in John is “world” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kosmos<\/span>). In Greek-speaking Jewish thought, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kosmos<\/span> refers to the heavens and the earth as created by God (Gen 1; see also John 1:3, 10; 17:5, 24). John extends the concept to include the world of humanity (e.g., 1:10; 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>Although it was created as good, the human world is hostile to God (1:10-11; 3:19-20; 12:37-41). It is controlled by a darkness that cannot comprehend the light and, in fact, resists the light (3:19). The world is dead and needs life (6:33, 51), yet it hates the one who can save it (7:7). The world is under the dominion of Satan (12:31), who will one day be judged.<\/p>\n<p>God loves the world of humanity, despite its hostility and rebellion against him. Jesus died to take away the sin of the world (1:29; 3:16-17; 1 Jn 2:2). But God’s love for the world he created stands alongside his necessary judgment of the world (John 3:18-21, 36; 5:27-30; 12:47-48). Christ’s followers experience this same tension in their mission. We are called into the world to bring the message of God’s love, but we will experience conflict because the world will be hostile to our message (see 15:18-27; 17:13-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 6:11-12; Pss 2:1-6; 9:8; Isa 61:11; 66:16; Matt 5:14; 13:38-40; John 1:9-10; 3:16-19; 7:7; 8:12; 14:17-19; 15:18-19; 16:7-9, 33; John 17:5-26; Acts 17:31; 1 Cor 1:20-28; 3:3; 6:2; 2 Cor 5:19; Eph 2:2; Col 2:20; Jas 4:4; 2 Pet 1:4; 2:20; 1 Jn 2:15-16; 4:3-5<\/p>","summary_ro":"The World One of the most frequently used words in John is “world” (Greek kosmos). In Greek-speaking Jewish thought, kosmos refers to the heavens and the earth as created by God (Gen 1; see also John 1:3, 10; 17:5, 24). John extends the concept to include the world of humanity (e.g., 1:10; 3:16). Although it was created as good, the human world is hostile to God (1:10-11; 3:19-20; 12:37-41). It is controlled by a darkness that cannot comprehend the light and, in fact, resists the light (3:19)...","summary_en":"The World One of the most frequently used words in John is “world” (Greek kosmos). In Greek-speaking Jewish thought, kosmos refers to the heavens and the earth as created by God (Gen 1; see also John 1:3, 10; 17:5, 24). John extends the concept to include the world of humanity (e.g., 1:10; 3:16). Although it was created as good, the human world is hostile to God (1:10-11; 3:19-20; 12:37-41). It is controlled by a darkness that cannot comprehend the light and, in fact, resists the light (3:19)...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148926,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The World","title_en":"The World","content_ro":"<h3>The World<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most frequently used words in John is “world” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kosmos<\/span>). In Greek-speaking Jewish thought, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kosmos<\/span> refers to the heavens and the earth as created by God (Gen 1; see also John 1:3, 10; 17:5, 24). John extends the concept to include the world of humanity (e.g., 1:10; 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>Although it was created as good, the human world is hostile to God (1:10-11; 3:19-20; 12:37-41). It is controlled by a darkness that cannot comprehend the light and, in fact, resists the light (3:19). The world is dead and needs life (6:33, 51), yet it hates the one who can save it (7:7). The world is under the dominion of Satan (12:31), who will one day be judged.<\/p>\n<p>God loves the world of humanity, despite its hostility and rebellion against him. Jesus died to take away the sin of the world (1:29; 3:16-17; 1 Jn 2:2). But God’s love for the world he created stands alongside his necessary judgment of the world (John 3:18-21, 36; 5:27-30; 12:47-48). Christ’s followers experience this same tension in their mission. We are called into the world to bring the message of God’s love, but we will experience conflict because the world will be hostile to our message (see 15:18-27; 17:13-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 6:11-12; Pss 2:1-6; 9:8; Isa 61:11; 66:16; Matt 5:14; 13:38-40; John 1:9-10; 3:16-19; 7:7; 8:12; 14:17-19; 15:18-19; 16:7-9, 33; John 17:5-26; Acts 17:31; 1 Cor 1:20-28; 3:3; 6:2; 2 Cor 5:19; Eph 2:2; Col 2:20; Jas 4:4; 2 Pet 1:4; 2:20; 1 Jn 2:15-16; 4:3-5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The World<\/h3>\n<p>One of the most frequently used words in John is “world” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kosmos<\/span>). In Greek-speaking Jewish thought, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kosmos<\/span> refers to the heavens and the earth as created by God (Gen 1; see also John 1:3, 10; 17:5, 24). John extends the concept to include the world of humanity (e.g., 1:10; 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>Although it was created as good, the human world is hostile to God (1:10-11; 3:19-20; 12:37-41). It is controlled by a darkness that cannot comprehend the light and, in fact, resists the light (3:19). The world is dead and needs life (6:33, 51), yet it hates the one who can save it (7:7). The world is under the dominion of Satan (12:31), who will one day be judged.<\/p>\n<p>God loves the world of humanity, despite its hostility and rebellion against him. Jesus died to take away the sin of the world (1:29; 3:16-17; 1 Jn 2:2). But God’s love for the world he created stands alongside his necessary judgment of the world (John 3:18-21, 36; 5:27-30; 12:47-48). Christ’s followers experience this same tension in their mission. We are called into the world to bring the message of God’s love, but we will experience conflict because the world will be hostile to our message (see 15:18-27; 17:13-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 6:11-12; Pss 2:1-6; 9:8; Isa 61:11; 66:16; Matt 5:14; 13:38-40; John 1:9-10; 3:16-19; 7:7; 8:12; 14:17-19; 15:18-19; 16:7-9, 33; John 17:5-26; Acts 17:31; 1 Cor 1:20-28; 3:3; 6:2; 2 Cor 5:19; Eph 2:2; Col 2:20; Jas 4:4; 2 Pet 1:4; 2:20; 1 Jn 2:15-16; 4:3-5<\/p>","summary_ro":"The World One of the most frequently used words in John is “world” (Greek kosmos). In Greek-speaking Jewish thought, kosmos refers to the heavens and the earth as created by God (Gen 1; see also John 1:3, 10; 17:5, 24). John extends the concept to include the world of humanity (e.g., 1:10; 3:16). Although it was created as good, the human world is hostile to God (1:10-11; 3:19-20; 12:37-41). It is controlled by a darkness that cannot comprehend the light and, in fact, resists the light (3:19)...","summary_en":"The World One of the most frequently used words in John is “world” (Greek kosmos). In Greek-speaking Jewish thought, kosmos refers to the heavens and the earth as created by God (Gen 1; see also John 1:3, 10; 17:5, 24). John extends the concept to include the world of humanity (e.g., 1:10; 3:16). Although it was created as good, the human world is hostile to God (1:10-11; 3:19-20; 12:37-41). It is controlled by a darkness that cannot comprehend the light and, in fact, resists the light (3:19)...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"10":[{"id":42460,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Jewish Leaders","title_en":"Jewish Leaders","content_ro":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","summary_ro":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","summary_en":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70086,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Jewish Leaders","title_en":"Jewish Leaders","content_ro":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","summary_ro":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","summary_en":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97712,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Jewish Leaders","title_en":"Jewish Leaders","content_ro":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","summary_ro":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","summary_en":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125338,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Jewish Leaders","title_en":"Jewish Leaders","content_ro":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","summary_ro":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","summary_en":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":12222,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Feasts and Festivals of Israel","title_en":"Feasts and Festivals of Israel","content_ro":"<h3>FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL<\/h3>\n<p>Occasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion.<\/p>\n\n<p>In contemporary usage “festival” usually refers to activities extending over a period of time, while “feast” indicates one part of the celebration, often a meal. However, in religious usage, both ancient and modern, the two words are used interchangeably. The ancient Hebrews employed the words <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mo’ed<\/span> (“seasons”) and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hag<\/span> for their great public celebrations, while feasts of a more private nature were commonly described by the term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mishteh<\/span><em>.<\/em> The majority of English translations of Scripture do not differentiate between these words.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FeastsandTheirFunctions\">Feasts and Their Functions<\/p>\n<p>Each festival places great emphasis on community participation and on the continuity of social or religious tradition, especially where the celebrations are elements of a regular civil or religious calendar. Without community backing, even in a family celebration, no festival can be successful. When there is communal participation, a festival can reinforce the individual and community memory of specific occasions, and can perpetuate that store of recollection over years and generations. Such shared memory has a cohesive effect upon a cooperating community, large or small, and serves to establish the traditions by which the group lives. If the festival commemorates a particular event or celebrates some lofty ideal, that theme becomes more firmly embedded in the minds of the participants by being associated repeatedly with the rites and ceremonies performed. The feasts of the ancient Hebrews had this positive function. The great festivals of their religious calendar commemorated specific occasions when God had reached out in power to intervene for his people or had provided for them in their distress. By celebrating these feasts on a regular basis, the Hebrews continually affirmed that their God had directed their destiny. Their repeated rehearsal of God’s help and love for them reminded them that he was still able to sustain them. Especially in times of hardship, it pointed to the reality of God’s presence and activity among them. Faith sustained by this means furnished an invaluable spiritual dimension to the life of the nation and provided a sense of continuity under divine provision and guidance. Only when corrupt or pagan elements were introduced into festive occasions did this important ingredient of national life begin to lose its vitality.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentFestivals\">Old Testament Festivals<\/p>\n<h5>General Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>These occasions were surprisingly numerous in Israel, considering the rather austere mode of life reflected in much of the OT. No doubt such celebrations offset or compensated for the hardships and insecurities of existence in the ancient Near East, and the Israelites made the most of every opportunity. A wedding was one of the most obvious occasions for celebration, and it is not surprising that a feast was prepared for the marriage of Rachel and Jacob (Gn 29:22) in which the whole neighborhood participated. Just how long this particular feast lasted is unknown, but some marriage festivals continued for a week, as in the case of the marriage between Samson and the woman of Timnah (Jgs 14:17). Wine that makes glad man’s heart (Ps 104:15) was consumed freely on such occasions.<\/p>\n<p>Birthdays were often observed in a festive spirit, especially where a royal person was concerned (Gn 40:20). Solomon’s dream was commemorated with a feast provided for his servants (1 Kgs 3:15), and when the temple was dedicated, the occasion was celebrated for a full week (8:65). Kings and queens held feasts periodically to mark certain occasions or to express goodwill (cf. Est 1:3; 2:18; 5:4, 14; 7:2, 7; Dn 5:1). Herdsmen traditionally made a feast for the shearing of the first sheep (Dt 18:4).<\/p>\n<h5>Preexilic Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>In addition to the general festivals, which were frequently of a secular nature, communal feasts were prescribed for the Israelites that had a specifically spiritual significance. They were meant to emphasize the activity of God on behalf of his people and to remind them that continued divine blessing depended upon their obedience to his will. The catalog of festivals in Leviticus 23:2 began with an injunction to observe the Sabbath. The seventh day, in which God ceased from creating (Gn 2:3), was holy, though it is difficult to determine the extent to which it was kept until the time of Moses (Ex 20:8-11). From that time on, Sabbath observance stressed refraining from all work so as to commemorate properly God’s own rest from creative activity (31:17) and his deliverance of his people from bondage in Egypt (Dt 5:12-15). Sabbath celebration was the sign of a special relationship between God and the Israelites. During this 24-hour period, even trivial tasks like making a fire (Ex 35:3) or gathering wood (Nm 15:32-33) were prohibited on pain of death. Journeys of any distance also came under the Sabbath ban (Ex 16:29). Special offerings were part of the observance (Nm 28:9-10), and the bread of the Presence was replaced in the tabernacle (Lv 24:5-8). Despite the restrictions on activity, the Sabbath was meant to symbolize a time of happiness and security in the presence of God (cf. Is 58:13-14), since its observance would bring blessing to the individual and to the whole land.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the New Moon<\/h6>\n<p>The new moon was a monthly celebration based on the lunar calendar. It was especially appropriate for an agricultural people, since everyone could tell when the moon was new. Special offerings were prescribed for this festival, consisting of a burnt sacrifice, a grain offering, and a drink offering (Nm 28:11-15). In addition, a male goat was sacrificed to God as a sin offering, and trumpet blasts were sounded over the sacrificial offerings as a memorial before God (10:10). The sacrifices prescribed for the new moon festival were significantly greater than those required in Numbers 28:9-10 for the weekly Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>This lunar feast was popular throughout Israelite history. During the monarchy, the Levites were required to assist the Aaronic priests at the new moon festival, as well as on the Sabbath (1 Chr 23:29-31). The preexilic prophets may well have taken advantage of the large gatherings to give guidance to the people or proclaim prophetic oracles (cf. 2 Kgs 4:23), though to what extent this was done is uncertain. Not everyone found the period of rest and celebration valuable, however, and Amos (Am 8:5) complained about those avaricious Israelites who felt that such observances interfered with the business of making a living. The feast could not be observed when the Judeans were in exile in Babylonia (cf. Hos 2:11), but under Ezra and Nehemiah, its observance was restored (Neh 10:33). In Isaiah 66:22-23 it was related to Israel’s final destiny and was an accepted part of the ordinances for Ezekiel’s ideal temple (Ez 45:17).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the festival was to enhance the unity of national life by reminding the Israelites that God’s covenant with their ancestors was permanent and still binding upon the nation. It also stressed the loving nature and providence of a God who could begin such a relationship and carry out his promises with complete faithfulness (cf. Ps 104:19).<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Trumpets<\/h6>\n<p>The Festival of Trumpets was celebrated on the first day of the seventh new moon. This month, subsequently named Tishri, was especially holy, and for this reason was governed by certain regulations different from those of ordinary new moon festivals. The trumpets were blown on the first day (Lv 23:24) as the animal and cereal sacrifices were offered. From Numbers 29:2-6 it appears that the offerings required for this particular feast exceeded those prescribed for normal Sabbath sacrifice, but were somewhat less than those required for the regular new moon festival (cf. Nm 28:11). This feast was to be observed as a day of solemn rest and as a holy convocation, and the trumpets were sounded as a triumphant memorial to God’s great provision for his people through the Sinai covenant.<\/p>\n<p>The seventh month was particularly sacred, partly because of its place in the hallowed cycle of sevens, but also because the Day of Atonement (or Yom Kippur) and the Feast of Tabernacles, or Booths (Shelters), occurred during this period. The latter feast followed the Day of Atonement by some five days (Lv 23:33), and its joyful character served to offset somewhat the solemnity of the annual penitential occasion when the nation confessed its collective sins and saw them banished symbolically into the wilderness as the scapegoat was driven from the congregation.<\/p>\n<h6>The Sabbatical Year<\/h6>\n<p>Another festival closely connected with the institution of the Sabbath was the sabbatical year. At the end of each cycle of six years, the following 12 months were observed as a “sabbath of rest for the land.” During this interval, the ground was to lie fallow (Ex 23:11) without any form of cultivation, and whatever sprouted and grew from it naturally was assigned to the poor and needy (Lv 25:6). This provision for the land itself constituted one of the most important ecological principles of Scripture. Like God’s people, the land was holy, and just as they needed to have regular intervals of rest from daily work in order to regain their energy and spiritual vitality through worship, so the ground needed to rest and recuperate from the strain of constant cultivation. The festival reminded the Israelites that the land on which they lived had been given to them by God in fulfillment of his covenant undertaking to provide richly for their physical needs (cf. Dt 8:7-10). To keep the Israelites from experiencing any shortages or other hardships during the Year of Sabbath, God promised that in the year immediately preceding the sabbatical period, the land would bear fruit to suffice for the next three years (Lv 25:21). This assurance was based upon the experience of the wilderness wanderings, when on the sixth day of the week sufficient manna appeared to last through the Sabbath (Ex 16:5).<\/p>\n<p>In this festival period, God’s absolute claim over the land was reaffirmed (cf. Lv 25:23), and the faith of the nation in God’s ability to provide for future needs was reinforced. The provisions that freed the land for a year from agricultural bondage were paralleled in the seventh year of rest by those requiring liberation of slaves and debtors. These underprivileged members of society were to be released from their obligations of servitude. As a result, men and women who had become slaves for one reason or another were given personal liberty (Ex 21:2-6), and under proclamation of the Lord’s release, the provisions applying to debt were rescinded (Dt 15:1-6). The sabbatical year seems to have been a regular part of preexilic Israelite life, although some abuses were noted in Jeremiah 34:8-22. There the prophet took advantage of the opportunity presented to instruct the people in the nature and purpose of the sabbatical year ordinance. He also warned the wayward Judeans that because they had disobeyed the commands of God in denying proper liberty to their slaves, they would have their own freedom taken away in a far more serious manner by being carried captive to Babylonia after seeing their land destroyed. The lesson was not lost upon those who returned from exile, for under the administration of Nehemiah, the Jews bound themselves by a covenant to observe the principle of the sabbatical year (Neh 10:31). This undertaking evidently took its impetus from the reading of the law of Moses at the Feast of Booths (Shelters), which coincidentally occurred at the beginning of the sabbatical year (Neh 8:13-18).<\/p>\n<h6>Jubilee<\/h6>\n<p>Still another feast based on the principle of the sabbath was the Year of Jubilee, or Pentecostal year (Lv 25:8-55; 27:17-24). As the sabbatical year was related to the concept of the seventh day, so the Pentecostal (50th) year marked the completion of a cycle of seven sabbatical years. The commencement of a jubilee year was proclaimed on the Day of Atonement throughout the land by means of trumpet blasts (Lv 25:9). The activities that took place during the Pentecostal year were similar to those prescribed for the sabbatical year. A special feature was that land that had been sold during the preceding 49 years was returned to its original owners, a procedure that sometimes involved financial adjustments. To prevent abuse of the process through opportunism or speculation, the Hebrews were instructed to deal fairly and honestly with one another in the fear of God, who was the real owner of the land (Lv 25:14-17). As with the sabbatical year, God promised to make provision before the jubilee year so that no one would suffer hardship. It was during the Year of Jubilee that those who were slaves in Hebrew households were given their liberty, so that everyone in the land would commence a new cycle of sabbatical years on the same footing, as free persons under God.<\/p>\n<h5>Seasonal Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>Three annual festivals that followed the seasons of the year rather than phases of the moon furnished important occasions for commemorating God’s power and provision in national life. These festivals were designated by the term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hag<\/span><em>,<\/em> indicating a festival usually observed by some sort of pilgrimage. These three festivals were prescribed in Exodus 23:14-17 and Deuteronomy 16:16, and consisted of the Feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), and the Festival of Booths (Tabernacles). On these occasions, all the males of Israel were commanded to make pilgrimage to the sanctuary and celebrate these festivals (Ex 12:14). The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were originally separate ordinances, but since the latter always followed immediately upon the Passover rite, they naturally blended into a single festival.<\/p>\n<h6>Passover<\/h6>\n<p>The Passover was of supreme theological significance for the Israelites, since it marked one of the most momentous acts of divine intervention in their history, the beginning of their deliverance from bondage in Egypt when, in the final plague, God destroyed the firstborn of the Egyptians but spared those Israelites whose homes had blood smeared on the doorposts (Ex 12:11-30). God commanded that the day was to be observed as a memorial feast (v 14), and the next Passover celebration occurred in the Sinai Desert (Nm 9:1-5). In the Hebrew calendar the Passover festival came in the first month, called Abib in Deuteronomy 16:1, but known after the exile as Nisan (cf. Neh 2:1). The Passover rite took place the 14th evening (Lv 23:5), and this was followed by a seven-day period during which nothing leavened was to be eaten. The principle for removing all leaven from bread was similar to that underlying the draining of blood from animal flesh. Both leaven and blood had quickening power and were to be kept separate as an offering to God. The first and seventh days of this period were marked by a holy assembly, during which the only work permitted was the preparation of food (Ex 12:16). This period when unleavened bread was eaten was described as a festival because it opened the seven-week period of grain harvest (Dt 16:9). During this feast, special burnt sacrifices were offered, followed with a sheaf of newly harvested barley at the Feast of Firstfruits. By NT times the festivals of Passover and Unleavened Bread were well-attended celebrations and were known as the “days of unleavened bread” (Lk 22:1; Acts 12:3). The theme of Israel’s deliverance from the power of Egypt by divine intervention assured the Israelites that God was always ready to act on behalf of a faithful and obedient covenant people. It also reminded them that they had once been slaves (Dt 16:12). In Israelite life the early Passover and Unleavened Bread observances were comparatively simple in character, but during the monarchy more elaborate Passover rituals came into use (cf. 2 Kgs 23:21-23; 2 Chr 35:1-19).<\/p>\n<h6>Pentecost<\/h6>\n<p>The second great festival, Pentecost (or Weeks) lasted one day only and was observed on the 50th day after the newly harvested barley sheaf had been waved before the Lord at the end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Dt 16:9-12). The festival marked the end of the barley harvest and the beginning of the wheat harvest, the beginning of the period when firstfruits could be offered (cf. Ex 23:16; 34:22; Nm 28:26). The feast day was marked by the presentation of two wheat-flour loaves along with sacrifices of seven lambs, two rams, and a bull (Lv 23:15-20). Freewill gifts to God were presented to reflect gratitude for his blessings, and the entire occasion was one of communal rejoicing (Dt 16:10-11). Since Pentecost was essentially a harvest festival (Ex 23:16), the Israelites were called on to recognize that they depended entirely upon God for their material prosperity. In Deuteronomy 26, specific instructions were given for the ritual of presenting firstfruits from the harvest. It comprised a great confession of faith set within the framework of Israel’s history, and it recounted God’s deliverance of the nation from Egyptian oppression and his provision of a land that could amply supply the needs of his people.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of Tabernacles<\/h6>\n<p>This festival, known variously as the Feast of Booths, Tabernacles, Shelters (Lv 23:34; Dt 16:13), or Ingathering (Ex 34:22), was the third great occasion that all Hebrew males were required to observe annually. It began on the 15th day of the seventh month (Tishri), shortly after the observance of the Day of Atonement, which fell on the 10th day. The Feast of Booths lasted for one week and involved pilgrimage. It was associated initially with the end of the year (Ex 34:22), when the agricultural work had been completed. The first day was marked by a symbolic cessation from all activity, after which burnt offerings were presented to the Lord. The eighth day was also one on which the congregation of Israel abstained from manual work and again offered burnt sacrifices. Leviticus 23:39-43 furnished details for the rituals that gave the festival its special name of booths or shelters or tabernacles. The fruit of “goodly trees” was to be gathered on the first day of the feast, along with palm fronds, willow branches, and boughs from trees in full leaf. From these, rough shelters or booths were to be constructed in which the people lived for the week of the feast. Every seventh year the observances were marked by a public recital of the covenant provisions to which the Israelites under Moses had committed themselves, a procedure designed to keep fresh in their minds the obligations as well as the blessings of the covenant relationship. A particularly significant observance of the Feast of Tabernacles took place in the time of Ezra, when the Judean community returned from Babylon—a celebration of a kind unknown for centuries (Neh 8:13-18). From the context it appears that observance of the feast had lapsed during the monarchy. The feast at Shiloh where Hannah was mistaken for a drunken woman and the feast referred to in Judges 21:19 were evidently the Feast of Booths. In a prophetic vision in which he saw all nations coming to Jerusalem to observe the Festival of Booths, Zechariah warned that those who did not continue this tradition could expect hardship and shortages of food (Zec 14:16-19).<\/p>\n<h5>Postexilic Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>There are a few minor festivals that were created in the period after the Jews returned from exile; some of these festivals had their origin in specific historical occasions.<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Purim<\/h6>\n<p>The Festival of Purim, also known as the Festival of Lots, was a joyful occasion occurring on the 14th day of the 12th month (Adar). It celebrated the way in which Esther and Mordecai were used by God to deliver his people in the Persian Empire from extermination by Haman (Est 9:21, 24-28). The feast was observed on the 14th day of Adar by those living in villages, and on the 15th by the inhabitants of walled towns and cities. The explanation of the name of the festival is given in Esther 9:24-26, and its observance reminded the Hebrews of God’s ability to save them during a time of anti-Semitic activity in Persia. The deliverance memorialized in this festival has consoled the Jews on other occasions when they have suffered persecution. Traditionally the scroll of Esther was read aloud in the synagogue on the evening before the feast, and there was a great outcry, especially among the children present, whenever the names of the hated Haman and his sons were mentioned.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the Dedication of the Temple<\/h6>\n<p>Another joyous festival that lasted for eight days was the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple (1 Macc 4:52-59; 2 Macc 10:6-8), familiar to modern readers as Hanukkah, or the Festival of Lights. The specific dedication that prompted the feast occurred in 164 <span>BC<\/span>, when Judas Maccabeus reconsecrated the temple in Jerusalem after it had been defiled by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The celebrations commenced on the 25th day of the ninth month (Kislev) and were marked at night by blazing lights and lanterns. The stories of brave opposition by the Maccabees to the crushing forces of paganism were recounted, and the feast was one of praise to God for his marvelous deliverance of the Jews during the Maccabean period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentFestivals\">New Testament Festivals<\/p>\n<p>In Christ’s time the Sabbath was observed rigorously and was the occasion for synagogue worship (cf. Lk 4:16; Acts 13:14; 18:4). Pharisaic law prohibited all work, and Jesus came into conflict with the authorities periodically for breaches of the Sabbath regulations (cf. Mt 12:1-4; Mk 3:1-5; Lk 13:10-17). In the primitive church, worship occurred on “the first day of the week” (i.e., Sunday) to commemorate Christ’s resurrection. The early Christians initially participated in Jewish ceremonies (cf. Acts 20:16; 1 Cor 16:8). It was during the Feast of Pentecost, after Christ’s resurrection and ascension, that the Spirit was poured out (Acts 2:1-4), fulfilling Joel 2:28-32 and commencing the history of the Christian church as such.<\/p>\n<p>The Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread were of great significance in the life of Christ (cf. Jn 4:45; 5:1; 6:4; 12:1-26), for the occasion was a very popular one in NT times (cf. 12:20). On the Passover, Pilate had instituted the custom of clemency to a prisoner nominated by the populace (Mt 27:15; Mk 15:6). Jesus participated actively in the Passover rituals (cf. Lk 2:42; Jn 2:13; 6:4). The Last Supper with his disciples occurred just prior to the Passover (Jn 13:1), when Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus to the Pharisees (Lk 22:4-6). The breaking of bread and the drinking of wine at that Passover celebration (Mk 14:22-25) were related directly to Christ’s forthcoming death on the cross in a sacramental manner. Christ’s disciples were instructed to observe this rite as a memorial of his suffering and death for human sin (1 Cor 11:24-26) and as a proclamation of the power of the cross until the Lord returns in glory. Some scholars have suggested that Christ was actually hanging on the cross when the Passover lamb was being slaughtered, and if that chronology is correct, it would represent Jesus graphically as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29, <span>rsv<\/span>). Jesus was also present once when the Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated (7:10). In his day water was carried in procession from the pool of Siloam as an offering to God, and the ceremony most probably prompted Christ’s discourse on living water and eternal life (vv 37-39). On at least one occasion Jesus was in Jerusalem when the Festival of Lights occurred (Jn 10:22) and narrowly missed death by stoning.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was entertained occasionally at private feasts (cf. Lk 5:29), and once remedied an emergency situation when the wine ran out at a wedding ceremony (Jn 2:8-10). He was critical of the Pharisees for securing the chief seats at feasts (Mt 23:6; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46) and taught that festivals ought to benefit the poor (Lk 14:13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SymbolismofFeasts\">Symbolism of Feasts<\/p>\n<p>Many aspects of the ancient Hebrew feasts were interpreted symbolically in the early church. Paul regarded the earliest Hebrew Christians as the firstfruits of the Israel of God (Rom 11:16). In Romans 8:23, the Holy Spirit as possessed by Christians was regarded as only a token of what was to come, and as such was the firstfruit of the Spirit. Christians themselves were described in James 1:18 as the firstfruits of God’s creatures who were brought forth by the Word of Truth. The resurrection of Jesus was considered by Paul to be the firstfruits of those who slept (1 Cor 15:20, 23). In an allusion to OT festivals, Paul spoke of the Sabbaths, new moons, and feasts as merely being a shadow of good things to come (Col 2:16-17). The Passover was used figuratively to emphasize that Christ our Passover Lamb had been sacrificed for us. Believers were urged to keep the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, and not with the old leaven of malice and evil (1 Cor 5:7-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Calendars, Ancient and Modern; Offerings and Sacrifices; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL<\/h3>\n<p>Occasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion.<\/p>\n\n<p>In contemporary usage “festival” usually refers to activities extending over a period of time, while “feast” indicates one part of the celebration, often a meal. However, in religious usage, both ancient and modern, the two words are used interchangeably. The ancient Hebrews employed the words <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mo’ed<\/span> (“seasons”) and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hag<\/span> for their great public celebrations, while feasts of a more private nature were commonly described by the term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mishteh<\/span><em>.<\/em> The majority of English translations of Scripture do not differentiate between these words.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FeastsandTheirFunctions\">Feasts and Their Functions<\/p>\n<p>Each festival places great emphasis on community participation and on the continuity of social or religious tradition, especially where the celebrations are elements of a regular civil or religious calendar. Without community backing, even in a family celebration, no festival can be successful. When there is communal participation, a festival can reinforce the individual and community memory of specific occasions, and can perpetuate that store of recollection over years and generations. Such shared memory has a cohesive effect upon a cooperating community, large or small, and serves to establish the traditions by which the group lives. If the festival commemorates a particular event or celebrates some lofty ideal, that theme becomes more firmly embedded in the minds of the participants by being associated repeatedly with the rites and ceremonies performed. The feasts of the ancient Hebrews had this positive function. The great festivals of their religious calendar commemorated specific occasions when God had reached out in power to intervene for his people or had provided for them in their distress. By celebrating these feasts on a regular basis, the Hebrews continually affirmed that their God had directed their destiny. Their repeated rehearsal of God’s help and love for them reminded them that he was still able to sustain them. Especially in times of hardship, it pointed to the reality of God’s presence and activity among them. Faith sustained by this means furnished an invaluable spiritual dimension to the life of the nation and provided a sense of continuity under divine provision and guidance. Only when corrupt or pagan elements were introduced into festive occasions did this important ingredient of national life begin to lose its vitality.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentFestivals\">Old Testament Festivals<\/p>\n<h5>General Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>These occasions were surprisingly numerous in Israel, considering the rather austere mode of life reflected in much of the OT. No doubt such celebrations offset or compensated for the hardships and insecurities of existence in the ancient Near East, and the Israelites made the most of every opportunity. A wedding was one of the most obvious occasions for celebration, and it is not surprising that a feast was prepared for the marriage of Rachel and Jacob (Gn 29:22) in which the whole neighborhood participated. Just how long this particular feast lasted is unknown, but some marriage festivals continued for a week, as in the case of the marriage between Samson and the woman of Timnah (Jgs 14:17). Wine that makes glad man’s heart (Ps 104:15) was consumed freely on such occasions.<\/p>\n<p>Birthdays were often observed in a festive spirit, especially where a royal person was concerned (Gn 40:20). Solomon’s dream was commemorated with a feast provided for his servants (1 Kgs 3:15), and when the temple was dedicated, the occasion was celebrated for a full week (8:65). Kings and queens held feasts periodically to mark certain occasions or to express goodwill (cf. Est 1:3; 2:18; 5:4, 14; 7:2, 7; Dn 5:1). Herdsmen traditionally made a feast for the shearing of the first sheep (Dt 18:4).<\/p>\n<h5>Preexilic Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>In addition to the general festivals, which were frequently of a secular nature, communal feasts were prescribed for the Israelites that had a specifically spiritual significance. They were meant to emphasize the activity of God on behalf of his people and to remind them that continued divine blessing depended upon their obedience to his will. The catalog of festivals in Leviticus 23:2 began with an injunction to observe the Sabbath. The seventh day, in which God ceased from creating (Gn 2:3), was holy, though it is difficult to determine the extent to which it was kept until the time of Moses (Ex 20:8-11). From that time on, Sabbath observance stressed refraining from all work so as to commemorate properly God’s own rest from creative activity (31:17) and his deliverance of his people from bondage in Egypt (Dt 5:12-15). Sabbath celebration was the sign of a special relationship between God and the Israelites. During this 24-hour period, even trivial tasks like making a fire (Ex 35:3) or gathering wood (Nm 15:32-33) were prohibited on pain of death. Journeys of any distance also came under the Sabbath ban (Ex 16:29). Special offerings were part of the observance (Nm 28:9-10), and the bread of the Presence was replaced in the tabernacle (Lv 24:5-8). Despite the restrictions on activity, the Sabbath was meant to symbolize a time of happiness and security in the presence of God (cf. Is 58:13-14), since its observance would bring blessing to the individual and to the whole land.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the New Moon<\/h6>\n<p>The new moon was a monthly celebration based on the lunar calendar. It was especially appropriate for an agricultural people, since everyone could tell when the moon was new. Special offerings were prescribed for this festival, consisting of a burnt sacrifice, a grain offering, and a drink offering (Nm 28:11-15). In addition, a male goat was sacrificed to God as a sin offering, and trumpet blasts were sounded over the sacrificial offerings as a memorial before God (10:10). The sacrifices prescribed for the new moon festival were significantly greater than those required in Numbers 28:9-10 for the weekly Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>This lunar feast was popular throughout Israelite history. During the monarchy, the Levites were required to assist the Aaronic priests at the new moon festival, as well as on the Sabbath (1 Chr 23:29-31). The preexilic prophets may well have taken advantage of the large gatherings to give guidance to the people or proclaim prophetic oracles (cf. 2 Kgs 4:23), though to what extent this was done is uncertain. Not everyone found the period of rest and celebration valuable, however, and Amos (Am 8:5) complained about those avaricious Israelites who felt that such observances interfered with the business of making a living. The feast could not be observed when the Judeans were in exile in Babylonia (cf. Hos 2:11), but under Ezra and Nehemiah, its observance was restored (Neh 10:33). In Isaiah 66:22-23 it was related to Israel’s final destiny and was an accepted part of the ordinances for Ezekiel’s ideal temple (Ez 45:17).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the festival was to enhance the unity of national life by reminding the Israelites that God’s covenant with their ancestors was permanent and still binding upon the nation. It also stressed the loving nature and providence of a God who could begin such a relationship and carry out his promises with complete faithfulness (cf. Ps 104:19).<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Trumpets<\/h6>\n<p>The Festival of Trumpets was celebrated on the first day of the seventh new moon. This month, subsequently named Tishri, was especially holy, and for this reason was governed by certain regulations different from those of ordinary new moon festivals. The trumpets were blown on the first day (Lv 23:24) as the animal and cereal sacrifices were offered. From Numbers 29:2-6 it appears that the offerings required for this particular feast exceeded those prescribed for normal Sabbath sacrifice, but were somewhat less than those required for the regular new moon festival (cf. Nm 28:11). This feast was to be observed as a day of solemn rest and as a holy convocation, and the trumpets were sounded as a triumphant memorial to God’s great provision for his people through the Sinai covenant.<\/p>\n<p>The seventh month was particularly sacred, partly because of its place in the hallowed cycle of sevens, but also because the Day of Atonement (or Yom Kippur) and the Feast of Tabernacles, or Booths (Shelters), occurred during this period. The latter feast followed the Day of Atonement by some five days (Lv 23:33), and its joyful character served to offset somewhat the solemnity of the annual penitential occasion when the nation confessed its collective sins and saw them banished symbolically into the wilderness as the scapegoat was driven from the congregation.<\/p>\n<h6>The Sabbatical Year<\/h6>\n<p>Another festival closely connected with the institution of the Sabbath was the sabbatical year. At the end of each cycle of six years, the following 12 months were observed as a “sabbath of rest for the land.” During this interval, the ground was to lie fallow (Ex 23:11) without any form of cultivation, and whatever sprouted and grew from it naturally was assigned to the poor and needy (Lv 25:6). This provision for the land itself constituted one of the most important ecological principles of Scripture. Like God’s people, the land was holy, and just as they needed to have regular intervals of rest from daily work in order to regain their energy and spiritual vitality through worship, so the ground needed to rest and recuperate from the strain of constant cultivation. The festival reminded the Israelites that the land on which they lived had been given to them by God in fulfillment of his covenant undertaking to provide richly for their physical needs (cf. Dt 8:7-10). To keep the Israelites from experiencing any shortages or other hardships during the Year of Sabbath, God promised that in the year immediately preceding the sabbatical period, the land would bear fruit to suffice for the next three years (Lv 25:21). This assurance was based upon the experience of the wilderness wanderings, when on the sixth day of the week sufficient manna appeared to last through the Sabbath (Ex 16:5).<\/p>\n<p>In this festival period, God’s absolute claim over the land was reaffirmed (cf. Lv 25:23), and the faith of the nation in God’s ability to provide for future needs was reinforced. The provisions that freed the land for a year from agricultural bondage were paralleled in the seventh year of rest by those requiring liberation of slaves and debtors. These underprivileged members of society were to be released from their obligations of servitude. As a result, men and women who had become slaves for one reason or another were given personal liberty (Ex 21:2-6), and under proclamation of the Lord’s release, the provisions applying to debt were rescinded (Dt 15:1-6). The sabbatical year seems to have been a regular part of preexilic Israelite life, although some abuses were noted in Jeremiah 34:8-22. There the prophet took advantage of the opportunity presented to instruct the people in the nature and purpose of the sabbatical year ordinance. He also warned the wayward Judeans that because they had disobeyed the commands of God in denying proper liberty to their slaves, they would have their own freedom taken away in a far more serious manner by being carried captive to Babylonia after seeing their land destroyed. The lesson was not lost upon those who returned from exile, for under the administration of Nehemiah, the Jews bound themselves by a covenant to observe the principle of the sabbatical year (Neh 10:31). This undertaking evidently took its impetus from the reading of the law of Moses at the Feast of Booths (Shelters), which coincidentally occurred at the beginning of the sabbatical year (Neh 8:13-18).<\/p>\n<h6>Jubilee<\/h6>\n<p>Still another feast based on the principle of the sabbath was the Year of Jubilee, or Pentecostal year (Lv 25:8-55; 27:17-24). As the sabbatical year was related to the concept of the seventh day, so the Pentecostal (50th) year marked the completion of a cycle of seven sabbatical years. The commencement of a jubilee year was proclaimed on the Day of Atonement throughout the land by means of trumpet blasts (Lv 25:9). The activities that took place during the Pentecostal year were similar to those prescribed for the sabbatical year. A special feature was that land that had been sold during the preceding 49 years was returned to its original owners, a procedure that sometimes involved financial adjustments. To prevent abuse of the process through opportunism or speculation, the Hebrews were instructed to deal fairly and honestly with one another in the fear of God, who was the real owner of the land (Lv 25:14-17). As with the sabbatical year, God promised to make provision before the jubilee year so that no one would suffer hardship. It was during the Year of Jubilee that those who were slaves in Hebrew households were given their liberty, so that everyone in the land would commence a new cycle of sabbatical years on the same footing, as free persons under God.<\/p>\n<h5>Seasonal Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>Three annual festivals that followed the seasons of the year rather than phases of the moon furnished important occasions for commemorating God’s power and provision in national life. These festivals were designated by the term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hag<\/span><em>,<\/em> indicating a festival usually observed by some sort of pilgrimage. These three festivals were prescribed in Exodus 23:14-17 and Deuteronomy 16:16, and consisted of the Feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), and the Festival of Booths (Tabernacles). On these occasions, all the males of Israel were commanded to make pilgrimage to the sanctuary and celebrate these festivals (Ex 12:14). The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were originally separate ordinances, but since the latter always followed immediately upon the Passover rite, they naturally blended into a single festival.<\/p>\n<h6>Passover<\/h6>\n<p>The Passover was of supreme theological significance for the Israelites, since it marked one of the most momentous acts of divine intervention in their history, the beginning of their deliverance from bondage in Egypt when, in the final plague, God destroyed the firstborn of the Egyptians but spared those Israelites whose homes had blood smeared on the doorposts (Ex 12:11-30). God commanded that the day was to be observed as a memorial feast (v 14), and the next Passover celebration occurred in the Sinai Desert (Nm 9:1-5). In the Hebrew calendar the Passover festival came in the first month, called Abib in Deuteronomy 16:1, but known after the exile as Nisan (cf. Neh 2:1). The Passover rite took place the 14th evening (Lv 23:5), and this was followed by a seven-day period during which nothing leavened was to be eaten. The principle for removing all leaven from bread was similar to that underlying the draining of blood from animal flesh. Both leaven and blood had quickening power and were to be kept separate as an offering to God. The first and seventh days of this period were marked by a holy assembly, during which the only work permitted was the preparation of food (Ex 12:16). This period when unleavened bread was eaten was described as a festival because it opened the seven-week period of grain harvest (Dt 16:9). During this feast, special burnt sacrifices were offered, followed with a sheaf of newly harvested barley at the Feast of Firstfruits. By NT times the festivals of Passover and Unleavened Bread were well-attended celebrations and were known as the “days of unleavened bread” (Lk 22:1; Acts 12:3). The theme of Israel’s deliverance from the power of Egypt by divine intervention assured the Israelites that God was always ready to act on behalf of a faithful and obedient covenant people. It also reminded them that they had once been slaves (Dt 16:12). In Israelite life the early Passover and Unleavened Bread observances were comparatively simple in character, but during the monarchy more elaborate Passover rituals came into use (cf. 2 Kgs 23:21-23; 2 Chr 35:1-19).<\/p>\n<h6>Pentecost<\/h6>\n<p>The second great festival, Pentecost (or Weeks) lasted one day only and was observed on the 50th day after the newly harvested barley sheaf had been waved before the Lord at the end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Dt 16:9-12). The festival marked the end of the barley harvest and the beginning of the wheat harvest, the beginning of the period when firstfruits could be offered (cf. Ex 23:16; 34:22; Nm 28:26). The feast day was marked by the presentation of two wheat-flour loaves along with sacrifices of seven lambs, two rams, and a bull (Lv 23:15-20). Freewill gifts to God were presented to reflect gratitude for his blessings, and the entire occasion was one of communal rejoicing (Dt 16:10-11). Since Pentecost was essentially a harvest festival (Ex 23:16), the Israelites were called on to recognize that they depended entirely upon God for their material prosperity. In Deuteronomy 26, specific instructions were given for the ritual of presenting firstfruits from the harvest. It comprised a great confession of faith set within the framework of Israel’s history, and it recounted God’s deliverance of the nation from Egyptian oppression and his provision of a land that could amply supply the needs of his people.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of Tabernacles<\/h6>\n<p>This festival, known variously as the Feast of Booths, Tabernacles, Shelters (Lv 23:34; Dt 16:13), or Ingathering (Ex 34:22), was the third great occasion that all Hebrew males were required to observe annually. It began on the 15th day of the seventh month (Tishri), shortly after the observance of the Day of Atonement, which fell on the 10th day. The Feast of Booths lasted for one week and involved pilgrimage. It was associated initially with the end of the year (Ex 34:22), when the agricultural work had been completed. The first day was marked by a symbolic cessation from all activity, after which burnt offerings were presented to the Lord. The eighth day was also one on which the congregation of Israel abstained from manual work and again offered burnt sacrifices. Leviticus 23:39-43 furnished details for the rituals that gave the festival its special name of booths or shelters or tabernacles. The fruit of “goodly trees” was to be gathered on the first day of the feast, along with palm fronds, willow branches, and boughs from trees in full leaf. From these, rough shelters or booths were to be constructed in which the people lived for the week of the feast. Every seventh year the observances were marked by a public recital of the covenant provisions to which the Israelites under Moses had committed themselves, a procedure designed to keep fresh in their minds the obligations as well as the blessings of the covenant relationship. A particularly significant observance of the Feast of Tabernacles took place in the time of Ezra, when the Judean community returned from Babylon—a celebration of a kind unknown for centuries (Neh 8:13-18). From the context it appears that observance of the feast had lapsed during the monarchy. The feast at Shiloh where Hannah was mistaken for a drunken woman and the feast referred to in Judges 21:19 were evidently the Feast of Booths. In a prophetic vision in which he saw all nations coming to Jerusalem to observe the Festival of Booths, Zechariah warned that those who did not continue this tradition could expect hardship and shortages of food (Zec 14:16-19).<\/p>\n<h5>Postexilic Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>There are a few minor festivals that were created in the period after the Jews returned from exile; some of these festivals had their origin in specific historical occasions.<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Purim<\/h6>\n<p>The Festival of Purim, also known as the Festival of Lots, was a joyful occasion occurring on the 14th day of the 12th month (Adar). It celebrated the way in which Esther and Mordecai were used by God to deliver his people in the Persian Empire from extermination by Haman (Est 9:21, 24-28). The feast was observed on the 14th day of Adar by those living in villages, and on the 15th by the inhabitants of walled towns and cities. The explanation of the name of the festival is given in Esther 9:24-26, and its observance reminded the Hebrews of God’s ability to save them during a time of anti-Semitic activity in Persia. The deliverance memorialized in this festival has consoled the Jews on other occasions when they have suffered persecution. Traditionally the scroll of Esther was read aloud in the synagogue on the evening before the feast, and there was a great outcry, especially among the children present, whenever the names of the hated Haman and his sons were mentioned.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the Dedication of the Temple<\/h6>\n<p>Another joyous festival that lasted for eight days was the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple (1 Macc 4:52-59; 2 Macc 10:6-8), familiar to modern readers as Hanukkah, or the Festival of Lights. The specific dedication that prompted the feast occurred in 164 <span>BC<\/span>, when Judas Maccabeus reconsecrated the temple in Jerusalem after it had been defiled by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The celebrations commenced on the 25th day of the ninth month (Kislev) and were marked at night by blazing lights and lanterns. The stories of brave opposition by the Maccabees to the crushing forces of paganism were recounted, and the feast was one of praise to God for his marvelous deliverance of the Jews during the Maccabean period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentFestivals\">New Testament Festivals<\/p>\n<p>In Christ’s time the Sabbath was observed rigorously and was the occasion for synagogue worship (cf. Lk 4:16; Acts 13:14; 18:4). Pharisaic law prohibited all work, and Jesus came into conflict with the authorities periodically for breaches of the Sabbath regulations (cf. Mt 12:1-4; Mk 3:1-5; Lk 13:10-17). In the primitive church, worship occurred on “the first day of the week” (i.e., Sunday) to commemorate Christ’s resurrection. The early Christians initially participated in Jewish ceremonies (cf. Acts 20:16; 1 Cor 16:8). It was during the Feast of Pentecost, after Christ’s resurrection and ascension, that the Spirit was poured out (Acts 2:1-4), fulfilling Joel 2:28-32 and commencing the history of the Christian church as such.<\/p>\n<p>The Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread were of great significance in the life of Christ (cf. Jn 4:45; 5:1; 6:4; 12:1-26), for the occasion was a very popular one in NT times (cf. 12:20). On the Passover, Pilate had instituted the custom of clemency to a prisoner nominated by the populace (Mt 27:15; Mk 15:6). Jesus participated actively in the Passover rituals (cf. Lk 2:42; Jn 2:13; 6:4). The Last Supper with his disciples occurred just prior to the Passover (Jn 13:1), when Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus to the Pharisees (Lk 22:4-6). The breaking of bread and the drinking of wine at that Passover celebration (Mk 14:22-25) were related directly to Christ’s forthcoming death on the cross in a sacramental manner. Christ’s disciples were instructed to observe this rite as a memorial of his suffering and death for human sin (1 Cor 11:24-26) and as a proclamation of the power of the cross until the Lord returns in glory. Some scholars have suggested that Christ was actually hanging on the cross when the Passover lamb was being slaughtered, and if that chronology is correct, it would represent Jesus graphically as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29, <span>rsv<\/span>). Jesus was also present once when the Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated (7:10). In his day water was carried in procession from the pool of Siloam as an offering to God, and the ceremony most probably prompted Christ’s discourse on living water and eternal life (vv 37-39). On at least one occasion Jesus was in Jerusalem when the Festival of Lights occurred (Jn 10:22) and narrowly missed death by stoning.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was entertained occasionally at private feasts (cf. Lk 5:29), and once remedied an emergency situation when the wine ran out at a wedding ceremony (Jn 2:8-10). He was critical of the Pharisees for securing the chief seats at feasts (Mt 23:6; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46) and taught that festivals ought to benefit the poor (Lk 14:13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SymbolismofFeasts\">Symbolism of Feasts<\/p>\n<p>Many aspects of the ancient Hebrew feasts were interpreted symbolically in the early church. Paul regarded the earliest Hebrew Christians as the firstfruits of the Israel of God (Rom 11:16). In Romans 8:23, the Holy Spirit as possessed by Christians was regarded as only a token of what was to come, and as such was the firstfruit of the Spirit. Christians themselves were described in James 1:18 as the firstfruits of God’s creatures who were brought forth by the Word of Truth. The resurrection of Jesus was considered by Paul to be the firstfruits of those who slept (1 Cor 15:20, 23). In an allusion to OT festivals, Paul spoke of the Sabbaths, new moons, and feasts as merely being a shadow of good things to come (Col 2:16-17). The Passover was used figuratively to emphasize that Christ our Passover Lamb had been sacrificed for us. Believers were urged to keep the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, and not with the old leaven of malice and evil (1 Cor 5:7-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Calendars, Ancient and Modern; Offerings and Sacrifices; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL Occasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion. In contemporary usag...","summary_en":"FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL Occasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion. In contemporary usag...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"14":[{"id":36864,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Teacher","title_en":"Teacher","content_ro":"<h3>TEACHER<\/h3>\n<p>Teachers conserved the values and academia of a nation and passed them on to each new generation. In OT times the first teachers were often parents (Dt 6:7, 20-25; 11:19-21). Leaders like Moses and Aaron were charged with teaching the people (Lv 10:11), and later the priests and Levites had a teaching function (Dt 24:8; 33:8-10; 2 Chr 17:7-9; Ez 44:23; Mi 3:11). God himself was thought of as a teacher (Pss 25:8, 12; 27:11; 32:8; 86:11; Is 2:3).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the Greek noun for “teacher” and the verb “to teach” are widely used. John the Baptist was called a teacher (Lk 3:12). The term is used more than 30 times of Jesus (Mt 4:23; 5:2; 7:29; 9:35; 11:1; Mk 1:21; 2:13; 4:1-2; 6:2, 6, 34; Lk 4:15, 31; 5:3; 6:6; Jn 6:59; 7:14, 28; etc.). People recognized his teaching as authoritative (Mt 7:29; Mk 1:22; Lk 4:32). Even as a boy of 12 he conversed in a profound way with the teachers of the law in the temple (Lk 2:46). These men were often associated with the Pharisees (5:17). Gamaliel was a Pharisee and a teacher of the law (Acts 5:34). The term “rabbi” was often used to denote teacher. The rabbi was held in great honor. In the early church the teacher was widely recognized (Acts 13:1; 1 Cor 12:28-29; Eph 4:11; 2 Tm 1:11; Jas 3:1).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TEACHER<\/h3>\n<p>Teachers conserved the values and academia of a nation and passed them on to each new generation. In OT times the first teachers were often parents (Dt 6:7, 20-25; 11:19-21). Leaders like Moses and Aaron were charged with teaching the people (Lv 10:11), and later the priests and Levites had a teaching function (Dt 24:8; 33:8-10; 2 Chr 17:7-9; Ez 44:23; Mi 3:11). God himself was thought of as a teacher (Pss 25:8, 12; 27:11; 32:8; 86:11; Is 2:3).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the Greek noun for “teacher” and the verb “to teach” are widely used. John the Baptist was called a teacher (Lk 3:12). The term is used more than 30 times of Jesus (Mt 4:23; 5:2; 7:29; 9:35; 11:1; Mk 1:21; 2:13; 4:1-2; 6:2, 6, 34; Lk 4:15, 31; 5:3; 6:6; Jn 6:59; 7:14, 28; etc.). People recognized his teaching as authoritative (Mt 7:29; Mk 1:22; Lk 4:32). Even as a boy of 12 he conversed in a profound way with the teachers of the law in the temple (Lk 2:46). These men were often associated with the Pharisees (5:17). Gamaliel was a Pharisee and a teacher of the law (Acts 5:34). The term “rabbi” was often used to denote teacher. The rabbi was held in great honor. In the early church the teacher was widely recognized (Acts 13:1; 1 Cor 12:28-29; Eph 4:11; 2 Tm 1:11; Jas 3:1).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TEACHER Teachers conserved the values and academia of a nation and passed them on to each new generation. In OT times the first teachers were often parents (Dt 6:7, 20-25; 11:19-21). Leaders like Moses and Aaron were charged with teaching the people (Lv 10:11), and later the priests and Levites had a teaching function (Dt 24:8; 33:8-10; 2 Chr 17:7-9; Ez 44:23; Mi 3:11). God himself was thought of as a teacher (Pss 25:8, 12; 27:11; 32:8; 86:11; Is 2:3). In the NT the Greek noun for “teacher” a...","summary_en":"TEACHER Teachers conserved the values and academia of a nation and passed them on to each new generation. In OT times the first teachers were often parents (Dt 6:7, 20-25; 11:19-21). Leaders like Moses and Aaron were charged with teaching the people (Lv 10:11), and later the priests and Levites had a teaching function (Dt 24:8; 33:8-10; 2 Chr 17:7-9; Ez 44:23; Mi 3:11). God himself was thought of as a teacher (Pss 25:8, 12; 27:11; 32:8; 86:11; Is 2:3). In the NT the Greek noun for “teacher” a...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"15":[{"id":16962,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Humility","title_en":"Humility","content_ro":"<h3>HUMILITY<\/h3>\n<p>A condition of lowliness or affliction in which one experiences a loss of power and prestige. Outside of biblical faith, humility in this sense would not usually be considered a virtue. Within the context of the Judeo-Christian tradition, however, humility is considered the proper attitude of human beings toward their Creator. Humility is a grateful and spontaneous awareness that life is a gift, and it is manifested as an ungrudging and unhypocritical acknowledgment of absolute dependence upon God.<\/p>\n<p>In biblical literature there is not a clear distinction between humility and meekness or patience. In early stages of Israel’s history, the humble were identified as the poor, the afflicted, and the powerless. The Lord delivers the humble but brings down the proud (1 Sm 2:7; 2 Sm 22:28). Before the power and glory of God, the patriarch Abraham confessed that he was but dust and ashes (Gn 18:27). Israel began as a nation subjected to slavery and knew themselves as a people chosen not because of numerical strength or material wealth but because of God’s love (Dt 7:7-8). By attributing the source of all wealth and power to the Lord, those two major sources of human pride and arrogance are brought under control (cf. Jer 9:23-24).<\/p>\n<p>The humble poor are the constant concern of the Lord (Ex 23:6, 11; Dt 15:4, 7). Consequently, the humility of the poor became the symbol of the righteous God-fearer (Nm 12:3). In the development of the concept of humility in the OT, humility is nearly equated with righteousness and is identified, along with justice and mercy, as the requirement of God (Mi 6:8). In the Psalms particularly, “the afflicted” is almost a technical term for the righteous (Pss 22:26; 25:9; 147:6).<\/p>\n<p>In addition, humility is the appropriate response of the sinner in the presence of the holiness of God. The prophet Isaiah, confronted by the glory of God in the temple, cried, “My destruction is sealed, for I am a sinful man” (Is 6:5). Thus humility became more of a character trait than a term that reflected a state of material poverty or affliction. It became a concept reflective of the essence of piety and godliness expected of all people who have God as their Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Only rarely in the NT does humility refer to an objective condition of poverty, affliction, or oppression.The humility motif is developed in connection with Jesus as Messiah. The religious ideal of humility that the OT attributed to the coming King certainly applied to Jesus (Zec 9:9; cf. Mt 21:4-5). As Son of God, Jesus took no thought for himself but lived a life of obedience and trust in God the Father. The apostle Paul attributed to the incarnate Son of God a self-emptying by which he “humbled himself” and took on the form of a servant (Phil 2:5-8). Jesus’ character exhibited no pride or arrogance.<\/p>\n<p>Though bold in the face of hypocrisy and unflinching in his repudiation of pretentious religion, Jesus was “gentle and humble in heart” (Mt 11:29). He could, therefore, issue a severe warning against desire for status and openly rebuke the Pharisees for their violence against the poor and oppressed (Lk 14:11; Mt 23:12). At the same time, he was humble before those whose servant and helper he had become (Lk 22:27; Mk 10:45; Mt 20:28). The highest dignity of Jesus and his willingness to accept the cross in submission to the Father’s will are one. So his teaching on poverty of spirit rang true as a testimony of his own life. He ascribed all glory to his Father and lived in total dependence upon him (Jn 5:19; 6:38; 7:15; 8:28, 50; 14:10, 24). By washing his disciples’ feet, he assumed the role of servant with no loss of dignity or self-worth. And he set forth such service as a model of a life that finds happiness in preferring others over one’s self (Jn 13:1-20; Phil 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Consequently, disciples of Jesus are also summoned to a life of humility. Turning their backs on status, security, and success, Christians seek an opportunity to gain themselves in serving others. Humility, thus, is the all-embracing life principle by which love seeks the good of others, and thus fulfills the law (cf. Rom 12:10; 13:8-10).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HUMILITY<\/h3>\n<p>A condition of lowliness or affliction in which one experiences a loss of power and prestige. Outside of biblical faith, humility in this sense would not usually be considered a virtue. Within the context of the Judeo-Christian tradition, however, humility is considered the proper attitude of human beings toward their Creator. Humility is a grateful and spontaneous awareness that life is a gift, and it is manifested as an ungrudging and unhypocritical acknowledgment of absolute dependence upon God.<\/p>\n<p>In biblical literature there is not a clear distinction between humility and meekness or patience. In early stages of Israel’s history, the humble were identified as the poor, the afflicted, and the powerless. The Lord delivers the humble but brings down the proud (1 Sm 2:7; 2 Sm 22:28). Before the power and glory of God, the patriarch Abraham confessed that he was but dust and ashes (Gn 18:27). Israel began as a nation subjected to slavery and knew themselves as a people chosen not because of numerical strength or material wealth but because of God’s love (Dt 7:7-8). By attributing the source of all wealth and power to the Lord, those two major sources of human pride and arrogance are brought under control (cf. Jer 9:23-24).<\/p>\n<p>The humble poor are the constant concern of the Lord (Ex 23:6, 11; Dt 15:4, 7). Consequently, the humility of the poor became the symbol of the righteous God-fearer (Nm 12:3). In the development of the concept of humility in the OT, humility is nearly equated with righteousness and is identified, along with justice and mercy, as the requirement of God (Mi 6:8). In the Psalms particularly, “the afflicted” is almost a technical term for the righteous (Pss 22:26; 25:9; 147:6).<\/p>\n<p>In addition, humility is the appropriate response of the sinner in the presence of the holiness of God. The prophet Isaiah, confronted by the glory of God in the temple, cried, “My destruction is sealed, for I am a sinful man” (Is 6:5). Thus humility became more of a character trait than a term that reflected a state of material poverty or affliction. It became a concept reflective of the essence of piety and godliness expected of all people who have God as their Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Only rarely in the NT does humility refer to an objective condition of poverty, affliction, or oppression.The humility motif is developed in connection with Jesus as Messiah. The religious ideal of humility that the OT attributed to the coming King certainly applied to Jesus (Zec 9:9; cf. Mt 21:4-5). As Son of God, Jesus took no thought for himself but lived a life of obedience and trust in God the Father. The apostle Paul attributed to the incarnate Son of God a self-emptying by which he “humbled himself” and took on the form of a servant (Phil 2:5-8). Jesus’ character exhibited no pride or arrogance.<\/p>\n<p>Though bold in the face of hypocrisy and unflinching in his repudiation of pretentious religion, Jesus was “gentle and humble in heart” (Mt 11:29). He could, therefore, issue a severe warning against desire for status and openly rebuke the Pharisees for their violence against the poor and oppressed (Lk 14:11; Mt 23:12). At the same time, he was humble before those whose servant and helper he had become (Lk 22:27; Mk 10:45; Mt 20:28). The highest dignity of Jesus and his willingness to accept the cross in submission to the Father’s will are one. So his teaching on poverty of spirit rang true as a testimony of his own life. He ascribed all glory to his Father and lived in total dependence upon him (Jn 5:19; 6:38; 7:15; 8:28, 50; 14:10, 24). By washing his disciples’ feet, he assumed the role of servant with no loss of dignity or self-worth. And he set forth such service as a model of a life that finds happiness in preferring others over one’s self (Jn 13:1-20; Phil 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Consequently, disciples of Jesus are also summoned to a life of humility. Turning their backs on status, security, and success, Christians seek an opportunity to gain themselves in serving others. Humility, thus, is the all-embracing life principle by which love seeks the good of others, and thus fulfills the law (cf. Rom 12:10; 13:8-10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"HUMILITY A condition of lowliness or affliction in which one experiences a loss of power and prestige. Outside of biblical faith, humility in this sense would not usually be considered a virtue. Within the context of the Judeo-Christian tradition, however, humility is considered the proper attitude of human beings toward their Creator. Humility is a grateful and spontaneous awareness that life is a gift, and it is manifested as an ungrudging and unhypocritical acknowledgment of absolute depen...","summary_en":"HUMILITY A condition of lowliness or affliction in which one experiences a loss of power and prestige. Outside of biblical faith, humility in this sense would not usually be considered a virtue. Within the context of the Judeo-Christian tradition, however, humility is considered the proper attitude of human beings toward their Creator. Humility is a grateful and spontaneous awareness that life is a gift, and it is manifested as an ungrudging and unhypocritical acknowledgment of absolute depen...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20172,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of John","title_en":"Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>JOHN, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>The fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospels. (See discussion above on John, the Apostle.)<\/p>\n\n<p>The Gospel appears to have been written by one who knew the Jews and the Palestine of Jesus’ day well. He was familiar with Jewish messianic expectations (e.g., Jn 1:20-21; 4:25; 7:40-42; 12:34). He knew of the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (4:9) and the contempt the Pharisees had for “the people of the land” (7:49). He knew of the importance attached to the religious schools (v 15). He knew the way the Sabbath was observed and was aware of the provision that the obligation to circumcise on the eighth day overrides the Sabbath regulations (vv 22-23). Throughout the Gospel he moved with certainty in the vast range of Jewish ideas and customs.<\/p>\n<p>It is the same with topography. The writer mentioned many places, and his place-names all seem to be used correctly. He referred to Cana, a village not mentioned in any earlier literature known to us, which means that the reference almost certainly came from someone who actually knew the place. He located Bethany with some precision as about 15 stadia from Jerusalem (about 2 miles, or 3.2 kilometers, 11:18). He had several references to places in or near Jerusalem, such as Bethesda (5:2), Siloam (9:7), and the Kidron Valley (18:1). Of course, this does not rule out some contemporary of John’s, but it makes it difficult to think of the author as a much later individual writing at a distance from Palestine. The evidence as we have it indicates that the writer was a Jew in the Palestine of Jesus’ day.<\/p>\n<p>To many careful readers, it seems that the Gospel bears the stamp of an eyewitness. For example, Jesus was teaching “in the treasury” (8:20). Nothing is made of the point; the incident could easily have been told without it. It looks like a reminiscence of someone who sees the scene in his mind’s eye as he writes. The fact that the house was filled with fragrance when the woman broke the perfume jar (12:3) does not materially affect the account but is the kind of detail that one who was there would remember. The author noted that the loaves used in the feeding of the multitude were barley loaves (6:9) and that Jesus’ tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top to bottom (19:23). He told us that the branches with which Jesus was greeted were palm branches (12:13), and that it was night when Judas went out (13:30). Such touches are found throughout the Gospel, and it seems unjustified to treat them as no more than an attempt to create verisimilitude. They seem much more like indications that the author was writing about events in which he had himself taken part.<\/p>\n<p>The early church accepted Johannine authorship without question. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all see the apostle as the author. The first to quote this Gospel by name was Theophilus of Antioch, about <span>AD<\/span> 180.<\/p>\n<p>Those who object to Johannine authorship emphasize the differences between this Gospel and the Synoptics. The argument is that if Jesus was anything like the Christ portrayed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he could not be like the Christ of the fourth Gospel. This is a completely subjective argument, ignoring the fact that any great man will appear differently to different people. The judgment of the church throughout the centuries has been that Jesus was large enough to inspire both portraits. To put the same point another way, we have no reason for holding that the first three Evangelists tell us all there is to know about Jesus. There is no contradiction. John simply brings out other aspects of Jesus’ life and teachings.<\/p>\n<p>While we cannot prove beyond all doubt that John the apostle was the author, we can say that there is more reason for holding to this view than to any other.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateOriginandDestination\">Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>It has been usual for conservatives and liberals alike to date this writing in the last decade of the first century or early in the second. Some liberal scholars have put it well into the second century, but this is not common, and it is remarkable that there has been such a considerable measure of agreement.<\/p>\n<p>It is said that this Gospel is dependent on the Synoptics, which means that it must be dated sometime after them. But this argument has been widely abandoned in recent times. There is so much in John that is without parallel in the other three Gospels, and conversely so much in the other three that John might have used had he known it, that it is very difficult indeed to hold that this writer had any of the other Gospels before him when he wrote, or even that he had read them. Such resemblances as there are seem better explained by common use of oral tradition.<\/p>\n<p>It is also argued that there is a very developed theology in John and that we must allow time for its development. Granted, the theology of this Gospel is profound, but this does not require that we must wait for it until the end of the first century. The theology of the Letter to the Romans is also profound, and there is no reason for dating that writing later than the 50s. On the ground of development, then, there is no reason for putting John later than Romans. Development is a slippery argument at best, for it usually takes place at uneven rates, and we have no means of knowing how fast it took place in the area where the author lived.<\/p>\n<p>Other arguments for a late date are no more conclusive. For example, it is urged that the ecclesiastical system presupposed by the Gospel is too late for the time of the apostle John, and that the sacramental system of chapters 3 and 6 must have taken time to develop. But John does not mention any sacrament. It is true that many scholars think these chapters refer to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but the fact is that John mentions neither.<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising in view of the way the traditional arguments have crumbled away that many in recent times are arguing that John must have been written before the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it were later, why does not John have some reference to it? Some of his language appears to be earlier. In 5:2 he says there “is” (not “was”) a pool called Bethesda. And he often refers to the Twelve as Jesus’ disciples, or “his” disciples, or the like. In later times Christians usually said “the” disciples, for they saw no need to say whose the disciples were. But in the early days, when Christians were in contact with rabbis (each of whom had his disciples), it was important to show that Jesus’ disciples were in mind. It is important also that John makes no reference to any of the synoptic Gospels. The simplest explanation is that he had not seen them. They were not yet widely circulated.<\/p>\n<p>None of this enables us to date this Gospel with precision. But the weight of evidence points to an early date (before <span>AD<\/span> 70).<\/p>\n<p>The author was John the apostle, a Jew. However, the writing gives evidence of contact with Greek thought, for example, in the reference to Christ as “the Word” in chapter 1 and the translation of words like “rabbi” (1:38). It is almost universally held that such considerations compel us to see the work as originating in a center of Greek culture, and Ephesus has traditionally been favored. Before the end of the second century we have Irenaeus writing that John published the Gospel during his residence at Ephesus.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars point to similarities between John and the Odes of Solomon, which they think came from Syria. As there are also some resemblances in the language of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in the early second century, this is held to show that John was written in Syria, probably at Antioch. Others again think that Egypt was the place, and they support this by pointing out that the oldest fragment of a manuscript of this Gospel was found there. There is no real evidence, and we are left with probabilities. There is much to be said for accepting the evidence of Irenaeus and seeing Ephesus as the place of origin, but we can scarcely say more.<\/p>\n<p>There is no real indication of the intended destination. From 20:31 we learn that the book was written that the readers might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, God’s Son, and that by believing they might have life. The Gospel, then, has an evangelistic aim. But it is also possible that “believe” means “keep on believing”—“go on in faith,” rather than “begin to believe.” That is to say, the book may have been meant from the beginning to build people up in the faith. Probably we should not distinguish between these aims too sharply. Both may well be in mind.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>Several possible backgrounds to the Gospel have been suggested. The Greek interest is obvious, and this writing has sometimes been called the Gospel of the Hellenists. The suggestion is that we should look to Greek writings, perhaps the works of the philosophers or Philo of Alexandria, to find the right background against which to understand what John has written. This approach may be seen in the work of Rudolf Bultmann, who thought specifically of Gnosticism. Indeed, for Bultmann one of the sources of this Gospel was a discourse source that he thought was taken from non-Christian Gnosticism. Not many have been prepared to follow Bultmann, but a number of recent commentators have discerned some form of Gnosticism as the backdrop to John.<\/p>\n<p>While such views are put forward seriously, there are some substantial objections. One is that, despite the confident assertions of some scholars, Gnosticism has never been shown to be earlier than Christianity. In the form in which it comes before us in history, it is a Christian heresy, and of course, the Christian faith must appear before a Christian heresy is possible. Another objection is that there is a basic difference between the two systems. Gnosticism is concerned with knowledge (the very word is derived from the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span><em>,<\/em> “knowledge”). Its “redeemer” is one who comes from heaven with knowledge. But John does not subscribe to the view that man is saved by knowledge. The Redeemer comes to take away the sin of the world (1:29). Gnosticism tells people that life is an upward struggle; Christianity tells of a Savior who came down to raise them up. It is not easy to see any form of Gnosticism as the essential background to Christianity.<\/p>\n<p>Much more significant is John’s Semitic background. Especially important here is the OT, accepted as sacred Scripture by Jew and Christian alike. It lies constantly behind John’s statements, and it must be studied carefully if John is to be understood. It is plain that John knew and loved the Septuagint, the translation into Greek of the Hebrew OT. Again and again, the Septuagint can be shown to lie behind what John says.<\/p>\n<p>In modern times important discoveries have been made at Qumran, in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. Among the scrolls unearthed in the caves of this area are several that have affinities with John. Indeed, one of the interesting facts about the scrolls is that they have more parallels with John than with any other part of the NT, a fact difficult to explain if John was written late and at a distance from Palestine. The resemblances to the Qumran writings must be viewed with care, for there is often a linguistic resemblance where the thinking is quite different. For example, both use the unusual expression “the Spirit of truth.” But where John means one of the persons of the Trinity, the scrolls speak of “a spirit of truth” and “a spirit of error” striving in the souls of people. The connection is real, but John is clearly not dependent on the scrolls for his thinking. The contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they afford additional evidence that this Gospel is basically Palestinian and must be understood against a background of first-century Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>Other backgrounds have been suggested, such as the Hermetic literature. This is a group of writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus (“Hermes Thrice-greatest”), a designation of the Egyptian god Thoth. There are indeed some points of contact with John, but they are few in comparison with those of writings rooted in Palestine. It is difficult to take such suggestions seriously. John is essentially Palestinian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The writer told us that Jesus did many “signs” (or miracles) that he had not recorded, but “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life” (Jn 20:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). John wrote to show that Jesus is the Messiah. But he did not do this simply with a view to conveying interesting information. He wanted his readers to see this knowledge as a challenge to faith; when they believe, they will have life. John sought to bring men and women to Christ; he had an evangelistic aim. That does not exhaust what he was trying to do, for his words have meaning for believers. It is important that believers have a right knowledge of Jesus and that they continue to believe.<\/p>\n<p>The main theological teaching of this Gospel, then, is that God has sent his Messiah, Jesus. He is the very Son of God, and he comes to bring life (3:16). Though Jesus told the woman at the well that he was the Messiah, this is not often said so specifically. The avoidance of the term might well be because of the political overtones it had acquired among the Jews at large. They looked for a Messiah who would fight the Romans. He would defeat them and set up a mighty world empire with its capital in Jerusalem. Jesus was not aiming at anything like that, and it was important that he avoid the kind of language that would give that impression. But though the conventional messianic terminology is avoided, John left no doubt that Jesus was God’s chosen one. Again and again he depicted Jesus as fulfilling messianic functions. For example, in the long discourse in chapter 6 we see Jesus as the bread from heaven, fulfilling the expectation that when Messiah came, he would renew the manna; and in the giving of sight to the blind man (ch 9) we have another messianic function (cf. Is 35:5).<\/p>\n<p>With this greatness of Jesus, John also combined teaching about his lowliness. A continuing, though unobtrusive, strand of Johannine teaching is that Jesus depends on the Father for everything. Apart from the Father, Jesus said, he could do nothing (Jn 5:30). His very food is to do the Father’s will (4:34). He lives through the Father (6:57). It is the Father who gives him his disciples (6:37, 44; 17:6). It is the Father who bears witness to him (5:32, 37). John insists that Jesus is in no sense independent of the Father. In the mission of Jesus, John sees the working out of the purpose of the Father.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Prologue and Chapter 1<\/h5>\n<p>John begins with a prologue (1:1-18) that is unlike anything in any of the other Gospels. In it he refers to Jesus as “the Word,” a term that has points of contact with both Greek and Hebrew thinking. As John uses it, it conveys the thought that Jesus is the expression of the mind of the Father. John speaks of the Word as God (1:1), sees him as active in creation (1:3-5), goes on to the witness borne to him by John the Baptist (1:6-8), speaks of the coming of the Word into the world (1:9-14), and finishes with a section on the greatness of the Word (1:15-18). In this prologue he briefly introduces some of the great themes that will be developed throughout the Gospel. It is a majestic introduction to the whole.<\/p>\n<p>Next we have the beginnings of Jesus’ public ministry (1:19-51). Jesus’ work was preceded by that of John the Baptist, and the Evangelist tells us first about the kind of witness that the Baptist gave to Jesus. Witness is one of his important concepts, and witness is all that John the Baptist does in this Gospel. From this witness we move to the way the first disciples came to Jesus. We learn something of how Andrew and Peter came to know the Lord. We read also of Philip and Nathanael, of whom we learn little or nothing in the other Gospels.<\/p>\n<h5>The Signs and Discourses (2:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The public ministry of Jesus is described in a very distinctive way in this Gospel. John has a long section (chs 2–12) in which he tells of a number of miracles Jesus did, interweaving into his account a series of discourses. Sometimes these are addresses given to groups of people, and sometimes they are talks with individuals. Some scholars call this section of the Gospel the Book of Signs, thus emphasizing the prominent place given to seven miracles. For John they are not simply wonders. They are meaningful; in the literal sense of the term they are <em>sign<\/em>ificant.<\/p>\n<p>The first of them is the turning of the water into wine at a marriage in Cana of Galilee (2:1-11). The water in question is connected with Jewish rites of purification (v 6), and the story is surely to teach us that Jesus transforms life. He changes the water of the law into the wine of the gospel. As a result of this “sign,” his disciples believed in him (v 11). John went on to tell how Jesus went up to Jerusalem and drove the traders out of the temple. They were selling animals for sacrifice and changing money. But their business was being done in the Court of the Gentiles, the only place in the temple where a Gentile could come to meditate and pray.<\/p>\n<p>The first discourse is on the new birth (3:1-21). Jesus talked with Nicodemus, a leading Pharisee, about the necessity for radical renewal if one is to enter the kingdom. Jesus was speaking of God’s regenerating activity, not some human reformation. Following this, John records a dispute between some of John’s disciples with a Jew on the subject of purification. This opens the way for a section that shows the superiority of Jesus over John the Baptist—by the Baptist’s own confession (3:22-36).<\/p>\n<p>The second discourse is really a long conversation Jesus had with the woman of Samaria, whom he met by a well (4:1-42). It turns on “the water of life,” a term that is not fully explained in this chapter but which we later find points to the life-giving Spirit (7:38-39). This leads to the story of the second sign, the healing of the nobleman’s son (4:46-54), notable for the fact that Jesus healed at a distance.<\/p>\n<p>The third sign is the healing of the lame man by the pool of Bethesda (5:1-18). This man had spent many years waiting for healing at the moving of the water. Jesus told him to get up and walk, and he did. Because it was done on a Sabbath, the Pharisees objected. This leads to Jesus’ third discourse, that on the divine Son (5:19-47). Here the closeness of the relationship of Jesus to the Father is stressed, and his place in the judgment is brought out. There is emphasis also on the variety of witness who encountered Jesus, which shows how reasonable it is to accept him as God’s own Son.<\/p>\n<p>John’s fourth sign is the one miracle (apart from the resurrection) found in all four Gospels: the feeding of the 5,000 (6:1-15). It is followed by Jesus’ walking on water (vv 16-21), which seems to be meant as the fifth sign (though some scholars think not; if they are right, there are only six signs). Then comes the fourth discourse, the great sermon on the bread of life (vv 22-59). Jesus is this bread, which he gives to all men and women who believe in him. There are references to eating his flesh and drinking his blood (vv 50-58), which point to his death. Some have seen in them a reference to Communion, but it is hard to see why Jesus should refer in this way to an as-yet-nonexistent sacrament. Moreover, much the same effect is attributed in the same discourse to believing (vv 35, 47). It seems best to understand Jesus as meaning that people must believe in him as the one who would die for them in order for them to have life.<\/p>\n<p>There is a section detailing Peter’s affirmation of loyalty in the face of some who drifted away from the Master (6:67-71). Then we come to the fifth discourse, on the life-giving Spirit (7:1-52). John has an important explanatory point of his own when he tells us that at the time the Spirit had not been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified (v 39). The fullness of the Spirit depends on the completion of the work of Christ in his death and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>The sixth discourse tells of the light of the world (8:12-59). This aspect of Jesus’ person and ministry is dramatically brought out in the sixth sign, the healing of the man born blind (ch 9). It is a lively narrative, as the healed man conducts a spirited defense against the Pharisees who belittled Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most beautiful of all the illustrations of Jesus’ relations to his people is that on which he dwells in the seventh discourse, where he speaks of himself as the good shepherd (ch 10). There is the obvious truth that sheep depend entirely on their shepherd, but Jesus says something else. Whereas earthly shepherds live to meet the needs of their sheep, Jesus laid down his life for his sheep.<\/p>\n<p>The final sign is the raising of Lazarus (11:1-44), a man who had been dead for four days. The story graphically brings out Jesus’ power over death and his readiness to confer the gift of life. Jesus speaks of himself as “the resurrection and the life” (v 25); death cannot defeat him. He brings life to the dead, to the spiritually dead as well as to physically dead Lazarus. John goes on to note the reaction to this miracle: some believed, but some opposed Jesus (vv 45-57). He includes a notable saying of Caiaphas, the high priest, that one man should die for the people (vv 50-52). Caiaphas was speaking as a cynical politician (better one dead, however innocent, than the whole nation be troubled). But John saw in the words the deeper meaning that Jesus’ death would bring salvation to many.<\/p>\n<p>John rounds off his account of the ministry with the story of the anointing of Jesus by a woman in Bethany, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the coming of some Greeks to Jesus, and his final summary of what he had taught (ch 12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Last Supper<\/h5>\n<p>The account of what went on in the upper room on the night before the Crucifixion is the fullest of all the four Gospels. Curiously, John says nothing about the institution of Communion, a fact that has never been satisfactorily explained. But he tells us how Jesus washed the feet of the disciples (13:1-17), an action splendidly exemplifying the spirit of lowly service so soon to be shown on the cross. Then comes the prophecy of the betrayal, an action that set in motion the events that would lead to the cross (vv 18-30).<\/p>\n<p>In the long discourse that follows, Jesus dealt with some questions posed by his followers and went on to teach them some important truths, for example, that he is the way, the truth, and the life (14:6). He develops the thought that he is the true vine, the disciples being vitally joined to him as branches to the vine. It is important for the branches to remain in the vine if they are to have life (15:1-16). Then come some words about suffering that would be of help to them in times of persecution (vv 17-25). Jesus goes on to speak about the Holy Spirit (15:26–16:15). This is a very important passage, for it contains much more about the Spirit than we find elsewhere in Jesus’ words. Jesus calls the Spirit the “Paraclete,” a title not easy to understand. It is in origin a legal term, and at least we can say that it indicates that the Spirit brings friendship, encouragement, and help. Jesus went on to speak of his approaching departure from the disciples and to prepare them for the trying time ahead (16:16-33). This part of the Gospel concludes with Jesus’ great High Priestly prayer. He prayed for the disciples to be one, as he commended them to the care of the heavenly Father (ch 17).<\/p>\n<h5>The Cross and Resurrection<\/h5>\n<p>When the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, he went forward to meet them and they fell to the ground (18:1-11). He gave himself over to them; they did not take him over. At the outset of his passion narrative, John was making the point that Jesus is sovereign. He was not being defeated by the march of events but was sovereignly doing the will of the Father. John is the only one to tell us that Jesus was taken before Annas, father-in-law to Caiaphas, the reigning high priest (18:12-14, 19-24). He tells also of Peter’s three denials of Jesus (vv 15-27). He did not spend much time on the Jewish trial, but he was much more explicit than the other Evangelists in his account of the Roman trial. Clearly, he had some special knowledge of what went on before Pilate. He presents a magnificent picture of Jesus talking with Pilate about kingship—the Son of God discussing with the representative of Caesar the meaning of sovereignty (vv 33-40).<\/p>\n<p>In his account of the Crucifixion John has a number of touches of his own, notably the way Jesus commended Mary to the care of the beloved disciple (19:26-27), the fact that the cry Jesus uttered as he died was “It is finished” (v 30), and the piercing of his side by a soldier’s spear (vv 31-37).<\/p>\n<p>John proceeds to the narrative of the burial (vv 38-42) and of the empty tomb (20:1-10). He speaks of appearances of the risen Lord to Mary Magdalene (vv 11-18), and to the disciples—both without (vv 19-23) and with Thomas (vv 24-29).<\/p>\n<p>The final chapter, an epilogue, tells of a miraculous catch of fish (21:1-14) and goes on to the moving account of Peter’s threefold declaration of love to Jesus and his restoration.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> John, The Apostle.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOHN, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>The fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospels. (See discussion above on John, the Apostle.)<\/p>\n\n<p>The Gospel appears to have been written by one who knew the Jews and the Palestine of Jesus’ day well. He was familiar with Jewish messianic expectations (e.g., Jn 1:20-21; 4:25; 7:40-42; 12:34). He knew of the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (4:9) and the contempt the Pharisees had for “the people of the land” (7:49). He knew of the importance attached to the religious schools (v 15). He knew the way the Sabbath was observed and was aware of the provision that the obligation to circumcise on the eighth day overrides the Sabbath regulations (vv 22-23). Throughout the Gospel he moved with certainty in the vast range of Jewish ideas and customs.<\/p>\n<p>It is the same with topography. The writer mentioned many places, and his place-names all seem to be used correctly. He referred to Cana, a village not mentioned in any earlier literature known to us, which means that the reference almost certainly came from someone who actually knew the place. He located Bethany with some precision as about 15 stadia from Jerusalem (about 2 miles, or 3.2 kilometers, 11:18). He had several references to places in or near Jerusalem, such as Bethesda (5:2), Siloam (9:7), and the Kidron Valley (18:1). Of course, this does not rule out some contemporary of John’s, but it makes it difficult to think of the author as a much later individual writing at a distance from Palestine. The evidence as we have it indicates that the writer was a Jew in the Palestine of Jesus’ day.<\/p>\n<p>To many careful readers, it seems that the Gospel bears the stamp of an eyewitness. For example, Jesus was teaching “in the treasury” (8:20). Nothing is made of the point; the incident could easily have been told without it. It looks like a reminiscence of someone who sees the scene in his mind’s eye as he writes. The fact that the house was filled with fragrance when the woman broke the perfume jar (12:3) does not materially affect the account but is the kind of detail that one who was there would remember. The author noted that the loaves used in the feeding of the multitude were barley loaves (6:9) and that Jesus’ tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top to bottom (19:23). He told us that the branches with which Jesus was greeted were palm branches (12:13), and that it was night when Judas went out (13:30). Such touches are found throughout the Gospel, and it seems unjustified to treat them as no more than an attempt to create verisimilitude. They seem much more like indications that the author was writing about events in which he had himself taken part.<\/p>\n<p>The early church accepted Johannine authorship without question. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all see the apostle as the author. The first to quote this Gospel by name was Theophilus of Antioch, about <span>AD<\/span> 180.<\/p>\n<p>Those who object to Johannine authorship emphasize the differences between this Gospel and the Synoptics. The argument is that if Jesus was anything like the Christ portrayed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he could not be like the Christ of the fourth Gospel. This is a completely subjective argument, ignoring the fact that any great man will appear differently to different people. The judgment of the church throughout the centuries has been that Jesus was large enough to inspire both portraits. To put the same point another way, we have no reason for holding that the first three Evangelists tell us all there is to know about Jesus. There is no contradiction. John simply brings out other aspects of Jesus’ life and teachings.<\/p>\n<p>While we cannot prove beyond all doubt that John the apostle was the author, we can say that there is more reason for holding to this view than to any other.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateOriginandDestination\">Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>It has been usual for conservatives and liberals alike to date this writing in the last decade of the first century or early in the second. Some liberal scholars have put it well into the second century, but this is not common, and it is remarkable that there has been such a considerable measure of agreement.<\/p>\n<p>It is said that this Gospel is dependent on the Synoptics, which means that it must be dated sometime after them. But this argument has been widely abandoned in recent times. There is so much in John that is without parallel in the other three Gospels, and conversely so much in the other three that John might have used had he known it, that it is very difficult indeed to hold that this writer had any of the other Gospels before him when he wrote, or even that he had read them. Such resemblances as there are seem better explained by common use of oral tradition.<\/p>\n<p>It is also argued that there is a very developed theology in John and that we must allow time for its development. Granted, the theology of this Gospel is profound, but this does not require that we must wait for it until the end of the first century. The theology of the Letter to the Romans is also profound, and there is no reason for dating that writing later than the 50s. On the ground of development, then, there is no reason for putting John later than Romans. Development is a slippery argument at best, for it usually takes place at uneven rates, and we have no means of knowing how fast it took place in the area where the author lived.<\/p>\n<p>Other arguments for a late date are no more conclusive. For example, it is urged that the ecclesiastical system presupposed by the Gospel is too late for the time of the apostle John, and that the sacramental system of chapters 3 and 6 must have taken time to develop. But John does not mention any sacrament. It is true that many scholars think these chapters refer to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but the fact is that John mentions neither.<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising in view of the way the traditional arguments have crumbled away that many in recent times are arguing that John must have been written before the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it were later, why does not John have some reference to it? Some of his language appears to be earlier. In 5:2 he says there “is” (not “was”) a pool called Bethesda. And he often refers to the Twelve as Jesus’ disciples, or “his” disciples, or the like. In later times Christians usually said “the” disciples, for they saw no need to say whose the disciples were. But in the early days, when Christians were in contact with rabbis (each of whom had his disciples), it was important to show that Jesus’ disciples were in mind. It is important also that John makes no reference to any of the synoptic Gospels. The simplest explanation is that he had not seen them. They were not yet widely circulated.<\/p>\n<p>None of this enables us to date this Gospel with precision. But the weight of evidence points to an early date (before <span>AD<\/span> 70).<\/p>\n<p>The author was John the apostle, a Jew. However, the writing gives evidence of contact with Greek thought, for example, in the reference to Christ as “the Word” in chapter 1 and the translation of words like “rabbi” (1:38). It is almost universally held that such considerations compel us to see the work as originating in a center of Greek culture, and Ephesus has traditionally been favored. Before the end of the second century we have Irenaeus writing that John published the Gospel during his residence at Ephesus.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars point to similarities between John and the Odes of Solomon, which they think came from Syria. As there are also some resemblances in the language of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in the early second century, this is held to show that John was written in Syria, probably at Antioch. Others again think that Egypt was the place, and they support this by pointing out that the oldest fragment of a manuscript of this Gospel was found there. There is no real evidence, and we are left with probabilities. There is much to be said for accepting the evidence of Irenaeus and seeing Ephesus as the place of origin, but we can scarcely say more.<\/p>\n<p>There is no real indication of the intended destination. From 20:31 we learn that the book was written that the readers might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, God’s Son, and that by believing they might have life. The Gospel, then, has an evangelistic aim. But it is also possible that “believe” means “keep on believing”—“go on in faith,” rather than “begin to believe.” That is to say, the book may have been meant from the beginning to build people up in the faith. Probably we should not distinguish between these aims too sharply. Both may well be in mind.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>Several possible backgrounds to the Gospel have been suggested. The Greek interest is obvious, and this writing has sometimes been called the Gospel of the Hellenists. The suggestion is that we should look to Greek writings, perhaps the works of the philosophers or Philo of Alexandria, to find the right background against which to understand what John has written. This approach may be seen in the work of Rudolf Bultmann, who thought specifically of Gnosticism. Indeed, for Bultmann one of the sources of this Gospel was a discourse source that he thought was taken from non-Christian Gnosticism. Not many have been prepared to follow Bultmann, but a number of recent commentators have discerned some form of Gnosticism as the backdrop to John.<\/p>\n<p>While such views are put forward seriously, there are some substantial objections. One is that, despite the confident assertions of some scholars, Gnosticism has never been shown to be earlier than Christianity. In the form in which it comes before us in history, it is a Christian heresy, and of course, the Christian faith must appear before a Christian heresy is possible. Another objection is that there is a basic difference between the two systems. Gnosticism is concerned with knowledge (the very word is derived from the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span><em>,<\/em> “knowledge”). Its “redeemer” is one who comes from heaven with knowledge. But John does not subscribe to the view that man is saved by knowledge. The Redeemer comes to take away the sin of the world (1:29). Gnosticism tells people that life is an upward struggle; Christianity tells of a Savior who came down to raise them up. It is not easy to see any form of Gnosticism as the essential background to Christianity.<\/p>\n<p>Much more significant is John’s Semitic background. Especially important here is the OT, accepted as sacred Scripture by Jew and Christian alike. It lies constantly behind John’s statements, and it must be studied carefully if John is to be understood. It is plain that John knew and loved the Septuagint, the translation into Greek of the Hebrew OT. Again and again, the Septuagint can be shown to lie behind what John says.<\/p>\n<p>In modern times important discoveries have been made at Qumran, in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. Among the scrolls unearthed in the caves of this area are several that have affinities with John. Indeed, one of the interesting facts about the scrolls is that they have more parallels with John than with any other part of the NT, a fact difficult to explain if John was written late and at a distance from Palestine. The resemblances to the Qumran writings must be viewed with care, for there is often a linguistic resemblance where the thinking is quite different. For example, both use the unusual expression “the Spirit of truth.” But where John means one of the persons of the Trinity, the scrolls speak of “a spirit of truth” and “a spirit of error” striving in the souls of people. The connection is real, but John is clearly not dependent on the scrolls for his thinking. The contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they afford additional evidence that this Gospel is basically Palestinian and must be understood against a background of first-century Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>Other backgrounds have been suggested, such as the Hermetic literature. This is a group of writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus (“Hermes Thrice-greatest”), a designation of the Egyptian god Thoth. There are indeed some points of contact with John, but they are few in comparison with those of writings rooted in Palestine. It is difficult to take such suggestions seriously. John is essentially Palestinian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The writer told us that Jesus did many “signs” (or miracles) that he had not recorded, but “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life” (Jn 20:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). John wrote to show that Jesus is the Messiah. But he did not do this simply with a view to conveying interesting information. He wanted his readers to see this knowledge as a challenge to faith; when they believe, they will have life. John sought to bring men and women to Christ; he had an evangelistic aim. That does not exhaust what he was trying to do, for his words have meaning for believers. It is important that believers have a right knowledge of Jesus and that they continue to believe.<\/p>\n<p>The main theological teaching of this Gospel, then, is that God has sent his Messiah, Jesus. He is the very Son of God, and he comes to bring life (3:16). Though Jesus told the woman at the well that he was the Messiah, this is not often said so specifically. The avoidance of the term might well be because of the political overtones it had acquired among the Jews at large. They looked for a Messiah who would fight the Romans. He would defeat them and set up a mighty world empire with its capital in Jerusalem. Jesus was not aiming at anything like that, and it was important that he avoid the kind of language that would give that impression. But though the conventional messianic terminology is avoided, John left no doubt that Jesus was God’s chosen one. Again and again he depicted Jesus as fulfilling messianic functions. For example, in the long discourse in chapter 6 we see Jesus as the bread from heaven, fulfilling the expectation that when Messiah came, he would renew the manna; and in the giving of sight to the blind man (ch 9) we have another messianic function (cf. Is 35:5).<\/p>\n<p>With this greatness of Jesus, John also combined teaching about his lowliness. A continuing, though unobtrusive, strand of Johannine teaching is that Jesus depends on the Father for everything. Apart from the Father, Jesus said, he could do nothing (Jn 5:30). His very food is to do the Father’s will (4:34). He lives through the Father (6:57). It is the Father who gives him his disciples (6:37, 44; 17:6). It is the Father who bears witness to him (5:32, 37). John insists that Jesus is in no sense independent of the Father. In the mission of Jesus, John sees the working out of the purpose of the Father.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Prologue and Chapter 1<\/h5>\n<p>John begins with a prologue (1:1-18) that is unlike anything in any of the other Gospels. In it he refers to Jesus as “the Word,” a term that has points of contact with both Greek and Hebrew thinking. As John uses it, it conveys the thought that Jesus is the expression of the mind of the Father. John speaks of the Word as God (1:1), sees him as active in creation (1:3-5), goes on to the witness borne to him by John the Baptist (1:6-8), speaks of the coming of the Word into the world (1:9-14), and finishes with a section on the greatness of the Word (1:15-18). In this prologue he briefly introduces some of the great themes that will be developed throughout the Gospel. It is a majestic introduction to the whole.<\/p>\n<p>Next we have the beginnings of Jesus’ public ministry (1:19-51). Jesus’ work was preceded by that of John the Baptist, and the Evangelist tells us first about the kind of witness that the Baptist gave to Jesus. Witness is one of his important concepts, and witness is all that John the Baptist does in this Gospel. From this witness we move to the way the first disciples came to Jesus. We learn something of how Andrew and Peter came to know the Lord. We read also of Philip and Nathanael, of whom we learn little or nothing in the other Gospels.<\/p>\n<h5>The Signs and Discourses (2:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The public ministry of Jesus is described in a very distinctive way in this Gospel. John has a long section (chs 2–12) in which he tells of a number of miracles Jesus did, interweaving into his account a series of discourses. Sometimes these are addresses given to groups of people, and sometimes they are talks with individuals. Some scholars call this section of the Gospel the Book of Signs, thus emphasizing the prominent place given to seven miracles. For John they are not simply wonders. They are meaningful; in the literal sense of the term they are <em>sign<\/em>ificant.<\/p>\n<p>The first of them is the turning of the water into wine at a marriage in Cana of Galilee (2:1-11). The water in question is connected with Jewish rites of purification (v 6), and the story is surely to teach us that Jesus transforms life. He changes the water of the law into the wine of the gospel. As a result of this “sign,” his disciples believed in him (v 11). John went on to tell how Jesus went up to Jerusalem and drove the traders out of the temple. They were selling animals for sacrifice and changing money. But their business was being done in the Court of the Gentiles, the only place in the temple where a Gentile could come to meditate and pray.<\/p>\n<p>The first discourse is on the new birth (3:1-21). Jesus talked with Nicodemus, a leading Pharisee, about the necessity for radical renewal if one is to enter the kingdom. Jesus was speaking of God’s regenerating activity, not some human reformation. Following this, John records a dispute between some of John’s disciples with a Jew on the subject of purification. This opens the way for a section that shows the superiority of Jesus over John the Baptist—by the Baptist’s own confession (3:22-36).<\/p>\n<p>The second discourse is really a long conversation Jesus had with the woman of Samaria, whom he met by a well (4:1-42). It turns on “the water of life,” a term that is not fully explained in this chapter but which we later find points to the life-giving Spirit (7:38-39). This leads to the story of the second sign, the healing of the nobleman’s son (4:46-54), notable for the fact that Jesus healed at a distance.<\/p>\n<p>The third sign is the healing of the lame man by the pool of Bethesda (5:1-18). This man had spent many years waiting for healing at the moving of the water. Jesus told him to get up and walk, and he did. Because it was done on a Sabbath, the Pharisees objected. This leads to Jesus’ third discourse, that on the divine Son (5:19-47). Here the closeness of the relationship of Jesus to the Father is stressed, and his place in the judgment is brought out. There is emphasis also on the variety of witness who encountered Jesus, which shows how reasonable it is to accept him as God’s own Son.<\/p>\n<p>John’s fourth sign is the one miracle (apart from the resurrection) found in all four Gospels: the feeding of the 5,000 (6:1-15). It is followed by Jesus’ walking on water (vv 16-21), which seems to be meant as the fifth sign (though some scholars think not; if they are right, there are only six signs). Then comes the fourth discourse, the great sermon on the bread of life (vv 22-59). Jesus is this bread, which he gives to all men and women who believe in him. There are references to eating his flesh and drinking his blood (vv 50-58), which point to his death. Some have seen in them a reference to Communion, but it is hard to see why Jesus should refer in this way to an as-yet-nonexistent sacrament. Moreover, much the same effect is attributed in the same discourse to believing (vv 35, 47). It seems best to understand Jesus as meaning that people must believe in him as the one who would die for them in order for them to have life.<\/p>\n<p>There is a section detailing Peter’s affirmation of loyalty in the face of some who drifted away from the Master (6:67-71). Then we come to the fifth discourse, on the life-giving Spirit (7:1-52). John has an important explanatory point of his own when he tells us that at the time the Spirit had not been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified (v 39). The fullness of the Spirit depends on the completion of the work of Christ in his death and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>The sixth discourse tells of the light of the world (8:12-59). This aspect of Jesus’ person and ministry is dramatically brought out in the sixth sign, the healing of the man born blind (ch 9). It is a lively narrative, as the healed man conducts a spirited defense against the Pharisees who belittled Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most beautiful of all the illustrations of Jesus’ relations to his people is that on which he dwells in the seventh discourse, where he speaks of himself as the good shepherd (ch 10). There is the obvious truth that sheep depend entirely on their shepherd, but Jesus says something else. Whereas earthly shepherds live to meet the needs of their sheep, Jesus laid down his life for his sheep.<\/p>\n<p>The final sign is the raising of Lazarus (11:1-44), a man who had been dead for four days. The story graphically brings out Jesus’ power over death and his readiness to confer the gift of life. Jesus speaks of himself as “the resurrection and the life” (v 25); death cannot defeat him. He brings life to the dead, to the spiritually dead as well as to physically dead Lazarus. John goes on to note the reaction to this miracle: some believed, but some opposed Jesus (vv 45-57). He includes a notable saying of Caiaphas, the high priest, that one man should die for the people (vv 50-52). Caiaphas was speaking as a cynical politician (better one dead, however innocent, than the whole nation be troubled). But John saw in the words the deeper meaning that Jesus’ death would bring salvation to many.<\/p>\n<p>John rounds off his account of the ministry with the story of the anointing of Jesus by a woman in Bethany, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the coming of some Greeks to Jesus, and his final summary of what he had taught (ch 12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Last Supper<\/h5>\n<p>The account of what went on in the upper room on the night before the Crucifixion is the fullest of all the four Gospels. Curiously, John says nothing about the institution of Communion, a fact that has never been satisfactorily explained. But he tells us how Jesus washed the feet of the disciples (13:1-17), an action splendidly exemplifying the spirit of lowly service so soon to be shown on the cross. Then comes the prophecy of the betrayal, an action that set in motion the events that would lead to the cross (vv 18-30).<\/p>\n<p>In the long discourse that follows, Jesus dealt with some questions posed by his followers and went on to teach them some important truths, for example, that he is the way, the truth, and the life (14:6). He develops the thought that he is the true vine, the disciples being vitally joined to him as branches to the vine. It is important for the branches to remain in the vine if they are to have life (15:1-16). Then come some words about suffering that would be of help to them in times of persecution (vv 17-25). Jesus goes on to speak about the Holy Spirit (15:26–16:15). This is a very important passage, for it contains much more about the Spirit than we find elsewhere in Jesus’ words. Jesus calls the Spirit the “Paraclete,” a title not easy to understand. It is in origin a legal term, and at least we can say that it indicates that the Spirit brings friendship, encouragement, and help. Jesus went on to speak of his approaching departure from the disciples and to prepare them for the trying time ahead (16:16-33). This part of the Gospel concludes with Jesus’ great High Priestly prayer. He prayed for the disciples to be one, as he commended them to the care of the heavenly Father (ch 17).<\/p>\n<h5>The Cross and Resurrection<\/h5>\n<p>When the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, he went forward to meet them and they fell to the ground (18:1-11). He gave himself over to them; they did not take him over. At the outset of his passion narrative, John was making the point that Jesus is sovereign. He was not being defeated by the march of events but was sovereignly doing the will of the Father. John is the only one to tell us that Jesus was taken before Annas, father-in-law to Caiaphas, the reigning high priest (18:12-14, 19-24). He tells also of Peter’s three denials of Jesus (vv 15-27). He did not spend much time on the Jewish trial, but he was much more explicit than the other Evangelists in his account of the Roman trial. Clearly, he had some special knowledge of what went on before Pilate. He presents a magnificent picture of Jesus talking with Pilate about kingship—the Son of God discussing with the representative of Caesar the meaning of sovereignty (vv 33-40).<\/p>\n<p>In his account of the Crucifixion John has a number of touches of his own, notably the way Jesus commended Mary to the care of the beloved disciple (19:26-27), the fact that the cry Jesus uttered as he died was “It is finished” (v 30), and the piercing of his side by a soldier’s spear (vv 31-37).<\/p>\n<p>John proceeds to the narrative of the burial (vv 38-42) and of the empty tomb (20:1-10). He speaks of appearances of the risen Lord to Mary Magdalene (vv 11-18), and to the disciples—both without (vv 19-23) and with Thomas (vv 24-29).<\/p>\n<p>The final chapter, an epilogue, tells of a miraculous catch of fish (21:1-14) and goes on to the moving account of Peter’s threefold declaration of love to Jesus and his restoration.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> John, The Apostle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOHN, Gospel of The fourth Gospel. Preview • Author • Date, Origin, and Destination • Background • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Author At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospe...","summary_en":"JOHN, Gospel of The fourth Gospel. Preview • Author • Date, Origin, and Destination • Background • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Author At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospe...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":27025,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Nathanael","title_en":"Nathanael","content_ro":"<h3>NATHANAEL<\/h3>\n<p>Jew from Cana of Galilee whom Jesus called to be a disciple (Jn 1:45-50; 21:2). Initially skeptical when Philip described Jesus as the fulfillment of the whole OT (1:45-46), Nathanael proclaimed Jesus to be the Son of God and the King of Israel (v 49) after an astonishing personal encounter.<\/p>\n<p>The fact that the only NT references to Nathanael occur in the Gospel of John has led some scholars to identify him with several personalities appearing in the synoptic Gospels. Because his call appears with those of Andrew, Peter, and Philip, some have speculated that he was one of the 12, possibly Bartholomew. Three pieces of evidence are cited in support of this position: (1) the name Bartholomew is patronymic (literally “son of Tolmai”) and would be accompanied by another name; (2) each of the Synoptic lists of the 12 apostles place Bartholomew after Philip (Mt 10:2-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16), paralleling the call of Nathanael after Philip in John’s account; and (3) Bartholomew’s name does not appear in the fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>A second position identifies Nathanael as James, the son of Alphaeus. According to this view, Jesus’ comment in John 1:47 should read “Behold, Israel [not “an Israelite”] indeed, in whom is no guile!” Israel is the name God gave to Jacob, and the NT form of Jacob is James. John addressed James, the son of Alphaeus, as Nathanael in order to distinguish him from others who had become prominent in the early church.<\/p>\n<p>Two less plausible identifications equate Nathanael with either Matthew or Simon the Cananaean. The first is precariously founded on the similar etymologies of the names Matthew (“gift of Yahweh”) and Nathanael (“Yahweh has given”). The second identifies the two on the basis of the common hometown of Cana.<\/p>\n<p>In the final analysis, Nathanael was most likely a disciple who was not a member of the 12 and was known only to John. This suggestion conforms to early patristic evidence. In the fourth Gospel, Nathanael serves as a symbol for the true Jew who overcomes initial skepticism to believe in Christ. This is confirmed by three observations: (1) his initial reaction to Jesus parallels that of others who believed in the Law and the Prophets (Jn 7:15, 27, 41; 9:41); (2) Jesus’ perception of Nathanael under a fig tree (1:48) identifies the latter’s devotion to the Torah (in rabbinic literature the proper place to study the Torah is under a fig tree); and (3) Jesus identifies Nathanael with Jacob, the father of the Israelite nation. In Genesis 25–32, Jacob is certainly sly and cunning in his dealings with Esau and Laban. John 1:51 strengthens the ties between Nathanael and Jacob by presenting the imagery of angels ascending and descending, reminiscent of Jacob’s dream, and by locating the event in Galilee close to Bethel and Jabbok, the sites of Jacob’s experiences. Nathanael is thus a symbol of the pious Israelite for whom Christ came. His response typifies what the fourth Evangelist understands as the appropriate response of the true Israelite to Jesus—from initial skepticism to faith (cf. Rom 9:6).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Apostle, Apostleship.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NATHANAEL<\/h3>\n<p>Jew from Cana of Galilee whom Jesus called to be a disciple (Jn 1:45-50; 21:2). Initially skeptical when Philip described Jesus as the fulfillment of the whole OT (1:45-46), Nathanael proclaimed Jesus to be the Son of God and the King of Israel (v 49) after an astonishing personal encounter.<\/p>\n<p>The fact that the only NT references to Nathanael occur in the Gospel of John has led some scholars to identify him with several personalities appearing in the synoptic Gospels. Because his call appears with those of Andrew, Peter, and Philip, some have speculated that he was one of the 12, possibly Bartholomew. Three pieces of evidence are cited in support of this position: (1) the name Bartholomew is patronymic (literally “son of Tolmai”) and would be accompanied by another name; (2) each of the Synoptic lists of the 12 apostles place Bartholomew after Philip (Mt 10:2-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16), paralleling the call of Nathanael after Philip in John’s account; and (3) Bartholomew’s name does not appear in the fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>A second position identifies Nathanael as James, the son of Alphaeus. According to this view, Jesus’ comment in John 1:47 should read “Behold, Israel [not “an Israelite”] indeed, in whom is no guile!” Israel is the name God gave to Jacob, and the NT form of Jacob is James. John addressed James, the son of Alphaeus, as Nathanael in order to distinguish him from others who had become prominent in the early church.<\/p>\n<p>Two less plausible identifications equate Nathanael with either Matthew or Simon the Cananaean. The first is precariously founded on the similar etymologies of the names Matthew (“gift of Yahweh”) and Nathanael (“Yahweh has given”). The second identifies the two on the basis of the common hometown of Cana.<\/p>\n<p>In the final analysis, Nathanael was most likely a disciple who was not a member of the 12 and was known only to John. This suggestion conforms to early patristic evidence. In the fourth Gospel, Nathanael serves as a symbol for the true Jew who overcomes initial skepticism to believe in Christ. This is confirmed by three observations: (1) his initial reaction to Jesus parallels that of others who believed in the Law and the Prophets (Jn 7:15, 27, 41; 9:41); (2) Jesus’ perception of Nathanael under a fig tree (1:48) identifies the latter’s devotion to the Torah (in rabbinic literature the proper place to study the Torah is under a fig tree); and (3) Jesus identifies Nathanael with Jacob, the father of the Israelite nation. In Genesis 25–32, Jacob is certainly sly and cunning in his dealings with Esau and Laban. John 1:51 strengthens the ties between Nathanael and Jacob by presenting the imagery of angels ascending and descending, reminiscent of Jacob’s dream, and by locating the event in Galilee close to Bethel and Jabbok, the sites of Jacob’s experiences. Nathanael is thus a symbol of the pious Israelite for whom Christ came. His response typifies what the fourth Evangelist understands as the appropriate response of the true Israelite to Jesus—from initial skepticism to faith (cf. Rom 9:6).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Apostle, Apostleship.<\/p>","summary_ro":"NATHANAEL Jew from Cana of Galilee whom Jesus called to be a disciple (Jn 1:45-50; 21:2). Initially skeptical when Philip described Jesus as the fulfillment of the whole OT (1:45-46), Nathanael proclaimed Jesus to be the Son of God and the King of Israel (v 49) after an astonishing personal encounter. The fact that the only NT references to Nathanael occur in the Gospel of John has led some scholars to identify him with several personalities appearing in the synoptic Gospels. Because his call...","summary_en":"NATHANAEL Jew from Cana of Galilee whom Jesus called to be a disciple (Jn 1:45-50; 21:2). Initially skeptical when Philip described Jesus as the fulfillment of the whole OT (1:45-46), Nathanael proclaimed Jesus to be the Son of God and the King of Israel (v 49) after an astonishing personal encounter. The fact that the only NT references to Nathanael occur in the Gospel of John has led some scholars to identify him with several personalities appearing in the synoptic Gospels. Because his call...","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":56461,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:15","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:15","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:15<\/strong> The leaders wanted Jesus to show his credentials. Jesus had not <em>been trained<\/em> under a rabbi but was taught by his heavenly Father (cp. Peter and John, Acts 4:13; contrast Paul, Acts 22:3).<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:15<\/strong> The leaders wanted Jesus to show his credentials. Jesus had not <em>been trained<\/em> under a rabbi but was taught by his heavenly Father (cp. Peter and John, Acts 4:13; contrast Paul, Acts 22:3).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:15 The leaders wanted Jesus to show his credentials. Jesus had not been trained under a rabbi but was taught by his heavenly Father (cp. Peter and John, Acts 4:13; contrast Paul, Acts 22:3).","summary_en":"7:15 The leaders wanted Jesus to show his credentials. Jesus had not been trained under a rabbi but was taught by his heavenly Father (cp. Peter and John, Acts 4:13; contrast Paul, Acts 22:3).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":84087,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:15","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:15","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:15<\/strong> The leaders wanted Jesus to show his credentials. Jesus had not <em>been trained<\/em> under a rabbi but was taught by his heavenly Father (cp. Peter and John, Acts 4:13; contrast Paul, Acts 22:3).<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:15<\/strong> The leaders wanted Jesus to show his credentials. Jesus had not <em>been trained<\/em> under a rabbi but was taught by his heavenly Father (cp. Peter and John, Acts 4:13; contrast Paul, Acts 22:3).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:15 The leaders wanted Jesus to show his credentials. Jesus had not been trained under a rabbi but was taught by his heavenly Father (cp. Peter and John, Acts 4:13; contrast Paul, Acts 22:3).","summary_en":"7:15 The leaders wanted Jesus to show his credentials. Jesus had not been trained under a rabbi but was taught by his heavenly Father (cp. Peter and John, Acts 4:13; contrast Paul, Acts 22:3).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":111713,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:15","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:15","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:15<\/strong> The leaders wanted Jesus to show his credentials. Jesus had not <em>been trained<\/em> under a rabbi but was taught by his heavenly Father (cp. Peter and John, Acts 4:13; contrast Paul, Acts 22:3).<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:15<\/strong> The leaders wanted Jesus to show his credentials. Jesus had not <em>been trained<\/em> under a rabbi but was taught by his heavenly Father (cp. Peter and John, Acts 4:13; contrast Paul, Acts 22:3).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:15 The leaders wanted Jesus to show his credentials. Jesus had not been trained under a rabbi but was taught by his heavenly Father (cp. Peter and John, Acts 4:13; contrast Paul, Acts 22:3).","summary_en":"7:15 The leaders wanted Jesus to show his credentials. Jesus had not been trained under a rabbi but was taught by his heavenly Father (cp. Peter and John, Acts 4:13; contrast Paul, Acts 22:3).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":139339,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:15","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:15","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:15<\/strong> The leaders wanted Jesus to show his credentials. Jesus had not <em>been trained<\/em> under a rabbi but was taught by his heavenly Father (cp. Peter and John, Acts 4:13; contrast Paul, Acts 22:3).<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:15<\/strong> The leaders wanted Jesus to show his credentials. Jesus had not <em>been trained<\/em> under a rabbi but was taught by his heavenly Father (cp. Peter and John, Acts 4:13; contrast Paul, Acts 22:3).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:15 The leaders wanted Jesus to show his credentials. Jesus had not been trained under a rabbi but was taught by his heavenly Father (cp. Peter and John, Acts 4:13; contrast Paul, Acts 22:3).","summary_en":"7:15 The leaders wanted Jesus to show his credentials. Jesus had not been trained under a rabbi but was taught by his heavenly Father (cp. Peter and John, Acts 4:13; contrast Paul, Acts 22:3).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"16":[{"id":25492,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Messiah","title_en":"Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>MESSIAH<\/h3>\n<p>Title derived from the Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiach<\/span><em>,<\/em> a verbal adjective meaning “anointed one.” Along with its NT equivalent, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> (Christ), it refers to an act of consecration whereby an individual is set apart to serve God and then anointed with oil. The verbal root <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashach<\/span><em>)<\/em> conveys this idea as well.<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s practice of ceremonially anointing with oil is present in several contexts. Priests were regularly anointed prior to their divinely given service at the altar of sacrifice (Lv 4:3). While there is evidence for a literal anointing of prophets (1 Kgs 19:16), this does not appear to have been a standard practice. The anointing of Saul and David by Samuel established the act as a significant prerequisite for Hebrew kings before they assumed their positions of royal leadership. The king was especially considered to be the Lord’s anointed and as such was viewed to hold a secure position before men (1 Sm 12:14; 2 Sm 19:21) and God (Pss 2:2; 20:6). Along with numerous messianic prophecies, these proceedings helped inform the Jews of the Anointed One, par excellence, who would eventually come to bring salvation to Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Concluding the 13 articles of Hebraic faith attributed to Moses Maimonides (13th century <span>AD<\/span>) is the statement still found in many Hebrew prayer books: “I believe with a perfect heart that the Messiah will come; and although his coming be delayed, I will still wait patiently for his speedy appearance.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MessiahintheOldTestament\">Messiah in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Jewish hope for the advent of the Messiah developed dynamically from the period of David’s reign, when it was prophesied that his kingdom would endure to the end of time (2 Sm 7:16). Israel was told that, through David’s descendants, his throne would exert a never-ending dominion over all the earth (2 Sm 22:48-51; Jer 33). It is with this aspect of messianic salvation that Jewish minds have traditionally been preoccupied (cf. Acts 1:6).<\/p>\n<p>Among Orthodox rabbis there has never been a lack of conjecture respecting the details of the Messiah’s ministry. At one time the rabbis applied no less than 456 passages of Scripture to his person and salvation. Preoccupation with the Messiah is evident in the tractate <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> (Babylonian Talmud), where passages state that the world was created for him and that all the prophets prophesied of his days (<em>Sanhedrin<\/em> 98b, 99a). By and large, Orthodoxy still retains its time-worn belief in the Messiah’s reign in Jerusalem, the rebuilding of the temple, and the reestablishment of both priesthood and sacrifice.<\/p>\n<p>While later Judaism looked for the Messiah as an eschatological figure who will reign at the end of time, modern Jewish thought has largely jettisoned the traditional notion of a personal Messiah in favor of belief in a messianic age. Prevalent liberal Judaism envisions the world ultimately perfected through the influence of the twin Judaic ideals of justice and compassion. Such conviction, ignoring the plight of fallen humans and the teaching of Scripture, substitutes humanistic thinking for miraculous heavenly intervention.<\/p>\n<p>While the Messiah’s origin is linked firmly to the house of David (2 Sm 7:14; Hos 3:5), the promise for a Messiah was given long before David lived. In fact, the hope for the Messiah is implicit in the first promise of the establishment of the kingdom of God. Addressed to Satan, Genesis 3:15 declares that God will place hostility between the serpent and the woman until, in the fullness of time, the “seed” of the woman inflicts a fatal blow to the head of the serpent.<\/p>\n<p>The nature of messianic prophecy is progressive; each prophecy casts more light on the subject. This occurs, for example, respecting the concept of the “seed”: Messiah is to be born of a woman (Gn 3:15), through the line of Shem (9:26) and specifically through Abraham (22:18). Yet even as late as Genesis 22:18, the “seed” is not clearly presented as a person, since <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">zerah<\/span> (seed) may indicate a singular or plural object. Still less apparent in these early stages of messianic prophecy is the nature of the “bruising” that is to occur. Yet the idea of the Messiah being crushed for sin is implicit in the Genesis pronouncement, as is the violence associated with that act. Chief among the messianic prophets, Isaiah gives full range to the axiom that the Anointed One must endure extensive suffering (Is 53:1). Under the figure “the Servant of the Lord,” four “servant songs” delineate the mission of the future deliverer (Is 42:1-7; 49:1-9; 50:4-11; 52:13–53:12). While it is true that Isaiah does not explicitly link the title Messiah with the Servant of the Lord, identifying both figures as one and the same person is justifiable. Both figures are uniquely anointed (61:1); each brings light to the Gentiles (55:4; cf. 49:6); neither is pretentious in his first appearance (7:14-15; 11:1; cf. 42:3; 53:1); and the title of Davidic “branch” rests upon them both (11:1-4). Equally significant are the dual facts of their humiliation and exaltation (49:7; 52:13-15). Jewish scholars of the early Christian era in the Aramaic Targum on the prophets paraphrase Isaiah 42:1, “Behold my Servant Messiah” and begin Isaiah 53, “Behold my Servant Messiah will prosper.” While Cyrus may be spoken of as “anointed,” no final salvific work is attributed to him (45:1-5). Israel, although elect and loved by God (41:8), is ill-equipped as God’s servant to bring his redeeming work to mankind (42:18). The collapse of David’s dynasty points eloquently to Israel’s need for an anointed monarch who will heal the apostasy and disobedience (Ex 33:5; Hos 4:1). More and more, OT history presents Israel’s comprehensive moral failure. Her problem, which she shares with mankind, can only be solved by the making of a covenant whose surety and focal point is both a personal Savior and sovereign Lord (Jer 31:31-34). The advent of such a champion lives in the recorded promise of a shoot from the stump of Jesse’s fallen tree, who will bring the light of life to God’s benighted people (Is 9:2; 11:1).<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to get away from the idea that the concept of servanthood and lowliness belongs within the sphere of royalty (Zec 9:9). The concept of the Messiah filling the complementary offices of priest and king is incontrovertible (Ps 110:1-4); a suffering priest-king is far less obvious. Some among the Talmudic writers apparently recognized the likelihood that the Messiah would have to suffer. In the Babylonian Talmud, tractate <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> 98b, the Messiah is said to bear sicknesses and pain. Among the prayers for the Day of Atonement may be found the words of Eleazar ben Qalir (perhaps as late as <span>AD<\/span> 1000): “Our righteous Messiah has departed from us; we are horror-stricken, and there is none to justify us. Our iniquities and the yoke of our transgressions he carries, and is wounded for our transgressions. He bears on his shoulders our sins to find pardon for our iniquities. May we be healed by his stripes.” In a similar vein Rabbi Eliyya de Vidas writes, “The meaning of ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities,’ is that since the Messiah bears our iniquities, which produce the effect of His being bruised, it follows that whosoever will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities must endure and suffer for them himself.” For all this, it is highly doubtful that anyone imagined the Messiah would accomplish his salvational work by means of his own death (cf. Is 53:12). When rabbinic speculation failed to satisfactorily harmonize the paradoxical facts of humiliation and exaltation, some hypothesized that God would send a Messiah to suffer as well as a Messiah to reign. Biblically, it is evident that the Anointed One’s terrible ordeal of suffering is but the necessary prelude to infinite glory. He is pictured not only as a great king (52:13; 53:12) but also as humble (53:2), humiliated (52:14), rejected (53:3), and bearing the consequences of mankind’s rebellion (vv 5-6). Yet he is raised up to intercede for, and richly bless, his people (v 12). The Messiah, having accomplished that full obedience that Adam and Israel failed to achieve, will bring Israel and the nations back to God (42:18-19; 49:3, 6).<\/p>\n<p>The writings of Daniel contain important messianic data. Daniel is unique in that he boldly speaks of “Messiah the Prince” (Dn 9:25), identifies him as the “Son of Man” (7:13), and says he suffers (“cut off,” 9:26). This statement of the cutting off (i.e., death) of the Messiah makes possible his work of atonement (9:24). The doctrine of a vicarious substitutionary atonement is the only doctrine of atonement found in the Bible (cf. Lv 17:11). Israel understood that to bear sin meant enduring the consequences, or penalty, for sin (cf. Nm 14:33). The same penal substitution is evident in the working principle of the Messiah’s atoning sacrifice. He is the victim’s substitute to whom is transferred the suffering due the sinner. The penalty having been thus borne vicariously, the suppliant is fully pardoned.<\/p>\n<p>Psalm 22:1 records the plaintive cry of the Messiah bearing man’s penalty for sin (cf. Mt 27:46) as he becomes sin on behalf of his people (2 Cor 5:21). Yet his cry, “My God,” indicates an intimate relationship that cannot be radically severed. Once again the motif of messianic humiliation prior to great exaltation is in view (Ps 22:27). In the so-called “royal psalms” (e.g., 2; 72; 110) it is the priestly intercessor who is also ordained to function as monarch and judge.<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah brings the portrait a step further. The one who will enable humans to enter into a salvational covenant with God conveys God’s imputed righteousness: the Messiah, God’s righteous branch, becomes “the Lord our Righteousness.” Paradoxically, under the law no one could be crucified who was not guilty of sin (Dt 21:22). But it is Christ the righteous one who was crucified, thereby forever undermining any supposed legalistic confidence (Dt 21:23; Gal 3:13). More than forgiven, believers are deemed righteous in him (Jer 23:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>While the birthplace of the Messiah was well established (Mi 5:2), his deity was a hotly contested matter. Although few in ancient Israel disputed the belief in a superhuman Messiah, it is doubtful that anyone imagined him to be “God with us” in the fullest sense of the expression (cf. Heb 1:3).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MessiahintheNewTestament\">Messiah in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The NT writers present the picture that he who was the child of supernatural origins (Is 7:14; Mi 5:2) carried the full weight of divinity (Is 9:6; Phil 2:6; Col 1:19). He is the Son of God, worthy to receive the worship of all people (Ps 45:6-7; cf. Heb 1:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The Jews of first-century Palestine knew that the messianic promise would be fulfilled in the coming of one like Moses (Dt 18:18). Parallels between Jesus and Moses are abundant. As mediators, innovators, and propagators of new phases of spiritual life for the people, they are unexcelled. Specifically, both are miraculously spared in infancy (Ex 2; Mt 2:13-23); both renounce a royal court for the sake of serving the people of God (Phil 2:5-8; Heb 11:24-28); both exhibit intense compassion for others (Nm 27:17; Mt 9:36); both commune “face to face” with God (Ex 34:29-30; 2 Cor 3:7); and each mediates a covenant of redemption (Dt 29:1; Heb 8:6-7). But, as Luther observes, “Christ is no Moses.” In the final analysis Moses is but a household servant; the Messiah is the maker and master of all things (Heb 3:3-6; cf. Jn 1:1-2, 18).<\/p>\n<p>Family genealogies are important in Scripture. Rabbis agreed upon the absolute necessity of the Messiah’s Davidic lineage based on Hosea 3:5 and Jeremiah 30:9. The angelic announcement immediately establishes the correct lineage for Jesus (Lk 1:32-33; cf. 2:4), as does Matthew’s (Mt 1:1-17). The Lukan list, like that of Matthew, sets forth the exclusive kingly descent verifying Jesus as Messiah (Lk 3:23-38). Although variations occur between the two genealogies, there is a firm solidarity emphasizing an ancestry within the unique messianic stock. Fully aware of the messianic focus of Scripture (Jn 5:46; 8:56), Jesus acknowledged himself to be the Christ on numerous occasions. He accepted the title from blind Bartimaeus (Mk 10:46-48); from the crowds when he entered Jerusalem (Mt 21:9); from the children at the temple (v 15); and in other contexts as well (Mt 16:16-18; Mk 14:61-62; Lk 4:21; Jn 4:25-26). Nonetheless, he warned his disciples not to broadcast his mighty acts as Messiah prior to his resurrection (Mt 17:9; cf. Lk 9:20-21). Owing to the commonly held (but false) notion that the Messiah’s role was primarily that of a political liberator, Jesus actually avoided use of that term and preferred to identify himself as “the Son of Man.” It was by no means assumed that both designations referred to the same person (cf. Mk 14:61-62). Borrowing essentially from Daniel’s vision of a heavenly conqueror (Dn 7:13-14), Jesus consistently employed this less-known title and filled it with the true character and scope of messianic salvation. Jesus’ teaching in this regard enabled his disciples to correct their erroneous views concerning his mission (Mt 16:21-23). In the fullness of time they would come to see him not only as Messiah but also as the theme of the entire OT (Mt 5:17; Lk 24:27, 44; Jn 5:39; cf. Heb 10:7). When Jesus expounded the Scriptures beginning with the Torah (Lk 24:27), he did so as the living exegesis of God, the Word made flesh (Jn 1:14, 18). Legitimate messianic exposition is found in a host of texts, such as Psalms 2; 16; 22; 40; 110; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; 11:1; 40:10-11; 50:6; 52:13–53:12; 61:1; 63:1-6; Jeremiah 23:5-6; 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:23; 37:25; Daniel 9:24-27; Hosea 11:1; Micah 5:2; Zechariah 9:9; 11:13; 12:10; 13:7; Malachi 3:1; 4:2.<\/p>\n<p>The messiahship of Jesus is firmly proclaimed by all four evangelists (Mt 1:1; Mk 1:1; Lk 24:26; Jn 20:31). Peter on Pentecost, Philip before the Ethiopian eunuch, and Apollos in open debate all argue convincingly that Jesus is the Messiah (Acts 2:36; 8:35; 28:28). Peter says he was “made” both Lord and Christ (2:36), signifying that the resurrection rightfully confirms him as such. Similarly, the apostle Paul speaks of Jesus’ resurrection as a patent declaration of his inalienable right to the title (Rom 1:4). For the ex-Pharisee and former persecutor of the church, “Jesus the Christ” is the very heart and soul of Paul’s preaching. Nothing is worthy to be compared to the glory of the Messiah; everything pales by comparison (Phil 3:5-10). The apostle’s all-consuming passion is for others to know the fullness of God in the person of his only Son (Eph 3:14-19).<\/p>\n<p>The Holy Spirit in Scripture speaks of Jesus with wide-ranging appellatives—Holy One, Judge, Righteous One, King, Son of God, and Lord—but these are not exhaustive. In him all the lines of messianic prediction converge; he is the touchstone whereby their validity is firmly established. The Lord Jesus Christ is himself the heart and substance of that covenant through which sinful people may be reconciled to a holy God (Is 42:6; Jn 14:6). That Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, God incarnate, exhaustively fulfills prophecy, type, and symbol—all shadows of his coming. Therefore, all should trust in him, the source of all grace, the only abiding treasure (Mt 12:21; Jn 1:16-17; Col 2:3). Anointed as prophet, he leads us into all truth (Jn 6:14; 7:16); as priest he intercedes for us (Heb 7:21); and as king he reigns over us (Phil 2:9-10).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Branch; Christology; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Redeemer, Redemption; Son of God; Son of Man.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MESSIAH<\/h3>\n<p>Title derived from the Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiach<\/span><em>,<\/em> a verbal adjective meaning “anointed one.” Along with its NT equivalent, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> (Christ), it refers to an act of consecration whereby an individual is set apart to serve God and then anointed with oil. The verbal root <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashach<\/span><em>)<\/em> conveys this idea as well.<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s practice of ceremonially anointing with oil is present in several contexts. Priests were regularly anointed prior to their divinely given service at the altar of sacrifice (Lv 4:3). While there is evidence for a literal anointing of prophets (1 Kgs 19:16), this does not appear to have been a standard practice. The anointing of Saul and David by Samuel established the act as a significant prerequisite for Hebrew kings before they assumed their positions of royal leadership. The king was especially considered to be the Lord’s anointed and as such was viewed to hold a secure position before men (1 Sm 12:14; 2 Sm 19:21) and God (Pss 2:2; 20:6). Along with numerous messianic prophecies, these proceedings helped inform the Jews of the Anointed One, par excellence, who would eventually come to bring salvation to Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Concluding the 13 articles of Hebraic faith attributed to Moses Maimonides (13th century <span>AD<\/span>) is the statement still found in many Hebrew prayer books: “I believe with a perfect heart that the Messiah will come; and although his coming be delayed, I will still wait patiently for his speedy appearance.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MessiahintheOldTestament\">Messiah in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Jewish hope for the advent of the Messiah developed dynamically from the period of David’s reign, when it was prophesied that his kingdom would endure to the end of time (2 Sm 7:16). Israel was told that, through David’s descendants, his throne would exert a never-ending dominion over all the earth (2 Sm 22:48-51; Jer 33). It is with this aspect of messianic salvation that Jewish minds have traditionally been preoccupied (cf. Acts 1:6).<\/p>\n<p>Among Orthodox rabbis there has never been a lack of conjecture respecting the details of the Messiah’s ministry. At one time the rabbis applied no less than 456 passages of Scripture to his person and salvation. Preoccupation with the Messiah is evident in the tractate <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> (Babylonian Talmud), where passages state that the world was created for him and that all the prophets prophesied of his days (<em>Sanhedrin<\/em> 98b, 99a). By and large, Orthodoxy still retains its time-worn belief in the Messiah’s reign in Jerusalem, the rebuilding of the temple, and the reestablishment of both priesthood and sacrifice.<\/p>\n<p>While later Judaism looked for the Messiah as an eschatological figure who will reign at the end of time, modern Jewish thought has largely jettisoned the traditional notion of a personal Messiah in favor of belief in a messianic age. Prevalent liberal Judaism envisions the world ultimately perfected through the influence of the twin Judaic ideals of justice and compassion. Such conviction, ignoring the plight of fallen humans and the teaching of Scripture, substitutes humanistic thinking for miraculous heavenly intervention.<\/p>\n<p>While the Messiah’s origin is linked firmly to the house of David (2 Sm 7:14; Hos 3:5), the promise for a Messiah was given long before David lived. In fact, the hope for the Messiah is implicit in the first promise of the establishment of the kingdom of God. Addressed to Satan, Genesis 3:15 declares that God will place hostility between the serpent and the woman until, in the fullness of time, the “seed” of the woman inflicts a fatal blow to the head of the serpent.<\/p>\n<p>The nature of messianic prophecy is progressive; each prophecy casts more light on the subject. This occurs, for example, respecting the concept of the “seed”: Messiah is to be born of a woman (Gn 3:15), through the line of Shem (9:26) and specifically through Abraham (22:18). Yet even as late as Genesis 22:18, the “seed” is not clearly presented as a person, since <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">zerah<\/span> (seed) may indicate a singular or plural object. Still less apparent in these early stages of messianic prophecy is the nature of the “bruising” that is to occur. Yet the idea of the Messiah being crushed for sin is implicit in the Genesis pronouncement, as is the violence associated with that act. Chief among the messianic prophets, Isaiah gives full range to the axiom that the Anointed One must endure extensive suffering (Is 53:1). Under the figure “the Servant of the Lord,” four “servant songs” delineate the mission of the future deliverer (Is 42:1-7; 49:1-9; 50:4-11; 52:13–53:12). While it is true that Isaiah does not explicitly link the title Messiah with the Servant of the Lord, identifying both figures as one and the same person is justifiable. Both figures are uniquely anointed (61:1); each brings light to the Gentiles (55:4; cf. 49:6); neither is pretentious in his first appearance (7:14-15; 11:1; cf. 42:3; 53:1); and the title of Davidic “branch” rests upon them both (11:1-4). Equally significant are the dual facts of their humiliation and exaltation (49:7; 52:13-15). Jewish scholars of the early Christian era in the Aramaic Targum on the prophets paraphrase Isaiah 42:1, “Behold my Servant Messiah” and begin Isaiah 53, “Behold my Servant Messiah will prosper.” While Cyrus may be spoken of as “anointed,” no final salvific work is attributed to him (45:1-5). Israel, although elect and loved by God (41:8), is ill-equipped as God’s servant to bring his redeeming work to mankind (42:18). The collapse of David’s dynasty points eloquently to Israel’s need for an anointed monarch who will heal the apostasy and disobedience (Ex 33:5; Hos 4:1). More and more, OT history presents Israel’s comprehensive moral failure. Her problem, which she shares with mankind, can only be solved by the making of a covenant whose surety and focal point is both a personal Savior and sovereign Lord (Jer 31:31-34). The advent of such a champion lives in the recorded promise of a shoot from the stump of Jesse’s fallen tree, who will bring the light of life to God’s benighted people (Is 9:2; 11:1).<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to get away from the idea that the concept of servanthood and lowliness belongs within the sphere of royalty (Zec 9:9). The concept of the Messiah filling the complementary offices of priest and king is incontrovertible (Ps 110:1-4); a suffering priest-king is far less obvious. Some among the Talmudic writers apparently recognized the likelihood that the Messiah would have to suffer. In the Babylonian Talmud, tractate <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> 98b, the Messiah is said to bear sicknesses and pain. Among the prayers for the Day of Atonement may be found the words of Eleazar ben Qalir (perhaps as late as <span>AD<\/span> 1000): “Our righteous Messiah has departed from us; we are horror-stricken, and there is none to justify us. Our iniquities and the yoke of our transgressions he carries, and is wounded for our transgressions. He bears on his shoulders our sins to find pardon for our iniquities. May we be healed by his stripes.” In a similar vein Rabbi Eliyya de Vidas writes, “The meaning of ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities,’ is that since the Messiah bears our iniquities, which produce the effect of His being bruised, it follows that whosoever will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities must endure and suffer for them himself.” For all this, it is highly doubtful that anyone imagined the Messiah would accomplish his salvational work by means of his own death (cf. Is 53:12). When rabbinic speculation failed to satisfactorily harmonize the paradoxical facts of humiliation and exaltation, some hypothesized that God would send a Messiah to suffer as well as a Messiah to reign. Biblically, it is evident that the Anointed One’s terrible ordeal of suffering is but the necessary prelude to infinite glory. He is pictured not only as a great king (52:13; 53:12) but also as humble (53:2), humiliated (52:14), rejected (53:3), and bearing the consequences of mankind’s rebellion (vv 5-6). Yet he is raised up to intercede for, and richly bless, his people (v 12). The Messiah, having accomplished that full obedience that Adam and Israel failed to achieve, will bring Israel and the nations back to God (42:18-19; 49:3, 6).<\/p>\n<p>The writings of Daniel contain important messianic data. Daniel is unique in that he boldly speaks of “Messiah the Prince” (Dn 9:25), identifies him as the “Son of Man” (7:13), and says he suffers (“cut off,” 9:26). This statement of the cutting off (i.e., death) of the Messiah makes possible his work of atonement (9:24). The doctrine of a vicarious substitutionary atonement is the only doctrine of atonement found in the Bible (cf. Lv 17:11). Israel understood that to bear sin meant enduring the consequences, or penalty, for sin (cf. Nm 14:33). The same penal substitution is evident in the working principle of the Messiah’s atoning sacrifice. He is the victim’s substitute to whom is transferred the suffering due the sinner. The penalty having been thus borne vicariously, the suppliant is fully pardoned.<\/p>\n<p>Psalm 22:1 records the plaintive cry of the Messiah bearing man’s penalty for sin (cf. Mt 27:46) as he becomes sin on behalf of his people (2 Cor 5:21). Yet his cry, “My God,” indicates an intimate relationship that cannot be radically severed. Once again the motif of messianic humiliation prior to great exaltation is in view (Ps 22:27). In the so-called “royal psalms” (e.g., 2; 72; 110) it is the priestly intercessor who is also ordained to function as monarch and judge.<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah brings the portrait a step further. The one who will enable humans to enter into a salvational covenant with God conveys God’s imputed righteousness: the Messiah, God’s righteous branch, becomes “the Lord our Righteousness.” Paradoxically, under the law no one could be crucified who was not guilty of sin (Dt 21:22). But it is Christ the righteous one who was crucified, thereby forever undermining any supposed legalistic confidence (Dt 21:23; Gal 3:13). More than forgiven, believers are deemed righteous in him (Jer 23:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>While the birthplace of the Messiah was well established (Mi 5:2), his deity was a hotly contested matter. Although few in ancient Israel disputed the belief in a superhuman Messiah, it is doubtful that anyone imagined him to be “God with us” in the fullest sense of the expression (cf. Heb 1:3).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MessiahintheNewTestament\">Messiah in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The NT writers present the picture that he who was the child of supernatural origins (Is 7:14; Mi 5:2) carried the full weight of divinity (Is 9:6; Phil 2:6; Col 1:19). He is the Son of God, worthy to receive the worship of all people (Ps 45:6-7; cf. Heb 1:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The Jews of first-century Palestine knew that the messianic promise would be fulfilled in the coming of one like Moses (Dt 18:18). Parallels between Jesus and Moses are abundant. As mediators, innovators, and propagators of new phases of spiritual life for the people, they are unexcelled. Specifically, both are miraculously spared in infancy (Ex 2; Mt 2:13-23); both renounce a royal court for the sake of serving the people of God (Phil 2:5-8; Heb 11:24-28); both exhibit intense compassion for others (Nm 27:17; Mt 9:36); both commune “face to face” with God (Ex 34:29-30; 2 Cor 3:7); and each mediates a covenant of redemption (Dt 29:1; Heb 8:6-7). But, as Luther observes, “Christ is no Moses.” In the final analysis Moses is but a household servant; the Messiah is the maker and master of all things (Heb 3:3-6; cf. Jn 1:1-2, 18).<\/p>\n<p>Family genealogies are important in Scripture. Rabbis agreed upon the absolute necessity of the Messiah’s Davidic lineage based on Hosea 3:5 and Jeremiah 30:9. The angelic announcement immediately establishes the correct lineage for Jesus (Lk 1:32-33; cf. 2:4), as does Matthew’s (Mt 1:1-17). The Lukan list, like that of Matthew, sets forth the exclusive kingly descent verifying Jesus as Messiah (Lk 3:23-38). Although variations occur between the two genealogies, there is a firm solidarity emphasizing an ancestry within the unique messianic stock. Fully aware of the messianic focus of Scripture (Jn 5:46; 8:56), Jesus acknowledged himself to be the Christ on numerous occasions. He accepted the title from blind Bartimaeus (Mk 10:46-48); from the crowds when he entered Jerusalem (Mt 21:9); from the children at the temple (v 15); and in other contexts as well (Mt 16:16-18; Mk 14:61-62; Lk 4:21; Jn 4:25-26). Nonetheless, he warned his disciples not to broadcast his mighty acts as Messiah prior to his resurrection (Mt 17:9; cf. Lk 9:20-21). Owing to the commonly held (but false) notion that the Messiah’s role was primarily that of a political liberator, Jesus actually avoided use of that term and preferred to identify himself as “the Son of Man.” It was by no means assumed that both designations referred to the same person (cf. Mk 14:61-62). Borrowing essentially from Daniel’s vision of a heavenly conqueror (Dn 7:13-14), Jesus consistently employed this less-known title and filled it with the true character and scope of messianic salvation. Jesus’ teaching in this regard enabled his disciples to correct their erroneous views concerning his mission (Mt 16:21-23). In the fullness of time they would come to see him not only as Messiah but also as the theme of the entire OT (Mt 5:17; Lk 24:27, 44; Jn 5:39; cf. Heb 10:7). When Jesus expounded the Scriptures beginning with the Torah (Lk 24:27), he did so as the living exegesis of God, the Word made flesh (Jn 1:14, 18). Legitimate messianic exposition is found in a host of texts, such as Psalms 2; 16; 22; 40; 110; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; 11:1; 40:10-11; 50:6; 52:13–53:12; 61:1; 63:1-6; Jeremiah 23:5-6; 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:23; 37:25; Daniel 9:24-27; Hosea 11:1; Micah 5:2; Zechariah 9:9; 11:13; 12:10; 13:7; Malachi 3:1; 4:2.<\/p>\n<p>The messiahship of Jesus is firmly proclaimed by all four evangelists (Mt 1:1; Mk 1:1; Lk 24:26; Jn 20:31). Peter on Pentecost, Philip before the Ethiopian eunuch, and Apollos in open debate all argue convincingly that Jesus is the Messiah (Acts 2:36; 8:35; 28:28). Peter says he was “made” both Lord and Christ (2:36), signifying that the resurrection rightfully confirms him as such. Similarly, the apostle Paul speaks of Jesus’ resurrection as a patent declaration of his inalienable right to the title (Rom 1:4). For the ex-Pharisee and former persecutor of the church, “Jesus the Christ” is the very heart and soul of Paul’s preaching. Nothing is worthy to be compared to the glory of the Messiah; everything pales by comparison (Phil 3:5-10). The apostle’s all-consuming passion is for others to know the fullness of God in the person of his only Son (Eph 3:14-19).<\/p>\n<p>The Holy Spirit in Scripture speaks of Jesus with wide-ranging appellatives—Holy One, Judge, Righteous One, King, Son of God, and Lord—but these are not exhaustive. In him all the lines of messianic prediction converge; he is the touchstone whereby their validity is firmly established. The Lord Jesus Christ is himself the heart and substance of that covenant through which sinful people may be reconciled to a holy God (Is 42:6; Jn 14:6). That Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, God incarnate, exhaustively fulfills prophecy, type, and symbol—all shadows of his coming. Therefore, all should trust in him, the source of all grace, the only abiding treasure (Mt 12:21; Jn 1:16-17; Col 2:3). Anointed as prophet, he leads us into all truth (Jn 6:14; 7:16); as priest he intercedes for us (Heb 7:21); and as king he reigns over us (Phil 2:9-10).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Branch; Christology; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Redeemer, Redemption; Son of God; Son of Man.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MESSIAH Title derived from the Hebrew, mashiach, a verbal adjective meaning “anointed one.” Along with its NT equivalent, christos (Christ), it refers to an act of consecration whereby an individual is set apart to serve God and then anointed with oil. The verbal root (mashach) conveys this idea as well. Israel’s practice of ceremonially anointing with oil is present in several contexts. Priests were regularly anointed prior to their divinely given service at the altar of sacrifice (Lv 4:3). ...","summary_en":"MESSIAH Title derived from the Hebrew, mashiach, a verbal adjective meaning “anointed one.” Along with its NT equivalent, christos (Christ), it refers to an act of consecration whereby an individual is set apart to serve God and then anointed with oil. The verbal root (mashach) conveys this idea as well. Israel’s practice of ceremonially anointing with oil is present in several contexts. Priests were regularly anointed prior to their divinely given service at the altar of sacrifice (Lv 4:3). ...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"17":[{"id":56462,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:17","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:17","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:17<\/strong> Those who truly want <em>to do the will of God<\/em> receive and accept Jesus and his <em>teaching<\/em> (see also 5:42-47). Those who focus on the world, by contrast, are not receptive to Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:17<\/strong> Those who truly want <em>to do the will of God<\/em> receive and accept Jesus and his <em>teaching<\/em> (see also 5:42-47). Those who focus on the world, by contrast, are not receptive to Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:17 Those who truly want to do the will of God receive and accept Jesus and his teaching (see also 5:42-47). Those who focus on the world, by contrast, are not receptive to Christ.","summary_en":"7:17 Those who truly want to do the will of God receive and accept Jesus and his teaching (see also 5:42-47). Those who focus on the world, by contrast, are not receptive to Christ.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":84088,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:17","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:17","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:17<\/strong> Those who truly want <em>to do the will of God<\/em> receive and accept Jesus and his <em>teaching<\/em> (see also 5:42-47). Those who focus on the world, by contrast, are not receptive to Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:17<\/strong> Those who truly want <em>to do the will of God<\/em> receive and accept Jesus and his <em>teaching<\/em> (see also 5:42-47). Those who focus on the world, by contrast, are not receptive to Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:17 Those who truly want to do the will of God receive and accept Jesus and his teaching (see also 5:42-47). Those who focus on the world, by contrast, are not receptive to Christ.","summary_en":"7:17 Those who truly want to do the will of God receive and accept Jesus and his teaching (see also 5:42-47). Those who focus on the world, by contrast, are not receptive to Christ.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":111714,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:17","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:17","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:17<\/strong> Those who truly want <em>to do the will of God<\/em> receive and accept Jesus and his <em>teaching<\/em> (see also 5:42-47). Those who focus on the world, by contrast, are not receptive to Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:17<\/strong> Those who truly want <em>to do the will of God<\/em> receive and accept Jesus and his <em>teaching<\/em> (see also 5:42-47). Those who focus on the world, by contrast, are not receptive to Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:17 Those who truly want to do the will of God receive and accept Jesus and his teaching (see also 5:42-47). Those who focus on the world, by contrast, are not receptive to Christ.","summary_en":"7:17 Those who truly want to do the will of God receive and accept Jesus and his teaching (see also 5:42-47). Those who focus on the world, by contrast, are not receptive to Christ.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":139340,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:17","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:17","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:17<\/strong> Those who truly want <em>to do the will of God<\/em> receive and accept Jesus and his <em>teaching<\/em> (see also 5:42-47). Those who focus on the world, by contrast, are not receptive to Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:17<\/strong> Those who truly want <em>to do the will of God<\/em> receive and accept Jesus and his <em>teaching<\/em> (see also 5:42-47). Those who focus on the world, by contrast, are not receptive to Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:17 Those who truly want to do the will of God receive and accept Jesus and his teaching (see also 5:42-47). Those who focus on the world, by contrast, are not receptive to Christ.","summary_en":"7:17 Those who truly want to do the will of God receive and accept Jesus and his teaching (see also 5:42-47). Those who focus on the world, by contrast, are not receptive to Christ.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"19":[{"id":11407,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Exodus","title_en":"Book of Exodus","content_ro":"<h3>EXODUS, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the Bible, containing the story of God’s liberation of the people of Israel from slavery in Egypt. Few books of the OT are as important historically and theologically as the book of Exodus.<\/p>\n<p>Historically, the exodus event was the birth of Israel as a nation. At Mt Sinai a group of tribes who were descendants of Abraham became a nation ruled by God. The book of Exodus explains how the Israelites were able to resettle the land God had promised to Abraham and gives the basis for this religious, political, and social life.<\/p>\n<p>Theologically, the book of Exodus is so frequently referred to in the OT and NT that theologians speak of an “exodus motif.” In Psalm 68, for example, David received assurance in remembering that his God was the same one who rescued Israel from Egypt. The prophet Jeremiah compared the future regathering of Israel to their exodus from Egypt as an even more miraculous event (Jer 16:14-15). The return of Jesus and his parents from Egypt is associated with the exodus in Matthew 2:13-15. The deliverance of the Jewish people from Egypt was interpreted as a prototype for God’s freeing of all his people, both Israel and the church. Thus, the message of the book of Exodus is foundational to understanding God’s plan of salvation throughout the Bible.<\/p>\n<p>The English title “Exodus” comes from the Septuagint, a pre-Christian translation of the OT into Greek. The word means “a way out” or “departure” and refers to Israel’s rescue from Egypt. The Hebrew title is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shemoth<\/span> (“these are the names”), from the book’s opening words, referring to the names of the sons of Jacob who joined Joseph in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>According to tradition, Exodus and the entire Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) were written by Moses. Exodus was probably written at Mt Sinai or shortly after the events there, according to this view. There is much to support that claim: (1) The book states that Moses wrote God’s words in at least one book (Ex 17:14; 24:2, 7; 34:27-28). According to Deuteronomy 31:9, 24, Moses recorded God’s law in a book that was deposited beside the ark of the covenant as a witness for God. (2) Many OT writers referred to portions of Exodus as the “law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3; 2 Chr 34:14; Neh 8:1; 13:1). The NT, including the testimony of Jesus, calls Moses the author (Mk 7:10; 12:26; Jn 1:45; 7:19).<\/p>\n<p>Various other theories about the origin of Exodus have been proposed. Some scholars credit Moses with writing nearly the entire book. One writer claims that Moses was an unknown desert sheikh who never even met the Israelites. Some critics think they detect in the book several documents from various periods in Israel’s history that were finally put together by an editor centuries after Moses’ death. Others have isolated various literary forms, such as the “Song of Moses” (Ex 15), and traced their development. Another interpretation says that the exodus story was passed on by word of mouth for many generations before being written.<\/p>\n<p>Although such theories are held by biblical scholars, they deny what the text of the book repeatedly affirms: that Moses wrote Exodus. The book of Exodus contains evidence of being written by an eyewitness. Only such a person would recall, for example, that there were 12 fountains and 70 palm trees at Elim (Ex 15:27). The author shows a thorough knowledge of Egyptian court life, customs, and language. Some of the materials used to construct the tabernacle, such as acacia wood for its furniture (25:10) and rams’ skins for the outer covering (v 5), are found in Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula but not in Palestine. The book thus seems to have had a desert setting.<\/p>\n<p>Moses was not only commissioned by God to write the book of Exodus, but he was also well qualified. He was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds” (Acts 7:22, <span>rsv<\/span>). In addition, the 40 years spent in the wilderness of Midian and Sinai gave him a thorough knowledge of the geography and wildlife of the regions through which the Israelites traveled. The events of the exodus—deliverance from the Egyptians and God’s giving of the law—were so central to the history of Israel that Moses took special care to preserve the record so it could be passed on to following generations.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>If one accepts the traditional view that Moses wrote Exodus, then the book is to be dated in the time of Moses. Two dates are generally suggested for the exodus from Egypt.<\/p>\n\n<h5>The “Late Date” View<\/h5>\n<p>This view says that the pharaoh who oppressed the Israelites was Seti I (Sethos, c. 1304–1290 <span>BC<\/span>) and the pharaoh of the exodus was Ramses II (c. 1290–1224 <span>BC<\/span>). The exodus would thus have occurred in 1290, and the conquest of Canaan would have begun in 1250. There are two principal arguments for this view: (1) According to Exodus 1:11, the Israelites were forced to build the store city of Rameses; therefore, Ramses II must have been ruling at the time. But the city of Rameses could have existed earlier under a different name and then been renamed after Ramses II when he rebuilt it. Or there could have been an earlier monarch named Ramses who commissioned its construction. (2) There is archaeological evidence of movements of people and widespread destruction in Canaan around 1250 <span>BC<\/span>. If this destruction was caused by the Hebrew conquest under Joshua, it would place the exodus around 1290. But it could just as easily have been the result of social turbulence and anarchy in the period of the Israelite judges, or of the military activities of neighboring peoples.<\/p>\n<h5>The “Early Date” View<\/h5>\n<p>This view says that the pharaoh of the oppression was Thutmose III (c. 1504–1450 <span>BC<\/span>) and the pharaoh of the exodus was Amenhotep II (c. 1450–1424 <span>BC<\/span>). Thus, the exodus would have occurred about 1440, and the conquest would have begun around 1400. Three chief arguments support that view: (1) If the fourth year of King Solomon was 966 <span>BC<\/span>, then the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 would place the exodus at 1446. (2) If the time of Jephthah was 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, then the 300 years of Judges 11:26 would date the conquest at 1400. (3) The late date would not leave enough time for the period of the judges, which most chronologies indicate lasted between 300 and 400 years. On the basis of such biblical references to the date of the exodus, the early date appears preferable.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>Some events in Egypt during the period covered by the book of Exodus shed additional light on the biblical record. Exodus 12:40 records that the Israelites lived in Egypt for 430 years. That would place the settling of Jacob and his family in Goshen (Gn 47:4, 11) at about 1870 <span>BC<\/span>, during the powerful 12th dynasty of Egypt’s Middle Kingdom. Around the turn of the century, two weaker dynasties followed. Semite invaders from Asia began to infiltrate northern (or Lower) Egypt. Those outsiders, known as the Hyksos, were able to displace the native dynasty with their own king around 1730. That was the “new king” who “did not know Joseph” (Ex 1:8). Being foreigners themselves, they were naturally concerned about the Israelites, who were too many and too mighty for them (v 9). Enslavement was the easiest solution to the problem of the Israelites. The Hyksos kings could use the new source of labor to enlarge Rameses, at that time the capital of Lower Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>Not until about 1580 <span>BC<\/span> were the Egyptians, led by Ahmose, able to drive out the Hyksos and reestablish an Egyptian line of kings. Because the Israelites were still multiplying, despite their hard labor, the pharaohs of the 18th dynasty continued their bondage and decreed that all male children must be killed. When Moses was born (c. 1560 <span>BC<\/span>), that edict was still in effect. Thutmose I (1539–1514), the great empire builder and third of that dynasty, was pharaoh.<\/p>\n<p>Thutmose I’s only surviving legal heir was a daughter, Hatshepsut. Her husband assumed the name Thutmose II (1514–1504). When he died, another of the pharaoh’s descendants was named the successor—Thutmose III (1504–1450), who was ten years old at the time. Hatshepsut took the kingdom from the young ruler and controlled it for 22 years (1503–1482). Such a strong-willed woman could have the nerve to disobey her father’s command by saving the life of a Hebrew baby and raising him in the palace at Thebes.<\/p>\n<p>Hatshepsut, who continued to rule despite Thutmose III’s coronation, possibly intended for Moses to have the throne, or at least a high position in the realm. Thutmose III, once he had full power after Hatshepsut’s death, would have been eager to do away with Moses. Moses’ hurried flight into the wilderness after killing the overseer fits well with such historical possibilities. Thutmose III’s death in 1450 <span>BC<\/span> opened the way for Moses to return and confront Pharaoh Amenhotep II with God’s command, “Let my people go.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the book of Exodus is to show how God’s promise to Abraham (Gn 15:12-16) was fulfilled when the Lord rescued the Israelite descendants of Abraham from Egyptian bondage. It also explains the origin of the Passover festival, the beginning of the nation by God’s establishment of a covenant with Israel, and the giving of the law on Mt Sinai.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus tells the moving story of a mighty God, creator of the universe, beyond all limitations of time and space, who intervenes in history on behalf of a helpless group of slaves. God defeats the ruler of the greatest empire on earth and then leads his oppressed people from that land to freedom. Exodus is the story of a single family that providentially grows into a multitude. Through God’s covenant a nation is formed, and through his law the nation is given stability and set apart from all its neighbors. The book of Exodus tells of an unusual man, whose 80 years of preparation are equally divided between the palace of a king and the pasture of a nomadic priest. Moses is a reluctant leader, but he defies the pharaoh, speaks with God face-to-face, and writes nearly one-fourth of the Hebrew Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p>The God of Exodus is faithful. He makes promises and keeps them. Genesis 15:13-16 records an amazing prophecy: “Then the <span>Lord<\/span> said to Abram, ‘Know of a surety that your descendants will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs, and will be slaves there, and they will be oppressed for four hundred years; but I will bring judgment on the nation which they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. . . . And they shall come back here in the fourth generation’ ” (<span>rsv<\/span>). In response to this promise, Joseph, “at the end of his life, made mention of the exodus of the Israelites and gave directions concerning his burial” (Heb 11:22, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>That promise provides a background for the drama of redemption on which the book of Exodus focuses. Redemption can be defined as “deliverance from the power of an alien dominion, and enjoyment of the resulting freedom.” It speaks of a deliverer and what he does to achieve deliverance. The book of Exodus is full of the vocabulary of redemption. It tells of the God who “remembers” his promise to the Hebrew patriarchs (Ex 2:24; 6:5). God “comes down to deliver” the Israelites (3:8), or “save” them (14:30; 15:2), in order to “bring them” out of the land of Egypt (3:10-12). Redemption involves these aspects:<\/p>\n<p>1. The Lord is the author of redemption. In Exodus 6:1-8, as God answered Moses’ prayer to deliver his people, he used the pronoun “I” 18 times to emphasize that he was the one initiating the action. The Hebrew descendants of Abraham had known God primarily by the Hebrew name “El,” a common title in the ancient Near East for the supreme deity. But in Exodus, Israel learned that God is “Jehovah” or “Yahweh.” That is his personal name, a reminder that he is the God of the covenant who personally cares for his people’s welfare. In Exodus 3:14, God told Moses, “I am who I am” or “I will be who I will be.” Some scholars think that statement shows that the name Yahweh comes from the Hebrew verb “to be.” In any case, the concept of “name” in the Hebrew culture is synonymous with “character.” To know the name of God is to know something of his character. Israel knew God as the one who is eternally self-existent yet present with them wherever they would go, acting on their behalf (Ex 3:12; 33:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. The reason for redemption was God’s promise to the forefathers of the Israelites. When God heard the groaning of the people of Israel, he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob (Ex 2:24; cf. 6:5). In response to their need, he selected an agent of redemption, the unwilling Moses. Moses exhausted every possible excuse, but God would not take no for an answer. Moses is a vivid example of how God prepares, empowers, and sustains his chosen servants, using them to accomplish his purpose.<\/li>\n<li>3. The motive of redemption was God’s grace and love (Ex 15:13; 20:6; 34:6-7). The purpose of redemption was that Israel and the Egyptians might know God (6:7; 7:5; 8:10; 14:18). The Lord worked so that all who were involved—Moses, the Israelites, Pharaoh, and the Egyptians—would be sure that he alone is God. The Hebrew understanding of knowledge is not primarily intellectual but experience-oriented. The desired response to God’s action is not mere mental assent but also faith and obedience.<\/li>\n<li>4. Redemption is achieved in Exodus by miracles (4:21)—all natural processes controlled supernaturally by God. They are variously described as signs and wonders (7:3), great acts of judgment (6:6; 7:4), and “the finger of God” (8:19). Such miracles were not frivolous fireworks but purposeful works of God. Some of the miracles prove that Moses was sent by God. The miraculous plagues proved that God is supreme, for each of them was a direct challenge to one of the gods of Egypt: Osiris the river god, Yeqt the frog god, Ra (Re) the sun god, Athor the cattle god. The miracles in the wilderness proved that God fulfills all the needs of his people.<\/li>\n<li>5. The pharaoh was the villain—a picture of rebellious humanity confronted by God’s command (Ex 4:21-23). Ten times the pharaoh hardened his heart. Yet, in a sense, it was God who hardened the pharaoh’s heart, effecting the king’s decision to defy him.<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passover marked the purchase of redemption (Ex 12:23-27; 15:16). It was a clear example of salvation by substitution. When the death angel saw the blood on the doorposts and lintels, he passed by.<\/li>\n<li>7. The recipients of God’s redemption in Exodus were the Israelites. God took them as his own special people (6:7), and they were no longer free to do as they pleased. Even before the exodus he had claimed them, telling Pharaoh, “Israel is my first-born son, and I say to you, ‘Let my son go that he may serve me’ ” (4:22-23, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/li>\n<li>8. The demand of redemption was obedience. On the basis of his deliverance of the Israelites from bondage, God set forth the Ten Commandments (20:1-17) and the rest of the law for them to obey. The people, though quick to pledge their obedience (19:8; 24:3), were even quicker to disobey (32:8). Because the Lord is holy and wants his people to be holy and wholehearted in devotion (34:14), he must punish iniquity. But being compassionate, he also forgives. Throughout the centuries of Israel’s history, God pleaded with his people through the prophets to remember the exodus and repent (see Mi 6:3-4). The faithful responded in gratitude with Moses’ “song of redemption” (Ex 15; cf. Rv 15:3-4).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus can be divided into four sections, each describing one aspect of God’s dealings with the Israelites during the 15th century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Unveiling (Ex 1–6)<\/h5>\n<p>The book of Exodus begins with the 70 descendants of Jacob who joined Joseph in Egypt for the duration of a famine that was afflicting their land (cf. Gn 46–50). After more than a century of prosperity for the Israelites in the land of Goshen, a new dynasty is established in Egypt whose leaders are not friendly toward Israel. In order to stem the rapid growth of the Hebrew people, the Egyptians force them to do hard labor, building storage cities for the pharaoh.<\/p>\n<p>A further command requires all Israelite male children to be killed at birth. The superintendents of the midwives do not comply, however, and God rewards them—not to show his approval of their lie but because they fear and obey God rather than the pharaoh. A new command calls for all male Israelite babies to be drowned in the Nile River. One special child, who escapes when Pharaoh’s daughter has his basket fished out of the Nile, is Moses. Ironically, Moses’ mother is paid by the princess to raise her own child, who grows up in the palace as the princess’s adopted son.<\/p>\n<p>As an adult, Moses chooses to identify with his Hebrew kin, a tribute to the early instruction given him by his godly parents (see Heb 11:24-26). He sets out to liberate Israel from the Egyptians, one man at a time. But he has to flee to Midian, at the eastern edge of the Sinai Peninsula or in Arabia beyond the northern top of the Gulf of Aqaba. Moses marries into the household of Jethro, also named Reuel. Reuel (“friend of God”) is probably the man’s personal name, and Jethro (“excellence”) his title. Because he is called a “priest of Midian” (Ex 2:16), some scholars have maintained a “Kenite hypothesis,” suggesting that Moses adopted the religion of his father-in-law and taught it to the Israelites. But the Bible states that Moses received his religion by a direct revelation from God. Jethro seems to believe only after he sees that God has rescued Israel from the Egyptians (18:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>While their future deliverer is in Midian, the Israelites continue to be oppressed and cry out to God in their misery (2:23-25). God responds by descending to his people. He came down to rescue Israel (3:8). He appears to Moses in a burning bush and identifies himself as the same God who promised the patriarchs a land “flowing with milk and honey” (3:17). Moses will lead the Israelites there, assisted by his brother, Aaron.<\/p>\n<p>Assured that God’s presence and miraculous signs will accompany him, Moses takes his wife Zipporah and his two sons and departs for Egypt. On the way, the Lord meets him and seeks to put him to death (4:24). That is probably the Hebrew way of saying that God strikes him with a mortal illness. Moses, who is going to deliver God’s people, has neglected the sign of the covenant in failing to circumcise one of his sons (Gn 17:14). Moses recovers after the rite is performed and continues on to Egypt, meeting Aaron at Mt Sinai. Their reception by the Israelites is more cordial than that of Pharaoh, who refuses to honor the God who sent Moses. Instead of releasing the Israelites to offer sacrifices to their God in the wilderness, he increases their burdens. The people complain to Moses, and Moses complains to God. God appears again to Moses (Ex 6), reassuring him that Israel will be delivered by divine power. God’s plan is not a failure—he is just beginning to put it into action.<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Deliverance (Ex 7–19)<\/h5>\n<p>Chapters 7–12 record ten plagues with which God afflicts the Egyptians. Even before the first of them, the pharaoh has hardened his heart to defy God (7:13). There are three cycles of three plagues each:<\/p>\n\n<p> The first three plagues affect both the Egyptians and the Israelites; the Israelites are protected from the final six. The Egyptian magicians are able to duplicate the first two plagues, but when the third strikes, they admit, “This is the finger of God” (8:19). After the plague of flies covers the land, the pharaoh offers Moses the first of four compromises, but Moses refuses all of them (8:25-29; 10:8-11, 24-29). The first plagues are merely unpleasant, but the final ones are destructive and inflict much suffering. Since all of the plagues are common to that area, they themselves are not miraculous. The miracle is how the phenomena are multiplied and limited to the land of Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>The nine plagues serve to harden the pharaoh’s heart even more, so God prepares one final stroke. The death of every firstborn male, among both animals and humans, will be the fatal blow. God warns the Israelites to get ready to leave. To avert the death angel, they must put blood from an unblemished yearling male sheep or goat on their doorways. While they are eating the Passover meal, the death angel begins moving through the land of Egypt. In anguish the pharaoh drives the Israelites from the land; the slaves are free at last. Just as he has promised, the Lord goes before the children of Israel in a pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night.<\/p>\n<p>But once again the pharaoh’s heart is hardened and he gives pursuit. God parts the waters of the sea with a great wind. The literal meaning of the name given that body of water is “sea of reeds.” It could refer to any shoreline where the water is sufficiently shallow for such plants to grow (see 1 Kgs 9:26, where the same term refers to the Gulf of Aqaba near Eloth). Whatever the location, there God hands the Egyptians their final defeat. The rescue is complete.<\/p>\n<p>Moses and the Israelites respond with renewed faith in the Lord and with a song of victory and praise (Ex 14:31–15:21). Soon, however, thanksgiving turns into grumbling because of bitter water (15:22-26), lack of meat and bread (16:1-15), and lack of water (17:1-7). In each situation God provides for their need. He also gives them victory over the Amalekites (vv 8-16). As the Israelites approach Mt Sinai, Moses’ family rejoins him, accompanied by Jethro. Jethro now confesses his faith in the God of the Israelites and shares in a fellowship meal with the leaders. He also assists Moses in reorganizing the judicial system, then returns to Midian (ch 18).<\/p>\n<p>The Israelites arrive at Mt Sinai, also called Horeb (3:1), and prepare to meet the Lord who has rescued them in fulfillment of his promise to Moses (v 12). The Lord establishes his covenant with Israel, taking them as his own possession, “a kingdom of priests, my holy nation.” They quickly respond, “We will certainly do everything the <span>Lord<\/span> asks of us” (19:5-8, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Instruction (Ex 20–24)<\/h5>\n<p>The God who redeems a people, who literally “buys them back from slavery,” has a right to make certain demands of them. The commandments God gives to Israel at Sinai are not burdensome requirements but protective guidelines for living as God’s people (20:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>The Law (or Torah, meaning “instruction”) revealed at Sinai consists of three parts:<\/p>\n<p>1. The Ten Commandments (ch 20), addressing a person’s relationship to God and other people. Based on God’s nature (and therefore permanent), the Ten Commandments are unique in the history of the nations.<\/p>\n<li>2. The judgments (chs 21–23), social regulations for governing the people as a theocracy, similar in many ways to the law codes of Israel’s neighbors.<\/li>\n<li>3. Ordinances (chs 24–31) regulating religious ceremonies.<\/li>\n<p>All of the laws are given to Moses during the weeks he spends with God on the mountain.<\/p>\n<p>The Ten Commandments form the basis of all other laws in Israel (20:1-17). The first five deal with honoring the Lord, the second five with respecting one’s neighbor. The last commandment deals with one’s thoughts and intentions rather than with specific actions. It thus forms a safeguard against all sins not included in the first nine.<\/p>\n<p>The judgments recorded in chapters 21–23 deal with master-slave relationships (21:1-11), offenses punishable by death (vv 12-17), compensation for injury to persons or damage to property (21:18–22:15), various interpersonal relationships (22:16–23:9), and Sabbaths, feasts, and the offering of firstfruits (23:10-19). Many of the judgments would not take effect until Israel settled in the Promised Land. Accordingly, that section of the Law closes with a solemn warning against being rebellious and adopting pagan ways. It also contains a bright promise that God will drive out Israel’s enemies, protect his people from sickness, and grant them prosperity, if they obey the Lord’s commands (23:22).<\/p>\n<p>Exodus 24 records a reaffirmation of the covenant between God and Israel, as Moses seals it with the blood of a sacrifice. In response, God appears to the leaders of the people, giving them a glimpse of his splendor. Then Moses ascends the mountain one more time to receive the stone tablets containing the commandments, as well as further instructions regarding the meeting tent (tabernacle), the priesthood, and worship.<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Presence with his People (Ex 25–40)<\/h5>\n<p>After the Lord redeemed the Israelites, he told Moses, “I will make you my own special people, and I will be your God. And you will know that I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God who has rescued you from your slavery in Egypt” (6:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Moses had seen that wonderful promise fulfilled, yet one further step remained: “I want the people of Israel to build me a sacred residence where I can live among them” (25:8). God’s dwelling among his people is possible because God had descended to deliver the people and because they had pledged to meet his demands. God calls for a contribution from all whose hearts were willing to give, and he shows Moses a detailed pattern of the tabernacle and its furniture. Aaron and his sons are set apart to serve in the tent. Stipulations for the various offerings, including the Day of Atonement, are given. God tells Moses that he has chosen Bezalel and Oholiab to build the tabernacle and to craft its furnishings, having filled them with his Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>In the meantime the Israelites, who so recently promised total obedience, grow impatient as Moses lingers for 40 days on the mountain. They demand that Aaron make an idol for them. Under pressure, Aaron complies and forms a molten calf, a representation of a pagan deity (32:4).<\/p>\n<p>The Lord informs Moses of the people’s idolatry, revelry, and immorality and says that he is angry enough to destroy all of them and start again with Moses’ offspring. Moses pleads for Israel until the Lord relents, then descends from the mountain to punish the people. Moses pleads again for forgiveness for Israel, and God in mercy pardons their terrible sin (34:8-10).<\/p>\n<p>Once more God offers to make a covenant with the people (34:10). Moses spends another 40 days with the Lord, writing the commandments on tablets to replace those smashed when he saw the golden calf. When he returns to the people, his face shines from being in God’s presence, and he must keep it veiled.<\/p>\n<p>Now that Israel has been restored to God’s favor, the construction of the tabernacle can begin. The contributions are so generous that Moses must restrain the people from bringing any more. Finally, all is ready. Moses examines the tabernacle, and it is erected on the first day of the first month, nearly a year after the first Passover. The priests are consecrated, the lamps are lit, and the first burnt sacrifice is offered. A cloud descends, filling the tabernacle with the glory of the Lord. God dwells among his people, the goal of redemption has been attained, and the drama of the book of Exodus has come to an end.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Egypt, Egyptian; Exodus, The; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Israel, History of; Moses; Plagues upon Egypt; Tabernacle; Temple; Commandments, The Ten.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EXODUS, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the Bible, containing the story of God’s liberation of the people of Israel from slavery in Egypt. Few books of the OT are as important historically and theologically as the book of Exodus.<\/p>\n<p>Historically, the exodus event was the birth of Israel as a nation. At Mt Sinai a group of tribes who were descendants of Abraham became a nation ruled by God. The book of Exodus explains how the Israelites were able to resettle the land God had promised to Abraham and gives the basis for this religious, political, and social life.<\/p>\n<p>Theologically, the book of Exodus is so frequently referred to in the OT and NT that theologians speak of an “exodus motif.” In Psalm 68, for example, David received assurance in remembering that his God was the same one who rescued Israel from Egypt. The prophet Jeremiah compared the future regathering of Israel to their exodus from Egypt as an even more miraculous event (Jer 16:14-15). The return of Jesus and his parents from Egypt is associated with the exodus in Matthew 2:13-15. The deliverance of the Jewish people from Egypt was interpreted as a prototype for God’s freeing of all his people, both Israel and the church. Thus, the message of the book of Exodus is foundational to understanding God’s plan of salvation throughout the Bible.<\/p>\n<p>The English title “Exodus” comes from the Septuagint, a pre-Christian translation of the OT into Greek. The word means “a way out” or “departure” and refers to Israel’s rescue from Egypt. The Hebrew title is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shemoth<\/span> (“these are the names”), from the book’s opening words, referring to the names of the sons of Jacob who joined Joseph in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>According to tradition, Exodus and the entire Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) were written by Moses. Exodus was probably written at Mt Sinai or shortly after the events there, according to this view. There is much to support that claim: (1) The book states that Moses wrote God’s words in at least one book (Ex 17:14; 24:2, 7; 34:27-28). According to Deuteronomy 31:9, 24, Moses recorded God’s law in a book that was deposited beside the ark of the covenant as a witness for God. (2) Many OT writers referred to portions of Exodus as the “law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3; 2 Chr 34:14; Neh 8:1; 13:1). The NT, including the testimony of Jesus, calls Moses the author (Mk 7:10; 12:26; Jn 1:45; 7:19).<\/p>\n<p>Various other theories about the origin of Exodus have been proposed. Some scholars credit Moses with writing nearly the entire book. One writer claims that Moses was an unknown desert sheikh who never even met the Israelites. Some critics think they detect in the book several documents from various periods in Israel’s history that were finally put together by an editor centuries after Moses’ death. Others have isolated various literary forms, such as the “Song of Moses” (Ex 15), and traced their development. Another interpretation says that the exodus story was passed on by word of mouth for many generations before being written.<\/p>\n<p>Although such theories are held by biblical scholars, they deny what the text of the book repeatedly affirms: that Moses wrote Exodus. The book of Exodus contains evidence of being written by an eyewitness. Only such a person would recall, for example, that there were 12 fountains and 70 palm trees at Elim (Ex 15:27). The author shows a thorough knowledge of Egyptian court life, customs, and language. Some of the materials used to construct the tabernacle, such as acacia wood for its furniture (25:10) and rams’ skins for the outer covering (v 5), are found in Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula but not in Palestine. The book thus seems to have had a desert setting.<\/p>\n<p>Moses was not only commissioned by God to write the book of Exodus, but he was also well qualified. He was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds” (Acts 7:22, <span>rsv<\/span>). In addition, the 40 years spent in the wilderness of Midian and Sinai gave him a thorough knowledge of the geography and wildlife of the regions through which the Israelites traveled. The events of the exodus—deliverance from the Egyptians and God’s giving of the law—were so central to the history of Israel that Moses took special care to preserve the record so it could be passed on to following generations.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>If one accepts the traditional view that Moses wrote Exodus, then the book is to be dated in the time of Moses. Two dates are generally suggested for the exodus from Egypt.<\/p>\n\n<h5>The “Late Date” View<\/h5>\n<p>This view says that the pharaoh who oppressed the Israelites was Seti I (Sethos, c. 1304–1290 <span>BC<\/span>) and the pharaoh of the exodus was Ramses II (c. 1290–1224 <span>BC<\/span>). The exodus would thus have occurred in 1290, and the conquest of Canaan would have begun in 1250. There are two principal arguments for this view: (1) According to Exodus 1:11, the Israelites were forced to build the store city of Rameses; therefore, Ramses II must have been ruling at the time. But the city of Rameses could have existed earlier under a different name and then been renamed after Ramses II when he rebuilt it. Or there could have been an earlier monarch named Ramses who commissioned its construction. (2) There is archaeological evidence of movements of people and widespread destruction in Canaan around 1250 <span>BC<\/span>. If this destruction was caused by the Hebrew conquest under Joshua, it would place the exodus around 1290. But it could just as easily have been the result of social turbulence and anarchy in the period of the Israelite judges, or of the military activities of neighboring peoples.<\/p>\n<h5>The “Early Date” View<\/h5>\n<p>This view says that the pharaoh of the oppression was Thutmose III (c. 1504–1450 <span>BC<\/span>) and the pharaoh of the exodus was Amenhotep II (c. 1450–1424 <span>BC<\/span>). Thus, the exodus would have occurred about 1440, and the conquest would have begun around 1400. Three chief arguments support that view: (1) If the fourth year of King Solomon was 966 <span>BC<\/span>, then the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 would place the exodus at 1446. (2) If the time of Jephthah was 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, then the 300 years of Judges 11:26 would date the conquest at 1400. (3) The late date would not leave enough time for the period of the judges, which most chronologies indicate lasted between 300 and 400 years. On the basis of such biblical references to the date of the exodus, the early date appears preferable.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>Some events in Egypt during the period covered by the book of Exodus shed additional light on the biblical record. Exodus 12:40 records that the Israelites lived in Egypt for 430 years. That would place the settling of Jacob and his family in Goshen (Gn 47:4, 11) at about 1870 <span>BC<\/span>, during the powerful 12th dynasty of Egypt’s Middle Kingdom. Around the turn of the century, two weaker dynasties followed. Semite invaders from Asia began to infiltrate northern (or Lower) Egypt. Those outsiders, known as the Hyksos, were able to displace the native dynasty with their own king around 1730. That was the “new king” who “did not know Joseph” (Ex 1:8). Being foreigners themselves, they were naturally concerned about the Israelites, who were too many and too mighty for them (v 9). Enslavement was the easiest solution to the problem of the Israelites. The Hyksos kings could use the new source of labor to enlarge Rameses, at that time the capital of Lower Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>Not until about 1580 <span>BC<\/span> were the Egyptians, led by Ahmose, able to drive out the Hyksos and reestablish an Egyptian line of kings. Because the Israelites were still multiplying, despite their hard labor, the pharaohs of the 18th dynasty continued their bondage and decreed that all male children must be killed. When Moses was born (c. 1560 <span>BC<\/span>), that edict was still in effect. Thutmose I (1539–1514), the great empire builder and third of that dynasty, was pharaoh.<\/p>\n<p>Thutmose I’s only surviving legal heir was a daughter, Hatshepsut. Her husband assumed the name Thutmose II (1514–1504). When he died, another of the pharaoh’s descendants was named the successor—Thutmose III (1504–1450), who was ten years old at the time. Hatshepsut took the kingdom from the young ruler and controlled it for 22 years (1503–1482). Such a strong-willed woman could have the nerve to disobey her father’s command by saving the life of a Hebrew baby and raising him in the palace at Thebes.<\/p>\n<p>Hatshepsut, who continued to rule despite Thutmose III’s coronation, possibly intended for Moses to have the throne, or at least a high position in the realm. Thutmose III, once he had full power after Hatshepsut’s death, would have been eager to do away with Moses. Moses’ hurried flight into the wilderness after killing the overseer fits well with such historical possibilities. Thutmose III’s death in 1450 <span>BC<\/span> opened the way for Moses to return and confront Pharaoh Amenhotep II with God’s command, “Let my people go.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the book of Exodus is to show how God’s promise to Abraham (Gn 15:12-16) was fulfilled when the Lord rescued the Israelite descendants of Abraham from Egyptian bondage. It also explains the origin of the Passover festival, the beginning of the nation by God’s establishment of a covenant with Israel, and the giving of the law on Mt Sinai.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus tells the moving story of a mighty God, creator of the universe, beyond all limitations of time and space, who intervenes in history on behalf of a helpless group of slaves. God defeats the ruler of the greatest empire on earth and then leads his oppressed people from that land to freedom. Exodus is the story of a single family that providentially grows into a multitude. Through God’s covenant a nation is formed, and through his law the nation is given stability and set apart from all its neighbors. The book of Exodus tells of an unusual man, whose 80 years of preparation are equally divided between the palace of a king and the pasture of a nomadic priest. Moses is a reluctant leader, but he defies the pharaoh, speaks with God face-to-face, and writes nearly one-fourth of the Hebrew Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p>The God of Exodus is faithful. He makes promises and keeps them. Genesis 15:13-16 records an amazing prophecy: “Then the <span>Lord<\/span> said to Abram, ‘Know of a surety that your descendants will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs, and will be slaves there, and they will be oppressed for four hundred years; but I will bring judgment on the nation which they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. . . . And they shall come back here in the fourth generation’ ” (<span>rsv<\/span>). In response to this promise, Joseph, “at the end of his life, made mention of the exodus of the Israelites and gave directions concerning his burial” (Heb 11:22, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>That promise provides a background for the drama of redemption on which the book of Exodus focuses. Redemption can be defined as “deliverance from the power of an alien dominion, and enjoyment of the resulting freedom.” It speaks of a deliverer and what he does to achieve deliverance. The book of Exodus is full of the vocabulary of redemption. It tells of the God who “remembers” his promise to the Hebrew patriarchs (Ex 2:24; 6:5). God “comes down to deliver” the Israelites (3:8), or “save” them (14:30; 15:2), in order to “bring them” out of the land of Egypt (3:10-12). Redemption involves these aspects:<\/p>\n<p>1. The Lord is the author of redemption. In Exodus 6:1-8, as God answered Moses’ prayer to deliver his people, he used the pronoun “I” 18 times to emphasize that he was the one initiating the action. The Hebrew descendants of Abraham had known God primarily by the Hebrew name “El,” a common title in the ancient Near East for the supreme deity. But in Exodus, Israel learned that God is “Jehovah” or “Yahweh.” That is his personal name, a reminder that he is the God of the covenant who personally cares for his people’s welfare. In Exodus 3:14, God told Moses, “I am who I am” or “I will be who I will be.” Some scholars think that statement shows that the name Yahweh comes from the Hebrew verb “to be.” In any case, the concept of “name” in the Hebrew culture is synonymous with “character.” To know the name of God is to know something of his character. Israel knew God as the one who is eternally self-existent yet present with them wherever they would go, acting on their behalf (Ex 3:12; 33:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. The reason for redemption was God’s promise to the forefathers of the Israelites. When God heard the groaning of the people of Israel, he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob (Ex 2:24; cf. 6:5). In response to their need, he selected an agent of redemption, the unwilling Moses. Moses exhausted every possible excuse, but God would not take no for an answer. Moses is a vivid example of how God prepares, empowers, and sustains his chosen servants, using them to accomplish his purpose.<\/li>\n<li>3. The motive of redemption was God’s grace and love (Ex 15:13; 20:6; 34:6-7). The purpose of redemption was that Israel and the Egyptians might know God (6:7; 7:5; 8:10; 14:18). The Lord worked so that all who were involved—Moses, the Israelites, Pharaoh, and the Egyptians—would be sure that he alone is God. The Hebrew understanding of knowledge is not primarily intellectual but experience-oriented. The desired response to God’s action is not mere mental assent but also faith and obedience.<\/li>\n<li>4. Redemption is achieved in Exodus by miracles (4:21)—all natural processes controlled supernaturally by God. They are variously described as signs and wonders (7:3), great acts of judgment (6:6; 7:4), and “the finger of God” (8:19). Such miracles were not frivolous fireworks but purposeful works of God. Some of the miracles prove that Moses was sent by God. The miraculous plagues proved that God is supreme, for each of them was a direct challenge to one of the gods of Egypt: Osiris the river god, Yeqt the frog god, Ra (Re) the sun god, Athor the cattle god. The miracles in the wilderness proved that God fulfills all the needs of his people.<\/li>\n<li>5. The pharaoh was the villain—a picture of rebellious humanity confronted by God’s command (Ex 4:21-23). Ten times the pharaoh hardened his heart. Yet, in a sense, it was God who hardened the pharaoh’s heart, effecting the king’s decision to defy him.<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passover marked the purchase of redemption (Ex 12:23-27; 15:16). It was a clear example of salvation by substitution. When the death angel saw the blood on the doorposts and lintels, he passed by.<\/li>\n<li>7. The recipients of God’s redemption in Exodus were the Israelites. God took them as his own special people (6:7), and they were no longer free to do as they pleased. Even before the exodus he had claimed them, telling Pharaoh, “Israel is my first-born son, and I say to you, ‘Let my son go that he may serve me’ ” (4:22-23, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/li>\n<li>8. The demand of redemption was obedience. On the basis of his deliverance of the Israelites from bondage, God set forth the Ten Commandments (20:1-17) and the rest of the law for them to obey. The people, though quick to pledge their obedience (19:8; 24:3), were even quicker to disobey (32:8). Because the Lord is holy and wants his people to be holy and wholehearted in devotion (34:14), he must punish iniquity. But being compassionate, he also forgives. Throughout the centuries of Israel’s history, God pleaded with his people through the prophets to remember the exodus and repent (see Mi 6:3-4). The faithful responded in gratitude with Moses’ “song of redemption” (Ex 15; cf. Rv 15:3-4).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus can be divided into four sections, each describing one aspect of God’s dealings with the Israelites during the 15th century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Unveiling (Ex 1–6)<\/h5>\n<p>The book of Exodus begins with the 70 descendants of Jacob who joined Joseph in Egypt for the duration of a famine that was afflicting their land (cf. Gn 46–50). After more than a century of prosperity for the Israelites in the land of Goshen, a new dynasty is established in Egypt whose leaders are not friendly toward Israel. In order to stem the rapid growth of the Hebrew people, the Egyptians force them to do hard labor, building storage cities for the pharaoh.<\/p>\n<p>A further command requires all Israelite male children to be killed at birth. The superintendents of the midwives do not comply, however, and God rewards them—not to show his approval of their lie but because they fear and obey God rather than the pharaoh. A new command calls for all male Israelite babies to be drowned in the Nile River. One special child, who escapes when Pharaoh’s daughter has his basket fished out of the Nile, is Moses. Ironically, Moses’ mother is paid by the princess to raise her own child, who grows up in the palace as the princess’s adopted son.<\/p>\n<p>As an adult, Moses chooses to identify with his Hebrew kin, a tribute to the early instruction given him by his godly parents (see Heb 11:24-26). He sets out to liberate Israel from the Egyptians, one man at a time. But he has to flee to Midian, at the eastern edge of the Sinai Peninsula or in Arabia beyond the northern top of the Gulf of Aqaba. Moses marries into the household of Jethro, also named Reuel. Reuel (“friend of God”) is probably the man’s personal name, and Jethro (“excellence”) his title. Because he is called a “priest of Midian” (Ex 2:16), some scholars have maintained a “Kenite hypothesis,” suggesting that Moses adopted the religion of his father-in-law and taught it to the Israelites. But the Bible states that Moses received his religion by a direct revelation from God. Jethro seems to believe only after he sees that God has rescued Israel from the Egyptians (18:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>While their future deliverer is in Midian, the Israelites continue to be oppressed and cry out to God in their misery (2:23-25). God responds by descending to his people. He came down to rescue Israel (3:8). He appears to Moses in a burning bush and identifies himself as the same God who promised the patriarchs a land “flowing with milk and honey” (3:17). Moses will lead the Israelites there, assisted by his brother, Aaron.<\/p>\n<p>Assured that God’s presence and miraculous signs will accompany him, Moses takes his wife Zipporah and his two sons and departs for Egypt. On the way, the Lord meets him and seeks to put him to death (4:24). That is probably the Hebrew way of saying that God strikes him with a mortal illness. Moses, who is going to deliver God’s people, has neglected the sign of the covenant in failing to circumcise one of his sons (Gn 17:14). Moses recovers after the rite is performed and continues on to Egypt, meeting Aaron at Mt Sinai. Their reception by the Israelites is more cordial than that of Pharaoh, who refuses to honor the God who sent Moses. Instead of releasing the Israelites to offer sacrifices to their God in the wilderness, he increases their burdens. The people complain to Moses, and Moses complains to God. God appears again to Moses (Ex 6), reassuring him that Israel will be delivered by divine power. God’s plan is not a failure—he is just beginning to put it into action.<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Deliverance (Ex 7–19)<\/h5>\n<p>Chapters 7–12 record ten plagues with which God afflicts the Egyptians. Even before the first of them, the pharaoh has hardened his heart to defy God (7:13). There are three cycles of three plagues each:<\/p>\n\n<p> The first three plagues affect both the Egyptians and the Israelites; the Israelites are protected from the final six. The Egyptian magicians are able to duplicate the first two plagues, but when the third strikes, they admit, “This is the finger of God” (8:19). After the plague of flies covers the land, the pharaoh offers Moses the first of four compromises, but Moses refuses all of them (8:25-29; 10:8-11, 24-29). The first plagues are merely unpleasant, but the final ones are destructive and inflict much suffering. Since all of the plagues are common to that area, they themselves are not miraculous. The miracle is how the phenomena are multiplied and limited to the land of Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>The nine plagues serve to harden the pharaoh’s heart even more, so God prepares one final stroke. The death of every firstborn male, among both animals and humans, will be the fatal blow. God warns the Israelites to get ready to leave. To avert the death angel, they must put blood from an unblemished yearling male sheep or goat on their doorways. While they are eating the Passover meal, the death angel begins moving through the land of Egypt. In anguish the pharaoh drives the Israelites from the land; the slaves are free at last. Just as he has promised, the Lord goes before the children of Israel in a pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night.<\/p>\n<p>But once again the pharaoh’s heart is hardened and he gives pursuit. God parts the waters of the sea with a great wind. The literal meaning of the name given that body of water is “sea of reeds.” It could refer to any shoreline where the water is sufficiently shallow for such plants to grow (see 1 Kgs 9:26, where the same term refers to the Gulf of Aqaba near Eloth). Whatever the location, there God hands the Egyptians their final defeat. The rescue is complete.<\/p>\n<p>Moses and the Israelites respond with renewed faith in the Lord and with a song of victory and praise (Ex 14:31–15:21). Soon, however, thanksgiving turns into grumbling because of bitter water (15:22-26), lack of meat and bread (16:1-15), and lack of water (17:1-7). In each situation God provides for their need. He also gives them victory over the Amalekites (vv 8-16). As the Israelites approach Mt Sinai, Moses’ family rejoins him, accompanied by Jethro. Jethro now confesses his faith in the God of the Israelites and shares in a fellowship meal with the leaders. He also assists Moses in reorganizing the judicial system, then returns to Midian (ch 18).<\/p>\n<p>The Israelites arrive at Mt Sinai, also called Horeb (3:1), and prepare to meet the Lord who has rescued them in fulfillment of his promise to Moses (v 12). The Lord establishes his covenant with Israel, taking them as his own possession, “a kingdom of priests, my holy nation.” They quickly respond, “We will certainly do everything the <span>Lord<\/span> asks of us” (19:5-8, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Instruction (Ex 20–24)<\/h5>\n<p>The God who redeems a people, who literally “buys them back from slavery,” has a right to make certain demands of them. The commandments God gives to Israel at Sinai are not burdensome requirements but protective guidelines for living as God’s people (20:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>The Law (or Torah, meaning “instruction”) revealed at Sinai consists of three parts:<\/p>\n<p>1. The Ten Commandments (ch 20), addressing a person’s relationship to God and other people. Based on God’s nature (and therefore permanent), the Ten Commandments are unique in the history of the nations.<\/p>\n<li>2. The judgments (chs 21–23), social regulations for governing the people as a theocracy, similar in many ways to the law codes of Israel’s neighbors.<\/li>\n<li>3. Ordinances (chs 24–31) regulating religious ceremonies.<\/li>\n<p>All of the laws are given to Moses during the weeks he spends with God on the mountain.<\/p>\n<p>The Ten Commandments form the basis of all other laws in Israel (20:1-17). The first five deal with honoring the Lord, the second five with respecting one’s neighbor. The last commandment deals with one’s thoughts and intentions rather than with specific actions. It thus forms a safeguard against all sins not included in the first nine.<\/p>\n<p>The judgments recorded in chapters 21–23 deal with master-slave relationships (21:1-11), offenses punishable by death (vv 12-17), compensation for injury to persons or damage to property (21:18–22:15), various interpersonal relationships (22:16–23:9), and Sabbaths, feasts, and the offering of firstfruits (23:10-19). Many of the judgments would not take effect until Israel settled in the Promised Land. Accordingly, that section of the Law closes with a solemn warning against being rebellious and adopting pagan ways. It also contains a bright promise that God will drive out Israel’s enemies, protect his people from sickness, and grant them prosperity, if they obey the Lord’s commands (23:22).<\/p>\n<p>Exodus 24 records a reaffirmation of the covenant between God and Israel, as Moses seals it with the blood of a sacrifice. In response, God appears to the leaders of the people, giving them a glimpse of his splendor. Then Moses ascends the mountain one more time to receive the stone tablets containing the commandments, as well as further instructions regarding the meeting tent (tabernacle), the priesthood, and worship.<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Presence with his People (Ex 25–40)<\/h5>\n<p>After the Lord redeemed the Israelites, he told Moses, “I will make you my own special people, and I will be your God. And you will know that I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God who has rescued you from your slavery in Egypt” (6:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Moses had seen that wonderful promise fulfilled, yet one further step remained: “I want the people of Israel to build me a sacred residence where I can live among them” (25:8). God’s dwelling among his people is possible because God had descended to deliver the people and because they had pledged to meet his demands. God calls for a contribution from all whose hearts were willing to give, and he shows Moses a detailed pattern of the tabernacle and its furniture. Aaron and his sons are set apart to serve in the tent. Stipulations for the various offerings, including the Day of Atonement, are given. God tells Moses that he has chosen Bezalel and Oholiab to build the tabernacle and to craft its furnishings, having filled them with his Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>In the meantime the Israelites, who so recently promised total obedience, grow impatient as Moses lingers for 40 days on the mountain. They demand that Aaron make an idol for them. Under pressure, Aaron complies and forms a molten calf, a representation of a pagan deity (32:4).<\/p>\n<p>The Lord informs Moses of the people’s idolatry, revelry, and immorality and says that he is angry enough to destroy all of them and start again with Moses’ offspring. Moses pleads for Israel until the Lord relents, then descends from the mountain to punish the people. Moses pleads again for forgiveness for Israel, and God in mercy pardons their terrible sin (34:8-10).<\/p>\n<p>Once more God offers to make a covenant with the people (34:10). Moses spends another 40 days with the Lord, writing the commandments on tablets to replace those smashed when he saw the golden calf. When he returns to the people, his face shines from being in God’s presence, and he must keep it veiled.<\/p>\n<p>Now that Israel has been restored to God’s favor, the construction of the tabernacle can begin. The contributions are so generous that Moses must restrain the people from bringing any more. Finally, all is ready. Moses examines the tabernacle, and it is erected on the first day of the first month, nearly a year after the first Passover. The priests are consecrated, the lamps are lit, and the first burnt sacrifice is offered. A cloud descends, filling the tabernacle with the glory of the Lord. God dwells among his people, the goal of redemption has been attained, and the drama of the book of Exodus has come to an end.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Egypt, Egyptian; Exodus, The; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Israel, History of; Moses; Plagues upon Egypt; Tabernacle; Temple; Commandments, The Ten.<\/p>","summary_ro":"EXODUS, Book of Second book of the Bible, containing the story of God’s liberation of the people of Israel from slavery in Egypt. Few books of the OT are as important historically and theologically as the book of Exodus. Historically, the exodus event was the birth of Israel as a nation. At Mt Sinai a group of tribes who were descendants of Abraham became a nation ruled by God. The book of Exodus explains how the Israelites were able to resettle the land God had promised to Abraham and gives ...","summary_en":"EXODUS, Book of Second book of the Bible, containing the story of God’s liberation of the people of Israel from slavery in Egypt. Few books of the OT are as important historically and theologically as the book of Exodus. Historically, the exodus event was the birth of Israel as a nation. At Mt Sinai a group of tribes who were descendants of Abraham became a nation ruled by God. The book of Exodus explains how the Israelites were able to resettle the land God had promised to Abraham and gives ...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":56463,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:19","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:19","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:19<\/strong> <em>Moses gave you the law, but none of you obeys it!<\/em> The Jewish leaders were proud of the law of Moses, but ironically, in <em>trying to kill<\/em> Jesus, they were breaking the law (Exod 20:13).<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:19<\/strong> <em>Moses gave you the law, but none of you obeys it!<\/em> The Jewish leaders were proud of the law of Moses, but ironically, in <em>trying to kill<\/em> Jesus, they were breaking the law (Exod 20:13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:19 Moses gave you the law, but none of you obeys it! The Jewish leaders were proud of the law of Moses, but ironically, in trying to kill Jesus, they were breaking the law (Exod 20:13).","summary_en":"7:19 Moses gave you the law, but none of you obeys it! The Jewish leaders were proud of the law of Moses, but ironically, in trying to kill Jesus, they were breaking the law (Exod 20:13).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":84089,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:19","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:19","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:19<\/strong> <em>Moses gave you the law, but none of you obeys it!<\/em> The Jewish leaders were proud of the law of Moses, but ironically, in <em>trying to kill<\/em> Jesus, they were breaking the law (Exod 20:13).<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:19<\/strong> <em>Moses gave you the law, but none of you obeys it!<\/em> The Jewish leaders were proud of the law of Moses, but ironically, in <em>trying to kill<\/em> Jesus, they were breaking the law (Exod 20:13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:19 Moses gave you the law, but none of you obeys it! The Jewish leaders were proud of the law of Moses, but ironically, in trying to kill Jesus, they were breaking the law (Exod 20:13).","summary_en":"7:19 Moses gave you the law, but none of you obeys it! The Jewish leaders were proud of the law of Moses, but ironically, in trying to kill Jesus, they were breaking the law (Exod 20:13).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":111715,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:19","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:19","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:19<\/strong> <em>Moses gave you the law, but none of you obeys it!<\/em> The Jewish leaders were proud of the law of Moses, but ironically, in <em>trying to kill<\/em> Jesus, they were breaking the law (Exod 20:13).<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:19<\/strong> <em>Moses gave you the law, but none of you obeys it!<\/em> The Jewish leaders were proud of the law of Moses, but ironically, in <em>trying to kill<\/em> Jesus, they were breaking the law (Exod 20:13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:19 Moses gave you the law, but none of you obeys it! The Jewish leaders were proud of the law of Moses, but ironically, in trying to kill Jesus, they were breaking the law (Exod 20:13).","summary_en":"7:19 Moses gave you the law, but none of you obeys it! The Jewish leaders were proud of the law of Moses, but ironically, in trying to kill Jesus, they were breaking the law (Exod 20:13).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":139341,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:19","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:19","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:19<\/strong> <em>Moses gave you the law, but none of you obeys it!<\/em> The Jewish leaders were proud of the law of Moses, but ironically, in <em>trying to kill<\/em> Jesus, they were breaking the law (Exod 20:13).<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v\"><strong>7:19<\/strong> <em>Moses gave you the law, but none of you obeys it!<\/em> The Jewish leaders were proud of the law of Moses, but ironically, in <em>trying to kill<\/em> Jesus, they were breaking the law (Exod 20:13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:19 Moses gave you the law, but none of you obeys it! The Jewish leaders were proud of the law of Moses, but ironically, in trying to kill Jesus, they were breaking the law (Exod 20:13).","summary_en":"7:19 Moses gave you the law, but none of you obeys it! The Jewish leaders were proud of the law of Moses, but ironically, in trying to kill Jesus, they were breaking the law (Exod 20:13).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":66806,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Limitations of Law","title_en":"The Limitations of Law","content_ro":"<h3>The Limitations of Law<\/h3>\n<p>The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and brought death (see 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>Paul wants his readers to realize that the law is not at fault, however. God’s law is good and holy (Rom 7:12), but it is powerless to change the human heart. Whether we conclude that Paul (in Romans 7:14-25) is describing the experience of an unbeliever, a mature believer, or an immature believer, the point remains that human sin cannot be overcome by the law. God’s law is given to people who, because of their connection with Adam, are already locked under sin’s power. They may want to do what God tells them, but they find that they cannot. Deliverance can come only through a new and radical experience of God’s power and grace in Jesus Christ (Rom 7:25). Through God’s Spirit, Jesus rescues us from “the power of sin that leads to death” (Rom 8:2).<\/p>\n<p>If God’s good and holy law cannot rescue us from our predicament and save us, how much less helpful are all human laws that people rely on for religious or spiritual well-being. Whether those laws come from a religious figure, a tradition we have inherited, or a church we attend, none of them can change the human soul. They can tell us what to do, but they cannot empower us to do it. God’s law can provide guidelines in the new life God has given us by grace, but it can never substitute for the power of God’s grace, made available through the work of Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 5:1-33; 6:17-25; Josh 24:19-27; Ezra 7:25-26; Pss 1:1-3; 19:7-14; 78:56-59; 119:144; Isa 24:5; 26:4-8; Jer 31:33-34; Hos 4:6; 8:12; Hab 1:4; Matt 5:17-20; 7:12; Mark 7:8-9; Luke 16:16-17; John 1:16-17; 7:19; Acts 13:38-39; Rom 2:13-29; 3:19-21, 27-28; 4:13-16; 7:1-25; 8:3-4, 7; 9:4, 31-32; 10:3-5; Gal 2:16-21; 3:2, 10-13, 17-25; 5:1-4; 1 Tim 1:5-11; Heb 8:7-13; 10:1-18; 1 Jn 3:4-6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Limitations of Law<\/h3>\n<p>The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and brought death (see 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>Paul wants his readers to realize that the law is not at fault, however. God’s law is good and holy (Rom 7:12), but it is powerless to change the human heart. Whether we conclude that Paul (in Romans 7:14-25) is describing the experience of an unbeliever, a mature believer, or an immature believer, the point remains that human sin cannot be overcome by the law. God’s law is given to people who, because of their connection with Adam, are already locked under sin’s power. They may want to do what God tells them, but they find that they cannot. Deliverance can come only through a new and radical experience of God’s power and grace in Jesus Christ (Rom 7:25). Through God’s Spirit, Jesus rescues us from “the power of sin that leads to death” (Rom 8:2).<\/p>\n<p>If God’s good and holy law cannot rescue us from our predicament and save us, how much less helpful are all human laws that people rely on for religious or spiritual well-being. Whether those laws come from a religious figure, a tradition we have inherited, or a church we attend, none of them can change the human soul. They can tell us what to do, but they cannot empower us to do it. God’s law can provide guidelines in the new life God has given us by grace, but it can never substitute for the power of God’s grace, made available through the work of Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 5:1-33; 6:17-25; Josh 24:19-27; Ezra 7:25-26; Pss 1:1-3; 19:7-14; 78:56-59; 119:144; Isa 24:5; 26:4-8; Jer 31:33-34; Hos 4:6; 8:12; Hab 1:4; Matt 5:17-20; 7:12; Mark 7:8-9; Luke 16:16-17; John 1:16-17; 7:19; Acts 13:38-39; Rom 2:13-29; 3:19-21, 27-28; 4:13-16; 7:1-25; 8:3-4, 7; 9:4, 31-32; 10:3-5; Gal 2:16-21; 3:2, 10-13, 17-25; 5:1-4; 1 Tim 1:5-11; Heb 8:7-13; 10:1-18; 1 Jn 3:4-6<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Limitations of Law The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and b...","summary_en":"The Limitations of Law The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and b...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":94432,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Limitations of Law","title_en":"The Limitations of Law","content_ro":"<h3>The Limitations of Law<\/h3>\n<p>The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and brought death (see 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>Paul wants his readers to realize that the law is not at fault, however. God’s law is good and holy (Rom 7:12), but it is powerless to change the human heart. Whether we conclude that Paul (in Romans 7:14-25) is describing the experience of an unbeliever, a mature believer, or an immature believer, the point remains that human sin cannot be overcome by the law. God’s law is given to people who, because of their connection with Adam, are already locked under sin’s power. They may want to do what God tells them, but they find that they cannot. Deliverance can come only through a new and radical experience of God’s power and grace in Jesus Christ (Rom 7:25). Through God’s Spirit, Jesus rescues us from “the power of sin that leads to death” (Rom 8:2).<\/p>\n<p>If God’s good and holy law cannot rescue us from our predicament and save us, how much less helpful are all human laws that people rely on for religious or spiritual well-being. Whether those laws come from a religious figure, a tradition we have inherited, or a church we attend, none of them can change the human soul. They can tell us what to do, but they cannot empower us to do it. God’s law can provide guidelines in the new life God has given us by grace, but it can never substitute for the power of God’s grace, made available through the work of Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 5:1-33; 6:17-25; Josh 24:19-27; Ezra 7:25-26; Pss 1:1-3; 19:7-14; 78:56-59; 119:144; Isa 24:5; 26:4-8; Jer 31:33-34; Hos 4:6; 8:12; Hab 1:4; Matt 5:17-20; 7:12; Mark 7:8-9; Luke 16:16-17; John 1:16-17; 7:19; Acts 13:38-39; Rom 2:13-29; 3:19-21, 27-28; 4:13-16; 7:1-25; 8:3-4, 7; 9:4, 31-32; 10:3-5; Gal 2:16-21; 3:2, 10-13, 17-25; 5:1-4; 1 Tim 1:5-11; Heb 8:7-13; 10:1-18; 1 Jn 3:4-6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Limitations of Law<\/h3>\n<p>The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and brought death (see 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>Paul wants his readers to realize that the law is not at fault, however. God’s law is good and holy (Rom 7:12), but it is powerless to change the human heart. Whether we conclude that Paul (in Romans 7:14-25) is describing the experience of an unbeliever, a mature believer, or an immature believer, the point remains that human sin cannot be overcome by the law. God’s law is given to people who, because of their connection with Adam, are already locked under sin’s power. They may want to do what God tells them, but they find that they cannot. Deliverance can come only through a new and radical experience of God’s power and grace in Jesus Christ (Rom 7:25). Through God’s Spirit, Jesus rescues us from “the power of sin that leads to death” (Rom 8:2).<\/p>\n<p>If God’s good and holy law cannot rescue us from our predicament and save us, how much less helpful are all human laws that people rely on for religious or spiritual well-being. Whether those laws come from a religious figure, a tradition we have inherited, or a church we attend, none of them can change the human soul. They can tell us what to do, but they cannot empower us to do it. God’s law can provide guidelines in the new life God has given us by grace, but it can never substitute for the power of God’s grace, made available through the work of Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 5:1-33; 6:17-25; Josh 24:19-27; Ezra 7:25-26; Pss 1:1-3; 19:7-14; 78:56-59; 119:144; Isa 24:5; 26:4-8; Jer 31:33-34; Hos 4:6; 8:12; Hab 1:4; Matt 5:17-20; 7:12; Mark 7:8-9; Luke 16:16-17; John 1:16-17; 7:19; Acts 13:38-39; Rom 2:13-29; 3:19-21, 27-28; 4:13-16; 7:1-25; 8:3-4, 7; 9:4, 31-32; 10:3-5; Gal 2:16-21; 3:2, 10-13, 17-25; 5:1-4; 1 Tim 1:5-11; Heb 8:7-13; 10:1-18; 1 Jn 3:4-6<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Limitations of Law The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and b...","summary_en":"The Limitations of Law The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and b...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":122058,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Limitations of Law","title_en":"The Limitations of Law","content_ro":"<h3>The Limitations of Law<\/h3>\n<p>The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and brought death (see 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>Paul wants his readers to realize that the law is not at fault, however. God’s law is good and holy (Rom 7:12), but it is powerless to change the human heart. Whether we conclude that Paul (in Romans 7:14-25) is describing the experience of an unbeliever, a mature believer, or an immature believer, the point remains that human sin cannot be overcome by the law. God’s law is given to people who, because of their connection with Adam, are already locked under sin’s power. They may want to do what God tells them, but they find that they cannot. Deliverance can come only through a new and radical experience of God’s power and grace in Jesus Christ (Rom 7:25). Through God’s Spirit, Jesus rescues us from “the power of sin that leads to death” (Rom 8:2).<\/p>\n<p>If God’s good and holy law cannot rescue us from our predicament and save us, how much less helpful are all human laws that people rely on for religious or spiritual well-being. Whether those laws come from a religious figure, a tradition we have inherited, or a church we attend, none of them can change the human soul. They can tell us what to do, but they cannot empower us to do it. God’s law can provide guidelines in the new life God has given us by grace, but it can never substitute for the power of God’s grace, made available through the work of Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 5:1-33; 6:17-25; Josh 24:19-27; Ezra 7:25-26; Pss 1:1-3; 19:7-14; 78:56-59; 119:144; Isa 24:5; 26:4-8; Jer 31:33-34; Hos 4:6; 8:12; Hab 1:4; Matt 5:17-20; 7:12; Mark 7:8-9; Luke 16:16-17; John 1:16-17; 7:19; Acts 13:38-39; Rom 2:13-29; 3:19-21, 27-28; 4:13-16; 7:1-25; 8:3-4, 7; 9:4, 31-32; 10:3-5; Gal 2:16-21; 3:2, 10-13, 17-25; 5:1-4; 1 Tim 1:5-11; Heb 8:7-13; 10:1-18; 1 Jn 3:4-6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Limitations of Law<\/h3>\n<p>The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and brought death (see 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>Paul wants his readers to realize that the law is not at fault, however. God’s law is good and holy (Rom 7:12), but it is powerless to change the human heart. Whether we conclude that Paul (in Romans 7:14-25) is describing the experience of an unbeliever, a mature believer, or an immature believer, the point remains that human sin cannot be overcome by the law. God’s law is given to people who, because of their connection with Adam, are already locked under sin’s power. They may want to do what God tells them, but they find that they cannot. Deliverance can come only through a new and radical experience of God’s power and grace in Jesus Christ (Rom 7:25). Through God’s Spirit, Jesus rescues us from “the power of sin that leads to death” (Rom 8:2).<\/p>\n<p>If God’s good and holy law cannot rescue us from our predicament and save us, how much less helpful are all human laws that people rely on for religious or spiritual well-being. Whether those laws come from a religious figure, a tradition we have inherited, or a church we attend, none of them can change the human soul. They can tell us what to do, but they cannot empower us to do it. God’s law can provide guidelines in the new life God has given us by grace, but it can never substitute for the power of God’s grace, made available through the work of Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 5:1-33; 6:17-25; Josh 24:19-27; Ezra 7:25-26; Pss 1:1-3; 19:7-14; 78:56-59; 119:144; Isa 24:5; 26:4-8; Jer 31:33-34; Hos 4:6; 8:12; Hab 1:4; Matt 5:17-20; 7:12; Mark 7:8-9; Luke 16:16-17; John 1:16-17; 7:19; Acts 13:38-39; Rom 2:13-29; 3:19-21, 27-28; 4:13-16; 7:1-25; 8:3-4, 7; 9:4, 31-32; 10:3-5; Gal 2:16-21; 3:2, 10-13, 17-25; 5:1-4; 1 Tim 1:5-11; Heb 8:7-13; 10:1-18; 1 Jn 3:4-6<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Limitations of Law The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and b...","summary_en":"The Limitations of Law The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and b...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":149684,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Limitations of Law","title_en":"The Limitations of Law","content_ro":"<h3>The Limitations of Law<\/h3>\n<p>The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and brought death (see 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>Paul wants his readers to realize that the law is not at fault, however. God’s law is good and holy (Rom 7:12), but it is powerless to change the human heart. Whether we conclude that Paul (in Romans 7:14-25) is describing the experience of an unbeliever, a mature believer, or an immature believer, the point remains that human sin cannot be overcome by the law. God’s law is given to people who, because of their connection with Adam, are already locked under sin’s power. They may want to do what God tells them, but they find that they cannot. Deliverance can come only through a new and radical experience of God’s power and grace in Jesus Christ (Rom 7:25). Through God’s Spirit, Jesus rescues us from “the power of sin that leads to death” (Rom 8:2).<\/p>\n<p>If God’s good and holy law cannot rescue us from our predicament and save us, how much less helpful are all human laws that people rely on for religious or spiritual well-being. Whether those laws come from a religious figure, a tradition we have inherited, or a church we attend, none of them can change the human soul. They can tell us what to do, but they cannot empower us to do it. God’s law can provide guidelines in the new life God has given us by grace, but it can never substitute for the power of God’s grace, made available through the work of Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 5:1-33; 6:17-25; Josh 24:19-27; Ezra 7:25-26; Pss 1:1-3; 19:7-14; 78:56-59; 119:144; Isa 24:5; 26:4-8; Jer 31:33-34; Hos 4:6; 8:12; Hab 1:4; Matt 5:17-20; 7:12; Mark 7:8-9; Luke 16:16-17; John 1:16-17; 7:19; Acts 13:38-39; Rom 2:13-29; 3:19-21, 27-28; 4:13-16; 7:1-25; 8:3-4, 7; 9:4, 31-32; 10:3-5; Gal 2:16-21; 3:2, 10-13, 17-25; 5:1-4; 1 Tim 1:5-11; Heb 8:7-13; 10:1-18; 1 Jn 3:4-6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Limitations of Law<\/h3>\n<p>The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and brought death (see 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>Paul wants his readers to realize that the law is not at fault, however. God’s law is good and holy (Rom 7:12), but it is powerless to change the human heart. Whether we conclude that Paul (in Romans 7:14-25) is describing the experience of an unbeliever, a mature believer, or an immature believer, the point remains that human sin cannot be overcome by the law. God’s law is given to people who, because of their connection with Adam, are already locked under sin’s power. They may want to do what God tells them, but they find that they cannot. Deliverance can come only through a new and radical experience of God’s power and grace in Jesus Christ (Rom 7:25). Through God’s Spirit, Jesus rescues us from “the power of sin that leads to death” (Rom 8:2).<\/p>\n<p>If God’s good and holy law cannot rescue us from our predicament and save us, how much less helpful are all human laws that people rely on for religious or spiritual well-being. Whether those laws come from a religious figure, a tradition we have inherited, or a church we attend, none of them can change the human soul. They can tell us what to do, but they cannot empower us to do it. God’s law can provide guidelines in the new life God has given us by grace, but it can never substitute for the power of God’s grace, made available through the work of Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 5:1-33; 6:17-25; Josh 24:19-27; Ezra 7:25-26; Pss 1:1-3; 19:7-14; 78:56-59; 119:144; Isa 24:5; 26:4-8; Jer 31:33-34; Hos 4:6; 8:12; Hab 1:4; Matt 5:17-20; 7:12; Mark 7:8-9; Luke 16:16-17; John 1:16-17; 7:19; Acts 13:38-39; Rom 2:13-29; 3:19-21, 27-28; 4:13-16; 7:1-25; 8:3-4, 7; 9:4, 31-32; 10:3-5; Gal 2:16-21; 3:2, 10-13, 17-25; 5:1-4; 1 Tim 1:5-11; Heb 8:7-13; 10:1-18; 1 Jn 3:4-6<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Limitations of Law The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and b...","summary_en":"The Limitations of Law The law was central to God’s covenant with the people of Israel, and many Jews in Paul’s day (including Jewish Christians) still saw it as critical to how God’s people lived. Therefore, Paul frequently deals with questions about the law, especially in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians. The pinnacle of his treatment comes in Romans 7, where Paul powerfully argues that the law of Moses, rather than having a positive effect on people’s lives, stimulated sin and b...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"20":[{"id":37850,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"the Unpardonable Sin*","title_en":"the Unpardonable Sin*","content_ro":"<h3>UNPARDONABLE SIN*, The<\/h3>\n<p>Attributing to Satan what is actually the work of the Holy Spirit as demonstrated through Jesus Christ. This sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>The unpardonable sin must be defined by its context, which is found in Matthew 12:31-32 and Mark 3:28-30. In these passages, Jesus had just cast a demon from a man who was blind and mute. Incontrovertible evidence of the power of God had just occurred. But the Pharisees, with stubborn unbelief, credited this display of God’s power to Beelzebul, the devil (Mt 12:24). Several Scriptures reveal that many Jews had expressed the same kind of fallacious opinion, namely, that Jesus was performing miracles by the power of the devil (Mt 9:34; 11:18; Lk 7:33; 11:14-20; Jn 7:20; 8:48, 52; 10:20). A group of Jews, mostly Pharisees, were guilty of attributing to the devil what was the work of the Spirit demonstrated through the Lord Jesus. They committed <em>the<\/em> unpardonable sin when they said that Jesus’ actions, performed by the power of the Holy Spirit, originated from Beelzebul, the devil. Put simply, they sinned grievously by boldly characterizing Jesus’ work as coming from the devil. Interestingly, many Jews perpetuated this false characterization about Jesus long after his death. They did not deny that he did miracles; they said he did miracles by the power of the devil.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WhatIsnttheUnpardonableSin\">What Isn’t the Unpardonable Sin<\/p>\n<p>The unpardonable sin is not Israel’s rebellion against God, even though this rebellion resulted in the eternal judgment of thousands and a temporary elimination of God’s blessing. The “sin unto death” mentioned by John (1 Jn 5:16-17) is not the unpardonable sin. It would be impossible for a person who has redemption and the forgiveness of sin (Eph 1:7), cleansing for present and future sin (1 Jn 1:7), and eternal life (Jn 3:16) to commit an unpardonable sin. But those who commit the “sin unto death” are all Christians. First John 5:16 says the person who commits the “sin unto death” is a “brother” in Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The unpardonable sin is not rejection of the Lord Jesus, until the rejecter dies in his unbelief. Such a sin will not be forgiven throughout eternity, but it is not the same sin as that which Jesus condemned with these words: “Anyone who blasphemes against me, the Son of Man, can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come” (Mt 12:32, <span>nlt<\/span>). Numerous passages repeat the warning that unbelief in the Savior results in eternal death (Jn 3:18, 36; 1 Jn 5:12; Rv 20:15; 21:8), but these Scriptures do not directly speak of the unpardonable sin. Jesus asserted that a person could be an unbeliever in him, even to the degree of speaking against him, yet not be guilty of the unpardonable sin.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Justification, Justified; Sin unto Death.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>UNPARDONABLE SIN*, The<\/h3>\n<p>Attributing to Satan what is actually the work of the Holy Spirit as demonstrated through Jesus Christ. This sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>The unpardonable sin must be defined by its context, which is found in Matthew 12:31-32 and Mark 3:28-30. In these passages, Jesus had just cast a demon from a man who was blind and mute. Incontrovertible evidence of the power of God had just occurred. But the Pharisees, with stubborn unbelief, credited this display of God’s power to Beelzebul, the devil (Mt 12:24). Several Scriptures reveal that many Jews had expressed the same kind of fallacious opinion, namely, that Jesus was performing miracles by the power of the devil (Mt 9:34; 11:18; Lk 7:33; 11:14-20; Jn 7:20; 8:48, 52; 10:20). A group of Jews, mostly Pharisees, were guilty of attributing to the devil what was the work of the Spirit demonstrated through the Lord Jesus. They committed <em>the<\/em> unpardonable sin when they said that Jesus’ actions, performed by the power of the Holy Spirit, originated from Beelzebul, the devil. Put simply, they sinned grievously by boldly characterizing Jesus’ work as coming from the devil. Interestingly, many Jews perpetuated this false characterization about Jesus long after his death. They did not deny that he did miracles; they said he did miracles by the power of the devil.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WhatIsnttheUnpardonableSin\">What Isn’t the Unpardonable Sin<\/p>\n<p>The unpardonable sin is not Israel’s rebellion against God, even though this rebellion resulted in the eternal judgment of thousands and a temporary elimination of God’s blessing. The “sin unto death” mentioned by John (1 Jn 5:16-17) is not the unpardonable sin. It would be impossible for a person who has redemption and the forgiveness of sin (Eph 1:7), cleansing for present and future sin (1 Jn 1:7), and eternal life (Jn 3:16) to commit an unpardonable sin. But those who commit the “sin unto death” are all Christians. First John 5:16 says the person who commits the “sin unto death” is a “brother” in Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The unpardonable sin is not rejection of the Lord Jesus, until the rejecter dies in his unbelief. Such a sin will not be forgiven throughout eternity, but it is not the same sin as that which Jesus condemned with these words: “Anyone who blasphemes against me, the Son of Man, can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come” (Mt 12:32, <span>nlt<\/span>). Numerous passages repeat the warning that unbelief in the Savior results in eternal death (Jn 3:18, 36; 1 Jn 5:12; Rv 20:15; 21:8), but these Scriptures do not directly speak of the unpardonable sin. Jesus asserted that a person could be an unbeliever in him, even to the degree of speaking against him, yet not be guilty of the unpardonable sin.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Justification, Justified; Sin unto Death.<\/p>","summary_ro":"UNPARDONABLE SIN*, The Attributing to Satan what is actually the work of the Holy Spirit as demonstrated through Jesus Christ. This sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The unpardonable sin must be defined by its context, which is found in Matthew 12:31-32 and Mark 3:28-30. In these passages, Jesus had just cast a demon from a man who was blind and mute. Incontrovertible evidence of the power of God had just occurred. But the Pharisees, with stubborn unbelief, credited this display of Go...","summary_en":"UNPARDONABLE SIN*, The Attributing to Satan what is actually the work of the Holy Spirit as demonstrated through Jesus Christ. This sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The unpardonable sin must be defined by its context, which is found in Matthew 12:31-32 and Mark 3:28-30. In these passages, Jesus had just cast a demon from a man who was blind and mute. Incontrovertible evidence of the power of God had just occurred. But the Pharisees, with stubborn unbelief, credited this display of Go...","source":"Articles\/U.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":56464,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:20","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:20<\/strong> <em>You’re demon possessed!<\/em> See 8:48-52; 10:20-21.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:20<\/strong> <em>You’re demon possessed!<\/em> See 8:48-52; 10:20-21.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:20 You’re demon possessed! See 8:48-52; 10:20-21.","summary_en":"7:20 You’re demon possessed! See 8:48-52; 10:20-21.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":84090,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:20","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:20<\/strong> <em>You’re demon possessed!<\/em> See 8:48-52; 10:20-21.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:20<\/strong> <em>You’re demon possessed!<\/em> See 8:48-52; 10:20-21.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:20 You’re demon possessed! See 8:48-52; 10:20-21.","summary_en":"7:20 You’re demon possessed! See 8:48-52; 10:20-21.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":111716,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:20","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:20<\/strong> <em>You’re demon possessed!<\/em> See 8:48-52; 10:20-21.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:20<\/strong> <em>You’re demon possessed!<\/em> See 8:48-52; 10:20-21.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:20 You’re demon possessed! See 8:48-52; 10:20-21.","summary_en":"7:20 You’re demon possessed! See 8:48-52; 10:20-21.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":139342,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:20","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:20<\/strong> <em>You’re demon possessed!<\/em> See 8:48-52; 10:20-21.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:20<\/strong> <em>You’re demon possessed!<\/em> See 8:48-52; 10:20-21.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:20 You’re demon possessed! See 8:48-52; 10:20-21.","summary_en":"7:20 You’re demon possessed! See 8:48-52; 10:20-21.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"21":[{"id":33436,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sabbath","title_en":"Sabbath","content_ro":"<h3>SABBATH<\/h3>\n<p>Derivation of a Hebrew word that means “cease” or “desist.” The Sabbath was a day (from Friday evening until Saturday evening in Jesus’ time) when all ordinary work stopped. The Scriptures relate that God gave his people the Sabbath as an opportunity to serve him and as a reminder of two great truths in the Bible—Creation and redemption.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The relationship between Creation and the Sabbath is first expressed in Genesis 2:2-3. God “ceased” his work in Creation after six days and then “blessed” the seventh day and “declared it holy.” In the fourth commandment (Ex 20:8-11), God’s “blessing” and “setting aside” of the seventh day after Creation (the words used are the same as those in Genesis) form the basis of his demand that people should observe the seventh day as a day of Sabbath rest.<\/p>\n<p>The idea of God resting from his work is a startling one. It comes across even more vividly in Exodus 31:17, where the Lord tells Moses how he was refreshed by his day of rest. This picture of the Creator as a manual laborer is one the Bible often paints. No doubt it is presented in vividly human terms in Exodus to reinforce the fundamental Sabbath lesson that people must follow the pattern their Creator has set for them. One day’s rest in seven is a necessity for individuals, families, households, and even animals (Ex 20:10).<\/p>\n<p>The Sabbath’s setting in the biblical account of Creation implies that it is one of those OT standards that are meant for all people and not just for Israel. The inclusion of the Sabbath law in the Ten Commandments underlines this important truth. The Decalogue occupied a special place in OT law. Alone of all God’s instructions, it was spoken by his audible voice (Ex 20:1), written by his finger (31:18), and placed in the tabernacle ark at the heart of Israel’s worship (25:16). The NT, too, confirms the strong impression that the Decalogue as a whole embodies principles that are permanently valid for all people in all places at all times. Whether or not Sunday is recognized as the Christian Sabbath, one is obliged to accept the central principle of this biblical teaching as far as the Sabbath is concerned. God’s instructions require people to observe a regular weekly break from work.<\/p>\n<p>Significantly, the second main strand of the Bible’s Sabbath teaching—that of redemption—also features in a list of the Ten Commandments. The Sabbath law (already noted in Ex 20:8-11) reappears in Deuteronomy 5:12-15, but here a different reason is attached to its observance: “Remember that you were once slaves in Egypt and that the <span>Lord<\/span> your God brought you out with amazing power and mighty deeds. That is why the <span>Lord<\/span> your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day” (v 15, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The differences between these two accounts of the fourth commandment are important. The first (Ex 20) is addressed, <em>through<\/em> Israel, to all people as created beings. The second (Dt 5) is directed <em>to<\/em> Israel as God’s redeemed people. So the Sabbath is God’s signpost, pointing not only to his goodness toward all people as their Creator but also to his mercy toward his chosen people as their Redeemer.<\/p>\n<p>There is one other significant point in Deuteronomy’s version of the Sabbath commandment that must not be missed. The prohibition of all work on the Sabbath day is followed by an explanatory note—“On that day no one in your household may do any kind of work. This includes you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, your oxen and donkeys and other livestock, and any foreigners living among you. All your male and female servants must rest as you do” (Dt 5:14, <span>nlt<\/span>). Practical concern for others is a feature of all the OT’s covenant teaching. So God’s loving concern for Israel in her Egyptian slavery must be matched by the Israelite family’s loving concern for those who served them. The Sabbath offered an ideal outlet for the practical expression of that concern. Jesus was especially keen to rescue this humanitarian side of Sabbath observance from the mass of callous regulations that threatened to suffocate it in his day (see, e.g., Mk 3:1-5).<\/p>\n<p>The OT’s provision for a “sabbatical year” develops this humanitarian theme further (see Ex 23:10-12; Lv 25:1-7; Dt 15:1-11; also the regulations for the “year of jubilee” in Lv 25:8-55). Every seventh year the land was to lie fallow and be uncultivated (Lv 25:4). It needed a regular rest just as much as the people it sustained. The primary purpose of this law was benevolent: “But you, your male and female slaves, your hired servants, and any foreigners who live with you may eat the produce that grows naturally during the Sabbath year. And your livestock and the wild animals will also be allowed to eat of the land’s bounty” (vv 6-7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Deuteronomy 15:1-11 extends the same humanitarian principle into the world of commerce. The sabbatical year must see the canceling of all debts within God’s redeemed community. For the tight-fisted who might be tempted to refuse a loan if the sabbatical year was imminent, the law added a warning and a promise: “Do not be mean-spirited and refuse someone a loan because the year of release is close at hand. If you refuse to make the loan and the needy person cries out to the <span>Lord<\/span>, you will be considered guilty of sin. Give freely without begrudging it, and the <span>Lord<\/span> your God will bless you in everything you do” (Dt 15:9-10, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Observing the sabbatical year was obviously a great test of the people’s obedience to God and of their willingness to depend on him for their livelihood. Sometimes the temptation to turn a blind eye was too strong. But history testifies to Israel’s courage in observing the letter of this law on many occasions, despite threats of invasion and famine. Both Alexander the Great and the Romans excused Jews from paying taxes every seventh year in recognition of the depth of their religious convictions.<\/p>\n<p>Returning from the seventh year to the seventh day, the OT law codes go to considerable lengths to buttress the Sabbath ban on work by defining what may and may not be done by God’s people on the Sabbath day. The prohibitions were not meant to rule out activity of any kind. Their aim was to stop regular, everyday work, because if God had set aside the Sabbath (Ex 20:11), the most obvious way of profaning it was to treat it just like any other day. Rules were spelled out in specific terms that the farmer (34:21), the salesman (Jer 17:27), and even the housewife (Ex 35:2-3) would understand.<\/p>\n<p>The details may seem trivial, but obedience to the Sabbath law was seen as the main test of the people’s allegiance to the Lord. It was made quite clear that willful disobedience was a capital offense (Ex 35:2), and the fate of the person found gathering wood in defiance of Sabbath regulations showed that this was no idle threat (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\n<p>Hemmed in by so many rules and regulations (and with the death penalty overhanging all), the Sabbath easily could have become a day of fear—a day when the people were more afraid of committing an offense than worshiping the Lord and enjoying a weekly rest. But the Sabbath was intended to be a blessing, not a burden. Above everything else, it was a weekly sign that the Lord loved his people and wanted to draw them into an ever-closer relationship with himself. Those who valued that relationship enjoyed the Sabbath, calling it a delight (Is 58:13-14). Nowhere does the OT express its sheer joy in Sabbath worship more exuberantly than in Psalm 92, which has the title “A Song for the Sabbath.”<\/p>\n<p>The later prophets, were, however, far from blind to the darker side of human nature. They knew that a great deal of Sabbath observance was a sham. Many people treated the Sabbath day more as holiday than holy day, an opportunity for self-indulgence rather than delighting in the Lord (Is 58:13). Some greedy tradesmen found its restrictions an annoying irritant (Am 8:5).<\/p>\n<p>As God’s spokesman, the prophets did not shrink from exposing such neglect and abuse (Ez 22:26). Those who go through the motions of Sabbath worship with unrepentant hearts nauseate the Lord, Isaiah said (Is 1:10-15). As a symptom of rebellion against God, Jerusalem’s Sabbath breaking will bring destruction on the city, thunders Jeremiah (Jer 17:27). The Lord has been very forbearing with his people, warned Ezekiel, but prolonged neglect of his Sabbath makes judgment a certainty (Ez 20:12-24).<\/p>\n<p>When the ax of judgment fell (in the exile to Babylon, 586 <span>BC<\/span>), the surviving remnant of the nation took the lesson to heart. Sabbath keeping was one of the few distinctive marks faithful Jews could retain in a foreign land, so it assumed extra significance. At the prompting of prophets like Ezekiel, who set out rules for Sabbath worship in the rebuilt temple at Jerusalem (Ez 44:24; 45:17; 46:3), and under the leadership of men like Nehemiah, the returning exiles were more careful than their predecessors in observing the Sabbath day (Neh 10:31; 13:15-22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Prior to the first century, some Jews in Palestine developed several rules for promoting the observance of the Sabbath. Two tractates of the Mishnah are devoted exclusively to these Sabbath rules and regulations. Their main purpose is to define work (one tractate does so under 39 headings) in an attempt to show every Israelite what is and is not permitted on the Sabbath. Unfortunately, this led to such hairsplitting complexities and evasions that ecclesiastical lawyers often differed among themselves in their interpretations, with the inevitable result that the main purpose of the Sabbath became lost beneath a mass of legalistic detail. The rabbis themselves were aware of how much they were adding to the straightforward teaching of the OT. As one of them put it, “The rules about the sabbath . . . are as mountains hanging by a hair, for Scripture is scanty and the rules many.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had many confrontations with the Jewish religious leaders over Sabbath observances. From their perspective, Jesus was a Sabbath breaker and therefore a lawbreaker. Jesus, however, never saw himself as a Sabbath breaker. He went to synagogue regularly on the Sabbath day (Lk 4:16). He read the lesson, preached, and taught (Mk 1:21; Lk 13:10). He clearly accepted the principle that the Sabbath was an appropriate day for worship.<\/p>\n<p>His point of collision with the Pharisees was the point at which their tradition departed from biblical teaching. He made this clear when he defended his disciples by appealing to Scripture, after they had been accused of breaking Sabbath tradition by walking through grainfields and breaking off heads of wheat (which fell into the category of “harvesting,” according to the Pharisees; Mk 2:23-26). He followed this up with a remark that took his hearers straight back to God’s Creation purpose for the Sabbath: “The Sabbath was made to benefit people, and not people to benefit the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Rabbinic tradition had exalted the institution above the people it was meant to serve. By making it an end in itself, the Pharisees had effectively robbed the Sabbath of one of its main purposes. Jesus’ words must have sounded uncomfortably familiar in his opponents’ ears. A famous rabbi had once said, “The Sabbath is given over to you, but you are not given over to the Sabbath.”<\/p>\n<p>More than anything else, Jesus’ Sabbath healings put him on a collision course with rabbinic restrictions. The OT does not forbid cures on the Sabbath day, but the rabbis labeled all healing as work, which must always be avoided on the Sabbath unless life was at risk. Jesus fearlessly exposed the callousness and absurd inconsistencies to which this attitude led. How, he asked, could it be right to circumcise a baby or lead an animal to water on the Sabbath day (which tradition allowed) but wrong to heal a chronically handicapped woman and a crippled man, even if their lives were not in immediate danger (Lk 13:10-17; Jn 7:21-24)? The Sabbath, he taught, was a particularly appropriate day for acts of mercy (Mk 3:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus, the man from heaven, claimed that he was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28; cf. Mt 12:5-8). Just as God kept working, despite his Creation rest, to sustain the world in his mercy, so Jesus would continue to teach and to heal on the Sabbath day (Jn 5:2-17). But one day his redemptive work would be complete, and then the Sabbath’s purpose as a sign of redemption would be accomplished.<\/p>\n<p>Living on the other side of Jesus’ death and resurrection, Paul was quick to grasp the significance of both for Sabbath observance. He did not go so far as to ban all observance of the Jewish Sabbath. Indeed, he attended many Sabbath synagogue services himself in his evangelistic travels (see, e.g., Acts 13:14-16). Jewish Christians who insisted on keeping up their Sabbath practices were free to do so, provided they respected the opinions of those who differed (Rom 14:5-6, 13). But any suggestion that observing the Jewish calendar was necessary for salvation must be resisted (Gal 4:8-11). For Paul considered the Sabbath to be a shadow, while Christ himself is the reality of that shadow (Col 2:17).<\/p>\n<p>Finally, it is the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews who explains how the twin biblical “sabbath themes” of creation and redemption find their joint fulfillment in Christ. He did so by linking together the ideas of God’s rest after Creation and his redemptive act in bringing Israel to her “rest” in Canaan, and by showing how both relate to the present and future rest that Christians can and do enjoy in Jesus (Heb 4:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>God intends all his people to share his rest—that is, his promise (Heb 4:1). He showed this intention clearly when he brought Israel to the Promised Land, but that did not mark the complete fulfillment of his promise. The full, complete rest still waiting for the people of God is in heaven. Christ has already entered there. He is resting from his work, just as God did after the Creation. And because of his redeeming work, he invites all those who believe in him to share that same “sabbath rest” now (v 9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Lord’s Day, The; Sabbath Day’s Journey; Commandments, The Ten.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SABBATH<\/h3>\n<p>Derivation of a Hebrew word that means “cease” or “desist.” The Sabbath was a day (from Friday evening until Saturday evening in Jesus’ time) when all ordinary work stopped. The Scriptures relate that God gave his people the Sabbath as an opportunity to serve him and as a reminder of two great truths in the Bible—Creation and redemption.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The relationship between Creation and the Sabbath is first expressed in Genesis 2:2-3. God “ceased” his work in Creation after six days and then “blessed” the seventh day and “declared it holy.” In the fourth commandment (Ex 20:8-11), God’s “blessing” and “setting aside” of the seventh day after Creation (the words used are the same as those in Genesis) form the basis of his demand that people should observe the seventh day as a day of Sabbath rest.<\/p>\n<p>The idea of God resting from his work is a startling one. It comes across even more vividly in Exodus 31:17, where the Lord tells Moses how he was refreshed by his day of rest. This picture of the Creator as a manual laborer is one the Bible often paints. No doubt it is presented in vividly human terms in Exodus to reinforce the fundamental Sabbath lesson that people must follow the pattern their Creator has set for them. One day’s rest in seven is a necessity for individuals, families, households, and even animals (Ex 20:10).<\/p>\n<p>The Sabbath’s setting in the biblical account of Creation implies that it is one of those OT standards that are meant for all people and not just for Israel. The inclusion of the Sabbath law in the Ten Commandments underlines this important truth. The Decalogue occupied a special place in OT law. Alone of all God’s instructions, it was spoken by his audible voice (Ex 20:1), written by his finger (31:18), and placed in the tabernacle ark at the heart of Israel’s worship (25:16). The NT, too, confirms the strong impression that the Decalogue as a whole embodies principles that are permanently valid for all people in all places at all times. Whether or not Sunday is recognized as the Christian Sabbath, one is obliged to accept the central principle of this biblical teaching as far as the Sabbath is concerned. God’s instructions require people to observe a regular weekly break from work.<\/p>\n<p>Significantly, the second main strand of the Bible’s Sabbath teaching—that of redemption—also features in a list of the Ten Commandments. The Sabbath law (already noted in Ex 20:8-11) reappears in Deuteronomy 5:12-15, but here a different reason is attached to its observance: “Remember that you were once slaves in Egypt and that the <span>Lord<\/span> your God brought you out with amazing power and mighty deeds. That is why the <span>Lord<\/span> your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day” (v 15, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The differences between these two accounts of the fourth commandment are important. The first (Ex 20) is addressed, <em>through<\/em> Israel, to all people as created beings. The second (Dt 5) is directed <em>to<\/em> Israel as God’s redeemed people. So the Sabbath is God’s signpost, pointing not only to his goodness toward all people as their Creator but also to his mercy toward his chosen people as their Redeemer.<\/p>\n<p>There is one other significant point in Deuteronomy’s version of the Sabbath commandment that must not be missed. The prohibition of all work on the Sabbath day is followed by an explanatory note—“On that day no one in your household may do any kind of work. This includes you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, your oxen and donkeys and other livestock, and any foreigners living among you. All your male and female servants must rest as you do” (Dt 5:14, <span>nlt<\/span>). Practical concern for others is a feature of all the OT’s covenant teaching. So God’s loving concern for Israel in her Egyptian slavery must be matched by the Israelite family’s loving concern for those who served them. The Sabbath offered an ideal outlet for the practical expression of that concern. Jesus was especially keen to rescue this humanitarian side of Sabbath observance from the mass of callous regulations that threatened to suffocate it in his day (see, e.g., Mk 3:1-5).<\/p>\n<p>The OT’s provision for a “sabbatical year” develops this humanitarian theme further (see Ex 23:10-12; Lv 25:1-7; Dt 15:1-11; also the regulations for the “year of jubilee” in Lv 25:8-55). Every seventh year the land was to lie fallow and be uncultivated (Lv 25:4). It needed a regular rest just as much as the people it sustained. The primary purpose of this law was benevolent: “But you, your male and female slaves, your hired servants, and any foreigners who live with you may eat the produce that grows naturally during the Sabbath year. And your livestock and the wild animals will also be allowed to eat of the land’s bounty” (vv 6-7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Deuteronomy 15:1-11 extends the same humanitarian principle into the world of commerce. The sabbatical year must see the canceling of all debts within God’s redeemed community. For the tight-fisted who might be tempted to refuse a loan if the sabbatical year was imminent, the law added a warning and a promise: “Do not be mean-spirited and refuse someone a loan because the year of release is close at hand. If you refuse to make the loan and the needy person cries out to the <span>Lord<\/span>, you will be considered guilty of sin. Give freely without begrudging it, and the <span>Lord<\/span> your God will bless you in everything you do” (Dt 15:9-10, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Observing the sabbatical year was obviously a great test of the people’s obedience to God and of their willingness to depend on him for their livelihood. Sometimes the temptation to turn a blind eye was too strong. But history testifies to Israel’s courage in observing the letter of this law on many occasions, despite threats of invasion and famine. Both Alexander the Great and the Romans excused Jews from paying taxes every seventh year in recognition of the depth of their religious convictions.<\/p>\n<p>Returning from the seventh year to the seventh day, the OT law codes go to considerable lengths to buttress the Sabbath ban on work by defining what may and may not be done by God’s people on the Sabbath day. The prohibitions were not meant to rule out activity of any kind. Their aim was to stop regular, everyday work, because if God had set aside the Sabbath (Ex 20:11), the most obvious way of profaning it was to treat it just like any other day. Rules were spelled out in specific terms that the farmer (34:21), the salesman (Jer 17:27), and even the housewife (Ex 35:2-3) would understand.<\/p>\n<p>The details may seem trivial, but obedience to the Sabbath law was seen as the main test of the people’s allegiance to the Lord. It was made quite clear that willful disobedience was a capital offense (Ex 35:2), and the fate of the person found gathering wood in defiance of Sabbath regulations showed that this was no idle threat (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\n<p>Hemmed in by so many rules and regulations (and with the death penalty overhanging all), the Sabbath easily could have become a day of fear—a day when the people were more afraid of committing an offense than worshiping the Lord and enjoying a weekly rest. But the Sabbath was intended to be a blessing, not a burden. Above everything else, it was a weekly sign that the Lord loved his people and wanted to draw them into an ever-closer relationship with himself. Those who valued that relationship enjoyed the Sabbath, calling it a delight (Is 58:13-14). Nowhere does the OT express its sheer joy in Sabbath worship more exuberantly than in Psalm 92, which has the title “A Song for the Sabbath.”<\/p>\n<p>The later prophets, were, however, far from blind to the darker side of human nature. They knew that a great deal of Sabbath observance was a sham. Many people treated the Sabbath day more as holiday than holy day, an opportunity for self-indulgence rather than delighting in the Lord (Is 58:13). Some greedy tradesmen found its restrictions an annoying irritant (Am 8:5).<\/p>\n<p>As God’s spokesman, the prophets did not shrink from exposing such neglect and abuse (Ez 22:26). Those who go through the motions of Sabbath worship with unrepentant hearts nauseate the Lord, Isaiah said (Is 1:10-15). As a symptom of rebellion against God, Jerusalem’s Sabbath breaking will bring destruction on the city, thunders Jeremiah (Jer 17:27). The Lord has been very forbearing with his people, warned Ezekiel, but prolonged neglect of his Sabbath makes judgment a certainty (Ez 20:12-24).<\/p>\n<p>When the ax of judgment fell (in the exile to Babylon, 586 <span>BC<\/span>), the surviving remnant of the nation took the lesson to heart. Sabbath keeping was one of the few distinctive marks faithful Jews could retain in a foreign land, so it assumed extra significance. At the prompting of prophets like Ezekiel, who set out rules for Sabbath worship in the rebuilt temple at Jerusalem (Ez 44:24; 45:17; 46:3), and under the leadership of men like Nehemiah, the returning exiles were more careful than their predecessors in observing the Sabbath day (Neh 10:31; 13:15-22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Prior to the first century, some Jews in Palestine developed several rules for promoting the observance of the Sabbath. Two tractates of the Mishnah are devoted exclusively to these Sabbath rules and regulations. Their main purpose is to define work (one tractate does so under 39 headings) in an attempt to show every Israelite what is and is not permitted on the Sabbath. Unfortunately, this led to such hairsplitting complexities and evasions that ecclesiastical lawyers often differed among themselves in their interpretations, with the inevitable result that the main purpose of the Sabbath became lost beneath a mass of legalistic detail. The rabbis themselves were aware of how much they were adding to the straightforward teaching of the OT. As one of them put it, “The rules about the sabbath . . . are as mountains hanging by a hair, for Scripture is scanty and the rules many.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had many confrontations with the Jewish religious leaders over Sabbath observances. From their perspective, Jesus was a Sabbath breaker and therefore a lawbreaker. Jesus, however, never saw himself as a Sabbath breaker. He went to synagogue regularly on the Sabbath day (Lk 4:16). He read the lesson, preached, and taught (Mk 1:21; Lk 13:10). He clearly accepted the principle that the Sabbath was an appropriate day for worship.<\/p>\n<p>His point of collision with the Pharisees was the point at which their tradition departed from biblical teaching. He made this clear when he defended his disciples by appealing to Scripture, after they had been accused of breaking Sabbath tradition by walking through grainfields and breaking off heads of wheat (which fell into the category of “harvesting,” according to the Pharisees; Mk 2:23-26). He followed this up with a remark that took his hearers straight back to God’s Creation purpose for the Sabbath: “The Sabbath was made to benefit people, and not people to benefit the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Rabbinic tradition had exalted the institution above the people it was meant to serve. By making it an end in itself, the Pharisees had effectively robbed the Sabbath of one of its main purposes. Jesus’ words must have sounded uncomfortably familiar in his opponents’ ears. A famous rabbi had once said, “The Sabbath is given over to you, but you are not given over to the Sabbath.”<\/p>\n<p>More than anything else, Jesus’ Sabbath healings put him on a collision course with rabbinic restrictions. The OT does not forbid cures on the Sabbath day, but the rabbis labeled all healing as work, which must always be avoided on the Sabbath unless life was at risk. Jesus fearlessly exposed the callousness and absurd inconsistencies to which this attitude led. How, he asked, could it be right to circumcise a baby or lead an animal to water on the Sabbath day (which tradition allowed) but wrong to heal a chronically handicapped woman and a crippled man, even if their lives were not in immediate danger (Lk 13:10-17; Jn 7:21-24)? The Sabbath, he taught, was a particularly appropriate day for acts of mercy (Mk 3:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus, the man from heaven, claimed that he was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28; cf. Mt 12:5-8). Just as God kept working, despite his Creation rest, to sustain the world in his mercy, so Jesus would continue to teach and to heal on the Sabbath day (Jn 5:2-17). But one day his redemptive work would be complete, and then the Sabbath’s purpose as a sign of redemption would be accomplished.<\/p>\n<p>Living on the other side of Jesus’ death and resurrection, Paul was quick to grasp the significance of both for Sabbath observance. He did not go so far as to ban all observance of the Jewish Sabbath. Indeed, he attended many Sabbath synagogue services himself in his evangelistic travels (see, e.g., Acts 13:14-16). Jewish Christians who insisted on keeping up their Sabbath practices were free to do so, provided they respected the opinions of those who differed (Rom 14:5-6, 13). But any suggestion that observing the Jewish calendar was necessary for salvation must be resisted (Gal 4:8-11). For Paul considered the Sabbath to be a shadow, while Christ himself is the reality of that shadow (Col 2:17).<\/p>\n<p>Finally, it is the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews who explains how the twin biblical “sabbath themes” of creation and redemption find their joint fulfillment in Christ. He did so by linking together the ideas of God’s rest after Creation and his redemptive act in bringing Israel to her “rest” in Canaan, and by showing how both relate to the present and future rest that Christians can and do enjoy in Jesus (Heb 4:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>God intends all his people to share his rest—that is, his promise (Heb 4:1). He showed this intention clearly when he brought Israel to the Promised Land, but that did not mark the complete fulfillment of his promise. The full, complete rest still waiting for the people of God is in heaven. Christ has already entered there. He is resting from his work, just as God did after the Creation. And because of his redeeming work, he invites all those who believe in him to share that same “sabbath rest” now (v 9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Lord’s Day, The; Sabbath Day’s Journey; Commandments, The Ten.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SABBATH Derivation of a Hebrew word that means “cease” or “desist.” The Sabbath was a day (from Friday evening until Saturday evening in Jesus’ time) when all ordinary work stopped. The Scriptures relate that God gave his people the Sabbath as an opportunity to serve him and as a reminder of two great truths in the Bible—Creation and redemption. In the Old Testament The relationship between Creation and the Sabbath is first expressed in Genesis 2:2-3. God “ceased” his work in Creation after s...","summary_en":"SABBATH Derivation of a Hebrew word that means “cease” or “desist.” The Sabbath was a day (from Friday evening until Saturday evening in Jesus’ time) when all ordinary work stopped. The Scriptures relate that God gave his people the Sabbath as an opportunity to serve him and as a reminder of two great truths in the Bible—Creation and redemption. In the Old Testament The relationship between Creation and the Sabbath is first expressed in Genesis 2:2-3. God “ceased” his work in Creation after s...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"22":[{"id":6679,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Circumcision","title_en":"Circumcision","content_ro":"<h3>CIRCUMCISION<\/h3>\n<p>Surgical removal of the foreskin of the male reproductive organ. In Bible times circumcision was the seal of God’s covenant with Abraham (Gn 17:1-14). While circumcision originated as an ancient tribal or religious rite, since the early part of this century it has been practiced in Western nations for hygienic purposes. Many physicians believe that circumcision helps prevent genital cancers in both men and their wives, so that this minor operation is performed a few days after birth on nearly all newborn males in North America. Outside of Judaism the procedure no longer carries religious significance.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Circumcision in the Ancient World<\/p>\n<p>• Circumcision in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Circumcision in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CircumcisionintheAncientWorld\">Circumcision in the Ancient World<\/p>\n<p>The rite of circumcision is far older than the Hebrew people. Cave paintings give evidence that it was practiced in prehistoric times. Egyptian temple drawings show that the operation was common in 4000 <span>BC<\/span> and probably earlier. Peoples practicing circumcision lived on almost every continent. The rite was observed among Central and South American Indians, Polynesians, the peoples of New Guinea, many Australian and African tribes, Egyptians, and pre-Islamic Arabs. The rite is not mentioned in the Koran, but because Muhammad was circumcised, tradition dictates that male Muslims follow the ancient custom. Arab ancestry is traced to Abraham through Ishmael (Gn 17:20), so a common age for Muslim circumcisions is 13, because Ishmael was circumcised at that age (v 25).<\/p>\n<p>Among the West Semitic people, the Ammonites, Edomites, Midianites, Moabites, and Phoenicians all practiced circumcision (Jer 9:25-26). The Philistines, however, did not (Jgs 14:3; 15:18; 1 Sm 14:6; 17:26, 36; 18:25, 27; 31:4; 2 Sm 1:20; 3:14; 1 Chr 10:4).<\/p>\n<p>Young men were usually circumcised at puberty, evidently in preparation for marriage and entrance into full tribal responsibilities. The Hebrews were the only ancient practitioners of circumcision to observe the rite in infancy, thus freeing it from association with fertility rituals.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CircumcisionintheOldTestament\">Circumcision in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the Bible the practice of circumcision began in Genesis 17 as a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham. God promised Abraham a land and, through a son yet to be conceived, numerous descendants, from whom kings would come. Blessings would come upon Abraham and through him to all nations (Gn 12:1-3). After the covenant was formally inaugurated (ch 15), God sealed it, ordering Abraham to be circumcised along with all the males in his household (17:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision was to be an expression of faith that God’s promises would be realized. Because Abraham’s faith had lapsed (Gn 16) even after he had seen the awesome display of God’s majesty (15:9-17), a permanent reminder of God’s covenant promises was placed on his body and the bodies of his male descendants (17:11). This sign was so closely related to God’s covenant promise that the rite itself could be termed the “covenant” (Gn 17:10; Acts 7:8).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision was to be performed on the eighth day after birth (Gn 17:12; Lv 12:1-3; see Gn 21:4; Lk 1:59; 2:21; Acts 7:8; Phil 3:5), customarily by the boy’s father (Gn 17:23; 21:4; Acts 7:8), at which time a name would be given (Lk 1:59; 2:21). Flint knives were used in the early days (Ex 4:25; Jos 5:2-3). Later, the rite was carried out by a trained practitioner called a <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mohel<\/span><em>.<\/em> Medical research has determined that prothrombin, a substance in the blood that aids in clotting, is present in greater quantity on the eighth day than at any other time in life.<\/p>\n<h5>Theological Meaning<\/h5>\n<p>Circumcision had to do with the fulfillment of God’s promise concerning Abraham’s descendants (Gn 17:9-12). Because it was applied to the reproductive organ, the sign involved the propagation of the race. Its application to the eight-day-old infant demonstrates the gracious character of God’s promise to Abraham’s descendants and indicates that God’s people are in need of cleansing grace from birth (Lv 12:1-3). The promises of the covenant were reaffirmed to each generation before the recipients were able to respond in either faith or unbelief; nothing in the hearts of the chosen people could either bring about or thwart the ultimate fulfillment of the promises given to Abraham and his posterity.<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision also had to do with the fulfillment of God’s promise concerning the land (Gn 17:8). The land was God’s holy possession, and the Israelites had to be holy to possess it. When Joseph and his descendants were in Egypt, they continued to circumcise their sons. But following the great sin at Mt Sinai after the exodus, the unbelieving Israelites failed to place the covenant sign upon their children as they wandered in the wilderness. Because the new generation had not been circumcised, the people were unprepared to enter the Promised Land. Therefore, God ordered Joshua to circumcise the men of Israel. The people’s obedient response was an act of faith, since the armies of the enemy were camped nearby as the Israelite warriors lay incapacitated by the surgery (Jos 5:2-9).<\/p>\n<p>From the beginning, participation in the covenant promises was open to persons outside Abraham’s household (Gn 17:12-13). Exodus 12:43-49 gives non-Israelites the opportunity to participate in the Passover if they are willing to fulfill the same stipulation placed upon the Jews—that of circumcision.<\/p>\n<p>The provision for admission to God’s people by reception of the covenant sign was abused by Jacob’s sons when circumcision was made a precondition for intermarriage with the Shechemites. While the Shechemites were disabled by their wounds, Simeon and Levi killed them, plundering the city to exact retribution for the rape of their sister Dinah (Gn 34).<\/p>\n<p>The sign of the covenant was not to be treated lightly. The penalty of excommunication rested upon the uncircumcised (Gn 17:14). The strange incident recorded in Exodus 4:24-26 seems to have been God’s reminder to Moses of the stipulations of the covenant made with Abraham. Moses had proved an unfaithful servant of the Lord by neglecting to circumcise his son but was rescued from judgment when his wife Zipporah took a flint rock and circumcised the boy, throwing the bloody foreskin at her husband’s feet.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CircumcisionintheNewTestament\">Circumcision in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>John the Baptist was circumcised, as were Jesus and Paul (Lk 1:59; 2:21; Phil 3:5). Jesus recognized the cleansing significance of circumcision (Jn 7:22-23), contrasting the rite with his healing ministry that made a man completely well and therefore ceremonially “clean.” Just before he was stoned, Stephen referred to the covenant of circumcision, charging that his Jewish accusers, like their ancestors, were stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, always resisting the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:8, 51).<\/p>\n<p>For a time the first Christians continued to participate in the Jewish rites and customs, even attending the services of the temple (Acts 3:1; 5:21, 42). As Gentiles came to Christ, controversy arose between those who said that participation in the covenant community required circumcision and those who believed the rite was unnecessary. It was argued that since the covenant promise of the Messiah was given to the Jews, Gentiles must first be circumcised and become Jews before they could receive salvation in Christ.<\/p>\n<p>In the time of Christ, many Jews misunderstood the significance of circumcision, believing that the physical act was necessary for and a guarantee of salvation. Thus for Jews the observance became not only a symbol of religious privilege but also a source of racial pride (Phil 3:4-6). These Jews associated the ceremony with the Mosaic law rather than the promise to Abraham (Jn 7:22; Acts 15:1). Because Greeks and Romans did not practice circumcision, Jews had come to be called “the circumcision” (<span>kjv<\/span> Acts 10:45; 11:2; Rom 15:8; Gal 2:7-9; Eph 2:11; Ti 1:10), and following OT practice (Ez 28:10; 31:18; 32:19-32), Gentiles were termed “the uncircumcision” (<span>kjv<\/span> Gal 2:7; Eph 2:11).<\/p>\n<p>While visiting Caesarea, Jewish believers were amazed to realize that uncircumcised Gentiles received the purifying gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-48). Moses had promised that God would circumcise the hearts of his people to love the Lord with heart and soul (Dt 30:6), and Ezekiel had prophesied that the Lord would sprinkle clean water on his people, giving them a new heart and putting his Spirit within them (Ez 36:25-27). As these Jewish believers saw the prophecy that God would pour out his Spirit upon all flesh (Jl 2:28; Acts 2:17) being fulfilled, they realized that the inward reality symbolized by circumcision could be accomplished without the physical sign. Thus, the gentile believers were immediately baptized.<\/p>\n<p>Not all the Jewish believers were immediately willing to accept Gentiles into the church. When Peter returned to Jerusalem after his visit to Caesarea, “the circumcision party” criticized him. But after telling how the Spirit had fallen upon the Gentiles, Peter declared that he could not stand against God. At this the Jewish believers were silenced and glorified God that repentance unto life had been granted to Gentiles (Acts 11:1-3, 15:8).<\/p>\n<p>Certain “Judaizers” of the Pharisaic party taught the Christians in Antioch that circumcision was necessary for salvation (Acts 15:1, 5). After debating these persons, Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to consult with the other apostles and elders (v 2). Peter argued that God had given the Spirit to Gentiles and “cleansed their hearts by faith,” affirming that “we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will” (vv 8-9, 11, <span>rsv<\/span>). Therefore, James and the other Jerusalem leaders agreed that circumcision should not be imposed on the Gentiles (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<p>It was decided that Peter, James, and John would be entrusted with the gospel to “the circumcised,” while Paul and Barnabas would preach to “the uncircumcised” (Gal 2:7-9). Because of his evangelistic policy to be “all things to all people” with respect to spiritually indifferent matters of custom (1 Cor 9:19-23), Paul had Timothy circumcised. Timothy was reckoned by Jews as one of their race because his mother was Jewish (Acts 16:1-2). But Paul resisted attempts to have Titus circumcised, since he was a Gentile (Gal 2:3). Paul apparently allowed Jewish believers to circumcise their sons (Acts 21:21).<\/p>\n<p>Yet Paul charged that those who argued that the Galatian Christians must be circumcised and keep the law did not keep it themselves but wanted to boast in the Galatians’ flesh and avoid persecution for the cross of Christ (Gal 6:12-13)—persecution Paul was willing to bear (5:11). Granting for the sake of argument the Pharisaic assumption that salvation could be merited by keeping the law, Paul declared that those who received circumcision must obey every other Jewish law (vv 2-3). Christ would be “of no advantage” to those who “would be justified by the law”; this attempt at works righteousness would evidence that the Galatians were “severed from Christ,” having “fallen from grace” (vv 2-4). These Christians were being tempted to turn to “a different gospel” (1:6-7).<\/p>\n<p>Because of the serious threat the Judaizers posed to the gospel of free grace, Paul wished that those who unsettled the Galatians would “mutilate themselves” (Gal 5:12). He termed the Judaizers “dogs” and “evil workers” (<span>kjv<\/span> “concision”), asserting that Christians are “the true circumcision,” because they worship God in spirit and glory in Christ Jesus, putting no confidence in human works to merit salvation (Phil 3:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>Paul taught that circumcision was indeed of value to Jews, for it was the sign that to them had been committed the “oracles of God,” that is, God’s word concerning the promise of salvation (Rom 3:1-3). He reminded the prideful Ephesians that as Gentiles they had once been “strangers to the covenants of promise,” not bearing the covenant sign in their flesh (Eph 2:11-12; see Col 2:13). Likewise, Jews had no cause for pride, for disobedience could cause outward circumcision to be counted as uncircumcision (Rom 2:25).<\/p>\n<p>Paul and the other apostles followed Moses and the OT prophets in teaching that true circumcision was a matter of the heart. The teaching of the NT goes further to affirm that a faithful believer, though physically uncircumcised, is regarded by God as circumcised, “for he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical” (Rom 2:28, <span>rsv<\/span>). Both Jews and Gentiles are saved by grace (Acts 15:11), and circumcised and uncircumcised alike are justified on the ground of their faith, apart from works of the law (Rom 3:28-30).<\/p>\n<p>Abraham served as an example of a person whose faith was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom 4:3; see Gn 15:6). Paul argued that both Gentiles and Jews are justified by faith, because Abraham was accounted righteous before he was circumcised. Abraham did not receive circumcision to obtain righteousness, but as a sign or seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. Thus, Abraham is the father of all who believe without being circumcised, as well as those who are circumcised but also follow the example of Abraham’s faith (Rom 4:9-12; see Gal 3:6-9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Baptism; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Uncircumcision.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CIRCUMCISION<\/h3>\n<p>Surgical removal of the foreskin of the male reproductive organ. In Bible times circumcision was the seal of God’s covenant with Abraham (Gn 17:1-14). While circumcision originated as an ancient tribal or religious rite, since the early part of this century it has been practiced in Western nations for hygienic purposes. Many physicians believe that circumcision helps prevent genital cancers in both men and their wives, so that this minor operation is performed a few days after birth on nearly all newborn males in North America. Outside of Judaism the procedure no longer carries religious significance.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Circumcision in the Ancient World<\/p>\n<p>• Circumcision in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Circumcision in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CircumcisionintheAncientWorld\">Circumcision in the Ancient World<\/p>\n<p>The rite of circumcision is far older than the Hebrew people. Cave paintings give evidence that it was practiced in prehistoric times. Egyptian temple drawings show that the operation was common in 4000 <span>BC<\/span> and probably earlier. Peoples practicing circumcision lived on almost every continent. The rite was observed among Central and South American Indians, Polynesians, the peoples of New Guinea, many Australian and African tribes, Egyptians, and pre-Islamic Arabs. The rite is not mentioned in the Koran, but because Muhammad was circumcised, tradition dictates that male Muslims follow the ancient custom. Arab ancestry is traced to Abraham through Ishmael (Gn 17:20), so a common age for Muslim circumcisions is 13, because Ishmael was circumcised at that age (v 25).<\/p>\n<p>Among the West Semitic people, the Ammonites, Edomites, Midianites, Moabites, and Phoenicians all practiced circumcision (Jer 9:25-26). The Philistines, however, did not (Jgs 14:3; 15:18; 1 Sm 14:6; 17:26, 36; 18:25, 27; 31:4; 2 Sm 1:20; 3:14; 1 Chr 10:4).<\/p>\n<p>Young men were usually circumcised at puberty, evidently in preparation for marriage and entrance into full tribal responsibilities. The Hebrews were the only ancient practitioners of circumcision to observe the rite in infancy, thus freeing it from association with fertility rituals.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CircumcisionintheOldTestament\">Circumcision in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the Bible the practice of circumcision began in Genesis 17 as a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham. God promised Abraham a land and, through a son yet to be conceived, numerous descendants, from whom kings would come. Blessings would come upon Abraham and through him to all nations (Gn 12:1-3). After the covenant was formally inaugurated (ch 15), God sealed it, ordering Abraham to be circumcised along with all the males in his household (17:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision was to be an expression of faith that God’s promises would be realized. Because Abraham’s faith had lapsed (Gn 16) even after he had seen the awesome display of God’s majesty (15:9-17), a permanent reminder of God’s covenant promises was placed on his body and the bodies of his male descendants (17:11). This sign was so closely related to God’s covenant promise that the rite itself could be termed the “covenant” (Gn 17:10; Acts 7:8).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision was to be performed on the eighth day after birth (Gn 17:12; Lv 12:1-3; see Gn 21:4; Lk 1:59; 2:21; Acts 7:8; Phil 3:5), customarily by the boy’s father (Gn 17:23; 21:4; Acts 7:8), at which time a name would be given (Lk 1:59; 2:21). Flint knives were used in the early days (Ex 4:25; Jos 5:2-3). Later, the rite was carried out by a trained practitioner called a <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mohel<\/span><em>.<\/em> Medical research has determined that prothrombin, a substance in the blood that aids in clotting, is present in greater quantity on the eighth day than at any other time in life.<\/p>\n<h5>Theological Meaning<\/h5>\n<p>Circumcision had to do with the fulfillment of God’s promise concerning Abraham’s descendants (Gn 17:9-12). Because it was applied to the reproductive organ, the sign involved the propagation of the race. Its application to the eight-day-old infant demonstrates the gracious character of God’s promise to Abraham’s descendants and indicates that God’s people are in need of cleansing grace from birth (Lv 12:1-3). The promises of the covenant were reaffirmed to each generation before the recipients were able to respond in either faith or unbelief; nothing in the hearts of the chosen people could either bring about or thwart the ultimate fulfillment of the promises given to Abraham and his posterity.<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision also had to do with the fulfillment of God’s promise concerning the land (Gn 17:8). The land was God’s holy possession, and the Israelites had to be holy to possess it. When Joseph and his descendants were in Egypt, they continued to circumcise their sons. But following the great sin at Mt Sinai after the exodus, the unbelieving Israelites failed to place the covenant sign upon their children as they wandered in the wilderness. Because the new generation had not been circumcised, the people were unprepared to enter the Promised Land. Therefore, God ordered Joshua to circumcise the men of Israel. The people’s obedient response was an act of faith, since the armies of the enemy were camped nearby as the Israelite warriors lay incapacitated by the surgery (Jos 5:2-9).<\/p>\n<p>From the beginning, participation in the covenant promises was open to persons outside Abraham’s household (Gn 17:12-13). Exodus 12:43-49 gives non-Israelites the opportunity to participate in the Passover if they are willing to fulfill the same stipulation placed upon the Jews—that of circumcision.<\/p>\n<p>The provision for admission to God’s people by reception of the covenant sign was abused by Jacob’s sons when circumcision was made a precondition for intermarriage with the Shechemites. While the Shechemites were disabled by their wounds, Simeon and Levi killed them, plundering the city to exact retribution for the rape of their sister Dinah (Gn 34).<\/p>\n<p>The sign of the covenant was not to be treated lightly. The penalty of excommunication rested upon the uncircumcised (Gn 17:14). The strange incident recorded in Exodus 4:24-26 seems to have been God’s reminder to Moses of the stipulations of the covenant made with Abraham. Moses had proved an unfaithful servant of the Lord by neglecting to circumcise his son but was rescued from judgment when his wife Zipporah took a flint rock and circumcised the boy, throwing the bloody foreskin at her husband’s feet.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CircumcisionintheNewTestament\">Circumcision in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>John the Baptist was circumcised, as were Jesus and Paul (Lk 1:59; 2:21; Phil 3:5). Jesus recognized the cleansing significance of circumcision (Jn 7:22-23), contrasting the rite with his healing ministry that made a man completely well and therefore ceremonially “clean.” Just before he was stoned, Stephen referred to the covenant of circumcision, charging that his Jewish accusers, like their ancestors, were stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, always resisting the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:8, 51).<\/p>\n<p>For a time the first Christians continued to participate in the Jewish rites and customs, even attending the services of the temple (Acts 3:1; 5:21, 42). As Gentiles came to Christ, controversy arose between those who said that participation in the covenant community required circumcision and those who believed the rite was unnecessary. It was argued that since the covenant promise of the Messiah was given to the Jews, Gentiles must first be circumcised and become Jews before they could receive salvation in Christ.<\/p>\n<p>In the time of Christ, many Jews misunderstood the significance of circumcision, believing that the physical act was necessary for and a guarantee of salvation. Thus for Jews the observance became not only a symbol of religious privilege but also a source of racial pride (Phil 3:4-6). These Jews associated the ceremony with the Mosaic law rather than the promise to Abraham (Jn 7:22; Acts 15:1). Because Greeks and Romans did not practice circumcision, Jews had come to be called “the circumcision” (<span>kjv<\/span> Acts 10:45; 11:2; Rom 15:8; Gal 2:7-9; Eph 2:11; Ti 1:10), and following OT practice (Ez 28:10; 31:18; 32:19-32), Gentiles were termed “the uncircumcision” (<span>kjv<\/span> Gal 2:7; Eph 2:11).<\/p>\n<p>While visiting Caesarea, Jewish believers were amazed to realize that uncircumcised Gentiles received the purifying gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-48). Moses had promised that God would circumcise the hearts of his people to love the Lord with heart and soul (Dt 30:6), and Ezekiel had prophesied that the Lord would sprinkle clean water on his people, giving them a new heart and putting his Spirit within them (Ez 36:25-27). As these Jewish believers saw the prophecy that God would pour out his Spirit upon all flesh (Jl 2:28; Acts 2:17) being fulfilled, they realized that the inward reality symbolized by circumcision could be accomplished without the physical sign. Thus, the gentile believers were immediately baptized.<\/p>\n<p>Not all the Jewish believers were immediately willing to accept Gentiles into the church. When Peter returned to Jerusalem after his visit to Caesarea, “the circumcision party” criticized him. But after telling how the Spirit had fallen upon the Gentiles, Peter declared that he could not stand against God. At this the Jewish believers were silenced and glorified God that repentance unto life had been granted to Gentiles (Acts 11:1-3, 15:8).<\/p>\n<p>Certain “Judaizers” of the Pharisaic party taught the Christians in Antioch that circumcision was necessary for salvation (Acts 15:1, 5). After debating these persons, Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to consult with the other apostles and elders (v 2). Peter argued that God had given the Spirit to Gentiles and “cleansed their hearts by faith,” affirming that “we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will” (vv 8-9, 11, <span>rsv<\/span>). Therefore, James and the other Jerusalem leaders agreed that circumcision should not be imposed on the Gentiles (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<p>It was decided that Peter, James, and John would be entrusted with the gospel to “the circumcised,” while Paul and Barnabas would preach to “the uncircumcised” (Gal 2:7-9). Because of his evangelistic policy to be “all things to all people” with respect to spiritually indifferent matters of custom (1 Cor 9:19-23), Paul had Timothy circumcised. Timothy was reckoned by Jews as one of their race because his mother was Jewish (Acts 16:1-2). But Paul resisted attempts to have Titus circumcised, since he was a Gentile (Gal 2:3). Paul apparently allowed Jewish believers to circumcise their sons (Acts 21:21).<\/p>\n<p>Yet Paul charged that those who argued that the Galatian Christians must be circumcised and keep the law did not keep it themselves but wanted to boast in the Galatians’ flesh and avoid persecution for the cross of Christ (Gal 6:12-13)—persecution Paul was willing to bear (5:11). Granting for the sake of argument the Pharisaic assumption that salvation could be merited by keeping the law, Paul declared that those who received circumcision must obey every other Jewish law (vv 2-3). Christ would be “of no advantage” to those who “would be justified by the law”; this attempt at works righteousness would evidence that the Galatians were “severed from Christ,” having “fallen from grace” (vv 2-4). These Christians were being tempted to turn to “a different gospel” (1:6-7).<\/p>\n<p>Because of the serious threat the Judaizers posed to the gospel of free grace, Paul wished that those who unsettled the Galatians would “mutilate themselves” (Gal 5:12). He termed the Judaizers “dogs” and “evil workers” (<span>kjv<\/span> “concision”), asserting that Christians are “the true circumcision,” because they worship God in spirit and glory in Christ Jesus, putting no confidence in human works to merit salvation (Phil 3:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>Paul taught that circumcision was indeed of value to Jews, for it was the sign that to them had been committed the “oracles of God,” that is, God’s word concerning the promise of salvation (Rom 3:1-3). He reminded the prideful Ephesians that as Gentiles they had once been “strangers to the covenants of promise,” not bearing the covenant sign in their flesh (Eph 2:11-12; see Col 2:13). Likewise, Jews had no cause for pride, for disobedience could cause outward circumcision to be counted as uncircumcision (Rom 2:25).<\/p>\n<p>Paul and the other apostles followed Moses and the OT prophets in teaching that true circumcision was a matter of the heart. The teaching of the NT goes further to affirm that a faithful believer, though physically uncircumcised, is regarded by God as circumcised, “for he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical” (Rom 2:28, <span>rsv<\/span>). Both Jews and Gentiles are saved by grace (Acts 15:11), and circumcised and uncircumcised alike are justified on the ground of their faith, apart from works of the law (Rom 3:28-30).<\/p>\n<p>Abraham served as an example of a person whose faith was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom 4:3; see Gn 15:6). Paul argued that both Gentiles and Jews are justified by faith, because Abraham was accounted righteous before he was circumcised. Abraham did not receive circumcision to obtain righteousness, but as a sign or seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. Thus, Abraham is the father of all who believe without being circumcised, as well as those who are circumcised but also follow the example of Abraham’s faith (Rom 4:9-12; see Gal 3:6-9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Baptism; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Uncircumcision.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CIRCUMCISION Surgical removal of the foreskin of the male reproductive organ. In Bible times circumcision was the seal of God’s covenant with Abraham (Gn 17:1-14). While circumcision originated as an ancient tribal or religious rite, since the early part of this century it has been practiced in Western nations for hygienic purposes. Many physicians believe that circumcision helps prevent genital cancers in both men and their wives, so that this minor operation is performed a few days after bi...","summary_en":"CIRCUMCISION Surgical removal of the foreskin of the male reproductive organ. In Bible times circumcision was the seal of God’s covenant with Abraham (Gn 17:1-14). While circumcision originated as an ancient tribal or religious rite, since the early part of this century it has been practiced in Western nations for hygienic purposes. Many physicians believe that circumcision helps prevent genital cancers in both men and their wives, so that this minor operation is performed a few days after bi...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20173,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of John","title_en":"Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>JOHN, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>The fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospels. (See discussion above on John, the Apostle.)<\/p>\n\n<p>The Gospel appears to have been written by one who knew the Jews and the Palestine of Jesus’ day well. He was familiar with Jewish messianic expectations (e.g., Jn 1:20-21; 4:25; 7:40-42; 12:34). He knew of the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (4:9) and the contempt the Pharisees had for “the people of the land” (7:49). He knew of the importance attached to the religious schools (v 15). He knew the way the Sabbath was observed and was aware of the provision that the obligation to circumcise on the eighth day overrides the Sabbath regulations (vv 22-23). Throughout the Gospel he moved with certainty in the vast range of Jewish ideas and customs.<\/p>\n<p>It is the same with topography. The writer mentioned many places, and his place-names all seem to be used correctly. He referred to Cana, a village not mentioned in any earlier literature known to us, which means that the reference almost certainly came from someone who actually knew the place. He located Bethany with some precision as about 15 stadia from Jerusalem (about 2 miles, or 3.2 kilometers, 11:18). He had several references to places in or near Jerusalem, such as Bethesda (5:2), Siloam (9:7), and the Kidron Valley (18:1). Of course, this does not rule out some contemporary of John’s, but it makes it difficult to think of the author as a much later individual writing at a distance from Palestine. The evidence as we have it indicates that the writer was a Jew in the Palestine of Jesus’ day.<\/p>\n<p>To many careful readers, it seems that the Gospel bears the stamp of an eyewitness. For example, Jesus was teaching “in the treasury” (8:20). Nothing is made of the point; the incident could easily have been told without it. It looks like a reminiscence of someone who sees the scene in his mind’s eye as he writes. The fact that the house was filled with fragrance when the woman broke the perfume jar (12:3) does not materially affect the account but is the kind of detail that one who was there would remember. The author noted that the loaves used in the feeding of the multitude were barley loaves (6:9) and that Jesus’ tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top to bottom (19:23). He told us that the branches with which Jesus was greeted were palm branches (12:13), and that it was night when Judas went out (13:30). Such touches are found throughout the Gospel, and it seems unjustified to treat them as no more than an attempt to create verisimilitude. They seem much more like indications that the author was writing about events in which he had himself taken part.<\/p>\n<p>The early church accepted Johannine authorship without question. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all see the apostle as the author. The first to quote this Gospel by name was Theophilus of Antioch, about <span>AD<\/span> 180.<\/p>\n<p>Those who object to Johannine authorship emphasize the differences between this Gospel and the Synoptics. The argument is that if Jesus was anything like the Christ portrayed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he could not be like the Christ of the fourth Gospel. This is a completely subjective argument, ignoring the fact that any great man will appear differently to different people. The judgment of the church throughout the centuries has been that Jesus was large enough to inspire both portraits. To put the same point another way, we have no reason for holding that the first three Evangelists tell us all there is to know about Jesus. There is no contradiction. John simply brings out other aspects of Jesus’ life and teachings.<\/p>\n<p>While we cannot prove beyond all doubt that John the apostle was the author, we can say that there is more reason for holding to this view than to any other.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateOriginandDestination\">Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>It has been usual for conservatives and liberals alike to date this writing in the last decade of the first century or early in the second. Some liberal scholars have put it well into the second century, but this is not common, and it is remarkable that there has been such a considerable measure of agreement.<\/p>\n<p>It is said that this Gospel is dependent on the Synoptics, which means that it must be dated sometime after them. But this argument has been widely abandoned in recent times. There is so much in John that is without parallel in the other three Gospels, and conversely so much in the other three that John might have used had he known it, that it is very difficult indeed to hold that this writer had any of the other Gospels before him when he wrote, or even that he had read them. Such resemblances as there are seem better explained by common use of oral tradition.<\/p>\n<p>It is also argued that there is a very developed theology in John and that we must allow time for its development. Granted, the theology of this Gospel is profound, but this does not require that we must wait for it until the end of the first century. The theology of the Letter to the Romans is also profound, and there is no reason for dating that writing later than the 50s. On the ground of development, then, there is no reason for putting John later than Romans. Development is a slippery argument at best, for it usually takes place at uneven rates, and we have no means of knowing how fast it took place in the area where the author lived.<\/p>\n<p>Other arguments for a late date are no more conclusive. For example, it is urged that the ecclesiastical system presupposed by the Gospel is too late for the time of the apostle John, and that the sacramental system of chapters 3 and 6 must have taken time to develop. But John does not mention any sacrament. It is true that many scholars think these chapters refer to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but the fact is that John mentions neither.<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising in view of the way the traditional arguments have crumbled away that many in recent times are arguing that John must have been written before the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it were later, why does not John have some reference to it? Some of his language appears to be earlier. In 5:2 he says there “is” (not “was”) a pool called Bethesda. And he often refers to the Twelve as Jesus’ disciples, or “his” disciples, or the like. In later times Christians usually said “the” disciples, for they saw no need to say whose the disciples were. But in the early days, when Christians were in contact with rabbis (each of whom had his disciples), it was important to show that Jesus’ disciples were in mind. It is important also that John makes no reference to any of the synoptic Gospels. The simplest explanation is that he had not seen them. They were not yet widely circulated.<\/p>\n<p>None of this enables us to date this Gospel with precision. But the weight of evidence points to an early date (before <span>AD<\/span> 70).<\/p>\n<p>The author was John the apostle, a Jew. However, the writing gives evidence of contact with Greek thought, for example, in the reference to Christ as “the Word” in chapter 1 and the translation of words like “rabbi” (1:38). It is almost universally held that such considerations compel us to see the work as originating in a center of Greek culture, and Ephesus has traditionally been favored. Before the end of the second century we have Irenaeus writing that John published the Gospel during his residence at Ephesus.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars point to similarities between John and the Odes of Solomon, which they think came from Syria. As there are also some resemblances in the language of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in the early second century, this is held to show that John was written in Syria, probably at Antioch. Others again think that Egypt was the place, and they support this by pointing out that the oldest fragment of a manuscript of this Gospel was found there. There is no real evidence, and we are left with probabilities. There is much to be said for accepting the evidence of Irenaeus and seeing Ephesus as the place of origin, but we can scarcely say more.<\/p>\n<p>There is no real indication of the intended destination. From 20:31 we learn that the book was written that the readers might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, God’s Son, and that by believing they might have life. The Gospel, then, has an evangelistic aim. But it is also possible that “believe” means “keep on believing”—“go on in faith,” rather than “begin to believe.” That is to say, the book may have been meant from the beginning to build people up in the faith. Probably we should not distinguish between these aims too sharply. Both may well be in mind.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>Several possible backgrounds to the Gospel have been suggested. The Greek interest is obvious, and this writing has sometimes been called the Gospel of the Hellenists. The suggestion is that we should look to Greek writings, perhaps the works of the philosophers or Philo of Alexandria, to find the right background against which to understand what John has written. This approach may be seen in the work of Rudolf Bultmann, who thought specifically of Gnosticism. Indeed, for Bultmann one of the sources of this Gospel was a discourse source that he thought was taken from non-Christian Gnosticism. Not many have been prepared to follow Bultmann, but a number of recent commentators have discerned some form of Gnosticism as the backdrop to John.<\/p>\n<p>While such views are put forward seriously, there are some substantial objections. One is that, despite the confident assertions of some scholars, Gnosticism has never been shown to be earlier than Christianity. In the form in which it comes before us in history, it is a Christian heresy, and of course, the Christian faith must appear before a Christian heresy is possible. Another objection is that there is a basic difference between the two systems. Gnosticism is concerned with knowledge (the very word is derived from the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span><em>,<\/em> “knowledge”). Its “redeemer” is one who comes from heaven with knowledge. But John does not subscribe to the view that man is saved by knowledge. The Redeemer comes to take away the sin of the world (1:29). Gnosticism tells people that life is an upward struggle; Christianity tells of a Savior who came down to raise them up. It is not easy to see any form of Gnosticism as the essential background to Christianity.<\/p>\n<p>Much more significant is John’s Semitic background. Especially important here is the OT, accepted as sacred Scripture by Jew and Christian alike. It lies constantly behind John’s statements, and it must be studied carefully if John is to be understood. It is plain that John knew and loved the Septuagint, the translation into Greek of the Hebrew OT. Again and again, the Septuagint can be shown to lie behind what John says.<\/p>\n<p>In modern times important discoveries have been made at Qumran, in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. Among the scrolls unearthed in the caves of this area are several that have affinities with John. Indeed, one of the interesting facts about the scrolls is that they have more parallels with John than with any other part of the NT, a fact difficult to explain if John was written late and at a distance from Palestine. The resemblances to the Qumran writings must be viewed with care, for there is often a linguistic resemblance where the thinking is quite different. For example, both use the unusual expression “the Spirit of truth.” But where John means one of the persons of the Trinity, the scrolls speak of “a spirit of truth” and “a spirit of error” striving in the souls of people. The connection is real, but John is clearly not dependent on the scrolls for his thinking. The contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they afford additional evidence that this Gospel is basically Palestinian and must be understood against a background of first-century Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>Other backgrounds have been suggested, such as the Hermetic literature. This is a group of writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus (“Hermes Thrice-greatest”), a designation of the Egyptian god Thoth. There are indeed some points of contact with John, but they are few in comparison with those of writings rooted in Palestine. It is difficult to take such suggestions seriously. John is essentially Palestinian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The writer told us that Jesus did many “signs” (or miracles) that he had not recorded, but “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life” (Jn 20:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). John wrote to show that Jesus is the Messiah. But he did not do this simply with a view to conveying interesting information. He wanted his readers to see this knowledge as a challenge to faith; when they believe, they will have life. John sought to bring men and women to Christ; he had an evangelistic aim. That does not exhaust what he was trying to do, for his words have meaning for believers. It is important that believers have a right knowledge of Jesus and that they continue to believe.<\/p>\n<p>The main theological teaching of this Gospel, then, is that God has sent his Messiah, Jesus. He is the very Son of God, and he comes to bring life (3:16). Though Jesus told the woman at the well that he was the Messiah, this is not often said so specifically. The avoidance of the term might well be because of the political overtones it had acquired among the Jews at large. They looked for a Messiah who would fight the Romans. He would defeat them and set up a mighty world empire with its capital in Jerusalem. Jesus was not aiming at anything like that, and it was important that he avoid the kind of language that would give that impression. But though the conventional messianic terminology is avoided, John left no doubt that Jesus was God’s chosen one. Again and again he depicted Jesus as fulfilling messianic functions. For example, in the long discourse in chapter 6 we see Jesus as the bread from heaven, fulfilling the expectation that when Messiah came, he would renew the manna; and in the giving of sight to the blind man (ch 9) we have another messianic function (cf. Is 35:5).<\/p>\n<p>With this greatness of Jesus, John also combined teaching about his lowliness. A continuing, though unobtrusive, strand of Johannine teaching is that Jesus depends on the Father for everything. Apart from the Father, Jesus said, he could do nothing (Jn 5:30). His very food is to do the Father’s will (4:34). He lives through the Father (6:57). It is the Father who gives him his disciples (6:37, 44; 17:6). It is the Father who bears witness to him (5:32, 37). John insists that Jesus is in no sense independent of the Father. In the mission of Jesus, John sees the working out of the purpose of the Father.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Prologue and Chapter 1<\/h5>\n<p>John begins with a prologue (1:1-18) that is unlike anything in any of the other Gospels. In it he refers to Jesus as “the Word,” a term that has points of contact with both Greek and Hebrew thinking. As John uses it, it conveys the thought that Jesus is the expression of the mind of the Father. John speaks of the Word as God (1:1), sees him as active in creation (1:3-5), goes on to the witness borne to him by John the Baptist (1:6-8), speaks of the coming of the Word into the world (1:9-14), and finishes with a section on the greatness of the Word (1:15-18). In this prologue he briefly introduces some of the great themes that will be developed throughout the Gospel. It is a majestic introduction to the whole.<\/p>\n<p>Next we have the beginnings of Jesus’ public ministry (1:19-51). Jesus’ work was preceded by that of John the Baptist, and the Evangelist tells us first about the kind of witness that the Baptist gave to Jesus. Witness is one of his important concepts, and witness is all that John the Baptist does in this Gospel. From this witness we move to the way the first disciples came to Jesus. We learn something of how Andrew and Peter came to know the Lord. We read also of Philip and Nathanael, of whom we learn little or nothing in the other Gospels.<\/p>\n<h5>The Signs and Discourses (2:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The public ministry of Jesus is described in a very distinctive way in this Gospel. John has a long section (chs 2–12) in which he tells of a number of miracles Jesus did, interweaving into his account a series of discourses. Sometimes these are addresses given to groups of people, and sometimes they are talks with individuals. Some scholars call this section of the Gospel the Book of Signs, thus emphasizing the prominent place given to seven miracles. For John they are not simply wonders. They are meaningful; in the literal sense of the term they are <em>sign<\/em>ificant.<\/p>\n<p>The first of them is the turning of the water into wine at a marriage in Cana of Galilee (2:1-11). The water in question is connected with Jewish rites of purification (v 6), and the story is surely to teach us that Jesus transforms life. He changes the water of the law into the wine of the gospel. As a result of this “sign,” his disciples believed in him (v 11). John went on to tell how Jesus went up to Jerusalem and drove the traders out of the temple. They were selling animals for sacrifice and changing money. But their business was being done in the Court of the Gentiles, the only place in the temple where a Gentile could come to meditate and pray.<\/p>\n<p>The first discourse is on the new birth (3:1-21). Jesus talked with Nicodemus, a leading Pharisee, about the necessity for radical renewal if one is to enter the kingdom. Jesus was speaking of God’s regenerating activity, not some human reformation. Following this, John records a dispute between some of John’s disciples with a Jew on the subject of purification. This opens the way for a section that shows the superiority of Jesus over John the Baptist—by the Baptist’s own confession (3:22-36).<\/p>\n<p>The second discourse is really a long conversation Jesus had with the woman of Samaria, whom he met by a well (4:1-42). It turns on “the water of life,” a term that is not fully explained in this chapter but which we later find points to the life-giving Spirit (7:38-39). This leads to the story of the second sign, the healing of the nobleman’s son (4:46-54), notable for the fact that Jesus healed at a distance.<\/p>\n<p>The third sign is the healing of the lame man by the pool of Bethesda (5:1-18). This man had spent many years waiting for healing at the moving of the water. Jesus told him to get up and walk, and he did. Because it was done on a Sabbath, the Pharisees objected. This leads to Jesus’ third discourse, that on the divine Son (5:19-47). Here the closeness of the relationship of Jesus to the Father is stressed, and his place in the judgment is brought out. There is emphasis also on the variety of witness who encountered Jesus, which shows how reasonable it is to accept him as God’s own Son.<\/p>\n<p>John’s fourth sign is the one miracle (apart from the resurrection) found in all four Gospels: the feeding of the 5,000 (6:1-15). It is followed by Jesus’ walking on water (vv 16-21), which seems to be meant as the fifth sign (though some scholars think not; if they are right, there are only six signs). Then comes the fourth discourse, the great sermon on the bread of life (vv 22-59). Jesus is this bread, which he gives to all men and women who believe in him. There are references to eating his flesh and drinking his blood (vv 50-58), which point to his death. Some have seen in them a reference to Communion, but it is hard to see why Jesus should refer in this way to an as-yet-nonexistent sacrament. Moreover, much the same effect is attributed in the same discourse to believing (vv 35, 47). It seems best to understand Jesus as meaning that people must believe in him as the one who would die for them in order for them to have life.<\/p>\n<p>There is a section detailing Peter’s affirmation of loyalty in the face of some who drifted away from the Master (6:67-71). Then we come to the fifth discourse, on the life-giving Spirit (7:1-52). John has an important explanatory point of his own when he tells us that at the time the Spirit had not been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified (v 39). The fullness of the Spirit depends on the completion of the work of Christ in his death and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>The sixth discourse tells of the light of the world (8:12-59). This aspect of Jesus’ person and ministry is dramatically brought out in the sixth sign, the healing of the man born blind (ch 9). It is a lively narrative, as the healed man conducts a spirited defense against the Pharisees who belittled Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most beautiful of all the illustrations of Jesus’ relations to his people is that on which he dwells in the seventh discourse, where he speaks of himself as the good shepherd (ch 10). There is the obvious truth that sheep depend entirely on their shepherd, but Jesus says something else. Whereas earthly shepherds live to meet the needs of their sheep, Jesus laid down his life for his sheep.<\/p>\n<p>The final sign is the raising of Lazarus (11:1-44), a man who had been dead for four days. The story graphically brings out Jesus’ power over death and his readiness to confer the gift of life. Jesus speaks of himself as “the resurrection and the life” (v 25); death cannot defeat him. He brings life to the dead, to the spiritually dead as well as to physically dead Lazarus. John goes on to note the reaction to this miracle: some believed, but some opposed Jesus (vv 45-57). He includes a notable saying of Caiaphas, the high priest, that one man should die for the people (vv 50-52). Caiaphas was speaking as a cynical politician (better one dead, however innocent, than the whole nation be troubled). But John saw in the words the deeper meaning that Jesus’ death would bring salvation to many.<\/p>\n<p>John rounds off his account of the ministry with the story of the anointing of Jesus by a woman in Bethany, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the coming of some Greeks to Jesus, and his final summary of what he had taught (ch 12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Last Supper<\/h5>\n<p>The account of what went on in the upper room on the night before the Crucifixion is the fullest of all the four Gospels. Curiously, John says nothing about the institution of Communion, a fact that has never been satisfactorily explained. But he tells us how Jesus washed the feet of the disciples (13:1-17), an action splendidly exemplifying the spirit of lowly service so soon to be shown on the cross. Then comes the prophecy of the betrayal, an action that set in motion the events that would lead to the cross (vv 18-30).<\/p>\n<p>In the long discourse that follows, Jesus dealt with some questions posed by his followers and went on to teach them some important truths, for example, that he is the way, the truth, and the life (14:6). He develops the thought that he is the true vine, the disciples being vitally joined to him as branches to the vine. It is important for the branches to remain in the vine if they are to have life (15:1-16). Then come some words about suffering that would be of help to them in times of persecution (vv 17-25). Jesus goes on to speak about the Holy Spirit (15:26–16:15). This is a very important passage, for it contains much more about the Spirit than we find elsewhere in Jesus’ words. Jesus calls the Spirit the “Paraclete,” a title not easy to understand. It is in origin a legal term, and at least we can say that it indicates that the Spirit brings friendship, encouragement, and help. Jesus went on to speak of his approaching departure from the disciples and to prepare them for the trying time ahead (16:16-33). This part of the Gospel concludes with Jesus’ great High Priestly prayer. He prayed for the disciples to be one, as he commended them to the care of the heavenly Father (ch 17).<\/p>\n<h5>The Cross and Resurrection<\/h5>\n<p>When the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, he went forward to meet them and they fell to the ground (18:1-11). He gave himself over to them; they did not take him over. At the outset of his passion narrative, John was making the point that Jesus is sovereign. He was not being defeated by the march of events but was sovereignly doing the will of the Father. John is the only one to tell us that Jesus was taken before Annas, father-in-law to Caiaphas, the reigning high priest (18:12-14, 19-24). He tells also of Peter’s three denials of Jesus (vv 15-27). He did not spend much time on the Jewish trial, but he was much more explicit than the other Evangelists in his account of the Roman trial. Clearly, he had some special knowledge of what went on before Pilate. He presents a magnificent picture of Jesus talking with Pilate about kingship—the Son of God discussing with the representative of Caesar the meaning of sovereignty (vv 33-40).<\/p>\n<p>In his account of the Crucifixion John has a number of touches of his own, notably the way Jesus commended Mary to the care of the beloved disciple (19:26-27), the fact that the cry Jesus uttered as he died was “It is finished” (v 30), and the piercing of his side by a soldier’s spear (vv 31-37).<\/p>\n<p>John proceeds to the narrative of the burial (vv 38-42) and of the empty tomb (20:1-10). He speaks of appearances of the risen Lord to Mary Magdalene (vv 11-18), and to the disciples—both without (vv 19-23) and with Thomas (vv 24-29).<\/p>\n<p>The final chapter, an epilogue, tells of a miraculous catch of fish (21:1-14) and goes on to the moving account of Peter’s threefold declaration of love to Jesus and his restoration.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> John, The Apostle.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOHN, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>The fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospels. (See discussion above on John, the Apostle.)<\/p>\n\n<p>The Gospel appears to have been written by one who knew the Jews and the Palestine of Jesus’ day well. He was familiar with Jewish messianic expectations (e.g., Jn 1:20-21; 4:25; 7:40-42; 12:34). He knew of the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (4:9) and the contempt the Pharisees had for “the people of the land” (7:49). He knew of the importance attached to the religious schools (v 15). He knew the way the Sabbath was observed and was aware of the provision that the obligation to circumcise on the eighth day overrides the Sabbath regulations (vv 22-23). Throughout the Gospel he moved with certainty in the vast range of Jewish ideas and customs.<\/p>\n<p>It is the same with topography. The writer mentioned many places, and his place-names all seem to be used correctly. He referred to Cana, a village not mentioned in any earlier literature known to us, which means that the reference almost certainly came from someone who actually knew the place. He located Bethany with some precision as about 15 stadia from Jerusalem (about 2 miles, or 3.2 kilometers, 11:18). He had several references to places in or near Jerusalem, such as Bethesda (5:2), Siloam (9:7), and the Kidron Valley (18:1). Of course, this does not rule out some contemporary of John’s, but it makes it difficult to think of the author as a much later individual writing at a distance from Palestine. The evidence as we have it indicates that the writer was a Jew in the Palestine of Jesus’ day.<\/p>\n<p>To many careful readers, it seems that the Gospel bears the stamp of an eyewitness. For example, Jesus was teaching “in the treasury” (8:20). Nothing is made of the point; the incident could easily have been told without it. It looks like a reminiscence of someone who sees the scene in his mind’s eye as he writes. The fact that the house was filled with fragrance when the woman broke the perfume jar (12:3) does not materially affect the account but is the kind of detail that one who was there would remember. The author noted that the loaves used in the feeding of the multitude were barley loaves (6:9) and that Jesus’ tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top to bottom (19:23). He told us that the branches with which Jesus was greeted were palm branches (12:13), and that it was night when Judas went out (13:30). Such touches are found throughout the Gospel, and it seems unjustified to treat them as no more than an attempt to create verisimilitude. They seem much more like indications that the author was writing about events in which he had himself taken part.<\/p>\n<p>The early church accepted Johannine authorship without question. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all see the apostle as the author. The first to quote this Gospel by name was Theophilus of Antioch, about <span>AD<\/span> 180.<\/p>\n<p>Those who object to Johannine authorship emphasize the differences between this Gospel and the Synoptics. The argument is that if Jesus was anything like the Christ portrayed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he could not be like the Christ of the fourth Gospel. This is a completely subjective argument, ignoring the fact that any great man will appear differently to different people. The judgment of the church throughout the centuries has been that Jesus was large enough to inspire both portraits. To put the same point another way, we have no reason for holding that the first three Evangelists tell us all there is to know about Jesus. There is no contradiction. John simply brings out other aspects of Jesus’ life and teachings.<\/p>\n<p>While we cannot prove beyond all doubt that John the apostle was the author, we can say that there is more reason for holding to this view than to any other.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateOriginandDestination\">Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>It has been usual for conservatives and liberals alike to date this writing in the last decade of the first century or early in the second. Some liberal scholars have put it well into the second century, but this is not common, and it is remarkable that there has been such a considerable measure of agreement.<\/p>\n<p>It is said that this Gospel is dependent on the Synoptics, which means that it must be dated sometime after them. But this argument has been widely abandoned in recent times. There is so much in John that is without parallel in the other three Gospels, and conversely so much in the other three that John might have used had he known it, that it is very difficult indeed to hold that this writer had any of the other Gospels before him when he wrote, or even that he had read them. Such resemblances as there are seem better explained by common use of oral tradition.<\/p>\n<p>It is also argued that there is a very developed theology in John and that we must allow time for its development. Granted, the theology of this Gospel is profound, but this does not require that we must wait for it until the end of the first century. The theology of the Letter to the Romans is also profound, and there is no reason for dating that writing later than the 50s. On the ground of development, then, there is no reason for putting John later than Romans. Development is a slippery argument at best, for it usually takes place at uneven rates, and we have no means of knowing how fast it took place in the area where the author lived.<\/p>\n<p>Other arguments for a late date are no more conclusive. For example, it is urged that the ecclesiastical system presupposed by the Gospel is too late for the time of the apostle John, and that the sacramental system of chapters 3 and 6 must have taken time to develop. But John does not mention any sacrament. It is true that many scholars think these chapters refer to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but the fact is that John mentions neither.<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising in view of the way the traditional arguments have crumbled away that many in recent times are arguing that John must have been written before the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it were later, why does not John have some reference to it? Some of his language appears to be earlier. In 5:2 he says there “is” (not “was”) a pool called Bethesda. And he often refers to the Twelve as Jesus’ disciples, or “his” disciples, or the like. In later times Christians usually said “the” disciples, for they saw no need to say whose the disciples were. But in the early days, when Christians were in contact with rabbis (each of whom had his disciples), it was important to show that Jesus’ disciples were in mind. It is important also that John makes no reference to any of the synoptic Gospels. The simplest explanation is that he had not seen them. They were not yet widely circulated.<\/p>\n<p>None of this enables us to date this Gospel with precision. But the weight of evidence points to an early date (before <span>AD<\/span> 70).<\/p>\n<p>The author was John the apostle, a Jew. However, the writing gives evidence of contact with Greek thought, for example, in the reference to Christ as “the Word” in chapter 1 and the translation of words like “rabbi” (1:38). It is almost universally held that such considerations compel us to see the work as originating in a center of Greek culture, and Ephesus has traditionally been favored. Before the end of the second century we have Irenaeus writing that John published the Gospel during his residence at Ephesus.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars point to similarities between John and the Odes of Solomon, which they think came from Syria. As there are also some resemblances in the language of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in the early second century, this is held to show that John was written in Syria, probably at Antioch. Others again think that Egypt was the place, and they support this by pointing out that the oldest fragment of a manuscript of this Gospel was found there. There is no real evidence, and we are left with probabilities. There is much to be said for accepting the evidence of Irenaeus and seeing Ephesus as the place of origin, but we can scarcely say more.<\/p>\n<p>There is no real indication of the intended destination. From 20:31 we learn that the book was written that the readers might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, God’s Son, and that by believing they might have life. The Gospel, then, has an evangelistic aim. But it is also possible that “believe” means “keep on believing”—“go on in faith,” rather than “begin to believe.” That is to say, the book may have been meant from the beginning to build people up in the faith. Probably we should not distinguish between these aims too sharply. Both may well be in mind.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>Several possible backgrounds to the Gospel have been suggested. The Greek interest is obvious, and this writing has sometimes been called the Gospel of the Hellenists. The suggestion is that we should look to Greek writings, perhaps the works of the philosophers or Philo of Alexandria, to find the right background against which to understand what John has written. This approach may be seen in the work of Rudolf Bultmann, who thought specifically of Gnosticism. Indeed, for Bultmann one of the sources of this Gospel was a discourse source that he thought was taken from non-Christian Gnosticism. Not many have been prepared to follow Bultmann, but a number of recent commentators have discerned some form of Gnosticism as the backdrop to John.<\/p>\n<p>While such views are put forward seriously, there are some substantial objections. One is that, despite the confident assertions of some scholars, Gnosticism has never been shown to be earlier than Christianity. In the form in which it comes before us in history, it is a Christian heresy, and of course, the Christian faith must appear before a Christian heresy is possible. Another objection is that there is a basic difference between the two systems. Gnosticism is concerned with knowledge (the very word is derived from the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span><em>,<\/em> “knowledge”). Its “redeemer” is one who comes from heaven with knowledge. But John does not subscribe to the view that man is saved by knowledge. The Redeemer comes to take away the sin of the world (1:29). Gnosticism tells people that life is an upward struggle; Christianity tells of a Savior who came down to raise them up. It is not easy to see any form of Gnosticism as the essential background to Christianity.<\/p>\n<p>Much more significant is John’s Semitic background. Especially important here is the OT, accepted as sacred Scripture by Jew and Christian alike. It lies constantly behind John’s statements, and it must be studied carefully if John is to be understood. It is plain that John knew and loved the Septuagint, the translation into Greek of the Hebrew OT. Again and again, the Septuagint can be shown to lie behind what John says.<\/p>\n<p>In modern times important discoveries have been made at Qumran, in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. Among the scrolls unearthed in the caves of this area are several that have affinities with John. Indeed, one of the interesting facts about the scrolls is that they have more parallels with John than with any other part of the NT, a fact difficult to explain if John was written late and at a distance from Palestine. The resemblances to the Qumran writings must be viewed with care, for there is often a linguistic resemblance where the thinking is quite different. For example, both use the unusual expression “the Spirit of truth.” But where John means one of the persons of the Trinity, the scrolls speak of “a spirit of truth” and “a spirit of error” striving in the souls of people. The connection is real, but John is clearly not dependent on the scrolls for his thinking. The contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they afford additional evidence that this Gospel is basically Palestinian and must be understood against a background of first-century Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>Other backgrounds have been suggested, such as the Hermetic literature. This is a group of writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus (“Hermes Thrice-greatest”), a designation of the Egyptian god Thoth. There are indeed some points of contact with John, but they are few in comparison with those of writings rooted in Palestine. It is difficult to take such suggestions seriously. John is essentially Palestinian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The writer told us that Jesus did many “signs” (or miracles) that he had not recorded, but “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life” (Jn 20:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). John wrote to show that Jesus is the Messiah. But he did not do this simply with a view to conveying interesting information. He wanted his readers to see this knowledge as a challenge to faith; when they believe, they will have life. John sought to bring men and women to Christ; he had an evangelistic aim. That does not exhaust what he was trying to do, for his words have meaning for believers. It is important that believers have a right knowledge of Jesus and that they continue to believe.<\/p>\n<p>The main theological teaching of this Gospel, then, is that God has sent his Messiah, Jesus. He is the very Son of God, and he comes to bring life (3:16). Though Jesus told the woman at the well that he was the Messiah, this is not often said so specifically. The avoidance of the term might well be because of the political overtones it had acquired among the Jews at large. They looked for a Messiah who would fight the Romans. He would defeat them and set up a mighty world empire with its capital in Jerusalem. Jesus was not aiming at anything like that, and it was important that he avoid the kind of language that would give that impression. But though the conventional messianic terminology is avoided, John left no doubt that Jesus was God’s chosen one. Again and again he depicted Jesus as fulfilling messianic functions. For example, in the long discourse in chapter 6 we see Jesus as the bread from heaven, fulfilling the expectation that when Messiah came, he would renew the manna; and in the giving of sight to the blind man (ch 9) we have another messianic function (cf. Is 35:5).<\/p>\n<p>With this greatness of Jesus, John also combined teaching about his lowliness. A continuing, though unobtrusive, strand of Johannine teaching is that Jesus depends on the Father for everything. Apart from the Father, Jesus said, he could do nothing (Jn 5:30). His very food is to do the Father’s will (4:34). He lives through the Father (6:57). It is the Father who gives him his disciples (6:37, 44; 17:6). It is the Father who bears witness to him (5:32, 37). John insists that Jesus is in no sense independent of the Father. In the mission of Jesus, John sees the working out of the purpose of the Father.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Prologue and Chapter 1<\/h5>\n<p>John begins with a prologue (1:1-18) that is unlike anything in any of the other Gospels. In it he refers to Jesus as “the Word,” a term that has points of contact with both Greek and Hebrew thinking. As John uses it, it conveys the thought that Jesus is the expression of the mind of the Father. John speaks of the Word as God (1:1), sees him as active in creation (1:3-5), goes on to the witness borne to him by John the Baptist (1:6-8), speaks of the coming of the Word into the world (1:9-14), and finishes with a section on the greatness of the Word (1:15-18). In this prologue he briefly introduces some of the great themes that will be developed throughout the Gospel. It is a majestic introduction to the whole.<\/p>\n<p>Next we have the beginnings of Jesus’ public ministry (1:19-51). Jesus’ work was preceded by that of John the Baptist, and the Evangelist tells us first about the kind of witness that the Baptist gave to Jesus. Witness is one of his important concepts, and witness is all that John the Baptist does in this Gospel. From this witness we move to the way the first disciples came to Jesus. We learn something of how Andrew and Peter came to know the Lord. We read also of Philip and Nathanael, of whom we learn little or nothing in the other Gospels.<\/p>\n<h5>The Signs and Discourses (2:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The public ministry of Jesus is described in a very distinctive way in this Gospel. John has a long section (chs 2–12) in which he tells of a number of miracles Jesus did, interweaving into his account a series of discourses. Sometimes these are addresses given to groups of people, and sometimes they are talks with individuals. Some scholars call this section of the Gospel the Book of Signs, thus emphasizing the prominent place given to seven miracles. For John they are not simply wonders. They are meaningful; in the literal sense of the term they are <em>sign<\/em>ificant.<\/p>\n<p>The first of them is the turning of the water into wine at a marriage in Cana of Galilee (2:1-11). The water in question is connected with Jewish rites of purification (v 6), and the story is surely to teach us that Jesus transforms life. He changes the water of the law into the wine of the gospel. As a result of this “sign,” his disciples believed in him (v 11). John went on to tell how Jesus went up to Jerusalem and drove the traders out of the temple. They were selling animals for sacrifice and changing money. But their business was being done in the Court of the Gentiles, the only place in the temple where a Gentile could come to meditate and pray.<\/p>\n<p>The first discourse is on the new birth (3:1-21). Jesus talked with Nicodemus, a leading Pharisee, about the necessity for radical renewal if one is to enter the kingdom. Jesus was speaking of God’s regenerating activity, not some human reformation. Following this, John records a dispute between some of John’s disciples with a Jew on the subject of purification. This opens the way for a section that shows the superiority of Jesus over John the Baptist—by the Baptist’s own confession (3:22-36).<\/p>\n<p>The second discourse is really a long conversation Jesus had with the woman of Samaria, whom he met by a well (4:1-42). It turns on “the water of life,” a term that is not fully explained in this chapter but which we later find points to the life-giving Spirit (7:38-39). This leads to the story of the second sign, the healing of the nobleman’s son (4:46-54), notable for the fact that Jesus healed at a distance.<\/p>\n<p>The third sign is the healing of the lame man by the pool of Bethesda (5:1-18). This man had spent many years waiting for healing at the moving of the water. Jesus told him to get up and walk, and he did. Because it was done on a Sabbath, the Pharisees objected. This leads to Jesus’ third discourse, that on the divine Son (5:19-47). Here the closeness of the relationship of Jesus to the Father is stressed, and his place in the judgment is brought out. There is emphasis also on the variety of witness who encountered Jesus, which shows how reasonable it is to accept him as God’s own Son.<\/p>\n<p>John’s fourth sign is the one miracle (apart from the resurrection) found in all four Gospels: the feeding of the 5,000 (6:1-15). It is followed by Jesus’ walking on water (vv 16-21), which seems to be meant as the fifth sign (though some scholars think not; if they are right, there are only six signs). Then comes the fourth discourse, the great sermon on the bread of life (vv 22-59). Jesus is this bread, which he gives to all men and women who believe in him. There are references to eating his flesh and drinking his blood (vv 50-58), which point to his death. Some have seen in them a reference to Communion, but it is hard to see why Jesus should refer in this way to an as-yet-nonexistent sacrament. Moreover, much the same effect is attributed in the same discourse to believing (vv 35, 47). It seems best to understand Jesus as meaning that people must believe in him as the one who would die for them in order for them to have life.<\/p>\n<p>There is a section detailing Peter’s affirmation of loyalty in the face of some who drifted away from the Master (6:67-71). Then we come to the fifth discourse, on the life-giving Spirit (7:1-52). John has an important explanatory point of his own when he tells us that at the time the Spirit had not been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified (v 39). The fullness of the Spirit depends on the completion of the work of Christ in his death and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>The sixth discourse tells of the light of the world (8:12-59). This aspect of Jesus’ person and ministry is dramatically brought out in the sixth sign, the healing of the man born blind (ch 9). It is a lively narrative, as the healed man conducts a spirited defense against the Pharisees who belittled Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most beautiful of all the illustrations of Jesus’ relations to his people is that on which he dwells in the seventh discourse, where he speaks of himself as the good shepherd (ch 10). There is the obvious truth that sheep depend entirely on their shepherd, but Jesus says something else. Whereas earthly shepherds live to meet the needs of their sheep, Jesus laid down his life for his sheep.<\/p>\n<p>The final sign is the raising of Lazarus (11:1-44), a man who had been dead for four days. The story graphically brings out Jesus’ power over death and his readiness to confer the gift of life. Jesus speaks of himself as “the resurrection and the life” (v 25); death cannot defeat him. He brings life to the dead, to the spiritually dead as well as to physically dead Lazarus. John goes on to note the reaction to this miracle: some believed, but some opposed Jesus (vv 45-57). He includes a notable saying of Caiaphas, the high priest, that one man should die for the people (vv 50-52). Caiaphas was speaking as a cynical politician (better one dead, however innocent, than the whole nation be troubled). But John saw in the words the deeper meaning that Jesus’ death would bring salvation to many.<\/p>\n<p>John rounds off his account of the ministry with the story of the anointing of Jesus by a woman in Bethany, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the coming of some Greeks to Jesus, and his final summary of what he had taught (ch 12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Last Supper<\/h5>\n<p>The account of what went on in the upper room on the night before the Crucifixion is the fullest of all the four Gospels. Curiously, John says nothing about the institution of Communion, a fact that has never been satisfactorily explained. But he tells us how Jesus washed the feet of the disciples (13:1-17), an action splendidly exemplifying the spirit of lowly service so soon to be shown on the cross. Then comes the prophecy of the betrayal, an action that set in motion the events that would lead to the cross (vv 18-30).<\/p>\n<p>In the long discourse that follows, Jesus dealt with some questions posed by his followers and went on to teach them some important truths, for example, that he is the way, the truth, and the life (14:6). He develops the thought that he is the true vine, the disciples being vitally joined to him as branches to the vine. It is important for the branches to remain in the vine if they are to have life (15:1-16). Then come some words about suffering that would be of help to them in times of persecution (vv 17-25). Jesus goes on to speak about the Holy Spirit (15:26–16:15). This is a very important passage, for it contains much more about the Spirit than we find elsewhere in Jesus’ words. Jesus calls the Spirit the “Paraclete,” a title not easy to understand. It is in origin a legal term, and at least we can say that it indicates that the Spirit brings friendship, encouragement, and help. Jesus went on to speak of his approaching departure from the disciples and to prepare them for the trying time ahead (16:16-33). This part of the Gospel concludes with Jesus’ great High Priestly prayer. He prayed for the disciples to be one, as he commended them to the care of the heavenly Father (ch 17).<\/p>\n<h5>The Cross and Resurrection<\/h5>\n<p>When the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, he went forward to meet them and they fell to the ground (18:1-11). He gave himself over to them; they did not take him over. At the outset of his passion narrative, John was making the point that Jesus is sovereign. He was not being defeated by the march of events but was sovereignly doing the will of the Father. John is the only one to tell us that Jesus was taken before Annas, father-in-law to Caiaphas, the reigning high priest (18:12-14, 19-24). He tells also of Peter’s three denials of Jesus (vv 15-27). He did not spend much time on the Jewish trial, but he was much more explicit than the other Evangelists in his account of the Roman trial. Clearly, he had some special knowledge of what went on before Pilate. He presents a magnificent picture of Jesus talking with Pilate about kingship—the Son of God discussing with the representative of Caesar the meaning of sovereignty (vv 33-40).<\/p>\n<p>In his account of the Crucifixion John has a number of touches of his own, notably the way Jesus commended Mary to the care of the beloved disciple (19:26-27), the fact that the cry Jesus uttered as he died was “It is finished” (v 30), and the piercing of his side by a soldier’s spear (vv 31-37).<\/p>\n<p>John proceeds to the narrative of the burial (vv 38-42) and of the empty tomb (20:1-10). He speaks of appearances of the risen Lord to Mary Magdalene (vv 11-18), and to the disciples—both without (vv 19-23) and with Thomas (vv 24-29).<\/p>\n<p>The final chapter, an epilogue, tells of a miraculous catch of fish (21:1-14) and goes on to the moving account of Peter’s threefold declaration of love to Jesus and his restoration.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> John, The Apostle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOHN, Gospel of The fourth Gospel. Preview • Author • Date, Origin, and Destination • Background • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Author At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospe...","summary_en":"JOHN, Gospel of The fourth Gospel. Preview • Author • Date, Origin, and Destination • Background • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Author At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospe...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":56465,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:22","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:22","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -20\"><strong>7:22<\/strong> The law required <em>circumcision<\/em> on the eighth day (Lev 12:3) and permitted a boy to be circumcised even if that day fell on <em>the Sabbath<\/em>. Jesus argued as a rabbi would, from “the lesser to the greater,” using circumcision as a precedent for healing, both of which are religious works.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -20\"><strong>7:22<\/strong> The law required <em>circumcision<\/em> on the eighth day (Lev 12:3) and permitted a boy to be circumcised even if that day fell on <em>the Sabbath<\/em>. Jesus argued as a rabbi would, from “the lesser to the greater,” using circumcision as a precedent for healing, both of which are religious works.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:22 The law required circumcision on the eighth day (Lev 12:3) and permitted a boy to be circumcised even if that day fell on the Sabbath. Jesus argued as a rabbi would, from “the lesser to the greater,” using circumcision as a precedent for healing, both of which are religious works.","summary_en":"7:22 The law required circumcision on the eighth day (Lev 12:3) and permitted a boy to be circumcised even if that day fell on the Sabbath. Jesus argued as a rabbi would, from “the lesser to the greater,” using circumcision as a precedent for healing, both of which are religious works.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":84091,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:22","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:22","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -20\"><strong>7:22<\/strong> The law required <em>circumcision<\/em> on the eighth day (Lev 12:3) and permitted a boy to be circumcised even if that day fell on <em>the Sabbath<\/em>. Jesus argued as a rabbi would, from “the lesser to the greater,” using circumcision as a precedent for healing, both of which are religious works.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -20\"><strong>7:22<\/strong> The law required <em>circumcision<\/em> on the eighth day (Lev 12:3) and permitted a boy to be circumcised even if that day fell on <em>the Sabbath<\/em>. Jesus argued as a rabbi would, from “the lesser to the greater,” using circumcision as a precedent for healing, both of which are religious works.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:22 The law required circumcision on the eighth day (Lev 12:3) and permitted a boy to be circumcised even if that day fell on the Sabbath. Jesus argued as a rabbi would, from “the lesser to the greater,” using circumcision as a precedent for healing, both of which are religious works.","summary_en":"7:22 The law required circumcision on the eighth day (Lev 12:3) and permitted a boy to be circumcised even if that day fell on the Sabbath. Jesus argued as a rabbi would, from “the lesser to the greater,” using circumcision as a precedent for healing, both of which are religious works.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":111717,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:22","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:22","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -20\"><strong>7:22<\/strong> The law required <em>circumcision<\/em> on the eighth day (Lev 12:3) and permitted a boy to be circumcised even if that day fell on <em>the Sabbath<\/em>. Jesus argued as a rabbi would, from “the lesser to the greater,” using circumcision as a precedent for healing, both of which are religious works.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -20\"><strong>7:22<\/strong> The law required <em>circumcision<\/em> on the eighth day (Lev 12:3) and permitted a boy to be circumcised even if that day fell on <em>the Sabbath<\/em>. Jesus argued as a rabbi would, from “the lesser to the greater,” using circumcision as a precedent for healing, both of which are religious works.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:22 The law required circumcision on the eighth day (Lev 12:3) and permitted a boy to be circumcised even if that day fell on the Sabbath. Jesus argued as a rabbi would, from “the lesser to the greater,” using circumcision as a precedent for healing, both of which are religious works.","summary_en":"7:22 The law required circumcision on the eighth day (Lev 12:3) and permitted a boy to be circumcised even if that day fell on the Sabbath. Jesus argued as a rabbi would, from “the lesser to the greater,” using circumcision as a precedent for healing, both of which are religious works.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":139343,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:22","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:22","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -20\"><strong>7:22<\/strong> The law required <em>circumcision<\/em> on the eighth day (Lev 12:3) and permitted a boy to be circumcised even if that day fell on <em>the Sabbath<\/em>. Jesus argued as a rabbi would, from “the lesser to the greater,” using circumcision as a precedent for healing, both of which are religious works.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -20\"><strong>7:22<\/strong> The law required <em>circumcision<\/em> on the eighth day (Lev 12:3) and permitted a boy to be circumcised even if that day fell on <em>the Sabbath<\/em>. Jesus argued as a rabbi would, from “the lesser to the greater,” using circumcision as a precedent for healing, both of which are religious works.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:22 The law required circumcision on the eighth day (Lev 12:3) and permitted a boy to be circumcised even if that day fell on the Sabbath. Jesus argued as a rabbi would, from “the lesser to the greater,” using circumcision as a precedent for healing, both of which are religious works.","summary_en":"7:22 The law required circumcision on the eighth day (Lev 12:3) and permitted a boy to be circumcised even if that day fell on the Sabbath. Jesus argued as a rabbi would, from “the lesser to the greater,” using circumcision as a precedent for healing, both of which are religious works.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":66497,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Circumcision in the New Testament","title_en":"Circumcision in the New Testament","content_ro":"<h3>Circumcision in the New Testament<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision (cutting off the male foreskin) was widely practiced in the ancient Near East (see Jer 9:25-26). For Jews, it had religious significance as the sign of the covenant that God had established with the people of Israel (Gen 17:9-14; Josh 5:2; John 7:22; Acts 7:8; <em>Sirach<\/em> 44:20). It was normally performed on the eighth day of a male infant’s life (Gen 17:12; Lev 12:3; Luke 1:59; Acts 7:8). The New Testament notes the circumcision of John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, and Timothy (Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 16:2-3; Phil 3:5). Circumcision became a metaphor for the renewal of a person’s relationship with God (Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29). In the late 40s <span>AD<\/span>, some Jewish Christians tried to require Gentile Christians to undergo circumcision (Acts 15:1, 5; see 21:20-21; Gal 2:4, 11-13), to which Paul and Barnabas objected (Acts 15:2). The ensuing church council at Jerusalem settled the matter in favor of not requiring Gentiles to be circumcised (15:19-21, 28-29).<\/p>\n<p>Paul insisted that “it makes no difference whether or not a man has been circumcised” (1 Cor 7:19). “What is important is faith expressing itself in love” (Gal 5:6). In Galatians, Paul argued against vigorous Jewish opponents and insisted that everyone enters God’s family simply through faith in Jesus Christ (Gal 2:14-21). Circumcision is not required for acceptance by God (Gal 5:6). The cross of Christ is the way that sinners enter into covenant with God (Gal 2:14-21; Col 2:11-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-9; Jer 9:25-26; Luke 1:59; 2:21; John 7:22-24; Acts 7:8; 15:1-5, 19-21, 28-31; 16:2-3; 21:18-24; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 2:3-5, 11-21; 5:6; 6:15; Phil 3:5-9; Col 2:11-23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Circumcision in the New Testament<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision (cutting off the male foreskin) was widely practiced in the ancient Near East (see Jer 9:25-26). For Jews, it had religious significance as the sign of the covenant that God had established with the people of Israel (Gen 17:9-14; Josh 5:2; John 7:22; Acts 7:8; <em>Sirach<\/em> 44:20). It was normally performed on the eighth day of a male infant’s life (Gen 17:12; Lev 12:3; Luke 1:59; Acts 7:8). The New Testament notes the circumcision of John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, and Timothy (Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 16:2-3; Phil 3:5). Circumcision became a metaphor for the renewal of a person’s relationship with God (Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29). In the late 40s <span>AD<\/span>, some Jewish Christians tried to require Gentile Christians to undergo circumcision (Acts 15:1, 5; see 21:20-21; Gal 2:4, 11-13), to which Paul and Barnabas objected (Acts 15:2). The ensuing church council at Jerusalem settled the matter in favor of not requiring Gentiles to be circumcised (15:19-21, 28-29).<\/p>\n<p>Paul insisted that “it makes no difference whether or not a man has been circumcised” (1 Cor 7:19). “What is important is faith expressing itself in love” (Gal 5:6). In Galatians, Paul argued against vigorous Jewish opponents and insisted that everyone enters God’s family simply through faith in Jesus Christ (Gal 2:14-21). Circumcision is not required for acceptance by God (Gal 5:6). The cross of Christ is the way that sinners enter into covenant with God (Gal 2:14-21; Col 2:11-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-9; Jer 9:25-26; Luke 1:59; 2:21; John 7:22-24; Acts 7:8; 15:1-5, 19-21, 28-31; 16:2-3; 21:18-24; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 2:3-5, 11-21; 5:6; 6:15; Phil 3:5-9; Col 2:11-23<\/p>","summary_ro":"Circumcision in the New Testament Circumcision (cutting off the male foreskin) was widely practiced in the ancient Near East (see Jer 9:25-26). For Jews, it had religious significance as the sign of the covenant that God had established with the people of Israel (Gen 17:9-14; Josh 5:2; John 7:22; Acts 7:8; Sirach 44:20). It was normally performed on the eighth day of a male infant’s life (Gen 17:12; Lev 12:3; Luke 1:59; Acts 7:8). The New Testament notes the circumcision of John the Baptist, ...","summary_en":"Circumcision in the New Testament Circumcision (cutting off the male foreskin) was widely practiced in the ancient Near East (see Jer 9:25-26). For Jews, it had religious significance as the sign of the covenant that God had established with the people of Israel (Gen 17:9-14; Josh 5:2; John 7:22; Acts 7:8; Sirach 44:20). It was normally performed on the eighth day of a male infant’s life (Gen 17:12; Lev 12:3; Luke 1:59; Acts 7:8). The New Testament notes the circumcision of John the Baptist, ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":94123,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Circumcision in the New Testament","title_en":"Circumcision in the New Testament","content_ro":"<h3>Circumcision in the New Testament<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision (cutting off the male foreskin) was widely practiced in the ancient Near East (see Jer 9:25-26). For Jews, it had religious significance as the sign of the covenant that God had established with the people of Israel (Gen 17:9-14; Josh 5:2; John 7:22; Acts 7:8; <em>Sirach<\/em> 44:20). It was normally performed on the eighth day of a male infant’s life (Gen 17:12; Lev 12:3; Luke 1:59; Acts 7:8). The New Testament notes the circumcision of John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, and Timothy (Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 16:2-3; Phil 3:5). Circumcision became a metaphor for the renewal of a person’s relationship with God (Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29). In the late 40s <span>AD<\/span>, some Jewish Christians tried to require Gentile Christians to undergo circumcision (Acts 15:1, 5; see 21:20-21; Gal 2:4, 11-13), to which Paul and Barnabas objected (Acts 15:2). The ensuing church council at Jerusalem settled the matter in favor of not requiring Gentiles to be circumcised (15:19-21, 28-29).<\/p>\n<p>Paul insisted that “it makes no difference whether or not a man has been circumcised” (1 Cor 7:19). “What is important is faith expressing itself in love” (Gal 5:6). In Galatians, Paul argued against vigorous Jewish opponents and insisted that everyone enters God’s family simply through faith in Jesus Christ (Gal 2:14-21). Circumcision is not required for acceptance by God (Gal 5:6). The cross of Christ is the way that sinners enter into covenant with God (Gal 2:14-21; Col 2:11-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-9; Jer 9:25-26; Luke 1:59; 2:21; John 7:22-24; Acts 7:8; 15:1-5, 19-21, 28-31; 16:2-3; 21:18-24; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 2:3-5, 11-21; 5:6; 6:15; Phil 3:5-9; Col 2:11-23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Circumcision in the New Testament<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision (cutting off the male foreskin) was widely practiced in the ancient Near East (see Jer 9:25-26). For Jews, it had religious significance as the sign of the covenant that God had established with the people of Israel (Gen 17:9-14; Josh 5:2; John 7:22; Acts 7:8; <em>Sirach<\/em> 44:20). It was normally performed on the eighth day of a male infant’s life (Gen 17:12; Lev 12:3; Luke 1:59; Acts 7:8). The New Testament notes the circumcision of John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, and Timothy (Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 16:2-3; Phil 3:5). Circumcision became a metaphor for the renewal of a person’s relationship with God (Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29). In the late 40s <span>AD<\/span>, some Jewish Christians tried to require Gentile Christians to undergo circumcision (Acts 15:1, 5; see 21:20-21; Gal 2:4, 11-13), to which Paul and Barnabas objected (Acts 15:2). The ensuing church council at Jerusalem settled the matter in favor of not requiring Gentiles to be circumcised (15:19-21, 28-29).<\/p>\n<p>Paul insisted that “it makes no difference whether or not a man has been circumcised” (1 Cor 7:19). “What is important is faith expressing itself in love” (Gal 5:6). In Galatians, Paul argued against vigorous Jewish opponents and insisted that everyone enters God’s family simply through faith in Jesus Christ (Gal 2:14-21). Circumcision is not required for acceptance by God (Gal 5:6). The cross of Christ is the way that sinners enter into covenant with God (Gal 2:14-21; Col 2:11-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-9; Jer 9:25-26; Luke 1:59; 2:21; John 7:22-24; Acts 7:8; 15:1-5, 19-21, 28-31; 16:2-3; 21:18-24; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 2:3-5, 11-21; 5:6; 6:15; Phil 3:5-9; Col 2:11-23<\/p>","summary_ro":"Circumcision in the New Testament Circumcision (cutting off the male foreskin) was widely practiced in the ancient Near East (see Jer 9:25-26). For Jews, it had religious significance as the sign of the covenant that God had established with the people of Israel (Gen 17:9-14; Josh 5:2; John 7:22; Acts 7:8; Sirach 44:20). It was normally performed on the eighth day of a male infant’s life (Gen 17:12; Lev 12:3; Luke 1:59; Acts 7:8). The New Testament notes the circumcision of John the Baptist, ...","summary_en":"Circumcision in the New Testament Circumcision (cutting off the male foreskin) was widely practiced in the ancient Near East (see Jer 9:25-26). For Jews, it had religious significance as the sign of the covenant that God had established with the people of Israel (Gen 17:9-14; Josh 5:2; John 7:22; Acts 7:8; Sirach 44:20). It was normally performed on the eighth day of a male infant’s life (Gen 17:12; Lev 12:3; Luke 1:59; Acts 7:8). The New Testament notes the circumcision of John the Baptist, ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":121749,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Circumcision in the New Testament","title_en":"Circumcision in the New Testament","content_ro":"<h3>Circumcision in the New Testament<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision (cutting off the male foreskin) was widely practiced in the ancient Near East (see Jer 9:25-26). For Jews, it had religious significance as the sign of the covenant that God had established with the people of Israel (Gen 17:9-14; Josh 5:2; John 7:22; Acts 7:8; <em>Sirach<\/em> 44:20). It was normally performed on the eighth day of a male infant’s life (Gen 17:12; Lev 12:3; Luke 1:59; Acts 7:8). The New Testament notes the circumcision of John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, and Timothy (Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 16:2-3; Phil 3:5). Circumcision became a metaphor for the renewal of a person’s relationship with God (Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29). In the late 40s <span>AD<\/span>, some Jewish Christians tried to require Gentile Christians to undergo circumcision (Acts 15:1, 5; see 21:20-21; Gal 2:4, 11-13), to which Paul and Barnabas objected (Acts 15:2). The ensuing church council at Jerusalem settled the matter in favor of not requiring Gentiles to be circumcised (15:19-21, 28-29).<\/p>\n<p>Paul insisted that “it makes no difference whether or not a man has been circumcised” (1 Cor 7:19). “What is important is faith expressing itself in love” (Gal 5:6). In Galatians, Paul argued against vigorous Jewish opponents and insisted that everyone enters God’s family simply through faith in Jesus Christ (Gal 2:14-21). Circumcision is not required for acceptance by God (Gal 5:6). The cross of Christ is the way that sinners enter into covenant with God (Gal 2:14-21; Col 2:11-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-9; Jer 9:25-26; Luke 1:59; 2:21; John 7:22-24; Acts 7:8; 15:1-5, 19-21, 28-31; 16:2-3; 21:18-24; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 2:3-5, 11-21; 5:6; 6:15; Phil 3:5-9; Col 2:11-23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Circumcision in the New Testament<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision (cutting off the male foreskin) was widely practiced in the ancient Near East (see Jer 9:25-26). For Jews, it had religious significance as the sign of the covenant that God had established with the people of Israel (Gen 17:9-14; Josh 5:2; John 7:22; Acts 7:8; <em>Sirach<\/em> 44:20). It was normally performed on the eighth day of a male infant’s life (Gen 17:12; Lev 12:3; Luke 1:59; Acts 7:8). The New Testament notes the circumcision of John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, and Timothy (Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 16:2-3; Phil 3:5). Circumcision became a metaphor for the renewal of a person’s relationship with God (Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29). In the late 40s <span>AD<\/span>, some Jewish Christians tried to require Gentile Christians to undergo circumcision (Acts 15:1, 5; see 21:20-21; Gal 2:4, 11-13), to which Paul and Barnabas objected (Acts 15:2). The ensuing church council at Jerusalem settled the matter in favor of not requiring Gentiles to be circumcised (15:19-21, 28-29).<\/p>\n<p>Paul insisted that “it makes no difference whether or not a man has been circumcised” (1 Cor 7:19). “What is important is faith expressing itself in love” (Gal 5:6). In Galatians, Paul argued against vigorous Jewish opponents and insisted that everyone enters God’s family simply through faith in Jesus Christ (Gal 2:14-21). Circumcision is not required for acceptance by God (Gal 5:6). The cross of Christ is the way that sinners enter into covenant with God (Gal 2:14-21; Col 2:11-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-9; Jer 9:25-26; Luke 1:59; 2:21; John 7:22-24; Acts 7:8; 15:1-5, 19-21, 28-31; 16:2-3; 21:18-24; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 2:3-5, 11-21; 5:6; 6:15; Phil 3:5-9; Col 2:11-23<\/p>","summary_ro":"Circumcision in the New Testament Circumcision (cutting off the male foreskin) was widely practiced in the ancient Near East (see Jer 9:25-26). For Jews, it had religious significance as the sign of the covenant that God had established with the people of Israel (Gen 17:9-14; Josh 5:2; John 7:22; Acts 7:8; Sirach 44:20). It was normally performed on the eighth day of a male infant’s life (Gen 17:12; Lev 12:3; Luke 1:59; Acts 7:8). The New Testament notes the circumcision of John the Baptist, ...","summary_en":"Circumcision in the New Testament Circumcision (cutting off the male foreskin) was widely practiced in the ancient Near East (see Jer 9:25-26). For Jews, it had religious significance as the sign of the covenant that God had established with the people of Israel (Gen 17:9-14; Josh 5:2; John 7:22; Acts 7:8; Sirach 44:20). It was normally performed on the eighth day of a male infant’s life (Gen 17:12; Lev 12:3; Luke 1:59; Acts 7:8). The New Testament notes the circumcision of John the Baptist, ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":149375,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Circumcision in the New Testament","title_en":"Circumcision in the New Testament","content_ro":"<h3>Circumcision in the New Testament<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision (cutting off the male foreskin) was widely practiced in the ancient Near East (see Jer 9:25-26). For Jews, it had religious significance as the sign of the covenant that God had established with the people of Israel (Gen 17:9-14; Josh 5:2; John 7:22; Acts 7:8; <em>Sirach<\/em> 44:20). It was normally performed on the eighth day of a male infant’s life (Gen 17:12; Lev 12:3; Luke 1:59; Acts 7:8). The New Testament notes the circumcision of John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, and Timothy (Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 16:2-3; Phil 3:5). Circumcision became a metaphor for the renewal of a person’s relationship with God (Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29). In the late 40s <span>AD<\/span>, some Jewish Christians tried to require Gentile Christians to undergo circumcision (Acts 15:1, 5; see 21:20-21; Gal 2:4, 11-13), to which Paul and Barnabas objected (Acts 15:2). The ensuing church council at Jerusalem settled the matter in favor of not requiring Gentiles to be circumcised (15:19-21, 28-29).<\/p>\n<p>Paul insisted that “it makes no difference whether or not a man has been circumcised” (1 Cor 7:19). “What is important is faith expressing itself in love” (Gal 5:6). In Galatians, Paul argued against vigorous Jewish opponents and insisted that everyone enters God’s family simply through faith in Jesus Christ (Gal 2:14-21). Circumcision is not required for acceptance by God (Gal 5:6). The cross of Christ is the way that sinners enter into covenant with God (Gal 2:14-21; Col 2:11-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-9; Jer 9:25-26; Luke 1:59; 2:21; John 7:22-24; Acts 7:8; 15:1-5, 19-21, 28-31; 16:2-3; 21:18-24; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 2:3-5, 11-21; 5:6; 6:15; Phil 3:5-9; Col 2:11-23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Circumcision in the New Testament<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision (cutting off the male foreskin) was widely practiced in the ancient Near East (see Jer 9:25-26). For Jews, it had religious significance as the sign of the covenant that God had established with the people of Israel (Gen 17:9-14; Josh 5:2; John 7:22; Acts 7:8; <em>Sirach<\/em> 44:20). It was normally performed on the eighth day of a male infant’s life (Gen 17:12; Lev 12:3; Luke 1:59; Acts 7:8). The New Testament notes the circumcision of John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, and Timothy (Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 16:2-3; Phil 3:5). Circumcision became a metaphor for the renewal of a person’s relationship with God (Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28-29). In the late 40s <span>AD<\/span>, some Jewish Christians tried to require Gentile Christians to undergo circumcision (Acts 15:1, 5; see 21:20-21; Gal 2:4, 11-13), to which Paul and Barnabas objected (Acts 15:2). The ensuing church council at Jerusalem settled the matter in favor of not requiring Gentiles to be circumcised (15:19-21, 28-29).<\/p>\n<p>Paul insisted that “it makes no difference whether or not a man has been circumcised” (1 Cor 7:19). “What is important is faith expressing itself in love” (Gal 5:6). In Galatians, Paul argued against vigorous Jewish opponents and insisted that everyone enters God’s family simply through faith in Jesus Christ (Gal 2:14-21). Circumcision is not required for acceptance by God (Gal 5:6). The cross of Christ is the way that sinners enter into covenant with God (Gal 2:14-21; Col 2:11-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-9; Jer 9:25-26; Luke 1:59; 2:21; John 7:22-24; Acts 7:8; 15:1-5, 19-21, 28-31; 16:2-3; 21:18-24; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 2:3-5, 11-21; 5:6; 6:15; Phil 3:5-9; Col 2:11-23<\/p>","summary_ro":"Circumcision in the New Testament Circumcision (cutting off the male foreskin) was widely practiced in the ancient Near East (see Jer 9:25-26). For Jews, it had religious significance as the sign of the covenant that God had established with the people of Israel (Gen 17:9-14; Josh 5:2; John 7:22; Acts 7:8; Sirach 44:20). It was normally performed on the eighth day of a male infant’s life (Gen 17:12; Lev 12:3; Luke 1:59; Acts 7:8). The New Testament notes the circumcision of John the Baptist, ...","summary_en":"Circumcision in the New Testament Circumcision (cutting off the male foreskin) was widely practiced in the ancient Near East (see Jer 9:25-26). For Jews, it had religious significance as the sign of the covenant that God had established with the people of Israel (Gen 17:9-14; Josh 5:2; John 7:22; Acts 7:8; Sirach 44:20). It was normally performed on the eighth day of a male infant’s life (Gen 17:12; Lev 12:3; Luke 1:59; Acts 7:8). The New Testament notes the circumcision of John the Baptist, ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"25":[{"id":64603,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Knowing God","title_en":"Knowing God","content_ro":"<h3>Knowing God<\/h3>\n<p>From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewing everything as God does and learning to imitate him. Knowing God will transform our thoughts and actions, our priorities and values, and our relationships with fellow human beings. It is far more important than religious rites, sacrifices and burnt offerings, or any other religious activities (see Jer 9:23-24; 31:34).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Hosea strongly emphasizes the importance of knowing God. He demonstrates that Israel would ultimately be destroyed (Hos 4:6) because they did not know God (4:1). This theme of knowing God is also prevalent in the New Testament Gospel of John. Jesus repeatedly stresses the need to know God, affirming that people can be heavily involved in religious practice but have no genuine relationship with God (see John 7:25-29; 8:14-19, 54-55; 14:6-11; 17:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:8, 11; Num 12:6-8; Isa 11:9; 43:10; Jer 9:24; 31:33-34; Hos 6:3, 6; John 17:3; Phil 3:10; Titus 1:16; Heb 8:10-13; 1 Jn 2:4; 4:6, 8; 3 Jn 1:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Knowing God<\/h3>\n<p>From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewing everything as God does and learning to imitate him. Knowing God will transform our thoughts and actions, our priorities and values, and our relationships with fellow human beings. It is far more important than religious rites, sacrifices and burnt offerings, or any other religious activities (see Jer 9:23-24; 31:34).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Hosea strongly emphasizes the importance of knowing God. He demonstrates that Israel would ultimately be destroyed (Hos 4:6) because they did not know God (4:1). This theme of knowing God is also prevalent in the New Testament Gospel of John. Jesus repeatedly stresses the need to know God, affirming that people can be heavily involved in religious practice but have no genuine relationship with God (see John 7:25-29; 8:14-19, 54-55; 14:6-11; 17:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:8, 11; Num 12:6-8; Isa 11:9; 43:10; Jer 9:24; 31:33-34; Hos 6:3, 6; John 17:3; Phil 3:10; Titus 1:16; Heb 8:10-13; 1 Jn 2:4; 4:6, 8; 3 Jn 1:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Knowing God From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewi...","summary_en":"Knowing God From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewi...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65112,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Messiah","title_en":"The Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","summary_en":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":92229,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Knowing God","title_en":"Knowing God","content_ro":"<h3>Knowing God<\/h3>\n<p>From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewing everything as God does and learning to imitate him. Knowing God will transform our thoughts and actions, our priorities and values, and our relationships with fellow human beings. It is far more important than religious rites, sacrifices and burnt offerings, or any other religious activities (see Jer 9:23-24; 31:34).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Hosea strongly emphasizes the importance of knowing God. He demonstrates that Israel would ultimately be destroyed (Hos 4:6) because they did not know God (4:1). This theme of knowing God is also prevalent in the New Testament Gospel of John. Jesus repeatedly stresses the need to know God, affirming that people can be heavily involved in religious practice but have no genuine relationship with God (see John 7:25-29; 8:14-19, 54-55; 14:6-11; 17:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:8, 11; Num 12:6-8; Isa 11:9; 43:10; Jer 9:24; 31:33-34; Hos 6:3, 6; John 17:3; Phil 3:10; Titus 1:16; Heb 8:10-13; 1 Jn 2:4; 4:6, 8; 3 Jn 1:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Knowing God<\/h3>\n<p>From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewing everything as God does and learning to imitate him. Knowing God will transform our thoughts and actions, our priorities and values, and our relationships with fellow human beings. It is far more important than religious rites, sacrifices and burnt offerings, or any other religious activities (see Jer 9:23-24; 31:34).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Hosea strongly emphasizes the importance of knowing God. He demonstrates that Israel would ultimately be destroyed (Hos 4:6) because they did not know God (4:1). This theme of knowing God is also prevalent in the New Testament Gospel of John. Jesus repeatedly stresses the need to know God, affirming that people can be heavily involved in religious practice but have no genuine relationship with God (see John 7:25-29; 8:14-19, 54-55; 14:6-11; 17:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:8, 11; Num 12:6-8; Isa 11:9; 43:10; Jer 9:24; 31:33-34; Hos 6:3, 6; John 17:3; Phil 3:10; Titus 1:16; Heb 8:10-13; 1 Jn 2:4; 4:6, 8; 3 Jn 1:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Knowing God From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewi...","summary_en":"Knowing God From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewi...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":92738,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Messiah","title_en":"The Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","summary_en":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":119855,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Knowing God","title_en":"Knowing God","content_ro":"<h3>Knowing God<\/h3>\n<p>From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewing everything as God does and learning to imitate him. Knowing God will transform our thoughts and actions, our priorities and values, and our relationships with fellow human beings. It is far more important than religious rites, sacrifices and burnt offerings, or any other religious activities (see Jer 9:23-24; 31:34).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Hosea strongly emphasizes the importance of knowing God. He demonstrates that Israel would ultimately be destroyed (Hos 4:6) because they did not know God (4:1). This theme of knowing God is also prevalent in the New Testament Gospel of John. Jesus repeatedly stresses the need to know God, affirming that people can be heavily involved in religious practice but have no genuine relationship with God (see John 7:25-29; 8:14-19, 54-55; 14:6-11; 17:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:8, 11; Num 12:6-8; Isa 11:9; 43:10; Jer 9:24; 31:33-34; Hos 6:3, 6; John 17:3; Phil 3:10; Titus 1:16; Heb 8:10-13; 1 Jn 2:4; 4:6, 8; 3 Jn 1:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Knowing God<\/h3>\n<p>From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewing everything as God does and learning to imitate him. Knowing God will transform our thoughts and actions, our priorities and values, and our relationships with fellow human beings. It is far more important than religious rites, sacrifices and burnt offerings, or any other religious activities (see Jer 9:23-24; 31:34).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Hosea strongly emphasizes the importance of knowing God. He demonstrates that Israel would ultimately be destroyed (Hos 4:6) because they did not know God (4:1). This theme of knowing God is also prevalent in the New Testament Gospel of John. Jesus repeatedly stresses the need to know God, affirming that people can be heavily involved in religious practice but have no genuine relationship with God (see John 7:25-29; 8:14-19, 54-55; 14:6-11; 17:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:8, 11; Num 12:6-8; Isa 11:9; 43:10; Jer 9:24; 31:33-34; Hos 6:3, 6; John 17:3; Phil 3:10; Titus 1:16; Heb 8:10-13; 1 Jn 2:4; 4:6, 8; 3 Jn 1:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Knowing God From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewi...","summary_en":"Knowing God From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewi...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":120364,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Messiah","title_en":"The Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","summary_en":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":147481,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Knowing God","title_en":"Knowing God","content_ro":"<h3>Knowing God<\/h3>\n<p>From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewing everything as God does and learning to imitate him. Knowing God will transform our thoughts and actions, our priorities and values, and our relationships with fellow human beings. It is far more important than religious rites, sacrifices and burnt offerings, or any other religious activities (see Jer 9:23-24; 31:34).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Hosea strongly emphasizes the importance of knowing God. He demonstrates that Israel would ultimately be destroyed (Hos 4:6) because they did not know God (4:1). This theme of knowing God is also prevalent in the New Testament Gospel of John. Jesus repeatedly stresses the need to know God, affirming that people can be heavily involved in religious practice but have no genuine relationship with God (see John 7:25-29; 8:14-19, 54-55; 14:6-11; 17:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:8, 11; Num 12:6-8; Isa 11:9; 43:10; Jer 9:24; 31:33-34; Hos 6:3, 6; John 17:3; Phil 3:10; Titus 1:16; Heb 8:10-13; 1 Jn 2:4; 4:6, 8; 3 Jn 1:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Knowing God<\/h3>\n<p>From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewing everything as God does and learning to imitate him. Knowing God will transform our thoughts and actions, our priorities and values, and our relationships with fellow human beings. It is far more important than religious rites, sacrifices and burnt offerings, or any other religious activities (see Jer 9:23-24; 31:34).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Hosea strongly emphasizes the importance of knowing God. He demonstrates that Israel would ultimately be destroyed (Hos 4:6) because they did not know God (4:1). This theme of knowing God is also prevalent in the New Testament Gospel of John. Jesus repeatedly stresses the need to know God, affirming that people can be heavily involved in religious practice but have no genuine relationship with God (see John 7:25-29; 8:14-19, 54-55; 14:6-11; 17:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:8, 11; Num 12:6-8; Isa 11:9; 43:10; Jer 9:24; 31:33-34; Hos 6:3, 6; John 17:3; Phil 3:10; Titus 1:16; Heb 8:10-13; 1 Jn 2:4; 4:6, 8; 3 Jn 1:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Knowing God From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewi...","summary_en":"Knowing God From our perspective, knowledge tends to mean information, facts, and concepts. But in biblical times, knowledge was centered in personal relationships. To know someone is to enter into a close relationship with that person. Knowing God involves much more than simply mastering facts and information about him. It even transcends discussions about the nature and character of God, as important as those are. Knowing God means entering into a close relationship with him. It means viewi...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":147990,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Messiah","title_en":"The Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","summary_en":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"26":[{"id":33352,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ruler","title_en":"Ruler","content_ro":"<h3>RULER<\/h3>\n<p>The term represents a number of different functions and translates 13 Hebrew and 3 Greek words. In a political sense, a ruler was one who exercised political control over a state (2 Chr 7:18; Ps 105:20; Prv 23:1; 28:15; Eccl 10:4; Is 14:5; 16:1; 49:7; Jer 33:26; 51:46; Mi 5:2), or a state that exercised control over a subject people (Jgs 15:11). The usual term for ruler was “king,” but because of its unsavory associations, many in Israel preferred the Hebrew term translated “leader,” meaning “one placed in front.” For example, Samuel rejected the former term but used the latter (1 Sm 9:16; 10:1; 13:14; 25:30; 2 Sm 5:2; 6:21; 7:8). Other Hebrew words are translated “ruler” in the <span>kjv<\/span>. However, most modern translations prefer alternatives to this more generic term.<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the Greek word regularly translated “ruler” refers to administrative or religious leaders (in various modern versions, see Mt 9:18, 23; Lk 8:41; 18:18; 23:35; 24:20; Jn 3:1; 7:26, 48; 12:31; Acts 3:17; 4:5, 26; 7:27, 35; 13:27; 14:5; 16:19; 23:5; Rom 13:3). Ephesians 6:12 mentions the rulers of the darkness of this world.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> King.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>RULER<\/h3>\n<p>The term represents a number of different functions and translates 13 Hebrew and 3 Greek words. In a political sense, a ruler was one who exercised political control over a state (2 Chr 7:18; Ps 105:20; Prv 23:1; 28:15; Eccl 10:4; Is 14:5; 16:1; 49:7; Jer 33:26; 51:46; Mi 5:2), or a state that exercised control over a subject people (Jgs 15:11). The usual term for ruler was “king,” but because of its unsavory associations, many in Israel preferred the Hebrew term translated “leader,” meaning “one placed in front.” For example, Samuel rejected the former term but used the latter (1 Sm 9:16; 10:1; 13:14; 25:30; 2 Sm 5:2; 6:21; 7:8). Other Hebrew words are translated “ruler” in the <span>kjv<\/span>. However, most modern translations prefer alternatives to this more generic term.<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the Greek word regularly translated “ruler” refers to administrative or religious leaders (in various modern versions, see Mt 9:18, 23; Lk 8:41; 18:18; 23:35; 24:20; Jn 3:1; 7:26, 48; 12:31; Acts 3:17; 4:5, 26; 7:27, 35; 13:27; 14:5; 16:19; 23:5; Rom 13:3). Ephesians 6:12 mentions the rulers of the darkness of this world.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> King.<\/p>","summary_ro":"RULER The term represents a number of different functions and translates 13 Hebrew and 3 Greek words. In a political sense, a ruler was one who exercised political control over a state (2 Chr 7:18; Ps 105:20; Prv 23:1; 28:15; Eccl 10:4; Is 14:5; 16:1; 49:7; Jer 33:26; 51:46; Mi 5:2), or a state that exercised control over a subject people (Jgs 15:11). The usual term for ruler was “king,” but because of its unsavory associations, many in Israel preferred the Hebrew term translated “leader,” me...","summary_en":"RULER The term represents a number of different functions and translates 13 Hebrew and 3 Greek words. In a political sense, a ruler was one who exercised political control over a state (2 Chr 7:18; Ps 105:20; Prv 23:1; 28:15; Eccl 10:4; Is 14:5; 16:1; 49:7; Jer 33:26; 51:46; Mi 5:2), or a state that exercised control over a subject people (Jgs 15:11). The usual term for ruler was “king,” but because of its unsavory associations, many in Israel preferred the Hebrew term translated “leader,” me...","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"27":[{"id":56466,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:27","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:27","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -10\"><strong>7:27<\/strong> Some of the crowd thought that since they could trace Jesus’ earthly origins, he could not be the Messiah. They believed that the Messiah would <em>simply appear<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -10\"><strong>7:27<\/strong> Some of the crowd thought that since they could trace Jesus’ earthly origins, he could not be the Messiah. They believed that the Messiah would <em>simply appear<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:27 Some of the crowd thought that since they could trace Jesus’ earthly origins, he could not be the Messiah. They believed that the Messiah would simply appear.","summary_en":"7:27 Some of the crowd thought that since they could trace Jesus’ earthly origins, he could not be the Messiah. They believed that the Messiah would simply appear.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":84092,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:27","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:27","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -10\"><strong>7:27<\/strong> Some of the crowd thought that since they could trace Jesus’ earthly origins, he could not be the Messiah. They believed that the Messiah would <em>simply appear<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -10\"><strong>7:27<\/strong> Some of the crowd thought that since they could trace Jesus’ earthly origins, he could not be the Messiah. They believed that the Messiah would <em>simply appear<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:27 Some of the crowd thought that since they could trace Jesus’ earthly origins, he could not be the Messiah. They believed that the Messiah would simply appear.","summary_en":"7:27 Some of the crowd thought that since they could trace Jesus’ earthly origins, he could not be the Messiah. They believed that the Messiah would simply appear.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":111718,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:27","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:27","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -10\"><strong>7:27<\/strong> Some of the crowd thought that since they could trace Jesus’ earthly origins, he could not be the Messiah. They believed that the Messiah would <em>simply appear<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -10\"><strong>7:27<\/strong> Some of the crowd thought that since they could trace Jesus’ earthly origins, he could not be the Messiah. They believed that the Messiah would <em>simply appear<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:27 Some of the crowd thought that since they could trace Jesus’ earthly origins, he could not be the Messiah. They believed that the Messiah would simply appear.","summary_en":"7:27 Some of the crowd thought that since they could trace Jesus’ earthly origins, he could not be the Messiah. They believed that the Messiah would simply appear.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":139344,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:27","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:27","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -10\"><strong>7:27<\/strong> Some of the crowd thought that since they could trace Jesus’ earthly origins, he could not be the Messiah. They believed that the Messiah would <em>simply appear<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -10\"><strong>7:27<\/strong> Some of the crowd thought that since they could trace Jesus’ earthly origins, he could not be the Messiah. They believed that the Messiah would <em>simply appear<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:27 Some of the crowd thought that since they could trace Jesus’ earthly origins, he could not be the Messiah. They believed that the Messiah would simply appear.","summary_en":"7:27 Some of the crowd thought that since they could trace Jesus’ earthly origins, he could not be the Messiah. They believed that the Messiah would simply appear.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"29":[{"id":56467,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:29","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:29","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -10\"><strong>7:29<\/strong> <em>I come from him:<\/em> Jesus sidestepped the speculation (7:27, 40-44) about his earthly origins and focused on his heavenly origins. His astounding claim provoked the religious leaders to try to arrest him for blasphemy (7:30; cp. 10:30-33).<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -10\"><strong>7:29<\/strong> <em>I come from him:<\/em> Jesus sidestepped the speculation (7:27, 40-44) about his earthly origins and focused on his heavenly origins. His astounding claim provoked the religious leaders to try to arrest him for blasphemy (7:30; cp. 10:30-33).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:29 I come from him: Jesus sidestepped the speculation (7:27, 40-44) about his earthly origins and focused on his heavenly origins. His astounding claim provoked the religious leaders to try to arrest him for blasphemy (7:30; cp. 10:30-33).","summary_en":"7:29 I come from him: Jesus sidestepped the speculation (7:27, 40-44) about his earthly origins and focused on his heavenly origins. His astounding claim provoked the religious leaders to try to arrest him for blasphemy (7:30; cp. 10:30-33).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":84093,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:29","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:29","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -10\"><strong>7:29<\/strong> <em>I come from him:<\/em> Jesus sidestepped the speculation (7:27, 40-44) about his earthly origins and focused on his heavenly origins. His astounding claim provoked the religious leaders to try to arrest him for blasphemy (7:30; cp. 10:30-33).<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -10\"><strong>7:29<\/strong> <em>I come from him:<\/em> Jesus sidestepped the speculation (7:27, 40-44) about his earthly origins and focused on his heavenly origins. His astounding claim provoked the religious leaders to try to arrest him for blasphemy (7:30; cp. 10:30-33).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:29 I come from him: Jesus sidestepped the speculation (7:27, 40-44) about his earthly origins and focused on his heavenly origins. His astounding claim provoked the religious leaders to try to arrest him for blasphemy (7:30; cp. 10:30-33).","summary_en":"7:29 I come from him: Jesus sidestepped the speculation (7:27, 40-44) about his earthly origins and focused on his heavenly origins. His astounding claim provoked the religious leaders to try to arrest him for blasphemy (7:30; cp. 10:30-33).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":111719,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:29","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:29","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -10\"><strong>7:29<\/strong> <em>I come from him:<\/em> Jesus sidestepped the speculation (7:27, 40-44) about his earthly origins and focused on his heavenly origins. His astounding claim provoked the religious leaders to try to arrest him for blasphemy (7:30; cp. 10:30-33).<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -10\"><strong>7:29<\/strong> <em>I come from him:<\/em> Jesus sidestepped the speculation (7:27, 40-44) about his earthly origins and focused on his heavenly origins. His astounding claim provoked the religious leaders to try to arrest him for blasphemy (7:30; cp. 10:30-33).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:29 I come from him: Jesus sidestepped the speculation (7:27, 40-44) about his earthly origins and focused on his heavenly origins. His astounding claim provoked the religious leaders to try to arrest him for blasphemy (7:30; cp. 10:30-33).","summary_en":"7:29 I come from him: Jesus sidestepped the speculation (7:27, 40-44) about his earthly origins and focused on his heavenly origins. His astounding claim provoked the religious leaders to try to arrest him for blasphemy (7:30; cp. 10:30-33).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":139345,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:29","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:29","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -10\"><strong>7:29<\/strong> <em>I come from him:<\/em> Jesus sidestepped the speculation (7:27, 40-44) about his earthly origins and focused on his heavenly origins. His astounding claim provoked the religious leaders to try to arrest him for blasphemy (7:30; cp. 10:30-33).<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -10\"><strong>7:29<\/strong> <em>I come from him:<\/em> Jesus sidestepped the speculation (7:27, 40-44) about his earthly origins and focused on his heavenly origins. His astounding claim provoked the religious leaders to try to arrest him for blasphemy (7:30; cp. 10:30-33).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:29 I come from him: Jesus sidestepped the speculation (7:27, 40-44) about his earthly origins and focused on his heavenly origins. His astounding claim provoked the religious leaders to try to arrest him for blasphemy (7:30; cp. 10:30-33).","summary_en":"7:29 I come from him: Jesus sidestepped the speculation (7:27, 40-44) about his earthly origins and focused on his heavenly origins. His astounding claim provoked the religious leaders to try to arrest him for blasphemy (7:30; cp. 10:30-33).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"30":[{"id":56468,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:30","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:30","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v -10\"><strong>7:30<\/strong> Jesus’ opponents failed to arrest him because in God’s sovereign plan, <em>his time<\/em><em>,<\/em> when he would be glorified on the cross, <em>had not yet come<\/em> (see study note on 12:23; see also 10:17-18; 18:6-8). All four arrest scenes in 7:1–8:59 stress that Jesus was in control, not the Jewish leaders.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v -10\"><strong>7:30<\/strong> Jesus’ opponents failed to arrest him because in God’s sovereign plan, <em>his time<\/em><em>,<\/em> when he would be glorified on the cross, <em>had not yet come<\/em> (see study note on 12:23; see also 10:17-18; 18:6-8). All four arrest scenes in 7:1–8:59 stress that Jesus was in control, not the Jewish leaders.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:30 Jesus’ opponents failed to arrest him because in God’s sovereign plan, his time, when he would be glorified on the cross, had not yet come (see study note on 12:23; see also 10:17-18; 18:6-8). All four arrest scenes in 7:1–8:59 stress that Jesus was in control, not the Jewish leaders.","summary_en":"7:30 Jesus’ opponents failed to arrest him because in God’s sovereign plan, his time, when he would be glorified on the cross, had not yet come (see study note on 12:23; see also 10:17-18; 18:6-8). All four arrest scenes in 7:1–8:59 stress that Jesus was in control, not the Jewish leaders.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":84094,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:30","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:30","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v -10\"><strong>7:30<\/strong> Jesus’ opponents failed to arrest him because in God’s sovereign plan, <em>his time<\/em><em>,<\/em> when he would be glorified on the cross, <em>had not yet come<\/em> (see study note on 12:23; see also 10:17-18; 18:6-8). All four arrest scenes in 7:1–8:59 stress that Jesus was in control, not the Jewish leaders.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v -10\"><strong>7:30<\/strong> Jesus’ opponents failed to arrest him because in God’s sovereign plan, <em>his time<\/em><em>,<\/em> when he would be glorified on the cross, <em>had not yet come<\/em> (see study note on 12:23; see also 10:17-18; 18:6-8). All four arrest scenes in 7:1–8:59 stress that Jesus was in control, not the Jewish leaders.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:30 Jesus’ opponents failed to arrest him because in God’s sovereign plan, his time, when he would be glorified on the cross, had not yet come (see study note on 12:23; see also 10:17-18; 18:6-8). All four arrest scenes in 7:1–8:59 stress that Jesus was in control, not the Jewish leaders.","summary_en":"7:30 Jesus’ opponents failed to arrest him because in God’s sovereign plan, his time, when he would be glorified on the cross, had not yet come (see study note on 12:23; see also 10:17-18; 18:6-8). All four arrest scenes in 7:1–8:59 stress that Jesus was in control, not the Jewish leaders.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":111720,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:30","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:30","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v -10\"><strong>7:30<\/strong> Jesus’ opponents failed to arrest him because in God’s sovereign plan, <em>his time<\/em><em>,<\/em> when he would be glorified on the cross, <em>had not yet come<\/em> (see study note on 12:23; see also 10:17-18; 18:6-8). All four arrest scenes in 7:1–8:59 stress that Jesus was in control, not the Jewish leaders.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v -10\"><strong>7:30<\/strong> Jesus’ opponents failed to arrest him because in God’s sovereign plan, <em>his time<\/em><em>,<\/em> when he would be glorified on the cross, <em>had not yet come<\/em> (see study note on 12:23; see also 10:17-18; 18:6-8). All four arrest scenes in 7:1–8:59 stress that Jesus was in control, not the Jewish leaders.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:30 Jesus’ opponents failed to arrest him because in God’s sovereign plan, his time, when he would be glorified on the cross, had not yet come (see study note on 12:23; see also 10:17-18; 18:6-8). All four arrest scenes in 7:1–8:59 stress that Jesus was in control, not the Jewish leaders.","summary_en":"7:30 Jesus’ opponents failed to arrest him because in God’s sovereign plan, his time, when he would be glorified on the cross, had not yet come (see study note on 12:23; see also 10:17-18; 18:6-8). All four arrest scenes in 7:1–8:59 stress that Jesus was in control, not the Jewish leaders.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":139346,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:30","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:30","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v -10\"><strong>7:30<\/strong> Jesus’ opponents failed to arrest him because in God’s sovereign plan, <em>his time<\/em><em>,<\/em> when he would be glorified on the cross, <em>had not yet come<\/em> (see study note on 12:23; see also 10:17-18; 18:6-8). All four arrest scenes in 7:1–8:59 stress that Jesus was in control, not the Jewish leaders.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v -10\"><strong>7:30<\/strong> Jesus’ opponents failed to arrest him because in God’s sovereign plan, <em>his time<\/em><em>,<\/em> when he would be glorified on the cross, <em>had not yet come<\/em> (see study note on 12:23; see also 10:17-18; 18:6-8). All four arrest scenes in 7:1–8:59 stress that Jesus was in control, not the Jewish leaders.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:30 Jesus’ opponents failed to arrest him because in God’s sovereign plan, his time, when he would be glorified on the cross, had not yet come (see study note on 12:23; see also 10:17-18; 18:6-8). All four arrest scenes in 7:1–8:59 stress that Jesus was in control, not the Jewish leaders.","summary_en":"7:30 Jesus’ opponents failed to arrest him because in God’s sovereign plan, his time, when he would be glorified on the cross, had not yet come (see study note on 12:23; see also 10:17-18; 18:6-8). All four arrest scenes in 7:1–8:59 stress that Jesus was in control, not the Jewish leaders.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"31":[{"id":42071,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Pharisees","title_en":"The Pharisees","content_ro":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","summary_en":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69697,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Pharisees","title_en":"The Pharisees","content_ro":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","summary_en":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97323,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Pharisees","title_en":"The Pharisees","content_ro":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","summary_en":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124949,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Pharisees","title_en":"The Pharisees","content_ro":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","summary_en":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65113,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Messiah","title_en":"The Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","summary_en":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65844,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John","title_en":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2).<\/p>\n<p>John, however, does not use the popular term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sēmeion<\/span>), an event that has a deeper meaning. John also describes Jesus’ miracles as “works” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">erga<\/span>, see John 10:38; see also 7:3, translated “miracles”; 9:3, translated “power”). Christ’s miracles were part of the work that God gave him to do (17:4), revealing the Father to the world.<\/p>\n<p>John selectively records seven miraculous signs that occurred during Jesus’ ministry: (1) changing water to wine (2:1-11); (2) healing an official’s son (4:46-54); (3) healing a paralyzed man (5:1-17); (4) feeding five thousand (6:1-15); (5) walking on water (6:16-21); (6) healing a blind man (9:1-41); and (7) raising Lazarus from the dead (11:1-44). John also records a miraculous catch of fish after Jesus’ resurrection (21:4-14). Most of the seven signs were met with belief (2:11; 4:53; 11:45-48). However, Jesus’ purposes extended beyond the signs themselves. The miraculous signs are like physical roadsigns: They are messages that point to a greater reality. Thus, a miraculous sign is usually accompanied by a discourse from Jesus in which he explains the truth that the sign points to. For example, Jesus fed the five thousand not just to meet their needs but also so that people would see him as the bread of life (6:35), given for them when he died on the cross (6:51).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:8-31; 7:3; Num 14:11, 22; Deut 4:34; Pss 74:9; 78:43; Matt 12:38-39; John 2:1-11, 18, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 15:24; 20:30; Acts 2:43; 4:16, 22, 30; 5:12; 8:6; 14:3; 15:12; Rom 15:19<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2).<\/p>\n<p>John, however, does not use the popular term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sēmeion<\/span>), an event that has a deeper meaning. John also describes Jesus’ miracles as “works” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">erga<\/span>, see John 10:38; see also 7:3, translated “miracles”; 9:3, translated “power”). Christ’s miracles were part of the work that God gave him to do (17:4), revealing the Father to the world.<\/p>\n<p>John selectively records seven miraculous signs that occurred during Jesus’ ministry: (1) changing water to wine (2:1-11); (2) healing an official’s son (4:46-54); (3) healing a paralyzed man (5:1-17); (4) feeding five thousand (6:1-15); (5) walking on water (6:16-21); (6) healing a blind man (9:1-41); and (7) raising Lazarus from the dead (11:1-44). John also records a miraculous catch of fish after Jesus’ resurrection (21:4-14). Most of the seven signs were met with belief (2:11; 4:53; 11:45-48). However, Jesus’ purposes extended beyond the signs themselves. The miraculous signs are like physical roadsigns: They are messages that point to a greater reality. Thus, a miraculous sign is usually accompanied by a discourse from Jesus in which he explains the truth that the sign points to. For example, Jesus fed the five thousand not just to meet their needs but also so that people would see him as the bread of life (6:35), given for them when he died on the cross (6:51).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:8-31; 7:3; Num 14:11, 22; Deut 4:34; Pss 74:9; 78:43; Matt 12:38-39; John 2:1-11, 18, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 15:24; 20:30; Acts 2:43; 4:16, 22, 30; 5:12; 8:6; 14:3; 15:12; Rom 15:19<\/p>","summary_ro":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word dunamis (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2). John, however, does not use the popular term dunamis in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek sēmeion), an event that has a deeper meaning...","summary_en":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word dunamis (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2). John, however, does not use the popular term dunamis in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek sēmeion), an event that has a deeper meaning...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":92739,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Messiah","title_en":"The Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","summary_en":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93470,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John","title_en":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2).<\/p>\n<p>John, however, does not use the popular term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sēmeion<\/span>), an event that has a deeper meaning. John also describes Jesus’ miracles as “works” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">erga<\/span>, see John 10:38; see also 7:3, translated “miracles”; 9:3, translated “power”). Christ’s miracles were part of the work that God gave him to do (17:4), revealing the Father to the world.<\/p>\n<p>John selectively records seven miraculous signs that occurred during Jesus’ ministry: (1) changing water to wine (2:1-11); (2) healing an official’s son (4:46-54); (3) healing a paralyzed man (5:1-17); (4) feeding five thousand (6:1-15); (5) walking on water (6:16-21); (6) healing a blind man (9:1-41); and (7) raising Lazarus from the dead (11:1-44). John also records a miraculous catch of fish after Jesus’ resurrection (21:4-14). Most of the seven signs were met with belief (2:11; 4:53; 11:45-48). However, Jesus’ purposes extended beyond the signs themselves. The miraculous signs are like physical roadsigns: They are messages that point to a greater reality. Thus, a miraculous sign is usually accompanied by a discourse from Jesus in which he explains the truth that the sign points to. For example, Jesus fed the five thousand not just to meet their needs but also so that people would see him as the bread of life (6:35), given for them when he died on the cross (6:51).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:8-31; 7:3; Num 14:11, 22; Deut 4:34; Pss 74:9; 78:43; Matt 12:38-39; John 2:1-11, 18, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 15:24; 20:30; Acts 2:43; 4:16, 22, 30; 5:12; 8:6; 14:3; 15:12; Rom 15:19<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2).<\/p>\n<p>John, however, does not use the popular term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sēmeion<\/span>), an event that has a deeper meaning. John also describes Jesus’ miracles as “works” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">erga<\/span>, see John 10:38; see also 7:3, translated “miracles”; 9:3, translated “power”). Christ’s miracles were part of the work that God gave him to do (17:4), revealing the Father to the world.<\/p>\n<p>John selectively records seven miraculous signs that occurred during Jesus’ ministry: (1) changing water to wine (2:1-11); (2) healing an official’s son (4:46-54); (3) healing a paralyzed man (5:1-17); (4) feeding five thousand (6:1-15); (5) walking on water (6:16-21); (6) healing a blind man (9:1-41); and (7) raising Lazarus from the dead (11:1-44). John also records a miraculous catch of fish after Jesus’ resurrection (21:4-14). Most of the seven signs were met with belief (2:11; 4:53; 11:45-48). However, Jesus’ purposes extended beyond the signs themselves. The miraculous signs are like physical roadsigns: They are messages that point to a greater reality. Thus, a miraculous sign is usually accompanied by a discourse from Jesus in which he explains the truth that the sign points to. For example, Jesus fed the five thousand not just to meet their needs but also so that people would see him as the bread of life (6:35), given for them when he died on the cross (6:51).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:8-31; 7:3; Num 14:11, 22; Deut 4:34; Pss 74:9; 78:43; Matt 12:38-39; John 2:1-11, 18, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 15:24; 20:30; Acts 2:43; 4:16, 22, 30; 5:12; 8:6; 14:3; 15:12; Rom 15:19<\/p>","summary_ro":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word dunamis (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2). John, however, does not use the popular term dunamis in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek sēmeion), an event that has a deeper meaning...","summary_en":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word dunamis (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2). John, however, does not use the popular term dunamis in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek sēmeion), an event that has a deeper meaning...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":120365,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Messiah","title_en":"The Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","summary_en":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":121096,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John","title_en":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2).<\/p>\n<p>John, however, does not use the popular term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sēmeion<\/span>), an event that has a deeper meaning. John also describes Jesus’ miracles as “works” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">erga<\/span>, see John 10:38; see also 7:3, translated “miracles”; 9:3, translated “power”). Christ’s miracles were part of the work that God gave him to do (17:4), revealing the Father to the world.<\/p>\n<p>John selectively records seven miraculous signs that occurred during Jesus’ ministry: (1) changing water to wine (2:1-11); (2) healing an official’s son (4:46-54); (3) healing a paralyzed man (5:1-17); (4) feeding five thousand (6:1-15); (5) walking on water (6:16-21); (6) healing a blind man (9:1-41); and (7) raising Lazarus from the dead (11:1-44). John also records a miraculous catch of fish after Jesus’ resurrection (21:4-14). Most of the seven signs were met with belief (2:11; 4:53; 11:45-48). However, Jesus’ purposes extended beyond the signs themselves. The miraculous signs are like physical roadsigns: They are messages that point to a greater reality. Thus, a miraculous sign is usually accompanied by a discourse from Jesus in which he explains the truth that the sign points to. For example, Jesus fed the five thousand not just to meet their needs but also so that people would see him as the bread of life (6:35), given for them when he died on the cross (6:51).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:8-31; 7:3; Num 14:11, 22; Deut 4:34; Pss 74:9; 78:43; Matt 12:38-39; John 2:1-11, 18, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 15:24; 20:30; Acts 2:43; 4:16, 22, 30; 5:12; 8:6; 14:3; 15:12; Rom 15:19<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2).<\/p>\n<p>John, however, does not use the popular term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sēmeion<\/span>), an event that has a deeper meaning. John also describes Jesus’ miracles as “works” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">erga<\/span>, see John 10:38; see also 7:3, translated “miracles”; 9:3, translated “power”). Christ’s miracles were part of the work that God gave him to do (17:4), revealing the Father to the world.<\/p>\n<p>John selectively records seven miraculous signs that occurred during Jesus’ ministry: (1) changing water to wine (2:1-11); (2) healing an official’s son (4:46-54); (3) healing a paralyzed man (5:1-17); (4) feeding five thousand (6:1-15); (5) walking on water (6:16-21); (6) healing a blind man (9:1-41); and (7) raising Lazarus from the dead (11:1-44). John also records a miraculous catch of fish after Jesus’ resurrection (21:4-14). Most of the seven signs were met with belief (2:11; 4:53; 11:45-48). However, Jesus’ purposes extended beyond the signs themselves. The miraculous signs are like physical roadsigns: They are messages that point to a greater reality. Thus, a miraculous sign is usually accompanied by a discourse from Jesus in which he explains the truth that the sign points to. For example, Jesus fed the five thousand not just to meet their needs but also so that people would see him as the bread of life (6:35), given for them when he died on the cross (6:51).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:8-31; 7:3; Num 14:11, 22; Deut 4:34; Pss 74:9; 78:43; Matt 12:38-39; John 2:1-11, 18, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 15:24; 20:30; Acts 2:43; 4:16, 22, 30; 5:12; 8:6; 14:3; 15:12; Rom 15:19<\/p>","summary_ro":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word dunamis (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2). John, however, does not use the popular term dunamis in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek sēmeion), an event that has a deeper meaning...","summary_en":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word dunamis (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2). John, however, does not use the popular term dunamis in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek sēmeion), an event that has a deeper meaning...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":147991,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Messiah","title_en":"The Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","summary_en":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148722,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John","title_en":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2).<\/p>\n<p>John, however, does not use the popular term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sēmeion<\/span>), an event that has a deeper meaning. John also describes Jesus’ miracles as “works” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">erga<\/span>, see John 10:38; see also 7:3, translated “miracles”; 9:3, translated “power”). Christ’s miracles were part of the work that God gave him to do (17:4), revealing the Father to the world.<\/p>\n<p>John selectively records seven miraculous signs that occurred during Jesus’ ministry: (1) changing water to wine (2:1-11); (2) healing an official’s son (4:46-54); (3) healing a paralyzed man (5:1-17); (4) feeding five thousand (6:1-15); (5) walking on water (6:16-21); (6) healing a blind man (9:1-41); and (7) raising Lazarus from the dead (11:1-44). John also records a miraculous catch of fish after Jesus’ resurrection (21:4-14). Most of the seven signs were met with belief (2:11; 4:53; 11:45-48). However, Jesus’ purposes extended beyond the signs themselves. The miraculous signs are like physical roadsigns: They are messages that point to a greater reality. Thus, a miraculous sign is usually accompanied by a discourse from Jesus in which he explains the truth that the sign points to. For example, Jesus fed the five thousand not just to meet their needs but also so that people would see him as the bread of life (6:35), given for them when he died on the cross (6:51).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:8-31; 7:3; Num 14:11, 22; Deut 4:34; Pss 74:9; 78:43; Matt 12:38-39; John 2:1-11, 18, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 15:24; 20:30; Acts 2:43; 4:16, 22, 30; 5:12; 8:6; 14:3; 15:12; Rom 15:19<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2).<\/p>\n<p>John, however, does not use the popular term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">dunamis<\/span> in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sēmeion<\/span>), an event that has a deeper meaning. John also describes Jesus’ miracles as “works” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">erga<\/span>, see John 10:38; see also 7:3, translated “miracles”; 9:3, translated “power”). Christ’s miracles were part of the work that God gave him to do (17:4), revealing the Father to the world.<\/p>\n<p>John selectively records seven miraculous signs that occurred during Jesus’ ministry: (1) changing water to wine (2:1-11); (2) healing an official’s son (4:46-54); (3) healing a paralyzed man (5:1-17); (4) feeding five thousand (6:1-15); (5) walking on water (6:16-21); (6) healing a blind man (9:1-41); and (7) raising Lazarus from the dead (11:1-44). John also records a miraculous catch of fish after Jesus’ resurrection (21:4-14). Most of the seven signs were met with belief (2:11; 4:53; 11:45-48). However, Jesus’ purposes extended beyond the signs themselves. The miraculous signs are like physical roadsigns: They are messages that point to a greater reality. Thus, a miraculous sign is usually accompanied by a discourse from Jesus in which he explains the truth that the sign points to. For example, Jesus fed the five thousand not just to meet their needs but also so that people would see him as the bread of life (6:35), given for them when he died on the cross (6:51).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:8-31; 7:3; Num 14:11, 22; Deut 4:34; Pss 74:9; 78:43; Matt 12:38-39; John 2:1-11, 18, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 15:24; 20:30; Acts 2:43; 4:16, 22, 30; 5:12; 8:6; 14:3; 15:12; Rom 15:19<\/p>","summary_ro":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word dunamis (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2). John, however, does not use the popular term dunamis in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek sēmeion), an event that has a deeper meaning...","summary_en":"Miraculous Signs in the Gospel of John The Gospels use three words to describe Jesus’ miraculous works. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Greek word dunamis (“power”) describes an act of raw force that amazes observers and leads to the inevitable conclusion that God must be at work in Jesus (see Mark 6:2). John, however, does not use the popular term dunamis in relation to Jesus’ miracles. Instead, he labels each of Jesus’ miracles as a “sign” (Greek sēmeion), an event that has a deeper meaning...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"32":[{"id":19490,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jesus Christ","title_en":"Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\n<p>Messiah, Savior, and founder of the Christian church.<\/p>\n<p>In providing a biography of Jesus Christ it must be borne in mind that each of the Gospels has its own distinctive purpose. Matthew, for instance, presents Jesus as the messianic King, whereas the emphasis in Mark is more on Jesus as the servant of all. Luke tends to present Jesus in a softer light, showing particularly his amazing compassion to the less fortunate, whereas John plunges the reader into a deeper and more spiritual understanding of Jesus. These different aims caused the four Evangelists to select and arrange the events of Jesus’ life differently, resulting in a fourfold portrait of the same man. It was undoubtedly for this reason that the Christian church preserved four Gospels instead of only one.<\/p>\n<p>The following sections present the main events in what may be regarded as the chief stages of the life of Jesus. These stages show a definite progression from Christ’s incarnation to his cross. The amount of space devoted to each stage in each of the Gospels is dictated by theological rather than biographical interest. The whole presentation of Christ’s life centers on the cross and the subsequent triumphant resurrection and is more an account of God’s message to humanity than a plain historic account of the life of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Incarnation<\/p>\n<p>• The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>• Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n<p>• Preparatory Events<\/p>\n<p>• The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n<p>• The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n<p>• On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n<p>• The Trial<\/p>\n<p>• The Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>• The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheIncarnation\">The Incarnation<\/p>\n<p>The major event of this initial stage was the Incarnation. Only Matthew and Luke give accounts of Jesus’ birth. John goes back and reflects on what preceded the birth.<\/p>\n<p>It may seem strange that John began his Gospel with a reference to the Word (Jn 1:1), but it is in this way that he delivers to the reader an exalted view of Jesus. John saw Jesus as existing even before the creation of the world (v 2). In fact, he saw him as having a part in the act of creation (v 3). Therefore, when Jesus was born, it was both an act of humiliation and an act of illumination. The light shone, but the world preferred to remain in darkness (vv 4-5, 10). Therefore, anyone coming to John’s records of the life of Jesus would know at once, before even being introduced to the man named Jesus, that here was the record of no ordinary man. The account of his life and teachings that followed could not be properly understood except against this background of his preexistence.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBirthofJesus\">The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>John simply wrote that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Matthew and Luke fill in some of the details of how this happened. There is little in common between the two accounts. Each approaches the subject from a different point of view, but the supernatural is evident in both. The coming of Jesus is announced beforehand, through dreams to Joseph in Matthew’s account (Mt 1:20-21) and through an angel to Mary in Luke’s account (Lk 1:26-33). Matthew leaves his readers in no doubt that the one to be born had a mission to accomplish—to save people from their sins (Mt 1:21). Luke sets his story of Jesus’ coming in an atmosphere of great rejoicing. This is seen in the inclusion of some exquisite songs, which have formed part of the church’s worship ever since (Lk 1:46-55, 68-79). The homage of the wise men in Matthew 2:1-12 is significant because it sets the scene for a universalistic emphasis that links the beginning of the Gospel to its ending (cf. Mt 28:19-20). A similar emphasis is introduced in the angel’s announcement to the shepherds in Luke 2:14 and in Simeon’s song (Lk 2:32), where he predicts that Jesus would be a light for Gentiles as well as a glory for Israel. The flight into Egypt for safety (Mt 2:13-15) shows the contribution of a gentile nation in providing protection for a Jewish child.<\/p>\n<p>One feature of the birth stories in Matthew and Luke is that they are both linked to genealogies. It is difficult to harmonize these genealogies since they appear to be drawn from different sources, but the purpose in both cases is to show that Jesus was descended from Abraham and David. The latter fact gave rise to Jesus’ title Son of David.<\/p>\n<p>Luke was the only Gospel writer who attempted to link the coming of Jesus with events in secular history. Although problems arise over the dating of the census of Quirinius (Lk 2:1-2), the firm setting of the contemporary scene is highly significant because the Christian faith is a historic faith centered on a historic person.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LifeinNazareth\">Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n<p>The years of Jesus Christ’s human development are given only a few lines in the Gospels. Details are given of only one incident belonging to the period of childhood, the discussion of the 12-year-old Jesus with the Jewish teachers in the temple (Lk 2:41-50). This event is a pointer to one of the most characteristic features of Jesus’ later ministry: his display of irrefutable wisdom in dialogue with his Jewish contemporaries. It also reveals that at an early age Jesus was acutely aware of a divine mission. Nevertheless, Luke notes that in Jesus’ formative years he was obedient to his parents (v 51). It is assumed that during 30 years at Nazareth Jesus learned the carpenter’s trade from Joseph and became the village carpenter after Joseph’s death. However, there is no account of this period in the Gospels. This has led to many fantastic imaginings about Jesus’ childhood. Many of these fables are recorded in apocryphal gospels, but Luke’s account is unembellished. Its remarkable reserve is a strong indication of its historical reliability.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PreparatoryEvents\">Preparatory Events<\/p>\n<p>All four Gospels refer to a brief preparatory period that immediately preceded the commencement of Christ’s public ministry. This period focused on three important events.<\/p>\n<h5>The Preaching of John the Baptist<\/h5>\n<p>John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness and caused an immediate stir in Judea, particularly as a result of his call to repentance and to baptism (Mt 3:1-6). John was like one of the OT prophets, but he disclaimed any importance in his own office except as the herald of a greater person to come. His stern appearance and uncompromising moral challenge effectively prepared the way for the public appearance of Jesus (Lk 3:4-6). It is important to note that John the Baptist’s announcement of the imminent coming of the kingdom (Mt 3:2) was the same theme with which Jesus began his own ministry (4:17). This shows that John the Baptist’s work was an integral part of the preparation for the public ministry of Jesus. The same may be said of the rite of baptism, although John recognized that Jesus would add a new dimension in that he would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (3:11). As the forerunner of Jesus Christ, John proclaimed that the one to follow would not only be greater than he but would also come with high standards of judgment (v 12). The stage was therefore set in stern terms for the initial public act of Jesus—his willingness to be baptized (Mt 3:13-15; Lk 3:21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Baptism of Jesus<\/h5>\n<p>John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. Since Jesus submitted to this, are we to suppose that Jesus himself needed to repent? If this were the case, it would involve the assumption that Jesus had sinned. This is contrary to other evidence in the NT. But if Jesus did not need to repent, what was the point of his requesting baptism at the hands of John? Jesus had come on a mission to others, and it is possible that he deliberately submitted to John’s baptism in order to show that he was prepared to take the place of others. This explanation is in line with Paul’s later understanding of the work of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 5:21). Matthew is the one Evangelist who records John’s hesitation to baptize Jesus (Mt 3:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>The most important part of the baptism of Jesus was the heavenly voice, which declared pleasure in the beloved Son (Mt 3:17). This announcement by God was the real starting point of the public ministry of Jesus. It revealed that the ministry was no accident or sudden inspiration on the part of Jesus. He went into his work with the full approval of the Father. A further important feature is the part played by the Holy Spirit in this scene. The dovelike description is full of symbolic meaning (v 16). It was not just an inner experience that Jesus had. The activity of the Spirit in the ministry of Jesus, although not much emphasized in the Gospels, is nevertheless sufficiently evident to be indispensable to a true understanding of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temptation of Jesus<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus’ baptism showed the nature of his mission. The temptation showed the nature of the environment in which he was to minister (Mt 4:1; Lk 4:1-2). Confrontation with adverse spiritual forces characterized Jesus’ whole ministry. Only Matthew and Luke record details of the temptations to which Jesus was subjected by the devil. All these temptations present shortcuts that, if pursued, would have deflected Jesus from his vocation. The record leaves us in no doubt that Jesus gained the victory. Both Gospels show that he accomplished this by appealing to Scripture. Jesus is also seen in this event as a genuine human who, like all other humans, was subject to temptation. The writer of the Letter to the Hebrews notes that this fact qualified Jesus to act as High Priest and to intercede on behalf of his people (Heb 2:18; 4:15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheEarlyMinistryofJesusinJudeaandSamaria\">The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n<p>Only John’s Gospel tells of the work of Jesus in Judea following his baptism. It first describes his calling of two disciples, John and Andrew (Jn 1:35-39). This event is set against the background of John the Baptist’s announcement of Jesus as the Lamb of God who was to take away the sin of the world (v 29). These first two disciples were soon joined by three others: Peter, Philip, and Nathanael (vv 41-51). These five formed part of the nucleus of Jesus’ followers who came to be known as the Twelve. One feature of John’s account is the early recognition by the disciples of Jesus as Messiah (Jn 1:41) and Son of God (v 49).<\/p>\n<p>Soon after Jesus began his ministry in Jerusalem, John relates an incident at Cana in Galilee in which water was turned into wine (Jn 2:1-10). This event is important in John’s account because it is the first of the signs that he records (v 11). He saw Jesus’ miracles as “signs” of the truth of the gospel rather than as mere wonders.<\/p>\n<p>John sets two incidents at Jerusalem in this initial period. The first is the cleansing of the temple (Jn 2:13-16). Matthew, Mark, and Luke all place this event just before Jesus’ trial, but John places it at this early stage. The moral intention of Jesus’ work is seen in his driving out the money changers who were profiting from worshipers more than was appropriate. This was apparently acceptable to Judaism but was unacceptable to Jesus. The other Evangelists imply that this authoritative act was the event that sparked the final hostility of his opponents. John tells the story for a theological reason; to him, the cleansing of the temple was a parable telling of what Jesus had come to do.<\/p>\n<p>The other incident in Jerusalem is the meeting between Jesus and Nicodemus (Jn 3). Nicodemus was closely associated with Judaism, yet he was also searching for truth. He was unable to understand, however, the spiritual truth about being born again through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>John’s story then moves from Judea to Samaria and the story of the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn 4:1-42). Jesus used her physical thirst to point to her deeper spiritual thirst. She realized that Jesus had something to offer her that she had not previously known. As a result of this woman’s experience and testimony, many of the Samaritan people came to believe in Jesus as the Savior of the world (v 42). In this case John intends that his readers would appreciate the fuller significance of the words of Jesus by viewing them in the light of the resurrection.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePeriodoftheGalileanMinistry\">The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n\n<p>Almost all the information on this period is found in the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke.) It may be conveniently divided into three sections. The first briefly outlines the events leading up to the choosing of the Twelve; the second deals with Jesus’ withdrawal from northern Galilee; and the third deals with his departure for Jerusalem. While the synoptic Gospels concentrate exclusively on the events in Galilee, John’s account indicates that there were some visits by Jesus to Jerusalem during this period. Also, John records another incident at Cana, where the son of a Capernaum official was healed. This is noted as the second of Jesus’ signs (Jn 4:54). It is chiefly important because of the extraordinary faith of the father, who was prepared to take Jesus at his word.<\/p>\n<h5>The Calling of the Disciples<\/h5>\n<p>In the synoptic Gospels there is an account of the initial call to four of the disciples to leave their fishing boats and to become fishers of men (Mt 4:18-22; Mk 1:16-20; Lk 5:1-11). They had already met Jesus and must have had some idea what was involved in following him. Jesus did not at this time appoint them to be apostles, but this call was an indispensable step toward the establishment of the Twelve as a group. Setting apart a particular number of disciples formed an important part of the ministry of Jesus. The miraculous catch of fish, which preceded the call of the disciples in Luke’s account, served to highlight the superiority of the spiritual task of catching people rather than fish.<\/p>\n<p>Another significant call came to Levi, otherwise known as Matthew (Mt 9:9; Mk 2:13-14; Lk 5:27-28). As a tax collector, he was of a different type from most of the other disciples. He would certainly have been despised by his Jewish contemporaries because of his profession. But his inclusion in the special circle of Jesus’ disciples shows the broad basis on which these men were chosen. One of the others, Simon the Zealot, may have belonged to a group of revolutionaries who were religious as well as political. Even a man like Judas Iscariot was numbered among the Twelve, and he would later betray Jesus to his enemies for a small sum of money. Jesus accepted them as they were and molded them into men who later came to learn how to be totally dependent on God and the power of his Spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>Sermon on the Mount<\/h5>\n<p>The Gospel of Matthew presents a substantial sample of Jesus’ teachings commonly called the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:1–7:29). Some of the same material occurs in Luke in a different context and different arrangement. It is possible that Jesus often repeated his teachings on different occasions and with different combinations. Matthew’s record of the Sermon on the Mount presents an impressive body of teaching, mainly of an ethical character. In it Jesus upholds the Mosaic law and at the same time goes beyond it. The beginning of this sermon has been called the Beatitudes (5:3-12). It commends moral and spiritual values. The teachings recorded in this section were radical, but not in a political sense. The Sermon on the Mount may be taken as a fair sample of the kind of discourses that must have abounded in the ministry of Jesus.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus as Healer<\/h5>\n<p>Throughout the Gospels there are records of miracles involving Jesus healing people. There are more of these miracles than any other type. In a section in Matthew devoted to a sequence of healings (Mt 8:1–9:34), a leper, a centurion’s servant, Peter’s mother-in-law, a demoniac, a paralytic, a woman with a hemorrhage, blind men, and a man who was mute—all were healed. In addition, Jairus’s daughter was raised from the dead. This concentration of healings focuses on Jesus as a miracle worker, but throughout the Gospels there is no suggestion that Jesus healed by magical means. In some cases an individual’s faith was acknowledged (8:10; 9:22). In at least one incident, the healing was accompanied by an announcement of the forgiveness of the sins of the one healed (Mt 9:2; Mk 2:5). This shows that Jesus considered spiritual needs to be of greater consequence than the physical problems.<\/p>\n<p>In view of the widespread belief in the powerful influence of evil spirits over human lives, it is of great significance that Jesus is seen exercising his power of exorcism over demons. Jesus’ ministry was set in an atmosphere of spiritual conflict, so the confrontations between the forces of darkness and the Light of the World were to be expected. Those who explain away these cases of demon-possession in psychiatric terms miss this key feature of Jesus’ ministry. Each time he exorcised a demon, he was demonstrating victory, which reached its most dramatic expression in his victory over death at his resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the healing miracles in this early section, one nature miracle is recorded, that of the stilling of the storm (Mt 8:23-27; Mk 4:35-41; Lk 8:22-25). This miracle focused both on the lack of faith in the disciples and the mysterious power of the presence of Jesus.<\/p>\n<h5>The Reaction to Jesus by His Contemporaries<\/h5>\n<p>In the early stages of his ministry, Jesus was very popular with the ordinary people. There are several notices to this effect (Mt 4:23-25; Mk 3:7-8). This popularity showed no appreciation of the spiritual purpose of Jesus’ mission (Lk 13:17). Nevertheless, it stands in stark contrast to the nit-picking opposition of the religious leaders, who even plotted to kill Jesus in the early period of his ministry (Mk 3:6).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus and the religious leaders often clashed over the observance of the Sabbath (Mt 12:1-14; Lk 13:10-17; Jn 5:9-18). Jesus adopted a more liberal view than the rigid and often illogical interpretation of some of his religious contemporaries—as in the instances when he was criticized for healing on the Sabbath even though the Jewish law allowed the rescuing of trapped animals on the Sabbath (Mt 12:11; Lk 13:15). To the Pharisaic mind, Jesus was a lawbreaker. The Pharisees feared that it would undermine their authority if his teaching were permitted to permeate popular opinion.<\/p>\n<h5>Preparing the Twelve<\/h5>\n<p>The synoptic Gospels supply lists of the names of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:2-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16). Both Matthew and Mark name them in the context of their exercising authority over evil spirits, thereby showing that these men were being called to enter the same spiritual conflict as Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The synoptic Gospels also give details of the instructions Jesus gave to these disciples before sending them to minister in Israel (Mt 10:5-42; Mk 6:7-13; Lk 9:1-6). Matthew included material in his discourse that appears in a different context in Mark and Luke, but the discourse still shows the concern of Jesus to prepare his disciples for their future work. They were to proclaim the kingdom as he had done, but they were not to suppose that all would respond to it. They were warned about coming hostility and even persecution. It is important to note that Jesus warned his disciples against encumbering themselves with material possessions. Although the instructions given related immediately to a ministry tour, he was laying the foundation for the future work of the church.<\/p>\n<h5>The Relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist<\/h5>\n<p>For a while there were parallel preaching and parallel baptisms by John the Baptist with his followers and Jesus with his disciples (Jn 4:1-2). After John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod because of his uncompromising condemnation of Herod’s marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife (Mt 14:3-4), John began to have doubts about Jesus (Mt 11:1-19; Lk 7:18-35). He may have been expecting Jesus, if he really was the Messiah, to come to his rescue. When John sent his disciples to Jesus to express his doubts, Jesus took the opportunity to tell the crowds of the greatness of John the Baptist. He said there was none born of women who was greater than John.<\/p>\n<h5>Various Controversies<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus did not hesitate to confront his contemporaries on issues that involved moral or religious questions. The controversy recorded in John’s Gospel concerning the keeping of the Sabbath that arose when a lame man was healed on that day (Jn 5:1-18) shows once again that ritual observance of the Sabbath was regarded as of greater importance than a compassionate concern for the physical welfare of the lame man. This was typical of the Jewish approach and led at once to a persecuting attitude toward Jesus, particularly because he claimed to be doing the work of God.<\/p>\n<p>A similar conflict arose after Jesus’ disciples had plucked grain in the fields on the Sabbath day (Mt 12:1-8). The Pharisees assumed that this act constituted work and saw it as a sufficient reason to plot how to destroy Jesus. After this event, he healed a paralytic on the same Sabbath day (vv 9-14). The Jewish leaders clearly regarded him as a direct threat to their position among the people.<\/p>\n<p>The rising opposition did not deter Jesus from further healings (Mt 12:15-32), which Matthew depicts as the fulfillment of Scripture. But when Jesus healed a blind and mute demoniac, the Pharisees charged him with casting out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of the demons. Jesus told them that to blaspheme the Holy Spirit was an unforgivable sin. This incident not only brings out the perversity of the religious leaders but also shows that the ministry of Jesus was under the direct control of the Spirit. Other notable miracles were the healing of the centurion’s servant, as recorded by Luke (Lk 7:1-10), and the raising from the dead of the widow’s son at Nain (vv 11-17). The former of these is notable because of the remarkable faith of a Gentile.<\/p>\n<p>Another example of the Pharisees’ criticism was when Jesus attended a meal in Simon the Pharisee’s house (Lk 7:36-50). His host had not provided for the usual courtesies toward guests and yet was critical of Jesus for allowing an immoral woman to wash his feet with tears, dry them with her hair, and anoint them with ointment. There is no doubt that most of Simon’s colleagues would have shared his reaction, but Jesus did not stop the woman because he knew that the motive impelling her to do it was love. He told Simon a parable to press home his point.<\/p>\n<p>John records two visits by Jesus to Jerusalem. These are difficult to date, but they probably occurred during the early period of the ministry. He attended the Feast of Tabernacles (Jn 7:2) and the Feast of Dedication (10:22). At these times Jesus taught in the temple area and entered into dialogue with the religious leaders. The chief priests became alarmed at his presence and sent officers to arrest him (7:32). They were unable to do so; instead, they themselves were captivated by his teachings. More discussions with the Jewish leaders followed. They charged Jesus with being demon-possessed (8:48). Both in this case and in the event of the healing of the blind man (ch 9), the hostility of the Jewish leaders to Jesus surfaces. When Jesus spoke of himself as the Shepherd, his teaching again raised the anger of his Jewish hearers, who took up stones to kill him (10:31).<\/p>\n<h5>Teaching in Parables<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew’s Gospel gives a sample of a continuous discourse by Jesus (Mt 5:1–7:29), but Jesus more often spoke in parables. Matthew collected into a group some of the parables that concern the theme of the kingdom (ch 13). Luke tends to preserve parables of a different kind that are not specially linked to the kingdom. Mark has the least number of parables among the synoptic Gospels, but his writing shows little interest in Jesus as a teacher. John does not relate any parables, although he does preserve two allegories—the Sheepfold and the Vine—which could be regarded as extended parables. The parable was a form of teaching particularly characteristic of Jesus. In addition, Jesus interspersed even his discourses with metaphors akin to the parabolic form. The parable was valuable because it could stimulate thought and challenge the hearer. This is because the form of the parable is easy to retain in the mind. Jesus did not speak in parables in order to obscure his meaning. This would be contrary to all that he aimed to do through his work and teaching.<\/p>\n<h5>Significant Events in Galilee<\/h5>\n<p>In Nazareth there was a striking instance of the unwillingness to respond to the ministry of Jesus. The people of his hometown proved so hostile that he could perform very few miracles there (Mt 13:53-58; Mk 6:1-6). This incident is important because it shows that faith was especially necessary for people to receive his healing miracles.<\/p>\n<p>The one miracle performed by Jesus that all four Evangelists describe is the feeding of the 5,000 (Mt 14:13-21; Mk 6:30-44; Lk 9:10-17; Jn 6:1-15). This occasion shows the great popularity of Jesus at this stage of his ministry. It also reveals that he was not unmindful of the physical needs of people. After this miracle, some wanted to make Jesus king. This casts considerable light on their real motives. They were more concerned with material and political expediency than with spiritual truth. This is why Jesus immediately withdrew from them. When the people found him the next day, he proceeded to instruct them about the spiritual bread that comes from heaven (Jn 6:25-40).<\/p>\n<p>At this point in John’s Gospel, Jesus is often seen in dialogue with his opponents. This style of teaching is different from the synoptic parables but familiar in Jewish-style debate. Many of the people found the spiritual themes in the teaching of Jesus too difficult to accept and consequently ceased to be his disciples (Jn 6:51-52, 60, 66). This incident demonstrates the unique challenge presented by Jesus and his teaching. Another miracle closely linked with this is when Jesus walked on the water, demonstrating his power in the natural world. Many have sought to rationalize the event by supposing that Jesus was really walking on the shore, and that the disciples did not realize this in the haze. But this miracle is no more extraordinary than the massive multiplication of loaves and fishes, nor is it inconceivable if the miracle worker was all that he claimed to be.<\/p>\n<h5>Leaving Northern Galilee<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus spent a brief time in the region of Tyre and Sidon, where he performed further healings and made it clear that his main mission was to the house of Israel (Mt 15:21-28). He then moved on to Caesarea Philippi; this was the turning point of his ministry (Mt 16:13-20; Mk 8:27-38; Lk 9:18-27). It was there that Jesus asked his disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” This caused Peter to confess: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This impressive confession led Jesus to promise that he would build his church on “this rock.” There has been much discussion about the meaning of this saying. It is open to some doubt whether Jesus intended to build his church on Peter, on his confession, or on Peter making the confession. Historically, Peter was the instrument God used for the entrance into the church of both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 2, 10). There is no doubt about Jesus’ intention to found a church, since the word occurs again in Matthew 18:17. Despite the glorious revelation of Jesus on this occasion, he took it as an opportunity to begin to inform his disciples of his death and resurrection (Mt 16:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>This revelation of Jesus was considerably reinforced by the event known as the Transfiguration, when Jesus was transformed in the presence of three of his disciples (Mt 17:1-8). It was natural for them to want to keep this glorious vision of Jesus for themselves, but the vision vanished as rapidly as it came. Its purpose was evidently to show the three leading disciples something of the nature of Jesus, which was obscured by his normal human form. A further feature of the vision was the appearance with Jesus of Moses and Elijah, representatives of the Law and the Prophets.<\/p>\n<p>After the Transfiguration, Jesus made two predictions concerning his approaching death. These announcements were a total perplexity to the disciples. In Matthew 16, when Jesus mentioned his death, Peter attempted to rebuke Jesus and was rebuked by Jesus in kind. When Jesus mentioned his death again in chapter 17, Matthew noted that the disciples were greatly distressed (Mt 17:23), while Mark and Luke mentioned the disciples’ lack of understanding (Mk 9:32; Lk 9:45). Jesus was approaching the cross with no support from those closest to him. It is not surprising that when the hour arrived they all forsook him.<\/p>\n<p>After the Transfiguration revealed that Jesus was greater than Moses and Elijah and in fact was the beloved Son of God, he was asked to pay the temple tax (Mt 17:24-27). This incident illustrates the attitude of Jesus toward the authorities and practical responsibilities. He paid the tax, although he did not acknowledge any obligation to do so. The method of payment was extraordinary, for it involved the miracle of the coin in the fish. But the greater importance of the incident is the light it throws on Jesus’ independence from the Jewish law.<\/p>\n<p>Luke devotes more than half his Gospel to the period that begins with Jesus leaving Galilee and ends with his death and resurrection in Jerusalem. In this section of his Gospel, Luke introduces a great deal of material that does not occur elsewhere. We can do no more than summarize some of the more striking items that throw light on the life of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the mission of the Twelve, Luke records the mission of the Seventy (or Seventy-two—see Lk 10:17-20). Special parables are recorded by Luke in this section—the Good Samaritan (vv 29-37), the lost sheep (15:3-7), the lost coin (vv 8-10), and the prodigal son (vv 11-32). As Jesus moved toward Jerusalem, he was concerned with developing the spiritual life of his disciples. He was mindful of the fact that he would not be with them long and wished to prepare them for the future. He taught them about prayer (11:1-13), the Father’s care for them (12:13-34), and preparation for the coming of the Son of Man (vv 35-56).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OntheWaytoJerusalem\">On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>On the approach to Jerusalem, Jesus visited both Jericho and Bethany. At Jericho he healed Bartimaeus (Lk 18:35-43) and had a fruitful encounter with Zacchaeus, who reformed his ways as a tax collector (19:1-10). Bethany was the home of Mary, Martha, and their brother, Lazarus, whom Jesus had raised from the dead (Jn 11). Jesus spent his remaining days in Jerusalem but returned each night to stay at Simon the Leper’s house in Bethany in the presence of those who loved him (Mt 26:6). It was there that a woman anointed his body with costly ointment. This was a controversial and prophetic act preparing Jesus for his burial and enhancing the gospel with loving consecration (vv 6-13).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFinalDaysinJerusalem\">The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>All four Gospels relate the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem (Mt 21:1-11; Mk 11:1-10; Lk 19:29-38; Jn 12:12-15). At this time multitudes greeted Jesus with praises acclaiming him as their king. This welcome stands in stark contrast with the crowd’s later cry for his crucifixion. In fact, it was the second crowd that was doing God’s bidding, since Jesus had not come to Jerusalem to reign but to die.<\/p>\n<p>The synoptic Gospels place the cleansing of the temple as the first main event following Jesus’ entry into the city (Mt 21:12-13; Mk 11:15-17; Lk 19:45-46). The clouds of opposition had been thickening, but the audacity of Jesus in clearing out the money changers from the temple area was too much for the authorities (Mk 11:18; Lk 19:47). The die was cast and the Crucifixion loomed closer.<\/p>\n<p>It was during this period that further controversies developed between Jesus and the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 21:23–22:45). In several cases trick questions were posed in order to trap Jesus, but with consummate skill he turned their questions against them. His opposers eventually reached the point where they dared not ask him any more questions (22:46).<\/p>\n<p>Nearing his final hour, Jesus took the opportunity to instruct his disciples about future events, especially the end of the world. He reiterated the certainty of his return and mentioned various signs that would precede that coming (Mt 24–25; Mk 13; Lk 21). The purpose of this teaching was to provide a challenge to the disciples to be watchful (Mt 25:13) and diligent (vv 14-30). This section prepares the way for the events of the arrest, the trial, the scourging, and the cross carrying and crucifixion that followed soon after. But first we must note the importance of the Last Supper.<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus sat at the table with his disciples on the night before he died, he wished to give them a simple means by which the significance of his death could be grasped (Mt 26:26-30; Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-26). The use of the bread and wine for this purpose was a happy choice because they were basic elements in everyday life. Through this symbolic significance Jesus gave an interpretation of his approaching death—his body broken and his blood poured out for others. It was necessary for Jesus to provide this reminder that his sacrificial death would seal a completely new covenant. It was to be an authentic memorial to prevent the church from losing sight of the centrality of the cross.<\/p>\n<p>John’s Gospel does not relate the institution of the Last Supper. Nevertheless, it does record a significant act in which Jesus washed the feet of the disciples as an example of humility (Jn 13:1-20). He impressed on the disciples the principle of service to others. John follows this display of humility with a series of teachings Jesus gave on the eve of the Passion (chs 14–16). The most important feature of this teaching was the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit to the disciples after Jesus had gone. Even with his mind occupied by thoughts of approaching death, Jesus showed himself more concerned about his disciples than about himself. This is evident in the prayer of Jesus in John 17. All the Evangelists refer in advance to the betrayal by Judas (Mt 26:21-25; Mk 14:18-21; Lk 22:21-23; Jn 13:21-30), which prepares readers for the final stages of the way of Jesus to the cross.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBetrayalandArrest\">The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n<p>There is a sense in which the whole gospel story has been working up to a climax of rejection. The various outbursts of popular support were soon over and the determined opposition emerged as seemingly in control. In John’s Gospel the sense of approaching climax is expressed in terms of “his hour” (Jn 13:1). When this at length comes, the betrayal and arrest are seen as part of a larger plan. From the upper room where the Last Supper was eaten, Jesus went straight to the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:36-46; Mk 14:32-42; Lk 22:40-46), where he prayed to his Father with deep intensity and agony. In this we see part of what it cost Jesus to identify himself with man’s need. He prayed for the cup of suffering to pass from him but at the same time submitted to the Father’s will. The three disciples he took with him all fell asleep, while one of his other disciples, having betrayed his master, appeared at the gates at the head of the group who had come to arrest him. At the moment of confrontation with Judas, Jesus exhibits an amazing dignity when he addressed the betrayer as his “friend” (Mt 26:50). He offered no resistance when he was arrested and chided the crowd of people for their swords and clubs (v 55).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTrial\">The Trial<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was first taken to the house of Annas, one of the high priests, for a preliminary examination (Jn 18:13). During his trial, he was scorned by his enemies, and one of his disciples, Peter, denied him three times (Mt 26:69-75; Mk 14:66-72; Lk 22:54-62; Jn 18:15-27), as Jesus predicted he would (Mt 26:34; Mk 14:30; Jn 13:38). The official trial before the Sanhedrin was presided over by Caiaphas, who was nonplussed when Jesus at first refused to speak. At length Jesus predicted that the Son of Man would come on the clouds of heaven; this was enough to make the high priest charge him with blasphemy (Mk 14:62-64). Although he was spat upon and his face was struck, Jesus remained calm and dignified. He showed how much greater he was than those who were treating him with contempt.<\/p>\n<p>The further examinations before Pilate (Mt 27:1-2; Mk 15:1; Lk 23:1; Jn 18:28) and Herod (Lk 23:7-12) were no better examples of impartial justice. Again Jesus did not answer when asked about the charges before either Pilate (Mt 27:14) or Herod (Lk 23:9). He remained majestically silent, except to make a comment to Pilate about the true nature of his kingship (Jn 18:33-38). The pathetic governor declared Jesus innocent, offered the crowds the release of either Jesus or Barabbas, and then publicly disclaimed responsibility by washing his hands. Pilate then cruelly scourged Jesus and handed him over to be crucified. This judge has ever since been judged by the prisoner.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCrucifixion\">The Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>The reader of this scene cannot help but see man’s inhumanity to man—even the man of all men, Jesus Christ. The soldiers’ ribald mockery of Jesus (Mt 27:27-30), mixing a royal robe with a hurtful crown of thorns (Mk 15:17), compelling a passerby to carry the cross (Lk 23:26), the cruel procedure of nailing Jesus to the cross, the callous casting of lots for his garment (Jn 19:23-24), and the scornful challenge to him to use his power to escape (Mt 27:40-44)—all expose the cruelty of Jesus opponents. But against this is Jesus’ concern about the repentant criminal who was crucified with him (Lk 23:39-43), his concern for his mother (Jn 19:25-27), his prayer for forgiveness for those responsible for the Crucifixion (Lk 23:34), and his final triumphant cry (Mk 15:37)—all of which show a nobility of mind that contrasted strongly with the meanness of those about him. A few observers showed a better appreciation, like the centurion who was convinced of Jesus’ innocence (Mk 15:39) and the women who followed him and stood at a distance (Mt 27:55-56). There was one dark moment, as far as Jesus was concerned—his forsaken cry, which quickly passed (Mk 15:34). There was an accompanying darkness and an earthquake, as if nature itself were acknowledging the significance of the event. Even the temple veil was torn in two, as if it had no longer any right to bar the way into the Holy of Holies (Mt 27:51).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBurialResurrectionandAscension\">The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ body was placed in a tomb that belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, who was assisted by Nicodemus in laying the body to rest (Mt 27:57-60; Jn 19:39). But the tomb played only an incidental part in the resurrection. The Evangelists concentrate on the appearances of Jesus not only on the day of resurrection but also subsequently. The disciples were convinced that Jesus was alive. Some, like Thomas, had doubts to overcome (Jn 20:24-29). Others, like John, were more ready to believe when they saw the empty tomb (vv 2-10). It is not without significance that the first to see the risen Lord was a woman, Mary Magdalene (Mt 27:61; 28:1, 5-9), whose presence at the cross put to shame those disciples who had run away (Mt 26:56; Jn 19:25).<\/p>\n<p>We may note that in his glorified, risen state Jesus was in a human form, although he was not at once recognized (Jn 20:15-16). There was a definite continuity with the Jesus the disciples had known. The appearances were occasions of both joy and instruction (cf. Lk 24:44 and Acts 1:3). The resurrection, in fact, had transformed the Crucifixion from a tragedy into a triumph. Forty days after his resurrection, Jesus ascended into heaven to join his Father in glory (Lk 24:51; Jn 20:17; Acts 1:9-11).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\n<p>Messiah, Savior, and founder of the Christian church.<\/p>\n<p>In providing a biography of Jesus Christ it must be borne in mind that each of the Gospels has its own distinctive purpose. Matthew, for instance, presents Jesus as the messianic King, whereas the emphasis in Mark is more on Jesus as the servant of all. Luke tends to present Jesus in a softer light, showing particularly his amazing compassion to the less fortunate, whereas John plunges the reader into a deeper and more spiritual understanding of Jesus. These different aims caused the four Evangelists to select and arrange the events of Jesus’ life differently, resulting in a fourfold portrait of the same man. It was undoubtedly for this reason that the Christian church preserved four Gospels instead of only one.<\/p>\n<p>The following sections present the main events in what may be regarded as the chief stages of the life of Jesus. These stages show a definite progression from Christ’s incarnation to his cross. The amount of space devoted to each stage in each of the Gospels is dictated by theological rather than biographical interest. The whole presentation of Christ’s life centers on the cross and the subsequent triumphant resurrection and is more an account of God’s message to humanity than a plain historic account of the life of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Incarnation<\/p>\n<p>• The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>• Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n<p>• Preparatory Events<\/p>\n<p>• The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n<p>• The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n<p>• On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n<p>• The Trial<\/p>\n<p>• The Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>• The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheIncarnation\">The Incarnation<\/p>\n<p>The major event of this initial stage was the Incarnation. Only Matthew and Luke give accounts of Jesus’ birth. John goes back and reflects on what preceded the birth.<\/p>\n<p>It may seem strange that John began his Gospel with a reference to the Word (Jn 1:1), but it is in this way that he delivers to the reader an exalted view of Jesus. John saw Jesus as existing even before the creation of the world (v 2). In fact, he saw him as having a part in the act of creation (v 3). Therefore, when Jesus was born, it was both an act of humiliation and an act of illumination. The light shone, but the world preferred to remain in darkness (vv 4-5, 10). Therefore, anyone coming to John’s records of the life of Jesus would know at once, before even being introduced to the man named Jesus, that here was the record of no ordinary man. The account of his life and teachings that followed could not be properly understood except against this background of his preexistence.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBirthofJesus\">The Birth of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>John simply wrote that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Matthew and Luke fill in some of the details of how this happened. There is little in common between the two accounts. Each approaches the subject from a different point of view, but the supernatural is evident in both. The coming of Jesus is announced beforehand, through dreams to Joseph in Matthew’s account (Mt 1:20-21) and through an angel to Mary in Luke’s account (Lk 1:26-33). Matthew leaves his readers in no doubt that the one to be born had a mission to accomplish—to save people from their sins (Mt 1:21). Luke sets his story of Jesus’ coming in an atmosphere of great rejoicing. This is seen in the inclusion of some exquisite songs, which have formed part of the church’s worship ever since (Lk 1:46-55, 68-79). The homage of the wise men in Matthew 2:1-12 is significant because it sets the scene for a universalistic emphasis that links the beginning of the Gospel to its ending (cf. Mt 28:19-20). A similar emphasis is introduced in the angel’s announcement to the shepherds in Luke 2:14 and in Simeon’s song (Lk 2:32), where he predicts that Jesus would be a light for Gentiles as well as a glory for Israel. The flight into Egypt for safety (Mt 2:13-15) shows the contribution of a gentile nation in providing protection for a Jewish child.<\/p>\n<p>One feature of the birth stories in Matthew and Luke is that they are both linked to genealogies. It is difficult to harmonize these genealogies since they appear to be drawn from different sources, but the purpose in both cases is to show that Jesus was descended from Abraham and David. The latter fact gave rise to Jesus’ title Son of David.<\/p>\n<p>Luke was the only Gospel writer who attempted to link the coming of Jesus with events in secular history. Although problems arise over the dating of the census of Quirinius (Lk 2:1-2), the firm setting of the contemporary scene is highly significant because the Christian faith is a historic faith centered on a historic person.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LifeinNazareth\">Life in Nazareth<\/p>\n<p>The years of Jesus Christ’s human development are given only a few lines in the Gospels. Details are given of only one incident belonging to the period of childhood, the discussion of the 12-year-old Jesus with the Jewish teachers in the temple (Lk 2:41-50). This event is a pointer to one of the most characteristic features of Jesus’ later ministry: his display of irrefutable wisdom in dialogue with his Jewish contemporaries. It also reveals that at an early age Jesus was acutely aware of a divine mission. Nevertheless, Luke notes that in Jesus’ formative years he was obedient to his parents (v 51). It is assumed that during 30 years at Nazareth Jesus learned the carpenter’s trade from Joseph and became the village carpenter after Joseph’s death. However, there is no account of this period in the Gospels. This has led to many fantastic imaginings about Jesus’ childhood. Many of these fables are recorded in apocryphal gospels, but Luke’s account is unembellished. Its remarkable reserve is a strong indication of its historical reliability.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PreparatoryEvents\">Preparatory Events<\/p>\n<p>All four Gospels refer to a brief preparatory period that immediately preceded the commencement of Christ’s public ministry. This period focused on three important events.<\/p>\n<h5>The Preaching of John the Baptist<\/h5>\n<p>John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness and caused an immediate stir in Judea, particularly as a result of his call to repentance and to baptism (Mt 3:1-6). John was like one of the OT prophets, but he disclaimed any importance in his own office except as the herald of a greater person to come. His stern appearance and uncompromising moral challenge effectively prepared the way for the public appearance of Jesus (Lk 3:4-6). It is important to note that John the Baptist’s announcement of the imminent coming of the kingdom (Mt 3:2) was the same theme with which Jesus began his own ministry (4:17). This shows that John the Baptist’s work was an integral part of the preparation for the public ministry of Jesus. The same may be said of the rite of baptism, although John recognized that Jesus would add a new dimension in that he would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (3:11). As the forerunner of Jesus Christ, John proclaimed that the one to follow would not only be greater than he but would also come with high standards of judgment (v 12). The stage was therefore set in stern terms for the initial public act of Jesus—his willingness to be baptized (Mt 3:13-15; Lk 3:21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Baptism of Jesus<\/h5>\n<p>John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. Since Jesus submitted to this, are we to suppose that Jesus himself needed to repent? If this were the case, it would involve the assumption that Jesus had sinned. This is contrary to other evidence in the NT. But if Jesus did not need to repent, what was the point of his requesting baptism at the hands of John? Jesus had come on a mission to others, and it is possible that he deliberately submitted to John’s baptism in order to show that he was prepared to take the place of others. This explanation is in line with Paul’s later understanding of the work of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 5:21). Matthew is the one Evangelist who records John’s hesitation to baptize Jesus (Mt 3:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>The most important part of the baptism of Jesus was the heavenly voice, which declared pleasure in the beloved Son (Mt 3:17). This announcement by God was the real starting point of the public ministry of Jesus. It revealed that the ministry was no accident or sudden inspiration on the part of Jesus. He went into his work with the full approval of the Father. A further important feature is the part played by the Holy Spirit in this scene. The dovelike description is full of symbolic meaning (v 16). It was not just an inner experience that Jesus had. The activity of the Spirit in the ministry of Jesus, although not much emphasized in the Gospels, is nevertheless sufficiently evident to be indispensable to a true understanding of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temptation of Jesus<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus’ baptism showed the nature of his mission. The temptation showed the nature of the environment in which he was to minister (Mt 4:1; Lk 4:1-2). Confrontation with adverse spiritual forces characterized Jesus’ whole ministry. Only Matthew and Luke record details of the temptations to which Jesus was subjected by the devil. All these temptations present shortcuts that, if pursued, would have deflected Jesus from his vocation. The record leaves us in no doubt that Jesus gained the victory. Both Gospels show that he accomplished this by appealing to Scripture. Jesus is also seen in this event as a genuine human who, like all other humans, was subject to temptation. The writer of the Letter to the Hebrews notes that this fact qualified Jesus to act as High Priest and to intercede on behalf of his people (Heb 2:18; 4:15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheEarlyMinistryofJesusinJudeaandSamaria\">The Early Ministry of Jesus in Judea and Samaria<\/p>\n<p>Only John’s Gospel tells of the work of Jesus in Judea following his baptism. It first describes his calling of two disciples, John and Andrew (Jn 1:35-39). This event is set against the background of John the Baptist’s announcement of Jesus as the Lamb of God who was to take away the sin of the world (v 29). These first two disciples were soon joined by three others: Peter, Philip, and Nathanael (vv 41-51). These five formed part of the nucleus of Jesus’ followers who came to be known as the Twelve. One feature of John’s account is the early recognition by the disciples of Jesus as Messiah (Jn 1:41) and Son of God (v 49).<\/p>\n<p>Soon after Jesus began his ministry in Jerusalem, John relates an incident at Cana in Galilee in which water was turned into wine (Jn 2:1-10). This event is important in John’s account because it is the first of the signs that he records (v 11). He saw Jesus’ miracles as “signs” of the truth of the gospel rather than as mere wonders.<\/p>\n<p>John sets two incidents at Jerusalem in this initial period. The first is the cleansing of the temple (Jn 2:13-16). Matthew, Mark, and Luke all place this event just before Jesus’ trial, but John places it at this early stage. The moral intention of Jesus’ work is seen in his driving out the money changers who were profiting from worshipers more than was appropriate. This was apparently acceptable to Judaism but was unacceptable to Jesus. The other Evangelists imply that this authoritative act was the event that sparked the final hostility of his opponents. John tells the story for a theological reason; to him, the cleansing of the temple was a parable telling of what Jesus had come to do.<\/p>\n<p>The other incident in Jerusalem is the meeting between Jesus and Nicodemus (Jn 3). Nicodemus was closely associated with Judaism, yet he was also searching for truth. He was unable to understand, however, the spiritual truth about being born again through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>John’s story then moves from Judea to Samaria and the story of the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn 4:1-42). Jesus used her physical thirst to point to her deeper spiritual thirst. She realized that Jesus had something to offer her that she had not previously known. As a result of this woman’s experience and testimony, many of the Samaritan people came to believe in Jesus as the Savior of the world (v 42). In this case John intends that his readers would appreciate the fuller significance of the words of Jesus by viewing them in the light of the resurrection.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePeriodoftheGalileanMinistry\">The Period of the Galilean Ministry<\/p>\n\n<p>Almost all the information on this period is found in the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke.) It may be conveniently divided into three sections. The first briefly outlines the events leading up to the choosing of the Twelve; the second deals with Jesus’ withdrawal from northern Galilee; and the third deals with his departure for Jerusalem. While the synoptic Gospels concentrate exclusively on the events in Galilee, John’s account indicates that there were some visits by Jesus to Jerusalem during this period. Also, John records another incident at Cana, where the son of a Capernaum official was healed. This is noted as the second of Jesus’ signs (Jn 4:54). It is chiefly important because of the extraordinary faith of the father, who was prepared to take Jesus at his word.<\/p>\n<h5>The Calling of the Disciples<\/h5>\n<p>In the synoptic Gospels there is an account of the initial call to four of the disciples to leave their fishing boats and to become fishers of men (Mt 4:18-22; Mk 1:16-20; Lk 5:1-11). They had already met Jesus and must have had some idea what was involved in following him. Jesus did not at this time appoint them to be apostles, but this call was an indispensable step toward the establishment of the Twelve as a group. Setting apart a particular number of disciples formed an important part of the ministry of Jesus. The miraculous catch of fish, which preceded the call of the disciples in Luke’s account, served to highlight the superiority of the spiritual task of catching people rather than fish.<\/p>\n<p>Another significant call came to Levi, otherwise known as Matthew (Mt 9:9; Mk 2:13-14; Lk 5:27-28). As a tax collector, he was of a different type from most of the other disciples. He would certainly have been despised by his Jewish contemporaries because of his profession. But his inclusion in the special circle of Jesus’ disciples shows the broad basis on which these men were chosen. One of the others, Simon the Zealot, may have belonged to a group of revolutionaries who were religious as well as political. Even a man like Judas Iscariot was numbered among the Twelve, and he would later betray Jesus to his enemies for a small sum of money. Jesus accepted them as they were and molded them into men who later came to learn how to be totally dependent on God and the power of his Spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>Sermon on the Mount<\/h5>\n<p>The Gospel of Matthew presents a substantial sample of Jesus’ teachings commonly called the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:1–7:29). Some of the same material occurs in Luke in a different context and different arrangement. It is possible that Jesus often repeated his teachings on different occasions and with different combinations. Matthew’s record of the Sermon on the Mount presents an impressive body of teaching, mainly of an ethical character. In it Jesus upholds the Mosaic law and at the same time goes beyond it. The beginning of this sermon has been called the Beatitudes (5:3-12). It commends moral and spiritual values. The teachings recorded in this section were radical, but not in a political sense. The Sermon on the Mount may be taken as a fair sample of the kind of discourses that must have abounded in the ministry of Jesus.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus as Healer<\/h5>\n<p>Throughout the Gospels there are records of miracles involving Jesus healing people. There are more of these miracles than any other type. In a section in Matthew devoted to a sequence of healings (Mt 8:1–9:34), a leper, a centurion’s servant, Peter’s mother-in-law, a demoniac, a paralytic, a woman with a hemorrhage, blind men, and a man who was mute—all were healed. In addition, Jairus’s daughter was raised from the dead. This concentration of healings focuses on Jesus as a miracle worker, but throughout the Gospels there is no suggestion that Jesus healed by magical means. In some cases an individual’s faith was acknowledged (8:10; 9:22). In at least one incident, the healing was accompanied by an announcement of the forgiveness of the sins of the one healed (Mt 9:2; Mk 2:5). This shows that Jesus considered spiritual needs to be of greater consequence than the physical problems.<\/p>\n<p>In view of the widespread belief in the powerful influence of evil spirits over human lives, it is of great significance that Jesus is seen exercising his power of exorcism over demons. Jesus’ ministry was set in an atmosphere of spiritual conflict, so the confrontations between the forces of darkness and the Light of the World were to be expected. Those who explain away these cases of demon-possession in psychiatric terms miss this key feature of Jesus’ ministry. Each time he exorcised a demon, he was demonstrating victory, which reached its most dramatic expression in his victory over death at his resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the healing miracles in this early section, one nature miracle is recorded, that of the stilling of the storm (Mt 8:23-27; Mk 4:35-41; Lk 8:22-25). This miracle focused both on the lack of faith in the disciples and the mysterious power of the presence of Jesus.<\/p>\n<h5>The Reaction to Jesus by His Contemporaries<\/h5>\n<p>In the early stages of his ministry, Jesus was very popular with the ordinary people. There are several notices to this effect (Mt 4:23-25; Mk 3:7-8). This popularity showed no appreciation of the spiritual purpose of Jesus’ mission (Lk 13:17). Nevertheless, it stands in stark contrast to the nit-picking opposition of the religious leaders, who even plotted to kill Jesus in the early period of his ministry (Mk 3:6).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus and the religious leaders often clashed over the observance of the Sabbath (Mt 12:1-14; Lk 13:10-17; Jn 5:9-18). Jesus adopted a more liberal view than the rigid and often illogical interpretation of some of his religious contemporaries—as in the instances when he was criticized for healing on the Sabbath even though the Jewish law allowed the rescuing of trapped animals on the Sabbath (Mt 12:11; Lk 13:15). To the Pharisaic mind, Jesus was a lawbreaker. The Pharisees feared that it would undermine their authority if his teaching were permitted to permeate popular opinion.<\/p>\n<h5>Preparing the Twelve<\/h5>\n<p>The synoptic Gospels supply lists of the names of the 12 apostles (Mt 10:2-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16). Both Matthew and Mark name them in the context of their exercising authority over evil spirits, thereby showing that these men were being called to enter the same spiritual conflict as Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The synoptic Gospels also give details of the instructions Jesus gave to these disciples before sending them to minister in Israel (Mt 10:5-42; Mk 6:7-13; Lk 9:1-6). Matthew included material in his discourse that appears in a different context in Mark and Luke, but the discourse still shows the concern of Jesus to prepare his disciples for their future work. They were to proclaim the kingdom as he had done, but they were not to suppose that all would respond to it. They were warned about coming hostility and even persecution. It is important to note that Jesus warned his disciples against encumbering themselves with material possessions. Although the instructions given related immediately to a ministry tour, he was laying the foundation for the future work of the church.<\/p>\n<h5>The Relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist<\/h5>\n<p>For a while there were parallel preaching and parallel baptisms by John the Baptist with his followers and Jesus with his disciples (Jn 4:1-2). After John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod because of his uncompromising condemnation of Herod’s marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife (Mt 14:3-4), John began to have doubts about Jesus (Mt 11:1-19; Lk 7:18-35). He may have been expecting Jesus, if he really was the Messiah, to come to his rescue. When John sent his disciples to Jesus to express his doubts, Jesus took the opportunity to tell the crowds of the greatness of John the Baptist. He said there was none born of women who was greater than John.<\/p>\n<h5>Various Controversies<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus did not hesitate to confront his contemporaries on issues that involved moral or religious questions. The controversy recorded in John’s Gospel concerning the keeping of the Sabbath that arose when a lame man was healed on that day (Jn 5:1-18) shows once again that ritual observance of the Sabbath was regarded as of greater importance than a compassionate concern for the physical welfare of the lame man. This was typical of the Jewish approach and led at once to a persecuting attitude toward Jesus, particularly because he claimed to be doing the work of God.<\/p>\n<p>A similar conflict arose after Jesus’ disciples had plucked grain in the fields on the Sabbath day (Mt 12:1-8). The Pharisees assumed that this act constituted work and saw it as a sufficient reason to plot how to destroy Jesus. After this event, he healed a paralytic on the same Sabbath day (vv 9-14). The Jewish leaders clearly regarded him as a direct threat to their position among the people.<\/p>\n<p>The rising opposition did not deter Jesus from further healings (Mt 12:15-32), which Matthew depicts as the fulfillment of Scripture. But when Jesus healed a blind and mute demoniac, the Pharisees charged him with casting out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of the demons. Jesus told them that to blaspheme the Holy Spirit was an unforgivable sin. This incident not only brings out the perversity of the religious leaders but also shows that the ministry of Jesus was under the direct control of the Spirit. Other notable miracles were the healing of the centurion’s servant, as recorded by Luke (Lk 7:1-10), and the raising from the dead of the widow’s son at Nain (vv 11-17). The former of these is notable because of the remarkable faith of a Gentile.<\/p>\n<p>Another example of the Pharisees’ criticism was when Jesus attended a meal in Simon the Pharisee’s house (Lk 7:36-50). His host had not provided for the usual courtesies toward guests and yet was critical of Jesus for allowing an immoral woman to wash his feet with tears, dry them with her hair, and anoint them with ointment. There is no doubt that most of Simon’s colleagues would have shared his reaction, but Jesus did not stop the woman because he knew that the motive impelling her to do it was love. He told Simon a parable to press home his point.<\/p>\n<p>John records two visits by Jesus to Jerusalem. These are difficult to date, but they probably occurred during the early period of the ministry. He attended the Feast of Tabernacles (Jn 7:2) and the Feast of Dedication (10:22). At these times Jesus taught in the temple area and entered into dialogue with the religious leaders. The chief priests became alarmed at his presence and sent officers to arrest him (7:32). They were unable to do so; instead, they themselves were captivated by his teachings. More discussions with the Jewish leaders followed. They charged Jesus with being demon-possessed (8:48). Both in this case and in the event of the healing of the blind man (ch 9), the hostility of the Jewish leaders to Jesus surfaces. When Jesus spoke of himself as the Shepherd, his teaching again raised the anger of his Jewish hearers, who took up stones to kill him (10:31).<\/p>\n<h5>Teaching in Parables<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew’s Gospel gives a sample of a continuous discourse by Jesus (Mt 5:1–7:29), but Jesus more often spoke in parables. Matthew collected into a group some of the parables that concern the theme of the kingdom (ch 13). Luke tends to preserve parables of a different kind that are not specially linked to the kingdom. Mark has the least number of parables among the synoptic Gospels, but his writing shows little interest in Jesus as a teacher. John does not relate any parables, although he does preserve two allegories—the Sheepfold and the Vine—which could be regarded as extended parables. The parable was a form of teaching particularly characteristic of Jesus. In addition, Jesus interspersed even his discourses with metaphors akin to the parabolic form. The parable was valuable because it could stimulate thought and challenge the hearer. This is because the form of the parable is easy to retain in the mind. Jesus did not speak in parables in order to obscure his meaning. This would be contrary to all that he aimed to do through his work and teaching.<\/p>\n<h5>Significant Events in Galilee<\/h5>\n<p>In Nazareth there was a striking instance of the unwillingness to respond to the ministry of Jesus. The people of his hometown proved so hostile that he could perform very few miracles there (Mt 13:53-58; Mk 6:1-6). This incident is important because it shows that faith was especially necessary for people to receive his healing miracles.<\/p>\n<p>The one miracle performed by Jesus that all four Evangelists describe is the feeding of the 5,000 (Mt 14:13-21; Mk 6:30-44; Lk 9:10-17; Jn 6:1-15). This occasion shows the great popularity of Jesus at this stage of his ministry. It also reveals that he was not unmindful of the physical needs of people. After this miracle, some wanted to make Jesus king. This casts considerable light on their real motives. They were more concerned with material and political expediency than with spiritual truth. This is why Jesus immediately withdrew from them. When the people found him the next day, he proceeded to instruct them about the spiritual bread that comes from heaven (Jn 6:25-40).<\/p>\n<p>At this point in John’s Gospel, Jesus is often seen in dialogue with his opponents. This style of teaching is different from the synoptic parables but familiar in Jewish-style debate. Many of the people found the spiritual themes in the teaching of Jesus too difficult to accept and consequently ceased to be his disciples (Jn 6:51-52, 60, 66). This incident demonstrates the unique challenge presented by Jesus and his teaching. Another miracle closely linked with this is when Jesus walked on the water, demonstrating his power in the natural world. Many have sought to rationalize the event by supposing that Jesus was really walking on the shore, and that the disciples did not realize this in the haze. But this miracle is no more extraordinary than the massive multiplication of loaves and fishes, nor is it inconceivable if the miracle worker was all that he claimed to be.<\/p>\n<h5>Leaving Northern Galilee<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus spent a brief time in the region of Tyre and Sidon, where he performed further healings and made it clear that his main mission was to the house of Israel (Mt 15:21-28). He then moved on to Caesarea Philippi; this was the turning point of his ministry (Mt 16:13-20; Mk 8:27-38; Lk 9:18-27). It was there that Jesus asked his disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” This caused Peter to confess: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This impressive confession led Jesus to promise that he would build his church on “this rock.” There has been much discussion about the meaning of this saying. It is open to some doubt whether Jesus intended to build his church on Peter, on his confession, or on Peter making the confession. Historically, Peter was the instrument God used for the entrance into the church of both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 2, 10). There is no doubt about Jesus’ intention to found a church, since the word occurs again in Matthew 18:17. Despite the glorious revelation of Jesus on this occasion, he took it as an opportunity to begin to inform his disciples of his death and resurrection (Mt 16:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>This revelation of Jesus was considerably reinforced by the event known as the Transfiguration, when Jesus was transformed in the presence of three of his disciples (Mt 17:1-8). It was natural for them to want to keep this glorious vision of Jesus for themselves, but the vision vanished as rapidly as it came. Its purpose was evidently to show the three leading disciples something of the nature of Jesus, which was obscured by his normal human form. A further feature of the vision was the appearance with Jesus of Moses and Elijah, representatives of the Law and the Prophets.<\/p>\n<p>After the Transfiguration, Jesus made two predictions concerning his approaching death. These announcements were a total perplexity to the disciples. In Matthew 16, when Jesus mentioned his death, Peter attempted to rebuke Jesus and was rebuked by Jesus in kind. When Jesus mentioned his death again in chapter 17, Matthew noted that the disciples were greatly distressed (Mt 17:23), while Mark and Luke mentioned the disciples’ lack of understanding (Mk 9:32; Lk 9:45). Jesus was approaching the cross with no support from those closest to him. It is not surprising that when the hour arrived they all forsook him.<\/p>\n<p>After the Transfiguration revealed that Jesus was greater than Moses and Elijah and in fact was the beloved Son of God, he was asked to pay the temple tax (Mt 17:24-27). This incident illustrates the attitude of Jesus toward the authorities and practical responsibilities. He paid the tax, although he did not acknowledge any obligation to do so. The method of payment was extraordinary, for it involved the miracle of the coin in the fish. But the greater importance of the incident is the light it throws on Jesus’ independence from the Jewish law.<\/p>\n<p>Luke devotes more than half his Gospel to the period that begins with Jesus leaving Galilee and ends with his death and resurrection in Jerusalem. In this section of his Gospel, Luke introduces a great deal of material that does not occur elsewhere. We can do no more than summarize some of the more striking items that throw light on the life of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the mission of the Twelve, Luke records the mission of the Seventy (or Seventy-two—see Lk 10:17-20). Special parables are recorded by Luke in this section—the Good Samaritan (vv 29-37), the lost sheep (15:3-7), the lost coin (vv 8-10), and the prodigal son (vv 11-32). As Jesus moved toward Jerusalem, he was concerned with developing the spiritual life of his disciples. He was mindful of the fact that he would not be with them long and wished to prepare them for the future. He taught them about prayer (11:1-13), the Father’s care for them (12:13-34), and preparation for the coming of the Son of Man (vv 35-56).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OntheWaytoJerusalem\">On the Way to Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>On the approach to Jerusalem, Jesus visited both Jericho and Bethany. At Jericho he healed Bartimaeus (Lk 18:35-43) and had a fruitful encounter with Zacchaeus, who reformed his ways as a tax collector (19:1-10). Bethany was the home of Mary, Martha, and their brother, Lazarus, whom Jesus had raised from the dead (Jn 11). Jesus spent his remaining days in Jerusalem but returned each night to stay at Simon the Leper’s house in Bethany in the presence of those who loved him (Mt 26:6). It was there that a woman anointed his body with costly ointment. This was a controversial and prophetic act preparing Jesus for his burial and enhancing the gospel with loving consecration (vv 6-13).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFinalDaysinJerusalem\">The Final Days in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>All four Gospels relate the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem (Mt 21:1-11; Mk 11:1-10; Lk 19:29-38; Jn 12:12-15). At this time multitudes greeted Jesus with praises acclaiming him as their king. This welcome stands in stark contrast with the crowd’s later cry for his crucifixion. In fact, it was the second crowd that was doing God’s bidding, since Jesus had not come to Jerusalem to reign but to die.<\/p>\n<p>The synoptic Gospels place the cleansing of the temple as the first main event following Jesus’ entry into the city (Mt 21:12-13; Mk 11:15-17; Lk 19:45-46). The clouds of opposition had been thickening, but the audacity of Jesus in clearing out the money changers from the temple area was too much for the authorities (Mk 11:18; Lk 19:47). The die was cast and the Crucifixion loomed closer.<\/p>\n<p>It was during this period that further controversies developed between Jesus and the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 21:23–22:45). In several cases trick questions were posed in order to trap Jesus, but with consummate skill he turned their questions against them. His opposers eventually reached the point where they dared not ask him any more questions (22:46).<\/p>\n<p>Nearing his final hour, Jesus took the opportunity to instruct his disciples about future events, especially the end of the world. He reiterated the certainty of his return and mentioned various signs that would precede that coming (Mt 24–25; Mk 13; Lk 21). The purpose of this teaching was to provide a challenge to the disciples to be watchful (Mt 25:13) and diligent (vv 14-30). This section prepares the way for the events of the arrest, the trial, the scourging, and the cross carrying and crucifixion that followed soon after. But first we must note the importance of the Last Supper.<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus sat at the table with his disciples on the night before he died, he wished to give them a simple means by which the significance of his death could be grasped (Mt 26:26-30; Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-26). The use of the bread and wine for this purpose was a happy choice because they were basic elements in everyday life. Through this symbolic significance Jesus gave an interpretation of his approaching death—his body broken and his blood poured out for others. It was necessary for Jesus to provide this reminder that his sacrificial death would seal a completely new covenant. It was to be an authentic memorial to prevent the church from losing sight of the centrality of the cross.<\/p>\n<p>John’s Gospel does not relate the institution of the Last Supper. Nevertheless, it does record a significant act in which Jesus washed the feet of the disciples as an example of humility (Jn 13:1-20). He impressed on the disciples the principle of service to others. John follows this display of humility with a series of teachings Jesus gave on the eve of the Passion (chs 14–16). The most important feature of this teaching was the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit to the disciples after Jesus had gone. Even with his mind occupied by thoughts of approaching death, Jesus showed himself more concerned about his disciples than about himself. This is evident in the prayer of Jesus in John 17. All the Evangelists refer in advance to the betrayal by Judas (Mt 26:21-25; Mk 14:18-21; Lk 22:21-23; Jn 13:21-30), which prepares readers for the final stages of the way of Jesus to the cross.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBetrayalandArrest\">The Betrayal and Arrest<\/p>\n<p>There is a sense in which the whole gospel story has been working up to a climax of rejection. The various outbursts of popular support were soon over and the determined opposition emerged as seemingly in control. In John’s Gospel the sense of approaching climax is expressed in terms of “his hour” (Jn 13:1). When this at length comes, the betrayal and arrest are seen as part of a larger plan. From the upper room where the Last Supper was eaten, Jesus went straight to the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:36-46; Mk 14:32-42; Lk 22:40-46), where he prayed to his Father with deep intensity and agony. In this we see part of what it cost Jesus to identify himself with man’s need. He prayed for the cup of suffering to pass from him but at the same time submitted to the Father’s will. The three disciples he took with him all fell asleep, while one of his other disciples, having betrayed his master, appeared at the gates at the head of the group who had come to arrest him. At the moment of confrontation with Judas, Jesus exhibits an amazing dignity when he addressed the betrayer as his “friend” (Mt 26:50). He offered no resistance when he was arrested and chided the crowd of people for their swords and clubs (v 55).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTrial\">The Trial<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was first taken to the house of Annas, one of the high priests, for a preliminary examination (Jn 18:13). During his trial, he was scorned by his enemies, and one of his disciples, Peter, denied him three times (Mt 26:69-75; Mk 14:66-72; Lk 22:54-62; Jn 18:15-27), as Jesus predicted he would (Mt 26:34; Mk 14:30; Jn 13:38). The official trial before the Sanhedrin was presided over by Caiaphas, who was nonplussed when Jesus at first refused to speak. At length Jesus predicted that the Son of Man would come on the clouds of heaven; this was enough to make the high priest charge him with blasphemy (Mk 14:62-64). Although he was spat upon and his face was struck, Jesus remained calm and dignified. He showed how much greater he was than those who were treating him with contempt.<\/p>\n<p>The further examinations before Pilate (Mt 27:1-2; Mk 15:1; Lk 23:1; Jn 18:28) and Herod (Lk 23:7-12) were no better examples of impartial justice. Again Jesus did not answer when asked about the charges before either Pilate (Mt 27:14) or Herod (Lk 23:9). He remained majestically silent, except to make a comment to Pilate about the true nature of his kingship (Jn 18:33-38). The pathetic governor declared Jesus innocent, offered the crowds the release of either Jesus or Barabbas, and then publicly disclaimed responsibility by washing his hands. Pilate then cruelly scourged Jesus and handed him over to be crucified. This judge has ever since been judged by the prisoner.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCrucifixion\">The Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>The reader of this scene cannot help but see man’s inhumanity to man—even the man of all men, Jesus Christ. The soldiers’ ribald mockery of Jesus (Mt 27:27-30), mixing a royal robe with a hurtful crown of thorns (Mk 15:17), compelling a passerby to carry the cross (Lk 23:26), the cruel procedure of nailing Jesus to the cross, the callous casting of lots for his garment (Jn 19:23-24), and the scornful challenge to him to use his power to escape (Mt 27:40-44)—all expose the cruelty of Jesus opponents. But against this is Jesus’ concern about the repentant criminal who was crucified with him (Lk 23:39-43), his concern for his mother (Jn 19:25-27), his prayer for forgiveness for those responsible for the Crucifixion (Lk 23:34), and his final triumphant cry (Mk 15:37)—all of which show a nobility of mind that contrasted strongly with the meanness of those about him. A few observers showed a better appreciation, like the centurion who was convinced of Jesus’ innocence (Mk 15:39) and the women who followed him and stood at a distance (Mt 27:55-56). There was one dark moment, as far as Jesus was concerned—his forsaken cry, which quickly passed (Mk 15:34). There was an accompanying darkness and an earthquake, as if nature itself were acknowledging the significance of the event. Even the temple veil was torn in two, as if it had no longer any right to bar the way into the Holy of Holies (Mt 27:51).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBurialResurrectionandAscension\">The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ body was placed in a tomb that belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, who was assisted by Nicodemus in laying the body to rest (Mt 27:57-60; Jn 19:39). But the tomb played only an incidental part in the resurrection. The Evangelists concentrate on the appearances of Jesus not only on the day of resurrection but also subsequently. The disciples were convinced that Jesus was alive. Some, like Thomas, had doubts to overcome (Jn 20:24-29). Others, like John, were more ready to believe when they saw the empty tomb (vv 2-10). It is not without significance that the first to see the risen Lord was a woman, Mary Magdalene (Mt 27:61; 28:1, 5-9), whose presence at the cross put to shame those disciples who had run away (Mt 26:56; Jn 19:25).<\/p>\n<p>We may note that in his glorified, risen state Jesus was in a human form, although he was not at once recognized (Jn 20:15-16). There was a definite continuity with the Jesus the disciples had known. The appearances were occasions of both joy and instruction (cf. Lk 24:44 and Acts 1:3). The resurrection, in fact, had transformed the Crucifixion from a tragedy into a triumph. Forty days after his resurrection, Jesus ascended into heaven to join his Father in glory (Lk 24:51; Jn 20:17; Acts 1:9-11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"JESUS CHRIST Messiah, Savior, and founder of the Christian church. In providing a biography of Jesus Christ it must be borne in mind that each of the Gospels has its own distinctive purpose. Matthew, for instance, presents Jesus as the messianic King, whereas the emphasis in Mark is more on Jesus as the servant of all. Luke tends to present Jesus in a softer light, showing particularly his amazing compassion to the less fortunate, whereas John plunges the reader into a deeper and more spiritu...","summary_en":"JESUS CHRIST Messiah, Savior, and founder of the Christian church. In providing a biography of Jesus Christ it must be borne in mind that each of the Gospels has its own distinctive purpose. Matthew, for instance, presents Jesus as the messianic King, whereas the emphasis in Mark is more on Jesus as the servant of all. Luke tends to present Jesus in a softer light, showing particularly his amazing compassion to the less fortunate, whereas John plunges the reader into a deeper and more spiritu...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":56469,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:32","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:32","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v -10\"><strong>7:32-36<\/strong> Jesus announced his <em>return to the one who sent<\/em> him, the Father in heaven (17:1-7). However, the Pharisees misunderstood, thinking he was leaving Judea to go among Gentiles (whom Pharisees would never visit). • The leaders would <em>not find<\/em> Jesus after his ascension. • <em>you cannot go where I am going:<\/em> These Pharisees, still in darkness, could not enter heaven, so Jesus would be beyond their reach there.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v -10\"><strong>7:32-36<\/strong> Jesus announced his <em>return to the one who sent<\/em> him, the Father in heaven (17:1-7). However, the Pharisees misunderstood, thinking he was leaving Judea to go among Gentiles (whom Pharisees would never visit). • The leaders would <em>not find<\/em> Jesus after his ascension. • <em>you cannot go where I am going:<\/em> These Pharisees, still in darkness, could not enter heaven, so Jesus would be beyond their reach there.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:32-36 Jesus announced his return to the one who sent him, the Father in heaven (17:1-7). However, the Pharisees misunderstood, thinking he was leaving Judea to go among Gentiles (whom Pharisees would never visit). • The leaders would not find Jesus after his ascension. • you cannot go where I am going: These Pharisees, still in darkness, could not enter heaven, so Jesus would be beyond their reach there.","summary_en":"7:32-36 Jesus announced his return to the one who sent him, the Father in heaven (17:1-7). However, the Pharisees misunderstood, thinking he was leaving Judea to go among Gentiles (whom Pharisees would never visit). • The leaders would not find Jesus after his ascension. • you cannot go where I am going: These Pharisees, still in darkness, could not enter heaven, so Jesus would be beyond their reach there.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":84095,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:32","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:32","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v -10\"><strong>7:32-36<\/strong> Jesus announced his <em>return to the one who sent<\/em> him, the Father in heaven (17:1-7). However, the Pharisees misunderstood, thinking he was leaving Judea to go among Gentiles (whom Pharisees would never visit). • The leaders would <em>not find<\/em> Jesus after his ascension. • <em>you cannot go where I am going:<\/em> These Pharisees, still in darkness, could not enter heaven, so Jesus would be beyond their reach there.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v -10\"><strong>7:32-36<\/strong> Jesus announced his <em>return to the one who sent<\/em> him, the Father in heaven (17:1-7). However, the Pharisees misunderstood, thinking he was leaving Judea to go among Gentiles (whom Pharisees would never visit). • The leaders would <em>not find<\/em> Jesus after his ascension. • <em>you cannot go where I am going:<\/em> These Pharisees, still in darkness, could not enter heaven, so Jesus would be beyond their reach there.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:32-36 Jesus announced his return to the one who sent him, the Father in heaven (17:1-7). However, the Pharisees misunderstood, thinking he was leaving Judea to go among Gentiles (whom Pharisees would never visit). • The leaders would not find Jesus after his ascension. • you cannot go where I am going: These Pharisees, still in darkness, could not enter heaven, so Jesus would be beyond their reach there.","summary_en":"7:32-36 Jesus announced his return to the one who sent him, the Father in heaven (17:1-7). However, the Pharisees misunderstood, thinking he was leaving Judea to go among Gentiles (whom Pharisees would never visit). • The leaders would not find Jesus after his ascension. • you cannot go where I am going: These Pharisees, still in darkness, could not enter heaven, so Jesus would be beyond their reach there.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":111721,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:32","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:32","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v -10\"><strong>7:32-36<\/strong> Jesus announced his <em>return to the one who sent<\/em> him, the Father in heaven (17:1-7). However, the Pharisees misunderstood, thinking he was leaving Judea to go among Gentiles (whom Pharisees would never visit). • The leaders would <em>not find<\/em> Jesus after his ascension. • <em>you cannot go where I am going:<\/em> These Pharisees, still in darkness, could not enter heaven, so Jesus would be beyond their reach there.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v -10\"><strong>7:32-36<\/strong> Jesus announced his <em>return to the one who sent<\/em> him, the Father in heaven (17:1-7). However, the Pharisees misunderstood, thinking he was leaving Judea to go among Gentiles (whom Pharisees would never visit). • The leaders would <em>not find<\/em> Jesus after his ascension. • <em>you cannot go where I am going:<\/em> These Pharisees, still in darkness, could not enter heaven, so Jesus would be beyond their reach there.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:32-36 Jesus announced his return to the one who sent him, the Father in heaven (17:1-7). However, the Pharisees misunderstood, thinking he was leaving Judea to go among Gentiles (whom Pharisees would never visit). • The leaders would not find Jesus after his ascension. • you cannot go where I am going: These Pharisees, still in darkness, could not enter heaven, so Jesus would be beyond their reach there.","summary_en":"7:32-36 Jesus announced his return to the one who sent him, the Father in heaven (17:1-7). However, the Pharisees misunderstood, thinking he was leaving Judea to go among Gentiles (whom Pharisees would never visit). • The leaders would not find Jesus after his ascension. • you cannot go where I am going: These Pharisees, still in darkness, could not enter heaven, so Jesus would be beyond their reach there.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":139347,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:32","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:32","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v -10\"><strong>7:32-36<\/strong> Jesus announced his <em>return to the one who sent<\/em> him, the Father in heaven (17:1-7). However, the Pharisees misunderstood, thinking he was leaving Judea to go among Gentiles (whom Pharisees would never visit). • The leaders would <em>not find<\/em> Jesus after his ascension. • <em>you cannot go where I am going:<\/em> These Pharisees, still in darkness, could not enter heaven, so Jesus would be beyond their reach there.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v -10\"><strong>7:32-36<\/strong> Jesus announced his <em>return to the one who sent<\/em> him, the Father in heaven (17:1-7). However, the Pharisees misunderstood, thinking he was leaving Judea to go among Gentiles (whom Pharisees would never visit). • The leaders would <em>not find<\/em> Jesus after his ascension. • <em>you cannot go where I am going:<\/em> These Pharisees, still in darkness, could not enter heaven, so Jesus would be beyond their reach there.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:32-36 Jesus announced his return to the one who sent him, the Father in heaven (17:1-7). However, the Pharisees misunderstood, thinking he was leaving Judea to go among Gentiles (whom Pharisees would never visit). • The leaders would not find Jesus after his ascension. • you cannot go where I am going: These Pharisees, still in darkness, could not enter heaven, so Jesus would be beyond their reach there.","summary_en":"7:32-36 Jesus announced his return to the one who sent him, the Father in heaven (17:1-7). However, the Pharisees misunderstood, thinking he was leaving Judea to go among Gentiles (whom Pharisees would never visit). • The leaders would not find Jesus after his ascension. • you cannot go where I am going: These Pharisees, still in darkness, could not enter heaven, so Jesus would be beyond their reach there.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65921,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","title_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","summary_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","summary_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93547,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","title_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","summary_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","summary_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":121173,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","title_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","summary_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","summary_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148799,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","title_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","summary_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","summary_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"35":[{"id":42461,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Jewish Leaders","title_en":"Jewish Leaders","content_ro":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","summary_ro":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","summary_en":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70087,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Jewish Leaders","title_en":"Jewish Leaders","content_ro":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","summary_ro":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","summary_en":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97713,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Jewish Leaders","title_en":"Jewish Leaders","content_ro":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","summary_ro":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","summary_en":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125339,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Jewish Leaders","title_en":"Jewish Leaders","content_ro":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Jewish Leaders<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him.<\/p>\n<p>When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Acts 14:19; 1 Thes 2:14; cp. Gal 1:13-14). The Greek term translated “Jewish leaders” could be literally translated as “Jews.” But the word took on this technical meaning to refer to the Temple leadership who confronted Jesus, judged him, and orchestrated his crucifixion (see John 1:19; 2:18; 5:9-18; 9:18-22). This is important because the New Testament—particularly John’s Gospel—has often been seen as anti-Semitic. But the truth is that Jesus, who was himself a Jew, did not wrestle with “Jews” in general. His antagonists were the “Jewish leaders”—the brokers of religious power in first-century Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 1:19-24; 2:18-20; 5:9-18; 7:1, 10-13, 35-36; 9:13-34; 11:45-54; 12:41-43; 18:28-36; 19:6-8, 12-16, 31, 38; 20:19; Acts 6:10-12; 7:54-58; 12:11; 21:11; 25:1-3, 7; 26:1-11; 28:17-24; 2 Corinthians 11:24<\/p>","summary_ro":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","summary_en":"Jewish Leaders Jesus experienced numerous conflicts with Jewish leaders throughout his public ministry. These opponents viewed themselves as defending the Temple and its sacrifices or the synagogue and its teachings. In Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, these debates intensified (see Matt 23) and contributed to the case against him. When John wrote his Gospel, Christians were being persecuted by local Jewish synagogues, and the language of those conflicts spilled over into John’s Gospel (see Ac...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65907,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","title_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","summary_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","summary_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93533,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","title_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","summary_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","summary_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":121159,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","title_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","summary_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","summary_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148785,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","title_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","summary_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","summary_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"37":[{"id":5992,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ancient and Modern Calendars","title_en":"Ancient and Modern Calendars","content_ro":"<h3>CALENDARS, Ancient and Modern<\/h3>\n<p>Systematic arrangements showing the beginning and length of each year and its division into days, weeks, and months. The modern calendar is usually taken for granted. But without a calendar it would be extremely difficult to establish a uniform chronology (that is, a system for arranging events in the time sequence in which they actually happened). Also, accurate prediction of the coming and going of seasons would be impossible.<\/p>\n<p>Before the calendar took on its modern format, it had to progress through a number of developmental stages.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Days and Their Divisions<\/p>\n<p>• Astronomy and the Calendar<\/p>\n<p>• Jewish Calendar<\/p>\n<p>• Jewish Festivals<\/p>\n<p>• Conclusion<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DaysandTheirDivisions\">Days and Their Divisions<\/p>\n<p>The earliest attempt to mark off time was probably the simple counting of days, followed by the subdivision of each day into what eventually became 24 equal parts called hours. Since the Sumerians seem to have originated the measurement of time by minutes, hours, and days, they obviously also knew the narrower meaning of “day,” which for them designated a 12-hour period.<\/p>\n<p>Measurement of time in the days of King Ahaz is illustrated by reference to a sundial (2 Kgs 20:9; Is 38:8). The precise measurement of hours, however, must have been a relatively late practice. Early Europeans, like the ancient Egyptians, placed the beginning of the day at midnight, further dividing the period into two 12-hour segments. In the second century <span>BC<\/span> the Egyptian astronomer Ptolemy and his disciples devised an astronomically convenient method of calculating each day from high noon, when the sun reached its apex in the heavens. The Roman day began at sunrise, with the second part of the day commencing at sunset.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AstronomyandtheCalendar\">Astronomy and the Calendar<\/p>\n<p>Ancient peoples constructed their calendars on the basis of their observations of “cycles” of the sun and moon. The solar year is the period of time in which the earth accomplishes a complete revolution in its orbit around the sun.<\/p>\n<p>The life of ancient peoples was closely tied to the changes in temperature and in the relative length of days and nights characteristic of the four seasons. Seasonal changes result from the fact that while the earth is orbiting the sun, it is also rotating on its own axis, tipped at an angle to the plane of its path around the sun. The longest day of the year in the northern hemisphere is called the summer solstice (about June 21 on the modern calendar). At the winter solstice (December 21 or 22) the noonday sun appears lowest (farthest south) and the days are shortest. (In the southern hemisphere summer and winter are reversed by the effect of the earth’s tilt.) Halfway between, at the vernal (spring) equinox about March 21, and the autumnal (fall) equinox about September 23, the sun is directly over the equator and there are as many hours of daylight as of darkness. The term “equinox” is from the Latin words for “equal night.” A solar year could be measured by ancient peoples as the period between two similar solstices or equinoxes.<\/p>\n<p>The solar calendar marks off days by observing the period between consecutive returns of the sun to a similar position above the earth, such as its rising, setting, or highest point at midday. A “day” thus represents one complete rotation of the earth on its own axis, now divided into 24 hours. Since that rotation is not directly related to the earth’s annual orbit around the sun, calendar problems arise because the true solar year does not equal a certain whole number of days but 365 days plus a fraction of a day.<\/p>\n<p>The most significant calendar problems arise when the sun’s motion is not the only factor taken into consideration in marking off a year. Considerable difficulties were encountered in ancient attempts to reconcile solar and lunar periods, especially when subdivisions of the year (months) were made to correspond to the more irregular phases of the moon. The fact that while the moon is orbiting the earth, the earth is orbiting the sun (and rotating at the same time) produces many complications.<\/p>\n<p>The lunar calendar measured time by lunations (a lunation is the interval of time, expressed in days, between two successive new moons). Each lunar month, beginning when the thin crescent of the new moon first becomes visible at dusk, averages just over 29½ days. The moon actually orbits the earth in about 27<span>1<\/span>\/<span>3<\/span> days. Because the earth is meanwhile moving around the sun, it takes the moon two extra days to come to the same position between the sun and earth and produce a “new moon.”<\/p>\n<p>A lunar year of 12 months was approximately 11 days shorter than the solar year, so additional days were inserted to make up for the difference. The practice of insertion, known as intercalation, was a device common to several lunar calendar systems. The ancient Chinese compensated by adding an intercalary month every 30 years to their calendar, which consisted of 12 months of 29 or 30 days each. The Muslim lunar calendar, still used throughout Islam, also recognized 30 years as a cycle. Beginning with the second year within each cycle, and at subsequent intervals of three years, a “leap year” (a year of abnormal length) is observed. In that framework a leap year comprises 355 days as opposed to the ordinary Muslim year of 354 days. Calculation of the ancient Hebrew year suffered the same problems as other lunar calendars.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JewishCalendar\">Jewish Calendar<\/p>\n<p>It is hard to imagine a people with lives more closely bound to and regulated by the calendar than the people of ancient Israel. The Jewish calendar is dated from what is supposed to have been the Creation: 3,760 years and three months before the Christian era. Accordingly, to find the current year in the Jewish calendar, one must add 3,759 to the date in the Gregorian calendar. The system, however, will not work to the exact month, since the Jewish year (running on the civil calendar) begins in autumn rather than in midwinter.<\/p>\n<h5>Months<\/h5>\n<p>Most of the 12 months of the postexilic calendar have names adapted from the Babylonians. The months do not correspond to but overlap the months of the Roman calendar.<\/p>\n<p>The names of over half the months are mentioned in the OT: Kislev (Neh 1:1; Zec 7:1; <span>rsv<\/span> “Chislev”), Tebeth (Est 2:16), Shebat (Zec 1:7), Adar (Est 3:7, 8:12), Nisan (Neh 2:1; Est 3:7), Sivan (Est 8:9), and Elul (Neh 6:15).<\/p>\n<p>Since the Jewish month invariably began with the new moon, at intervals of approximately 29½ days, the Jewish year ran 354 days. No exact information is available to explain how the Jews originally adjusted their inaccurate lunar calendar to synchronize with the actual solar year. Late in Israel’s history an extra month was inserted between Adar and Nisan. That month, sometimes called Veader (“second Adar”), was added seven times within a 19-year cycle (at which time Adar received an extra half day).<\/p>\n<p>The names for the Jewish months as now known come from the period following the return from Babylonia to Palestine. Before the Babylonian exile at least four other names were in use: Abib (Ex 13:4), Ziv (1 Kgs 6:1, 37), Ethanim (8:2), and Bul (6:38). After the Captivity, they were renamed Nisan, Iyyar, Tishri, and Heshvan (originally Marcheshvan), respectively. The preexilic names carried agricultural connotations. For example, Abib signified the month in which the heads of the grain became ripe; Ziv was the month for desert flowers to bloom. An agricultural orientation is apparent in what is evidently the oldest Hebrew calendar, found at Gezer (southeast of Tel Aviv) in 1908 and dating from the 10th century <span>BC<\/span>. Probably the work of a Jewish schoolboy, the calendar breaks down the year by agricultural activities such as sowing, reaping, pruning, and storage.<\/p>\n<p>Primarily, however, the months were religiously significant to the Jews and enabled them to commemorate the important events of their history. Each month’s beginning was considered holy. To ancient Israel, the moon became a spiritual symbol of the nation itself; the sun eventually became symbolic of the Messiah (Mal 4:2). Since the moon produces no light of its own, the symbolism is especially appropriate: Israel was supposed to reflect the Messiah’s light to the world.<\/p>\n<p>The Jewish calendar remained unchanged during the period between the OT and NT (approximately 400 years) despite an attempt by Hellenistic rulers to introduce a modified lunar month system, presumably of Macedonian origin. According to that calendar, five days were added to the final month of the year, with each of the 12 months containing 30 days. Even then, it only approximated the solar year.<\/p>\n<h5>Reckoning of Dates<\/h5>\n<p>We know of no era in which the ancient Hebrews recorded dates by citing a month and day. Rather, dates were computed by reference to some significant event such as the accession year of the reigning king. In NT times the Jews continued the OT method of dating events by synchronizing them with events either in their religious calendar or within the secular sphere of the Roman world. Writers of the NT followed the same principle (Lk 1:5; Jn 12:1; Acts 18:12). Only as the calendar reforms of Julius Caesar became embedded in the culture did people change from that long-standing method to a more standardized system.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JewishFestivals\">Jewish Festivals<\/p>\n<p>In addition to keeping the Sabbath, Jews observe seven annual festivals.<\/p>\n<p>1. Passover (14th of Nisan) marks the deliverance from Egypt (the exodus). The first day of Nisan determines the date for Passover. Passover is observed for seven days and encompasses the Feast of Unleavened Bread, an event recalling Israel’s hasty preparation for the flight from Egypt (Ex 12:15). The festival for the firstfruits of the barley harvest immediately follows (Lv 23:10, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<li>2. Pentecost is celebrated 50 days after Passover. A time of joyful celebration for the people, Pentecost is the Feast of Ingathering of the firstfruits of the wheat harvest (Ex 34:22; Lv 23:15-17).<\/li>\n<li>3. Next in order is New Year’s Day, the beginning of Tishri. The first of Tishri, according to the rabbis, was the day in which the Lord created the world. It is called Rosh Hashanah, “head of the year.”<\/li>\n<li>4. On the 10th of Tishri, Israel’s most solemn day, Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), is observed. This holiest of days is known as “the Sabbath of Sabbaths,” and the complex ritual for its observance is set forth in the Bible (Lv 16).<\/li>\n<li>5. Succoth, the Feast of Tabernacles, occupies the 15th through the 22d of Tishri. A largely agricultural festival, it celebrates the ingathering of the autumn harvest. The apostle John referred to it simply as “the feast” (Jn 7:37). The Feast of Tabernacles, sometimes called the Feast of Booths (Shelters), is also a spiritual commemoration; it recalls God’s care over his people throughout Israel’s 40 years in the wilderness (Lv 23:39-43).<\/li>\n<li>6. Of later origin is the Festival of Hanukkah, the Feast of Dedication. It commemorates Judas Maccabeus’s decisive victory over Antiochus Epiphanes and the Syrians 150 years before Christ. Since Malachi, the last of the OT prophets, had passed from the scene long before that event, tradition alone governs the manner in which the occasion is celebrated. On the 25th of Kislev and the following seven days, joyous activities mark the Jewish calendar.<\/li>\n<li>7. Concluding the sacred festivals for the year is Purim, which falls on the 14th and 15th of Adar. The feast, which finds its origin in ancient Persia, commemorates the deliverance brought through Mordecai and Esther when they frustrated Haman’s plot to destroy the Jews (Est 9).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>As ancient sundials and modern clocks mark the passage of minutes and hours, a calendar marks the passage of days, weeks, months, years, and even centuries. A uniform, understandable way of measuring the longer units of time aids secular enterprises such as agriculture, business, and government; it is essential to historians and brings unity to the celebration of religious rites. Development of the modern (Gregorian) calendar represents an interaction between the science of astronomy and much historical and religious tradition. The religious significance of the calendar for Christians stems partly from the biblical contrast between God’s timelessness and human mortality (Ps 90). The psalmist asked God to “teach us to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom” (Ps 90:12, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Astrology; Astronomy; Day; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Jubilee Year; Moon; Night; Sun.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CALENDARS, Ancient and Modern<\/h3>\n<p>Systematic arrangements showing the beginning and length of each year and its division into days, weeks, and months. The modern calendar is usually taken for granted. But without a calendar it would be extremely difficult to establish a uniform chronology (that is, a system for arranging events in the time sequence in which they actually happened). Also, accurate prediction of the coming and going of seasons would be impossible.<\/p>\n<p>Before the calendar took on its modern format, it had to progress through a number of developmental stages.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Days and Their Divisions<\/p>\n<p>• Astronomy and the Calendar<\/p>\n<p>• Jewish Calendar<\/p>\n<p>• Jewish Festivals<\/p>\n<p>• Conclusion<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DaysandTheirDivisions\">Days and Their Divisions<\/p>\n<p>The earliest attempt to mark off time was probably the simple counting of days, followed by the subdivision of each day into what eventually became 24 equal parts called hours. Since the Sumerians seem to have originated the measurement of time by minutes, hours, and days, they obviously also knew the narrower meaning of “day,” which for them designated a 12-hour period.<\/p>\n<p>Measurement of time in the days of King Ahaz is illustrated by reference to a sundial (2 Kgs 20:9; Is 38:8). The precise measurement of hours, however, must have been a relatively late practice. Early Europeans, like the ancient Egyptians, placed the beginning of the day at midnight, further dividing the period into two 12-hour segments. In the second century <span>BC<\/span> the Egyptian astronomer Ptolemy and his disciples devised an astronomically convenient method of calculating each day from high noon, when the sun reached its apex in the heavens. The Roman day began at sunrise, with the second part of the day commencing at sunset.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AstronomyandtheCalendar\">Astronomy and the Calendar<\/p>\n<p>Ancient peoples constructed their calendars on the basis of their observations of “cycles” of the sun and moon. The solar year is the period of time in which the earth accomplishes a complete revolution in its orbit around the sun.<\/p>\n<p>The life of ancient peoples was closely tied to the changes in temperature and in the relative length of days and nights characteristic of the four seasons. Seasonal changes result from the fact that while the earth is orbiting the sun, it is also rotating on its own axis, tipped at an angle to the plane of its path around the sun. The longest day of the year in the northern hemisphere is called the summer solstice (about June 21 on the modern calendar). At the winter solstice (December 21 or 22) the noonday sun appears lowest (farthest south) and the days are shortest. (In the southern hemisphere summer and winter are reversed by the effect of the earth’s tilt.) Halfway between, at the vernal (spring) equinox about March 21, and the autumnal (fall) equinox about September 23, the sun is directly over the equator and there are as many hours of daylight as of darkness. The term “equinox” is from the Latin words for “equal night.” A solar year could be measured by ancient peoples as the period between two similar solstices or equinoxes.<\/p>\n<p>The solar calendar marks off days by observing the period between consecutive returns of the sun to a similar position above the earth, such as its rising, setting, or highest point at midday. A “day” thus represents one complete rotation of the earth on its own axis, now divided into 24 hours. Since that rotation is not directly related to the earth’s annual orbit around the sun, calendar problems arise because the true solar year does not equal a certain whole number of days but 365 days plus a fraction of a day.<\/p>\n<p>The most significant calendar problems arise when the sun’s motion is not the only factor taken into consideration in marking off a year. Considerable difficulties were encountered in ancient attempts to reconcile solar and lunar periods, especially when subdivisions of the year (months) were made to correspond to the more irregular phases of the moon. The fact that while the moon is orbiting the earth, the earth is orbiting the sun (and rotating at the same time) produces many complications.<\/p>\n<p>The lunar calendar measured time by lunations (a lunation is the interval of time, expressed in days, between two successive new moons). Each lunar month, beginning when the thin crescent of the new moon first becomes visible at dusk, averages just over 29½ days. The moon actually orbits the earth in about 27<span>1<\/span>\/<span>3<\/span> days. Because the earth is meanwhile moving around the sun, it takes the moon two extra days to come to the same position between the sun and earth and produce a “new moon.”<\/p>\n<p>A lunar year of 12 months was approximately 11 days shorter than the solar year, so additional days were inserted to make up for the difference. The practice of insertion, known as intercalation, was a device common to several lunar calendar systems. The ancient Chinese compensated by adding an intercalary month every 30 years to their calendar, which consisted of 12 months of 29 or 30 days each. The Muslim lunar calendar, still used throughout Islam, also recognized 30 years as a cycle. Beginning with the second year within each cycle, and at subsequent intervals of three years, a “leap year” (a year of abnormal length) is observed. In that framework a leap year comprises 355 days as opposed to the ordinary Muslim year of 354 days. Calculation of the ancient Hebrew year suffered the same problems as other lunar calendars.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JewishCalendar\">Jewish Calendar<\/p>\n<p>It is hard to imagine a people with lives more closely bound to and regulated by the calendar than the people of ancient Israel. The Jewish calendar is dated from what is supposed to have been the Creation: 3,760 years and three months before the Christian era. Accordingly, to find the current year in the Jewish calendar, one must add 3,759 to the date in the Gregorian calendar. The system, however, will not work to the exact month, since the Jewish year (running on the civil calendar) begins in autumn rather than in midwinter.<\/p>\n<h5>Months<\/h5>\n<p>Most of the 12 months of the postexilic calendar have names adapted from the Babylonians. The months do not correspond to but overlap the months of the Roman calendar.<\/p>\n<p>The names of over half the months are mentioned in the OT: Kislev (Neh 1:1; Zec 7:1; <span>rsv<\/span> “Chislev”), Tebeth (Est 2:16), Shebat (Zec 1:7), Adar (Est 3:7, 8:12), Nisan (Neh 2:1; Est 3:7), Sivan (Est 8:9), and Elul (Neh 6:15).<\/p>\n<p>Since the Jewish month invariably began with the new moon, at intervals of approximately 29½ days, the Jewish year ran 354 days. No exact information is available to explain how the Jews originally adjusted their inaccurate lunar calendar to synchronize with the actual solar year. Late in Israel’s history an extra month was inserted between Adar and Nisan. That month, sometimes called Veader (“second Adar”), was added seven times within a 19-year cycle (at which time Adar received an extra half day).<\/p>\n<p>The names for the Jewish months as now known come from the period following the return from Babylonia to Palestine. Before the Babylonian exile at least four other names were in use: Abib (Ex 13:4), Ziv (1 Kgs 6:1, 37), Ethanim (8:2), and Bul (6:38). After the Captivity, they were renamed Nisan, Iyyar, Tishri, and Heshvan (originally Marcheshvan), respectively. The preexilic names carried agricultural connotations. For example, Abib signified the month in which the heads of the grain became ripe; Ziv was the month for desert flowers to bloom. An agricultural orientation is apparent in what is evidently the oldest Hebrew calendar, found at Gezer (southeast of Tel Aviv) in 1908 and dating from the 10th century <span>BC<\/span>. Probably the work of a Jewish schoolboy, the calendar breaks down the year by agricultural activities such as sowing, reaping, pruning, and storage.<\/p>\n<p>Primarily, however, the months were religiously significant to the Jews and enabled them to commemorate the important events of their history. Each month’s beginning was considered holy. To ancient Israel, the moon became a spiritual symbol of the nation itself; the sun eventually became symbolic of the Messiah (Mal 4:2). Since the moon produces no light of its own, the symbolism is especially appropriate: Israel was supposed to reflect the Messiah’s light to the world.<\/p>\n<p>The Jewish calendar remained unchanged during the period between the OT and NT (approximately 400 years) despite an attempt by Hellenistic rulers to introduce a modified lunar month system, presumably of Macedonian origin. According to that calendar, five days were added to the final month of the year, with each of the 12 months containing 30 days. Even then, it only approximated the solar year.<\/p>\n<h5>Reckoning of Dates<\/h5>\n<p>We know of no era in which the ancient Hebrews recorded dates by citing a month and day. Rather, dates were computed by reference to some significant event such as the accession year of the reigning king. In NT times the Jews continued the OT method of dating events by synchronizing them with events either in their religious calendar or within the secular sphere of the Roman world. Writers of the NT followed the same principle (Lk 1:5; Jn 12:1; Acts 18:12). Only as the calendar reforms of Julius Caesar became embedded in the culture did people change from that long-standing method to a more standardized system.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JewishFestivals\">Jewish Festivals<\/p>\n<p>In addition to keeping the Sabbath, Jews observe seven annual festivals.<\/p>\n<p>1. Passover (14th of Nisan) marks the deliverance from Egypt (the exodus). The first day of Nisan determines the date for Passover. Passover is observed for seven days and encompasses the Feast of Unleavened Bread, an event recalling Israel’s hasty preparation for the flight from Egypt (Ex 12:15). The festival for the firstfruits of the barley harvest immediately follows (Lv 23:10, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<li>2. Pentecost is celebrated 50 days after Passover. A time of joyful celebration for the people, Pentecost is the Feast of Ingathering of the firstfruits of the wheat harvest (Ex 34:22; Lv 23:15-17).<\/li>\n<li>3. Next in order is New Year’s Day, the beginning of Tishri. The first of Tishri, according to the rabbis, was the day in which the Lord created the world. It is called Rosh Hashanah, “head of the year.”<\/li>\n<li>4. On the 10th of Tishri, Israel’s most solemn day, Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), is observed. This holiest of days is known as “the Sabbath of Sabbaths,” and the complex ritual for its observance is set forth in the Bible (Lv 16).<\/li>\n<li>5. Succoth, the Feast of Tabernacles, occupies the 15th through the 22d of Tishri. A largely agricultural festival, it celebrates the ingathering of the autumn harvest. The apostle John referred to it simply as “the feast” (Jn 7:37). The Feast of Tabernacles, sometimes called the Feast of Booths (Shelters), is also a spiritual commemoration; it recalls God’s care over his people throughout Israel’s 40 years in the wilderness (Lv 23:39-43).<\/li>\n<li>6. Of later origin is the Festival of Hanukkah, the Feast of Dedication. It commemorates Judas Maccabeus’s decisive victory over Antiochus Epiphanes and the Syrians 150 years before Christ. Since Malachi, the last of the OT prophets, had passed from the scene long before that event, tradition alone governs the manner in which the occasion is celebrated. On the 25th of Kislev and the following seven days, joyous activities mark the Jewish calendar.<\/li>\n<li>7. Concluding the sacred festivals for the year is Purim, which falls on the 14th and 15th of Adar. The feast, which finds its origin in ancient Persia, commemorates the deliverance brought through Mordecai and Esther when they frustrated Haman’s plot to destroy the Jews (Est 9).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>As ancient sundials and modern clocks mark the passage of minutes and hours, a calendar marks the passage of days, weeks, months, years, and even centuries. A uniform, understandable way of measuring the longer units of time aids secular enterprises such as agriculture, business, and government; it is essential to historians and brings unity to the celebration of religious rites. Development of the modern (Gregorian) calendar represents an interaction between the science of astronomy and much historical and religious tradition. The religious significance of the calendar for Christians stems partly from the biblical contrast between God’s timelessness and human mortality (Ps 90). The psalmist asked God to “teach us to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom” (Ps 90:12, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Astrology; Astronomy; Day; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Jubilee Year; Moon; Night; Sun.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CALENDARS, Ancient and Modern Systematic arrangements showing the beginning and length of each year and its division into days, weeks, and months. The modern calendar is usually taken for granted. But without a calendar it would be extremely difficult to establish a uniform chronology (that is, a system for arranging events in the time sequence in which they actually happened). Also, accurate prediction of the coming and going of seasons would be impossible. Before the calendar took on its mo...","summary_en":"CALENDARS, Ancient and Modern Systematic arrangements showing the beginning and length of each year and its division into days, weeks, and months. The modern calendar is usually taken for granted. But without a calendar it would be extremely difficult to establish a uniform chronology (that is, a system for arranging events in the time sequence in which they actually happened). Also, accurate prediction of the coming and going of seasons would be impossible. Before the calendar took on its mo...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":8226,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Crucifixion","title_en":"Crucifixion","content_ro":"<h3>CRUCIFIXION<\/h3>\n<p>Form of execution employed in the death of Jesus Christ. Two concepts related to crucifixion occur in Scripture: the “cross,” a pagan mode of capital punishment, and the “tree,” which was a Jewish form. Jesus’ crucifixion was the means by which he procured atonement for humanity. The term “cross” was also used figuratively by Jesus to portray the sacrifice required in discipleship, and it was used by the apostle Paul to symbolize the death of self in the process of transformation.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Historical Background<\/p>\n<p>• Christ’s Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>• The Theological Significance of Christ’s Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalBackground\">Historical Background<\/p>\n<h5>The Pagan Mode<\/h5>\n<p>Literally, the word “cross” in Greek referred to a pointed stake used for various purposes, including an instrument of execution. It could be an upright stake, used to impale a victim, or a vertical stake with a crossbeam either across the top (T) or across the middle (+), used to hang or crucify a criminal, with the added disgrace of public display. Evidently crucifixion was practiced first by the Medes and Persians and later by Alexander the Great (356–323 <span>BC<\/span>), the Carthaginians, and the Romans. Both Greeks and Romans restricted its use to slaves, considering it too barbaric for citizens. In the imperial era the Romans extended the use to foreigners, but even so it was used mainly for crimes against the state.<\/p>\n<p>Crucifixion was universally recognized as the most horrible type of execution. In the East, in fact, it was used only as a further sign of disgrace for prisoners already executed, usually by decapitation. In the West the condemned criminal was scourged (whipped), usually at the place of execution, and forced to carry the crossbeam to the spot where a stake had already been erected. A tablet stating the crime was often placed around the offender’s neck and was fastened to the cross after the execution. The prisoner was commonly tied or sometimes nailed to the crossbeam (with the nails through the wrists, since the bones in the hand could not take the weight). The beam was then raised and fixed to the upright pole. If the executioners wished a particularly slow, agonizing death, they might drive blocks or pins into the stake for a seat or a step to support the feet. Death came about either through loss of blood circulation followed by coronary failure or through the collapse of one’s lungs, causing suffocation. That could take days, so often the victim’s legs would be broken below the knees with a club, causing massive shock and eliminating any further possibility of easing the pressure on the bound or spiked wrists. Usually a body was left on the cross to rot, but in some instances was given to relatives or friends for burial.<\/p>\n<h5>The Jewish Mode<\/h5>\n<p>A different form of crucifixion is seen in the OT. King Saul’s body was decapitated and affixed to a wall by the Philistines (1 Sm 31:9-10). The Persian king Darius made impaling the penalty for altering his decree (Ezr 6:11). According to Deuteronomy 21:22-23, the Eastern form was employed by the Jews with the added proviso that the body must be removed from “the tree” before nightfall, because the victim was “accursed by God” (cf. Gal 3:13) and must not remain to “defile the land.” The Roman form of crucifixion was not employed by the Jews. The only exception was a mass crucifixion of 800 rebels by the Jewish ruler Alexander Janneus in 76 <span>BC<\/span>, reported by the Jewish historian Josephus as being universally condemned by the Jews. Some believe that Jewish courts did practice the Western method of crucifixion after the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ChristsCrucifixion\">Christ’s Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>The NT (quoted in this article from the <span>rsv<\/span>) has much to say about Christ’s crucifixion because it is the central theme of the Christian faith.<\/p>\n<h5>The Predictions<\/h5>\n<p>The Gospels record three predictions by Christ of his own crucifixion (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34 and parallel passages). In addition, John recorded three sayings about the Son of Man being “lifted up” (Jn 3:14; 8:28; 12:32-33), which parallel the synoptic predictions. Several themes are interwoven into those passages: (1) Christ’s passion (a term used for his suffering on the cross) was part of God’s redemptive purpose (Mk 8:31, “must”). (2) Both Jew and Roman were guilty of “delivering” and of “killing” Jesus. (3) His death would be followed by vindication via the resurrection. (4) His death itself, in a paradoxical way, was seen as a means of his entering into “glory” (seen in the symbolism John attached to “lifted up”). Other sayings that hint at Jesus’ fate are his comment about the murder of the prophets (Mt 23:29-30; Lk 13:33), his parables about the death of the prophets and the “son” (the marriage feast, Mt 22:1-14; the wicked tenants, Mk 12:1-10), and his teachings about the coming similar suffering of his disciples (Mt 10:24-28; Mk 8:34-35; Jn 15:18-25).<\/p>\n<h5>The Historical Event<\/h5>\n<p>The crucifixion of Jesus combined Roman and Jewish elements. Although the Gospel writers stressed Jewish guilt for their own polemical purposes, they were careful to distinguish between the leaders and the common people. It was the leaders who initiated Jesus’ arrest (Mk 14:43) and his trial by the Sanhedrin (vv 53-64). Though Pilate seemed to vacillate and in the end surrendered weakly to the crowds by “washing his hands” of any guilt (Mt 27:24), Rome was clearly implicated in the Crucifixion. Since the Sanhedrin did not have the power to inflict capital punishment, Pilate’s decision was necessary before crucifixion could occur. Further, Romans actually carried out the execution.<\/p>\n<p>At Jesus’ crucifixion Roman custom was observed in his scourging, his mock enthronement and stripping, the bearing of his own crossbeam, his being nailed to the cross, and the breaking of the two thieves’ legs. The elevated site fits the custom of displaying certain criminals publicly. So does the height of Jesus’ cross, probably seven to nine feet (2 to 3 meters). The presence of a tablet bearing the inscription “The King of the Jews” on the cross suggests that the crossbeam was fixed somewhere below the top of the stake. Jewish elements are seen in the wine mixed with myrrh (Mk 15:23), the vinegar on the hyssop reed (v 36), and the removal of the body before sunset and the beginning of the Sabbath (Jn 19:31).<\/p>\n<p>Although the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion is seldom challenged historically, the varying details in the four Gospels are sometimes regarded as later additions due to the influence of prophetic “fulfillment,” to Christian-Jewish polemics or to cultic considerations. However, one cannot conclude from the differences in the Gospel accounts that the details are not historical. Narrative selectivity on the part of the Gospel writers is in no sense evidence of fabrication.<\/p>\n<h5>The Emphasis in Each Gospel<\/h5>\n<p>The elements found in the individual passion narratives were selected by each writer to present a particular view of the crucifixion scene. It has been realized for some time that the Gospel writers were not only historians but also theologians, selecting scenes and portraying them to show the significance of the events for the Christian faith. Their selection is poignantly evident in the crucifixion narratives.<\/p>\n<p>Mark and Matthew both show the horror of the Messiah being put to death by human beings. The first half of Mark’s scene contrasts the taunts of the crowd with the true significance of Jesus’ death. The twofold “save yourself” (Mk 15:29-31) repeats Jesus’ words about rebuilding the temple in three days—prophetically pointing to the resurrection. The second half of Mark’s description stresses the horror of the scene, progressing from a darkness motif to the cry of abandonment to further taunts (vv 33-36).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of Matthew extends Mark’s imagery in certain important directions, adding that Jesus refused the stupefying drink (a drugged wine to alleviate pain) “when he tasted it” (Mt 27:34), as well as adding “yielded up his spirit” to the death scene (v 50). Matthew thus emphasizes that Jesus voluntarily faced his death fully conscious and in complete control of himself. Matthew’s irony and allusion also bring out the disparity between Jesus’ suffering and his vindication. Elements of vindication include the ripping of the temple veil (v 51) and the centurion’s testimony (v 54). In the remarkable supernatural scene of Matthew 27:52-53, Jesus’ death is followed immediately by an earthquake that opened tombs and revived “many bodies of the saints” who had died. For Matthew those events and others inaugurated the last days, the new age of salvation, when the power of death is broken and life is made available for all.<\/p>\n<p>The account in Luke’s Gospel is also quite remarkable. It has two major thrusts. First, Jesus is portrayed as the perfect example of the righteous martyr who forgives his enemies and by his attitude converts some of his opponents. The taunts of the rulers and soldiers are reversed when the crowd returns home “beating their breasts” (Lk 23:48) and the centurion cries, “Certainly this man was innocent!” (v 47). Second, in Luke the entire setting has an atmosphere of reverence and worship. Omitted are the wine and myrrh, the cry of abandonment, and the Elijah taunt. Other episodes are noted instead—in particular, the prayers of Jesus. In Luke alone are related (1) Jesus’ prayer that God forgive his executioners, placing it in contrast with the soldiers’ mockery; (2) the promise in answer to the prayer of the “believing” criminal; and (3) the commitment of Jesus’ spirit to the Father. Luke’s presentation makes the Crucifixion a kind of worshipful commemoration.<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospel of John also one finds a change of theological focus. It goes further than Luke in removing shocking details such as the darkness and the taunts. Calm pervades throughout. Stress is laid on Jesus’ sovereign control of his situation, as the Crucifixion virtually becomes a coronation procession. John alone states that the inscription on the cross was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek—the charge thus becomes a worldwide proclamation of Christ’s enthronement. The inscription, “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews,” continues Pilate’s dialogue on kingship beyond Jesus’ trial. John thus adds to Matthew’s emphasis: Jesus has not only become king but has been sovereign all along. The king is pictured as performing the priestly function and himself becoming the sacrifice. John alone mentions the hyssop (which had been used to sprinkle the blood of the lamb at the Passover, Ex 12:22) and Jesus’ cry, “It is finished” (Jn 19:29-30). Further, the piercing of Jesus’ side (vv 31-37), which shows the reality of his death, may also be seen symbolically, along with the “rivers of living water” (7:37-38), as typifying the outpouring of life in the new age.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, each Gospel pictures the meaning of Jesus’ death from a different vantage point. To combine their pictures gives new understanding of the significance of the cross. Rather than contradiction, one sees separate parts of a compelling whole.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTheologicalSignificanceofChristsCrucifixion\">The Theological Significance of Christ’s Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>The cross plays a dual role in Christian theology. Some theologians emphasize the significance of the historical crucifixion of Jesus Christ and what it accomplished for the believer. Others focus on the symbolism of the cross in each believer’s life.<\/p>\n<p>The death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth are the central events of Christian theology. The cross has meaning because of the significance of the person who was put to death on it and because of what his death accomplished. “The word of the cross” was central in the salvation proclamation of the early church. Above all, the event of the cross was God’s principal saving act in history; hence the cross, though a past event, has present significance. Christ crucified and risen is the core of the church’s message (Gal 3:1).<\/p>\n<p>The central passage is 1 Corinthians 1:17–2:5. There the “word of the cross” (1:18) is contrasted with “eloquent wisdom” (v 17). Sounding like foolishness, it is offensive to both Greek philosophy and Jewish legalism (cf. Gal 6:12-15), but that very “weakness” in human eyes opens the door for the “power of God” (1 Cor 1:18). The cross in the church’s <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kerygma<\/span> (proclamation) illustrates the pattern of God’s action: he forges out of the debilitated things of life both power and wisdom (vv 26-30). Because philosophical speculation replaces God’s message with human wisdom and thus empties the cross of its significance, Paul rejected “lofty words” and preached only the “crucified Christ.” The “Holy Spirit’s power” thus became evident in Paul’s “weakness” (2:1-5). The central core of the gospel is God’s demonstration of victory emerging from seeming defeat, of power arising out of infirmity.<\/p>\n<p>The cross as the basis of atonement is the principal emphasis in the Epistles (see Eph 2:16; Col 1:20; 2:14), whereas in the book of Acts the resurrection seems more central (see Acts 2:33-36; 3:19-26; 13:37-39). The reason for the different emphasis is found in the different purposes of those writings: the cross tends to be used in didactic (instructional) sections, the resurrection in apologetic (persuasive) or kerygmatic sections, when the basis for salvation is being presented. In actuality they were a single event in salvation history. Jesus “was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Rom 4:25).<\/p>\n<p>Paul expressed the significance of the cross in the words “redemption,” “propitiation,” and “justification.” The first two concepts have the “for us” theme traceable to the suffering servant (Is 53:10-12), whose death was for “the sin of many.” The idea of redemption in both Testaments is the payment of a price to “ransom” those held captive. That price, the NT explains, was paid on the cross, and humanity was thereby freed from sin (Mk 10:45; Ti 2:14; 1 Pt 1:18). The connection between Jesus’ death and the substitutionary preposition “instead of” is also seen in Galatians 3:13, which adds to the curse of Deuteronomy 21:23 the interpretation “for us” (cf. Rom 5:10-11, 18; 1 Cor 11:24; Eph 1:7; 2:13). Similarly, Paul’s concept of justification centers on the cross. It is “Christ crucified” who declares humanity righteous and makes freedom from sin possible (Rom 6:6; Gal 2:19-21). Human guilt was transferred to the cross and expiated there, opening up God’s forensic (legal) forgiveness of all who avail themselves of its power (1 Pt 1:18-21; 2:24; 3:18). Finally, the result is “reconciliation”—both vertically, between humans and God (Col 1:20), and horizontally, between previously opposed human forces (e.g., in Eph 2:13-16, between Jew and Gentile).<\/p>\n<p>Beyond the theological meaning of the literal cross on which Jesus Christ was put to death in Judea nearly 2,000 years ago is the symbolic significance of the cross for his followers today.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus made “bearing the cross” a condition of discipleship in five passages. There are two major variants: one, found in the material common to Matthew and Luke (Mt 10:38; Lk 14:27), is phrased negatively (“cannot be my disciple”); the other, which is found in all three synoptic Gospels (Mt 16:24; Mk 8:34; Luke 9:23), is phrased positively (“If anyone would come after me”). Two major motifs are found in the sayings. The major motif comes from the imagery of a condemned man carrying his cross to an execution site; a necessary part of discipleship is a daily (Lk 9:23) willingness to sacrifice all and to suffer for the sake of Christ. The central point is not death but disgrace; the disciple must be ready to become an outcast from society.<\/p>\n<p>Paul extended Christ’s metaphor to the death of self. He may have taken the idea from the early catechism, as seen in the baptismal creed of Romans 6:1-8, which identifies baptism as being “buried with him.” Paul interpreted the Christian’s identification with Christ’s death to mean that “our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin” (Rom 6:6). As further developed in 2 Corinthians 5:14-17, the believer participates in the death and resurrection of Christ, so that the old life has passed away and the new has come (5:17). The same view is found also in Galatians, which contrasts the mystical death of self to the legalistic system of the Judaizers. The believer is “crucified with Christ,” with the result that “it is no longer I who live” (Gal 2:20); “the flesh with its passions and desires” is “crucified” (5:24); and “far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (6:14). Believers must experience the cross before they can find the resurrection life.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Criminal Law and Punishment; Eli, Eli, Lema Sabachthani; Golgotha; Redeemer, Redemption; Seven Last Sayings of Jesus.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CRUCIFIXION<\/h3>\n<p>Form of execution employed in the death of Jesus Christ. Two concepts related to crucifixion occur in Scripture: the “cross,” a pagan mode of capital punishment, and the “tree,” which was a Jewish form. Jesus’ crucifixion was the means by which he procured atonement for humanity. The term “cross” was also used figuratively by Jesus to portray the sacrifice required in discipleship, and it was used by the apostle Paul to symbolize the death of self in the process of transformation.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Historical Background<\/p>\n<p>• Christ’s Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>• The Theological Significance of Christ’s Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalBackground\">Historical Background<\/p>\n<h5>The Pagan Mode<\/h5>\n<p>Literally, the word “cross” in Greek referred to a pointed stake used for various purposes, including an instrument of execution. It could be an upright stake, used to impale a victim, or a vertical stake with a crossbeam either across the top (T) or across the middle (+), used to hang or crucify a criminal, with the added disgrace of public display. Evidently crucifixion was practiced first by the Medes and Persians and later by Alexander the Great (356–323 <span>BC<\/span>), the Carthaginians, and the Romans. Both Greeks and Romans restricted its use to slaves, considering it too barbaric for citizens. In the imperial era the Romans extended the use to foreigners, but even so it was used mainly for crimes against the state.<\/p>\n<p>Crucifixion was universally recognized as the most horrible type of execution. In the East, in fact, it was used only as a further sign of disgrace for prisoners already executed, usually by decapitation. In the West the condemned criminal was scourged (whipped), usually at the place of execution, and forced to carry the crossbeam to the spot where a stake had already been erected. A tablet stating the crime was often placed around the offender’s neck and was fastened to the cross after the execution. The prisoner was commonly tied or sometimes nailed to the crossbeam (with the nails through the wrists, since the bones in the hand could not take the weight). The beam was then raised and fixed to the upright pole. If the executioners wished a particularly slow, agonizing death, they might drive blocks or pins into the stake for a seat or a step to support the feet. Death came about either through loss of blood circulation followed by coronary failure or through the collapse of one’s lungs, causing suffocation. That could take days, so often the victim’s legs would be broken below the knees with a club, causing massive shock and eliminating any further possibility of easing the pressure on the bound or spiked wrists. Usually a body was left on the cross to rot, but in some instances was given to relatives or friends for burial.<\/p>\n<h5>The Jewish Mode<\/h5>\n<p>A different form of crucifixion is seen in the OT. King Saul’s body was decapitated and affixed to a wall by the Philistines (1 Sm 31:9-10). The Persian king Darius made impaling the penalty for altering his decree (Ezr 6:11). According to Deuteronomy 21:22-23, the Eastern form was employed by the Jews with the added proviso that the body must be removed from “the tree” before nightfall, because the victim was “accursed by God” (cf. Gal 3:13) and must not remain to “defile the land.” The Roman form of crucifixion was not employed by the Jews. The only exception was a mass crucifixion of 800 rebels by the Jewish ruler Alexander Janneus in 76 <span>BC<\/span>, reported by the Jewish historian Josephus as being universally condemned by the Jews. Some believe that Jewish courts did practice the Western method of crucifixion after the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ChristsCrucifixion\">Christ’s Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>The NT (quoted in this article from the <span>rsv<\/span>) has much to say about Christ’s crucifixion because it is the central theme of the Christian faith.<\/p>\n<h5>The Predictions<\/h5>\n<p>The Gospels record three predictions by Christ of his own crucifixion (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34 and parallel passages). In addition, John recorded three sayings about the Son of Man being “lifted up” (Jn 3:14; 8:28; 12:32-33), which parallel the synoptic predictions. Several themes are interwoven into those passages: (1) Christ’s passion (a term used for his suffering on the cross) was part of God’s redemptive purpose (Mk 8:31, “must”). (2) Both Jew and Roman were guilty of “delivering” and of “killing” Jesus. (3) His death would be followed by vindication via the resurrection. (4) His death itself, in a paradoxical way, was seen as a means of his entering into “glory” (seen in the symbolism John attached to “lifted up”). Other sayings that hint at Jesus’ fate are his comment about the murder of the prophets (Mt 23:29-30; Lk 13:33), his parables about the death of the prophets and the “son” (the marriage feast, Mt 22:1-14; the wicked tenants, Mk 12:1-10), and his teachings about the coming similar suffering of his disciples (Mt 10:24-28; Mk 8:34-35; Jn 15:18-25).<\/p>\n<h5>The Historical Event<\/h5>\n<p>The crucifixion of Jesus combined Roman and Jewish elements. Although the Gospel writers stressed Jewish guilt for their own polemical purposes, they were careful to distinguish between the leaders and the common people. It was the leaders who initiated Jesus’ arrest (Mk 14:43) and his trial by the Sanhedrin (vv 53-64). Though Pilate seemed to vacillate and in the end surrendered weakly to the crowds by “washing his hands” of any guilt (Mt 27:24), Rome was clearly implicated in the Crucifixion. Since the Sanhedrin did not have the power to inflict capital punishment, Pilate’s decision was necessary before crucifixion could occur. Further, Romans actually carried out the execution.<\/p>\n<p>At Jesus’ crucifixion Roman custom was observed in his scourging, his mock enthronement and stripping, the bearing of his own crossbeam, his being nailed to the cross, and the breaking of the two thieves’ legs. The elevated site fits the custom of displaying certain criminals publicly. So does the height of Jesus’ cross, probably seven to nine feet (2 to 3 meters). The presence of a tablet bearing the inscription “The King of the Jews” on the cross suggests that the crossbeam was fixed somewhere below the top of the stake. Jewish elements are seen in the wine mixed with myrrh (Mk 15:23), the vinegar on the hyssop reed (v 36), and the removal of the body before sunset and the beginning of the Sabbath (Jn 19:31).<\/p>\n<p>Although the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion is seldom challenged historically, the varying details in the four Gospels are sometimes regarded as later additions due to the influence of prophetic “fulfillment,” to Christian-Jewish polemics or to cultic considerations. However, one cannot conclude from the differences in the Gospel accounts that the details are not historical. Narrative selectivity on the part of the Gospel writers is in no sense evidence of fabrication.<\/p>\n<h5>The Emphasis in Each Gospel<\/h5>\n<p>The elements found in the individual passion narratives were selected by each writer to present a particular view of the crucifixion scene. It has been realized for some time that the Gospel writers were not only historians but also theologians, selecting scenes and portraying them to show the significance of the events for the Christian faith. Their selection is poignantly evident in the crucifixion narratives.<\/p>\n<p>Mark and Matthew both show the horror of the Messiah being put to death by human beings. The first half of Mark’s scene contrasts the taunts of the crowd with the true significance of Jesus’ death. The twofold “save yourself” (Mk 15:29-31) repeats Jesus’ words about rebuilding the temple in three days—prophetically pointing to the resurrection. The second half of Mark’s description stresses the horror of the scene, progressing from a darkness motif to the cry of abandonment to further taunts (vv 33-36).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of Matthew extends Mark’s imagery in certain important directions, adding that Jesus refused the stupefying drink (a drugged wine to alleviate pain) “when he tasted it” (Mt 27:34), as well as adding “yielded up his spirit” to the death scene (v 50). Matthew thus emphasizes that Jesus voluntarily faced his death fully conscious and in complete control of himself. Matthew’s irony and allusion also bring out the disparity between Jesus’ suffering and his vindication. Elements of vindication include the ripping of the temple veil (v 51) and the centurion’s testimony (v 54). In the remarkable supernatural scene of Matthew 27:52-53, Jesus’ death is followed immediately by an earthquake that opened tombs and revived “many bodies of the saints” who had died. For Matthew those events and others inaugurated the last days, the new age of salvation, when the power of death is broken and life is made available for all.<\/p>\n<p>The account in Luke’s Gospel is also quite remarkable. It has two major thrusts. First, Jesus is portrayed as the perfect example of the righteous martyr who forgives his enemies and by his attitude converts some of his opponents. The taunts of the rulers and soldiers are reversed when the crowd returns home “beating their breasts” (Lk 23:48) and the centurion cries, “Certainly this man was innocent!” (v 47). Second, in Luke the entire setting has an atmosphere of reverence and worship. Omitted are the wine and myrrh, the cry of abandonment, and the Elijah taunt. Other episodes are noted instead—in particular, the prayers of Jesus. In Luke alone are related (1) Jesus’ prayer that God forgive his executioners, placing it in contrast with the soldiers’ mockery; (2) the promise in answer to the prayer of the “believing” criminal; and (3) the commitment of Jesus’ spirit to the Father. Luke’s presentation makes the Crucifixion a kind of worshipful commemoration.<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospel of John also one finds a change of theological focus. It goes further than Luke in removing shocking details such as the darkness and the taunts. Calm pervades throughout. Stress is laid on Jesus’ sovereign control of his situation, as the Crucifixion virtually becomes a coronation procession. John alone states that the inscription on the cross was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek—the charge thus becomes a worldwide proclamation of Christ’s enthronement. The inscription, “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews,” continues Pilate’s dialogue on kingship beyond Jesus’ trial. John thus adds to Matthew’s emphasis: Jesus has not only become king but has been sovereign all along. The king is pictured as performing the priestly function and himself becoming the sacrifice. John alone mentions the hyssop (which had been used to sprinkle the blood of the lamb at the Passover, Ex 12:22) and Jesus’ cry, “It is finished” (Jn 19:29-30). Further, the piercing of Jesus’ side (vv 31-37), which shows the reality of his death, may also be seen symbolically, along with the “rivers of living water” (7:37-38), as typifying the outpouring of life in the new age.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, each Gospel pictures the meaning of Jesus’ death from a different vantage point. To combine their pictures gives new understanding of the significance of the cross. Rather than contradiction, one sees separate parts of a compelling whole.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTheologicalSignificanceofChristsCrucifixion\">The Theological Significance of Christ’s Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>The cross plays a dual role in Christian theology. Some theologians emphasize the significance of the historical crucifixion of Jesus Christ and what it accomplished for the believer. Others focus on the symbolism of the cross in each believer’s life.<\/p>\n<p>The death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth are the central events of Christian theology. The cross has meaning because of the significance of the person who was put to death on it and because of what his death accomplished. “The word of the cross” was central in the salvation proclamation of the early church. Above all, the event of the cross was God’s principal saving act in history; hence the cross, though a past event, has present significance. Christ crucified and risen is the core of the church’s message (Gal 3:1).<\/p>\n<p>The central passage is 1 Corinthians 1:17–2:5. There the “word of the cross” (1:18) is contrasted with “eloquent wisdom” (v 17). Sounding like foolishness, it is offensive to both Greek philosophy and Jewish legalism (cf. Gal 6:12-15), but that very “weakness” in human eyes opens the door for the “power of God” (1 Cor 1:18). The cross in the church’s <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kerygma<\/span> (proclamation) illustrates the pattern of God’s action: he forges out of the debilitated things of life both power and wisdom (vv 26-30). Because philosophical speculation replaces God’s message with human wisdom and thus empties the cross of its significance, Paul rejected “lofty words” and preached only the “crucified Christ.” The “Holy Spirit’s power” thus became evident in Paul’s “weakness” (2:1-5). The central core of the gospel is God’s demonstration of victory emerging from seeming defeat, of power arising out of infirmity.<\/p>\n<p>The cross as the basis of atonement is the principal emphasis in the Epistles (see Eph 2:16; Col 1:20; 2:14), whereas in the book of Acts the resurrection seems more central (see Acts 2:33-36; 3:19-26; 13:37-39). The reason for the different emphasis is found in the different purposes of those writings: the cross tends to be used in didactic (instructional) sections, the resurrection in apologetic (persuasive) or kerygmatic sections, when the basis for salvation is being presented. In actuality they were a single event in salvation history. Jesus “was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Rom 4:25).<\/p>\n<p>Paul expressed the significance of the cross in the words “redemption,” “propitiation,” and “justification.” The first two concepts have the “for us” theme traceable to the suffering servant (Is 53:10-12), whose death was for “the sin of many.” The idea of redemption in both Testaments is the payment of a price to “ransom” those held captive. That price, the NT explains, was paid on the cross, and humanity was thereby freed from sin (Mk 10:45; Ti 2:14; 1 Pt 1:18). The connection between Jesus’ death and the substitutionary preposition “instead of” is also seen in Galatians 3:13, which adds to the curse of Deuteronomy 21:23 the interpretation “for us” (cf. Rom 5:10-11, 18; 1 Cor 11:24; Eph 1:7; 2:13). Similarly, Paul’s concept of justification centers on the cross. It is “Christ crucified” who declares humanity righteous and makes freedom from sin possible (Rom 6:6; Gal 2:19-21). Human guilt was transferred to the cross and expiated there, opening up God’s forensic (legal) forgiveness of all who avail themselves of its power (1 Pt 1:18-21; 2:24; 3:18). Finally, the result is “reconciliation”—both vertically, between humans and God (Col 1:20), and horizontally, between previously opposed human forces (e.g., in Eph 2:13-16, between Jew and Gentile).<\/p>\n<p>Beyond the theological meaning of the literal cross on which Jesus Christ was put to death in Judea nearly 2,000 years ago is the symbolic significance of the cross for his followers today.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus made “bearing the cross” a condition of discipleship in five passages. There are two major variants: one, found in the material common to Matthew and Luke (Mt 10:38; Lk 14:27), is phrased negatively (“cannot be my disciple”); the other, which is found in all three synoptic Gospels (Mt 16:24; Mk 8:34; Luke 9:23), is phrased positively (“If anyone would come after me”). Two major motifs are found in the sayings. The major motif comes from the imagery of a condemned man carrying his cross to an execution site; a necessary part of discipleship is a daily (Lk 9:23) willingness to sacrifice all and to suffer for the sake of Christ. The central point is not death but disgrace; the disciple must be ready to become an outcast from society.<\/p>\n<p>Paul extended Christ’s metaphor to the death of self. He may have taken the idea from the early catechism, as seen in the baptismal creed of Romans 6:1-8, which identifies baptism as being “buried with him.” Paul interpreted the Christian’s identification with Christ’s death to mean that “our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin” (Rom 6:6). As further developed in 2 Corinthians 5:14-17, the believer participates in the death and resurrection of Christ, so that the old life has passed away and the new has come (5:17). The same view is found also in Galatians, which contrasts the mystical death of self to the legalistic system of the Judaizers. The believer is “crucified with Christ,” with the result that “it is no longer I who live” (Gal 2:20); “the flesh with its passions and desires” is “crucified” (5:24); and “far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (6:14). Believers must experience the cross before they can find the resurrection life.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Criminal Law and Punishment; Eli, Eli, Lema Sabachthani; Golgotha; Redeemer, Redemption; Seven Last Sayings of Jesus.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CRUCIFIXION Form of execution employed in the death of Jesus Christ. Two concepts related to crucifixion occur in Scripture: the “cross,” a pagan mode of capital punishment, and the “tree,” which was a Jewish form. Jesus’ crucifixion was the means by which he procured atonement for humanity. The term “cross” was also used figuratively by Jesus to portray the sacrifice required in discipleship, and it was used by the apostle Paul to symbolize the death of self in the process of transformation....","summary_en":"CRUCIFIXION Form of execution employed in the death of Jesus Christ. Two concepts related to crucifixion occur in Scripture: the “cross,” a pagan mode of capital punishment, and the “tree,” which was a Jewish form. Jesus’ crucifixion was the means by which he procured atonement for humanity. The term “cross” was also used figuratively by Jesus to portray the sacrifice required in discipleship, and it was used by the apostle Paul to symbolize the death of self in the process of transformation....","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":12223,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Feasts and Festivals of Israel","title_en":"Feasts and Festivals of Israel","content_ro":"<h3>FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL<\/h3>\n<p>Occasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion.<\/p>\n\n<p>In contemporary usage “festival” usually refers to activities extending over a period of time, while “feast” indicates one part of the celebration, often a meal. However, in religious usage, both ancient and modern, the two words are used interchangeably. The ancient Hebrews employed the words <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mo’ed<\/span> (“seasons”) and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hag<\/span> for their great public celebrations, while feasts of a more private nature were commonly described by the term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mishteh<\/span><em>.<\/em> The majority of English translations of Scripture do not differentiate between these words.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FeastsandTheirFunctions\">Feasts and Their Functions<\/p>\n<p>Each festival places great emphasis on community participation and on the continuity of social or religious tradition, especially where the celebrations are elements of a regular civil or religious calendar. Without community backing, even in a family celebration, no festival can be successful. When there is communal participation, a festival can reinforce the individual and community memory of specific occasions, and can perpetuate that store of recollection over years and generations. Such shared memory has a cohesive effect upon a cooperating community, large or small, and serves to establish the traditions by which the group lives. If the festival commemorates a particular event or celebrates some lofty ideal, that theme becomes more firmly embedded in the minds of the participants by being associated repeatedly with the rites and ceremonies performed. The feasts of the ancient Hebrews had this positive function. The great festivals of their religious calendar commemorated specific occasions when God had reached out in power to intervene for his people or had provided for them in their distress. By celebrating these feasts on a regular basis, the Hebrews continually affirmed that their God had directed their destiny. Their repeated rehearsal of God’s help and love for them reminded them that he was still able to sustain them. Especially in times of hardship, it pointed to the reality of God’s presence and activity among them. Faith sustained by this means furnished an invaluable spiritual dimension to the life of the nation and provided a sense of continuity under divine provision and guidance. Only when corrupt or pagan elements were introduced into festive occasions did this important ingredient of national life begin to lose its vitality.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentFestivals\">Old Testament Festivals<\/p>\n<h5>General Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>These occasions were surprisingly numerous in Israel, considering the rather austere mode of life reflected in much of the OT. No doubt such celebrations offset or compensated for the hardships and insecurities of existence in the ancient Near East, and the Israelites made the most of every opportunity. A wedding was one of the most obvious occasions for celebration, and it is not surprising that a feast was prepared for the marriage of Rachel and Jacob (Gn 29:22) in which the whole neighborhood participated. Just how long this particular feast lasted is unknown, but some marriage festivals continued for a week, as in the case of the marriage between Samson and the woman of Timnah (Jgs 14:17). Wine that makes glad man’s heart (Ps 104:15) was consumed freely on such occasions.<\/p>\n<p>Birthdays were often observed in a festive spirit, especially where a royal person was concerned (Gn 40:20). Solomon’s dream was commemorated with a feast provided for his servants (1 Kgs 3:15), and when the temple was dedicated, the occasion was celebrated for a full week (8:65). Kings and queens held feasts periodically to mark certain occasions or to express goodwill (cf. Est 1:3; 2:18; 5:4, 14; 7:2, 7; Dn 5:1). Herdsmen traditionally made a feast for the shearing of the first sheep (Dt 18:4).<\/p>\n<h5>Preexilic Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>In addition to the general festivals, which were frequently of a secular nature, communal feasts were prescribed for the Israelites that had a specifically spiritual significance. They were meant to emphasize the activity of God on behalf of his people and to remind them that continued divine blessing depended upon their obedience to his will. The catalog of festivals in Leviticus 23:2 began with an injunction to observe the Sabbath. The seventh day, in which God ceased from creating (Gn 2:3), was holy, though it is difficult to determine the extent to which it was kept until the time of Moses (Ex 20:8-11). From that time on, Sabbath observance stressed refraining from all work so as to commemorate properly God’s own rest from creative activity (31:17) and his deliverance of his people from bondage in Egypt (Dt 5:12-15). Sabbath celebration was the sign of a special relationship between God and the Israelites. During this 24-hour period, even trivial tasks like making a fire (Ex 35:3) or gathering wood (Nm 15:32-33) were prohibited on pain of death. Journeys of any distance also came under the Sabbath ban (Ex 16:29). Special offerings were part of the observance (Nm 28:9-10), and the bread of the Presence was replaced in the tabernacle (Lv 24:5-8). Despite the restrictions on activity, the Sabbath was meant to symbolize a time of happiness and security in the presence of God (cf. Is 58:13-14), since its observance would bring blessing to the individual and to the whole land.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the New Moon<\/h6>\n<p>The new moon was a monthly celebration based on the lunar calendar. It was especially appropriate for an agricultural people, since everyone could tell when the moon was new. Special offerings were prescribed for this festival, consisting of a burnt sacrifice, a grain offering, and a drink offering (Nm 28:11-15). In addition, a male goat was sacrificed to God as a sin offering, and trumpet blasts were sounded over the sacrificial offerings as a memorial before God (10:10). The sacrifices prescribed for the new moon festival were significantly greater than those required in Numbers 28:9-10 for the weekly Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>This lunar feast was popular throughout Israelite history. During the monarchy, the Levites were required to assist the Aaronic priests at the new moon festival, as well as on the Sabbath (1 Chr 23:29-31). The preexilic prophets may well have taken advantage of the large gatherings to give guidance to the people or proclaim prophetic oracles (cf. 2 Kgs 4:23), though to what extent this was done is uncertain. Not everyone found the period of rest and celebration valuable, however, and Amos (Am 8:5) complained about those avaricious Israelites who felt that such observances interfered with the business of making a living. The feast could not be observed when the Judeans were in exile in Babylonia (cf. Hos 2:11), but under Ezra and Nehemiah, its observance was restored (Neh 10:33). In Isaiah 66:22-23 it was related to Israel’s final destiny and was an accepted part of the ordinances for Ezekiel’s ideal temple (Ez 45:17).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the festival was to enhance the unity of national life by reminding the Israelites that God’s covenant with their ancestors was permanent and still binding upon the nation. It also stressed the loving nature and providence of a God who could begin such a relationship and carry out his promises with complete faithfulness (cf. Ps 104:19).<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Trumpets<\/h6>\n<p>The Festival of Trumpets was celebrated on the first day of the seventh new moon. This month, subsequently named Tishri, was especially holy, and for this reason was governed by certain regulations different from those of ordinary new moon festivals. The trumpets were blown on the first day (Lv 23:24) as the animal and cereal sacrifices were offered. From Numbers 29:2-6 it appears that the offerings required for this particular feast exceeded those prescribed for normal Sabbath sacrifice, but were somewhat less than those required for the regular new moon festival (cf. Nm 28:11). This feast was to be observed as a day of solemn rest and as a holy convocation, and the trumpets were sounded as a triumphant memorial to God’s great provision for his people through the Sinai covenant.<\/p>\n<p>The seventh month was particularly sacred, partly because of its place in the hallowed cycle of sevens, but also because the Day of Atonement (or Yom Kippur) and the Feast of Tabernacles, or Booths (Shelters), occurred during this period. The latter feast followed the Day of Atonement by some five days (Lv 23:33), and its joyful character served to offset somewhat the solemnity of the annual penitential occasion when the nation confessed its collective sins and saw them banished symbolically into the wilderness as the scapegoat was driven from the congregation.<\/p>\n<h6>The Sabbatical Year<\/h6>\n<p>Another festival closely connected with the institution of the Sabbath was the sabbatical year. At the end of each cycle of six years, the following 12 months were observed as a “sabbath of rest for the land.” During this interval, the ground was to lie fallow (Ex 23:11) without any form of cultivation, and whatever sprouted and grew from it naturally was assigned to the poor and needy (Lv 25:6). This provision for the land itself constituted one of the most important ecological principles of Scripture. Like God’s people, the land was holy, and just as they needed to have regular intervals of rest from daily work in order to regain their energy and spiritual vitality through worship, so the ground needed to rest and recuperate from the strain of constant cultivation. The festival reminded the Israelites that the land on which they lived had been given to them by God in fulfillment of his covenant undertaking to provide richly for their physical needs (cf. Dt 8:7-10). To keep the Israelites from experiencing any shortages or other hardships during the Year of Sabbath, God promised that in the year immediately preceding the sabbatical period, the land would bear fruit to suffice for the next three years (Lv 25:21). This assurance was based upon the experience of the wilderness wanderings, when on the sixth day of the week sufficient manna appeared to last through the Sabbath (Ex 16:5).<\/p>\n<p>In this festival period, God’s absolute claim over the land was reaffirmed (cf. Lv 25:23), and the faith of the nation in God’s ability to provide for future needs was reinforced. The provisions that freed the land for a year from agricultural bondage were paralleled in the seventh year of rest by those requiring liberation of slaves and debtors. These underprivileged members of society were to be released from their obligations of servitude. As a result, men and women who had become slaves for one reason or another were given personal liberty (Ex 21:2-6), and under proclamation of the Lord’s release, the provisions applying to debt were rescinded (Dt 15:1-6). The sabbatical year seems to have been a regular part of preexilic Israelite life, although some abuses were noted in Jeremiah 34:8-22. There the prophet took advantage of the opportunity presented to instruct the people in the nature and purpose of the sabbatical year ordinance. He also warned the wayward Judeans that because they had disobeyed the commands of God in denying proper liberty to their slaves, they would have their own freedom taken away in a far more serious manner by being carried captive to Babylonia after seeing their land destroyed. The lesson was not lost upon those who returned from exile, for under the administration of Nehemiah, the Jews bound themselves by a covenant to observe the principle of the sabbatical year (Neh 10:31). This undertaking evidently took its impetus from the reading of the law of Moses at the Feast of Booths (Shelters), which coincidentally occurred at the beginning of the sabbatical year (Neh 8:13-18).<\/p>\n<h6>Jubilee<\/h6>\n<p>Still another feast based on the principle of the sabbath was the Year of Jubilee, or Pentecostal year (Lv 25:8-55; 27:17-24). As the sabbatical year was related to the concept of the seventh day, so the Pentecostal (50th) year marked the completion of a cycle of seven sabbatical years. The commencement of a jubilee year was proclaimed on the Day of Atonement throughout the land by means of trumpet blasts (Lv 25:9). The activities that took place during the Pentecostal year were similar to those prescribed for the sabbatical year. A special feature was that land that had been sold during the preceding 49 years was returned to its original owners, a procedure that sometimes involved financial adjustments. To prevent abuse of the process through opportunism or speculation, the Hebrews were instructed to deal fairly and honestly with one another in the fear of God, who was the real owner of the land (Lv 25:14-17). As with the sabbatical year, God promised to make provision before the jubilee year so that no one would suffer hardship. It was during the Year of Jubilee that those who were slaves in Hebrew households were given their liberty, so that everyone in the land would commence a new cycle of sabbatical years on the same footing, as free persons under God.<\/p>\n<h5>Seasonal Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>Three annual festivals that followed the seasons of the year rather than phases of the moon furnished important occasions for commemorating God’s power and provision in national life. These festivals were designated by the term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hag<\/span><em>,<\/em> indicating a festival usually observed by some sort of pilgrimage. These three festivals were prescribed in Exodus 23:14-17 and Deuteronomy 16:16, and consisted of the Feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), and the Festival of Booths (Tabernacles). On these occasions, all the males of Israel were commanded to make pilgrimage to the sanctuary and celebrate these festivals (Ex 12:14). The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were originally separate ordinances, but since the latter always followed immediately upon the Passover rite, they naturally blended into a single festival.<\/p>\n<h6>Passover<\/h6>\n<p>The Passover was of supreme theological significance for the Israelites, since it marked one of the most momentous acts of divine intervention in their history, the beginning of their deliverance from bondage in Egypt when, in the final plague, God destroyed the firstborn of the Egyptians but spared those Israelites whose homes had blood smeared on the doorposts (Ex 12:11-30). God commanded that the day was to be observed as a memorial feast (v 14), and the next Passover celebration occurred in the Sinai Desert (Nm 9:1-5). In the Hebrew calendar the Passover festival came in the first month, called Abib in Deuteronomy 16:1, but known after the exile as Nisan (cf. Neh 2:1). The Passover rite took place the 14th evening (Lv 23:5), and this was followed by a seven-day period during which nothing leavened was to be eaten. The principle for removing all leaven from bread was similar to that underlying the draining of blood from animal flesh. Both leaven and blood had quickening power and were to be kept separate as an offering to God. The first and seventh days of this period were marked by a holy assembly, during which the only work permitted was the preparation of food (Ex 12:16). This period when unleavened bread was eaten was described as a festival because it opened the seven-week period of grain harvest (Dt 16:9). During this feast, special burnt sacrifices were offered, followed with a sheaf of newly harvested barley at the Feast of Firstfruits. By NT times the festivals of Passover and Unleavened Bread were well-attended celebrations and were known as the “days of unleavened bread” (Lk 22:1; Acts 12:3). The theme of Israel’s deliverance from the power of Egypt by divine intervention assured the Israelites that God was always ready to act on behalf of a faithful and obedient covenant people. It also reminded them that they had once been slaves (Dt 16:12). In Israelite life the early Passover and Unleavened Bread observances were comparatively simple in character, but during the monarchy more elaborate Passover rituals came into use (cf. 2 Kgs 23:21-23; 2 Chr 35:1-19).<\/p>\n<h6>Pentecost<\/h6>\n<p>The second great festival, Pentecost (or Weeks) lasted one day only and was observed on the 50th day after the newly harvested barley sheaf had been waved before the Lord at the end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Dt 16:9-12). The festival marked the end of the barley harvest and the beginning of the wheat harvest, the beginning of the period when firstfruits could be offered (cf. Ex 23:16; 34:22; Nm 28:26). The feast day was marked by the presentation of two wheat-flour loaves along with sacrifices of seven lambs, two rams, and a bull (Lv 23:15-20). Freewill gifts to God were presented to reflect gratitude for his blessings, and the entire occasion was one of communal rejoicing (Dt 16:10-11). Since Pentecost was essentially a harvest festival (Ex 23:16), the Israelites were called on to recognize that they depended entirely upon God for their material prosperity. In Deuteronomy 26, specific instructions were given for the ritual of presenting firstfruits from the harvest. It comprised a great confession of faith set within the framework of Israel’s history, and it recounted God’s deliverance of the nation from Egyptian oppression and his provision of a land that could amply supply the needs of his people.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of Tabernacles<\/h6>\n<p>This festival, known variously as the Feast of Booths, Tabernacles, Shelters (Lv 23:34; Dt 16:13), or Ingathering (Ex 34:22), was the third great occasion that all Hebrew males were required to observe annually. It began on the 15th day of the seventh month (Tishri), shortly after the observance of the Day of Atonement, which fell on the 10th day. The Feast of Booths lasted for one week and involved pilgrimage. It was associated initially with the end of the year (Ex 34:22), when the agricultural work had been completed. The first day was marked by a symbolic cessation from all activity, after which burnt offerings were presented to the Lord. The eighth day was also one on which the congregation of Israel abstained from manual work and again offered burnt sacrifices. Leviticus 23:39-43 furnished details for the rituals that gave the festival its special name of booths or shelters or tabernacles. The fruit of “goodly trees” was to be gathered on the first day of the feast, along with palm fronds, willow branches, and boughs from trees in full leaf. From these, rough shelters or booths were to be constructed in which the people lived for the week of the feast. Every seventh year the observances were marked by a public recital of the covenant provisions to which the Israelites under Moses had committed themselves, a procedure designed to keep fresh in their minds the obligations as well as the blessings of the covenant relationship. A particularly significant observance of the Feast of Tabernacles took place in the time of Ezra, when the Judean community returned from Babylon—a celebration of a kind unknown for centuries (Neh 8:13-18). From the context it appears that observance of the feast had lapsed during the monarchy. The feast at Shiloh where Hannah was mistaken for a drunken woman and the feast referred to in Judges 21:19 were evidently the Feast of Booths. In a prophetic vision in which he saw all nations coming to Jerusalem to observe the Festival of Booths, Zechariah warned that those who did not continue this tradition could expect hardship and shortages of food (Zec 14:16-19).<\/p>\n<h5>Postexilic Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>There are a few minor festivals that were created in the period after the Jews returned from exile; some of these festivals had their origin in specific historical occasions.<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Purim<\/h6>\n<p>The Festival of Purim, also known as the Festival of Lots, was a joyful occasion occurring on the 14th day of the 12th month (Adar). It celebrated the way in which Esther and Mordecai were used by God to deliver his people in the Persian Empire from extermination by Haman (Est 9:21, 24-28). The feast was observed on the 14th day of Adar by those living in villages, and on the 15th by the inhabitants of walled towns and cities. The explanation of the name of the festival is given in Esther 9:24-26, and its observance reminded the Hebrews of God’s ability to save them during a time of anti-Semitic activity in Persia. The deliverance memorialized in this festival has consoled the Jews on other occasions when they have suffered persecution. Traditionally the scroll of Esther was read aloud in the synagogue on the evening before the feast, and there was a great outcry, especially among the children present, whenever the names of the hated Haman and his sons were mentioned.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the Dedication of the Temple<\/h6>\n<p>Another joyous festival that lasted for eight days was the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple (1 Macc 4:52-59; 2 Macc 10:6-8), familiar to modern readers as Hanukkah, or the Festival of Lights. The specific dedication that prompted the feast occurred in 164 <span>BC<\/span>, when Judas Maccabeus reconsecrated the temple in Jerusalem after it had been defiled by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The celebrations commenced on the 25th day of the ninth month (Kislev) and were marked at night by blazing lights and lanterns. The stories of brave opposition by the Maccabees to the crushing forces of paganism were recounted, and the feast was one of praise to God for his marvelous deliverance of the Jews during the Maccabean period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentFestivals\">New Testament Festivals<\/p>\n<p>In Christ’s time the Sabbath was observed rigorously and was the occasion for synagogue worship (cf. Lk 4:16; Acts 13:14; 18:4). Pharisaic law prohibited all work, and Jesus came into conflict with the authorities periodically for breaches of the Sabbath regulations (cf. Mt 12:1-4; Mk 3:1-5; Lk 13:10-17). In the primitive church, worship occurred on “the first day of the week” (i.e., Sunday) to commemorate Christ’s resurrection. The early Christians initially participated in Jewish ceremonies (cf. Acts 20:16; 1 Cor 16:8). It was during the Feast of Pentecost, after Christ’s resurrection and ascension, that the Spirit was poured out (Acts 2:1-4), fulfilling Joel 2:28-32 and commencing the history of the Christian church as such.<\/p>\n<p>The Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread were of great significance in the life of Christ (cf. Jn 4:45; 5:1; 6:4; 12:1-26), for the occasion was a very popular one in NT times (cf. 12:20). On the Passover, Pilate had instituted the custom of clemency to a prisoner nominated by the populace (Mt 27:15; Mk 15:6). Jesus participated actively in the Passover rituals (cf. Lk 2:42; Jn 2:13; 6:4). The Last Supper with his disciples occurred just prior to the Passover (Jn 13:1), when Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus to the Pharisees (Lk 22:4-6). The breaking of bread and the drinking of wine at that Passover celebration (Mk 14:22-25) were related directly to Christ’s forthcoming death on the cross in a sacramental manner. Christ’s disciples were instructed to observe this rite as a memorial of his suffering and death for human sin (1 Cor 11:24-26) and as a proclamation of the power of the cross until the Lord returns in glory. Some scholars have suggested that Christ was actually hanging on the cross when the Passover lamb was being slaughtered, and if that chronology is correct, it would represent Jesus graphically as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29, <span>rsv<\/span>). Jesus was also present once when the Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated (7:10). In his day water was carried in procession from the pool of Siloam as an offering to God, and the ceremony most probably prompted Christ’s discourse on living water and eternal life (vv 37-39). On at least one occasion Jesus was in Jerusalem when the Festival of Lights occurred (Jn 10:22) and narrowly missed death by stoning.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was entertained occasionally at private feasts (cf. Lk 5:29), and once remedied an emergency situation when the wine ran out at a wedding ceremony (Jn 2:8-10). He was critical of the Pharisees for securing the chief seats at feasts (Mt 23:6; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46) and taught that festivals ought to benefit the poor (Lk 14:13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SymbolismofFeasts\">Symbolism of Feasts<\/p>\n<p>Many aspects of the ancient Hebrew feasts were interpreted symbolically in the early church. Paul regarded the earliest Hebrew Christians as the firstfruits of the Israel of God (Rom 11:16). In Romans 8:23, the Holy Spirit as possessed by Christians was regarded as only a token of what was to come, and as such was the firstfruit of the Spirit. Christians themselves were described in James 1:18 as the firstfruits of God’s creatures who were brought forth by the Word of Truth. The resurrection of Jesus was considered by Paul to be the firstfruits of those who slept (1 Cor 15:20, 23). In an allusion to OT festivals, Paul spoke of the Sabbaths, new moons, and feasts as merely being a shadow of good things to come (Col 2:16-17). The Passover was used figuratively to emphasize that Christ our Passover Lamb had been sacrificed for us. Believers were urged to keep the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, and not with the old leaven of malice and evil (1 Cor 5:7-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Calendars, Ancient and Modern; Offerings and Sacrifices; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL<\/h3>\n<p>Occasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion.<\/p>\n\n<p>In contemporary usage “festival” usually refers to activities extending over a period of time, while “feast” indicates one part of the celebration, often a meal. However, in religious usage, both ancient and modern, the two words are used interchangeably. The ancient Hebrews employed the words <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mo’ed<\/span> (“seasons”) and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hag<\/span> for their great public celebrations, while feasts of a more private nature were commonly described by the term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mishteh<\/span><em>.<\/em> The majority of English translations of Scripture do not differentiate between these words.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FeastsandTheirFunctions\">Feasts and Their Functions<\/p>\n<p>Each festival places great emphasis on community participation and on the continuity of social or religious tradition, especially where the celebrations are elements of a regular civil or religious calendar. Without community backing, even in a family celebration, no festival can be successful. When there is communal participation, a festival can reinforce the individual and community memory of specific occasions, and can perpetuate that store of recollection over years and generations. Such shared memory has a cohesive effect upon a cooperating community, large or small, and serves to establish the traditions by which the group lives. If the festival commemorates a particular event or celebrates some lofty ideal, that theme becomes more firmly embedded in the minds of the participants by being associated repeatedly with the rites and ceremonies performed. The feasts of the ancient Hebrews had this positive function. The great festivals of their religious calendar commemorated specific occasions when God had reached out in power to intervene for his people or had provided for them in their distress. By celebrating these feasts on a regular basis, the Hebrews continually affirmed that their God had directed their destiny. Their repeated rehearsal of God’s help and love for them reminded them that he was still able to sustain them. Especially in times of hardship, it pointed to the reality of God’s presence and activity among them. Faith sustained by this means furnished an invaluable spiritual dimension to the life of the nation and provided a sense of continuity under divine provision and guidance. Only when corrupt or pagan elements were introduced into festive occasions did this important ingredient of national life begin to lose its vitality.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentFestivals\">Old Testament Festivals<\/p>\n<h5>General Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>These occasions were surprisingly numerous in Israel, considering the rather austere mode of life reflected in much of the OT. No doubt such celebrations offset or compensated for the hardships and insecurities of existence in the ancient Near East, and the Israelites made the most of every opportunity. A wedding was one of the most obvious occasions for celebration, and it is not surprising that a feast was prepared for the marriage of Rachel and Jacob (Gn 29:22) in which the whole neighborhood participated. Just how long this particular feast lasted is unknown, but some marriage festivals continued for a week, as in the case of the marriage between Samson and the woman of Timnah (Jgs 14:17). Wine that makes glad man’s heart (Ps 104:15) was consumed freely on such occasions.<\/p>\n<p>Birthdays were often observed in a festive spirit, especially where a royal person was concerned (Gn 40:20). Solomon’s dream was commemorated with a feast provided for his servants (1 Kgs 3:15), and when the temple was dedicated, the occasion was celebrated for a full week (8:65). Kings and queens held feasts periodically to mark certain occasions or to express goodwill (cf. Est 1:3; 2:18; 5:4, 14; 7:2, 7; Dn 5:1). Herdsmen traditionally made a feast for the shearing of the first sheep (Dt 18:4).<\/p>\n<h5>Preexilic Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>In addition to the general festivals, which were frequently of a secular nature, communal feasts were prescribed for the Israelites that had a specifically spiritual significance. They were meant to emphasize the activity of God on behalf of his people and to remind them that continued divine blessing depended upon their obedience to his will. The catalog of festivals in Leviticus 23:2 began with an injunction to observe the Sabbath. The seventh day, in which God ceased from creating (Gn 2:3), was holy, though it is difficult to determine the extent to which it was kept until the time of Moses (Ex 20:8-11). From that time on, Sabbath observance stressed refraining from all work so as to commemorate properly God’s own rest from creative activity (31:17) and his deliverance of his people from bondage in Egypt (Dt 5:12-15). Sabbath celebration was the sign of a special relationship between God and the Israelites. During this 24-hour period, even trivial tasks like making a fire (Ex 35:3) or gathering wood (Nm 15:32-33) were prohibited on pain of death. Journeys of any distance also came under the Sabbath ban (Ex 16:29). Special offerings were part of the observance (Nm 28:9-10), and the bread of the Presence was replaced in the tabernacle (Lv 24:5-8). Despite the restrictions on activity, the Sabbath was meant to symbolize a time of happiness and security in the presence of God (cf. Is 58:13-14), since its observance would bring blessing to the individual and to the whole land.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the New Moon<\/h6>\n<p>The new moon was a monthly celebration based on the lunar calendar. It was especially appropriate for an agricultural people, since everyone could tell when the moon was new. Special offerings were prescribed for this festival, consisting of a burnt sacrifice, a grain offering, and a drink offering (Nm 28:11-15). In addition, a male goat was sacrificed to God as a sin offering, and trumpet blasts were sounded over the sacrificial offerings as a memorial before God (10:10). The sacrifices prescribed for the new moon festival were significantly greater than those required in Numbers 28:9-10 for the weekly Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>This lunar feast was popular throughout Israelite history. During the monarchy, the Levites were required to assist the Aaronic priests at the new moon festival, as well as on the Sabbath (1 Chr 23:29-31). The preexilic prophets may well have taken advantage of the large gatherings to give guidance to the people or proclaim prophetic oracles (cf. 2 Kgs 4:23), though to what extent this was done is uncertain. Not everyone found the period of rest and celebration valuable, however, and Amos (Am 8:5) complained about those avaricious Israelites who felt that such observances interfered with the business of making a living. The feast could not be observed when the Judeans were in exile in Babylonia (cf. Hos 2:11), but under Ezra and Nehemiah, its observance was restored (Neh 10:33). In Isaiah 66:22-23 it was related to Israel’s final destiny and was an accepted part of the ordinances for Ezekiel’s ideal temple (Ez 45:17).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the festival was to enhance the unity of national life by reminding the Israelites that God’s covenant with their ancestors was permanent and still binding upon the nation. It also stressed the loving nature and providence of a God who could begin such a relationship and carry out his promises with complete faithfulness (cf. Ps 104:19).<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Trumpets<\/h6>\n<p>The Festival of Trumpets was celebrated on the first day of the seventh new moon. This month, subsequently named Tishri, was especially holy, and for this reason was governed by certain regulations different from those of ordinary new moon festivals. The trumpets were blown on the first day (Lv 23:24) as the animal and cereal sacrifices were offered. From Numbers 29:2-6 it appears that the offerings required for this particular feast exceeded those prescribed for normal Sabbath sacrifice, but were somewhat less than those required for the regular new moon festival (cf. Nm 28:11). This feast was to be observed as a day of solemn rest and as a holy convocation, and the trumpets were sounded as a triumphant memorial to God’s great provision for his people through the Sinai covenant.<\/p>\n<p>The seventh month was particularly sacred, partly because of its place in the hallowed cycle of sevens, but also because the Day of Atonement (or Yom Kippur) and the Feast of Tabernacles, or Booths (Shelters), occurred during this period. The latter feast followed the Day of Atonement by some five days (Lv 23:33), and its joyful character served to offset somewhat the solemnity of the annual penitential occasion when the nation confessed its collective sins and saw them banished symbolically into the wilderness as the scapegoat was driven from the congregation.<\/p>\n<h6>The Sabbatical Year<\/h6>\n<p>Another festival closely connected with the institution of the Sabbath was the sabbatical year. At the end of each cycle of six years, the following 12 months were observed as a “sabbath of rest for the land.” During this interval, the ground was to lie fallow (Ex 23:11) without any form of cultivation, and whatever sprouted and grew from it naturally was assigned to the poor and needy (Lv 25:6). This provision for the land itself constituted one of the most important ecological principles of Scripture. Like God’s people, the land was holy, and just as they needed to have regular intervals of rest from daily work in order to regain their energy and spiritual vitality through worship, so the ground needed to rest and recuperate from the strain of constant cultivation. The festival reminded the Israelites that the land on which they lived had been given to them by God in fulfillment of his covenant undertaking to provide richly for their physical needs (cf. Dt 8:7-10). To keep the Israelites from experiencing any shortages or other hardships during the Year of Sabbath, God promised that in the year immediately preceding the sabbatical period, the land would bear fruit to suffice for the next three years (Lv 25:21). This assurance was based upon the experience of the wilderness wanderings, when on the sixth day of the week sufficient manna appeared to last through the Sabbath (Ex 16:5).<\/p>\n<p>In this festival period, God’s absolute claim over the land was reaffirmed (cf. Lv 25:23), and the faith of the nation in God’s ability to provide for future needs was reinforced. The provisions that freed the land for a year from agricultural bondage were paralleled in the seventh year of rest by those requiring liberation of slaves and debtors. These underprivileged members of society were to be released from their obligations of servitude. As a result, men and women who had become slaves for one reason or another were given personal liberty (Ex 21:2-6), and under proclamation of the Lord’s release, the provisions applying to debt were rescinded (Dt 15:1-6). The sabbatical year seems to have been a regular part of preexilic Israelite life, although some abuses were noted in Jeremiah 34:8-22. There the prophet took advantage of the opportunity presented to instruct the people in the nature and purpose of the sabbatical year ordinance. He also warned the wayward Judeans that because they had disobeyed the commands of God in denying proper liberty to their slaves, they would have their own freedom taken away in a far more serious manner by being carried captive to Babylonia after seeing their land destroyed. The lesson was not lost upon those who returned from exile, for under the administration of Nehemiah, the Jews bound themselves by a covenant to observe the principle of the sabbatical year (Neh 10:31). This undertaking evidently took its impetus from the reading of the law of Moses at the Feast of Booths (Shelters), which coincidentally occurred at the beginning of the sabbatical year (Neh 8:13-18).<\/p>\n<h6>Jubilee<\/h6>\n<p>Still another feast based on the principle of the sabbath was the Year of Jubilee, or Pentecostal year (Lv 25:8-55; 27:17-24). As the sabbatical year was related to the concept of the seventh day, so the Pentecostal (50th) year marked the completion of a cycle of seven sabbatical years. The commencement of a jubilee year was proclaimed on the Day of Atonement throughout the land by means of trumpet blasts (Lv 25:9). The activities that took place during the Pentecostal year were similar to those prescribed for the sabbatical year. A special feature was that land that had been sold during the preceding 49 years was returned to its original owners, a procedure that sometimes involved financial adjustments. To prevent abuse of the process through opportunism or speculation, the Hebrews were instructed to deal fairly and honestly with one another in the fear of God, who was the real owner of the land (Lv 25:14-17). As with the sabbatical year, God promised to make provision before the jubilee year so that no one would suffer hardship. It was during the Year of Jubilee that those who were slaves in Hebrew households were given their liberty, so that everyone in the land would commence a new cycle of sabbatical years on the same footing, as free persons under God.<\/p>\n<h5>Seasonal Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>Three annual festivals that followed the seasons of the year rather than phases of the moon furnished important occasions for commemorating God’s power and provision in national life. These festivals were designated by the term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hag<\/span><em>,<\/em> indicating a festival usually observed by some sort of pilgrimage. These three festivals were prescribed in Exodus 23:14-17 and Deuteronomy 16:16, and consisted of the Feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), and the Festival of Booths (Tabernacles). On these occasions, all the males of Israel were commanded to make pilgrimage to the sanctuary and celebrate these festivals (Ex 12:14). The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were originally separate ordinances, but since the latter always followed immediately upon the Passover rite, they naturally blended into a single festival.<\/p>\n<h6>Passover<\/h6>\n<p>The Passover was of supreme theological significance for the Israelites, since it marked one of the most momentous acts of divine intervention in their history, the beginning of their deliverance from bondage in Egypt when, in the final plague, God destroyed the firstborn of the Egyptians but spared those Israelites whose homes had blood smeared on the doorposts (Ex 12:11-30). God commanded that the day was to be observed as a memorial feast (v 14), and the next Passover celebration occurred in the Sinai Desert (Nm 9:1-5). In the Hebrew calendar the Passover festival came in the first month, called Abib in Deuteronomy 16:1, but known after the exile as Nisan (cf. Neh 2:1). The Passover rite took place the 14th evening (Lv 23:5), and this was followed by a seven-day period during which nothing leavened was to be eaten. The principle for removing all leaven from bread was similar to that underlying the draining of blood from animal flesh. Both leaven and blood had quickening power and were to be kept separate as an offering to God. The first and seventh days of this period were marked by a holy assembly, during which the only work permitted was the preparation of food (Ex 12:16). This period when unleavened bread was eaten was described as a festival because it opened the seven-week period of grain harvest (Dt 16:9). During this feast, special burnt sacrifices were offered, followed with a sheaf of newly harvested barley at the Feast of Firstfruits. By NT times the festivals of Passover and Unleavened Bread were well-attended celebrations and were known as the “days of unleavened bread” (Lk 22:1; Acts 12:3). The theme of Israel’s deliverance from the power of Egypt by divine intervention assured the Israelites that God was always ready to act on behalf of a faithful and obedient covenant people. It also reminded them that they had once been slaves (Dt 16:12). In Israelite life the early Passover and Unleavened Bread observances were comparatively simple in character, but during the monarchy more elaborate Passover rituals came into use (cf. 2 Kgs 23:21-23; 2 Chr 35:1-19).<\/p>\n<h6>Pentecost<\/h6>\n<p>The second great festival, Pentecost (or Weeks) lasted one day only and was observed on the 50th day after the newly harvested barley sheaf had been waved before the Lord at the end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Dt 16:9-12). The festival marked the end of the barley harvest and the beginning of the wheat harvest, the beginning of the period when firstfruits could be offered (cf. Ex 23:16; 34:22; Nm 28:26). The feast day was marked by the presentation of two wheat-flour loaves along with sacrifices of seven lambs, two rams, and a bull (Lv 23:15-20). Freewill gifts to God were presented to reflect gratitude for his blessings, and the entire occasion was one of communal rejoicing (Dt 16:10-11). Since Pentecost was essentially a harvest festival (Ex 23:16), the Israelites were called on to recognize that they depended entirely upon God for their material prosperity. In Deuteronomy 26, specific instructions were given for the ritual of presenting firstfruits from the harvest. It comprised a great confession of faith set within the framework of Israel’s history, and it recounted God’s deliverance of the nation from Egyptian oppression and his provision of a land that could amply supply the needs of his people.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of Tabernacles<\/h6>\n<p>This festival, known variously as the Feast of Booths, Tabernacles, Shelters (Lv 23:34; Dt 16:13), or Ingathering (Ex 34:22), was the third great occasion that all Hebrew males were required to observe annually. It began on the 15th day of the seventh month (Tishri), shortly after the observance of the Day of Atonement, which fell on the 10th day. The Feast of Booths lasted for one week and involved pilgrimage. It was associated initially with the end of the year (Ex 34:22), when the agricultural work had been completed. The first day was marked by a symbolic cessation from all activity, after which burnt offerings were presented to the Lord. The eighth day was also one on which the congregation of Israel abstained from manual work and again offered burnt sacrifices. Leviticus 23:39-43 furnished details for the rituals that gave the festival its special name of booths or shelters or tabernacles. The fruit of “goodly trees” was to be gathered on the first day of the feast, along with palm fronds, willow branches, and boughs from trees in full leaf. From these, rough shelters or booths were to be constructed in which the people lived for the week of the feast. Every seventh year the observances were marked by a public recital of the covenant provisions to which the Israelites under Moses had committed themselves, a procedure designed to keep fresh in their minds the obligations as well as the blessings of the covenant relationship. A particularly significant observance of the Feast of Tabernacles took place in the time of Ezra, when the Judean community returned from Babylon—a celebration of a kind unknown for centuries (Neh 8:13-18). From the context it appears that observance of the feast had lapsed during the monarchy. The feast at Shiloh where Hannah was mistaken for a drunken woman and the feast referred to in Judges 21:19 were evidently the Feast of Booths. In a prophetic vision in which he saw all nations coming to Jerusalem to observe the Festival of Booths, Zechariah warned that those who did not continue this tradition could expect hardship and shortages of food (Zec 14:16-19).<\/p>\n<h5>Postexilic Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>There are a few minor festivals that were created in the period after the Jews returned from exile; some of these festivals had their origin in specific historical occasions.<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Purim<\/h6>\n<p>The Festival of Purim, also known as the Festival of Lots, was a joyful occasion occurring on the 14th day of the 12th month (Adar). It celebrated the way in which Esther and Mordecai were used by God to deliver his people in the Persian Empire from extermination by Haman (Est 9:21, 24-28). The feast was observed on the 14th day of Adar by those living in villages, and on the 15th by the inhabitants of walled towns and cities. The explanation of the name of the festival is given in Esther 9:24-26, and its observance reminded the Hebrews of God’s ability to save them during a time of anti-Semitic activity in Persia. The deliverance memorialized in this festival has consoled the Jews on other occasions when they have suffered persecution. Traditionally the scroll of Esther was read aloud in the synagogue on the evening before the feast, and there was a great outcry, especially among the children present, whenever the names of the hated Haman and his sons were mentioned.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the Dedication of the Temple<\/h6>\n<p>Another joyous festival that lasted for eight days was the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple (1 Macc 4:52-59; 2 Macc 10:6-8), familiar to modern readers as Hanukkah, or the Festival of Lights. The specific dedication that prompted the feast occurred in 164 <span>BC<\/span>, when Judas Maccabeus reconsecrated the temple in Jerusalem after it had been defiled by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The celebrations commenced on the 25th day of the ninth month (Kislev) and were marked at night by blazing lights and lanterns. The stories of brave opposition by the Maccabees to the crushing forces of paganism were recounted, and the feast was one of praise to God for his marvelous deliverance of the Jews during the Maccabean period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentFestivals\">New Testament Festivals<\/p>\n<p>In Christ’s time the Sabbath was observed rigorously and was the occasion for synagogue worship (cf. Lk 4:16; Acts 13:14; 18:4). Pharisaic law prohibited all work, and Jesus came into conflict with the authorities periodically for breaches of the Sabbath regulations (cf. Mt 12:1-4; Mk 3:1-5; Lk 13:10-17). In the primitive church, worship occurred on “the first day of the week” (i.e., Sunday) to commemorate Christ’s resurrection. The early Christians initially participated in Jewish ceremonies (cf. Acts 20:16; 1 Cor 16:8). It was during the Feast of Pentecost, after Christ’s resurrection and ascension, that the Spirit was poured out (Acts 2:1-4), fulfilling Joel 2:28-32 and commencing the history of the Christian church as such.<\/p>\n<p>The Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread were of great significance in the life of Christ (cf. Jn 4:45; 5:1; 6:4; 12:1-26), for the occasion was a very popular one in NT times (cf. 12:20). On the Passover, Pilate had instituted the custom of clemency to a prisoner nominated by the populace (Mt 27:15; Mk 15:6). Jesus participated actively in the Passover rituals (cf. Lk 2:42; Jn 2:13; 6:4). The Last Supper with his disciples occurred just prior to the Passover (Jn 13:1), when Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus to the Pharisees (Lk 22:4-6). The breaking of bread and the drinking of wine at that Passover celebration (Mk 14:22-25) were related directly to Christ’s forthcoming death on the cross in a sacramental manner. Christ’s disciples were instructed to observe this rite as a memorial of his suffering and death for human sin (1 Cor 11:24-26) and as a proclamation of the power of the cross until the Lord returns in glory. Some scholars have suggested that Christ was actually hanging on the cross when the Passover lamb was being slaughtered, and if that chronology is correct, it would represent Jesus graphically as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29, <span>rsv<\/span>). Jesus was also present once when the Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated (7:10). In his day water was carried in procession from the pool of Siloam as an offering to God, and the ceremony most probably prompted Christ’s discourse on living water and eternal life (vv 37-39). On at least one occasion Jesus was in Jerusalem when the Festival of Lights occurred (Jn 10:22) and narrowly missed death by stoning.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was entertained occasionally at private feasts (cf. Lk 5:29), and once remedied an emergency situation when the wine ran out at a wedding ceremony (Jn 2:8-10). He was critical of the Pharisees for securing the chief seats at feasts (Mt 23:6; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46) and taught that festivals ought to benefit the poor (Lk 14:13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SymbolismofFeasts\">Symbolism of Feasts<\/p>\n<p>Many aspects of the ancient Hebrew feasts were interpreted symbolically in the early church. Paul regarded the earliest Hebrew Christians as the firstfruits of the Israel of God (Rom 11:16). In Romans 8:23, the Holy Spirit as possessed by Christians was regarded as only a token of what was to come, and as such was the firstfruit of the Spirit. Christians themselves were described in James 1:18 as the firstfruits of God’s creatures who were brought forth by the Word of Truth. The resurrection of Jesus was considered by Paul to be the firstfruits of those who slept (1 Cor 15:20, 23). In an allusion to OT festivals, Paul spoke of the Sabbaths, new moons, and feasts as merely being a shadow of good things to come (Col 2:16-17). The Passover was used figuratively to emphasize that Christ our Passover Lamb had been sacrificed for us. Believers were urged to keep the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, and not with the old leaven of malice and evil (1 Cor 5:7-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Calendars, Ancient and Modern; Offerings and Sacrifices; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL Occasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion. In contemporary usag...","summary_en":"FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL Occasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion. In contemporary usag...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19662,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Teachings of Jesus Christ","title_en":"Teachings of Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of<\/h3>\n<p>Because of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? What did he mean when he spoke about the kingdom? What light does his teaching throw on the meaning of his death? What did he say about the Holy Spirit? How did he describe human beings and their needs? Did he anticipate the Christian church? Did he teach anything about the end of the world? What were the main features of his moral teaching? The following sections will seek to answer these important questions.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about God<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Himself<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about His Own Death<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Humanity<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Church<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Future<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutGod\">Teachings about God<\/p>\n<p>Anyone who comes to the teachings of Jesus after reading the OT will at once recognize that much of his teaching about God is the same. Since Jesus, as all orthodox Jews of his day, accepted the testimony of the OT as inspired, it is not surprising that his approach to God was similar. This is especially true of his assumption that God was Creator. He taught a special providential care over the created order and affirmed that God watched over such small creatures as the sparrow (Mt 10:29). There is no support in the teachings of Jesus for the view that God is uninterested in the world he made.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most characteristic titles Jesus used for God was Father. This was not new, for the idea occurs in the OT, where God is seen as Father of his people Israel. This kind of fatherhood was national rather than personal. In the intertestamental period the Jews came to regard God as so holy that he was removed from direct contact with human affairs. There had to be mediators between God and people. This exalted notion of God was not conducive to the idea of God as Father, and it is against this background that the uniqueness of the personal fatherhood of God in the teaching of Jesus must be seen. There is some evidence in Judaism that prayer to God as “Our Father” was known, but what distinguishes Jesus’ teachings from that of his contemporaries is that the fatherhood of God was central to what he taught.<\/p>\n<p>The father-son relationship is particularly vivid in John’s Gospel, where Jesus as Son is seen to be in close communion with God as Father. This comes out strongly in Jesus’ prayer in John 17 and in the frequent assertions that the Father had sent the Son and that the Son was doing the will of the Father. It is this strong relationship between God and Jesus in terms of fatherhood and sonship that led Jesus to teach men to approach God in the same way. The Lord’s Prayer at once recognizes this in its opening words. It is particularly important to note that “Our Father” precedes “hallowed be thy name,” for the more intimate idea prepares the way for the more remote. Jesus never taught men to approach God with terror.<\/p>\n<p>Although there is a connection between the way in which Jesus addressed God as Father and the way in which he taught his disciples to approach God, there is also a distinction. Jesus spoke of “my Father and your Father” when he appeared to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection (Jn 20:17), but he did not say “our Father.” His sonship was unique, for he claimed that he and the Father were one (Jn 10:30).<\/p>\n<p>In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus assured his followers that their heavenly Father knows about their needs (Mt 6:32; Lk 12:30), on the strength of which they are exhorted not to be anxious. This gives some insight into the way in which Jesus’ teachings about God has a bearing on practical issues.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHimself\">Teachings about Himself<\/p>\n<p>What Jesus said about himself is of great importance, for this undoubtedly formed the basis of what the early church came to teach about him.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus used certain titles of himself or accepted them as descriptions of himself when they were used by others. The most widely used is Son of Man. This title was used by Jesus to refer to himself but was not used by anyone else. It was used, moreover, in several different kinds of sayings. Sometimes the sayings related directly to the public ministry of Jesus, like the saying that the Son of Man was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28), or that the Son of Man had authority to forgive sins (v 10). Sometimes the sayings had a direct bearing on the Passion, as when Jesus said that the Son of Man must suffer many things (Mk 8:31; note that Mt 16:21 has “he” instead of “Son of Man”). At other times the reference is to a future appearance, as when Jesus declared to the high priest that he would see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Mk 14:62). What did Jesus mean by the title, and why did he use it?<\/p>\n<p>The title “Son of Man” had been used before. The phrase occurs in Psalm 8:4, where it refers to man or humans. Again, the expression is used many times in Ezekiel as a mode of address to the prophet, but here also it means man. A rather different use occurs in Daniel 7:13, where one like a son of man comes with the clouds before the Ancient of Days. There is a strong similarity between this passage and the words of Jesus in Mark 14:62. But an important difference is that whereas Son of Man becomes a title in Mark, it is not so in Daniel. There is some evidence for the title in Jewish apocalyptic literature (e.g., in the Similitudes of Enoch), where it represents a preexistent being who will come to judge and overthrow the enemies of God. It seems evident from this that Jesus’ use of Son of Man as a title is unique.<\/p>\n<p>The Son of Man sayings are distributed throughout the four Gospels, and there are no appreciable differences in their uses. What is at first astonishing is that though the title is so widespread in the Gospels on the lips of Jesus, it never became a name by which Jesus was known by the early Christians. In fact, only in Acts 7:56 does the title appear, in this case used by Stephen. It is clear, therefore, that it had a special meaning for Jesus that it did not have for others. There is no doubt that he was referring to himself and not to someone else, as a careful study of all the Son of Man sayings shows. Those who think that Jesus was referring to someone else arrive at this conclusion only after first dispensing with some of the sayings. The most probable reason why he used the title Son of Man was because he wanted to avoid a term like Messiah, which carried with it too many political overtones. But what did Son of Man mean to Jesus? It is rich with the idea of humanness, possibly allusions to Daniel’s “son of man,” and perhaps a touch of the Suffering Servant idea from Isaiah 53. It is most likely that Jesus saw it in terms of his mission in a way that his hearers could not fully appreciate. It is also probable that the early church preferred Messiah because this title carried the meaning of a royal deliverer; also, after the death of Jesus, there would be no further fear of political misunderstanding.<\/p>\n<p>The term Messiah, or Christ, does not belong strictly to the teachings of Jesus, since he himself never used it. The most striking instance where he accepted the ascription of Messiah was in Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi. All the synoptic Gospels record the confession “You are the Christ,” while Matthew adds the significant comment by Jesus that flesh and blood had not revealed it but “my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17). He certainly accepted the confession and regarded it as revelation. One other case in the Synoptics where he does not specifically refute messiahship is his answer to the high priest’s question “Are you the Messiah?” (Mk 14:61). In John’s Gospel, Andrew tells Peter that he had found the Messiah (Jn 1:41); the woman at Samaria talks to Jesus, and he reveals that he is the Messiah (4:25-26). There was a widespread expectation among the Jews that a deliverer would come to overthrow their political enemies, the Romans. There were various ideas about his origin (a military leader or a heavenly warrior) and his methods (the Zealots believed that deliverance could come only through armed revolution). The reticence of Jesus concerning messiahship is therefore readily understandable.<\/p>\n<p>Another title of utmost importance is Son of God, although it occurs mainly in John’s Gospel. That both Mark and John regarded Jesus in this light is clear from explicit statements in their Gospels (cf. Mk 1:1; Jn 20:30-31). There are certainly passages where Messiah is linked with Son of God and where Jesus rejects neither title (cf. Mt 16:16). But in the teachings of Jesus one passage makes abundantly clear the special relationship that Jesus had with God as Son—namely, Matthew 11:27 (also Lk 10:22, a parallel passage), where Jesus implies that he is the Son of the Father.<\/p>\n<p>Many similar passages in John’s Gospel are, however, more explicit. The Son is unquestionably preexistent, because he knows he came from the Father and returns to the Father. It is not possible from the many references to sonship in John’s Gospel to come to any other conclusion than that Jesus regarded himself as divine. It is particularly important to note that it is also in this Gospel that Jesus is portrayed most clearly in his human nature with its attendant weaknesses. Nowhere in the teachings of Jesus did he explain how God could become man, but he assumed this as a fact. He taught with the authority of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheKingdomofGod\">Teachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\n<p>No one can read the synoptic Gospels without being impressed with the frequency with which the expression “kingdom of God” (or of heaven) occurs. It was clearly an important theme in the whole teaching of Jesus. It is less evident in John’s Gospel but is nevertheless still present. Many of the parables of Jesus are specifically called parables of the kingdom. Jesus’ concept of the kingdom provided a foundational idea to the Christian gospel.<\/p>\n<p>The main idea is the rule of God over people rather than a realm that belongs to God. In other words, the emphasis is on the active reigning of the King. This is important because it means that the kingdom is inextricably affected by relationships between the members and the King. It also means the kingdom will not be expressed in institutional terms.<\/p>\n<p>There is one problem with the kingdom teachings that must be faced: its timing. Some sayings imply that it is already present, while others suggest that it will not come until the future. Some scholars disavow the idea that present and future can be held together; therefore, they reject one and concentrate on the other. Those who maintain a present understanding of the kingdom developed the idea of a social gospel, since Christianity was defined as the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. According to this view, there is no place for a future arrival of the kingdom. On the other hand, some have denied altogether the present aspect and concentrate on the future. In this case, it is difficult to see in what sense the kingdom teachings are relevant.<\/p>\n<p>Yet others have insisted that since both present and future aspects are found in the Gospel records, no explanation is satisfying that denies one at the expense of the other. One possible solution is to regard the present aspects as applying to this age but as not reaching their fulfillment until the future establishment of the kingdom. A similar solution, expressed differently, is to maintain that the reality is a future kingdom but that it has spilled over into the present. Jesus intentionally included both present and future aspects.<\/p>\n<p>That the kingdom was a theme of common interest is clear from Luke 17:20-21, where the Pharisees asked Jesus when it was coming. His answer, that it was among them, shows unmistakably a present idea. This is equally true of the statement that in the exorcism of evil spirits the kingdom had arrived (Mt 12:28; Lk 11:20). Moreover, Jesus mentioned that the kingdom has been forcefully advancing (Mt 11:12), by which he did not mean by revolutionary methods, although he clearly implied that something dynamic was already happening. This idea of dynamic power is one of the most characteristic features of the kingdom. Jesus spoke of binding the strong, armed man (Lk 11:21-22), which shows that in his ministry he expected to give a powerful demonstration against the forces of darkness.<\/p>\n<p>It is evident that the kingdom Jesus proclaimed was a kingdom in which God was supreme. It was inseparably linked with his redemptive mission, in which God was bringing spiritual deliverance to his people. Moreover, the kingdom teachings of Jesus cannot be regarded in isolation. It is part of the total message; no part of that message can be divorced from any other part without distorting the whole.<\/p>\n<p>The clearest teachings on the future aspect of the kingdom are to be found in some of the parables (Mt 13) and in the discourse on the Mt of Olives (Mt 24–25; Mk 13; Lk 21). In the latter, Jesus spoke of the future using imagery drawn from Jewish literature, like the references to clouds, to glory, and to angels in relation to the coming of the Son of Man (Mk 13:26-27). In Matthew’s account there is reference to a trumpet call, another familiar feature (Mt 24:31).<\/p>\n<p>Various features from the kingdom parables give the clearest idea of the nature of the kingdom. Membership in the kingdom is not considered to be universal, for in the parable of the sower not all the soils are productive. The same separation is seen in the parable of the tares and the parable of the dragnet. The tares are destroyed and only the wheat is harvested, while the bad fish are discarded. The members of the kingdom are those who hear and understand the word of the kingdom (Mt 13:23). It is clear, therefore, that a response is necessary if the benefits of the kingdom are to be enjoyed.<\/p>\n<p>There is an emphasis on growth in the parable of the mustard seed, where rapid development occurs from small beginnings. The parables of the treasure and the pearl are intended to underline the value of the kingdom. The universal character of the kingdom comes out sharply in the parable of the vineyard, where the kingdom is said to be taken away from the Jews and given to another “nation,” presumably an allusion to the Gentiles (Mt 21:43). This is in line with the great commission Jesus gave to his disciples to preach to all nations (28:19). A universal kingdom would certainly be entirely different from the messianic kingdom idea of Judaism, in which Israel was to be the central unit. It is not easy to appreciate how revolutionary the idea was of a worldwide kingdom with Gentiles and Jews on the same footing.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHisOwnDeath\">Teachings about His Own Death<\/p>\n<p>The announcement of the kingdom must be linked with Jesus’ approach to his own death. Did Jesus see his death as an integral part of his mission? Some have maintained that he ended his life in disillusionment, but a brief survey of his teaching about his own destiny is sufficient to dispel such a theory. To the further question, “What meaning did Jesus attach to his forthcoming death?” he gave a series of passing indications that, when taken together, supply us with a basis on which to reconstruct some idea of the place of his death within the entire range of his mission.<\/p>\n<p>It is important to note that many times Jesus showed his awareness that details of his life were a fulfillment of Scripture (cf. Mt 26:24, 56; Mk 9:12; Lk 18:31; 24:25-27, 44-45). In all the instances cited, the suffering of Jesus is referred to as the subject of OT prophecy. This must mean that he had reflected on OT predictions and recognized that they could be fulfilled only through his own sufferings. In this case the Passion must be regarded as an indispensable part of Jesus’ consciousness of his own mission.<\/p>\n<p>This emphasis on fulfillment of Scripture is also seen in John’s Gospel. His statement that the Son of Man must be lifted up even as Moses lifted up the serpent (Jn 3:14) illustrates this point. Most of the passages where fulfillment of Scripture is mentioned are the comments of the Evangelist, John. But there can be no doubt that the fulfillment motive played a vital part both in Jesus’ own understanding of his mission and in the early Christians’ understanding of his death. In this connection, some hold that John puts more stress on the Incarnation as a means of salvation in that he sees it as an illumination of the mind. But this is only part of the truth, for there is more on the meaning of the death of Jesus in John’s Gospel than in the others.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospels emphasize the divine necessity of the death of Jesus. In addition to the fulfillment motive, the idea of necessity is strong in the first prediction by Jesus of his approaching death. In John’s Gospel Jesus speaks of his “hour” several times in the earlier stages of his ministry as “not yet,” but in the later stages as having arrived. There is a sense of definite movement toward a climax, the hour undoubtedly being the hour of the Passion (cf. Jn 17:1). There is not room for any disillusionment here. Jesus knew that only through the hour of death could the Father be glorified. The climax was according to an orderly plan.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus evidently regarded his death as in some ways a sacrifice. The clearest indication of this is in the words of institution at the Last Supper. The cup is connected with the blood of the new covenant, which is said to be for the “remission of sins” (Mt 26:26-28). No explanation is given of the way in which the coming death, signified by the broken bread and poured-out wine, would bring about forgiveness of sins. But the immediate realization by the early church that Christ died for our sins (cf. 1 Cor 15:3) shows that the importance of what Jesus said had been clearly grasped. The new covenant idea is parallel to the old covenant, which according to Exodus 24 was sealed with sacrificial blood; there can be little doubt that Jesus had this in mind when he spoke the words about the new covenant. It was also akin to the ideas expressed in Jeremiah 31, referring to a covenant written on the heart rather than graven in stone.<\/p>\n<p>Another aspect of the death of Christ seen especially in John’s Gospel is the sense of completion that went with it. In Jesus’ prayer in John 17, as he faces the cross, he declares that he has finished the work that the Father had given him to do (Jn 17:4). This is reinforced by the cry from the cross, “It is finished,” which only John records (19:30). This sense of accomplishment gives an air of triumph to what might otherwise have been considered a disaster.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheHolySpirit\">Teachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n<p>At several of the major events in the life of Jesus, the Evangelists note the activity of the Spirit (e.g., the Virgin Birth, the Baptism, the Temptation). It is to be expected, therefore, that Jesus would have instructed his disciples about the Spirit. However, there is surprisingly little in the synoptic Gospels on this theme. Most of the teachings come from John’s Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus began his preaching ministry in Nazareth, according to Luke, he read the statement in Isaiah 61:1-2 about the Spirit of God and applied it to himself. He saw his ministry as being inaugurated by the Spirit. This becomes clear in the way in which he responded to the charge that he cast out demons by means of Beelzebub, prince of the demons. He identified the reality of the coming of the kingdom by the fact that he was casting out evil spirits by the Spirit of God (Mt 12:28). He was, moreover, sensitive to the seriousness of blaspheming the Spirit, which he implies his accusers were in danger of doing. Whatever he did in his ministry he saw as an activity of the Spirit, and this was especially so in the contest with evil spirits.<\/p>\n<p>While warning his disciples that they would meet with opposition, Jesus assured them of the Spirit’s support when they were forced to appear before kings or governors (Mt 10:19-20; Mk 13:11). Indeed, he told them that the Spirit would speak through them, thus emphasizing that he expected a continuation of the Spirit’s activity in the future. Luke records one instance in which Jesus comments on what fathers will do for their children and asks whether God will not give the Holy Spirit to those who ask (Lk 11:13). The assumption is that God regards the Holy Spirit as the best gift to give his children. On yet another occasion, Jesus recognized that David was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote Psalm 110 (Mk 12:36), reflecting Jesus’ belief in the Spirit’s agency in the production of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of John provides a more detailed development of what Jesus taught about the Spirit. Teachings about the Spirit are usually linked to Jesus’ teachings about giving eternal life to those who believe in him and receive him. At the same time he spoke of the new birth and eternal life to Nicodemus, Jesus also spoke of the Spirit (Jn 3:3-8, 15-16). When he spoke of water of life to the Samaritan woman, he also spoke of the Spirit (4:14, 23-24). The same holds true for the discourses on the bread of life (6:48-63) and river of life (7:37-39). Throughout the Gospel, Jesus declares to various people that he can give them eternal life if they would believe in him. He promises them the water of life, the bread of life, and the light of life, but no one could really partake of these until after the Lord was resurrected. As a foretaste, as a sample, they could receive a certain measure of life via the Lord’s words, because his words were themselves spirit and life (6:63), but it was not until the Spirit would become available that the believers could actually become the recipients of the divine, eternal life.<\/p>\n<p>After the Lord’s discourse in John 6 (a discourse that was very troubling and offensive to most of his disciples), Jesus said, “It is the Spirit who gives eternal life” (6:63). When the Spirit became available, they could have life. Again, Jesus offered the water of life—even life flowing like rivers of living water—to the Jews assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles. He told them to come and drink of him. But no one could, then and there, come and drink of him. So John added a note: “This He spoke of the Spirit, . . . for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39, <span>nasb<\/span>). Once Jesus would be glorified through resurrection, the Spirit of the glorified Jesus would be available for men to drink. In John 6, Jesus offered himself as the bread of life to be eaten by men; and in John 7, he offered himself as the water of life to refresh men. But no one could eat of him or drink of him until the Spirit of the glorified Jesus was made available, as was intimated in John 6:63 and then stated plainly in John 7:39.<\/p>\n<p>In John 14:16-18, Jesus went one step further in identifying himself with the Spirit. He told the disciples that he would give them another Comforter. Then he told them that they should know who this Comforter was because he was, then and there, abiding with them and would, in the near future, be in them. Who else but Jesus was abiding with them at that time? Then after telling the disciples that the Comforter would come to them, he said, “I am coming to you.” First he said that the Comforter would come to them and abide in them, and then in the same breath he said that he would come to them and abide in them (see 14:20). In short, the coming of the Comforter to the disciples was one and the same as the coming of Jesus to the disciples. The Comforter who was dwelling with the disciples that night was the Spirit in Christ; the Comforter who would be in the disciples (after the resurrection) would be Christ in the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>On the evening of the resurrection, the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples and then breathed into them the Holy Spirit. This inbreathing, reminiscent of God’s breathing into Adam the breath of life (Gn 2:7), became the fulfillment of all that had been promised and anticipated earlier in John’s Gospel. Through this impartation, the disciples were regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This historical event marked the genesis of the new creation. Jesus could now be realized as the bread of life, the water of life, and the light of life. The believers now possessed his divine, eternal, risen life. From that time forward, Christ as Spirit indwelt his believers. Thus, in his first epistle John could say, “We know he lives in us because the Holy Spirit lives in us” (1 Jn 3:24).<\/p>\n<p>The indwelling Spirit helped the disciples remember Jesus’ words and actions (Jn 14:26) so that they could teach and write about them with acumen. This means that Jesus did not intend that the preservation of his teachings should be left to chance. All too often theories attempting to explain the way in which the traditions about Jesus and his teachings were transmitted in the period before there were any written Gospels are suggested without any reference to the Holy Spirit. It is not acceptable to concentrate on so-called laws of oral tradition and pay no attention to the unique factor in this case—the Holy Spirit. It is part of the Spirit’s mission to preserve and transmit the teaching of Jesus. What Jesus says in this passage about the Spirit has far-reaching significance for the formation of the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Another important function is the activity of the Spirit in the world. Jesus made it clear that the Spirit would convict of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment (Jn 16:8). Without the activity of the Spirit, there would be no possibility of the disciples making any impact on the world. Nevertheless, Jesus warned that the world could not receive the Spirit because it did not know him (14:17). The mystery of the Spirit is that he dwells in every believer. This indwelling aspect is of great importance and was particularly developed in the writings of Paul.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHumanity\">Teachings about Humanity<\/p>\n<p>Jesus taught about God’s providential care over all human beings. A person’s hairs are all numbered (Mt 10:30), which is a vivid way of saying that God is concerned about the details of human life. But God is far more concerned with the eternal soul. Jesus made it clear that it would be unprofitable for anyone to gain the world and to lose his or her soul (Mt 16:26; Mk 8:36; Lk 9:25). The focus falls on what a person is and not what he or she has. Jesus even said that a maimed body was preferable to a forfeited life (Mk 9:43-47). One’s total fulfillment depends more on one’s spiritual condition than on one’s environment or physical well-being. He was not, of course, unconcerned about people’s physical state, as his many healings show, but his major concern was with people’s relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus never viewed humans as isolated individuals. Within God’s community people were expected to have responsibility toward one another. The Sermon on the Mount illustrated this social emphasis in the teaching of Jesus. Those who are merciful to others will obtain mercy (Mt 5:7). There is special commendation for peacemakers (v 9). The disciples of Jesus are expected to bring light to others (v 16). They are expected to give more than expected (v 40). Jesus is clearly saying that people have responsibility beyond themselves.<\/p>\n<p>The relation of people to God is one of dependence. Jesus taught men and women to pray to God for daily bread (Mt 6:11) as a reminder that they cannot be wholly self-sufficient. He allowed no place in his teaching for humans to boast in their own achievements.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had some specific things to say about home life. He accepted the sanctity of the marriage contract (Mt 5:31-32; cf. 19:3-9) and therefore showed a high regard for the honor and rights of the wife. It was more in his actions and attitudes rather than his specific teachings that Jesus showed his regard for the status of women. When he spoke of men, he often used the term in the sense of people, including both men and women. There is no suggestion that in matters of faith women were in the least inferior to men. Moreover, Luke points out how many women supported Jesus and his disciples in their travels.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had a high view of the human potential but also acknowledged their present condition. The stress on repentance (Mt 4:17) shows a sinfulness of which people need to repent. This sense of need is implicit in the instances where Jesus pronounces forgiveness (e.g., to the paralytic, Mt 9:1-8; and to the woman who anointed him, Lk 7:47-48). In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus instructs his disciples to pray for forgiveness (Mt 6:12; Lk 11:4). He takes for granted that they need it and desire to obtain it.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus gives no support to any self-righteousness in men or women. This is the burden of his criticism of the religious leaders in various sayings, but particularly in Matthew 23. He was critical of Jewish teachers because they placed so much importance on works of merit as contributing to salvation. His whole approach depended on humans casting themselves on the mercy of God. This is vividly illustrated in the parable about the Pharisee and the tax collector at prayer (Lk 18:10-14). It was the latter who threw himself on the mercy of God and who was commended by Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Undoubtedly, Jesus regarded sin as universal. He never suggested that there was anyone who was exempt from it. The major concept of sin in his teachings was alienation from God. This comes out clearly in John’s Gospel, with its strong antithesis between light and darkness, life and death (cf. Jn 5:24). Indeed, the “world” in John’s Gospel represents the system that takes no account of God. But sin is also seen as enslavement to Satan. The life and teachings of Jesus are seen against the background of spiritual conflict. Jesus can even say to his opponents, “You are of your father the devil” (Jn 8:44). He assumes throughout that there are hostile forces bringing man into subjection.<\/p>\n<p>In the parable of the prodigal son, sin against God is linked with sin before the father. In other words, it is regarded in terms of rebellion and revolt (Lk 15:21). This is a different assessment of the son’s offense than the one arrived at by the elder brother, who could see it only in terms of property. The view that humans are essentially in a state of rebellion against God is a basic tenet of Paul’s theological position, and it is important to note that it finds its root in the teachings of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>There is no question that Jesus had much to say about condemnation. Those who did not believe and were therefore outside the provision of salvation that Jesus had made are declared to be already condemned (Jn 3:18). At various times Jesus mentioned judgment to come, which shows that a person’s destiny is related to his or her present spiritual condition. Against this background of humanity’s spiritual need, the whole mission of Jesus must be seen. A person, if left to himself or herself, would be totally unable to achieve salvation, but Jesus came to offer eternal life to those who believe in him (Jn 3:16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheChurch\">Teachings about the Church<\/p>\n<p>Some have supposed that Jesus did not predict that there would be a church. But on two occasions he used the word “church,” which means a people called out by God. On one of the occasions—at Caesarea Philippi—Jesus told Peter that he would build his church upon the rock (Mt 16:16-19). It seems most probable that “rock” was intended to link the foundation of the church to Peter’s particular confession about Jesus. It is certain that the later church was a community that affirmed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is important to note that it is Christ himself who is the builder of the church. He assured his disciples that it would be impregnable (the gates of hades would not overcome it). Moreover, one of the functions of the church was to proclaim forgiveness of sins, and this is implied in what Jesus said to Peter. That the words were not intended to refer exclusively to him is clear from Matthew 18:18, where similar words were addressed to all the disciples. The church, according to Matthew 18:17, was to be a community that could settle disputes between believers.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to these specific references to the church, Jesus assumed that his followers would meet together in his name (Mt 18:19-20). In his final words in Matthew’s account, he commissioned them to teach what he had taught them and to baptize new disciples (Mt 28:19-20). He promised his presence would be with them. The command to baptize was reinforced by Jesus’ own example in submitting to John’s baptism. One other special rite that Jesus expected his disciples to observe was the Lord’s Supper. His instructions about this presuppose a later community that could observe it. Since the form of words used in the institution point to the meaning of the death of Christ, it is clear that Jesus intended the future community to be frequently reminded of the center of the faith. The Christian church was to be a group of people who knew that through Christ they had entered into a new relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Although there are no references to the church in John’s Gospel, there are certainly hints that support the community idea. Jesus introduced himself as the Shepherd and spoke of his followers as forming a flock (Jn 10:16). The sheep imagery occurs again in this Gospel when Peter is instructed three times by the risen Lord to feed the sheep (Jn 21:15-17). Another figure of speech that Jesus used to bring out the group idea is that of the many branches that draw their life from the vine, and therefore belong to each other because of their common life in the vine.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus recognized that the future community would need the aid of the Spirit. His teachings on this subject laid the foundation for the evident dependence of the early church on the Spirit, as seen in the book of Acts. Finally, it should be noted that there is a close connection between the church and the kingdom, although they are not identical. The kingdom is more comprehensive than the church, which is included within it.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheFuture\">Teachings about the Future<\/p>\n<p>Jesus thought of the kingdom in terms of both present realization and future hope. The future aspect is related to the end of the age. Although he did not spell it out in specific terms, Jesus did not leave his disciples without any knowledge of how the present age would end. He gave firm assurance that he would return at some time in the future.<\/p>\n<p>He told the disciples that the Son of Man would come with his angels in his Father’s glory (Mt 16:27). In the discourse in which he answers the disciples’ question about the end of the world, he speaks again of the Son of Man coming in clouds with power and glory (Mk 13:26), probably drawn from the familiar language of Daniel 7. Jesus described various signs that would precede his own coming. He spoke of wars, conflicts, earthquakes, famines, and disturbances in the heavens. The gospel was to be preached to all nations. At the same time many false Christs would arise.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus gave such details about his return to encourage his disciples in the face of persecution. The future hope had a definitely practical purpose. The disciples were urged to watch. The coming would happen as unexpectedly as a thief in the night. Jesus said that even he himself did not know when the coming would take place (Mk 13:32).<\/p>\n<p>Another important theme affecting the future is emphasized in Jesus’ teachings about resurrection. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the body. They attempted to trap Jesus with a question about a woman who had been married seven times. They wanted to know whose husband she would be at the resurrection (Mk 12:18-27). Jesus pointed out that there would be no marriage when the dead rise. The Sadducees’ idea about resurrection was clearly wrong. Jesus’ teaching was that the resurrected would be like the angels. There is no doubt about the resurrection of the dead, although no information is given about the resurrection body. Jesus told a story about a rich man and a poor man who both died (Lk 16:19-31). In the afterlife the rich man cries out in torment, while the poor man enjoys a state of blessedness. What is most clear from this is the certainty of the afterlife and the fact of a distinction between the two men, although we are not told on what grounds the distinction is made. Elsewhere in his teachings, Jesus suggested that the most vital requirement is faith in himself. The conversation between Jesus and the dying thief on the cross suggests that paradise for the latter consisted in an awareness of the presence of Jesus (Lk 23:42-43).<\/p>\n<p>The theme of rewards and punishment occurs in many passages. In Matthew 16:27 Jesus says that the Son of Man will reward everyone according to what he or she has done. Those who are worthless are promised punishment in darkness (Mt 25:30). Moreover, Jesus spoke of a day of judgment on which men and women must give an account, even of all their careless words (12:36-37). In the parable of the sheep and the goats, he spoke of a separation that the Son of Man will make when he comes. Those commended are those who have shown concern for the believers (25:31-46).<\/p>\n<p>Among Jesus’ most solemn statements are those that speak of hell. There is no way of getting around his teachings about eternal punishment for the unrighteous (as in Mt 25:41, 46), which is opposite to the eternal life promised to the righteous. He taught that his disciples would have a place prepared for them in heaven (Jn 14:2), and spoke of a Book of Life in which the names of his disciples were written (Lk 10:20).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutMoralIssues\">Teachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\n<p>Much of the teaching of Jesus is concerned with moral issues—so much so that some scholars have concluded that this was the main burden of his teaching. But the moral teachings cannot be considered apart from the many facets of his teachings outlined above. It has been said that there are close parallels between the teachings of Jesus and the moral teachings of Judaism. What is distinctive about Jesus’ teachings about morality is that the motive and power behind moral conduct is not conceived in terms of laws that must be obeyed. Right conduct is seen to be the result of a right relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was himself the pattern for moral behavior. He made clear that his aim was to fulfill the will of God. There is no sense of legalism in his approach to ethical decisions. When—in the Sermon on the Mount—he compared his own teaching with that of Moses, he showed the importance of penetrating to the inner meaning (cf. Mt 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32). On the face of it, Jesus made more rigorous demands than the Mosaic law, because he was concerned with probing the motives as well as the actions. Many have dismissed the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount as entirely impractical, but Jesus never intended that his teaching would be easy; he set as a target nothing less than the perfection of God himself (Mt 5:48). Nevertheless, he called his yoke easy and his burden light (11:29-30), which suggests that he was not setting out an impossible ethical pattern. It must be remembered that he was not producing a manifesto for society. His concern was that each individual should have powerful motives for right decisions on matters of conduct. His reaction against a rigid application of Sabbath observance at the expense of the welfare of a needy person illustrates this point. Concern for others was rated higher than ritual correctness.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>No account of the life and teachings of Jesus would be complete without some indication of the place that Jesus Christ gained in the developing church. Such a quest naturally takes us outside the scope of the Gospels into the testimony of the book of Acts and Paul’s letters. There we can see whether the predictions of Jesus were fulfilled and whether in fact the early Christians took his teaching seriously. Although there can be no question that Jesus Christ became central to the faith of the early Christians, he was regarded from many points of view. He was seen as Messiah in the sense of a spiritual deliverer, as Lord in the sense of being sovereign over his people, as Servant in the sense of his obedience to suffering, as Son in his relation to his Father. In many ways the full understanding of what and who he was could not have occurred until after the resurrection. Therefore, we find that many facets of his teachings about himself were more fully developed in the reflections of his people. This is true in a special sense of the writings of the apostle Paul.<\/p>\n<p>Many have found a problem in linking the Gospels with their detailed presentation of the acts and teachings of Jesus with the Christ who is so central in Paul’s beliefs. The problem arises because the apostle does not refer to any specific incident in the life of Jesus and does not reflect in his epistles any acquaintance with the large amount of teaching material in the Gospels. Does this suggest that Paul had no interest in the historical Jesus? Or could it be maintained that he knew nothing about him? Those who have driven a wedge between Paul and Jesus have not given sufficient weight to those incidental indications that Paul knew a great deal more about the historical Jesus than he states in his letters. He writes, for instance, about the meekness and gentleness of Christ (2 Cor 10:1), suggesting that he knew that Jesus had said of himself that he was meek and lowly of heart (Mt 11:29). Moreover, Paul speaks of the poverty of Christ (2 Cor 8:9) and must have known that the Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head. He certainly knows the details of how Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:23-26), and he knows of his death by crucifixion. It seems reasonable to conclude that Paul assumes that his readers will be acquainted with the Gospel material.<\/p>\n<p>It is perhaps useful in this connection to inquire whether the life and teachings of Jesus played a significant part in the early Christian proclamation. One passage that is valuable in this respect is Acts 10:36-38. In Peter’s address to Cornelius, he spoke of God’s having anointed Jesus of Nazareth, and of Jesus’ having gone about doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil. It is clear that some account of the acts of Jesus was included in the early preaching, and there is no reason to suppose that this was not a regular procedure.<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that the example of Jesus was a powerful motive for promoting right behavior. Peter appeals to it in encouraging Christians who were suffering for their faith (1 Pt 2:21). Paul also knows the value of imitation (1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thes 1:6). Since Jesus was recognized as being a man who did not sin (cf. 2 Cor 5:21), his behavior patterns would have proved invaluable for those who needed a new standard for moral action. While this idea of example is unquestionably present in the Epistles, it would be quite wrong to suppose that it formed a major part of Christian doctrine.<\/p>\n<p>There are a few references to the teachings of Jesus in the non-Gospel portion of the NT. In the Letter of James, which is almost wholly practical, there are more allusions to the teachings of Jesus than anywhere else in the NT. This is especially true in echoes of the Sermon on the Mount, and it shows the strong contribution that the moral teaching of Jesus had on the ethical values of the early Christians. Most of the expositions of doctrine in the Epistles find their basis in some aspect of the teachings of Jesus. These teachings have an ongoing significance for the development of the church.<\/p>\n<p>To what extent is knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus relevant to the 21st century? Existential theologians have driven such a wedge between the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history that the latter has ceased to have any importance for them. Christians today, no less than their first-century predecessors, need to know that the object of their faith is the same one who lived and taught in Galilee and Judea.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Ascension of Christ; Christ; Christology; Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Incarnation; Jesus Christ; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven; Messiah; Parable; Savior; Son of God; Son of Man; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of<\/h3>\n<p>Because of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? What did he mean when he spoke about the kingdom? What light does his teaching throw on the meaning of his death? What did he say about the Holy Spirit? How did he describe human beings and their needs? Did he anticipate the Christian church? Did he teach anything about the end of the world? What were the main features of his moral teaching? The following sections will seek to answer these important questions.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about God<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Himself<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about His Own Death<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Humanity<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Church<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Future<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutGod\">Teachings about God<\/p>\n<p>Anyone who comes to the teachings of Jesus after reading the OT will at once recognize that much of his teaching about God is the same. Since Jesus, as all orthodox Jews of his day, accepted the testimony of the OT as inspired, it is not surprising that his approach to God was similar. This is especially true of his assumption that God was Creator. He taught a special providential care over the created order and affirmed that God watched over such small creatures as the sparrow (Mt 10:29). There is no support in the teachings of Jesus for the view that God is uninterested in the world he made.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most characteristic titles Jesus used for God was Father. This was not new, for the idea occurs in the OT, where God is seen as Father of his people Israel. This kind of fatherhood was national rather than personal. In the intertestamental period the Jews came to regard God as so holy that he was removed from direct contact with human affairs. There had to be mediators between God and people. This exalted notion of God was not conducive to the idea of God as Father, and it is against this background that the uniqueness of the personal fatherhood of God in the teaching of Jesus must be seen. There is some evidence in Judaism that prayer to God as “Our Father” was known, but what distinguishes Jesus’ teachings from that of his contemporaries is that the fatherhood of God was central to what he taught.<\/p>\n<p>The father-son relationship is particularly vivid in John’s Gospel, where Jesus as Son is seen to be in close communion with God as Father. This comes out strongly in Jesus’ prayer in John 17 and in the frequent assertions that the Father had sent the Son and that the Son was doing the will of the Father. It is this strong relationship between God and Jesus in terms of fatherhood and sonship that led Jesus to teach men to approach God in the same way. The Lord’s Prayer at once recognizes this in its opening words. It is particularly important to note that “Our Father” precedes “hallowed be thy name,” for the more intimate idea prepares the way for the more remote. Jesus never taught men to approach God with terror.<\/p>\n<p>Although there is a connection between the way in which Jesus addressed God as Father and the way in which he taught his disciples to approach God, there is also a distinction. Jesus spoke of “my Father and your Father” when he appeared to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection (Jn 20:17), but he did not say “our Father.” His sonship was unique, for he claimed that he and the Father were one (Jn 10:30).<\/p>\n<p>In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus assured his followers that their heavenly Father knows about their needs (Mt 6:32; Lk 12:30), on the strength of which they are exhorted not to be anxious. This gives some insight into the way in which Jesus’ teachings about God has a bearing on practical issues.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHimself\">Teachings about Himself<\/p>\n<p>What Jesus said about himself is of great importance, for this undoubtedly formed the basis of what the early church came to teach about him.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus used certain titles of himself or accepted them as descriptions of himself when they were used by others. The most widely used is Son of Man. This title was used by Jesus to refer to himself but was not used by anyone else. It was used, moreover, in several different kinds of sayings. Sometimes the sayings related directly to the public ministry of Jesus, like the saying that the Son of Man was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28), or that the Son of Man had authority to forgive sins (v 10). Sometimes the sayings had a direct bearing on the Passion, as when Jesus said that the Son of Man must suffer many things (Mk 8:31; note that Mt 16:21 has “he” instead of “Son of Man”). At other times the reference is to a future appearance, as when Jesus declared to the high priest that he would see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Mk 14:62). What did Jesus mean by the title, and why did he use it?<\/p>\n<p>The title “Son of Man” had been used before. The phrase occurs in Psalm 8:4, where it refers to man or humans. Again, the expression is used many times in Ezekiel as a mode of address to the prophet, but here also it means man. A rather different use occurs in Daniel 7:13, where one like a son of man comes with the clouds before the Ancient of Days. There is a strong similarity between this passage and the words of Jesus in Mark 14:62. But an important difference is that whereas Son of Man becomes a title in Mark, it is not so in Daniel. There is some evidence for the title in Jewish apocalyptic literature (e.g., in the Similitudes of Enoch), where it represents a preexistent being who will come to judge and overthrow the enemies of God. It seems evident from this that Jesus’ use of Son of Man as a title is unique.<\/p>\n<p>The Son of Man sayings are distributed throughout the four Gospels, and there are no appreciable differences in their uses. What is at first astonishing is that though the title is so widespread in the Gospels on the lips of Jesus, it never became a name by which Jesus was known by the early Christians. In fact, only in Acts 7:56 does the title appear, in this case used by Stephen. It is clear, therefore, that it had a special meaning for Jesus that it did not have for others. There is no doubt that he was referring to himself and not to someone else, as a careful study of all the Son of Man sayings shows. Those who think that Jesus was referring to someone else arrive at this conclusion only after first dispensing with some of the sayings. The most probable reason why he used the title Son of Man was because he wanted to avoid a term like Messiah, which carried with it too many political overtones. But what did Son of Man mean to Jesus? It is rich with the idea of humanness, possibly allusions to Daniel’s “son of man,” and perhaps a touch of the Suffering Servant idea from Isaiah 53. It is most likely that Jesus saw it in terms of his mission in a way that his hearers could not fully appreciate. It is also probable that the early church preferred Messiah because this title carried the meaning of a royal deliverer; also, after the death of Jesus, there would be no further fear of political misunderstanding.<\/p>\n<p>The term Messiah, or Christ, does not belong strictly to the teachings of Jesus, since he himself never used it. The most striking instance where he accepted the ascription of Messiah was in Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi. All the synoptic Gospels record the confession “You are the Christ,” while Matthew adds the significant comment by Jesus that flesh and blood had not revealed it but “my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17). He certainly accepted the confession and regarded it as revelation. One other case in the Synoptics where he does not specifically refute messiahship is his answer to the high priest’s question “Are you the Messiah?” (Mk 14:61). In John’s Gospel, Andrew tells Peter that he had found the Messiah (Jn 1:41); the woman at Samaria talks to Jesus, and he reveals that he is the Messiah (4:25-26). There was a widespread expectation among the Jews that a deliverer would come to overthrow their political enemies, the Romans. There were various ideas about his origin (a military leader or a heavenly warrior) and his methods (the Zealots believed that deliverance could come only through armed revolution). The reticence of Jesus concerning messiahship is therefore readily understandable.<\/p>\n<p>Another title of utmost importance is Son of God, although it occurs mainly in John’s Gospel. That both Mark and John regarded Jesus in this light is clear from explicit statements in their Gospels (cf. Mk 1:1; Jn 20:30-31). There are certainly passages where Messiah is linked with Son of God and where Jesus rejects neither title (cf. Mt 16:16). But in the teachings of Jesus one passage makes abundantly clear the special relationship that Jesus had with God as Son—namely, Matthew 11:27 (also Lk 10:22, a parallel passage), where Jesus implies that he is the Son of the Father.<\/p>\n<p>Many similar passages in John’s Gospel are, however, more explicit. The Son is unquestionably preexistent, because he knows he came from the Father and returns to the Father. It is not possible from the many references to sonship in John’s Gospel to come to any other conclusion than that Jesus regarded himself as divine. It is particularly important to note that it is also in this Gospel that Jesus is portrayed most clearly in his human nature with its attendant weaknesses. Nowhere in the teachings of Jesus did he explain how God could become man, but he assumed this as a fact. He taught with the authority of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheKingdomofGod\">Teachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\n<p>No one can read the synoptic Gospels without being impressed with the frequency with which the expression “kingdom of God” (or of heaven) occurs. It was clearly an important theme in the whole teaching of Jesus. It is less evident in John’s Gospel but is nevertheless still present. Many of the parables of Jesus are specifically called parables of the kingdom. Jesus’ concept of the kingdom provided a foundational idea to the Christian gospel.<\/p>\n<p>The main idea is the rule of God over people rather than a realm that belongs to God. In other words, the emphasis is on the active reigning of the King. This is important because it means that the kingdom is inextricably affected by relationships between the members and the King. It also means the kingdom will not be expressed in institutional terms.<\/p>\n<p>There is one problem with the kingdom teachings that must be faced: its timing. Some sayings imply that it is already present, while others suggest that it will not come until the future. Some scholars disavow the idea that present and future can be held together; therefore, they reject one and concentrate on the other. Those who maintain a present understanding of the kingdom developed the idea of a social gospel, since Christianity was defined as the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. According to this view, there is no place for a future arrival of the kingdom. On the other hand, some have denied altogether the present aspect and concentrate on the future. In this case, it is difficult to see in what sense the kingdom teachings are relevant.<\/p>\n<p>Yet others have insisted that since both present and future aspects are found in the Gospel records, no explanation is satisfying that denies one at the expense of the other. One possible solution is to regard the present aspects as applying to this age but as not reaching their fulfillment until the future establishment of the kingdom. A similar solution, expressed differently, is to maintain that the reality is a future kingdom but that it has spilled over into the present. Jesus intentionally included both present and future aspects.<\/p>\n<p>That the kingdom was a theme of common interest is clear from Luke 17:20-21, where the Pharisees asked Jesus when it was coming. His answer, that it was among them, shows unmistakably a present idea. This is equally true of the statement that in the exorcism of evil spirits the kingdom had arrived (Mt 12:28; Lk 11:20). Moreover, Jesus mentioned that the kingdom has been forcefully advancing (Mt 11:12), by which he did not mean by revolutionary methods, although he clearly implied that something dynamic was already happening. This idea of dynamic power is one of the most characteristic features of the kingdom. Jesus spoke of binding the strong, armed man (Lk 11:21-22), which shows that in his ministry he expected to give a powerful demonstration against the forces of darkness.<\/p>\n<p>It is evident that the kingdom Jesus proclaimed was a kingdom in which God was supreme. It was inseparably linked with his redemptive mission, in which God was bringing spiritual deliverance to his people. Moreover, the kingdom teachings of Jesus cannot be regarded in isolation. It is part of the total message; no part of that message can be divorced from any other part without distorting the whole.<\/p>\n<p>The clearest teachings on the future aspect of the kingdom are to be found in some of the parables (Mt 13) and in the discourse on the Mt of Olives (Mt 24–25; Mk 13; Lk 21). In the latter, Jesus spoke of the future using imagery drawn from Jewish literature, like the references to clouds, to glory, and to angels in relation to the coming of the Son of Man (Mk 13:26-27). In Matthew’s account there is reference to a trumpet call, another familiar feature (Mt 24:31).<\/p>\n<p>Various features from the kingdom parables give the clearest idea of the nature of the kingdom. Membership in the kingdom is not considered to be universal, for in the parable of the sower not all the soils are productive. The same separation is seen in the parable of the tares and the parable of the dragnet. The tares are destroyed and only the wheat is harvested, while the bad fish are discarded. The members of the kingdom are those who hear and understand the word of the kingdom (Mt 13:23). It is clear, therefore, that a response is necessary if the benefits of the kingdom are to be enjoyed.<\/p>\n<p>There is an emphasis on growth in the parable of the mustard seed, where rapid development occurs from small beginnings. The parables of the treasure and the pearl are intended to underline the value of the kingdom. The universal character of the kingdom comes out sharply in the parable of the vineyard, where the kingdom is said to be taken away from the Jews and given to another “nation,” presumably an allusion to the Gentiles (Mt 21:43). This is in line with the great commission Jesus gave to his disciples to preach to all nations (28:19). A universal kingdom would certainly be entirely different from the messianic kingdom idea of Judaism, in which Israel was to be the central unit. It is not easy to appreciate how revolutionary the idea was of a worldwide kingdom with Gentiles and Jews on the same footing.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHisOwnDeath\">Teachings about His Own Death<\/p>\n<p>The announcement of the kingdom must be linked with Jesus’ approach to his own death. Did Jesus see his death as an integral part of his mission? Some have maintained that he ended his life in disillusionment, but a brief survey of his teaching about his own destiny is sufficient to dispel such a theory. To the further question, “What meaning did Jesus attach to his forthcoming death?” he gave a series of passing indications that, when taken together, supply us with a basis on which to reconstruct some idea of the place of his death within the entire range of his mission.<\/p>\n<p>It is important to note that many times Jesus showed his awareness that details of his life were a fulfillment of Scripture (cf. Mt 26:24, 56; Mk 9:12; Lk 18:31; 24:25-27, 44-45). In all the instances cited, the suffering of Jesus is referred to as the subject of OT prophecy. This must mean that he had reflected on OT predictions and recognized that they could be fulfilled only through his own sufferings. In this case the Passion must be regarded as an indispensable part of Jesus’ consciousness of his own mission.<\/p>\n<p>This emphasis on fulfillment of Scripture is also seen in John’s Gospel. His statement that the Son of Man must be lifted up even as Moses lifted up the serpent (Jn 3:14) illustrates this point. Most of the passages where fulfillment of Scripture is mentioned are the comments of the Evangelist, John. But there can be no doubt that the fulfillment motive played a vital part both in Jesus’ own understanding of his mission and in the early Christians’ understanding of his death. In this connection, some hold that John puts more stress on the Incarnation as a means of salvation in that he sees it as an illumination of the mind. But this is only part of the truth, for there is more on the meaning of the death of Jesus in John’s Gospel than in the others.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospels emphasize the divine necessity of the death of Jesus. In addition to the fulfillment motive, the idea of necessity is strong in the first prediction by Jesus of his approaching death. In John’s Gospel Jesus speaks of his “hour” several times in the earlier stages of his ministry as “not yet,” but in the later stages as having arrived. There is a sense of definite movement toward a climax, the hour undoubtedly being the hour of the Passion (cf. Jn 17:1). There is not room for any disillusionment here. Jesus knew that only through the hour of death could the Father be glorified. The climax was according to an orderly plan.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus evidently regarded his death as in some ways a sacrifice. The clearest indication of this is in the words of institution at the Last Supper. The cup is connected with the blood of the new covenant, which is said to be for the “remission of sins” (Mt 26:26-28). No explanation is given of the way in which the coming death, signified by the broken bread and poured-out wine, would bring about forgiveness of sins. But the immediate realization by the early church that Christ died for our sins (cf. 1 Cor 15:3) shows that the importance of what Jesus said had been clearly grasped. The new covenant idea is parallel to the old covenant, which according to Exodus 24 was sealed with sacrificial blood; there can be little doubt that Jesus had this in mind when he spoke the words about the new covenant. It was also akin to the ideas expressed in Jeremiah 31, referring to a covenant written on the heart rather than graven in stone.<\/p>\n<p>Another aspect of the death of Christ seen especially in John’s Gospel is the sense of completion that went with it. In Jesus’ prayer in John 17, as he faces the cross, he declares that he has finished the work that the Father had given him to do (Jn 17:4). This is reinforced by the cry from the cross, “It is finished,” which only John records (19:30). This sense of accomplishment gives an air of triumph to what might otherwise have been considered a disaster.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheHolySpirit\">Teachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n<p>At several of the major events in the life of Jesus, the Evangelists note the activity of the Spirit (e.g., the Virgin Birth, the Baptism, the Temptation). It is to be expected, therefore, that Jesus would have instructed his disciples about the Spirit. However, there is surprisingly little in the synoptic Gospels on this theme. Most of the teachings come from John’s Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus began his preaching ministry in Nazareth, according to Luke, he read the statement in Isaiah 61:1-2 about the Spirit of God and applied it to himself. He saw his ministry as being inaugurated by the Spirit. This becomes clear in the way in which he responded to the charge that he cast out demons by means of Beelzebub, prince of the demons. He identified the reality of the coming of the kingdom by the fact that he was casting out evil spirits by the Spirit of God (Mt 12:28). He was, moreover, sensitive to the seriousness of blaspheming the Spirit, which he implies his accusers were in danger of doing. Whatever he did in his ministry he saw as an activity of the Spirit, and this was especially so in the contest with evil spirits.<\/p>\n<p>While warning his disciples that they would meet with opposition, Jesus assured them of the Spirit’s support when they were forced to appear before kings or governors (Mt 10:19-20; Mk 13:11). Indeed, he told them that the Spirit would speak through them, thus emphasizing that he expected a continuation of the Spirit’s activity in the future. Luke records one instance in which Jesus comments on what fathers will do for their children and asks whether God will not give the Holy Spirit to those who ask (Lk 11:13). The assumption is that God regards the Holy Spirit as the best gift to give his children. On yet another occasion, Jesus recognized that David was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote Psalm 110 (Mk 12:36), reflecting Jesus’ belief in the Spirit’s agency in the production of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of John provides a more detailed development of what Jesus taught about the Spirit. Teachings about the Spirit are usually linked to Jesus’ teachings about giving eternal life to those who believe in him and receive him. At the same time he spoke of the new birth and eternal life to Nicodemus, Jesus also spoke of the Spirit (Jn 3:3-8, 15-16). When he spoke of water of life to the Samaritan woman, he also spoke of the Spirit (4:14, 23-24). The same holds true for the discourses on the bread of life (6:48-63) and river of life (7:37-39). Throughout the Gospel, Jesus declares to various people that he can give them eternal life if they would believe in him. He promises them the water of life, the bread of life, and the light of life, but no one could really partake of these until after the Lord was resurrected. As a foretaste, as a sample, they could receive a certain measure of life via the Lord’s words, because his words were themselves spirit and life (6:63), but it was not until the Spirit would become available that the believers could actually become the recipients of the divine, eternal life.<\/p>\n<p>After the Lord’s discourse in John 6 (a discourse that was very troubling and offensive to most of his disciples), Jesus said, “It is the Spirit who gives eternal life” (6:63). When the Spirit became available, they could have life. Again, Jesus offered the water of life—even life flowing like rivers of living water—to the Jews assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles. He told them to come and drink of him. But no one could, then and there, come and drink of him. So John added a note: “This He spoke of the Spirit, . . . for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39, <span>nasb<\/span>). Once Jesus would be glorified through resurrection, the Spirit of the glorified Jesus would be available for men to drink. In John 6, Jesus offered himself as the bread of life to be eaten by men; and in John 7, he offered himself as the water of life to refresh men. But no one could eat of him or drink of him until the Spirit of the glorified Jesus was made available, as was intimated in John 6:63 and then stated plainly in John 7:39.<\/p>\n<p>In John 14:16-18, Jesus went one step further in identifying himself with the Spirit. He told the disciples that he would give them another Comforter. Then he told them that they should know who this Comforter was because he was, then and there, abiding with them and would, in the near future, be in them. Who else but Jesus was abiding with them at that time? Then after telling the disciples that the Comforter would come to them, he said, “I am coming to you.” First he said that the Comforter would come to them and abide in them, and then in the same breath he said that he would come to them and abide in them (see 14:20). In short, the coming of the Comforter to the disciples was one and the same as the coming of Jesus to the disciples. The Comforter who was dwelling with the disciples that night was the Spirit in Christ; the Comforter who would be in the disciples (after the resurrection) would be Christ in the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>On the evening of the resurrection, the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples and then breathed into them the Holy Spirit. This inbreathing, reminiscent of God’s breathing into Adam the breath of life (Gn 2:7), became the fulfillment of all that had been promised and anticipated earlier in John’s Gospel. Through this impartation, the disciples were regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This historical event marked the genesis of the new creation. Jesus could now be realized as the bread of life, the water of life, and the light of life. The believers now possessed his divine, eternal, risen life. From that time forward, Christ as Spirit indwelt his believers. Thus, in his first epistle John could say, “We know he lives in us because the Holy Spirit lives in us” (1 Jn 3:24).<\/p>\n<p>The indwelling Spirit helped the disciples remember Jesus’ words and actions (Jn 14:26) so that they could teach and write about them with acumen. This means that Jesus did not intend that the preservation of his teachings should be left to chance. All too often theories attempting to explain the way in which the traditions about Jesus and his teachings were transmitted in the period before there were any written Gospels are suggested without any reference to the Holy Spirit. It is not acceptable to concentrate on so-called laws of oral tradition and pay no attention to the unique factor in this case—the Holy Spirit. It is part of the Spirit’s mission to preserve and transmit the teaching of Jesus. What Jesus says in this passage about the Spirit has far-reaching significance for the formation of the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Another important function is the activity of the Spirit in the world. Jesus made it clear that the Spirit would convict of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment (Jn 16:8). Without the activity of the Spirit, there would be no possibility of the disciples making any impact on the world. Nevertheless, Jesus warned that the world could not receive the Spirit because it did not know him (14:17). The mystery of the Spirit is that he dwells in every believer. This indwelling aspect is of great importance and was particularly developed in the writings of Paul.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHumanity\">Teachings about Humanity<\/p>\n<p>Jesus taught about God’s providential care over all human beings. A person’s hairs are all numbered (Mt 10:30), which is a vivid way of saying that God is concerned about the details of human life. But God is far more concerned with the eternal soul. Jesus made it clear that it would be unprofitable for anyone to gain the world and to lose his or her soul (Mt 16:26; Mk 8:36; Lk 9:25). The focus falls on what a person is and not what he or she has. Jesus even said that a maimed body was preferable to a forfeited life (Mk 9:43-47). One’s total fulfillment depends more on one’s spiritual condition than on one’s environment or physical well-being. He was not, of course, unconcerned about people’s physical state, as his many healings show, but his major concern was with people’s relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus never viewed humans as isolated individuals. Within God’s community people were expected to have responsibility toward one another. The Sermon on the Mount illustrated this social emphasis in the teaching of Jesus. Those who are merciful to others will obtain mercy (Mt 5:7). There is special commendation for peacemakers (v 9). The disciples of Jesus are expected to bring light to others (v 16). They are expected to give more than expected (v 40). Jesus is clearly saying that people have responsibility beyond themselves.<\/p>\n<p>The relation of people to God is one of dependence. Jesus taught men and women to pray to God for daily bread (Mt 6:11) as a reminder that they cannot be wholly self-sufficient. He allowed no place in his teaching for humans to boast in their own achievements.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had some specific things to say about home life. He accepted the sanctity of the marriage contract (Mt 5:31-32; cf. 19:3-9) and therefore showed a high regard for the honor and rights of the wife. It was more in his actions and attitudes rather than his specific teachings that Jesus showed his regard for the status of women. When he spoke of men, he often used the term in the sense of people, including both men and women. There is no suggestion that in matters of faith women were in the least inferior to men. Moreover, Luke points out how many women supported Jesus and his disciples in their travels.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had a high view of the human potential but also acknowledged their present condition. The stress on repentance (Mt 4:17) shows a sinfulness of which people need to repent. This sense of need is implicit in the instances where Jesus pronounces forgiveness (e.g., to the paralytic, Mt 9:1-8; and to the woman who anointed him, Lk 7:47-48). In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus instructs his disciples to pray for forgiveness (Mt 6:12; Lk 11:4). He takes for granted that they need it and desire to obtain it.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus gives no support to any self-righteousness in men or women. This is the burden of his criticism of the religious leaders in various sayings, but particularly in Matthew 23. He was critical of Jewish teachers because they placed so much importance on works of merit as contributing to salvation. His whole approach depended on humans casting themselves on the mercy of God. This is vividly illustrated in the parable about the Pharisee and the tax collector at prayer (Lk 18:10-14). It was the latter who threw himself on the mercy of God and who was commended by Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Undoubtedly, Jesus regarded sin as universal. He never suggested that there was anyone who was exempt from it. The major concept of sin in his teachings was alienation from God. This comes out clearly in John’s Gospel, with its strong antithesis between light and darkness, life and death (cf. Jn 5:24). Indeed, the “world” in John’s Gospel represents the system that takes no account of God. But sin is also seen as enslavement to Satan. The life and teachings of Jesus are seen against the background of spiritual conflict. Jesus can even say to his opponents, “You are of your father the devil” (Jn 8:44). He assumes throughout that there are hostile forces bringing man into subjection.<\/p>\n<p>In the parable of the prodigal son, sin against God is linked with sin before the father. In other words, it is regarded in terms of rebellion and revolt (Lk 15:21). This is a different assessment of the son’s offense than the one arrived at by the elder brother, who could see it only in terms of property. The view that humans are essentially in a state of rebellion against God is a basic tenet of Paul’s theological position, and it is important to note that it finds its root in the teachings of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>There is no question that Jesus had much to say about condemnation. Those who did not believe and were therefore outside the provision of salvation that Jesus had made are declared to be already condemned (Jn 3:18). At various times Jesus mentioned judgment to come, which shows that a person’s destiny is related to his or her present spiritual condition. Against this background of humanity’s spiritual need, the whole mission of Jesus must be seen. A person, if left to himself or herself, would be totally unable to achieve salvation, but Jesus came to offer eternal life to those who believe in him (Jn 3:16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheChurch\">Teachings about the Church<\/p>\n<p>Some have supposed that Jesus did not predict that there would be a church. But on two occasions he used the word “church,” which means a people called out by God. On one of the occasions—at Caesarea Philippi—Jesus told Peter that he would build his church upon the rock (Mt 16:16-19). It seems most probable that “rock” was intended to link the foundation of the church to Peter’s particular confession about Jesus. It is certain that the later church was a community that affirmed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is important to note that it is Christ himself who is the builder of the church. He assured his disciples that it would be impregnable (the gates of hades would not overcome it). Moreover, one of the functions of the church was to proclaim forgiveness of sins, and this is implied in what Jesus said to Peter. That the words were not intended to refer exclusively to him is clear from Matthew 18:18, where similar words were addressed to all the disciples. The church, according to Matthew 18:17, was to be a community that could settle disputes between believers.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to these specific references to the church, Jesus assumed that his followers would meet together in his name (Mt 18:19-20). In his final words in Matthew’s account, he commissioned them to teach what he had taught them and to baptize new disciples (Mt 28:19-20). He promised his presence would be with them. The command to baptize was reinforced by Jesus’ own example in submitting to John’s baptism. One other special rite that Jesus expected his disciples to observe was the Lord’s Supper. His instructions about this presuppose a later community that could observe it. Since the form of words used in the institution point to the meaning of the death of Christ, it is clear that Jesus intended the future community to be frequently reminded of the center of the faith. The Christian church was to be a group of people who knew that through Christ they had entered into a new relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Although there are no references to the church in John’s Gospel, there are certainly hints that support the community idea. Jesus introduced himself as the Shepherd and spoke of his followers as forming a flock (Jn 10:16). The sheep imagery occurs again in this Gospel when Peter is instructed three times by the risen Lord to feed the sheep (Jn 21:15-17). Another figure of speech that Jesus used to bring out the group idea is that of the many branches that draw their life from the vine, and therefore belong to each other because of their common life in the vine.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus recognized that the future community would need the aid of the Spirit. His teachings on this subject laid the foundation for the evident dependence of the early church on the Spirit, as seen in the book of Acts. Finally, it should be noted that there is a close connection between the church and the kingdom, although they are not identical. The kingdom is more comprehensive than the church, which is included within it.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheFuture\">Teachings about the Future<\/p>\n<p>Jesus thought of the kingdom in terms of both present realization and future hope. The future aspect is related to the end of the age. Although he did not spell it out in specific terms, Jesus did not leave his disciples without any knowledge of how the present age would end. He gave firm assurance that he would return at some time in the future.<\/p>\n<p>He told the disciples that the Son of Man would come with his angels in his Father’s glory (Mt 16:27). In the discourse in which he answers the disciples’ question about the end of the world, he speaks again of the Son of Man coming in clouds with power and glory (Mk 13:26), probably drawn from the familiar language of Daniel 7. Jesus described various signs that would precede his own coming. He spoke of wars, conflicts, earthquakes, famines, and disturbances in the heavens. The gospel was to be preached to all nations. At the same time many false Christs would arise.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus gave such details about his return to encourage his disciples in the face of persecution. The future hope had a definitely practical purpose. The disciples were urged to watch. The coming would happen as unexpectedly as a thief in the night. Jesus said that even he himself did not know when the coming would take place (Mk 13:32).<\/p>\n<p>Another important theme affecting the future is emphasized in Jesus’ teachings about resurrection. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the body. They attempted to trap Jesus with a question about a woman who had been married seven times. They wanted to know whose husband she would be at the resurrection (Mk 12:18-27). Jesus pointed out that there would be no marriage when the dead rise. The Sadducees’ idea about resurrection was clearly wrong. Jesus’ teaching was that the resurrected would be like the angels. There is no doubt about the resurrection of the dead, although no information is given about the resurrection body. Jesus told a story about a rich man and a poor man who both died (Lk 16:19-31). In the afterlife the rich man cries out in torment, while the poor man enjoys a state of blessedness. What is most clear from this is the certainty of the afterlife and the fact of a distinction between the two men, although we are not told on what grounds the distinction is made. Elsewhere in his teachings, Jesus suggested that the most vital requirement is faith in himself. The conversation between Jesus and the dying thief on the cross suggests that paradise for the latter consisted in an awareness of the presence of Jesus (Lk 23:42-43).<\/p>\n<p>The theme of rewards and punishment occurs in many passages. In Matthew 16:27 Jesus says that the Son of Man will reward everyone according to what he or she has done. Those who are worthless are promised punishment in darkness (Mt 25:30). Moreover, Jesus spoke of a day of judgment on which men and women must give an account, even of all their careless words (12:36-37). In the parable of the sheep and the goats, he spoke of a separation that the Son of Man will make when he comes. Those commended are those who have shown concern for the believers (25:31-46).<\/p>\n<p>Among Jesus’ most solemn statements are those that speak of hell. There is no way of getting around his teachings about eternal punishment for the unrighteous (as in Mt 25:41, 46), which is opposite to the eternal life promised to the righteous. He taught that his disciples would have a place prepared for them in heaven (Jn 14:2), and spoke of a Book of Life in which the names of his disciples were written (Lk 10:20).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutMoralIssues\">Teachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\n<p>Much of the teaching of Jesus is concerned with moral issues—so much so that some scholars have concluded that this was the main burden of his teaching. But the moral teachings cannot be considered apart from the many facets of his teachings outlined above. It has been said that there are close parallels between the teachings of Jesus and the moral teachings of Judaism. What is distinctive about Jesus’ teachings about morality is that the motive and power behind moral conduct is not conceived in terms of laws that must be obeyed. Right conduct is seen to be the result of a right relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was himself the pattern for moral behavior. He made clear that his aim was to fulfill the will of God. There is no sense of legalism in his approach to ethical decisions. When—in the Sermon on the Mount—he compared his own teaching with that of Moses, he showed the importance of penetrating to the inner meaning (cf. Mt 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32). On the face of it, Jesus made more rigorous demands than the Mosaic law, because he was concerned with probing the motives as well as the actions. Many have dismissed the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount as entirely impractical, but Jesus never intended that his teaching would be easy; he set as a target nothing less than the perfection of God himself (Mt 5:48). Nevertheless, he called his yoke easy and his burden light (11:29-30), which suggests that he was not setting out an impossible ethical pattern. It must be remembered that he was not producing a manifesto for society. His concern was that each individual should have powerful motives for right decisions on matters of conduct. His reaction against a rigid application of Sabbath observance at the expense of the welfare of a needy person illustrates this point. Concern for others was rated higher than ritual correctness.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>No account of the life and teachings of Jesus would be complete without some indication of the place that Jesus Christ gained in the developing church. Such a quest naturally takes us outside the scope of the Gospels into the testimony of the book of Acts and Paul’s letters. There we can see whether the predictions of Jesus were fulfilled and whether in fact the early Christians took his teaching seriously. Although there can be no question that Jesus Christ became central to the faith of the early Christians, he was regarded from many points of view. He was seen as Messiah in the sense of a spiritual deliverer, as Lord in the sense of being sovereign over his people, as Servant in the sense of his obedience to suffering, as Son in his relation to his Father. In many ways the full understanding of what and who he was could not have occurred until after the resurrection. Therefore, we find that many facets of his teachings about himself were more fully developed in the reflections of his people. This is true in a special sense of the writings of the apostle Paul.<\/p>\n<p>Many have found a problem in linking the Gospels with their detailed presentation of the acts and teachings of Jesus with the Christ who is so central in Paul’s beliefs. The problem arises because the apostle does not refer to any specific incident in the life of Jesus and does not reflect in his epistles any acquaintance with the large amount of teaching material in the Gospels. Does this suggest that Paul had no interest in the historical Jesus? Or could it be maintained that he knew nothing about him? Those who have driven a wedge between Paul and Jesus have not given sufficient weight to those incidental indications that Paul knew a great deal more about the historical Jesus than he states in his letters. He writes, for instance, about the meekness and gentleness of Christ (2 Cor 10:1), suggesting that he knew that Jesus had said of himself that he was meek and lowly of heart (Mt 11:29). Moreover, Paul speaks of the poverty of Christ (2 Cor 8:9) and must have known that the Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head. He certainly knows the details of how Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:23-26), and he knows of his death by crucifixion. It seems reasonable to conclude that Paul assumes that his readers will be acquainted with the Gospel material.<\/p>\n<p>It is perhaps useful in this connection to inquire whether the life and teachings of Jesus played a significant part in the early Christian proclamation. One passage that is valuable in this respect is Acts 10:36-38. In Peter’s address to Cornelius, he spoke of God’s having anointed Jesus of Nazareth, and of Jesus’ having gone about doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil. It is clear that some account of the acts of Jesus was included in the early preaching, and there is no reason to suppose that this was not a regular procedure.<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that the example of Jesus was a powerful motive for promoting right behavior. Peter appeals to it in encouraging Christians who were suffering for their faith (1 Pt 2:21). Paul also knows the value of imitation (1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thes 1:6). Since Jesus was recognized as being a man who did not sin (cf. 2 Cor 5:21), his behavior patterns would have proved invaluable for those who needed a new standard for moral action. While this idea of example is unquestionably present in the Epistles, it would be quite wrong to suppose that it formed a major part of Christian doctrine.<\/p>\n<p>There are a few references to the teachings of Jesus in the non-Gospel portion of the NT. In the Letter of James, which is almost wholly practical, there are more allusions to the teachings of Jesus than anywhere else in the NT. This is especially true in echoes of the Sermon on the Mount, and it shows the strong contribution that the moral teaching of Jesus had on the ethical values of the early Christians. Most of the expositions of doctrine in the Epistles find their basis in some aspect of the teachings of Jesus. These teachings have an ongoing significance for the development of the church.<\/p>\n<p>To what extent is knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus relevant to the 21st century? Existential theologians have driven such a wedge between the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history that the latter has ceased to have any importance for them. Christians today, no less than their first-century predecessors, need to know that the object of their faith is the same one who lived and taught in Galilee and Judea.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Ascension of Christ; Christ; Christology; Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Incarnation; Jesus Christ; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven; Messiah; Parable; Savior; Son of God; Son of Man; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of Because of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? Wh...","summary_en":"JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of Because of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? Wh...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":23238,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Life","title_en":"Life","content_ro":"<h3>LIFE<\/h3>\n<p>In biblical perspective, life flows from the living Father through the Son (his agent in creation and redemption) into a world thirsting for “real” life (see Jn 6:57).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheLivingFather\">The Living Father<\/p>\n<p>God the Father is above all else “the living God” (Jer 10:10; Jn 5:26). God, the source of all life (1 Tm 6:13), “inbreathed” humans at creation and sustains them continually (Jb 34:14-15). God alone gives life (Gn 17:16) and takes it away (Gn 3:22-24; 6:3; Ps 104:29; Lk 12:20).<\/p>\n<p>The sign of life is movement; man is a “lively,” animated body (Mt 27:50; Lk 8:55). Animals also have this animating “breath-soul” (Hebrew of Gn 1:24; 6:17). Thus, all nature is instilled with life deriving from God (Acts 17:24-28). Life is therefore sacred, but unfortunately it is as transient as grass, clouds, dew, shadow (1 Chr 29:15; Jb 7:6, 9; Jas 4:13-16; 1 Pt 1:24). Long life is desired (Gn 35:29); any life is preferable to death and of infinite value (Eccl 9:4-6; Mt 6:25; 16:26), for Sheol houses a ghostly “nonliving life,” bereft of feeling, hope, or divine help (Ps 88:3-12). One’s life can be enhanced by loving and serving God (Dt 30:15-20; 1 Pt 3:8-12), by experiencing God’s deliverance (Is 38:16), and by receiving divine blessings (Mt 5:3-12).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ChristasLife\">Christ as Life<\/p>\n<p>The Greek word for “life” is <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">zoe<\/span><em>.<\/em> In classical Greek this word was used for life in general. There are a few examples of this meaning in the New Testament (see Acts 17:25; Jas 4:14: Rv 16:3), but in all other instances the word was used to designate the divine, eternal life—the life of God (Eph 4:18). This life resided in Christ, and he made it available to all who believe in him. Human beings are born with the natural life—called <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">psuche<\/span> in Greek (translated “soul,” “personality,” or “life”); they do not possess the eternal life. This life can be received only by believing in the one who possesses the <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">zoe<\/span><em>-life,<\/em> namely, Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The overflowing, vibrant quality of life made available in Christ was evident in the authority of his speech and the power of his touch (Mt 9:18; Mk 1:27, 41-42; 5:27-29). He is “the author of life” (Acts 3:15), who provides the way into life (Mt 7:14; 25:46; Mk 8:35-37; 9:42-47). And he raised the dead with his life-giving power. His own resurrection made him “a life-giving spirit,” with the power of “an indestructible life” (Rom 8:2; 1 Cor 15:45; Heb 7:16). Thus, Jesus Christ is “our life” (Col 3:4)—in union with whom we find “newness of life” (Rom 6:4) and are newly created, living henceforth not for ourselves but for him (2 Cor 5:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>John, especially, dwells on the theme that Christ is the source of this new life (Jn 3:14-16; 5:21) for the children of God (1:12; 3:3, 5). This life is enjoyed already by those who know God and Christ (5:24; 17:3; 1 Jn 5:11-12), for they have already passed from death into eternal life (Jn 10:28; 11:26). Such life is abundant (10:10), enlightened (8:12), free and satisfied (10:9), victorious (Rom 6:6-14), full of peace and joy (Rom 5:1-11), inexhaustibly refreshed (Jn 4:13-14; 7:37-38) and immortal (Jn 5:24; 1 Cor 15:51-57).<\/p>\n<p>All this is possible because from the beginning “all that came to be was alive with his life” (Jn 1:4, <span>neb<\/span>). Thus, the life within the Father flows into the world through the Son, who also “has life in himself” and gives it to whom he will (5:26). He is “the resurrection and the life” (11:25; 14:6) and demonstrates it by restoring life to paralyzed limbs, raising the dead, and conquering death (5:5-9; 11:43; ch 20). People remain in death only because they will not “come” and “have life” (5:40; cf. 1 Jn 3:14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Eternal Life.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LIFE<\/h3>\n<p>In biblical perspective, life flows from the living Father through the Son (his agent in creation and redemption) into a world thirsting for “real” life (see Jn 6:57).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheLivingFather\">The Living Father<\/p>\n<p>God the Father is above all else “the living God” (Jer 10:10; Jn 5:26). God, the source of all life (1 Tm 6:13), “inbreathed” humans at creation and sustains them continually (Jb 34:14-15). God alone gives life (Gn 17:16) and takes it away (Gn 3:22-24; 6:3; Ps 104:29; Lk 12:20).<\/p>\n<p>The sign of life is movement; man is a “lively,” animated body (Mt 27:50; Lk 8:55). Animals also have this animating “breath-soul” (Hebrew of Gn 1:24; 6:17). Thus, all nature is instilled with life deriving from God (Acts 17:24-28). Life is therefore sacred, but unfortunately it is as transient as grass, clouds, dew, shadow (1 Chr 29:15; Jb 7:6, 9; Jas 4:13-16; 1 Pt 1:24). Long life is desired (Gn 35:29); any life is preferable to death and of infinite value (Eccl 9:4-6; Mt 6:25; 16:26), for Sheol houses a ghostly “nonliving life,” bereft of feeling, hope, or divine help (Ps 88:3-12). One’s life can be enhanced by loving and serving God (Dt 30:15-20; 1 Pt 3:8-12), by experiencing God’s deliverance (Is 38:16), and by receiving divine blessings (Mt 5:3-12).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ChristasLife\">Christ as Life<\/p>\n<p>The Greek word for “life” is <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">zoe<\/span><em>.<\/em> In classical Greek this word was used for life in general. There are a few examples of this meaning in the New Testament (see Acts 17:25; Jas 4:14: Rv 16:3), but in all other instances the word was used to designate the divine, eternal life—the life of God (Eph 4:18). This life resided in Christ, and he made it available to all who believe in him. Human beings are born with the natural life—called <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">psuche<\/span> in Greek (translated “soul,” “personality,” or “life”); they do not possess the eternal life. This life can be received only by believing in the one who possesses the <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">zoe<\/span><em>-life,<\/em> namely, Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The overflowing, vibrant quality of life made available in Christ was evident in the authority of his speech and the power of his touch (Mt 9:18; Mk 1:27, 41-42; 5:27-29). He is “the author of life” (Acts 3:15), who provides the way into life (Mt 7:14; 25:46; Mk 8:35-37; 9:42-47). And he raised the dead with his life-giving power. His own resurrection made him “a life-giving spirit,” with the power of “an indestructible life” (Rom 8:2; 1 Cor 15:45; Heb 7:16). Thus, Jesus Christ is “our life” (Col 3:4)—in union with whom we find “newness of life” (Rom 6:4) and are newly created, living henceforth not for ourselves but for him (2 Cor 5:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>John, especially, dwells on the theme that Christ is the source of this new life (Jn 3:14-16; 5:21) for the children of God (1:12; 3:3, 5). This life is enjoyed already by those who know God and Christ (5:24; 17:3; 1 Jn 5:11-12), for they have already passed from death into eternal life (Jn 10:28; 11:26). Such life is abundant (10:10), enlightened (8:12), free and satisfied (10:9), victorious (Rom 6:6-14), full of peace and joy (Rom 5:1-11), inexhaustibly refreshed (Jn 4:13-14; 7:37-38) and immortal (Jn 5:24; 1 Cor 15:51-57).<\/p>\n<p>All this is possible because from the beginning “all that came to be was alive with his life” (Jn 1:4, <span>neb<\/span>). Thus, the life within the Father flows into the world through the Son, who also “has life in himself” and gives it to whom he will (5:26). He is “the resurrection and the life” (11:25; 14:6) and demonstrates it by restoring life to paralyzed limbs, raising the dead, and conquering death (5:5-9; 11:43; ch 20). People remain in death only because they will not “come” and “have life” (5:40; cf. 1 Jn 3:14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Eternal Life.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LIFE In biblical perspective, life flows from the living Father through the Son (his agent in creation and redemption) into a world thirsting for “real” life (see Jn 6:57). The Living Father God the Father is above all else “the living God” (Jer 10:10; Jn 5:26). God, the source of all life (1 Tm 6:13), “inbreathed” humans at creation and sustains them continually (Jb 34:14-15). God alone gives life (Gn 17:16) and takes it away (Gn 3:22-24; 6:3; Ps 104:29; Lk 12:20). The sign of life is moveme...","summary_en":"LIFE In biblical perspective, life flows from the living Father through the Son (his agent in creation and redemption) into a world thirsting for “real” life (see Jn 6:57). The Living Father God the Father is above all else “the living God” (Jer 10:10; Jn 5:26). God, the source of all life (1 Tm 6:13), “inbreathed” humans at creation and sustains them continually (Jb 34:14-15). God alone gives life (Gn 17:16) and takes it away (Gn 3:22-24; 6:3; Ps 104:29; Lk 12:20). The sign of life is moveme...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36158,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Spirit of God","title_en":"Spirit of God","content_ro":"<h3>SPIRIT OF GOD<\/h3>\n<p>Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ruach<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">pneuma<\/span>) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy.<\/p>\n<p>First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translated “Spirit” in Gn 1:2) that caused the waters of the Flood to subside (8:1). A wind from God blew locusts over Egypt (Ex 10:13) and quail over the camp of Israel. The blast of his nostrils separated the waters of the Red Sea at the exodus (14:21).<\/p>\n<p>Second, it was the breath of God that made man a living being (Gn 2:7). It is one of the earliest perceptions of Hebrew faith that humans live only because of the stirring of the divine breath or spirit within them (Gn 6:3; Jb 33:4; 34:14-15; Ps 104:29-30). Later, a clearer distinction was drawn between divine Spirit and human spirit, and between spirit and soul, but at the earliest stage these were all more or less perceived to be synonymous manifestations of the same divine power, the source of all life—animal as well as human (Gn 7:15, 22; see Eccl 3:19-21).<\/p>\n<p>Third, there were occasions when this divine power seemed to overtake and possess an individual fully, so that his or her words or actions far transcended those of normal behavior. Such a person was clearly marked as an agent of God’s purpose and given respect. This was apparently how leaders were recognized in the premonarchy period—Othniel (Jgs 3:10), Gideon (6:34), Jephthah (11:29), and the first king, Saul (1 Sm 11:6), as well. So, too, the earliest prophets were those whose inspiration came in ecstasy (1 Sm 19:20-24).<\/p>\n<p>In the earlier stages of Hebrew thought, ecstatic experience was seen as the direct effect of divine power. This was true even when the ecstasy was recognized as evil in character, as in the case of Saul’s seizure by the Spirit (1 Sm 16:14-16). A spirit from God could be for evil as well as for good (see Jgs 9:23; 1 Kgs 22:19-23).<\/p>\n<h5>In the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\n<p>For Isaiah, the spirit was that which characterized God and distinguished him and his actions from human affairs (Is 31:3). Later, the adjective “holy” appeared as that which distinguished the Spirit of God from any other spirit, human or divine (Ps 51:11; Is 63:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>The problem of false prophecy emphasized the danger of assuming that every message delivered in ecstasy was the word of the Lord. Thus, tests of prophecy evaluated the content of the message delivered or the character of the prophet’s life, not the degree or quality of inspiration (see Dt 13:1-5; 18:22; Jer 23:14; Mi 3:5). This sense of a need to discriminate between true and false inspiration and to distinguish the word of God from the merely ecstatic oracle may help to explain the otherwise puzzling reluctance of the major eighth- and seventh-century <span>BC<\/span> prophets to attribute their inspiration to the Spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Exilic and Postexilic Writings<\/h5>\n<p>In exilic and postexilic literature, the role of the Spirit is narrowed to two major functions: that of the prophetic Spirit and that of the Spirit of the age to come.<\/p>\n<p>The later prophets again spoke of the Spirit in explicit terms as the inspirer of prophecy (see Ez 3:1-4, 22-24; Hg 2:5; Zec 4:6). As they looked back to the preexilic period, these prophets freely attributed the inspiration of “the former prophets” to the Spirit as well (Zec 7:12).<\/p>\n<p>This tendency to exalt the Spirit’s role as the inspirer of prophecy became steadily stronger in the period between the OT and NT, until in rabbinic Judaism the Spirit was almost exclusively the inspirer of the prophetic writings now regarded as Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The other understanding of the Spirit’s role during exilic and postexilic times was that the Spirit would be the manifestation of the power of God in the age to come. That eschatological hope of divine power effecting a final cleansing and a renewed creation is rooted principally in Isaiah’s prophecies (Is 4:4; 32:15; 44:3-4). Isaiah speaks of one anointed by the Spirit to accomplish complete and final salvation (11:2; 42:1; 61:1). Elsewhere, the same longing is expressed in terms of the Spirit being freely dispensed to all Israel (Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28-29; Zec 12:10) in the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34; Ez 36:26-27).<\/p>\n<p>In the period prior to Jesus, the understanding of the Spirit as the Spirit of prophecy and as the Spirit of the age to come had developed into the widespread dogma that the Spirit was no longer to be experienced in the present. The Spirit had been known in the past as the inspirer of prophetic writings, but after Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Spirit had withdrawn (1 Macc 4:44-46; 9:27; 2 Bar 85:1-3; see also Ps 74:9; Zec 13:2-6). The Spirit would be known again in the age of the Messiah, but in the interim the Spirit was absent from Israel. Even the great Hillel (learned Jewish leader and teacher, 60? <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 20?), a near contemporary of Jesus, had not received the Spirit—though if anyone was worthy of the Spirit, it was he. There is a tradition that at a meeting of Hillel and other wise men, a voice from heaven said, “Among those here present is one who would have deserved the Holy Spirit to rest upon him, if his time had been worthy of it.” The wise men all looked at Hillel.<\/p>\n<p>The consequence of this accepted dearth of the Spirit was that the Spirit in effect became subordinated to the law. The Spirit was the inspirer of the law, but since the Spirit could no longer be experienced directly, the law became the sole voice of the Spirit. It was this increasing dominance of the law and its authoritative interpreters that provided the background for the mission of Jesus and the initial spread of Christianity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>If we are to understand the NT’s teaching on the Spirit, we must recognize both its continuity and discontinuity with the OT. At many points NT usage cannot be fully understood except against the background of OT concepts or passages. For example, the ambiguity of John 3:8 (“wind,” “Spirit”), 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (“breath”), and Revelation 11:11 (“breath of life”) takes us back to the basic Hebrew meanings of “spirit.” Acts 8:39 and Revelation 17:3 and 21:10 reflect the same conception of the Spirit that we find in 1 Kings 18:12, 2 Kings 2:16, and Ezekiel 3:14. The NT writers generally share the rabbinic view that Scripture has the authority of the Spirit behind it (see Mk 12:36; Acts 28:25; Heb 3:7; 2 Pt 1:21). The principal continuity is that the NT brings the fulfillment of what the OT writers looked forward to. At the same time, Christianity is not simply fulfilled Judaism. Jesus’ coming and his giving of his Spirit to live within his believers marks off the new faith as something new and distinct.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of the New Age<\/h5>\n<p>The most striking feature of Jesus’ ministry and of the message of the earliest Christians was their conviction and proclamation that the blessings of the new age were already present, that the eschatological Spirit had already been poured out. With the exception of the Essenes at Qumran, no other group or individual within the Jewish religion of that time had dared to make such a bold claim. The prophets and the rabbis looked for a messianic age yet to come, and the apocalyptic writers warned of its imminent arrival, but none thought of it as already present. Even John the Baptist spoke only of one about to come and of the Spirit’s operation in the imminent future (Mk 1:8). But for Jesus and first-century Christians, the longed for hope was a living reality, and the claim carried with it the exciting sense of being in “the last days.” Without some recognition of that eschatological dimension of the Christians’ faith and life, we cannot understand this teaching on, and experience of, the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus clearly thought of his teachings and healings as fulfillment of the prophetic hope (Mt 12:41-42; 13:16-17; Lk 17:20-21). In particular, he saw himself as the one anointed by the Spirit to provide salvation (Mt 5:3-6; 11:5; Lk 4:17-19). So, too, Jesus understood his exorcisms as the effect of the power of God and as manifestations of the end-time rule of God (Mt 12:27-28; Mk 3:22-26). The Gospel writers, especially Luke, emphasize the eschatological character of Jesus’ life and ministry by stressing the role of the Spirit in his birth (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:35, 41, 67; 2:25-27), his baptism (Mk 1:9-10; Acts 10:38), and his ministry (Mt 4:1; 12:18; Mk 1:12; Lk 4:1, 14; 10:21; Jn 3:34).<\/p>\n<p>The Christian church began with the in-breathing of the Holy Spirit on the day of Christ’s resurrection (Jn 20:22), followed by the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost “in the last days.” The overwhelming experience of vision and inspired utterance was taken as proof positive that the new age prophesied by Joel had now arrived (Acts 2:2-5, 17-18). Similarly, in Hebrews the gift of the Spirit is spoken of as “the powers of the age to come” (Heb 6:4-5). More striking still is Paul’s understanding of the Spirit as the guarantee of God’s complete salvation (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14), and as the first installment of the believer’s inheritance of God’s kingdom (Rom 8:15-17; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 15:42-50; Gal 4:6-7; 5:16-18, 21-23; Eph 1:13-14). The Spirit is here again thought of as the power of the age to come, as that power (which will characterize God’s rule at the end of time) already shaping and transforming the lives of believers.<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, this means also that the gift of the Spirit is but the beginning of a lifelong process that will not end until the believer’s whole person is brought under the Spirit’s power (Rom 8:11, 23; 1 Cor 15:44-49; 2 Cor 3:18; 5:1-5). It also means that the present experience of faith is one of lifelong tension between what God has already begun to bring about in the believer’s life and what has not yet been brought under God’s grace (Phil 1:6). It is this tension between life “in the Spirit” and life “in the flesh” (see Gal 2:20) that comes to poignant expression in Romans 7:24 and 2 Corinthians 5:2-4.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of New Life<\/h5>\n<p>Since the Spirit is the mark of the new age, it is not surprising that the NT writers understood the gift of the Spirit to be that which brings an individual into the new age. John the Baptist described the way the coming one would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt 3:11). According to Acts 1:5 and 11:16, this imagery was taken up by Jesus, and the promise is seen as fulfilled at Pentecost—the outpouring of the Spirit here being understood as the risen Christ’s action in drawing his disciples into the new age (Acts 2:17, 33).<\/p>\n<p>It seems to be one of Luke’s aims in the book of Acts to highlight the central importance of the gift of the Spirit in conversion-initiation—it is that decisive “gift of the Holy Spirit” that makes one a Christian (Acts 2:38-39). People could have been followers of Jesus on earth, but it was only when they received the gift of the Spirit that they could be said to have “believed in the Lord Jesus Christ” (11:16-17). When the Spirit’s presence was manifested in and upon a person’s life, that was recognized by Peter as proof enough that God had accepted that person, even though he or she had not yet made any formal profession of faith or been baptized (10:44-48; 11:15-18; 15:7-9). So too Apollos, already aglow with the Spirit (18:25), even though his knowledge of “the way of God” was slightly defective (vv 24-26), apparently was not required to supplement his “baptism of John” with Christian baptism. However, the 12 so-called disciples at Ephesus proved by their very ignorance of the Spirit that they were not yet disciples of the Lord Jesus (19:1-6). Paul asked these 12 men, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (19:2).<\/p>\n<p>This accords with Paul’s emphasis in his letters. Belief and reception of the Spirit go together: to receive the Spirit is to begin the Christian life (Gal 3:2-3); to be baptized in the Spirit is to become a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13); to “have the Spirit of Christ” is to belong to Christ (Rom 8:9-11); to receive the Spirit is tantamount to becoming a child of God (Rom 8:14-17; Gal 4:6-7). The Spirit so characterizes the new age and the life of the new age that only the gift of the Spirit can bring a person into the new age to experience the life of the new age. For the Spirit is distinctively and peculiarly the life-giver; the Spirit indeed <em>is<\/em> the life of the new age (Rom 8:2, 6, 10; 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>In just the same way in John’s writings, the Spirit is characteristically the life-giving Spirit (Jn 6:63), the power from above, the seed of divine life that brings about the new birth (Jn 3:3-8; 1 Jn 3:9), and a river of living water that brings life when one believes in Christ (Jn 7:37-39; so also 4:10, 14). Or again, reception of the Spirit in John 20:22 is depicted as a new creation analogous to Genesis 2:7. Consequently, in 1 John 3:24 and 4:13, possession and experience of the Spirit count as one of the “tests of life” listed in that letter.<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It will be clear from what has already been said that when the first Christians, like the ancient Hebrews, spoke of the Spirit, they were thinking of experiences of divine power. In the NT, as in the OT, “Spirit” is the word used to explain the experience of new life and vitality (see above), of liberation from legalism (e.g., Rom 8:2; 2 Cor 3:17), of spiritual refreshing and renewal (cf. e.g., Is 32:15; Ez 39:29 with Jn 7:37-39; Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 12:13; 1 Tm 3:5-6). It is important to realize how wide a range of experiences were attributed to the Spirit: ecstatic experiences (Acts 2:24; 10:43-47; 19:6; cf. 10:10; 22:17—“in ecstasy”; 2 Cor 12:1-4; Rv 1:10), emotional experiences (e.g., love—Rom 5:5; joy—Acts 13:52; 1 Thes 1:6; see also Gal 5:22; Phil 2:1-2), experiences of illumination (2 Cor 3:14-17; Eph 1:17-18; Heb 6:4-5; 1 Jn 2:20-21), and experiences issuing in moral transformation (1 Cor 6:9-11). Likewise, when Paul speaks of spiritual gifts, called <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">charismata<\/span> (acts or words that bring divine grace to concrete expression), he evidently has a wide range of actual events in mind: inspired speech (1 Cor 12:8-10; 1 Thes 1:5), miracles and healings (1 Cor 12:9; Gal 3:5; cf. Heb 2:4), and various acts of service and help, of counsel and administration, and of aid and mercy (Rom 12:7-8; 1 Cor 12:28).<\/p>\n<p>In talking thus of the Spirit in terms of experience, we should not overemphasize particular experiences or manifestations, as though earliest Christianity consisted of a sequence of mountaintop experiences or spiritual highs. There clearly were such experiences, indeed a wide range of experiences, but no one experience is singled out to be sought by all (except prophecy). There is no distinctively second (or third) experience of the Spirit in the NT, and Paul warned against overvaluing particular manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor 14:6-19; 2 Cor 12:1-10; cf. Mk 8:11-13). Where particular experiences are valued, it is as manifestations of a more sustained experience, particular expressions of an underlying relationship (cf. Acts 6:3-5; 11:24—“full of the Spirit”; Eph 5:18). What we are in touch with here is the vigor of the experiential dimension of earliest Christianity. If the Spirit is the breath of the new life in Christ (cf. Ez 37:9-10, 14; Jn 20:22; 1 Cor 15:45), then presumably the analogy extends further, and the experience of the Spirit is like the experience of breathing: one is not conscious of it all the time, but if one is not conscious of it, at least sometimes, something is wrong.<\/p>\n<h5>The Fellowship of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It was out of this shared experience of the Spirit that the earliest Christian community grew and developed, for this is what “the fellowship [<span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">koinonia<\/span>] of the Spirit” properly means: common participation in the same Spirit (Phil 2:1; cf. Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 1:4-9). It was the gift of the Spirit that brought those in Samaria, Caesarea, and elsewhere effectively into the community of the Spirit (Act 8, 10). So also, it was the experience of the one Spirit that provided the unifying bond in the churches of Paul’s mission (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:3-4; Phil 2:1-2). Here we see the real importance of the divine manifestations of the Spirit for Paul: it is out of the diversity of these particular manifestations that the body of Christ grows in unity (Rom 12:4-8; 1 Cor 12:12-17; Eph 4:4-16).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SPIRIT OF GOD<\/h3>\n<p>Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ruach<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">pneuma<\/span>) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy.<\/p>\n<p>First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translated “Spirit” in Gn 1:2) that caused the waters of the Flood to subside (8:1). A wind from God blew locusts over Egypt (Ex 10:13) and quail over the camp of Israel. The blast of his nostrils separated the waters of the Red Sea at the exodus (14:21).<\/p>\n<p>Second, it was the breath of God that made man a living being (Gn 2:7). It is one of the earliest perceptions of Hebrew faith that humans live only because of the stirring of the divine breath or spirit within them (Gn 6:3; Jb 33:4; 34:14-15; Ps 104:29-30). Later, a clearer distinction was drawn between divine Spirit and human spirit, and between spirit and soul, but at the earliest stage these were all more or less perceived to be synonymous manifestations of the same divine power, the source of all life—animal as well as human (Gn 7:15, 22; see Eccl 3:19-21).<\/p>\n<p>Third, there were occasions when this divine power seemed to overtake and possess an individual fully, so that his or her words or actions far transcended those of normal behavior. Such a person was clearly marked as an agent of God’s purpose and given respect. This was apparently how leaders were recognized in the premonarchy period—Othniel (Jgs 3:10), Gideon (6:34), Jephthah (11:29), and the first king, Saul (1 Sm 11:6), as well. So, too, the earliest prophets were those whose inspiration came in ecstasy (1 Sm 19:20-24).<\/p>\n<p>In the earlier stages of Hebrew thought, ecstatic experience was seen as the direct effect of divine power. This was true even when the ecstasy was recognized as evil in character, as in the case of Saul’s seizure by the Spirit (1 Sm 16:14-16). A spirit from God could be for evil as well as for good (see Jgs 9:23; 1 Kgs 22:19-23).<\/p>\n<h5>In the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\n<p>For Isaiah, the spirit was that which characterized God and distinguished him and his actions from human affairs (Is 31:3). Later, the adjective “holy” appeared as that which distinguished the Spirit of God from any other spirit, human or divine (Ps 51:11; Is 63:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>The problem of false prophecy emphasized the danger of assuming that every message delivered in ecstasy was the word of the Lord. Thus, tests of prophecy evaluated the content of the message delivered or the character of the prophet’s life, not the degree or quality of inspiration (see Dt 13:1-5; 18:22; Jer 23:14; Mi 3:5). This sense of a need to discriminate between true and false inspiration and to distinguish the word of God from the merely ecstatic oracle may help to explain the otherwise puzzling reluctance of the major eighth- and seventh-century <span>BC<\/span> prophets to attribute their inspiration to the Spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Exilic and Postexilic Writings<\/h5>\n<p>In exilic and postexilic literature, the role of the Spirit is narrowed to two major functions: that of the prophetic Spirit and that of the Spirit of the age to come.<\/p>\n<p>The later prophets again spoke of the Spirit in explicit terms as the inspirer of prophecy (see Ez 3:1-4, 22-24; Hg 2:5; Zec 4:6). As they looked back to the preexilic period, these prophets freely attributed the inspiration of “the former prophets” to the Spirit as well (Zec 7:12).<\/p>\n<p>This tendency to exalt the Spirit’s role as the inspirer of prophecy became steadily stronger in the period between the OT and NT, until in rabbinic Judaism the Spirit was almost exclusively the inspirer of the prophetic writings now regarded as Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The other understanding of the Spirit’s role during exilic and postexilic times was that the Spirit would be the manifestation of the power of God in the age to come. That eschatological hope of divine power effecting a final cleansing and a renewed creation is rooted principally in Isaiah’s prophecies (Is 4:4; 32:15; 44:3-4). Isaiah speaks of one anointed by the Spirit to accomplish complete and final salvation (11:2; 42:1; 61:1). Elsewhere, the same longing is expressed in terms of the Spirit being freely dispensed to all Israel (Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28-29; Zec 12:10) in the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34; Ez 36:26-27).<\/p>\n<p>In the period prior to Jesus, the understanding of the Spirit as the Spirit of prophecy and as the Spirit of the age to come had developed into the widespread dogma that the Spirit was no longer to be experienced in the present. The Spirit had been known in the past as the inspirer of prophetic writings, but after Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Spirit had withdrawn (1 Macc 4:44-46; 9:27; 2 Bar 85:1-3; see also Ps 74:9; Zec 13:2-6). The Spirit would be known again in the age of the Messiah, but in the interim the Spirit was absent from Israel. Even the great Hillel (learned Jewish leader and teacher, 60? <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 20?), a near contemporary of Jesus, had not received the Spirit—though if anyone was worthy of the Spirit, it was he. There is a tradition that at a meeting of Hillel and other wise men, a voice from heaven said, “Among those here present is one who would have deserved the Holy Spirit to rest upon him, if his time had been worthy of it.” The wise men all looked at Hillel.<\/p>\n<p>The consequence of this accepted dearth of the Spirit was that the Spirit in effect became subordinated to the law. The Spirit was the inspirer of the law, but since the Spirit could no longer be experienced directly, the law became the sole voice of the Spirit. It was this increasing dominance of the law and its authoritative interpreters that provided the background for the mission of Jesus and the initial spread of Christianity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>If we are to understand the NT’s teaching on the Spirit, we must recognize both its continuity and discontinuity with the OT. At many points NT usage cannot be fully understood except against the background of OT concepts or passages. For example, the ambiguity of John 3:8 (“wind,” “Spirit”), 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (“breath”), and Revelation 11:11 (“breath of life”) takes us back to the basic Hebrew meanings of “spirit.” Acts 8:39 and Revelation 17:3 and 21:10 reflect the same conception of the Spirit that we find in 1 Kings 18:12, 2 Kings 2:16, and Ezekiel 3:14. The NT writers generally share the rabbinic view that Scripture has the authority of the Spirit behind it (see Mk 12:36; Acts 28:25; Heb 3:7; 2 Pt 1:21). The principal continuity is that the NT brings the fulfillment of what the OT writers looked forward to. At the same time, Christianity is not simply fulfilled Judaism. Jesus’ coming and his giving of his Spirit to live within his believers marks off the new faith as something new and distinct.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of the New Age<\/h5>\n<p>The most striking feature of Jesus’ ministry and of the message of the earliest Christians was their conviction and proclamation that the blessings of the new age were already present, that the eschatological Spirit had already been poured out. With the exception of the Essenes at Qumran, no other group or individual within the Jewish religion of that time had dared to make such a bold claim. The prophets and the rabbis looked for a messianic age yet to come, and the apocalyptic writers warned of its imminent arrival, but none thought of it as already present. Even John the Baptist spoke only of one about to come and of the Spirit’s operation in the imminent future (Mk 1:8). But for Jesus and first-century Christians, the longed for hope was a living reality, and the claim carried with it the exciting sense of being in “the last days.” Without some recognition of that eschatological dimension of the Christians’ faith and life, we cannot understand this teaching on, and experience of, the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus clearly thought of his teachings and healings as fulfillment of the prophetic hope (Mt 12:41-42; 13:16-17; Lk 17:20-21). In particular, he saw himself as the one anointed by the Spirit to provide salvation (Mt 5:3-6; 11:5; Lk 4:17-19). So, too, Jesus understood his exorcisms as the effect of the power of God and as manifestations of the end-time rule of God (Mt 12:27-28; Mk 3:22-26). The Gospel writers, especially Luke, emphasize the eschatological character of Jesus’ life and ministry by stressing the role of the Spirit in his birth (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:35, 41, 67; 2:25-27), his baptism (Mk 1:9-10; Acts 10:38), and his ministry (Mt 4:1; 12:18; Mk 1:12; Lk 4:1, 14; 10:21; Jn 3:34).<\/p>\n<p>The Christian church began with the in-breathing of the Holy Spirit on the day of Christ’s resurrection (Jn 20:22), followed by the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost “in the last days.” The overwhelming experience of vision and inspired utterance was taken as proof positive that the new age prophesied by Joel had now arrived (Acts 2:2-5, 17-18). Similarly, in Hebrews the gift of the Spirit is spoken of as “the powers of the age to come” (Heb 6:4-5). More striking still is Paul’s understanding of the Spirit as the guarantee of God’s complete salvation (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14), and as the first installment of the believer’s inheritance of God’s kingdom (Rom 8:15-17; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 15:42-50; Gal 4:6-7; 5:16-18, 21-23; Eph 1:13-14). The Spirit is here again thought of as the power of the age to come, as that power (which will characterize God’s rule at the end of time) already shaping and transforming the lives of believers.<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, this means also that the gift of the Spirit is but the beginning of a lifelong process that will not end until the believer’s whole person is brought under the Spirit’s power (Rom 8:11, 23; 1 Cor 15:44-49; 2 Cor 3:18; 5:1-5). It also means that the present experience of faith is one of lifelong tension between what God has already begun to bring about in the believer’s life and what has not yet been brought under God’s grace (Phil 1:6). It is this tension between life “in the Spirit” and life “in the flesh” (see Gal 2:20) that comes to poignant expression in Romans 7:24 and 2 Corinthians 5:2-4.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of New Life<\/h5>\n<p>Since the Spirit is the mark of the new age, it is not surprising that the NT writers understood the gift of the Spirit to be that which brings an individual into the new age. John the Baptist described the way the coming one would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt 3:11). According to Acts 1:5 and 11:16, this imagery was taken up by Jesus, and the promise is seen as fulfilled at Pentecost—the outpouring of the Spirit here being understood as the risen Christ’s action in drawing his disciples into the new age (Acts 2:17, 33).<\/p>\n<p>It seems to be one of Luke’s aims in the book of Acts to highlight the central importance of the gift of the Spirit in conversion-initiation—it is that decisive “gift of the Holy Spirit” that makes one a Christian (Acts 2:38-39). People could have been followers of Jesus on earth, but it was only when they received the gift of the Spirit that they could be said to have “believed in the Lord Jesus Christ” (11:16-17). When the Spirit’s presence was manifested in and upon a person’s life, that was recognized by Peter as proof enough that God had accepted that person, even though he or she had not yet made any formal profession of faith or been baptized (10:44-48; 11:15-18; 15:7-9). So too Apollos, already aglow with the Spirit (18:25), even though his knowledge of “the way of God” was slightly defective (vv 24-26), apparently was not required to supplement his “baptism of John” with Christian baptism. However, the 12 so-called disciples at Ephesus proved by their very ignorance of the Spirit that they were not yet disciples of the Lord Jesus (19:1-6). Paul asked these 12 men, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (19:2).<\/p>\n<p>This accords with Paul’s emphasis in his letters. Belief and reception of the Spirit go together: to receive the Spirit is to begin the Christian life (Gal 3:2-3); to be baptized in the Spirit is to become a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13); to “have the Spirit of Christ” is to belong to Christ (Rom 8:9-11); to receive the Spirit is tantamount to becoming a child of God (Rom 8:14-17; Gal 4:6-7). The Spirit so characterizes the new age and the life of the new age that only the gift of the Spirit can bring a person into the new age to experience the life of the new age. For the Spirit is distinctively and peculiarly the life-giver; the Spirit indeed <em>is<\/em> the life of the new age (Rom 8:2, 6, 10; 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>In just the same way in John’s writings, the Spirit is characteristically the life-giving Spirit (Jn 6:63), the power from above, the seed of divine life that brings about the new birth (Jn 3:3-8; 1 Jn 3:9), and a river of living water that brings life when one believes in Christ (Jn 7:37-39; so also 4:10, 14). Or again, reception of the Spirit in John 20:22 is depicted as a new creation analogous to Genesis 2:7. Consequently, in 1 John 3:24 and 4:13, possession and experience of the Spirit count as one of the “tests of life” listed in that letter.<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It will be clear from what has already been said that when the first Christians, like the ancient Hebrews, spoke of the Spirit, they were thinking of experiences of divine power. In the NT, as in the OT, “Spirit” is the word used to explain the experience of new life and vitality (see above), of liberation from legalism (e.g., Rom 8:2; 2 Cor 3:17), of spiritual refreshing and renewal (cf. e.g., Is 32:15; Ez 39:29 with Jn 7:37-39; Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 12:13; 1 Tm 3:5-6). It is important to realize how wide a range of experiences were attributed to the Spirit: ecstatic experiences (Acts 2:24; 10:43-47; 19:6; cf. 10:10; 22:17—“in ecstasy”; 2 Cor 12:1-4; Rv 1:10), emotional experiences (e.g., love—Rom 5:5; joy—Acts 13:52; 1 Thes 1:6; see also Gal 5:22; Phil 2:1-2), experiences of illumination (2 Cor 3:14-17; Eph 1:17-18; Heb 6:4-5; 1 Jn 2:20-21), and experiences issuing in moral transformation (1 Cor 6:9-11). Likewise, when Paul speaks of spiritual gifts, called <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">charismata<\/span> (acts or words that bring divine grace to concrete expression), he evidently has a wide range of actual events in mind: inspired speech (1 Cor 12:8-10; 1 Thes 1:5), miracles and healings (1 Cor 12:9; Gal 3:5; cf. Heb 2:4), and various acts of service and help, of counsel and administration, and of aid and mercy (Rom 12:7-8; 1 Cor 12:28).<\/p>\n<p>In talking thus of the Spirit in terms of experience, we should not overemphasize particular experiences or manifestations, as though earliest Christianity consisted of a sequence of mountaintop experiences or spiritual highs. There clearly were such experiences, indeed a wide range of experiences, but no one experience is singled out to be sought by all (except prophecy). There is no distinctively second (or third) experience of the Spirit in the NT, and Paul warned against overvaluing particular manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor 14:6-19; 2 Cor 12:1-10; cf. Mk 8:11-13). Where particular experiences are valued, it is as manifestations of a more sustained experience, particular expressions of an underlying relationship (cf. Acts 6:3-5; 11:24—“full of the Spirit”; Eph 5:18). What we are in touch with here is the vigor of the experiential dimension of earliest Christianity. If the Spirit is the breath of the new life in Christ (cf. Ez 37:9-10, 14; Jn 20:22; 1 Cor 15:45), then presumably the analogy extends further, and the experience of the Spirit is like the experience of breathing: one is not conscious of it all the time, but if one is not conscious of it, at least sometimes, something is wrong.<\/p>\n<h5>The Fellowship of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It was out of this shared experience of the Spirit that the earliest Christian community grew and developed, for this is what “the fellowship [<span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">koinonia<\/span>] of the Spirit” properly means: common participation in the same Spirit (Phil 2:1; cf. Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 1:4-9). It was the gift of the Spirit that brought those in Samaria, Caesarea, and elsewhere effectively into the community of the Spirit (Act 8, 10). So also, it was the experience of the one Spirit that provided the unifying bond in the churches of Paul’s mission (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:3-4; Phil 2:1-2). Here we see the real importance of the divine manifestations of the Spirit for Paul: it is out of the diversity of these particular manifestations that the body of Christ grows in unity (Rom 12:4-8; 1 Cor 12:12-17; Eph 4:4-16).<\/p>","summary_ro":"SPIRIT OF GOD Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, ruach; Greek, pneuma) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people. In the Old Testament There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy. First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translat...","summary_en":"SPIRIT OF GOD Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, ruach; Greek, pneuma) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people. In the Old Testament There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy. First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translat...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36216,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Spirit of Jesus Christ","title_en":"Spirit of Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\n<p>The Spirit as identified with Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The most important development and element in earliest Christian understanding of the Spirit is that the Spirit is now the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pt 1:11; see also Jn 7:38; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Rv 3:1; 5:6). The Spirit is to be identified as the Spirit that bears witness to Jesus (Jn 15:26; 16:13-15; Acts 5:32; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2; 5:7-8; Rv 19:10), but also, and more profoundly, as the Spirit that inspired and empowered Jesus himself. This Spirit became available to the believers after Christ’s resurrection.<\/p>\n<p> The apostles John and Paul were quite clear in their writings about Christ becoming spirit through resurrection. The keynote verses penned by John are John 6:63; 7:37-39; 14:16-18; 20:22; and 1 John 3:24; 4:13. The critical passages written by Paul are Romans 8:9-10; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18; and 1 Corinthians 6:17.<\/p>\n<p>Revelation concerning the Spirit of Jesus is progressive in the Gospel of John. John does not tell us from the beginning that people could not actually receive eternal life until the hour of Christ’s glorification. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus declares to various people that he can give them eternal life if they would believe in him. He promises them the water of life, the bread of life, and the light of life. But no one could really partake of these until after the Lord had risen. As a foretaste, as a sample, they could receive life via the Lord’s words because his words were themselves spirit and life (Jn 6:63); however, it was not until the Spirit would become available that believers could actually become the recipients of the divine, eternal life. After the Lord’s discourse in John 6, Jesus said, “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing” (v 63). In the flesh Jesus could not give them the bread of life, but when the Spirit became available, they could have life. Again, Jesus offered the water of life—even life flowing like rivers of living water—to the Jews assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles. He told them to come and drink of him. But no one could, then and there, come and drink of him. So John added a note: “But this he spoke concerning the Spirit, for the Spirit was not yet because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39). Once Jesus would be glorified through resurrection, the Spirit of the glorified Jesus would be available for people to drink. In John 6, Jesus offered himself as the bread of life to be eaten by people; and in John 7, he offered himself as the water of life to refresh men. But no one could eat him or drink him until he became spirit, as was intimated in John 6:63 and then stated plainly in John 7:39.<\/p>\n\n<p>In John 14:16-18, Jesus went one step further in identifying himself with the Spirit. He told the disciples that he would give them another Comforter. Then he told them that they should know who this Comforter was because he was, then and there, abiding with them and would, in the near future, be in them. Who else but Jesus was abiding with them at that time? Then after telling the disciples that the Comforter would come to them, he said, “I am coming to you.” First he said that the Comforter would come to them and abide in them, and then in the same breath he said that he would come to them and abide in them (see 14:20). In short, the coming of the Comforter to the disciples was one and the same as the coming of Jesus to the disciples. The Comforter who was dwelling with the disciples that night was the Spirit in Christ; the Comforter who would be in the disciples (after the resurrection) would be Christ in the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>On the evening of the resurrection, the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples and then breathed into them the Holy Spirit. This inbreathing, reminiscent of God’s breathing into Adam the breath of life (Gn 2:7), became the fulfillment of all that had been promised and anticipated earlier in John’s Gospel. Through this impartation, the disciples became regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This historical event marked the genesis of the new creation. Jesus could now be realized as the bread of life, the water of life, and the light of life. The believers now possessed his divine, eternal, risen life. From that time forward, Christ as spirit indwelt his believers. Thus, in his first epistle John could say, “And hereby we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he gave to us” (1 Jn 3:24), and again, “Hereby we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit” (4:13).<\/p>\n<p>The apostles had quite an adjustment to make after Christ’s resurrection. They had become so accustomed to his physical presence that it was difficult for them to learn how to live by his spiritual, indwelling presence. All through the 40 days after his resurrection, from the time the apostles received the inbreathing of the Spirit, Christ was teaching the disciples to make the transfer. He would physically appear and then disappear intermittently. His appearances were very frequent in the beginning and then they steadily diminished. His aim was to guide the apostles into knowing him in his invisible presence. However, this was so new to them that he had to keep appearing to them in order to strengthen and reassure them. But his real desire was to help them live by faith and not by sight. When he appeared to the disciples as they were all together the second time, with Thomas present, he chided Thomas for his unbelief. Then he prounounced this blessing, “Blessed are those who do not see me and yet believe” (Jn 20:29).<\/p>\n<p>The apostle Paul was such a “blessed” one. He did not know Christ in the flesh. He knew only the risen Christ (2 Cor 5:15-16). In this regard, he had an advantage over the early apostles. They had a great adjustment to make, but from the very beginning, Paul knew the risen Christ as Spirit. Paul became the forerunner of all those Christians who have never seen Jesus in the flesh and who have come to experience him in the Spirit. Yes, Paul had seen the risen Lord; he was the last one to do so (1 Cor 15:8). And from that time onward he realized that Jesus was a glorified man, exalted far above all. Paul wrote much concerning this, but his writings did not leave the far-above-all Jesus far away because this was not what Paul experienced. Any experienced Christian should be able to testify that the Christ in the heavens is also the Christ in the heart.<\/p>\n<p>In his writings, Paul often speaks of the Spirit and Christ synonymously. This is evident in Romans 8:9-10. The terms “Spirit of God,” “Spirit of Christ,” and “Christ” are all used interchangeably. The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of Christ is Christ. In these verses, it is evident that Paul identified the Spirit with Christ because in Christian experience they are absolutely identical. There is no such thing as an experience of Christ apart from the Spirit. The separation and\/or distinction does exist in Trinitarian theology—and for very good reasons—but the separation is nearly nonexistent in actual experience. Several of Paul’s statements are written from the vantage point of experience.<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Corinthians 15:45, Paul says that the risen Jesus became life-giving spirit. Notice the verse does not say Jesus became the Spirit, as if the second person of the Trinity became the third, but that Jesus became spirit in the sense that his mortal existence and form were metamorphosed into a spiritual existence and form. Jesus’ person was not changed through the resurrection, only his form. With this changed spiritual form, Jesus regained the essential state of being he had emptied himself of in becoming a man. Before he became a man, he subsisted in the form of God (Phil 2:6), which form is Spirit and thereby was united to the Spirit (the third of the Trinity), while still remaining distinct. Thus, when the scripture says that the Lord “became life-giving spirit,” it does not mean that the Son became the Holy Spirit. But it does indicate that Christ, via resurrection, appropriated a new, spiritual form (while still retaining a body—a glorified one) that enabled him to commence a new spiritual existence (see 1 Pt 3:18).<\/p>\n<p>In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul explains that the NT ministry is a ministry carried out by the Spirit of the living God (v 3), who is the Spirit that gives life (v 6). In fact, the whole NT economy is characterized as “the ministry of the Spirit” (v 8). At the same time, Paul emphasizes that the function of the NT ministry is to bring God’s people to see and experience the glorious Christ (3:3, 14, 16-18; 4:4-6). It is in this context that Paul boldly declares, “The Lord is the Spirit” (3:17). He who turns his heart to the Lord is, in effect, turning his heart to the Spirit. lf the Lord were not the Spirit abiding in the believers, how could they turn their hearts to him? And how could they be transformed into the same image? Second Corinthians 3:18 says, “But we all, with unveiled face mirroring the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord-Spirit.” According to the Greek, the last phrase of this verse could be rendered “the Lord, the Spirit” (see <span>asv<\/span>) or “the Lord, who is the Spirit” (see <span>rsv<\/span>, <span>niv<\/span>) because the expression “the Spirit” is in direct apposition to “the Lord” (i.e., it is a further description of the Lord). Thus, the Lord is the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, when the Scriptures identify the Spirit with Christ and vice versa, the identification is not equivocation. Christ is not the Holy Spirit. Christ and the Spirit are distinct persons of the Trinity, as is affirmed by the overall teaching of the Word. But the Scriptures do identify Christ and the Spirit in the context of Christian experience. It would be accurate to say that Christians experience Christ through his Spirit, the Spirit of Christ. One cannot know Jesus apart from the Spirit or other than through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Resurrection.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\n<p>The Spirit as identified with Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The most important development and element in earliest Christian understanding of the Spirit is that the Spirit is now the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pt 1:11; see also Jn 7:38; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Rv 3:1; 5:6). The Spirit is to be identified as the Spirit that bears witness to Jesus (Jn 15:26; 16:13-15; Acts 5:32; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2; 5:7-8; Rv 19:10), but also, and more profoundly, as the Spirit that inspired and empowered Jesus himself. This Spirit became available to the believers after Christ’s resurrection.<\/p>\n<p> The apostles John and Paul were quite clear in their writings about Christ becoming spirit through resurrection. The keynote verses penned by John are John 6:63; 7:37-39; 14:16-18; 20:22; and 1 John 3:24; 4:13. The critical passages written by Paul are Romans 8:9-10; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18; and 1 Corinthians 6:17.<\/p>\n<p>Revelation concerning the Spirit of Jesus is progressive in the Gospel of John. John does not tell us from the beginning that people could not actually receive eternal life until the hour of Christ’s glorification. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus declares to various people that he can give them eternal life if they would believe in him. He promises them the water of life, the bread of life, and the light of life. But no one could really partake of these until after the Lord had risen. As a foretaste, as a sample, they could receive life via the Lord’s words because his words were themselves spirit and life (Jn 6:63); however, it was not until the Spirit would become available that believers could actually become the recipients of the divine, eternal life. After the Lord’s discourse in John 6, Jesus said, “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing” (v 63). In the flesh Jesus could not give them the bread of life, but when the Spirit became available, they could have life. Again, Jesus offered the water of life—even life flowing like rivers of living water—to the Jews assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles. He told them to come and drink of him. But no one could, then and there, come and drink of him. So John added a note: “But this he spoke concerning the Spirit, for the Spirit was not yet because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39). Once Jesus would be glorified through resurrection, the Spirit of the glorified Jesus would be available for people to drink. In John 6, Jesus offered himself as the bread of life to be eaten by people; and in John 7, he offered himself as the water of life to refresh men. But no one could eat him or drink him until he became spirit, as was intimated in John 6:63 and then stated plainly in John 7:39.<\/p>\n\n<p>In John 14:16-18, Jesus went one step further in identifying himself with the Spirit. He told the disciples that he would give them another Comforter. Then he told them that they should know who this Comforter was because he was, then and there, abiding with them and would, in the near future, be in them. Who else but Jesus was abiding with them at that time? Then after telling the disciples that the Comforter would come to them, he said, “I am coming to you.” First he said that the Comforter would come to them and abide in them, and then in the same breath he said that he would come to them and abide in them (see 14:20). In short, the coming of the Comforter to the disciples was one and the same as the coming of Jesus to the disciples. The Comforter who was dwelling with the disciples that night was the Spirit in Christ; the Comforter who would be in the disciples (after the resurrection) would be Christ in the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>On the evening of the resurrection, the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples and then breathed into them the Holy Spirit. This inbreathing, reminiscent of God’s breathing into Adam the breath of life (Gn 2:7), became the fulfillment of all that had been promised and anticipated earlier in John’s Gospel. Through this impartation, the disciples became regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This historical event marked the genesis of the new creation. Jesus could now be realized as the bread of life, the water of life, and the light of life. The believers now possessed his divine, eternal, risen life. From that time forward, Christ as spirit indwelt his believers. Thus, in his first epistle John could say, “And hereby we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he gave to us” (1 Jn 3:24), and again, “Hereby we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit” (4:13).<\/p>\n<p>The apostles had quite an adjustment to make after Christ’s resurrection. They had become so accustomed to his physical presence that it was difficult for them to learn how to live by his spiritual, indwelling presence. All through the 40 days after his resurrection, from the time the apostles received the inbreathing of the Spirit, Christ was teaching the disciples to make the transfer. He would physically appear and then disappear intermittently. His appearances were very frequent in the beginning and then they steadily diminished. His aim was to guide the apostles into knowing him in his invisible presence. However, this was so new to them that he had to keep appearing to them in order to strengthen and reassure them. But his real desire was to help them live by faith and not by sight. When he appeared to the disciples as they were all together the second time, with Thomas present, he chided Thomas for his unbelief. Then he prounounced this blessing, “Blessed are those who do not see me and yet believe” (Jn 20:29).<\/p>\n<p>The apostle Paul was such a “blessed” one. He did not know Christ in the flesh. He knew only the risen Christ (2 Cor 5:15-16). In this regard, he had an advantage over the early apostles. They had a great adjustment to make, but from the very beginning, Paul knew the risen Christ as Spirit. Paul became the forerunner of all those Christians who have never seen Jesus in the flesh and who have come to experience him in the Spirit. Yes, Paul had seen the risen Lord; he was the last one to do so (1 Cor 15:8). And from that time onward he realized that Jesus was a glorified man, exalted far above all. Paul wrote much concerning this, but his writings did not leave the far-above-all Jesus far away because this was not what Paul experienced. Any experienced Christian should be able to testify that the Christ in the heavens is also the Christ in the heart.<\/p>\n<p>In his writings, Paul often speaks of the Spirit and Christ synonymously. This is evident in Romans 8:9-10. The terms “Spirit of God,” “Spirit of Christ,” and “Christ” are all used interchangeably. The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of Christ is Christ. In these verses, it is evident that Paul identified the Spirit with Christ because in Christian experience they are absolutely identical. There is no such thing as an experience of Christ apart from the Spirit. The separation and\/or distinction does exist in Trinitarian theology—and for very good reasons—but the separation is nearly nonexistent in actual experience. Several of Paul’s statements are written from the vantage point of experience.<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Corinthians 15:45, Paul says that the risen Jesus became life-giving spirit. Notice the verse does not say Jesus became the Spirit, as if the second person of the Trinity became the third, but that Jesus became spirit in the sense that his mortal existence and form were metamorphosed into a spiritual existence and form. Jesus’ person was not changed through the resurrection, only his form. With this changed spiritual form, Jesus regained the essential state of being he had emptied himself of in becoming a man. Before he became a man, he subsisted in the form of God (Phil 2:6), which form is Spirit and thereby was united to the Spirit (the third of the Trinity), while still remaining distinct. Thus, when the scripture says that the Lord “became life-giving spirit,” it does not mean that the Son became the Holy Spirit. But it does indicate that Christ, via resurrection, appropriated a new, spiritual form (while still retaining a body—a glorified one) that enabled him to commence a new spiritual existence (see 1 Pt 3:18).<\/p>\n<p>In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul explains that the NT ministry is a ministry carried out by the Spirit of the living God (v 3), who is the Spirit that gives life (v 6). In fact, the whole NT economy is characterized as “the ministry of the Spirit” (v 8). At the same time, Paul emphasizes that the function of the NT ministry is to bring God’s people to see and experience the glorious Christ (3:3, 14, 16-18; 4:4-6). It is in this context that Paul boldly declares, “The Lord is the Spirit” (3:17). He who turns his heart to the Lord is, in effect, turning his heart to the Spirit. lf the Lord were not the Spirit abiding in the believers, how could they turn their hearts to him? And how could they be transformed into the same image? Second Corinthians 3:18 says, “But we all, with unveiled face mirroring the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord-Spirit.” According to the Greek, the last phrase of this verse could be rendered “the Lord, the Spirit” (see <span>asv<\/span>) or “the Lord, who is the Spirit” (see <span>rsv<\/span>, <span>niv<\/span>) because the expression “the Spirit” is in direct apposition to “the Lord” (i.e., it is a further description of the Lord). Thus, the Lord is the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, when the Scriptures identify the Spirit with Christ and vice versa, the identification is not equivocation. Christ is not the Holy Spirit. Christ and the Spirit are distinct persons of the Trinity, as is affirmed by the overall teaching of the Word. But the Scriptures do identify Christ and the Spirit in the context of Christian experience. It would be accurate to say that Christians experience Christ through his Spirit, the Spirit of Christ. One cannot know Jesus apart from the Spirit or other than through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Resurrection.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST The Spirit as identified with Jesus Christ. The most important development and element in earliest Christian understanding of the Spirit is that the Spirit is now the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pt 1:11; see also Jn 7:38; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Rv 3:1; 5:6). The Spirit is to be identified as the Spirit that bears witness to Jesus (Jn 15:26; 16:13-15; Acts 5:32; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2; 5:7-8; Rv 19:10), but also, and more profoundly, as t...","summary_en":"SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST The Spirit as identified with Jesus Christ. The most important development and element in earliest Christian understanding of the Spirit is that the Spirit is now the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pt 1:11; see also Jn 7:38; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Rv 3:1; 5:6). The Spirit is to be identified as the Spirit that bears witness to Jesus (Jn 15:26; 16:13-15; Acts 5:32; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2; 5:7-8; Rv 19:10), but also, and more profoundly, as t...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38230,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Water","title_en":"Water","content_ro":"<h3>WATER<\/h3>\n<p>One of the essentials of life, which covers much of the earth’s surface and is the primary component of the human body. Life cannot be sustained more than a few days without it.<\/p>\n<p>In the beginning, water covered the earth. Then God brought up the dry land from the water (Gn 1:9-10). As Peter said, “God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth up from the water and surrounded it with water” (2 Pt 3:5, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>When the Lord created the Garden of Eden, he made a river to water it. This river divided into four rivers, of which two are identified with certainty, the Euphrates and the Tigris, which have sustained agricultural life in the Mesopotamian area both in antiquity and today (Gn 2:10-14). The Bible also relates that early in the history of the earth there was no rain but only a mist that watered the earth (vv 5-6). In the time of Noah, the Lord used an overwhelming mass and movement of water to destroy “the world that then existed” (2 Pt 3:6), as punishment for its wickedness.<\/p>\n<p>In the Near East, water is of special importance, for much of the area receives only moderate amounts of rainfall. In Egypt, for example, only two to four inches (5.1 to 10.2 centimeters) of rain falls in the area of Cairo, and at Aswan the average annual rainfall is zero. Egypt is dependent upon the Nile, which is supplied by equatorial rains. By contrast, Palestine is watered well by “the rain from heaven” (Dt 11:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>Water has many symbolic usages in Scripture (quoted below mostly from the <span>nlt<\/span>). The righteous man is like a tree planted by streams of water (Ps 1:3; Jer 17:8). The longing of the soul after God is likened to thirst for water: “My soul thirsts for you; my whole body longs for you in this parched and weary land where there is no water” (Ps 63:1); “I thirst for you as parched land thirsts for rain” (143:6). Jesus fulfills this need and declares, “If you are thirsty, come to me! If you believe in me, come and drink!” (Jn 7:37-38). And Jesus said, “The water I give them takes away thirst altogether. It becomes a perpetual spring within them, giving them eternal life” (4:14). The Spirit of Jesus is that spiritual water that satisfies the thirst of the human spirit (7:38-39). The Word of God is also presented as water by which spiritual cleansing is effected. The Lord speaks of the cleansing of the church by “the washing of water with the word” (Eph 5:26). And Paul said that people are saved “by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Ti 3:5).<\/p>\n<p>In the closing chapters of the Bible the Lord declares, “To all who are thirsty I will give the springs of the water of life without charge!” (Rv 21:6, <span>nlt<\/span>). Even in the description of the heavenly Jerusalem there is mention of water—the river of the water of life: “The angel showed me a pure river with the water of life, clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb, coursing down the center of the main street” (22:1-2). The final invitation of Scripture comes to us in similar terms: “Let the thirsty ones come—anyone who wants to. Let them come and drink the water of life without charge” (v 17).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WATER<\/h3>\n<p>One of the essentials of life, which covers much of the earth’s surface and is the primary component of the human body. Life cannot be sustained more than a few days without it.<\/p>\n<p>In the beginning, water covered the earth. Then God brought up the dry land from the water (Gn 1:9-10). As Peter said, “God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth up from the water and surrounded it with water” (2 Pt 3:5, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>When the Lord created the Garden of Eden, he made a river to water it. This river divided into four rivers, of which two are identified with certainty, the Euphrates and the Tigris, which have sustained agricultural life in the Mesopotamian area both in antiquity and today (Gn 2:10-14). The Bible also relates that early in the history of the earth there was no rain but only a mist that watered the earth (vv 5-6). In the time of Noah, the Lord used an overwhelming mass and movement of water to destroy “the world that then existed” (2 Pt 3:6), as punishment for its wickedness.<\/p>\n<p>In the Near East, water is of special importance, for much of the area receives only moderate amounts of rainfall. In Egypt, for example, only two to four inches (5.1 to 10.2 centimeters) of rain falls in the area of Cairo, and at Aswan the average annual rainfall is zero. Egypt is dependent upon the Nile, which is supplied by equatorial rains. By contrast, Palestine is watered well by “the rain from heaven” (Dt 11:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>Water has many symbolic usages in Scripture (quoted below mostly from the <span>nlt<\/span>). The righteous man is like a tree planted by streams of water (Ps 1:3; Jer 17:8). The longing of the soul after God is likened to thirst for water: “My soul thirsts for you; my whole body longs for you in this parched and weary land where there is no water” (Ps 63:1); “I thirst for you as parched land thirsts for rain” (143:6). Jesus fulfills this need and declares, “If you are thirsty, come to me! If you believe in me, come and drink!” (Jn 7:37-38). And Jesus said, “The water I give them takes away thirst altogether. It becomes a perpetual spring within them, giving them eternal life” (4:14). The Spirit of Jesus is that spiritual water that satisfies the thirst of the human spirit (7:38-39). The Word of God is also presented as water by which spiritual cleansing is effected. The Lord speaks of the cleansing of the church by “the washing of water with the word” (Eph 5:26). And Paul said that people are saved “by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Ti 3:5).<\/p>\n<p>In the closing chapters of the Bible the Lord declares, “To all who are thirsty I will give the springs of the water of life without charge!” (Rv 21:6, <span>nlt<\/span>). Even in the description of the heavenly Jerusalem there is mention of water—the river of the water of life: “The angel showed me a pure river with the water of life, clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb, coursing down the center of the main street” (22:1-2). The final invitation of Scripture comes to us in similar terms: “Let the thirsty ones come—anyone who wants to. Let them come and drink the water of life without charge” (v 17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"WATER One of the essentials of life, which covers much of the earth’s surface and is the primary component of the human body. Life cannot be sustained more than a few days without it. In the beginning, water covered the earth. Then God brought up the dry land from the water (Gn 1:9-10). As Peter said, “God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth up from the water and surrounded it with water” (2 Pt 3:5, nlt). When the Lord created the Garden of Eden, he made a ri...","summary_en":"WATER One of the essentials of life, which covers much of the earth’s surface and is the primary component of the human body. Life cannot be sustained more than a few days without it. In the beginning, water covered the earth. Then God brought up the dry land from the water (Gn 1:9-10). As Peter said, “God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth up from the water and surrounded it with water” (2 Pt 3:5, nlt). When the Lord created the Garden of Eden, he made a ri...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":56470,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:37","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:37","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v 5\"><strong>7:37-38<\/strong> <em>living water:<\/em> See 4:10-14. A water ceremony was held each day during the Festival of Shelters, with prayer for God to send rain in the late autumn. The final day, called “the great day,” was <em>the climax of the festival<\/em><em>,<\/em> when the ceremony was repeated seven times. Water was poured over the altar as Levites sang Isa 12:3 (see Zech 14:8; see also <em>Mishnah Sukkah<\/em> ch 4). • <em>Anyone who is thirsty may come to me!<\/em> Jesus fulfilled an essential element in the Festival of Shelters. He himself is the source of living water, available to <em>anyone who believes<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v 5\"><strong>7:37-38<\/strong> <em>living water:<\/em> See 4:10-14. A water ceremony was held each day during the Festival of Shelters, with prayer for God to send rain in the late autumn. The final day, called “the great day,” was <em>the climax of the festival<\/em><em>,<\/em> when the ceremony was repeated seven times. Water was poured over the altar as Levites sang Isa 12:3 (see Zech 14:8; see also <em>Mishnah Sukkah<\/em> ch 4). • <em>Anyone who is thirsty may come to me!<\/em> Jesus fulfilled an essential element in the Festival of Shelters. He himself is the source of living water, available to <em>anyone who believes<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:37-38 living water: See 4:10-14. A water ceremony was held each day during the Festival of Shelters, with prayer for God to send rain in the late autumn. The final day, called “the great day,” was the climax of the festival, when the ceremony was repeated seven times. Water was poured over the altar as Levites sang Isa 12:3 (see Zech 14:8; see also Mishnah Sukkah ch 4). • Anyone who is thirsty may come to me! Jesus fulfilled an essential element in the Festival of Shelters. He himself is th...","summary_en":"7:37-38 living water: See 4:10-14. A water ceremony was held each day during the Festival of Shelters, with prayer for God to send rain in the late autumn. The final day, called “the great day,” was the climax of the festival, when the ceremony was repeated seven times. Water was poured over the altar as Levites sang Isa 12:3 (see Zech 14:8; see also Mishnah Sukkah ch 4). • Anyone who is thirsty may come to me! Jesus fulfilled an essential element in the Festival of Shelters. He himself is th...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":84096,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:37","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:37","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v 5\"><strong>7:37-38<\/strong> <em>living water:<\/em> See 4:10-14. A water ceremony was held each day during the Festival of Shelters, with prayer for God to send rain in the late autumn. The final day, called “the great day,” was <em>the climax of the festival<\/em><em>,<\/em> when the ceremony was repeated seven times. Water was poured over the altar as Levites sang Isa 12:3 (see Zech 14:8; see also <em>Mishnah Sukkah<\/em> ch 4). • <em>Anyone who is thirsty may come to me!<\/em> Jesus fulfilled an essential element in the Festival of Shelters. He himself is the source of living water, available to <em>anyone who believes<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v 5\"><strong>7:37-38<\/strong> <em>living water:<\/em> See 4:10-14. A water ceremony was held each day during the Festival of Shelters, with prayer for God to send rain in the late autumn. The final day, called “the great day,” was <em>the climax of the festival<\/em><em>,<\/em> when the ceremony was repeated seven times. Water was poured over the altar as Levites sang Isa 12:3 (see Zech 14:8; see also <em>Mishnah Sukkah<\/em> ch 4). • <em>Anyone who is thirsty may come to me!<\/em> Jesus fulfilled an essential element in the Festival of Shelters. He himself is the source of living water, available to <em>anyone who believes<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:37-38 living water: See 4:10-14. A water ceremony was held each day during the Festival of Shelters, with prayer for God to send rain in the late autumn. The final day, called “the great day,” was the climax of the festival, when the ceremony was repeated seven times. Water was poured over the altar as Levites sang Isa 12:3 (see Zech 14:8; see also Mishnah Sukkah ch 4). • Anyone who is thirsty may come to me! Jesus fulfilled an essential element in the Festival of Shelters. He himself is th...","summary_en":"7:37-38 living water: See 4:10-14. A water ceremony was held each day during the Festival of Shelters, with prayer for God to send rain in the late autumn. The final day, called “the great day,” was the climax of the festival, when the ceremony was repeated seven times. Water was poured over the altar as Levites sang Isa 12:3 (see Zech 14:8; see also Mishnah Sukkah ch 4). • Anyone who is thirsty may come to me! Jesus fulfilled an essential element in the Festival of Shelters. He himself is th...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":111722,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:37","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:37","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v 5\"><strong>7:37-38<\/strong> <em>living water:<\/em> See 4:10-14. A water ceremony was held each day during the Festival of Shelters, with prayer for God to send rain in the late autumn. The final day, called “the great day,” was <em>the climax of the festival<\/em><em>,<\/em> when the ceremony was repeated seven times. Water was poured over the altar as Levites sang Isa 12:3 (see Zech 14:8; see also <em>Mishnah Sukkah<\/em> ch 4). • <em>Anyone who is thirsty may come to me!<\/em> Jesus fulfilled an essential element in the Festival of Shelters. He himself is the source of living water, available to <em>anyone who believes<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v 5\"><strong>7:37-38<\/strong> <em>living water:<\/em> See 4:10-14. A water ceremony was held each day during the Festival of Shelters, with prayer for God to send rain in the late autumn. The final day, called “the great day,” was <em>the climax of the festival<\/em><em>,<\/em> when the ceremony was repeated seven times. Water was poured over the altar as Levites sang Isa 12:3 (see Zech 14:8; see also <em>Mishnah Sukkah<\/em> ch 4). • <em>Anyone who is thirsty may come to me!<\/em> Jesus fulfilled an essential element in the Festival of Shelters. He himself is the source of living water, available to <em>anyone who believes<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:37-38 living water: See 4:10-14. A water ceremony was held each day during the Festival of Shelters, with prayer for God to send rain in the late autumn. The final day, called “the great day,” was the climax of the festival, when the ceremony was repeated seven times. Water was poured over the altar as Levites sang Isa 12:3 (see Zech 14:8; see also Mishnah Sukkah ch 4). • Anyone who is thirsty may come to me! Jesus fulfilled an essential element in the Festival of Shelters. He himself is th...","summary_en":"7:37-38 living water: See 4:10-14. A water ceremony was held each day during the Festival of Shelters, with prayer for God to send rain in the late autumn. The final day, called “the great day,” was the climax of the festival, when the ceremony was repeated seven times. Water was poured over the altar as Levites sang Isa 12:3 (see Zech 14:8; see also Mishnah Sukkah ch 4). • Anyone who is thirsty may come to me! Jesus fulfilled an essential element in the Festival of Shelters. He himself is th...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":139348,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:37","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:37","content_ro":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v 5\"><strong>7:37-38<\/strong> <em>living water:<\/em> See 4:10-14. A water ceremony was held each day during the Festival of Shelters, with prayer for God to send rain in the late autumn. The final day, called “the great day,” was <em>the climax of the festival<\/em><em>,<\/em> when the ceremony was repeated seven times. Water was poured over the altar as Levites sang Isa 12:3 (see Zech 14:8; see also <em>Mishnah Sukkah<\/em> ch 4). • <em>Anyone who is thirsty may come to me!<\/em> Jesus fulfilled an essential element in the Festival of Shelters. He himself is the source of living water, available to <em>anyone who believes<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p class=\"sn-text\" ts=\"sn-text -1v 5\"><strong>7:37-38<\/strong> <em>living water:<\/em> See 4:10-14. A water ceremony was held each day during the Festival of Shelters, with prayer for God to send rain in the late autumn. The final day, called “the great day,” was <em>the climax of the festival<\/em><em>,<\/em> when the ceremony was repeated seven times. Water was poured over the altar as Levites sang Isa 12:3 (see Zech 14:8; see also <em>Mishnah Sukkah<\/em> ch 4). • <em>Anyone who is thirsty may come to me!<\/em> Jesus fulfilled an essential element in the Festival of Shelters. He himself is the source of living water, available to <em>anyone who believes<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:37-38 living water: See 4:10-14. A water ceremony was held each day during the Festival of Shelters, with prayer for God to send rain in the late autumn. The final day, called “the great day,” was the climax of the festival, when the ceremony was repeated seven times. Water was poured over the altar as Levites sang Isa 12:3 (see Zech 14:8; see also Mishnah Sukkah ch 4). • Anyone who is thirsty may come to me! Jesus fulfilled an essential element in the Festival of Shelters. He himself is th...","summary_en":"7:37-38 living water: See 4:10-14. A water ceremony was held each day during the Festival of Shelters, with prayer for God to send rain in the late autumn. The final day, called “the great day,” was the climax of the festival, when the ceremony was repeated seven times. Water was poured over the altar as Levites sang Isa 12:3 (see Zech 14:8; see also Mishnah Sukkah ch 4). • Anyone who is thirsty may come to me! Jesus fulfilled an essential element in the Festival of Shelters. He himself is th...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65897,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Living Water","title_en":"Living Water","content_ro":"<h3>Living Water<\/h3>\n<p>In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it came directly from God, it was used for ritual washings (see Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>The distinction between “dead” and “living” water helps explain why the woman of Samaria was so perplexed when Jesus offered her living water (John 4:12). Samaria has no permanent river. If Jacob had to dig a well there, how could Jesus offer superior water?<\/p>\n<p>Jesus mentioned living water again in Jerusalem at the autumn Festival of Shelters (7:37-39). This festival, which fell during a dry time of year, included an emphasis on water. In this setting, Jesus stepped forward and made an extravagant claim: Anyone looking for living water should come to him and drink. Jesus is the source of living water; he came directly from God and brought divine renewal through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19; Song 4:15; Jer 2:13; 17:13; John 4:10-14; 7:38-39; Jas 3:11-12<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Living Water<\/h3>\n<p>In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it came directly from God, it was used for ritual washings (see Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>The distinction between “dead” and “living” water helps explain why the woman of Samaria was so perplexed when Jesus offered her living water (John 4:12). Samaria has no permanent river. If Jacob had to dig a well there, how could Jesus offer superior water?<\/p>\n<p>Jesus mentioned living water again in Jerusalem at the autumn Festival of Shelters (7:37-39). This festival, which fell during a dry time of year, included an emphasis on water. In this setting, Jesus stepped forward and made an extravagant claim: Anyone looking for living water should come to him and drink. Jesus is the source of living water; he came directly from God and brought divine renewal through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19; Song 4:15; Jer 2:13; 17:13; John 4:10-14; 7:38-39; Jas 3:11-12<\/p>","summary_ro":"Living Water In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it ...","summary_en":"Living Water In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93523,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Living Water","title_en":"Living Water","content_ro":"<h3>Living Water<\/h3>\n<p>In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it came directly from God, it was used for ritual washings (see Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>The distinction between “dead” and “living” water helps explain why the woman of Samaria was so perplexed when Jesus offered her living water (John 4:12). Samaria has no permanent river. If Jacob had to dig a well there, how could Jesus offer superior water?<\/p>\n<p>Jesus mentioned living water again in Jerusalem at the autumn Festival of Shelters (7:37-39). This festival, which fell during a dry time of year, included an emphasis on water. In this setting, Jesus stepped forward and made an extravagant claim: Anyone looking for living water should come to him and drink. Jesus is the source of living water; he came directly from God and brought divine renewal through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19; Song 4:15; Jer 2:13; 17:13; John 4:10-14; 7:38-39; Jas 3:11-12<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Living Water<\/h3>\n<p>In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it came directly from God, it was used for ritual washings (see Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>The distinction between “dead” and “living” water helps explain why the woman of Samaria was so perplexed when Jesus offered her living water (John 4:12). Samaria has no permanent river. If Jacob had to dig a well there, how could Jesus offer superior water?<\/p>\n<p>Jesus mentioned living water again in Jerusalem at the autumn Festival of Shelters (7:37-39). This festival, which fell during a dry time of year, included an emphasis on water. In this setting, Jesus stepped forward and made an extravagant claim: Anyone looking for living water should come to him and drink. Jesus is the source of living water; he came directly from God and brought divine renewal through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19; Song 4:15; Jer 2:13; 17:13; John 4:10-14; 7:38-39; Jas 3:11-12<\/p>","summary_ro":"Living Water In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it ...","summary_en":"Living Water In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":121149,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Living Water","title_en":"Living Water","content_ro":"<h3>Living Water<\/h3>\n<p>In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it came directly from God, it was used for ritual washings (see Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>The distinction between “dead” and “living” water helps explain why the woman of Samaria was so perplexed when Jesus offered her living water (John 4:12). Samaria has no permanent river. If Jacob had to dig a well there, how could Jesus offer superior water?<\/p>\n<p>Jesus mentioned living water again in Jerusalem at the autumn Festival of Shelters (7:37-39). This festival, which fell during a dry time of year, included an emphasis on water. In this setting, Jesus stepped forward and made an extravagant claim: Anyone looking for living water should come to him and drink. Jesus is the source of living water; he came directly from God and brought divine renewal through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19; Song 4:15; Jer 2:13; 17:13; John 4:10-14; 7:38-39; Jas 3:11-12<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Living Water<\/h3>\n<p>In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it came directly from God, it was used for ritual washings (see Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>The distinction between “dead” and “living” water helps explain why the woman of Samaria was so perplexed when Jesus offered her living water (John 4:12). Samaria has no permanent river. If Jacob had to dig a well there, how could Jesus offer superior water?<\/p>\n<p>Jesus mentioned living water again in Jerusalem at the autumn Festival of Shelters (7:37-39). This festival, which fell during a dry time of year, included an emphasis on water. In this setting, Jesus stepped forward and made an extravagant claim: Anyone looking for living water should come to him and drink. Jesus is the source of living water; he came directly from God and brought divine renewal through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19; Song 4:15; Jer 2:13; 17:13; John 4:10-14; 7:38-39; Jas 3:11-12<\/p>","summary_ro":"Living Water In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it ...","summary_en":"Living Water In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148775,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Living Water","title_en":"Living Water","content_ro":"<h3>Living Water<\/h3>\n<p>In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it came directly from God, it was used for ritual washings (see Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>The distinction between “dead” and “living” water helps explain why the woman of Samaria was so perplexed when Jesus offered her living water (John 4:12). Samaria has no permanent river. If Jacob had to dig a well there, how could Jesus offer superior water?<\/p>\n<p>Jesus mentioned living water again in Jerusalem at the autumn Festival of Shelters (7:37-39). This festival, which fell during a dry time of year, included an emphasis on water. In this setting, Jesus stepped forward and made an extravagant claim: Anyone looking for living water should come to him and drink. Jesus is the source of living water; he came directly from God and brought divine renewal through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19; Song 4:15; Jer 2:13; 17:13; John 4:10-14; 7:38-39; Jas 3:11-12<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Living Water<\/h3>\n<p>In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it came directly from God, it was used for ritual washings (see Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>The distinction between “dead” and “living” water helps explain why the woman of Samaria was so perplexed when Jesus offered her living water (John 4:12). Samaria has no permanent river. If Jacob had to dig a well there, how could Jesus offer superior water?<\/p>\n<p>Jesus mentioned living water again in Jerusalem at the autumn Festival of Shelters (7:37-39). This festival, which fell during a dry time of year, included an emphasis on water. In this setting, Jesus stepped forward and made an extravagant claim: Anyone looking for living water should come to him and drink. Jesus is the source of living water; he came directly from God and brought divine renewal through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19; Song 4:15; Jer 2:13; 17:13; John 4:10-14; 7:38-39; Jas 3:11-12<\/p>","summary_ro":"Living Water In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it ...","summary_en":"Living Water In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"38":[{"id":4805,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of the Old Testament in the New Testament Bible*, Quotations","title_en":"of the Old Testament in the New Testament Bible*, Quotations","content_ro":"<h3>BIBLE*, Q<span>uotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers.<\/p>\n<p>The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotations in distinctive print, this may not be easily seen, for the NT writers often weave the OT words into their own without indicating they are borrowing from the OT. There are over 400 passages of the OT that are explicitly cited in the NT. Almost half of these are introduced by a statement like “Scripture says” to draw attention to the fact that the authority and thought of the OT is being implemented. For the others, however, the OT words are woven into the fabric of the author’s own statement.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the over 400 passages cited explicitly, there are well over 1,000 places where there is an allusion to an OT text, event, or person. The difference between a quotation and an allusion is sometimes debated for particular texts, but usually the distinction is that in a quotation the author consciously uses the words of an OT passage, whereas with an allusion he has the texts in mind but is not consciously trying to use the words.<\/p>\n<p>Quotations are easy to identify if there is an introductory formula such as “the Scripture says” (as in Rom 10:11; cf. Is 28:16). Where there is no introductory formula, it is easy to overlook explicit quotations (Rom 10:13; cf. Jl 2:32). The allusions are, of course, harder still to recognize, but they often provide the key to interpretation. For example, John 1:14-18—with its mention of glory, grace and truth, Moses, and the fact that no one has seen God—is much more easily and profoundly understood when read in connection with Exodus 33:17–34:8. In the Exodus passage the glory of God and his grace and truth are revealed to Moses. The author was showing that a much more complete revelation of God was given in Jesus than was given Moses in the account recorded in Exodus.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, significant light is shed on many NT passages from OT passages with similar ideas and words even where the NT author may not have been consciously alluding to those texts (e.g. Mt 16:19; Is 22:22). What was behind the author’s thinking is not certain, but in such cases the NT reflects the thinking, the culture, and language of the OT period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DistributionofOldTestamentQuotations\">Distribution of Old Testament Quotations<\/p>\n<p>The books of the NT that show the most dependence on the OT are Matthew, John, Romans, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation. Such a statement can be misleading, however, because the writers have different methods.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew quotes or consciously reflects the wording of OT passages about 62 times, almost half of which have an introductory formula. The book of Revelation, on the other hand, never quotes the OT and never has an introductory formula but is probably more dependent on the OT than any other NT book. The book of Hebrews quotes or consciously reflects the OT about 59 times, again half of which have an introductory formula, but the Gospel of John does so only 18 times, nearly always with an introductory formula. However, the allusions to the OT are present on virtually every page of John’s Gospel, so much so that some scholars have argued that he has modeled his account on the exodus narrative, the Jewish feasts, or OT persons and images. Paul’s Letter to the Romans uses the OT 54 times (about three-fourths of which have introductory formulas), but nowhere else so frequently (e.g., 1 Cor 16 times, Gal 11 times, Phil one time, 1 Thes one time).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the indication that Philippians and 1 Thessalonians use the OT only once each, some other books make explicit use of the OT rarely or never. Colossians, Titus, Philemon, and the Johannine letters do not use the OT at all; 2 Timothy and Jude use the OT only once; while 2 Peter and 1 Timothy make use of it twice.<\/p>\n<p>The important point is to realize that the OT is used most frequently in circumstances where the audience is familiar with the OT or where the OT is essential for describing the events relating to Christ and the church. The books using the OT most frequently (Mt, Jn, Rom, Heb, 1 Pt, Rv) either stem from or are addressed to a Jewish context or, as in the case of Romans and John, deal specifically with the relation of Jews and Christians. The Gospels make rather extensive use of the OT because the language of the OT is necessary to convey the identity and importance of Jesus in the purposes of God. Similarly 1 Peter uses the OT frequently because the author is trying to convey to his persecuted audience that they are the people of God and the inheritors of the promises of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DifficultiesinInterpretation\">Difficulties in Interpretation<\/p>\n<p>Often when people think of quotations of the OT in the NT they think only in terms of prophecy. Some have been guilty of counting up the OT statements that the NT applies to Christ and the church and then claiming these OT texts as predictions that prove Jesus is the Messiah. Such a procedure is filled with problems because it is too simplistic and does not do justice to either the OT or to the way the NT uses it. Of course, the early church used the OT to show that Jesus fulfilled the promises of God and did God’s work, but the use the church made of the OT was quite varied and much of it cannot be classified as predictive prophecy. Prophecy itself is too complex to be limited to predictive thinking.<\/p>\n<p>Some of the most obvious examples of the difficulties appear in Matthew’s Gospel, although they are by no means confined there. Matthew 2:15—“Out of Egypt I called my son”—is a quotation of Hosea 11:1, but in Hosea these words do not refer to the Messiah. They refer to the nation of Israel. Similarly Matthew 2:18 quotes Jeremiah 31:15 (“A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more,” <span>niv<\/span>) as fulfilled in the slaughter of the innocent babies in Bethlehem, but in Jeremiah the weeping is over the destruction of Jerusalem. John 12:40 views Isaiah 6:10 as fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry, but this verse deals with the call of Isaiah and is not a prediction concerning the ministry of the Messiah. The examples could be multiplied but these should be sufficient to illustrate the problem. For this reason the NT writers have often been accused of twisting the Scriptures, but this charge is as simplistic as the thought that all prophecy is predictive and in fact springs from the same error. Therefore, any attempt to understand the use of the OT in the NT will have to deal with the variety of ways in which the OT is used and with the methods employed by the NT writers.<\/p>\n<p>There are other difficulties that are encountered as well. Sometimes the NT writer will indicate that some fact related to Christ is a fulfillment of the OT but the explicit text that he had in mind cannot be identified. For example, John 7:38 introduces the words “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water” with the statement “as Scripture has said.” No OT text reads this way. Possibly the allusion is to the rock that provided water in the wilderness (Ex 17:1), or to the waters that flowed from the new temple (Zec 14:8) or, more generally, it may be a reference to Isaiah 58:11. Similarly, the difficulty in determining the OT text behind the prophecy that Christ will be called a Nazarene (Mt 2:23) is notorious. Probably the reference is to Isaiah 11:1 and the Hebrew word there translated as “branch,” but the connection is not easily made and is not certain. A third example of this kind of difficulty is in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where Paul indicates that women should be in submission just as the Law says, but there is no OT text expressing this idea. His statement in probably to be understood as a summary rather than a quotation or allusion. Similarly on a few occasions an OT text is seemingly attributed to the wrong OT book. In Mark 1:2-3 an OT quotation is attributed to Isaiah but the quotation is really a conflation (or mixing) of Exodus 23:20, Malachi 3:1, and Isaiah 40:3. Matthew 27:9-10 quotes a passage that is said to be from Jeremiah, when really it is dependent on Zechariah 11:13 and might best be described as a summary of Zechariah 11:12-13, with certain words included from Jeremiah 32:6-9. These two examples do not create a major problem, however, for the determination of the origin of the words may be due to their use in collections of quotations from various prophets, in which case the more prominent prophets would be used to designate origin.<\/p>\n<p>The wording of the quotations of the OT text does not always conform to the modern form of the OT. Just as today there are numerous translations of the Bible, when the NT was being written there were various forms of the OT text. With regard to the Hebrew text (for the OT was written mostly in Hebrew), there were different traditions. Such differences in the Hebrew traditions would have been relatively small. Because of the increasing importance of Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity and of Greek after the conquests of Alexander the Great, the OT was also known and used in both these languages when the NT was being written. In fact, the Jews found it necessary in their synagogue services after reading the Hebrew OT to paraphrase the reading in Aramaic so that all could understand. These paraphrases were later written down and are known as Targums. The Greek translation of the OT that stems from the third century <span>BC<\/span> is known as the Septuagint, but there were also other Greek translations in use. This being the case, the wording of a NT quotation is not identical in every detail to the text of the Hebrew OT.<\/p>\n<p>Added to the fact that there were various forms of the text known in first-century <span>AD<\/span> Palestine is the complicating factor that NT writers often did not intend to quote the OT exactly. The use of formal quotation marks is a modern device, and ancient writers were not so taken by technical precision. They were more concerned with the intention of a text and consequently might copy or quote it verbatim, quote it from memory, use or adapt part of a verse, or even change certain words as they borrowed the verse to express their points. (The NT writers often use the OT words describing God’s actions in the past to explain what he has done in their time.) The importance of any differences between the NT quotation and the OT depends on the use to which the quotation is put and the degree to which the use is dependent on textual differences.<\/p>\n<p>Some examples should illustrate the nature of these difficulties. Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18. Whereas the Hebrew and Septuagint read, “You ascended to the heights, you lead captivity captive, you received gifts among mankind,” Ephesians records the verse as “After he ascended into the heights, <em>he<\/em> led captivity captive; he <em>gave<\/em> gifts to men.” Paul is stressing that Christ has given grace to people for ministry. He has either adapted the wording of the OT to make his point or he quoted a variant reading, <em>“he gave<\/em> gifts.” Some versions do have this reading. In fact, the Targum understands this verse as Moses giving the words of the law to the children of men, and Paul may well be adapting this understanding to the new revelation that has come in Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, but there are distinct differences between the Hebrew text and the wording in Matthew. The Hebrew reads, “Behold the young woman will become pregnant and will bear a son and you will call his name Immanuel,” whereas Matthew’s text records “Behold, the <em>virgin<\/em> will become pregnant and will bear a son, and <em>they<\/em> will call his name Immanuel.” The Septuagint does have the specific word “virgin,” like Matthew, but is not the source of Matthew’s quotation since other differences exist. Some have argued that the change from “you will call” to “they will call” was made by Matthew when he applied the words to Jesus. However, there are several traditions known for this part of the quotation and partial support for the reading in Matthew is provided by the text of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\n<p>Romans 11:26-27 is a conflation of Isaiah 59:20-21 and part of Isaiah 27:9, but there are important differences. One of these is that the OT has “the redeemer will come to Zion,” whereas Romans has “the deliverer will come <em>from<\/em> Zion.” The change to “from Zion” could indicate that Paul had a different textual tradition, could be the result of an intentional change by Paul, or more probably, could reflect the wording of Psalm 14:7.<\/p>\n<p>An awareness of the difficulties involved in the quotations of the OT by the NT writers will prohibit a simplistic approach and will prevent hasty conclusions. Care to ask not only which text was used but also which form of the text was used and how is obviously essential in any serious study. In addition it is necessary to allow for the possibility that the NT writers knew forms of a text that are now lost.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMethodsoftheNewTestamentWriters\">The Methods of the New Testament Writers<\/p>\n<p>The methods used by the NT writers were not unique to them. Many of these methods were also employed in first-century Judaism. In fact, both the technique used in quoting and the understanding of the OT text itself in many cases are paralleled in Judaism. For example, from the standpoint of technique used in quoting, the same kinds of formula introductions are used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the rabbinic writings, and elsewhere. The rabbinic technique of “pearl stringing,” that is, of applying verses from various parts of the OT (the Law, the Prophets, the Writings) to a subject, can be seen especially in Paul’s writings (note Rom 9:12-19 or 11:8-10). Somewhat related is the practice of using quotations that all contain a key word or key words (note 1 Pt 2:6-8, which draws together quotations using the word “stone,” or Rom 15:9-12, which joins OT verses referring to the “nations”).<\/p>\n<p>The methods used in the NT to interpret an OT text are also displayed in Judaism. Some passages interpret the OT “literally,” such as Jesus’ replies during temptation (see the quotations of Dt 8:3; 6:16; 6:13; in Mt 4:3-10), his teachings on marriage based on Genesis 2:24 (Mt 19:5), or Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom 1:17) or Genesis 15:6 (Rom 4:3-9). Many such examples could be given. With regard to prophecy, some of these statements are fulfilled in a “literal” or “direct” way in keeping with the intention of the OT (e.g., Mi 5:2, Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah; Mt 2:4-6). Jeremiah 31:31-34, the promise of the new covenant, is viewed as directly fulfilled in Christ (Heb 8:7-13). The prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 concerning the pouring out of the Spirit of the Lord is directly fulfilled in the Pentecost event (Acts 2:17-21), but the changing of the sun to darkness and the moon to blood are certainly not understood literally in connection with this event.<\/p>\n<p>A different method of interpretation is based on the concept of <em>corporate solidarity.<\/em> This technical expression is an attempt to convey the idea that the individuals among God’s people are not merely individuals; they are part of a larger whole. Consequently, what is said about the individual can apply to the whole and vice versa. This is the reason the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah is seen both as the nation (44:1) and as an individual (52:13–53:12). Also the king is sometimes viewed as representative of the nation. The easiest places to see the concept of corporate solidarity are in the effect of the sin of Achan on all the people (Jos 7) or the sin of David in numbering the people (1 Chr 21:3-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>Correspondence in history<\/em> is not so much a method of interpretation as it is a way of thinking about God. It assumes that the things that happen to God’s people are the things that have happened to previous generations and that God is faithful and operates in the present as he has in the past. Consequently, the trials and deliverance of God’s people are often expressed with words borrowed from the previous accounts of God’s people. Isaiah describes the anticipated deliverance in terms of a second exodus (11:15-16). Ezekiel describes the king set up over the people in terms of a second David (Ez 37:25). In the NT, Revelation 22 describes the new heavens and the new earth in terms of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2–3). Sometimes this technique is described as “typology,” but this term has been used for so many questionable interpretations that it is misleading. The most important thing about this concept is that it is a view of God and his working among his people.<\/p>\n<p>With these two concepts, the way that the OT is quoted in the NT can be understood. The conviction that Jesus was the promised deliverer and that the last days had dawned in his ministry are evident everywhere. The quotation of Hosea 11:1 can be used in Matthew 2:15 because of corporate solidarity and correspondence in history. What was said of the nation is true of the one who is its representative, and there is correspondence in their respective histories. Jeremiah 31:15 can be used in Matthew 2:18 because of correspondence in history and especially because Jeremiah looked forward to God’s intention for Israel and prophesied a new covenant (31:17, 31-34). Matthew saw not only the correspondence in history but believed that in Jesus this promised salvation had been granted. John 12:40 can quote Isaiah 6:10 of Jesus’ ministry, not because he twists the meaning of the OT text, but because he saw that what had happened with God’s messenger before happened again and even <em>ultimately<\/em> in Jesus’ ministry. The instances of such correspondences in history are numerous.<\/p>\n<p>There are other texts where there seems to be an <em>actualization<\/em> of the OT text. Some quotations seem to be “lived out” in the ministry of Jesus. Because of their conviction about Jesus and his kingdom, the NT writers often saw certain OT texts as appropriated and made alive by Jesus. Psalm 118:22 was not intended as a prophecy of the Messiah, but Jesus saw it as descriptive of his ministry (Mt 21:42), and the early church saw this verse as actualized in his death and resurrection (Acts 4:11). Isaiah 53 is another text that the NT views as actualized in Jesus’ ministry (see Acts 8:32-35 and 1 Pt 2:22-25). Some Christians would view Psalm 22 as a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus, but it seems instead to be the lament of a righteous OT sufferer. Through correspondence in history, and because Christians saw so much of the psalmist’s plight actualized in Jesus’ crucifixion, the psalm became the easiest way to describe what once again had happened to God’s righteous sufferer. The words of Isaiah 40:3 describe the ministry of John the Baptist (Mt 3:3). Jews had come to see this verse as a prophecy of God’s end-time salvation, and the early church saw John the Baptist fulfilling this forerunner’s task. Luke made this identification (Lk 3:4-6), but he applied the same role to Jesus’ disciples (9:52; 10:1). This seems to be a further example of actualization and correspondence in history. In other places the church has applied to Christians ideas that were previously understood of Christ (e.g., the stone in 1 Pt 2:4-5; the ministry of the Suffering Servant in Acts 13:46-47).<\/p>\n<p>The most convenient term to describe the way the OT is “fulfilled” in Christ is to say that the OT finds its climax in Jesus. Even where actual quotations are not involved, the OT ideas such as prophet, priest, or king are climaxed in him as the ideal and embodiment of all the OT models. He could tell religious authorities that “one greater than Solomon is here” (Mt 12:42) or “one greater than the temple is here” (Mt 12:6). Those passages involving correspondence in history or actualization also lead to the conviction that he is the climax of the OT Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePurposesoftheUseoftheOldTestament\">The Purposes of the Use of the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The variety of methods of interpretation and application of the OT parallels the fact that the OT was used for a variety of purposes. People tend to think only in terms of the use of the OT to show that Jesus was the Messiah, but there are a number of other uses with a variety of goals. Many OT texts are used to show Jesus is the Messiah, the fulfillment of the OT promises (Lk 4:16-21). Without lessening the fulfillment emphasis, however, other verses are applied to Jesus for other purposes: to evangelize (Acts 8:32-25); to demonstrate or convince (Acts 13:33-35); to rebuke (Mk 7:6-7; Rom 11:7-10); and to describe (Rv 1:12-15). On the other hand, many quotations of the OT in the NT are not directly related to the Messiah. OT passages are adapted to provide a word from God on some aspect of life or ethics. For example, Jesus used Genesis 2:24 to substantiate his teaching on divorce as he attempted to deal with the issues raised by the civil regulation of divorce (Dt 24:1; Mt 19:1-12). The stress on the OT commandments shows their importance for Christians (Mt 19:16-22; Rom 13:8-10). Often OT statements deal with specific problems. The problem of pride at Corinth is solved by the quotation of Jeremiah 9:24 (“Let the one boasting, boast in the Lord,” 1 Cor 1:31). First Peter 3:10-12 incorporates Psalm 34:12-16 as ethical instructions, and 3:14-15 borrows from Isaiah 8:12-13 to address the fear of suffering. The spiritual armor in Ephesians 6:14-17 is derived largely from OT passages. Such examples are so numerous that there can be no doubt that the OT is used to describe Christian existence. In fact, nearly every subject discussed in the NT is presented somewhere via OT terms and quotations. Frequently OT passages are used to describe the church as God’s end-time community. Hosea 2:23 is used to show that those who formerly were not God’s people now are (Rom 9:25-26; 1 Pt 2:10). Several OT texts contribute to the description of the church in 1 Peter 2:9. OT texts that speak of the word of God describe the apostles’ preaching (Rom 10:8; 1 Pt 1:24-25). OT quotations describe the sinful condition of humanity (Rom 3:10-20). Salvation is explained through OT concepts and symbols and is based on OT statements (Jn 6:31-33; Gal 3:6-13). The words of Daniel describe the Second Coming (7:13-14; cf. Mt 24:30). Even the worship of early Christians was expressed through use of the OT (see Acts 4:24; Rom 11:34-35).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BIBLE*, Q<span>uotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers.<\/p>\n<p>The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotations in distinctive print, this may not be easily seen, for the NT writers often weave the OT words into their own without indicating they are borrowing from the OT. There are over 400 passages of the OT that are explicitly cited in the NT. Almost half of these are introduced by a statement like “Scripture says” to draw attention to the fact that the authority and thought of the OT is being implemented. For the others, however, the OT words are woven into the fabric of the author’s own statement.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the over 400 passages cited explicitly, there are well over 1,000 places where there is an allusion to an OT text, event, or person. The difference between a quotation and an allusion is sometimes debated for particular texts, but usually the distinction is that in a quotation the author consciously uses the words of an OT passage, whereas with an allusion he has the texts in mind but is not consciously trying to use the words.<\/p>\n<p>Quotations are easy to identify if there is an introductory formula such as “the Scripture says” (as in Rom 10:11; cf. Is 28:16). Where there is no introductory formula, it is easy to overlook explicit quotations (Rom 10:13; cf. Jl 2:32). The allusions are, of course, harder still to recognize, but they often provide the key to interpretation. For example, John 1:14-18—with its mention of glory, grace and truth, Moses, and the fact that no one has seen God—is much more easily and profoundly understood when read in connection with Exodus 33:17–34:8. In the Exodus passage the glory of God and his grace and truth are revealed to Moses. The author was showing that a much more complete revelation of God was given in Jesus than was given Moses in the account recorded in Exodus.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, significant light is shed on many NT passages from OT passages with similar ideas and words even where the NT author may not have been consciously alluding to those texts (e.g. Mt 16:19; Is 22:22). What was behind the author’s thinking is not certain, but in such cases the NT reflects the thinking, the culture, and language of the OT period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DistributionofOldTestamentQuotations\">Distribution of Old Testament Quotations<\/p>\n<p>The books of the NT that show the most dependence on the OT are Matthew, John, Romans, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation. Such a statement can be misleading, however, because the writers have different methods.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew quotes or consciously reflects the wording of OT passages about 62 times, almost half of which have an introductory formula. The book of Revelation, on the other hand, never quotes the OT and never has an introductory formula but is probably more dependent on the OT than any other NT book. The book of Hebrews quotes or consciously reflects the OT about 59 times, again half of which have an introductory formula, but the Gospel of John does so only 18 times, nearly always with an introductory formula. However, the allusions to the OT are present on virtually every page of John’s Gospel, so much so that some scholars have argued that he has modeled his account on the exodus narrative, the Jewish feasts, or OT persons and images. Paul’s Letter to the Romans uses the OT 54 times (about three-fourths of which have introductory formulas), but nowhere else so frequently (e.g., 1 Cor 16 times, Gal 11 times, Phil one time, 1 Thes one time).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the indication that Philippians and 1 Thessalonians use the OT only once each, some other books make explicit use of the OT rarely or never. Colossians, Titus, Philemon, and the Johannine letters do not use the OT at all; 2 Timothy and Jude use the OT only once; while 2 Peter and 1 Timothy make use of it twice.<\/p>\n<p>The important point is to realize that the OT is used most frequently in circumstances where the audience is familiar with the OT or where the OT is essential for describing the events relating to Christ and the church. The books using the OT most frequently (Mt, Jn, Rom, Heb, 1 Pt, Rv) either stem from or are addressed to a Jewish context or, as in the case of Romans and John, deal specifically with the relation of Jews and Christians. The Gospels make rather extensive use of the OT because the language of the OT is necessary to convey the identity and importance of Jesus in the purposes of God. Similarly 1 Peter uses the OT frequently because the author is trying to convey to his persecuted audience that they are the people of God and the inheritors of the promises of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DifficultiesinInterpretation\">Difficulties in Interpretation<\/p>\n<p>Often when people think of quotations of the OT in the NT they think only in terms of prophecy. Some have been guilty of counting up the OT statements that the NT applies to Christ and the church and then claiming these OT texts as predictions that prove Jesus is the Messiah. Such a procedure is filled with problems because it is too simplistic and does not do justice to either the OT or to the way the NT uses it. Of course, the early church used the OT to show that Jesus fulfilled the promises of God and did God’s work, but the use the church made of the OT was quite varied and much of it cannot be classified as predictive prophecy. Prophecy itself is too complex to be limited to predictive thinking.<\/p>\n<p>Some of the most obvious examples of the difficulties appear in Matthew’s Gospel, although they are by no means confined there. Matthew 2:15—“Out of Egypt I called my son”—is a quotation of Hosea 11:1, but in Hosea these words do not refer to the Messiah. They refer to the nation of Israel. Similarly Matthew 2:18 quotes Jeremiah 31:15 (“A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more,” <span>niv<\/span>) as fulfilled in the slaughter of the innocent babies in Bethlehem, but in Jeremiah the weeping is over the destruction of Jerusalem. John 12:40 views Isaiah 6:10 as fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry, but this verse deals with the call of Isaiah and is not a prediction concerning the ministry of the Messiah. The examples could be multiplied but these should be sufficient to illustrate the problem. For this reason the NT writers have often been accused of twisting the Scriptures, but this charge is as simplistic as the thought that all prophecy is predictive and in fact springs from the same error. Therefore, any attempt to understand the use of the OT in the NT will have to deal with the variety of ways in which the OT is used and with the methods employed by the NT writers.<\/p>\n<p>There are other difficulties that are encountered as well. Sometimes the NT writer will indicate that some fact related to Christ is a fulfillment of the OT but the explicit text that he had in mind cannot be identified. For example, John 7:38 introduces the words “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water” with the statement “as Scripture has said.” No OT text reads this way. Possibly the allusion is to the rock that provided water in the wilderness (Ex 17:1), or to the waters that flowed from the new temple (Zec 14:8) or, more generally, it may be a reference to Isaiah 58:11. Similarly, the difficulty in determining the OT text behind the prophecy that Christ will be called a Nazarene (Mt 2:23) is notorious. Probably the reference is to Isaiah 11:1 and the Hebrew word there translated as “branch,” but the connection is not easily made and is not certain. A third example of this kind of difficulty is in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where Paul indicates that women should be in submission just as the Law says, but there is no OT text expressing this idea. His statement in probably to be understood as a summary rather than a quotation or allusion. Similarly on a few occasions an OT text is seemingly attributed to the wrong OT book. In Mark 1:2-3 an OT quotation is attributed to Isaiah but the quotation is really a conflation (or mixing) of Exodus 23:20, Malachi 3:1, and Isaiah 40:3. Matthew 27:9-10 quotes a passage that is said to be from Jeremiah, when really it is dependent on Zechariah 11:13 and might best be described as a summary of Zechariah 11:12-13, with certain words included from Jeremiah 32:6-9. These two examples do not create a major problem, however, for the determination of the origin of the words may be due to their use in collections of quotations from various prophets, in which case the more prominent prophets would be used to designate origin.<\/p>\n<p>The wording of the quotations of the OT text does not always conform to the modern form of the OT. Just as today there are numerous translations of the Bible, when the NT was being written there were various forms of the OT text. With regard to the Hebrew text (for the OT was written mostly in Hebrew), there were different traditions. Such differences in the Hebrew traditions would have been relatively small. Because of the increasing importance of Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity and of Greek after the conquests of Alexander the Great, the OT was also known and used in both these languages when the NT was being written. In fact, the Jews found it necessary in their synagogue services after reading the Hebrew OT to paraphrase the reading in Aramaic so that all could understand. These paraphrases were later written down and are known as Targums. The Greek translation of the OT that stems from the third century <span>BC<\/span> is known as the Septuagint, but there were also other Greek translations in use. This being the case, the wording of a NT quotation is not identical in every detail to the text of the Hebrew OT.<\/p>\n<p>Added to the fact that there were various forms of the text known in first-century <span>AD<\/span> Palestine is the complicating factor that NT writers often did not intend to quote the OT exactly. The use of formal quotation marks is a modern device, and ancient writers were not so taken by technical precision. They were more concerned with the intention of a text and consequently might copy or quote it verbatim, quote it from memory, use or adapt part of a verse, or even change certain words as they borrowed the verse to express their points. (The NT writers often use the OT words describing God’s actions in the past to explain what he has done in their time.) The importance of any differences between the NT quotation and the OT depends on the use to which the quotation is put and the degree to which the use is dependent on textual differences.<\/p>\n<p>Some examples should illustrate the nature of these difficulties. Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18. Whereas the Hebrew and Septuagint read, “You ascended to the heights, you lead captivity captive, you received gifts among mankind,” Ephesians records the verse as “After he ascended into the heights, <em>he<\/em> led captivity captive; he <em>gave<\/em> gifts to men.” Paul is stressing that Christ has given grace to people for ministry. He has either adapted the wording of the OT to make his point or he quoted a variant reading, <em>“he gave<\/em> gifts.” Some versions do have this reading. In fact, the Targum understands this verse as Moses giving the words of the law to the children of men, and Paul may well be adapting this understanding to the new revelation that has come in Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, but there are distinct differences between the Hebrew text and the wording in Matthew. The Hebrew reads, “Behold the young woman will become pregnant and will bear a son and you will call his name Immanuel,” whereas Matthew’s text records “Behold, the <em>virgin<\/em> will become pregnant and will bear a son, and <em>they<\/em> will call his name Immanuel.” The Septuagint does have the specific word “virgin,” like Matthew, but is not the source of Matthew’s quotation since other differences exist. Some have argued that the change from “you will call” to “they will call” was made by Matthew when he applied the words to Jesus. However, there are several traditions known for this part of the quotation and partial support for the reading in Matthew is provided by the text of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\n<p>Romans 11:26-27 is a conflation of Isaiah 59:20-21 and part of Isaiah 27:9, but there are important differences. One of these is that the OT has “the redeemer will come to Zion,” whereas Romans has “the deliverer will come <em>from<\/em> Zion.” The change to “from Zion” could indicate that Paul had a different textual tradition, could be the result of an intentional change by Paul, or more probably, could reflect the wording of Psalm 14:7.<\/p>\n<p>An awareness of the difficulties involved in the quotations of the OT by the NT writers will prohibit a simplistic approach and will prevent hasty conclusions. Care to ask not only which text was used but also which form of the text was used and how is obviously essential in any serious study. In addition it is necessary to allow for the possibility that the NT writers knew forms of a text that are now lost.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMethodsoftheNewTestamentWriters\">The Methods of the New Testament Writers<\/p>\n<p>The methods used by the NT writers were not unique to them. Many of these methods were also employed in first-century Judaism. In fact, both the technique used in quoting and the understanding of the OT text itself in many cases are paralleled in Judaism. For example, from the standpoint of technique used in quoting, the same kinds of formula introductions are used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the rabbinic writings, and elsewhere. The rabbinic technique of “pearl stringing,” that is, of applying verses from various parts of the OT (the Law, the Prophets, the Writings) to a subject, can be seen especially in Paul’s writings (note Rom 9:12-19 or 11:8-10). Somewhat related is the practice of using quotations that all contain a key word or key words (note 1 Pt 2:6-8, which draws together quotations using the word “stone,” or Rom 15:9-12, which joins OT verses referring to the “nations”).<\/p>\n<p>The methods used in the NT to interpret an OT text are also displayed in Judaism. Some passages interpret the OT “literally,” such as Jesus’ replies during temptation (see the quotations of Dt 8:3; 6:16; 6:13; in Mt 4:3-10), his teachings on marriage based on Genesis 2:24 (Mt 19:5), or Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom 1:17) or Genesis 15:6 (Rom 4:3-9). Many such examples could be given. With regard to prophecy, some of these statements are fulfilled in a “literal” or “direct” way in keeping with the intention of the OT (e.g., Mi 5:2, Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah; Mt 2:4-6). Jeremiah 31:31-34, the promise of the new covenant, is viewed as directly fulfilled in Christ (Heb 8:7-13). The prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 concerning the pouring out of the Spirit of the Lord is directly fulfilled in the Pentecost event (Acts 2:17-21), but the changing of the sun to darkness and the moon to blood are certainly not understood literally in connection with this event.<\/p>\n<p>A different method of interpretation is based on the concept of <em>corporate solidarity.<\/em> This technical expression is an attempt to convey the idea that the individuals among God’s people are not merely individuals; they are part of a larger whole. Consequently, what is said about the individual can apply to the whole and vice versa. This is the reason the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah is seen both as the nation (44:1) and as an individual (52:13–53:12). Also the king is sometimes viewed as representative of the nation. The easiest places to see the concept of corporate solidarity are in the effect of the sin of Achan on all the people (Jos 7) or the sin of David in numbering the people (1 Chr 21:3-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>Correspondence in history<\/em> is not so much a method of interpretation as it is a way of thinking about God. It assumes that the things that happen to God’s people are the things that have happened to previous generations and that God is faithful and operates in the present as he has in the past. Consequently, the trials and deliverance of God’s people are often expressed with words borrowed from the previous accounts of God’s people. Isaiah describes the anticipated deliverance in terms of a second exodus (11:15-16). Ezekiel describes the king set up over the people in terms of a second David (Ez 37:25). In the NT, Revelation 22 describes the new heavens and the new earth in terms of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2–3). Sometimes this technique is described as “typology,” but this term has been used for so many questionable interpretations that it is misleading. The most important thing about this concept is that it is a view of God and his working among his people.<\/p>\n<p>With these two concepts, the way that the OT is quoted in the NT can be understood. The conviction that Jesus was the promised deliverer and that the last days had dawned in his ministry are evident everywhere. The quotation of Hosea 11:1 can be used in Matthew 2:15 because of corporate solidarity and correspondence in history. What was said of the nation is true of the one who is its representative, and there is correspondence in their respective histories. Jeremiah 31:15 can be used in Matthew 2:18 because of correspondence in history and especially because Jeremiah looked forward to God’s intention for Israel and prophesied a new covenant (31:17, 31-34). Matthew saw not only the correspondence in history but believed that in Jesus this promised salvation had been granted. John 12:40 can quote Isaiah 6:10 of Jesus’ ministry, not because he twists the meaning of the OT text, but because he saw that what had happened with God’s messenger before happened again and even <em>ultimately<\/em> in Jesus’ ministry. The instances of such correspondences in history are numerous.<\/p>\n<p>There are other texts where there seems to be an <em>actualization<\/em> of the OT text. Some quotations seem to be “lived out” in the ministry of Jesus. Because of their conviction about Jesus and his kingdom, the NT writers often saw certain OT texts as appropriated and made alive by Jesus. Psalm 118:22 was not intended as a prophecy of the Messiah, but Jesus saw it as descriptive of his ministry (Mt 21:42), and the early church saw this verse as actualized in his death and resurrection (Acts 4:11). Isaiah 53 is another text that the NT views as actualized in Jesus’ ministry (see Acts 8:32-35 and 1 Pt 2:22-25). Some Christians would view Psalm 22 as a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus, but it seems instead to be the lament of a righteous OT sufferer. Through correspondence in history, and because Christians saw so much of the psalmist’s plight actualized in Jesus’ crucifixion, the psalm became the easiest way to describe what once again had happened to God’s righteous sufferer. The words of Isaiah 40:3 describe the ministry of John the Baptist (Mt 3:3). Jews had come to see this verse as a prophecy of God’s end-time salvation, and the early church saw John the Baptist fulfilling this forerunner’s task. Luke made this identification (Lk 3:4-6), but he applied the same role to Jesus’ disciples (9:52; 10:1). This seems to be a further example of actualization and correspondence in history. In other places the church has applied to Christians ideas that were previously understood of Christ (e.g., the stone in 1 Pt 2:4-5; the ministry of the Suffering Servant in Acts 13:46-47).<\/p>\n<p>The most convenient term to describe the way the OT is “fulfilled” in Christ is to say that the OT finds its climax in Jesus. Even where actual quotations are not involved, the OT ideas such as prophet, priest, or king are climaxed in him as the ideal and embodiment of all the OT models. He could tell religious authorities that “one greater than Solomon is here” (Mt 12:42) or “one greater than the temple is here” (Mt 12:6). Those passages involving correspondence in history or actualization also lead to the conviction that he is the climax of the OT Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePurposesoftheUseoftheOldTestament\">The Purposes of the Use of the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The variety of methods of interpretation and application of the OT parallels the fact that the OT was used for a variety of purposes. People tend to think only in terms of the use of the OT to show that Jesus was the Messiah, but there are a number of other uses with a variety of goals. Many OT texts are used to show Jesus is the Messiah, the fulfillment of the OT promises (Lk 4:16-21). Without lessening the fulfillment emphasis, however, other verses are applied to Jesus for other purposes: to evangelize (Acts 8:32-25); to demonstrate or convince (Acts 13:33-35); to rebuke (Mk 7:6-7; Rom 11:7-10); and to describe (Rv 1:12-15). On the other hand, many quotations of the OT in the NT are not directly related to the Messiah. OT passages are adapted to provide a word from God on some aspect of life or ethics. For example, Jesus used Genesis 2:24 to substantiate his teaching on divorce as he attempted to deal with the issues raised by the civil regulation of divorce (Dt 24:1; Mt 19:1-12). The stress on the OT commandments shows their importance for Christians (Mt 19:16-22; Rom 13:8-10). Often OT statements deal with specific problems. The problem of pride at Corinth is solved by the quotation of Jeremiah 9:24 (“Let the one boasting, boast in the Lord,” 1 Cor 1:31). First Peter 3:10-12 incorporates Psalm 34:12-16 as ethical instructions, and 3:14-15 borrows from Isaiah 8:12-13 to address the fear of suffering. The spiritual armor in Ephesians 6:14-17 is derived largely from OT passages. Such examples are so numerous that there can be no doubt that the OT is used to describe Christian existence. In fact, nearly every subject discussed in the NT is presented somewhere via OT terms and quotations. Frequently OT passages are used to describe the church as God’s end-time community. Hosea 2:23 is used to show that those who formerly were not God’s people now are (Rom 9:25-26; 1 Pt 2:10). Several OT texts contribute to the description of the church in 1 Peter 2:9. OT texts that speak of the word of God describe the apostles’ preaching (Rom 10:8; 1 Pt 1:24-25). OT quotations describe the sinful condition of humanity (Rom 3:10-20). Salvation is explained through OT concepts and symbols and is based on OT statements (Jn 6:31-33; Gal 3:6-13). The words of Daniel describe the Second Coming (7:13-14; cf. Mt 24:30). Even the worship of early Christians was expressed through use of the OT (see Acts 4:24; Rom 11:34-35).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings. One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers. The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotation...","summary_en":"BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings. One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers. The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotation...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20209,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of John","title_en":"Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>JOHN, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>The fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospels. (See discussion above on John, the Apostle.)<\/p>\n\n<p>The Gospel appears to have been written by one who knew the Jews and the Palestine of Jesus’ day well. He was familiar with Jewish messianic expectations (e.g., Jn 1:20-21; 4:25; 7:40-42; 12:34). He knew of the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (4:9) and the contempt the Pharisees had for “the people of the land” (7:49). He knew of the importance attached to the religious schools (v 15). He knew the way the Sabbath was observed and was aware of the provision that the obligation to circumcise on the eighth day overrides the Sabbath regulations (vv 22-23). Throughout the Gospel he moved with certainty in the vast range of Jewish ideas and customs.<\/p>\n<p>It is the same with topography. The writer mentioned many places, and his place-names all seem to be used correctly. He referred to Cana, a village not mentioned in any earlier literature known to us, which means that the reference almost certainly came from someone who actually knew the place. He located Bethany with some precision as about 15 stadia from Jerusalem (about 2 miles, or 3.2 kilometers, 11:18). He had several references to places in or near Jerusalem, such as Bethesda (5:2), Siloam (9:7), and the Kidron Valley (18:1). Of course, this does not rule out some contemporary of John’s, but it makes it difficult to think of the author as a much later individual writing at a distance from Palestine. The evidence as we have it indicates that the writer was a Jew in the Palestine of Jesus’ day.<\/p>\n<p>To many careful readers, it seems that the Gospel bears the stamp of an eyewitness. For example, Jesus was teaching “in the treasury” (8:20). Nothing is made of the point; the incident could easily have been told without it. It looks like a reminiscence of someone who sees the scene in his mind’s eye as he writes. The fact that the house was filled with fragrance when the woman broke the perfume jar (12:3) does not materially affect the account but is the kind of detail that one who was there would remember. The author noted that the loaves used in the feeding of the multitude were barley loaves (6:9) and that Jesus’ tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top to bottom (19:23). He told us that the branches with which Jesus was greeted were palm branches (12:13), and that it was night when Judas went out (13:30). Such touches are found throughout the Gospel, and it seems unjustified to treat them as no more than an attempt to create verisimilitude. They seem much more like indications that the author was writing about events in which he had himself taken part.<\/p>\n<p>The early church accepted Johannine authorship without question. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all see the apostle as the author. The first to quote this Gospel by name was Theophilus of Antioch, about <span>AD<\/span> 180.<\/p>\n<p>Those who object to Johannine authorship emphasize the differences between this Gospel and the Synoptics. The argument is that if Jesus was anything like the Christ portrayed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he could not be like the Christ of the fourth Gospel. This is a completely subjective argument, ignoring the fact that any great man will appear differently to different people. The judgment of the church throughout the centuries has been that Jesus was large enough to inspire both portraits. To put the same point another way, we have no reason for holding that the first three Evangelists tell us all there is to know about Jesus. There is no contradiction. John simply brings out other aspects of Jesus’ life and teachings.<\/p>\n<p>While we cannot prove beyond all doubt that John the apostle was the author, we can say that there is more reason for holding to this view than to any other.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateOriginandDestination\">Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>It has been usual for conservatives and liberals alike to date this writing in the last decade of the first century or early in the second. Some liberal scholars have put it well into the second century, but this is not common, and it is remarkable that there has been such a considerable measure of agreement.<\/p>\n<p>It is said that this Gospel is dependent on the Synoptics, which means that it must be dated sometime after them. But this argument has been widely abandoned in recent times. There is so much in John that is without parallel in the other three Gospels, and conversely so much in the other three that John might have used had he known it, that it is very difficult indeed to hold that this writer had any of the other Gospels before him when he wrote, or even that he had read them. Such resemblances as there are seem better explained by common use of oral tradition.<\/p>\n<p>It is also argued that there is a very developed theology in John and that we must allow time for its development. Granted, the theology of this Gospel is profound, but this does not require that we must wait for it until the end of the first century. The theology of the Letter to the Romans is also profound, and there is no reason for dating that writing later than the 50s. On the ground of development, then, there is no reason for putting John later than Romans. Development is a slippery argument at best, for it usually takes place at uneven rates, and we have no means of knowing how fast it took place in the area where the author lived.<\/p>\n<p>Other arguments for a late date are no more conclusive. For example, it is urged that the ecclesiastical system presupposed by the Gospel is too late for the time of the apostle John, and that the sacramental system of chapters 3 and 6 must have taken time to develop. But John does not mention any sacrament. It is true that many scholars think these chapters refer to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but the fact is that John mentions neither.<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising in view of the way the traditional arguments have crumbled away that many in recent times are arguing that John must have been written before the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it were later, why does not John have some reference to it? Some of his language appears to be earlier. In 5:2 he says there “is” (not “was”) a pool called Bethesda. And he often refers to the Twelve as Jesus’ disciples, or “his” disciples, or the like. In later times Christians usually said “the” disciples, for they saw no need to say whose the disciples were. But in the early days, when Christians were in contact with rabbis (each of whom had his disciples), it was important to show that Jesus’ disciples were in mind. It is important also that John makes no reference to any of the synoptic Gospels. The simplest explanation is that he had not seen them. They were not yet widely circulated.<\/p>\n<p>None of this enables us to date this Gospel with precision. But the weight of evidence points to an early date (before <span>AD<\/span> 70).<\/p>\n<p>The author was John the apostle, a Jew. However, the writing gives evidence of contact with Greek thought, for example, in the reference to Christ as “the Word” in chapter 1 and the translation of words like “rabbi” (1:38). It is almost universally held that such considerations compel us to see the work as originating in a center of Greek culture, and Ephesus has traditionally been favored. Before the end of the second century we have Irenaeus writing that John published the Gospel during his residence at Ephesus.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars point to similarities between John and the Odes of Solomon, which they think came from Syria. As there are also some resemblances in the language of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in the early second century, this is held to show that John was written in Syria, probably at Antioch. Others again think that Egypt was the place, and they support this by pointing out that the oldest fragment of a manuscript of this Gospel was found there. There is no real evidence, and we are left with probabilities. There is much to be said for accepting the evidence of Irenaeus and seeing Ephesus as the place of origin, but we can scarcely say more.<\/p>\n<p>There is no real indication of the intended destination. From 20:31 we learn that the book was written that the readers might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, God’s Son, and that by believing they might have life. The Gospel, then, has an evangelistic aim. But it is also possible that “believe” means “keep on believing”—“go on in faith,” rather than “begin to believe.” That is to say, the book may have been meant from the beginning to build people up in the faith. Probably we should not distinguish between these aims too sharply. Both may well be in mind.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>Several possible backgrounds to the Gospel have been suggested. The Greek interest is obvious, and this writing has sometimes been called the Gospel of the Hellenists. The suggestion is that we should look to Greek writings, perhaps the works of the philosophers or Philo of Alexandria, to find the right background against which to understand what John has written. This approach may be seen in the work of Rudolf Bultmann, who thought specifically of Gnosticism. Indeed, for Bultmann one of the sources of this Gospel was a discourse source that he thought was taken from non-Christian Gnosticism. Not many have been prepared to follow Bultmann, but a number of recent commentators have discerned some form of Gnosticism as the backdrop to John.<\/p>\n<p>While such views are put forward seriously, there are some substantial objections. One is that, despite the confident assertions of some scholars, Gnosticism has never been shown to be earlier than Christianity. In the form in which it comes before us in history, it is a Christian heresy, and of course, the Christian faith must appear before a Christian heresy is possible. Another objection is that there is a basic difference between the two systems. Gnosticism is concerned with knowledge (the very word is derived from the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span><em>,<\/em> “knowledge”). Its “redeemer” is one who comes from heaven with knowledge. But John does not subscribe to the view that man is saved by knowledge. The Redeemer comes to take away the sin of the world (1:29). Gnosticism tells people that life is an upward struggle; Christianity tells of a Savior who came down to raise them up. It is not easy to see any form of Gnosticism as the essential background to Christianity.<\/p>\n<p>Much more significant is John’s Semitic background. Especially important here is the OT, accepted as sacred Scripture by Jew and Christian alike. It lies constantly behind John’s statements, and it must be studied carefully if John is to be understood. It is plain that John knew and loved the Septuagint, the translation into Greek of the Hebrew OT. Again and again, the Septuagint can be shown to lie behind what John says.<\/p>\n<p>In modern times important discoveries have been made at Qumran, in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. Among the scrolls unearthed in the caves of this area are several that have affinities with John. Indeed, one of the interesting facts about the scrolls is that they have more parallels with John than with any other part of the NT, a fact difficult to explain if John was written late and at a distance from Palestine. The resemblances to the Qumran writings must be viewed with care, for there is often a linguistic resemblance where the thinking is quite different. For example, both use the unusual expression “the Spirit of truth.” But where John means one of the persons of the Trinity, the scrolls speak of “a spirit of truth” and “a spirit of error” striving in the souls of people. The connection is real, but John is clearly not dependent on the scrolls for his thinking. The contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they afford additional evidence that this Gospel is basically Palestinian and must be understood against a background of first-century Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>Other backgrounds have been suggested, such as the Hermetic literature. This is a group of writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus (“Hermes Thrice-greatest”), a designation of the Egyptian god Thoth. There are indeed some points of contact with John, but they are few in comparison with those of writings rooted in Palestine. It is difficult to take such suggestions seriously. John is essentially Palestinian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The writer told us that Jesus did many “signs” (or miracles) that he had not recorded, but “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life” (Jn 20:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). John wrote to show that Jesus is the Messiah. But he did not do this simply with a view to conveying interesting information. He wanted his readers to see this knowledge as a challenge to faith; when they believe, they will have life. John sought to bring men and women to Christ; he had an evangelistic aim. That does not exhaust what he was trying to do, for his words have meaning for believers. It is important that believers have a right knowledge of Jesus and that they continue to believe.<\/p>\n<p>The main theological teaching of this Gospel, then, is that God has sent his Messiah, Jesus. He is the very Son of God, and he comes to bring life (3:16). Though Jesus told the woman at the well that he was the Messiah, this is not often said so specifically. The avoidance of the term might well be because of the political overtones it had acquired among the Jews at large. They looked for a Messiah who would fight the Romans. He would defeat them and set up a mighty world empire with its capital in Jerusalem. Jesus was not aiming at anything like that, and it was important that he avoid the kind of language that would give that impression. But though the conventional messianic terminology is avoided, John left no doubt that Jesus was God’s chosen one. Again and again he depicted Jesus as fulfilling messianic functions. For example, in the long discourse in chapter 6 we see Jesus as the bread from heaven, fulfilling the expectation that when Messiah came, he would renew the manna; and in the giving of sight to the blind man (ch 9) we have another messianic function (cf. Is 35:5).<\/p>\n<p>With this greatness of Jesus, John also combined teaching about his lowliness. A continuing, though unobtrusive, strand of Johannine teaching is that Jesus depends on the Father for everything. Apart from the Father, Jesus said, he could do nothing (Jn 5:30). His very food is to do the Father’s will (4:34). He lives through the Father (6:57). It is the Father who gives him his disciples (6:37, 44; 17:6). It is the Father who bears witness to him (5:32, 37). John insists that Jesus is in no sense independent of the Father. In the mission of Jesus, John sees the working out of the purpose of the Father.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Prologue and Chapter 1<\/h5>\n<p>John begins with a prologue (1:1-18) that is unlike anything in any of the other Gospels. In it he refers to Jesus as “the Word,” a term that has points of contact with both Greek and Hebrew thinking. As John uses it, it conveys the thought that Jesus is the expression of the mind of the Father. John speaks of the Word as God (1:1), sees him as active in creation (1:3-5), goes on to the witness borne to him by John the Baptist (1:6-8), speaks of the coming of the Word into the world (1:9-14), and finishes with a section on the greatness of the Word (1:15-18). In this prologue he briefly introduces some of the great themes that will be developed throughout the Gospel. It is a majestic introduction to the whole.<\/p>\n<p>Next we have the beginnings of Jesus’ public ministry (1:19-51). Jesus’ work was preceded by that of John the Baptist, and the Evangelist tells us first about the kind of witness that the Baptist gave to Jesus. Witness is one of his important concepts, and witness is all that John the Baptist does in this Gospel. From this witness we move to the way the first disciples came to Jesus. We learn something of how Andrew and Peter came to know the Lord. We read also of Philip and Nathanael, of whom we learn little or nothing in the other Gospels.<\/p>\n<h5>The Signs and Discourses (2:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The public ministry of Jesus is described in a very distinctive way in this Gospel. John has a long section (chs 2–12) in which he tells of a number of miracles Jesus did, interweaving into his account a series of discourses. Sometimes these are addresses given to groups of people, and sometimes they are talks with individuals. Some scholars call this section of the Gospel the Book of Signs, thus emphasizing the prominent place given to seven miracles. For John they are not simply wonders. They are meaningful; in the literal sense of the term they are <em>sign<\/em>ificant.<\/p>\n<p>The first of them is the turning of the water into wine at a marriage in Cana of Galilee (2:1-11). The water in question is connected with Jewish rites of purification (v 6), and the story is surely to teach us that Jesus transforms life. He changes the water of the law into the wine of the gospel. As a result of this “sign,” his disciples believed in him (v 11). John went on to tell how Jesus went up to Jerusalem and drove the traders out of the temple. They were selling animals for sacrifice and changing money. But their business was being done in the Court of the Gentiles, the only place in the temple where a Gentile could come to meditate and pray.<\/p>\n<p>The first discourse is on the new birth (3:1-21). Jesus talked with Nicodemus, a leading Pharisee, about the necessity for radical renewal if one is to enter the kingdom. Jesus was speaking of God’s regenerating activity, not some human reformation. Following this, John records a dispute between some of John’s disciples with a Jew on the subject of purification. This opens the way for a section that shows the superiority of Jesus over John the Baptist—by the Baptist’s own confession (3:22-36).<\/p>\n<p>The second discourse is really a long conversation Jesus had with the woman of Samaria, whom he met by a well (4:1-42). It turns on “the water of life,” a term that is not fully explained in this chapter but which we later find points to the life-giving Spirit (7:38-39). This leads to the story of the second sign, the healing of the nobleman’s son (4:46-54), notable for the fact that Jesus healed at a distance.<\/p>\n<p>The third sign is the healing of the lame man by the pool of Bethesda (5:1-18). This man had spent many years waiting for healing at the moving of the water. Jesus told him to get up and walk, and he did. Because it was done on a Sabbath, the Pharisees objected. This leads to Jesus’ third discourse, that on the divine Son (5:19-47). Here the closeness of the relationship of Jesus to the Father is stressed, and his place in the judgment is brought out. There is emphasis also on the variety of witness who encountered Jesus, which shows how reasonable it is to accept him as God’s own Son.<\/p>\n<p>John’s fourth sign is the one miracle (apart from the resurrection) found in all four Gospels: the feeding of the 5,000 (6:1-15). It is followed by Jesus’ walking on water (vv 16-21), which seems to be meant as the fifth sign (though some scholars think not; if they are right, there are only six signs). Then comes the fourth discourse, the great sermon on the bread of life (vv 22-59). Jesus is this bread, which he gives to all men and women who believe in him. There are references to eating his flesh and drinking his blood (vv 50-58), which point to his death. Some have seen in them a reference to Communion, but it is hard to see why Jesus should refer in this way to an as-yet-nonexistent sacrament. Moreover, much the same effect is attributed in the same discourse to believing (vv 35, 47). It seems best to understand Jesus as meaning that people must believe in him as the one who would die for them in order for them to have life.<\/p>\n<p>There is a section detailing Peter’s affirmation of loyalty in the face of some who drifted away from the Master (6:67-71). Then we come to the fifth discourse, on the life-giving Spirit (7:1-52). John has an important explanatory point of his own when he tells us that at the time the Spirit had not been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified (v 39). The fullness of the Spirit depends on the completion of the work of Christ in his death and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>The sixth discourse tells of the light of the world (8:12-59). This aspect of Jesus’ person and ministry is dramatically brought out in the sixth sign, the healing of the man born blind (ch 9). It is a lively narrative, as the healed man conducts a spirited defense against the Pharisees who belittled Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most beautiful of all the illustrations of Jesus’ relations to his people is that on which he dwells in the seventh discourse, where he speaks of himself as the good shepherd (ch 10). There is the obvious truth that sheep depend entirely on their shepherd, but Jesus says something else. Whereas earthly shepherds live to meet the needs of their sheep, Jesus laid down his life for his sheep.<\/p>\n<p>The final sign is the raising of Lazarus (11:1-44), a man who had been dead for four days. The story graphically brings out Jesus’ power over death and his readiness to confer the gift of life. Jesus speaks of himself as “the resurrection and the life” (v 25); death cannot defeat him. He brings life to the dead, to the spiritually dead as well as to physically dead Lazarus. John goes on to note the reaction to this miracle: some believed, but some opposed Jesus (vv 45-57). He includes a notable saying of Caiaphas, the high priest, that one man should die for the people (vv 50-52). Caiaphas was speaking as a cynical politician (better one dead, however innocent, than the whole nation be troubled). But John saw in the words the deeper meaning that Jesus’ death would bring salvation to many.<\/p>\n<p>John rounds off his account of the ministry with the story of the anointing of Jesus by a woman in Bethany, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the coming of some Greeks to Jesus, and his final summary of what he had taught (ch 12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Last Supper<\/h5>\n<p>The account of what went on in the upper room on the night before the Crucifixion is the fullest of all the four Gospels. Curiously, John says nothing about the institution of Communion, a fact that has never been satisfactorily explained. But he tells us how Jesus washed the feet of the disciples (13:1-17), an action splendidly exemplifying the spirit of lowly service so soon to be shown on the cross. Then comes the prophecy of the betrayal, an action that set in motion the events that would lead to the cross (vv 18-30).<\/p>\n<p>In the long discourse that follows, Jesus dealt with some questions posed by his followers and went on to teach them some important truths, for example, that he is the way, the truth, and the life (14:6). He develops the thought that he is the true vine, the disciples being vitally joined to him as branches to the vine. It is important for the branches to remain in the vine if they are to have life (15:1-16). Then come some words about suffering that would be of help to them in times of persecution (vv 17-25). Jesus goes on to speak about the Holy Spirit (15:26–16:15). This is a very important passage, for it contains much more about the Spirit than we find elsewhere in Jesus’ words. Jesus calls the Spirit the “Paraclete,” a title not easy to understand. It is in origin a legal term, and at least we can say that it indicates that the Spirit brings friendship, encouragement, and help. Jesus went on to speak of his approaching departure from the disciples and to prepare them for the trying time ahead (16:16-33). This part of the Gospel concludes with Jesus’ great High Priestly prayer. He prayed for the disciples to be one, as he commended them to the care of the heavenly Father (ch 17).<\/p>\n<h5>The Cross and Resurrection<\/h5>\n<p>When the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, he went forward to meet them and they fell to the ground (18:1-11). He gave himself over to them; they did not take him over. At the outset of his passion narrative, John was making the point that Jesus is sovereign. He was not being defeated by the march of events but was sovereignly doing the will of the Father. John is the only one to tell us that Jesus was taken before Annas, father-in-law to Caiaphas, the reigning high priest (18:12-14, 19-24). He tells also of Peter’s three denials of Jesus (vv 15-27). He did not spend much time on the Jewish trial, but he was much more explicit than the other Evangelists in his account of the Roman trial. Clearly, he had some special knowledge of what went on before Pilate. He presents a magnificent picture of Jesus talking with Pilate about kingship—the Son of God discussing with the representative of Caesar the meaning of sovereignty (vv 33-40).<\/p>\n<p>In his account of the Crucifixion John has a number of touches of his own, notably the way Jesus commended Mary to the care of the beloved disciple (19:26-27), the fact that the cry Jesus uttered as he died was “It is finished” (v 30), and the piercing of his side by a soldier’s spear (vv 31-37).<\/p>\n<p>John proceeds to the narrative of the burial (vv 38-42) and of the empty tomb (20:1-10). He speaks of appearances of the risen Lord to Mary Magdalene (vv 11-18), and to the disciples—both without (vv 19-23) and with Thomas (vv 24-29).<\/p>\n<p>The final chapter, an epilogue, tells of a miraculous catch of fish (21:1-14) and goes on to the moving account of Peter’s threefold declaration of love to Jesus and his restoration.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> John, The Apostle.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOHN, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>The fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospels. (See discussion above on John, the Apostle.)<\/p>\n\n<p>The Gospel appears to have been written by one who knew the Jews and the Palestine of Jesus’ day well. He was familiar with Jewish messianic expectations (e.g., Jn 1:20-21; 4:25; 7:40-42; 12:34). He knew of the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (4:9) and the contempt the Pharisees had for “the people of the land” (7:49). He knew of the importance attached to the religious schools (v 15). He knew the way the Sabbath was observed and was aware of the provision that the obligation to circumcise on the eighth day overrides the Sabbath regulations (vv 22-23). Throughout the Gospel he moved with certainty in the vast range of Jewish ideas and customs.<\/p>\n<p>It is the same with topography. The writer mentioned many places, and his place-names all seem to be used correctly. He referred to Cana, a village not mentioned in any earlier literature known to us, which means that the reference almost certainly came from someone who actually knew the place. He located Bethany with some precision as about 15 stadia from Jerusalem (about 2 miles, or 3.2 kilometers, 11:18). He had several references to places in or near Jerusalem, such as Bethesda (5:2), Siloam (9:7), and the Kidron Valley (18:1). Of course, this does not rule out some contemporary of John’s, but it makes it difficult to think of the author as a much later individual writing at a distance from Palestine. The evidence as we have it indicates that the writer was a Jew in the Palestine of Jesus’ day.<\/p>\n<p>To many careful readers, it seems that the Gospel bears the stamp of an eyewitness. For example, Jesus was teaching “in the treasury” (8:20). Nothing is made of the point; the incident could easily have been told without it. It looks like a reminiscence of someone who sees the scene in his mind’s eye as he writes. The fact that the house was filled with fragrance when the woman broke the perfume jar (12:3) does not materially affect the account but is the kind of detail that one who was there would remember. The author noted that the loaves used in the feeding of the multitude were barley loaves (6:9) and that Jesus’ tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top to bottom (19:23). He told us that the branches with which Jesus was greeted were palm branches (12:13), and that it was night when Judas went out (13:30). Such touches are found throughout the Gospel, and it seems unjustified to treat them as no more than an attempt to create verisimilitude. They seem much more like indications that the author was writing about events in which he had himself taken part.<\/p>\n<p>The early church accepted Johannine authorship without question. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all see the apostle as the author. The first to quote this Gospel by name was Theophilus of Antioch, about <span>AD<\/span> 180.<\/p>\n<p>Those who object to Johannine authorship emphasize the differences between this Gospel and the Synoptics. The argument is that if Jesus was anything like the Christ portrayed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he could not be like the Christ of the fourth Gospel. This is a completely subjective argument, ignoring the fact that any great man will appear differently to different people. The judgment of the church throughout the centuries has been that Jesus was large enough to inspire both portraits. To put the same point another way, we have no reason for holding that the first three Evangelists tell us all there is to know about Jesus. There is no contradiction. John simply brings out other aspects of Jesus’ life and teachings.<\/p>\n<p>While we cannot prove beyond all doubt that John the apostle was the author, we can say that there is more reason for holding to this view than to any other.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateOriginandDestination\">Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>It has been usual for conservatives and liberals alike to date this writing in the last decade of the first century or early in the second. Some liberal scholars have put it well into the second century, but this is not common, and it is remarkable that there has been such a considerable measure of agreement.<\/p>\n<p>It is said that this Gospel is dependent on the Synoptics, which means that it must be dated sometime after them. But this argument has been widely abandoned in recent times. There is so much in John that is without parallel in the other three Gospels, and conversely so much in the other three that John might have used had he known it, that it is very difficult indeed to hold that this writer had any of the other Gospels before him when he wrote, or even that he had read them. Such resemblances as there are seem better explained by common use of oral tradition.<\/p>\n<p>It is also argued that there is a very developed theology in John and that we must allow time for its development. Granted, the theology of this Gospel is profound, but this does not require that we must wait for it until the end of the first century. The theology of the Letter to the Romans is also profound, and there is no reason for dating that writing later than the 50s. On the ground of development, then, there is no reason for putting John later than Romans. Development is a slippery argument at best, for it usually takes place at uneven rates, and we have no means of knowing how fast it took place in the area where the author lived.<\/p>\n<p>Other arguments for a late date are no more conclusive. For example, it is urged that the ecclesiastical system presupposed by the Gospel is too late for the time of the apostle John, and that the sacramental system of chapters 3 and 6 must have taken time to develop. But John does not mention any sacrament. It is true that many scholars think these chapters refer to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but the fact is that John mentions neither.<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising in view of the way the traditional arguments have crumbled away that many in recent times are arguing that John must have been written before the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it were later, why does not John have some reference to it? Some of his language appears to be earlier. In 5:2 he says there “is” (not “was”) a pool called Bethesda. And he often refers to the Twelve as Jesus’ disciples, or “his” disciples, or the like. In later times Christians usually said “the” disciples, for they saw no need to say whose the disciples were. But in the early days, when Christians were in contact with rabbis (each of whom had his disciples), it was important to show that Jesus’ disciples were in mind. It is important also that John makes no reference to any of the synoptic Gospels. The simplest explanation is that he had not seen them. They were not yet widely circulated.<\/p>\n<p>None of this enables us to date this Gospel with precision. But the weight of evidence points to an early date (before <span>AD<\/span> 70).<\/p>\n<p>The author was John the apostle, a Jew. However, the writing gives evidence of contact with Greek thought, for example, in the reference to Christ as “the Word” in chapter 1 and the translation of words like “rabbi” (1:38). It is almost universally held that such considerations compel us to see the work as originating in a center of Greek culture, and Ephesus has traditionally been favored. Before the end of the second century we have Irenaeus writing that John published the Gospel during his residence at Ephesus.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars point to similarities between John and the Odes of Solomon, which they think came from Syria. As there are also some resemblances in the language of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in the early second century, this is held to show that John was written in Syria, probably at Antioch. Others again think that Egypt was the place, and they support this by pointing out that the oldest fragment of a manuscript of this Gospel was found there. There is no real evidence, and we are left with probabilities. There is much to be said for accepting the evidence of Irenaeus and seeing Ephesus as the place of origin, but we can scarcely say more.<\/p>\n<p>There is no real indication of the intended destination. From 20:31 we learn that the book was written that the readers might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, God’s Son, and that by believing they might have life. The Gospel, then, has an evangelistic aim. But it is also possible that “believe” means “keep on believing”—“go on in faith,” rather than “begin to believe.” That is to say, the book may have been meant from the beginning to build people up in the faith. Probably we should not distinguish between these aims too sharply. Both may well be in mind.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>Several possible backgrounds to the Gospel have been suggested. The Greek interest is obvious, and this writing has sometimes been called the Gospel of the Hellenists. The suggestion is that we should look to Greek writings, perhaps the works of the philosophers or Philo of Alexandria, to find the right background against which to understand what John has written. This approach may be seen in the work of Rudolf Bultmann, who thought specifically of Gnosticism. Indeed, for Bultmann one of the sources of this Gospel was a discourse source that he thought was taken from non-Christian Gnosticism. Not many have been prepared to follow Bultmann, but a number of recent commentators have discerned some form of Gnosticism as the backdrop to John.<\/p>\n<p>While such views are put forward seriously, there are some substantial objections. One is that, despite the confident assertions of some scholars, Gnosticism has never been shown to be earlier than Christianity. In the form in which it comes before us in history, it is a Christian heresy, and of course, the Christian faith must appear before a Christian heresy is possible. Another objection is that there is a basic difference between the two systems. Gnosticism is concerned with knowledge (the very word is derived from the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span><em>,<\/em> “knowledge”). Its “redeemer” is one who comes from heaven with knowledge. But John does not subscribe to the view that man is saved by knowledge. The Redeemer comes to take away the sin of the world (1:29). Gnosticism tells people that life is an upward struggle; Christianity tells of a Savior who came down to raise them up. It is not easy to see any form of Gnosticism as the essential background to Christianity.<\/p>\n<p>Much more significant is John’s Semitic background. Especially important here is the OT, accepted as sacred Scripture by Jew and Christian alike. It lies constantly behind John’s statements, and it must be studied carefully if John is to be understood. It is plain that John knew and loved the Septuagint, the translation into Greek of the Hebrew OT. Again and again, the Septuagint can be shown to lie behind what John says.<\/p>\n<p>In modern times important discoveries have been made at Qumran, in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. Among the scrolls unearthed in the caves of this area are several that have affinities with John. Indeed, one of the interesting facts about the scrolls is that they have more parallels with John than with any other part of the NT, a fact difficult to explain if John was written late and at a distance from Palestine. The resemblances to the Qumran writings must be viewed with care, for there is often a linguistic resemblance where the thinking is quite different. For example, both use the unusual expression “the Spirit of truth.” But where John means one of the persons of the Trinity, the scrolls speak of “a spirit of truth” and “a spirit of error” striving in the souls of people. The connection is real, but John is clearly not dependent on the scrolls for his thinking. The contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they afford additional evidence that this Gospel is basically Palestinian and must be understood against a background of first-century Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>Other backgrounds have been suggested, such as the Hermetic literature. This is a group of writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus (“Hermes Thrice-greatest”), a designation of the Egyptian god Thoth. There are indeed some points of contact with John, but they are few in comparison with those of writings rooted in Palestine. It is difficult to take such suggestions seriously. John is essentially Palestinian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The writer told us that Jesus did many “signs” (or miracles) that he had not recorded, but “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life” (Jn 20:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). John wrote to show that Jesus is the Messiah. But he did not do this simply with a view to conveying interesting information. He wanted his readers to see this knowledge as a challenge to faith; when they believe, they will have life. John sought to bring men and women to Christ; he had an evangelistic aim. That does not exhaust what he was trying to do, for his words have meaning for believers. It is important that believers have a right knowledge of Jesus and that they continue to believe.<\/p>\n<p>The main theological teaching of this Gospel, then, is that God has sent his Messiah, Jesus. He is the very Son of God, and he comes to bring life (3:16). Though Jesus told the woman at the well that he was the Messiah, this is not often said so specifically. The avoidance of the term might well be because of the political overtones it had acquired among the Jews at large. They looked for a Messiah who would fight the Romans. He would defeat them and set up a mighty world empire with its capital in Jerusalem. Jesus was not aiming at anything like that, and it was important that he avoid the kind of language that would give that impression. But though the conventional messianic terminology is avoided, John left no doubt that Jesus was God’s chosen one. Again and again he depicted Jesus as fulfilling messianic functions. For example, in the long discourse in chapter 6 we see Jesus as the bread from heaven, fulfilling the expectation that when Messiah came, he would renew the manna; and in the giving of sight to the blind man (ch 9) we have another messianic function (cf. Is 35:5).<\/p>\n<p>With this greatness of Jesus, John also combined teaching about his lowliness. A continuing, though unobtrusive, strand of Johannine teaching is that Jesus depends on the Father for everything. Apart from the Father, Jesus said, he could do nothing (Jn 5:30). His very food is to do the Father’s will (4:34). He lives through the Father (6:57). It is the Father who gives him his disciples (6:37, 44; 17:6). It is the Father who bears witness to him (5:32, 37). John insists that Jesus is in no sense independent of the Father. In the mission of Jesus, John sees the working out of the purpose of the Father.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Prologue and Chapter 1<\/h5>\n<p>John begins with a prologue (1:1-18) that is unlike anything in any of the other Gospels. In it he refers to Jesus as “the Word,” a term that has points of contact with both Greek and Hebrew thinking. As John uses it, it conveys the thought that Jesus is the expression of the mind of the Father. John speaks of the Word as God (1:1), sees him as active in creation (1:3-5), goes on to the witness borne to him by John the Baptist (1:6-8), speaks of the coming of the Word into the world (1:9-14), and finishes with a section on the greatness of the Word (1:15-18). In this prologue he briefly introduces some of the great themes that will be developed throughout the Gospel. It is a majestic introduction to the whole.<\/p>\n<p>Next we have the beginnings of Jesus’ public ministry (1:19-51). Jesus’ work was preceded by that of John the Baptist, and the Evangelist tells us first about the kind of witness that the Baptist gave to Jesus. Witness is one of his important concepts, and witness is all that John the Baptist does in this Gospel. From this witness we move to the way the first disciples came to Jesus. We learn something of how Andrew and Peter came to know the Lord. We read also of Philip and Nathanael, of whom we learn little or nothing in the other Gospels.<\/p>\n<h5>The Signs and Discourses (2:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The public ministry of Jesus is described in a very distinctive way in this Gospel. John has a long section (chs 2–12) in which he tells of a number of miracles Jesus did, interweaving into his account a series of discourses. Sometimes these are addresses given to groups of people, and sometimes they are talks with individuals. Some scholars call this section of the Gospel the Book of Signs, thus emphasizing the prominent place given to seven miracles. For John they are not simply wonders. They are meaningful; in the literal sense of the term they are <em>sign<\/em>ificant.<\/p>\n<p>The first of them is the turning of the water into wine at a marriage in Cana of Galilee (2:1-11). The water in question is connected with Jewish rites of purification (v 6), and the story is surely to teach us that Jesus transforms life. He changes the water of the law into the wine of the gospel. As a result of this “sign,” his disciples believed in him (v 11). John went on to tell how Jesus went up to Jerusalem and drove the traders out of the temple. They were selling animals for sacrifice and changing money. But their business was being done in the Court of the Gentiles, the only place in the temple where a Gentile could come to meditate and pray.<\/p>\n<p>The first discourse is on the new birth (3:1-21). Jesus talked with Nicodemus, a leading Pharisee, about the necessity for radical renewal if one is to enter the kingdom. Jesus was speaking of God’s regenerating activity, not some human reformation. Following this, John records a dispute between some of John’s disciples with a Jew on the subject of purification. This opens the way for a section that shows the superiority of Jesus over John the Baptist—by the Baptist’s own confession (3:22-36).<\/p>\n<p>The second discourse is really a long conversation Jesus had with the woman of Samaria, whom he met by a well (4:1-42). It turns on “the water of life,” a term that is not fully explained in this chapter but which we later find points to the life-giving Spirit (7:38-39). This leads to the story of the second sign, the healing of the nobleman’s son (4:46-54), notable for the fact that Jesus healed at a distance.<\/p>\n<p>The third sign is the healing of the lame man by the pool of Bethesda (5:1-18). This man had spent many years waiting for healing at the moving of the water. Jesus told him to get up and walk, and he did. Because it was done on a Sabbath, the Pharisees objected. This leads to Jesus’ third discourse, that on the divine Son (5:19-47). Here the closeness of the relationship of Jesus to the Father is stressed, and his place in the judgment is brought out. There is emphasis also on the variety of witness who encountered Jesus, which shows how reasonable it is to accept him as God’s own Son.<\/p>\n<p>John’s fourth sign is the one miracle (apart from the resurrection) found in all four Gospels: the feeding of the 5,000 (6:1-15). It is followed by Jesus’ walking on water (vv 16-21), which seems to be meant as the fifth sign (though some scholars think not; if they are right, there are only six signs). Then comes the fourth discourse, the great sermon on the bread of life (vv 22-59). Jesus is this bread, which he gives to all men and women who believe in him. There are references to eating his flesh and drinking his blood (vv 50-58), which point to his death. Some have seen in them a reference to Communion, but it is hard to see why Jesus should refer in this way to an as-yet-nonexistent sacrament. Moreover, much the same effect is attributed in the same discourse to believing (vv 35, 47). It seems best to understand Jesus as meaning that people must believe in him as the one who would die for them in order for them to have life.<\/p>\n<p>There is a section detailing Peter’s affirmation of loyalty in the face of some who drifted away from the Master (6:67-71). Then we come to the fifth discourse, on the life-giving Spirit (7:1-52). John has an important explanatory point of his own when he tells us that at the time the Spirit had not been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified (v 39). The fullness of the Spirit depends on the completion of the work of Christ in his death and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>The sixth discourse tells of the light of the world (8:12-59). This aspect of Jesus’ person and ministry is dramatically brought out in the sixth sign, the healing of the man born blind (ch 9). It is a lively narrative, as the healed man conducts a spirited defense against the Pharisees who belittled Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most beautiful of all the illustrations of Jesus’ relations to his people is that on which he dwells in the seventh discourse, where he speaks of himself as the good shepherd (ch 10). There is the obvious truth that sheep depend entirely on their shepherd, but Jesus says something else. Whereas earthly shepherds live to meet the needs of their sheep, Jesus laid down his life for his sheep.<\/p>\n<p>The final sign is the raising of Lazarus (11:1-44), a man who had been dead for four days. The story graphically brings out Jesus’ power over death and his readiness to confer the gift of life. Jesus speaks of himself as “the resurrection and the life” (v 25); death cannot defeat him. He brings life to the dead, to the spiritually dead as well as to physically dead Lazarus. John goes on to note the reaction to this miracle: some believed, but some opposed Jesus (vv 45-57). He includes a notable saying of Caiaphas, the high priest, that one man should die for the people (vv 50-52). Caiaphas was speaking as a cynical politician (better one dead, however innocent, than the whole nation be troubled). But John saw in the words the deeper meaning that Jesus’ death would bring salvation to many.<\/p>\n<p>John rounds off his account of the ministry with the story of the anointing of Jesus by a woman in Bethany, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the coming of some Greeks to Jesus, and his final summary of what he had taught (ch 12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Last Supper<\/h5>\n<p>The account of what went on in the upper room on the night before the Crucifixion is the fullest of all the four Gospels. Curiously, John says nothing about the institution of Communion, a fact that has never been satisfactorily explained. But he tells us how Jesus washed the feet of the disciples (13:1-17), an action splendidly exemplifying the spirit of lowly service so soon to be shown on the cross. Then comes the prophecy of the betrayal, an action that set in motion the events that would lead to the cross (vv 18-30).<\/p>\n<p>In the long discourse that follows, Jesus dealt with some questions posed by his followers and went on to teach them some important truths, for example, that he is the way, the truth, and the life (14:6). He develops the thought that he is the true vine, the disciples being vitally joined to him as branches to the vine. It is important for the branches to remain in the vine if they are to have life (15:1-16). Then come some words about suffering that would be of help to them in times of persecution (vv 17-25). Jesus goes on to speak about the Holy Spirit (15:26–16:15). This is a very important passage, for it contains much more about the Spirit than we find elsewhere in Jesus’ words. Jesus calls the Spirit the “Paraclete,” a title not easy to understand. It is in origin a legal term, and at least we can say that it indicates that the Spirit brings friendship, encouragement, and help. Jesus went on to speak of his approaching departure from the disciples and to prepare them for the trying time ahead (16:16-33). This part of the Gospel concludes with Jesus’ great High Priestly prayer. He prayed for the disciples to be one, as he commended them to the care of the heavenly Father (ch 17).<\/p>\n<h5>The Cross and Resurrection<\/h5>\n<p>When the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, he went forward to meet them and they fell to the ground (18:1-11). He gave himself over to them; they did not take him over. At the outset of his passion narrative, John was making the point that Jesus is sovereign. He was not being defeated by the march of events but was sovereignly doing the will of the Father. John is the only one to tell us that Jesus was taken before Annas, father-in-law to Caiaphas, the reigning high priest (18:12-14, 19-24). He tells also of Peter’s three denials of Jesus (vv 15-27). He did not spend much time on the Jewish trial, but he was much more explicit than the other Evangelists in his account of the Roman trial. Clearly, he had some special knowledge of what went on before Pilate. He presents a magnificent picture of Jesus talking with Pilate about kingship—the Son of God discussing with the representative of Caesar the meaning of sovereignty (vv 33-40).<\/p>\n<p>In his account of the Crucifixion John has a number of touches of his own, notably the way Jesus commended Mary to the care of the beloved disciple (19:26-27), the fact that the cry Jesus uttered as he died was “It is finished” (v 30), and the piercing of his side by a soldier’s spear (vv 31-37).<\/p>\n<p>John proceeds to the narrative of the burial (vv 38-42) and of the empty tomb (20:1-10). He speaks of appearances of the risen Lord to Mary Magdalene (vv 11-18), and to the disciples—both without (vv 19-23) and with Thomas (vv 24-29).<\/p>\n<p>The final chapter, an epilogue, tells of a miraculous catch of fish (21:1-14) and goes on to the moving account of Peter’s threefold declaration of love to Jesus and his restoration.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> John, The Apostle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOHN, Gospel of The fourth Gospel. Preview • Author • Date, Origin, and Destination • Background • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Author At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospe...","summary_en":"JOHN, Gospel of The fourth Gospel. Preview • Author • Date, Origin, and Destination • Background • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Author At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospe...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36203,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Spirit of Jesus Christ","title_en":"Spirit of Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\n<p>The Spirit as identified with Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The most important development and element in earliest Christian understanding of the Spirit is that the Spirit is now the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pt 1:11; see also Jn 7:38; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Rv 3:1; 5:6). The Spirit is to be identified as the Spirit that bears witness to Jesus (Jn 15:26; 16:13-15; Acts 5:32; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2; 5:7-8; Rv 19:10), but also, and more profoundly, as the Spirit that inspired and empowered Jesus himself. This Spirit became available to the believers after Christ’s resurrection.<\/p>\n<p> The apostles John and Paul were quite clear in their writings about Christ becoming spirit through resurrection. The keynote verses penned by John are John 6:63; 7:37-39; 14:16-18; 20:22; and 1 John 3:24; 4:13. The critical passages written by Paul are Romans 8:9-10; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18; and 1 Corinthians 6:17.<\/p>\n<p>Revelation concerning the Spirit of Jesus is progressive in the Gospel of John. John does not tell us from the beginning that people could not actually receive eternal life until the hour of Christ’s glorification. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus declares to various people that he can give them eternal life if they would believe in him. He promises them the water of life, the bread of life, and the light of life. But no one could really partake of these until after the Lord had risen. As a foretaste, as a sample, they could receive life via the Lord’s words because his words were themselves spirit and life (Jn 6:63); however, it was not until the Spirit would become available that believers could actually become the recipients of the divine, eternal life. After the Lord’s discourse in John 6, Jesus said, “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing” (v 63). In the flesh Jesus could not give them the bread of life, but when the Spirit became available, they could have life. Again, Jesus offered the water of life—even life flowing like rivers of living water—to the Jews assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles. He told them to come and drink of him. But no one could, then and there, come and drink of him. So John added a note: “But this he spoke concerning the Spirit, for the Spirit was not yet because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39). Once Jesus would be glorified through resurrection, the Spirit of the glorified Jesus would be available for people to drink. In John 6, Jesus offered himself as the bread of life to be eaten by people; and in John 7, he offered himself as the water of life to refresh men. But no one could eat him or drink him until he became spirit, as was intimated in John 6:63 and then stated plainly in John 7:39.<\/p>\n\n<p>In John 14:16-18, Jesus went one step further in identifying himself with the Spirit. He told the disciples that he would give them another Comforter. Then he told them that they should know who this Comforter was because he was, then and there, abiding with them and would, in the near future, be in them. Who else but Jesus was abiding with them at that time? Then after telling the disciples that the Comforter would come to them, he said, “I am coming to you.” First he said that the Comforter would come to them and abide in them, and then in the same breath he said that he would come to them and abide in them (see 14:20). In short, the coming of the Comforter to the disciples was one and the same as the coming of Jesus to the disciples. The Comforter who was dwelling with the disciples that night was the Spirit in Christ; the Comforter who would be in the disciples (after the resurrection) would be Christ in the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>On the evening of the resurrection, the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples and then breathed into them the Holy Spirit. This inbreathing, reminiscent of God’s breathing into Adam the breath of life (Gn 2:7), became the fulfillment of all that had been promised and anticipated earlier in John’s Gospel. Through this impartation, the disciples became regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This historical event marked the genesis of the new creation. Jesus could now be realized as the bread of life, the water of life, and the light of life. The believers now possessed his divine, eternal, risen life. From that time forward, Christ as spirit indwelt his believers. Thus, in his first epistle John could say, “And hereby we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he gave to us” (1 Jn 3:24), and again, “Hereby we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit” (4:13).<\/p>\n<p>The apostles had quite an adjustment to make after Christ’s resurrection. They had become so accustomed to his physical presence that it was difficult for them to learn how to live by his spiritual, indwelling presence. All through the 40 days after his resurrection, from the time the apostles received the inbreathing of the Spirit, Christ was teaching the disciples to make the transfer. He would physically appear and then disappear intermittently. His appearances were very frequent in the beginning and then they steadily diminished. His aim was to guide the apostles into knowing him in his invisible presence. However, this was so new to them that he had to keep appearing to them in order to strengthen and reassure them. But his real desire was to help them live by faith and not by sight. When he appeared to the disciples as they were all together the second time, with Thomas present, he chided Thomas for his unbelief. Then he prounounced this blessing, “Blessed are those who do not see me and yet believe” (Jn 20:29).<\/p>\n<p>The apostle Paul was such a “blessed” one. He did not know Christ in the flesh. He knew only the risen Christ (2 Cor 5:15-16). In this regard, he had an advantage over the early apostles. They had a great adjustment to make, but from the very beginning, Paul knew the risen Christ as Spirit. Paul became the forerunner of all those Christians who have never seen Jesus in the flesh and who have come to experience him in the Spirit. Yes, Paul had seen the risen Lord; he was the last one to do so (1 Cor 15:8). And from that time onward he realized that Jesus was a glorified man, exalted far above all. Paul wrote much concerning this, but his writings did not leave the far-above-all Jesus far away because this was not what Paul experienced. Any experienced Christian should be able to testify that the Christ in the heavens is also the Christ in the heart.<\/p>\n<p>In his writings, Paul often speaks of the Spirit and Christ synonymously. This is evident in Romans 8:9-10. The terms “Spirit of God,” “Spirit of Christ,” and “Christ” are all used interchangeably. The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of Christ is Christ. In these verses, it is evident that Paul identified the Spirit with Christ because in Christian experience they are absolutely identical. There is no such thing as an experience of Christ apart from the Spirit. The separation and\/or distinction does exist in Trinitarian theology—and for very good reasons—but the separation is nearly nonexistent in actual experience. Several of Paul’s statements are written from the vantage point of experience.<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Corinthians 15:45, Paul says that the risen Jesus became life-giving spirit. Notice the verse does not say Jesus became the Spirit, as if the second person of the Trinity became the third, but that Jesus became spirit in the sense that his mortal existence and form were metamorphosed into a spiritual existence and form. Jesus’ person was not changed through the resurrection, only his form. With this changed spiritual form, Jesus regained the essential state of being he had emptied himself of in becoming a man. Before he became a man, he subsisted in the form of God (Phil 2:6), which form is Spirit and thereby was united to the Spirit (the third of the Trinity), while still remaining distinct. Thus, when the scripture says that the Lord “became life-giving spirit,” it does not mean that the Son became the Holy Spirit. But it does indicate that Christ, via resurrection, appropriated a new, spiritual form (while still retaining a body—a glorified one) that enabled him to commence a new spiritual existence (see 1 Pt 3:18).<\/p>\n<p>In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul explains that the NT ministry is a ministry carried out by the Spirit of the living God (v 3), who is the Spirit that gives life (v 6). In fact, the whole NT economy is characterized as “the ministry of the Spirit” (v 8). At the same time, Paul emphasizes that the function of the NT ministry is to bring God’s people to see and experience the glorious Christ (3:3, 14, 16-18; 4:4-6). It is in this context that Paul boldly declares, “The Lord is the Spirit” (3:17). He who turns his heart to the Lord is, in effect, turning his heart to the Spirit. lf the Lord were not the Spirit abiding in the believers, how could they turn their hearts to him? And how could they be transformed into the same image? Second Corinthians 3:18 says, “But we all, with unveiled face mirroring the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord-Spirit.” According to the Greek, the last phrase of this verse could be rendered “the Lord, the Spirit” (see <span>asv<\/span>) or “the Lord, who is the Spirit” (see <span>rsv<\/span>, <span>niv<\/span>) because the expression “the Spirit” is in direct apposition to “the Lord” (i.e., it is a further description of the Lord). Thus, the Lord is the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, when the Scriptures identify the Spirit with Christ and vice versa, the identification is not equivocation. Christ is not the Holy Spirit. Christ and the Spirit are distinct persons of the Trinity, as is affirmed by the overall teaching of the Word. But the Scriptures do identify Christ and the Spirit in the context of Christian experience. It would be accurate to say that Christians experience Christ through his Spirit, the Spirit of Christ. One cannot know Jesus apart from the Spirit or other than through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Resurrection.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\n<p>The Spirit as identified with Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The most important development and element in earliest Christian understanding of the Spirit is that the Spirit is now the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pt 1:11; see also Jn 7:38; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Rv 3:1; 5:6). The Spirit is to be identified as the Spirit that bears witness to Jesus (Jn 15:26; 16:13-15; Acts 5:32; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2; 5:7-8; Rv 19:10), but also, and more profoundly, as the Spirit that inspired and empowered Jesus himself. This Spirit became available to the believers after Christ’s resurrection.<\/p>\n<p> The apostles John and Paul were quite clear in their writings about Christ becoming spirit through resurrection. The keynote verses penned by John are John 6:63; 7:37-39; 14:16-18; 20:22; and 1 John 3:24; 4:13. The critical passages written by Paul are Romans 8:9-10; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18; and 1 Corinthians 6:17.<\/p>\n<p>Revelation concerning the Spirit of Jesus is progressive in the Gospel of John. John does not tell us from the beginning that people could not actually receive eternal life until the hour of Christ’s glorification. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus declares to various people that he can give them eternal life if they would believe in him. He promises them the water of life, the bread of life, and the light of life. But no one could really partake of these until after the Lord had risen. As a foretaste, as a sample, they could receive life via the Lord’s words because his words were themselves spirit and life (Jn 6:63); however, it was not until the Spirit would become available that believers could actually become the recipients of the divine, eternal life. After the Lord’s discourse in John 6, Jesus said, “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing” (v 63). In the flesh Jesus could not give them the bread of life, but when the Spirit became available, they could have life. Again, Jesus offered the water of life—even life flowing like rivers of living water—to the Jews assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles. He told them to come and drink of him. But no one could, then and there, come and drink of him. So John added a note: “But this he spoke concerning the Spirit, for the Spirit was not yet because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39). Once Jesus would be glorified through resurrection, the Spirit of the glorified Jesus would be available for people to drink. In John 6, Jesus offered himself as the bread of life to be eaten by people; and in John 7, he offered himself as the water of life to refresh men. But no one could eat him or drink him until he became spirit, as was intimated in John 6:63 and then stated plainly in John 7:39.<\/p>\n\n<p>In John 14:16-18, Jesus went one step further in identifying himself with the Spirit. He told the disciples that he would give them another Comforter. Then he told them that they should know who this Comforter was because he was, then and there, abiding with them and would, in the near future, be in them. Who else but Jesus was abiding with them at that time? Then after telling the disciples that the Comforter would come to them, he said, “I am coming to you.” First he said that the Comforter would come to them and abide in them, and then in the same breath he said that he would come to them and abide in them (see 14:20). In short, the coming of the Comforter to the disciples was one and the same as the coming of Jesus to the disciples. The Comforter who was dwelling with the disciples that night was the Spirit in Christ; the Comforter who would be in the disciples (after the resurrection) would be Christ in the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>On the evening of the resurrection, the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples and then breathed into them the Holy Spirit. This inbreathing, reminiscent of God’s breathing into Adam the breath of life (Gn 2:7), became the fulfillment of all that had been promised and anticipated earlier in John’s Gospel. Through this impartation, the disciples became regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This historical event marked the genesis of the new creation. Jesus could now be realized as the bread of life, the water of life, and the light of life. The believers now possessed his divine, eternal, risen life. From that time forward, Christ as spirit indwelt his believers. Thus, in his first epistle John could say, “And hereby we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he gave to us” (1 Jn 3:24), and again, “Hereby we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit” (4:13).<\/p>\n<p>The apostles had quite an adjustment to make after Christ’s resurrection. They had become so accustomed to his physical presence that it was difficult for them to learn how to live by his spiritual, indwelling presence. All through the 40 days after his resurrection, from the time the apostles received the inbreathing of the Spirit, Christ was teaching the disciples to make the transfer. He would physically appear and then disappear intermittently. His appearances were very frequent in the beginning and then they steadily diminished. His aim was to guide the apostles into knowing him in his invisible presence. However, this was so new to them that he had to keep appearing to them in order to strengthen and reassure them. But his real desire was to help them live by faith and not by sight. When he appeared to the disciples as they were all together the second time, with Thomas present, he chided Thomas for his unbelief. Then he prounounced this blessing, “Blessed are those who do not see me and yet believe” (Jn 20:29).<\/p>\n<p>The apostle Paul was such a “blessed” one. He did not know Christ in the flesh. He knew only the risen Christ (2 Cor 5:15-16). In this regard, he had an advantage over the early apostles. They had a great adjustment to make, but from the very beginning, Paul knew the risen Christ as Spirit. Paul became the forerunner of all those Christians who have never seen Jesus in the flesh and who have come to experience him in the Spirit. Yes, Paul had seen the risen Lord; he was the last one to do so (1 Cor 15:8). And from that time onward he realized that Jesus was a glorified man, exalted far above all. Paul wrote much concerning this, but his writings did not leave the far-above-all Jesus far away because this was not what Paul experienced. Any experienced Christian should be able to testify that the Christ in the heavens is also the Christ in the heart.<\/p>\n<p>In his writings, Paul often speaks of the Spirit and Christ synonymously. This is evident in Romans 8:9-10. The terms “Spirit of God,” “Spirit of Christ,” and “Christ” are all used interchangeably. The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of Christ is Christ. In these verses, it is evident that Paul identified the Spirit with Christ because in Christian experience they are absolutely identical. There is no such thing as an experience of Christ apart from the Spirit. The separation and\/or distinction does exist in Trinitarian theology—and for very good reasons—but the separation is nearly nonexistent in actual experience. Several of Paul’s statements are written from the vantage point of experience.<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Corinthians 15:45, Paul says that the risen Jesus became life-giving spirit. Notice the verse does not say Jesus became the Spirit, as if the second person of the Trinity became the third, but that Jesus became spirit in the sense that his mortal existence and form were metamorphosed into a spiritual existence and form. Jesus’ person was not changed through the resurrection, only his form. With this changed spiritual form, Jesus regained the essential state of being he had emptied himself of in becoming a man. Before he became a man, he subsisted in the form of God (Phil 2:6), which form is Spirit and thereby was united to the Spirit (the third of the Trinity), while still remaining distinct. Thus, when the scripture says that the Lord “became life-giving spirit,” it does not mean that the Son became the Holy Spirit. But it does indicate that Christ, via resurrection, appropriated a new, spiritual form (while still retaining a body—a glorified one) that enabled him to commence a new spiritual existence (see 1 Pt 3:18).<\/p>\n<p>In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul explains that the NT ministry is a ministry carried out by the Spirit of the living God (v 3), who is the Spirit that gives life (v 6). In fact, the whole NT economy is characterized as “the ministry of the Spirit” (v 8). At the same time, Paul emphasizes that the function of the NT ministry is to bring God’s people to see and experience the glorious Christ (3:3, 14, 16-18; 4:4-6). It is in this context that Paul boldly declares, “The Lord is the Spirit” (3:17). He who turns his heart to the Lord is, in effect, turning his heart to the Spirit. lf the Lord were not the Spirit abiding in the believers, how could they turn their hearts to him? And how could they be transformed into the same image? Second Corinthians 3:18 says, “But we all, with unveiled face mirroring the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord-Spirit.” According to the Greek, the last phrase of this verse could be rendered “the Lord, the Spirit” (see <span>asv<\/span>) or “the Lord, who is the Spirit” (see <span>rsv<\/span>, <span>niv<\/span>) because the expression “the Spirit” is in direct apposition to “the Lord” (i.e., it is a further description of the Lord). Thus, the Lord is the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, when the Scriptures identify the Spirit with Christ and vice versa, the identification is not equivocation. Christ is not the Holy Spirit. Christ and the Spirit are distinct persons of the Trinity, as is affirmed by the overall teaching of the Word. But the Scriptures do identify Christ and the Spirit in the context of Christian experience. It would be accurate to say that Christians experience Christ through his Spirit, the Spirit of Christ. One cannot know Jesus apart from the Spirit or other than through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Resurrection.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST The Spirit as identified with Jesus Christ. The most important development and element in earliest Christian understanding of the Spirit is that the Spirit is now the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pt 1:11; see also Jn 7:38; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Rv 3:1; 5:6). The Spirit is to be identified as the Spirit that bears witness to Jesus (Jn 15:26; 16:13-15; Acts 5:32; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2; 5:7-8; Rv 19:10), but also, and more profoundly, as t...","summary_en":"SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST The Spirit as identified with Jesus Christ. The most important development and element in earliest Christian understanding of the Spirit is that the Spirit is now the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pt 1:11; see also Jn 7:38; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Rv 3:1; 5:6). The Spirit is to be identified as the Spirit that bears witness to Jesus (Jn 15:26; 16:13-15; Acts 5:32; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2; 5:7-8; Rv 19:10), but also, and more profoundly, as t...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38232,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Water","title_en":"Water","content_ro":"<h3>WATER<\/h3>\n<p>One of the essentials of life, which covers much of the earth’s surface and is the primary component of the human body. Life cannot be sustained more than a few days without it.<\/p>\n<p>In the beginning, water covered the earth. Then God brought up the dry land from the water (Gn 1:9-10). As Peter said, “God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth up from the water and surrounded it with water” (2 Pt 3:5, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>When the Lord created the Garden of Eden, he made a river to water it. This river divided into four rivers, of which two are identified with certainty, the Euphrates and the Tigris, which have sustained agricultural life in the Mesopotamian area both in antiquity and today (Gn 2:10-14). The Bible also relates that early in the history of the earth there was no rain but only a mist that watered the earth (vv 5-6). In the time of Noah, the Lord used an overwhelming mass and movement of water to destroy “the world that then existed” (2 Pt 3:6), as punishment for its wickedness.<\/p>\n<p>In the Near East, water is of special importance, for much of the area receives only moderate amounts of rainfall. In Egypt, for example, only two to four inches (5.1 to 10.2 centimeters) of rain falls in the area of Cairo, and at Aswan the average annual rainfall is zero. Egypt is dependent upon the Nile, which is supplied by equatorial rains. By contrast, Palestine is watered well by “the rain from heaven” (Dt 11:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>Water has many symbolic usages in Scripture (quoted below mostly from the <span>nlt<\/span>). The righteous man is like a tree planted by streams of water (Ps 1:3; Jer 17:8). The longing of the soul after God is likened to thirst for water: “My soul thirsts for you; my whole body longs for you in this parched and weary land where there is no water” (Ps 63:1); “I thirst for you as parched land thirsts for rain” (143:6). Jesus fulfills this need and declares, “If you are thirsty, come to me! If you believe in me, come and drink!” (Jn 7:37-38). And Jesus said, “The water I give them takes away thirst altogether. It becomes a perpetual spring within them, giving them eternal life” (4:14). The Spirit of Jesus is that spiritual water that satisfies the thirst of the human spirit (7:38-39). The Word of God is also presented as water by which spiritual cleansing is effected. The Lord speaks of the cleansing of the church by “the washing of water with the word” (Eph 5:26). And Paul said that people are saved “by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Ti 3:5).<\/p>\n<p>In the closing chapters of the Bible the Lord declares, “To all who are thirsty I will give the springs of the water of life without charge!” (Rv 21:6, <span>nlt<\/span>). Even in the description of the heavenly Jerusalem there is mention of water—the river of the water of life: “The angel showed me a pure river with the water of life, clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb, coursing down the center of the main street” (22:1-2). The final invitation of Scripture comes to us in similar terms: “Let the thirsty ones come—anyone who wants to. Let them come and drink the water of life without charge” (v 17).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WATER<\/h3>\n<p>One of the essentials of life, which covers much of the earth’s surface and is the primary component of the human body. Life cannot be sustained more than a few days without it.<\/p>\n<p>In the beginning, water covered the earth. Then God brought up the dry land from the water (Gn 1:9-10). As Peter said, “God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth up from the water and surrounded it with water” (2 Pt 3:5, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>When the Lord created the Garden of Eden, he made a river to water it. This river divided into four rivers, of which two are identified with certainty, the Euphrates and the Tigris, which have sustained agricultural life in the Mesopotamian area both in antiquity and today (Gn 2:10-14). The Bible also relates that early in the history of the earth there was no rain but only a mist that watered the earth (vv 5-6). In the time of Noah, the Lord used an overwhelming mass and movement of water to destroy “the world that then existed” (2 Pt 3:6), as punishment for its wickedness.<\/p>\n<p>In the Near East, water is of special importance, for much of the area receives only moderate amounts of rainfall. In Egypt, for example, only two to four inches (5.1 to 10.2 centimeters) of rain falls in the area of Cairo, and at Aswan the average annual rainfall is zero. Egypt is dependent upon the Nile, which is supplied by equatorial rains. By contrast, Palestine is watered well by “the rain from heaven” (Dt 11:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>Water has many symbolic usages in Scripture (quoted below mostly from the <span>nlt<\/span>). The righteous man is like a tree planted by streams of water (Ps 1:3; Jer 17:8). The longing of the soul after God is likened to thirst for water: “My soul thirsts for you; my whole body longs for you in this parched and weary land where there is no water” (Ps 63:1); “I thirst for you as parched land thirsts for rain” (143:6). Jesus fulfills this need and declares, “If you are thirsty, come to me! If you believe in me, come and drink!” (Jn 7:37-38). And Jesus said, “The water I give them takes away thirst altogether. It becomes a perpetual spring within them, giving them eternal life” (4:14). The Spirit of Jesus is that spiritual water that satisfies the thirst of the human spirit (7:38-39). The Word of God is also presented as water by which spiritual cleansing is effected. The Lord speaks of the cleansing of the church by “the washing of water with the word” (Eph 5:26). And Paul said that people are saved “by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Ti 3:5).<\/p>\n<p>In the closing chapters of the Bible the Lord declares, “To all who are thirsty I will give the springs of the water of life without charge!” (Rv 21:6, <span>nlt<\/span>). Even in the description of the heavenly Jerusalem there is mention of water—the river of the water of life: “The angel showed me a pure river with the water of life, clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb, coursing down the center of the main street” (22:1-2). The final invitation of Scripture comes to us in similar terms: “Let the thirsty ones come—anyone who wants to. Let them come and drink the water of life without charge” (v 17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"WATER One of the essentials of life, which covers much of the earth’s surface and is the primary component of the human body. Life cannot be sustained more than a few days without it. In the beginning, water covered the earth. Then God brought up the dry land from the water (Gn 1:9-10). As Peter said, “God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth up from the water and surrounded it with water” (2 Pt 3:5, nlt). When the Lord created the Garden of Eden, he made a ri...","summary_en":"WATER One of the essentials of life, which covers much of the earth’s surface and is the primary component of the human body. Life cannot be sustained more than a few days without it. In the beginning, water covered the earth. Then God brought up the dry land from the water (Gn 1:9-10). As Peter said, “God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth up from the water and surrounded it with water” (2 Pt 3:5, nlt). When the Lord created the Garden of Eden, he made a ri...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":64044,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Promise of a Second Exodus","title_en":"The Promise of a Second Exodus","content_ro":"<h3>The Promise of a Second Exodus<\/h3>\n<p>Like the exodus from Egypt, Israel’s return from exile would restore God’s people to the land. Just as they had left Egypt many years before, the people of Israel would leave Babylon (Isa 48:20-21). This time they would have to be cleansed (52:11) and would not rush their departure (52:12).<\/p>\n<p>Both the experience in exile and the journey are likened to a desert (see 35:1) from which the Lord would bring rescue. He prepares a road through the desert (43:19), transforms the desert into a watering hole with vegetation and animals (43:19-20), removes obstacles along the way (42:16; 49:11), guides his people through the desert (42:16; 58:11; 63:13), feeds them (49:10), protects them from the desert heat (49:10), and strengthens them (58:11). He changes the experience of the exiles from sorrow to great joy (51:3) and pours out his Spirit on them (44:3-4).<\/p>\n<p>An exodus of sorts also occurs for all those who believe in Christ—an exodus from sin and death through Christ’s death and the power of his resurrection. The Holy Spirit enables believers to live in newness of life and to serve God with joy as they await the coming of his kingdom in all its fullness.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 35:8-10; 42:14-16; 43:18-21; 44:3-4; 48:20-21; 49:9-12; 52:11-12; 58:8-12; Jer 31:2-17; Joel 3:17-21; Luke 1:78-79; John 7:38; 15:19; 2 Cor 5:17; 6:17-18; Eph 5:8; Col 1:13; Heb 13:12-14; Rev 7:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Promise of a Second Exodus<\/h3>\n<p>Like the exodus from Egypt, Israel’s return from exile would restore God’s people to the land. Just as they had left Egypt many years before, the people of Israel would leave Babylon (Isa 48:20-21). This time they would have to be cleansed (52:11) and would not rush their departure (52:12).<\/p>\n<p>Both the experience in exile and the journey are likened to a desert (see 35:1) from which the Lord would bring rescue. He prepares a road through the desert (43:19), transforms the desert into a watering hole with vegetation and animals (43:19-20), removes obstacles along the way (42:16; 49:11), guides his people through the desert (42:16; 58:11; 63:13), feeds them (49:10), protects them from the desert heat (49:10), and strengthens them (58:11). He changes the experience of the exiles from sorrow to great joy (51:3) and pours out his Spirit on them (44:3-4).<\/p>\n<p>An exodus of sorts also occurs for all those who believe in Christ—an exodus from sin and death through Christ’s death and the power of his resurrection. The Holy Spirit enables believers to live in newness of life and to serve God with joy as they await the coming of his kingdom in all its fullness.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 35:8-10; 42:14-16; 43:18-21; 44:3-4; 48:20-21; 49:9-12; 52:11-12; 58:8-12; Jer 31:2-17; Joel 3:17-21; Luke 1:78-79; John 7:38; 15:19; 2 Cor 5:17; 6:17-18; Eph 5:8; Col 1:13; Heb 13:12-14; Rev 7:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Promise of a Second Exodus Like the exodus from Egypt, Israel’s return from exile would restore God’s people to the land. Just as they had left Egypt many years before, the people of Israel would leave Babylon (Isa 48:20-21). This time they would have to be cleansed (52:11) and would not rush their departure (52:12). Both the experience in exile and the journey are likened to a desert (see 35:1) from which the Lord would bring rescue. He prepares a road through the desert (43:19), transfo...","summary_en":"The Promise of a Second Exodus Like the exodus from Egypt, Israel’s return from exile would restore God’s people to the land. Just as they had left Egypt many years before, the people of Israel would leave Babylon (Isa 48:20-21). This time they would have to be cleansed (52:11) and would not rush their departure (52:12). Both the experience in exile and the journey are likened to a desert (see 35:1) from which the Lord would bring rescue. He prepares a road through the desert (43:19), transfo...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65882,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"“Belief” in the Gospel of John","title_en":"“Belief” in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>“Belief” in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Believing occupies a central place in John’s Gospel. John does not use the noun <em>faith<\/em> that appears frequently elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., see Matt 8:8-10; Mark 11:22; Acts 20:21; Rom 1:17; 3:27-31; 4:3-5; Heb 11:1-39; Jas 2:14-24; 1 Pet 1:5-7). John prefers the verb <em>believe<\/em> to underscore that faith is not simply a static dogma, but is dynamic, requiring action. In John’s Gospel, “believing” in Jesus is the trait of all true disciples.<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospel of John, the verb translated “believe” is often followed by the Greek preposition <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">eis<\/span> (“into”). No parallel exists for this combination in ancient Greek usage. For John, faith is not a status, but an investment in the person of Jesus. Faith means accepting who Jesus is and what he claims to be. Faith constitutes a commitment to let his call change the way we live. Faith is the work God wants from us (John 6:29), demonstrated as we abide in Jesus’ word, as we love him, and as we obey his commands (John 8:31; 15:1-17; see 1 Jn 5:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 15:6; Isa 28:16; Mark 1:15; 9:23-24; John 1:12-13; 3:10-18; 5:24; 6:35-36; 7:38; 9:35-38; 11:25-27; 12:37; 20:25-31; Acts 10:43; 13:39; Rom 1:16; 10:9-10; Heb 4:3<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>“Belief” in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Believing occupies a central place in John’s Gospel. John does not use the noun <em>faith<\/em> that appears frequently elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., see Matt 8:8-10; Mark 11:22; Acts 20:21; Rom 1:17; 3:27-31; 4:3-5; Heb 11:1-39; Jas 2:14-24; 1 Pet 1:5-7). John prefers the verb <em>believe<\/em> to underscore that faith is not simply a static dogma, but is dynamic, requiring action. In John’s Gospel, “believing” in Jesus is the trait of all true disciples.<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospel of John, the verb translated “believe” is often followed by the Greek preposition <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">eis<\/span> (“into”). No parallel exists for this combination in ancient Greek usage. For John, faith is not a status, but an investment in the person of Jesus. Faith means accepting who Jesus is and what he claims to be. Faith constitutes a commitment to let his call change the way we live. Faith is the work God wants from us (John 6:29), demonstrated as we abide in Jesus’ word, as we love him, and as we obey his commands (John 8:31; 15:1-17; see 1 Jn 5:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 15:6; Isa 28:16; Mark 1:15; 9:23-24; John 1:12-13; 3:10-18; 5:24; 6:35-36; 7:38; 9:35-38; 11:25-27; 12:37; 20:25-31; Acts 10:43; 13:39; Rom 1:16; 10:9-10; Heb 4:3<\/p>","summary_ro":"“Belief” in the Gospel of John Believing occupies a central place in John’s Gospel. John does not use the noun faith that appears frequently elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., see Matt 8:8-10; Mark 11:22; Acts 20:21; Rom 1:17; 3:27-31; 4:3-5; Heb 11:1-39; Jas 2:14-24; 1 Pet 1:5-7). John prefers the verb believe to underscore that faith is not simply a static dogma, but is dynamic, requiring action. In John’s Gospel, “believing” in Jesus is the trait of all true disciples. In the Gospel of ...","summary_en":"“Belief” in the Gospel of John Believing occupies a central place in John’s Gospel. John does not use the noun faith that appears frequently elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., see Matt 8:8-10; Mark 11:22; Acts 20:21; Rom 1:17; 3:27-31; 4:3-5; Heb 11:1-39; Jas 2:14-24; 1 Pet 1:5-7). John prefers the verb believe to underscore that faith is not simply a static dogma, but is dynamic, requiring action. In John’s Gospel, “believing” in Jesus is the trait of all true disciples. In the Gospel of ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65902,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Living Water","title_en":"Living Water","content_ro":"<h3>Living Water<\/h3>\n<p>In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it came directly from God, it was used for ritual washings (see Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>The distinction between “dead” and “living” water helps explain why the woman of Samaria was so perplexed when Jesus offered her living water (John 4:12). Samaria has no permanent river. If Jacob had to dig a well there, how could Jesus offer superior water?<\/p>\n<p>Jesus mentioned living water again in Jerusalem at the autumn Festival of Shelters (7:37-39). This festival, which fell during a dry time of year, included an emphasis on water. In this setting, Jesus stepped forward and made an extravagant claim: Anyone looking for living water should come to him and drink. Jesus is the source of living water; he came directly from God and brought divine renewal through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19; Song 4:15; Jer 2:13; 17:13; John 4:10-14; 7:38-39; Jas 3:11-12<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Living Water<\/h3>\n<p>In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it came directly from God, it was used for ritual washings (see Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>The distinction between “dead” and “living” water helps explain why the woman of Samaria was so perplexed when Jesus offered her living water (John 4:12). Samaria has no permanent river. If Jacob had to dig a well there, how could Jesus offer superior water?<\/p>\n<p>Jesus mentioned living water again in Jerusalem at the autumn Festival of Shelters (7:37-39). This festival, which fell during a dry time of year, included an emphasis on water. In this setting, Jesus stepped forward and made an extravagant claim: Anyone looking for living water should come to him and drink. Jesus is the source of living water; he came directly from God and brought divine renewal through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19; Song 4:15; Jer 2:13; 17:13; John 4:10-14; 7:38-39; Jas 3:11-12<\/p>","summary_ro":"Living Water In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it ...","summary_en":"Living Water In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":91670,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Promise of a Second Exodus","title_en":"The Promise of a Second Exodus","content_ro":"<h3>The Promise of a Second Exodus<\/h3>\n<p>Like the exodus from Egypt, Israel’s return from exile would restore God’s people to the land. Just as they had left Egypt many years before, the people of Israel would leave Babylon (Isa 48:20-21). This time they would have to be cleansed (52:11) and would not rush their departure (52:12).<\/p>\n<p>Both the experience in exile and the journey are likened to a desert (see 35:1) from which the Lord would bring rescue. He prepares a road through the desert (43:19), transforms the desert into a watering hole with vegetation and animals (43:19-20), removes obstacles along the way (42:16; 49:11), guides his people through the desert (42:16; 58:11; 63:13), feeds them (49:10), protects them from the desert heat (49:10), and strengthens them (58:11). He changes the experience of the exiles from sorrow to great joy (51:3) and pours out his Spirit on them (44:3-4).<\/p>\n<p>An exodus of sorts also occurs for all those who believe in Christ—an exodus from sin and death through Christ’s death and the power of his resurrection. The Holy Spirit enables believers to live in newness of life and to serve God with joy as they await the coming of his kingdom in all its fullness.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 35:8-10; 42:14-16; 43:18-21; 44:3-4; 48:20-21; 49:9-12; 52:11-12; 58:8-12; Jer 31:2-17; Joel 3:17-21; Luke 1:78-79; John 7:38; 15:19; 2 Cor 5:17; 6:17-18; Eph 5:8; Col 1:13; Heb 13:12-14; Rev 7:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Promise of a Second Exodus<\/h3>\n<p>Like the exodus from Egypt, Israel’s return from exile would restore God’s people to the land. Just as they had left Egypt many years before, the people of Israel would leave Babylon (Isa 48:20-21). This time they would have to be cleansed (52:11) and would not rush their departure (52:12).<\/p>\n<p>Both the experience in exile and the journey are likened to a desert (see 35:1) from which the Lord would bring rescue. He prepares a road through the desert (43:19), transforms the desert into a watering hole with vegetation and animals (43:19-20), removes obstacles along the way (42:16; 49:11), guides his people through the desert (42:16; 58:11; 63:13), feeds them (49:10), protects them from the desert heat (49:10), and strengthens them (58:11). He changes the experience of the exiles from sorrow to great joy (51:3) and pours out his Spirit on them (44:3-4).<\/p>\n<p>An exodus of sorts also occurs for all those who believe in Christ—an exodus from sin and death through Christ’s death and the power of his resurrection. The Holy Spirit enables believers to live in newness of life and to serve God with joy as they await the coming of his kingdom in all its fullness.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 35:8-10; 42:14-16; 43:18-21; 44:3-4; 48:20-21; 49:9-12; 52:11-12; 58:8-12; Jer 31:2-17; Joel 3:17-21; Luke 1:78-79; John 7:38; 15:19; 2 Cor 5:17; 6:17-18; Eph 5:8; Col 1:13; Heb 13:12-14; Rev 7:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Promise of a Second Exodus Like the exodus from Egypt, Israel’s return from exile would restore God’s people to the land. Just as they had left Egypt many years before, the people of Israel would leave Babylon (Isa 48:20-21). This time they would have to be cleansed (52:11) and would not rush their departure (52:12). Both the experience in exile and the journey are likened to a desert (see 35:1) from which the Lord would bring rescue. He prepares a road through the desert (43:19), transfo...","summary_en":"The Promise of a Second Exodus Like the exodus from Egypt, Israel’s return from exile would restore God’s people to the land. Just as they had left Egypt many years before, the people of Israel would leave Babylon (Isa 48:20-21). This time they would have to be cleansed (52:11) and would not rush their departure (52:12). Both the experience in exile and the journey are likened to a desert (see 35:1) from which the Lord would bring rescue. He prepares a road through the desert (43:19), transfo...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93508,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"“Belief” in the Gospel of John","title_en":"“Belief” in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>“Belief” in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Believing occupies a central place in John’s Gospel. John does not use the noun <em>faith<\/em> that appears frequently elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., see Matt 8:8-10; Mark 11:22; Acts 20:21; Rom 1:17; 3:27-31; 4:3-5; Heb 11:1-39; Jas 2:14-24; 1 Pet 1:5-7). John prefers the verb <em>believe<\/em> to underscore that faith is not simply a static dogma, but is dynamic, requiring action. In John’s Gospel, “believing” in Jesus is the trait of all true disciples.<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospel of John, the verb translated “believe” is often followed by the Greek preposition <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">eis<\/span> (“into”). No parallel exists for this combination in ancient Greek usage. For John, faith is not a status, but an investment in the person of Jesus. Faith means accepting who Jesus is and what he claims to be. Faith constitutes a commitment to let his call change the way we live. Faith is the work God wants from us (John 6:29), demonstrated as we abide in Jesus’ word, as we love him, and as we obey his commands (John 8:31; 15:1-17; see 1 Jn 5:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 15:6; Isa 28:16; Mark 1:15; 9:23-24; John 1:12-13; 3:10-18; 5:24; 6:35-36; 7:38; 9:35-38; 11:25-27; 12:37; 20:25-31; Acts 10:43; 13:39; Rom 1:16; 10:9-10; Heb 4:3<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>“Belief” in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Believing occupies a central place in John’s Gospel. John does not use the noun <em>faith<\/em> that appears frequently elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., see Matt 8:8-10; Mark 11:22; Acts 20:21; Rom 1:17; 3:27-31; 4:3-5; Heb 11:1-39; Jas 2:14-24; 1 Pet 1:5-7). John prefers the verb <em>believe<\/em> to underscore that faith is not simply a static dogma, but is dynamic, requiring action. In John’s Gospel, “believing” in Jesus is the trait of all true disciples.<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospel of John, the verb translated “believe” is often followed by the Greek preposition <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">eis<\/span> (“into”). No parallel exists for this combination in ancient Greek usage. For John, faith is not a status, but an investment in the person of Jesus. Faith means accepting who Jesus is and what he claims to be. Faith constitutes a commitment to let his call change the way we live. Faith is the work God wants from us (John 6:29), demonstrated as we abide in Jesus’ word, as we love him, and as we obey his commands (John 8:31; 15:1-17; see 1 Jn 5:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 15:6; Isa 28:16; Mark 1:15; 9:23-24; John 1:12-13; 3:10-18; 5:24; 6:35-36; 7:38; 9:35-38; 11:25-27; 12:37; 20:25-31; Acts 10:43; 13:39; Rom 1:16; 10:9-10; Heb 4:3<\/p>","summary_ro":"“Belief” in the Gospel of John Believing occupies a central place in John’s Gospel. John does not use the noun faith that appears frequently elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., see Matt 8:8-10; Mark 11:22; Acts 20:21; Rom 1:17; 3:27-31; 4:3-5; Heb 11:1-39; Jas 2:14-24; 1 Pet 1:5-7). John prefers the verb believe to underscore that faith is not simply a static dogma, but is dynamic, requiring action. In John’s Gospel, “believing” in Jesus is the trait of all true disciples. In the Gospel of ...","summary_en":"“Belief” in the Gospel of John Believing occupies a central place in John’s Gospel. John does not use the noun faith that appears frequently elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., see Matt 8:8-10; Mark 11:22; Acts 20:21; Rom 1:17; 3:27-31; 4:3-5; Heb 11:1-39; Jas 2:14-24; 1 Pet 1:5-7). John prefers the verb believe to underscore that faith is not simply a static dogma, but is dynamic, requiring action. In John’s Gospel, “believing” in Jesus is the trait of all true disciples. In the Gospel of ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93528,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Living Water","title_en":"Living Water","content_ro":"<h3>Living Water<\/h3>\n<p>In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it came directly from God, it was used for ritual washings (see Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>The distinction between “dead” and “living” water helps explain why the woman of Samaria was so perplexed when Jesus offered her living water (John 4:12). Samaria has no permanent river. If Jacob had to dig a well there, how could Jesus offer superior water?<\/p>\n<p>Jesus mentioned living water again in Jerusalem at the autumn Festival of Shelters (7:37-39). This festival, which fell during a dry time of year, included an emphasis on water. In this setting, Jesus stepped forward and made an extravagant claim: Anyone looking for living water should come to him and drink. Jesus is the source of living water; he came directly from God and brought divine renewal through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19; Song 4:15; Jer 2:13; 17:13; John 4:10-14; 7:38-39; Jas 3:11-12<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Living Water<\/h3>\n<p>In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it came directly from God, it was used for ritual washings (see Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>The distinction between “dead” and “living” water helps explain why the woman of Samaria was so perplexed when Jesus offered her living water (John 4:12). Samaria has no permanent river. If Jacob had to dig a well there, how could Jesus offer superior water?<\/p>\n<p>Jesus mentioned living water again in Jerusalem at the autumn Festival of Shelters (7:37-39). This festival, which fell during a dry time of year, included an emphasis on water. In this setting, Jesus stepped forward and made an extravagant claim: Anyone looking for living water should come to him and drink. Jesus is the source of living water; he came directly from God and brought divine renewal through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19; Song 4:15; Jer 2:13; 17:13; John 4:10-14; 7:38-39; Jas 3:11-12<\/p>","summary_ro":"Living Water In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it ...","summary_en":"Living Water In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":119296,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Promise of a Second Exodus","title_en":"The Promise of a Second Exodus","content_ro":"<h3>The Promise of a Second Exodus<\/h3>\n<p>Like the exodus from Egypt, Israel’s return from exile would restore God’s people to the land. Just as they had left Egypt many years before, the people of Israel would leave Babylon (Isa 48:20-21). This time they would have to be cleansed (52:11) and would not rush their departure (52:12).<\/p>\n<p>Both the experience in exile and the journey are likened to a desert (see 35:1) from which the Lord would bring rescue. He prepares a road through the desert (43:19), transforms the desert into a watering hole with vegetation and animals (43:19-20), removes obstacles along the way (42:16; 49:11), guides his people through the desert (42:16; 58:11; 63:13), feeds them (49:10), protects them from the desert heat (49:10), and strengthens them (58:11). He changes the experience of the exiles from sorrow to great joy (51:3) and pours out his Spirit on them (44:3-4).<\/p>\n<p>An exodus of sorts also occurs for all those who believe in Christ—an exodus from sin and death through Christ’s death and the power of his resurrection. The Holy Spirit enables believers to live in newness of life and to serve God with joy as they await the coming of his kingdom in all its fullness.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 35:8-10; 42:14-16; 43:18-21; 44:3-4; 48:20-21; 49:9-12; 52:11-12; 58:8-12; Jer 31:2-17; Joel 3:17-21; Luke 1:78-79; John 7:38; 15:19; 2 Cor 5:17; 6:17-18; Eph 5:8; Col 1:13; Heb 13:12-14; Rev 7:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Promise of a Second Exodus<\/h3>\n<p>Like the exodus from Egypt, Israel’s return from exile would restore God’s people to the land. Just as they had left Egypt many years before, the people of Israel would leave Babylon (Isa 48:20-21). This time they would have to be cleansed (52:11) and would not rush their departure (52:12).<\/p>\n<p>Both the experience in exile and the journey are likened to a desert (see 35:1) from which the Lord would bring rescue. He prepares a road through the desert (43:19), transforms the desert into a watering hole with vegetation and animals (43:19-20), removes obstacles along the way (42:16; 49:11), guides his people through the desert (42:16; 58:11; 63:13), feeds them (49:10), protects them from the desert heat (49:10), and strengthens them (58:11). He changes the experience of the exiles from sorrow to great joy (51:3) and pours out his Spirit on them (44:3-4).<\/p>\n<p>An exodus of sorts also occurs for all those who believe in Christ—an exodus from sin and death through Christ’s death and the power of his resurrection. The Holy Spirit enables believers to live in newness of life and to serve God with joy as they await the coming of his kingdom in all its fullness.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 35:8-10; 42:14-16; 43:18-21; 44:3-4; 48:20-21; 49:9-12; 52:11-12; 58:8-12; Jer 31:2-17; Joel 3:17-21; Luke 1:78-79; John 7:38; 15:19; 2 Cor 5:17; 6:17-18; Eph 5:8; Col 1:13; Heb 13:12-14; Rev 7:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Promise of a Second Exodus Like the exodus from Egypt, Israel’s return from exile would restore God’s people to the land. Just as they had left Egypt many years before, the people of Israel would leave Babylon (Isa 48:20-21). This time they would have to be cleansed (52:11) and would not rush their departure (52:12). Both the experience in exile and the journey are likened to a desert (see 35:1) from which the Lord would bring rescue. He prepares a road through the desert (43:19), transfo...","summary_en":"The Promise of a Second Exodus Like the exodus from Egypt, Israel’s return from exile would restore God’s people to the land. Just as they had left Egypt many years before, the people of Israel would leave Babylon (Isa 48:20-21). This time they would have to be cleansed (52:11) and would not rush their departure (52:12). Both the experience in exile and the journey are likened to a desert (see 35:1) from which the Lord would bring rescue. He prepares a road through the desert (43:19), transfo...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":121134,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"“Belief” in the Gospel of John","title_en":"“Belief” in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>“Belief” in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Believing occupies a central place in John’s Gospel. John does not use the noun <em>faith<\/em> that appears frequently elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., see Matt 8:8-10; Mark 11:22; Acts 20:21; Rom 1:17; 3:27-31; 4:3-5; Heb 11:1-39; Jas 2:14-24; 1 Pet 1:5-7). John prefers the verb <em>believe<\/em> to underscore that faith is not simply a static dogma, but is dynamic, requiring action. In John’s Gospel, “believing” in Jesus is the trait of all true disciples.<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospel of John, the verb translated “believe” is often followed by the Greek preposition <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">eis<\/span> (“into”). No parallel exists for this combination in ancient Greek usage. For John, faith is not a status, but an investment in the person of Jesus. Faith means accepting who Jesus is and what he claims to be. Faith constitutes a commitment to let his call change the way we live. Faith is the work God wants from us (John 6:29), demonstrated as we abide in Jesus’ word, as we love him, and as we obey his commands (John 8:31; 15:1-17; see 1 Jn 5:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 15:6; Isa 28:16; Mark 1:15; 9:23-24; John 1:12-13; 3:10-18; 5:24; 6:35-36; 7:38; 9:35-38; 11:25-27; 12:37; 20:25-31; Acts 10:43; 13:39; Rom 1:16; 10:9-10; Heb 4:3<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>“Belief” in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Believing occupies a central place in John’s Gospel. John does not use the noun <em>faith<\/em> that appears frequently elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., see Matt 8:8-10; Mark 11:22; Acts 20:21; Rom 1:17; 3:27-31; 4:3-5; Heb 11:1-39; Jas 2:14-24; 1 Pet 1:5-7). John prefers the verb <em>believe<\/em> to underscore that faith is not simply a static dogma, but is dynamic, requiring action. In John’s Gospel, “believing” in Jesus is the trait of all true disciples.<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospel of John, the verb translated “believe” is often followed by the Greek preposition <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">eis<\/span> (“into”). No parallel exists for this combination in ancient Greek usage. For John, faith is not a status, but an investment in the person of Jesus. Faith means accepting who Jesus is and what he claims to be. Faith constitutes a commitment to let his call change the way we live. Faith is the work God wants from us (John 6:29), demonstrated as we abide in Jesus’ word, as we love him, and as we obey his commands (John 8:31; 15:1-17; see 1 Jn 5:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 15:6; Isa 28:16; Mark 1:15; 9:23-24; John 1:12-13; 3:10-18; 5:24; 6:35-36; 7:38; 9:35-38; 11:25-27; 12:37; 20:25-31; Acts 10:43; 13:39; Rom 1:16; 10:9-10; Heb 4:3<\/p>","summary_ro":"“Belief” in the Gospel of John Believing occupies a central place in John’s Gospel. John does not use the noun faith that appears frequently elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., see Matt 8:8-10; Mark 11:22; Acts 20:21; Rom 1:17; 3:27-31; 4:3-5; Heb 11:1-39; Jas 2:14-24; 1 Pet 1:5-7). John prefers the verb believe to underscore that faith is not simply a static dogma, but is dynamic, requiring action. In John’s Gospel, “believing” in Jesus is the trait of all true disciples. In the Gospel of ...","summary_en":"“Belief” in the Gospel of John Believing occupies a central place in John’s Gospel. John does not use the noun faith that appears frequently elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., see Matt 8:8-10; Mark 11:22; Acts 20:21; Rom 1:17; 3:27-31; 4:3-5; Heb 11:1-39; Jas 2:14-24; 1 Pet 1:5-7). John prefers the verb believe to underscore that faith is not simply a static dogma, but is dynamic, requiring action. In John’s Gospel, “believing” in Jesus is the trait of all true disciples. In the Gospel of ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":121154,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Living Water","title_en":"Living Water","content_ro":"<h3>Living Water<\/h3>\n<p>In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it came directly from God, it was used for ritual washings (see Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>The distinction between “dead” and “living” water helps explain why the woman of Samaria was so perplexed when Jesus offered her living water (John 4:12). Samaria has no permanent river. If Jacob had to dig a well there, how could Jesus offer superior water?<\/p>\n<p>Jesus mentioned living water again in Jerusalem at the autumn Festival of Shelters (7:37-39). This festival, which fell during a dry time of year, included an emphasis on water. In this setting, Jesus stepped forward and made an extravagant claim: Anyone looking for living water should come to him and drink. Jesus is the source of living water; he came directly from God and brought divine renewal through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19; Song 4:15; Jer 2:13; 17:13; John 4:10-14; 7:38-39; Jas 3:11-12<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Living Water<\/h3>\n<p>In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it came directly from God, it was used for ritual washings (see Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>The distinction between “dead” and “living” water helps explain why the woman of Samaria was so perplexed when Jesus offered her living water (John 4:12). Samaria has no permanent river. If Jacob had to dig a well there, how could Jesus offer superior water?<\/p>\n<p>Jesus mentioned living water again in Jerusalem at the autumn Festival of Shelters (7:37-39). This festival, which fell during a dry time of year, included an emphasis on water. In this setting, Jesus stepped forward and made an extravagant claim: Anyone looking for living water should come to him and drink. Jesus is the source of living water; he came directly from God and brought divine renewal through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19; Song 4:15; Jer 2:13; 17:13; John 4:10-14; 7:38-39; Jas 3:11-12<\/p>","summary_ro":"Living Water In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it ...","summary_en":"Living Water In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":146922,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Promise of a Second Exodus","title_en":"The Promise of a Second Exodus","content_ro":"<h3>The Promise of a Second Exodus<\/h3>\n<p>Like the exodus from Egypt, Israel’s return from exile would restore God’s people to the land. Just as they had left Egypt many years before, the people of Israel would leave Babylon (Isa 48:20-21). This time they would have to be cleansed (52:11) and would not rush their departure (52:12).<\/p>\n<p>Both the experience in exile and the journey are likened to a desert (see 35:1) from which the Lord would bring rescue. He prepares a road through the desert (43:19), transforms the desert into a watering hole with vegetation and animals (43:19-20), removes obstacles along the way (42:16; 49:11), guides his people through the desert (42:16; 58:11; 63:13), feeds them (49:10), protects them from the desert heat (49:10), and strengthens them (58:11). He changes the experience of the exiles from sorrow to great joy (51:3) and pours out his Spirit on them (44:3-4).<\/p>\n<p>An exodus of sorts also occurs for all those who believe in Christ—an exodus from sin and death through Christ’s death and the power of his resurrection. The Holy Spirit enables believers to live in newness of life and to serve God with joy as they await the coming of his kingdom in all its fullness.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 35:8-10; 42:14-16; 43:18-21; 44:3-4; 48:20-21; 49:9-12; 52:11-12; 58:8-12; Jer 31:2-17; Joel 3:17-21; Luke 1:78-79; John 7:38; 15:19; 2 Cor 5:17; 6:17-18; Eph 5:8; Col 1:13; Heb 13:12-14; Rev 7:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Promise of a Second Exodus<\/h3>\n<p>Like the exodus from Egypt, Israel’s return from exile would restore God’s people to the land. Just as they had left Egypt many years before, the people of Israel would leave Babylon (Isa 48:20-21). This time they would have to be cleansed (52:11) and would not rush their departure (52:12).<\/p>\n<p>Both the experience in exile and the journey are likened to a desert (see 35:1) from which the Lord would bring rescue. He prepares a road through the desert (43:19), transforms the desert into a watering hole with vegetation and animals (43:19-20), removes obstacles along the way (42:16; 49:11), guides his people through the desert (42:16; 58:11; 63:13), feeds them (49:10), protects them from the desert heat (49:10), and strengthens them (58:11). He changes the experience of the exiles from sorrow to great joy (51:3) and pours out his Spirit on them (44:3-4).<\/p>\n<p>An exodus of sorts also occurs for all those who believe in Christ—an exodus from sin and death through Christ’s death and the power of his resurrection. The Holy Spirit enables believers to live in newness of life and to serve God with joy as they await the coming of his kingdom in all its fullness.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 35:8-10; 42:14-16; 43:18-21; 44:3-4; 48:20-21; 49:9-12; 52:11-12; 58:8-12; Jer 31:2-17; Joel 3:17-21; Luke 1:78-79; John 7:38; 15:19; 2 Cor 5:17; 6:17-18; Eph 5:8; Col 1:13; Heb 13:12-14; Rev 7:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Promise of a Second Exodus Like the exodus from Egypt, Israel’s return from exile would restore God’s people to the land. Just as they had left Egypt many years before, the people of Israel would leave Babylon (Isa 48:20-21). This time they would have to be cleansed (52:11) and would not rush their departure (52:12). Both the experience in exile and the journey are likened to a desert (see 35:1) from which the Lord would bring rescue. He prepares a road through the desert (43:19), transfo...","summary_en":"The Promise of a Second Exodus Like the exodus from Egypt, Israel’s return from exile would restore God’s people to the land. Just as they had left Egypt many years before, the people of Israel would leave Babylon (Isa 48:20-21). This time they would have to be cleansed (52:11) and would not rush their departure (52:12). Both the experience in exile and the journey are likened to a desert (see 35:1) from which the Lord would bring rescue. He prepares a road through the desert (43:19), transfo...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148760,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"“Belief” in the Gospel of John","title_en":"“Belief” in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>“Belief” in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Believing occupies a central place in John’s Gospel. John does not use the noun <em>faith<\/em> that appears frequently elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., see Matt 8:8-10; Mark 11:22; Acts 20:21; Rom 1:17; 3:27-31; 4:3-5; Heb 11:1-39; Jas 2:14-24; 1 Pet 1:5-7). John prefers the verb <em>believe<\/em> to underscore that faith is not simply a static dogma, but is dynamic, requiring action. In John’s Gospel, “believing” in Jesus is the trait of all true disciples.<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospel of John, the verb translated “believe” is often followed by the Greek preposition <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">eis<\/span> (“into”). No parallel exists for this combination in ancient Greek usage. For John, faith is not a status, but an investment in the person of Jesus. Faith means accepting who Jesus is and what he claims to be. Faith constitutes a commitment to let his call change the way we live. Faith is the work God wants from us (John 6:29), demonstrated as we abide in Jesus’ word, as we love him, and as we obey his commands (John 8:31; 15:1-17; see 1 Jn 5:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 15:6; Isa 28:16; Mark 1:15; 9:23-24; John 1:12-13; 3:10-18; 5:24; 6:35-36; 7:38; 9:35-38; 11:25-27; 12:37; 20:25-31; Acts 10:43; 13:39; Rom 1:16; 10:9-10; Heb 4:3<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>“Belief” in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Believing occupies a central place in John’s Gospel. John does not use the noun <em>faith<\/em> that appears frequently elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., see Matt 8:8-10; Mark 11:22; Acts 20:21; Rom 1:17; 3:27-31; 4:3-5; Heb 11:1-39; Jas 2:14-24; 1 Pet 1:5-7). John prefers the verb <em>believe<\/em> to underscore that faith is not simply a static dogma, but is dynamic, requiring action. In John’s Gospel, “believing” in Jesus is the trait of all true disciples.<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospel of John, the verb translated “believe” is often followed by the Greek preposition <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">eis<\/span> (“into”). No parallel exists for this combination in ancient Greek usage. For John, faith is not a status, but an investment in the person of Jesus. Faith means accepting who Jesus is and what he claims to be. Faith constitutes a commitment to let his call change the way we live. Faith is the work God wants from us (John 6:29), demonstrated as we abide in Jesus’ word, as we love him, and as we obey his commands (John 8:31; 15:1-17; see 1 Jn 5:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 15:6; Isa 28:16; Mark 1:15; 9:23-24; John 1:12-13; 3:10-18; 5:24; 6:35-36; 7:38; 9:35-38; 11:25-27; 12:37; 20:25-31; Acts 10:43; 13:39; Rom 1:16; 10:9-10; Heb 4:3<\/p>","summary_ro":"“Belief” in the Gospel of John Believing occupies a central place in John’s Gospel. John does not use the noun faith that appears frequently elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., see Matt 8:8-10; Mark 11:22; Acts 20:21; Rom 1:17; 3:27-31; 4:3-5; Heb 11:1-39; Jas 2:14-24; 1 Pet 1:5-7). John prefers the verb believe to underscore that faith is not simply a static dogma, but is dynamic, requiring action. In John’s Gospel, “believing” in Jesus is the trait of all true disciples. In the Gospel of ...","summary_en":"“Belief” in the Gospel of John Believing occupies a central place in John’s Gospel. John does not use the noun faith that appears frequently elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., see Matt 8:8-10; Mark 11:22; Acts 20:21; Rom 1:17; 3:27-31; 4:3-5; Heb 11:1-39; Jas 2:14-24; 1 Pet 1:5-7). John prefers the verb believe to underscore that faith is not simply a static dogma, but is dynamic, requiring action. In John’s Gospel, “believing” in Jesus is the trait of all true disciples. In the Gospel of ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148780,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Living Water","title_en":"Living Water","content_ro":"<h3>Living Water<\/h3>\n<p>In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it came directly from God, it was used for ritual washings (see Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>The distinction between “dead” and “living” water helps explain why the woman of Samaria was so perplexed when Jesus offered her living water (John 4:12). Samaria has no permanent river. If Jacob had to dig a well there, how could Jesus offer superior water?<\/p>\n<p>Jesus mentioned living water again in Jerusalem at the autumn Festival of Shelters (7:37-39). This festival, which fell during a dry time of year, included an emphasis on water. In this setting, Jesus stepped forward and made an extravagant claim: Anyone looking for living water should come to him and drink. Jesus is the source of living water; he came directly from God and brought divine renewal through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19; Song 4:15; Jer 2:13; 17:13; John 4:10-14; 7:38-39; Jas 3:11-12<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Living Water<\/h3>\n<p>In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it came directly from God, it was used for ritual washings (see Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>The distinction between “dead” and “living” water helps explain why the woman of Samaria was so perplexed when Jesus offered her living water (John 4:12). Samaria has no permanent river. If Jacob had to dig a well there, how could Jesus offer superior water?<\/p>\n<p>Jesus mentioned living water again in Jerusalem at the autumn Festival of Shelters (7:37-39). This festival, which fell during a dry time of year, included an emphasis on water. In this setting, Jesus stepped forward and made an extravagant claim: Anyone looking for living water should come to him and drink. Jesus is the source of living water; he came directly from God and brought divine renewal through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 14:5-6, 50-51; 15:13; Num 19:17-19; Song 4:15; Jer 2:13; 17:13; John 4:10-14; 7:38-39; Jas 3:11-12<\/p>","summary_ro":"Living Water In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it ...","summary_en":"Living Water In Israel, a land that frequently experienced drought, people were keenly aware of water sources and water quality. Springs and rivers that ran all year were few, so the people relied on cisterns to catch and store the winter rains and wells to tap underground water tables. In Jewish culture, “dead water” referred to standing or stored water. “Living water” referred to moving water, as in rivers, springs, and rainfall. Such water was precious because it was fresh. And because it ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"39":[{"id":11372,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of Christ*, Exaltation","title_en":"of Christ*, Exaltation","content_ro":"<h3>EXALTATION OF CHRIST*<\/h3>\n<p>The glory and dominion which Jesus attained subsequent to the completion of his earthly work of suffering and death. It is at one and the same time the consummation of his redemptive sacrifice and the reward of his full obedience to the will of the Father. The exaltation thus includes the biblical doctrines of Jesus’ resurrection, ascension, and heavenly enthronement.<\/p>\n<p>During his earthly ministry, Jesus predicted not only that he would suffer, die, and be buried (Mt 20:28; Jn 3:14; 6:51; 10:11; etc.) but also that he would thereafter be exalted by the power of the Father to heavenly dominion and glory (Lk 24:26; Jn 17:5). This humiliation-exaltation pattern was plainly indicated by Jesus on the occasion of his encounter with a delegation of proselytes who sought to meet with the Lord (Jn 12:20-36). Jesus far exceeded the expectations of these Greeks by declaring that fellowship with his Father would be extended to the Gentiles in consequence of his imminent passion and resurrection. By affirming, “The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified” (Jn 12:23, <span>rsv<\/span>), Jesus indicated that he would be endowed with honor and splendor at his exaltation to the presence of the Father in heaven. Jesus’ teaching in respect to his exaltation to heaven provided the foundation for the church’s more explicit teaching on the subject.<\/p>\n<p>The resurrection, the initial event in the exaltation of Jesus, is one of the central affirmations of NT teaching (Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15; 4:10; Rom 1:4; 1 Cor 15:4). From apostolic times Christians have consistently affirmed that at a particular moment in time and in a given place its founder literally passed from a state of death to a state of endless life. The absolute uniqueness of Christ’s exaltation via bodily resurrection from the dead sets Christianity in a class by itself among the religions of the world. A reading of the NT plainly indicates that Jesus openly predicted that death was unable to defeat him. To the skeptical Jews who demanded from Jesus a sign of the authority by which he purged the temple, the Lord answered: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (Jn 2:19, <span>rsv<\/span>). After Peter’s crucial confession of Christ’s divine sonship at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus gave to his followers a more detailed account of the divine plan whereby he would be raised from the dead on the third day (Mt 16:21). To the disciples who assembled in Galilee shortly after his transfiguration, Jesus spoke plainly of his forthcoming exaltation: “The Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and he will be raised on the third day” (17:22-23, <span>rsv<\/span>). In the NT, the apostolic teaching about Christ’s death is almost always accompanied by an emphasis upon the certainty of his physical resurrection after three days.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the NT writers were careful to spell out the profound theological significance of Christ’s exaltation in resurrection: (1) it demonstrates Christ’s certain power over death and the grave (Acts 2:24; 1 Cor 15:54-56); (2) it confirms the validity of Christ’s teachings, particularly his claims to divine Sonship (Acts 2:36; Rom 1:4); (3) it represents God’s ultimate vindication of his obedient, suffering servant (Phil 2:8-9); (4) it is the means of the justification (Rom 4:25) and regeneration (1 Pt 1:3) of the believer; and (5) it is the guarantee of the future resurrection of the Christian (Rom 6:5; 1 Cor 15:22-24). The effective cause of Christ’s resurrection is declared to be, on one hand, God (Ps 16:10; Acts 2:32; Eph 1:19-20) and, on the other hand, our Lord himself (Jn 2:19; 10:17-18).<\/p>\n<p>The ascension represents the second phase of the exaltation of Christ. According to the two NT historical accounts (Lk 24:50-51; Acts 1:9-11), 40 days after his death Jesus left his disciples for the last time and ascended into heaven. Jesus, who several times in John’s Gospel specifically refers to his ascension (Jn 3:13; 6:62; 14:12; 20:17), regarded the place to which he would depart as an actual locality in the heavenly realm (14:2). In his reflection upon this second stage of the exaltation intimated by Psalm 68:18, the apostle Paul associates the ascension with Christ’s triumph over his foes and the bestowal of spiritual gifts to the church (Eph 4:8). The victor triumphantly returned to his Father’s throne in order to bless his people. In what may be part of an early Christian hymn, Paul explicates what he regards as the supreme “mystery” of the Christian faith, namely, that Christ Jesus who “was manifested in the flesh” was at the close of his life “taken up into glory” (1 Tm 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>Alone among the writings of the NT, the Epistle to the Hebrews associates Christ’s ascension with his high priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. He who steadfastly withstood every earthly trial, having “passed through the heavens,” is fully able to empathize with his people and impart grace to the tempted and distraught (Heb 4:14ff.). Employing the symbolism of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary, the writer conceptualizes the Ascension as the event whereby Christ enters into the inner shrine behind the curtain (6:19), bringing with him his own blood (9:12), to the end that he might appear in the presence of God on our behalf (v 24).<\/p>\n<p>The NT thus attributes considerable theological significance to this phase of Christ’s exaltation. By virtue of his exaltation to the Father, Christ (1) demonstrated his defeat of every earthly enemy (Eph 4:8); (2) sent the promised Holy Spirit (Jn 16:7; Acts 2:33), which awaited his glorification (Jn 7:39); and (3) formally undertook his heavenly priestly ministry (Heb 6:20).<\/p>\n<p>The third stage of Christ’s exaltation is his heavenly enthronement at the right hand of the Father. Following his passion, death, resurrection, and ascension to the heavenly realm, Christ is represented in Scripture as having taken his seat at the Father’s right hand. The biblical phrase “right hand of God” (Acts 7:55-56), which has been preserved in many later Christian creeds and confessions, is an anthropomorphism that figuratively describes Christ’s universal dominion, authority, and power in the presence of the Father. This aspect of Christ’s exaltation represents the fulfillment of his prayer recorded in John 17:5: “Now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory I had with you before the world was made.”<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the description of God seated on the throne of the universe is a sign of his sovereignty (1 Kgs 22:19; Ps 99:1), majesty (Is 6:1-4) and holiness (Ps 47:8). That one should be invited to take a seat on the right hand of the sovereign in Eastern cultures was a token of extraordinary honor and authority (1 Kgs 2:19). The fact that the exalted Christ would be accorded this particular privilege was anticipated in the Scriptures of the OT (see Ps 8:5, quoted in Heb 2:8; and see Ps 110:1).<\/p>\n<p>The Epistle to the Hebrews, which shows unusual interest in the doctrine of Christ’s exaltation, represents Christ’s heavenly enthronement both as the sequel to his completed earthly sacrifice and as the commencement of his High Priestly ministration in the sanctuary on high. Affirming the superiority of Christ as High Priest of the new covenant, Hebrews 8:1-2 portrays Christ as seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the heavenlies. Christ’s enthronement affirms not only the finality of his earthly work of self-sacrifice but also his newly acquired status as mediator of the new and better covenant. Hebrews 10:11-18 pointedly contrasts the ineffectual sacrifices of the legal priests who <em>stand<\/em> in the performance of their ritual sacrifices with the effectual single sacrifice of Christ, who is now <em>seated<\/em> at the right hand of God as intercessor for the saints.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EXALTATION OF CHRIST*<\/h3>\n<p>The glory and dominion which Jesus attained subsequent to the completion of his earthly work of suffering and death. It is at one and the same time the consummation of his redemptive sacrifice and the reward of his full obedience to the will of the Father. The exaltation thus includes the biblical doctrines of Jesus’ resurrection, ascension, and heavenly enthronement.<\/p>\n<p>During his earthly ministry, Jesus predicted not only that he would suffer, die, and be buried (Mt 20:28; Jn 3:14; 6:51; 10:11; etc.) but also that he would thereafter be exalted by the power of the Father to heavenly dominion and glory (Lk 24:26; Jn 17:5). This humiliation-exaltation pattern was plainly indicated by Jesus on the occasion of his encounter with a delegation of proselytes who sought to meet with the Lord (Jn 12:20-36). Jesus far exceeded the expectations of these Greeks by declaring that fellowship with his Father would be extended to the Gentiles in consequence of his imminent passion and resurrection. By affirming, “The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified” (Jn 12:23, <span>rsv<\/span>), Jesus indicated that he would be endowed with honor and splendor at his exaltation to the presence of the Father in heaven. Jesus’ teaching in respect to his exaltation to heaven provided the foundation for the church’s more explicit teaching on the subject.<\/p>\n<p>The resurrection, the initial event in the exaltation of Jesus, is one of the central affirmations of NT teaching (Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15; 4:10; Rom 1:4; 1 Cor 15:4). From apostolic times Christians have consistently affirmed that at a particular moment in time and in a given place its founder literally passed from a state of death to a state of endless life. The absolute uniqueness of Christ’s exaltation via bodily resurrection from the dead sets Christianity in a class by itself among the religions of the world. A reading of the NT plainly indicates that Jesus openly predicted that death was unable to defeat him. To the skeptical Jews who demanded from Jesus a sign of the authority by which he purged the temple, the Lord answered: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (Jn 2:19, <span>rsv<\/span>). After Peter’s crucial confession of Christ’s divine sonship at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus gave to his followers a more detailed account of the divine plan whereby he would be raised from the dead on the third day (Mt 16:21). To the disciples who assembled in Galilee shortly after his transfiguration, Jesus spoke plainly of his forthcoming exaltation: “The Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and he will be raised on the third day” (17:22-23, <span>rsv<\/span>). In the NT, the apostolic teaching about Christ’s death is almost always accompanied by an emphasis upon the certainty of his physical resurrection after three days.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the NT writers were careful to spell out the profound theological significance of Christ’s exaltation in resurrection: (1) it demonstrates Christ’s certain power over death and the grave (Acts 2:24; 1 Cor 15:54-56); (2) it confirms the validity of Christ’s teachings, particularly his claims to divine Sonship (Acts 2:36; Rom 1:4); (3) it represents God’s ultimate vindication of his obedient, suffering servant (Phil 2:8-9); (4) it is the means of the justification (Rom 4:25) and regeneration (1 Pt 1:3) of the believer; and (5) it is the guarantee of the future resurrection of the Christian (Rom 6:5; 1 Cor 15:22-24). The effective cause of Christ’s resurrection is declared to be, on one hand, God (Ps 16:10; Acts 2:32; Eph 1:19-20) and, on the other hand, our Lord himself (Jn 2:19; 10:17-18).<\/p>\n<p>The ascension represents the second phase of the exaltation of Christ. According to the two NT historical accounts (Lk 24:50-51; Acts 1:9-11), 40 days after his death Jesus left his disciples for the last time and ascended into heaven. Jesus, who several times in John’s Gospel specifically refers to his ascension (Jn 3:13; 6:62; 14:12; 20:17), regarded the place to which he would depart as an actual locality in the heavenly realm (14:2). In his reflection upon this second stage of the exaltation intimated by Psalm 68:18, the apostle Paul associates the ascension with Christ’s triumph over his foes and the bestowal of spiritual gifts to the church (Eph 4:8). The victor triumphantly returned to his Father’s throne in order to bless his people. In what may be part of an early Christian hymn, Paul explicates what he regards as the supreme “mystery” of the Christian faith, namely, that Christ Jesus who “was manifested in the flesh” was at the close of his life “taken up into glory” (1 Tm 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>Alone among the writings of the NT, the Epistle to the Hebrews associates Christ’s ascension with his high priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. He who steadfastly withstood every earthly trial, having “passed through the heavens,” is fully able to empathize with his people and impart grace to the tempted and distraught (Heb 4:14ff.). Employing the symbolism of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary, the writer conceptualizes the Ascension as the event whereby Christ enters into the inner shrine behind the curtain (6:19), bringing with him his own blood (9:12), to the end that he might appear in the presence of God on our behalf (v 24).<\/p>\n<p>The NT thus attributes considerable theological significance to this phase of Christ’s exaltation. By virtue of his exaltation to the Father, Christ (1) demonstrated his defeat of every earthly enemy (Eph 4:8); (2) sent the promised Holy Spirit (Jn 16:7; Acts 2:33), which awaited his glorification (Jn 7:39); and (3) formally undertook his heavenly priestly ministry (Heb 6:20).<\/p>\n<p>The third stage of Christ’s exaltation is his heavenly enthronement at the right hand of the Father. Following his passion, death, resurrection, and ascension to the heavenly realm, Christ is represented in Scripture as having taken his seat at the Father’s right hand. The biblical phrase “right hand of God” (Acts 7:55-56), which has been preserved in many later Christian creeds and confessions, is an anthropomorphism that figuratively describes Christ’s universal dominion, authority, and power in the presence of the Father. This aspect of Christ’s exaltation represents the fulfillment of his prayer recorded in John 17:5: “Now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory I had with you before the world was made.”<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the description of God seated on the throne of the universe is a sign of his sovereignty (1 Kgs 22:19; Ps 99:1), majesty (Is 6:1-4) and holiness (Ps 47:8). That one should be invited to take a seat on the right hand of the sovereign in Eastern cultures was a token of extraordinary honor and authority (1 Kgs 2:19). The fact that the exalted Christ would be accorded this particular privilege was anticipated in the Scriptures of the OT (see Ps 8:5, quoted in Heb 2:8; and see Ps 110:1).<\/p>\n<p>The Epistle to the Hebrews, which shows unusual interest in the doctrine of Christ’s exaltation, represents Christ’s heavenly enthronement both as the sequel to his completed earthly sacrifice and as the commencement of his High Priestly ministration in the sanctuary on high. Affirming the superiority of Christ as High Priest of the new covenant, Hebrews 8:1-2 portrays Christ as seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the heavenlies. Christ’s enthronement affirms not only the finality of his earthly work of self-sacrifice but also his newly acquired status as mediator of the new and better covenant. Hebrews 10:11-18 pointedly contrasts the ineffectual sacrifices of the legal priests who <em>stand<\/em> in the performance of their ritual sacrifices with the effectual single sacrifice of Christ, who is now <em>seated<\/em> at the right hand of God as intercessor for the saints.<\/p>","summary_ro":"EXALTATION OF CHRIST* The glory and dominion which Jesus attained subsequent to the completion of his earthly work of suffering and death. It is at one and the same time the consummation of his redemptive sacrifice and the reward of his full obedience to the will of the Father. The exaltation thus includes the biblical doctrines of Jesus’ resurrection, ascension, and heavenly enthronement. During his earthly ministry, Jesus predicted not only that he would suffer, die, and be buried (Mt 20:28...","summary_en":"EXALTATION OF CHRIST* The glory and dominion which Jesus attained subsequent to the completion of his earthly work of suffering and death. It is at one and the same time the consummation of his redemptive sacrifice and the reward of his full obedience to the will of the Father. The exaltation thus includes the biblical doctrines of Jesus’ resurrection, ascension, and heavenly enthronement. During his earthly ministry, Jesus predicted not only that he would suffer, die, and be buried (Mt 20:28...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19665,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Teachings of Jesus Christ","title_en":"Teachings of Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of<\/h3>\n<p>Because of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? What did he mean when he spoke about the kingdom? What light does his teaching throw on the meaning of his death? What did he say about the Holy Spirit? How did he describe human beings and their needs? Did he anticipate the Christian church? Did he teach anything about the end of the world? What were the main features of his moral teaching? The following sections will seek to answer these important questions.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about God<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Himself<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about His Own Death<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Humanity<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Church<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Future<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutGod\">Teachings about God<\/p>\n<p>Anyone who comes to the teachings of Jesus after reading the OT will at once recognize that much of his teaching about God is the same. Since Jesus, as all orthodox Jews of his day, accepted the testimony of the OT as inspired, it is not surprising that his approach to God was similar. This is especially true of his assumption that God was Creator. He taught a special providential care over the created order and affirmed that God watched over such small creatures as the sparrow (Mt 10:29). There is no support in the teachings of Jesus for the view that God is uninterested in the world he made.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most characteristic titles Jesus used for God was Father. This was not new, for the idea occurs in the OT, where God is seen as Father of his people Israel. This kind of fatherhood was national rather than personal. In the intertestamental period the Jews came to regard God as so holy that he was removed from direct contact with human affairs. There had to be mediators between God and people. This exalted notion of God was not conducive to the idea of God as Father, and it is against this background that the uniqueness of the personal fatherhood of God in the teaching of Jesus must be seen. There is some evidence in Judaism that prayer to God as “Our Father” was known, but what distinguishes Jesus’ teachings from that of his contemporaries is that the fatherhood of God was central to what he taught.<\/p>\n<p>The father-son relationship is particularly vivid in John’s Gospel, where Jesus as Son is seen to be in close communion with God as Father. This comes out strongly in Jesus’ prayer in John 17 and in the frequent assertions that the Father had sent the Son and that the Son was doing the will of the Father. It is this strong relationship between God and Jesus in terms of fatherhood and sonship that led Jesus to teach men to approach God in the same way. The Lord’s Prayer at once recognizes this in its opening words. It is particularly important to note that “Our Father” precedes “hallowed be thy name,” for the more intimate idea prepares the way for the more remote. Jesus never taught men to approach God with terror.<\/p>\n<p>Although there is a connection between the way in which Jesus addressed God as Father and the way in which he taught his disciples to approach God, there is also a distinction. Jesus spoke of “my Father and your Father” when he appeared to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection (Jn 20:17), but he did not say “our Father.” His sonship was unique, for he claimed that he and the Father were one (Jn 10:30).<\/p>\n<p>In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus assured his followers that their heavenly Father knows about their needs (Mt 6:32; Lk 12:30), on the strength of which they are exhorted not to be anxious. This gives some insight into the way in which Jesus’ teachings about God has a bearing on practical issues.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHimself\">Teachings about Himself<\/p>\n<p>What Jesus said about himself is of great importance, for this undoubtedly formed the basis of what the early church came to teach about him.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus used certain titles of himself or accepted them as descriptions of himself when they were used by others. The most widely used is Son of Man. This title was used by Jesus to refer to himself but was not used by anyone else. It was used, moreover, in several different kinds of sayings. Sometimes the sayings related directly to the public ministry of Jesus, like the saying that the Son of Man was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28), or that the Son of Man had authority to forgive sins (v 10). Sometimes the sayings had a direct bearing on the Passion, as when Jesus said that the Son of Man must suffer many things (Mk 8:31; note that Mt 16:21 has “he” instead of “Son of Man”). At other times the reference is to a future appearance, as when Jesus declared to the high priest that he would see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Mk 14:62). What did Jesus mean by the title, and why did he use it?<\/p>\n<p>The title “Son of Man” had been used before. The phrase occurs in Psalm 8:4, where it refers to man or humans. Again, the expression is used many times in Ezekiel as a mode of address to the prophet, but here also it means man. A rather different use occurs in Daniel 7:13, where one like a son of man comes with the clouds before the Ancient of Days. There is a strong similarity between this passage and the words of Jesus in Mark 14:62. But an important difference is that whereas Son of Man becomes a title in Mark, it is not so in Daniel. There is some evidence for the title in Jewish apocalyptic literature (e.g., in the Similitudes of Enoch), where it represents a preexistent being who will come to judge and overthrow the enemies of God. It seems evident from this that Jesus’ use of Son of Man as a title is unique.<\/p>\n<p>The Son of Man sayings are distributed throughout the four Gospels, and there are no appreciable differences in their uses. What is at first astonishing is that though the title is so widespread in the Gospels on the lips of Jesus, it never became a name by which Jesus was known by the early Christians. In fact, only in Acts 7:56 does the title appear, in this case used by Stephen. It is clear, therefore, that it had a special meaning for Jesus that it did not have for others. There is no doubt that he was referring to himself and not to someone else, as a careful study of all the Son of Man sayings shows. Those who think that Jesus was referring to someone else arrive at this conclusion only after first dispensing with some of the sayings. The most probable reason why he used the title Son of Man was because he wanted to avoid a term like Messiah, which carried with it too many political overtones. But what did Son of Man mean to Jesus? It is rich with the idea of humanness, possibly allusions to Daniel’s “son of man,” and perhaps a touch of the Suffering Servant idea from Isaiah 53. It is most likely that Jesus saw it in terms of his mission in a way that his hearers could not fully appreciate. It is also probable that the early church preferred Messiah because this title carried the meaning of a royal deliverer; also, after the death of Jesus, there would be no further fear of political misunderstanding.<\/p>\n<p>The term Messiah, or Christ, does not belong strictly to the teachings of Jesus, since he himself never used it. The most striking instance where he accepted the ascription of Messiah was in Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi. All the synoptic Gospels record the confession “You are the Christ,” while Matthew adds the significant comment by Jesus that flesh and blood had not revealed it but “my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17). He certainly accepted the confession and regarded it as revelation. One other case in the Synoptics where he does not specifically refute messiahship is his answer to the high priest’s question “Are you the Messiah?” (Mk 14:61). In John’s Gospel, Andrew tells Peter that he had found the Messiah (Jn 1:41); the woman at Samaria talks to Jesus, and he reveals that he is the Messiah (4:25-26). There was a widespread expectation among the Jews that a deliverer would come to overthrow their political enemies, the Romans. There were various ideas about his origin (a military leader or a heavenly warrior) and his methods (the Zealots believed that deliverance could come only through armed revolution). The reticence of Jesus concerning messiahship is therefore readily understandable.<\/p>\n<p>Another title of utmost importance is Son of God, although it occurs mainly in John’s Gospel. That both Mark and John regarded Jesus in this light is clear from explicit statements in their Gospels (cf. Mk 1:1; Jn 20:30-31). There are certainly passages where Messiah is linked with Son of God and where Jesus rejects neither title (cf. Mt 16:16). But in the teachings of Jesus one passage makes abundantly clear the special relationship that Jesus had with God as Son—namely, Matthew 11:27 (also Lk 10:22, a parallel passage), where Jesus implies that he is the Son of the Father.<\/p>\n<p>Many similar passages in John’s Gospel are, however, more explicit. The Son is unquestionably preexistent, because he knows he came from the Father and returns to the Father. It is not possible from the many references to sonship in John’s Gospel to come to any other conclusion than that Jesus regarded himself as divine. It is particularly important to note that it is also in this Gospel that Jesus is portrayed most clearly in his human nature with its attendant weaknesses. Nowhere in the teachings of Jesus did he explain how God could become man, but he assumed this as a fact. He taught with the authority of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheKingdomofGod\">Teachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\n<p>No one can read the synoptic Gospels without being impressed with the frequency with which the expression “kingdom of God” (or of heaven) occurs. It was clearly an important theme in the whole teaching of Jesus. It is less evident in John’s Gospel but is nevertheless still present. Many of the parables of Jesus are specifically called parables of the kingdom. Jesus’ concept of the kingdom provided a foundational idea to the Christian gospel.<\/p>\n<p>The main idea is the rule of God over people rather than a realm that belongs to God. In other words, the emphasis is on the active reigning of the King. This is important because it means that the kingdom is inextricably affected by relationships between the members and the King. It also means the kingdom will not be expressed in institutional terms.<\/p>\n<p>There is one problem with the kingdom teachings that must be faced: its timing. Some sayings imply that it is already present, while others suggest that it will not come until the future. Some scholars disavow the idea that present and future can be held together; therefore, they reject one and concentrate on the other. Those who maintain a present understanding of the kingdom developed the idea of a social gospel, since Christianity was defined as the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. According to this view, there is no place for a future arrival of the kingdom. On the other hand, some have denied altogether the present aspect and concentrate on the future. In this case, it is difficult to see in what sense the kingdom teachings are relevant.<\/p>\n<p>Yet others have insisted that since both present and future aspects are found in the Gospel records, no explanation is satisfying that denies one at the expense of the other. One possible solution is to regard the present aspects as applying to this age but as not reaching their fulfillment until the future establishment of the kingdom. A similar solution, expressed differently, is to maintain that the reality is a future kingdom but that it has spilled over into the present. Jesus intentionally included both present and future aspects.<\/p>\n<p>That the kingdom was a theme of common interest is clear from Luke 17:20-21, where the Pharisees asked Jesus when it was coming. His answer, that it was among them, shows unmistakably a present idea. This is equally true of the statement that in the exorcism of evil spirits the kingdom had arrived (Mt 12:28; Lk 11:20). Moreover, Jesus mentioned that the kingdom has been forcefully advancing (Mt 11:12), by which he did not mean by revolutionary methods, although he clearly implied that something dynamic was already happening. This idea of dynamic power is one of the most characteristic features of the kingdom. Jesus spoke of binding the strong, armed man (Lk 11:21-22), which shows that in his ministry he expected to give a powerful demonstration against the forces of darkness.<\/p>\n<p>It is evident that the kingdom Jesus proclaimed was a kingdom in which God was supreme. It was inseparably linked with his redemptive mission, in which God was bringing spiritual deliverance to his people. Moreover, the kingdom teachings of Jesus cannot be regarded in isolation. It is part of the total message; no part of that message can be divorced from any other part without distorting the whole.<\/p>\n<p>The clearest teachings on the future aspect of the kingdom are to be found in some of the parables (Mt 13) and in the discourse on the Mt of Olives (Mt 24–25; Mk 13; Lk 21). In the latter, Jesus spoke of the future using imagery drawn from Jewish literature, like the references to clouds, to glory, and to angels in relation to the coming of the Son of Man (Mk 13:26-27). In Matthew’s account there is reference to a trumpet call, another familiar feature (Mt 24:31).<\/p>\n<p>Various features from the kingdom parables give the clearest idea of the nature of the kingdom. Membership in the kingdom is not considered to be universal, for in the parable of the sower not all the soils are productive. The same separation is seen in the parable of the tares and the parable of the dragnet. The tares are destroyed and only the wheat is harvested, while the bad fish are discarded. The members of the kingdom are those who hear and understand the word of the kingdom (Mt 13:23). It is clear, therefore, that a response is necessary if the benefits of the kingdom are to be enjoyed.<\/p>\n<p>There is an emphasis on growth in the parable of the mustard seed, where rapid development occurs from small beginnings. The parables of the treasure and the pearl are intended to underline the value of the kingdom. The universal character of the kingdom comes out sharply in the parable of the vineyard, where the kingdom is said to be taken away from the Jews and given to another “nation,” presumably an allusion to the Gentiles (Mt 21:43). This is in line with the great commission Jesus gave to his disciples to preach to all nations (28:19). A universal kingdom would certainly be entirely different from the messianic kingdom idea of Judaism, in which Israel was to be the central unit. It is not easy to appreciate how revolutionary the idea was of a worldwide kingdom with Gentiles and Jews on the same footing.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHisOwnDeath\">Teachings about His Own Death<\/p>\n<p>The announcement of the kingdom must be linked with Jesus’ approach to his own death. Did Jesus see his death as an integral part of his mission? Some have maintained that he ended his life in disillusionment, but a brief survey of his teaching about his own destiny is sufficient to dispel such a theory. To the further question, “What meaning did Jesus attach to his forthcoming death?” he gave a series of passing indications that, when taken together, supply us with a basis on which to reconstruct some idea of the place of his death within the entire range of his mission.<\/p>\n<p>It is important to note that many times Jesus showed his awareness that details of his life were a fulfillment of Scripture (cf. Mt 26:24, 56; Mk 9:12; Lk 18:31; 24:25-27, 44-45). In all the instances cited, the suffering of Jesus is referred to as the subject of OT prophecy. This must mean that he had reflected on OT predictions and recognized that they could be fulfilled only through his own sufferings. In this case the Passion must be regarded as an indispensable part of Jesus’ consciousness of his own mission.<\/p>\n<p>This emphasis on fulfillment of Scripture is also seen in John’s Gospel. His statement that the Son of Man must be lifted up even as Moses lifted up the serpent (Jn 3:14) illustrates this point. Most of the passages where fulfillment of Scripture is mentioned are the comments of the Evangelist, John. But there can be no doubt that the fulfillment motive played a vital part both in Jesus’ own understanding of his mission and in the early Christians’ understanding of his death. In this connection, some hold that John puts more stress on the Incarnation as a means of salvation in that he sees it as an illumination of the mind. But this is only part of the truth, for there is more on the meaning of the death of Jesus in John’s Gospel than in the others.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospels emphasize the divine necessity of the death of Jesus. In addition to the fulfillment motive, the idea of necessity is strong in the first prediction by Jesus of his approaching death. In John’s Gospel Jesus speaks of his “hour” several times in the earlier stages of his ministry as “not yet,” but in the later stages as having arrived. There is a sense of definite movement toward a climax, the hour undoubtedly being the hour of the Passion (cf. Jn 17:1). There is not room for any disillusionment here. Jesus knew that only through the hour of death could the Father be glorified. The climax was according to an orderly plan.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus evidently regarded his death as in some ways a sacrifice. The clearest indication of this is in the words of institution at the Last Supper. The cup is connected with the blood of the new covenant, which is said to be for the “remission of sins” (Mt 26:26-28). No explanation is given of the way in which the coming death, signified by the broken bread and poured-out wine, would bring about forgiveness of sins. But the immediate realization by the early church that Christ died for our sins (cf. 1 Cor 15:3) shows that the importance of what Jesus said had been clearly grasped. The new covenant idea is parallel to the old covenant, which according to Exodus 24 was sealed with sacrificial blood; there can be little doubt that Jesus had this in mind when he spoke the words about the new covenant. It was also akin to the ideas expressed in Jeremiah 31, referring to a covenant written on the heart rather than graven in stone.<\/p>\n<p>Another aspect of the death of Christ seen especially in John’s Gospel is the sense of completion that went with it. In Jesus’ prayer in John 17, as he faces the cross, he declares that he has finished the work that the Father had given him to do (Jn 17:4). This is reinforced by the cry from the cross, “It is finished,” which only John records (19:30). This sense of accomplishment gives an air of triumph to what might otherwise have been considered a disaster.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheHolySpirit\">Teachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n<p>At several of the major events in the life of Jesus, the Evangelists note the activity of the Spirit (e.g., the Virgin Birth, the Baptism, the Temptation). It is to be expected, therefore, that Jesus would have instructed his disciples about the Spirit. However, there is surprisingly little in the synoptic Gospels on this theme. Most of the teachings come from John’s Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus began his preaching ministry in Nazareth, according to Luke, he read the statement in Isaiah 61:1-2 about the Spirit of God and applied it to himself. He saw his ministry as being inaugurated by the Spirit. This becomes clear in the way in which he responded to the charge that he cast out demons by means of Beelzebub, prince of the demons. He identified the reality of the coming of the kingdom by the fact that he was casting out evil spirits by the Spirit of God (Mt 12:28). He was, moreover, sensitive to the seriousness of blaspheming the Spirit, which he implies his accusers were in danger of doing. Whatever he did in his ministry he saw as an activity of the Spirit, and this was especially so in the contest with evil spirits.<\/p>\n<p>While warning his disciples that they would meet with opposition, Jesus assured them of the Spirit’s support when they were forced to appear before kings or governors (Mt 10:19-20; Mk 13:11). Indeed, he told them that the Spirit would speak through them, thus emphasizing that he expected a continuation of the Spirit’s activity in the future. Luke records one instance in which Jesus comments on what fathers will do for their children and asks whether God will not give the Holy Spirit to those who ask (Lk 11:13). The assumption is that God regards the Holy Spirit as the best gift to give his children. On yet another occasion, Jesus recognized that David was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote Psalm 110 (Mk 12:36), reflecting Jesus’ belief in the Spirit’s agency in the production of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of John provides a more detailed development of what Jesus taught about the Spirit. Teachings about the Spirit are usually linked to Jesus’ teachings about giving eternal life to those who believe in him and receive him. At the same time he spoke of the new birth and eternal life to Nicodemus, Jesus also spoke of the Spirit (Jn 3:3-8, 15-16). When he spoke of water of life to the Samaritan woman, he also spoke of the Spirit (4:14, 23-24). The same holds true for the discourses on the bread of life (6:48-63) and river of life (7:37-39). Throughout the Gospel, Jesus declares to various people that he can give them eternal life if they would believe in him. He promises them the water of life, the bread of life, and the light of life, but no one could really partake of these until after the Lord was resurrected. As a foretaste, as a sample, they could receive a certain measure of life via the Lord’s words, because his words were themselves spirit and life (6:63), but it was not until the Spirit would become available that the believers could actually become the recipients of the divine, eternal life.<\/p>\n<p>After the Lord’s discourse in John 6 (a discourse that was very troubling and offensive to most of his disciples), Jesus said, “It is the Spirit who gives eternal life” (6:63). When the Spirit became available, they could have life. Again, Jesus offered the water of life—even life flowing like rivers of living water—to the Jews assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles. He told them to come and drink of him. But no one could, then and there, come and drink of him. So John added a note: “This He spoke of the Spirit, . . . for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39, <span>nasb<\/span>). Once Jesus would be glorified through resurrection, the Spirit of the glorified Jesus would be available for men to drink. In John 6, Jesus offered himself as the bread of life to be eaten by men; and in John 7, he offered himself as the water of life to refresh men. But no one could eat of him or drink of him until the Spirit of the glorified Jesus was made available, as was intimated in John 6:63 and then stated plainly in John 7:39.<\/p>\n<p>In John 14:16-18, Jesus went one step further in identifying himself with the Spirit. He told the disciples that he would give them another Comforter. Then he told them that they should know who this Comforter was because he was, then and there, abiding with them and would, in the near future, be in them. Who else but Jesus was abiding with them at that time? Then after telling the disciples that the Comforter would come to them, he said, “I am coming to you.” First he said that the Comforter would come to them and abide in them, and then in the same breath he said that he would come to them and abide in them (see 14:20). In short, the coming of the Comforter to the disciples was one and the same as the coming of Jesus to the disciples. The Comforter who was dwelling with the disciples that night was the Spirit in Christ; the Comforter who would be in the disciples (after the resurrection) would be Christ in the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>On the evening of the resurrection, the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples and then breathed into them the Holy Spirit. This inbreathing, reminiscent of God’s breathing into Adam the breath of life (Gn 2:7), became the fulfillment of all that had been promised and anticipated earlier in John’s Gospel. Through this impartation, the disciples were regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This historical event marked the genesis of the new creation. Jesus could now be realized as the bread of life, the water of life, and the light of life. The believers now possessed his divine, eternal, risen life. From that time forward, Christ as Spirit indwelt his believers. Thus, in his first epistle John could say, “We know he lives in us because the Holy Spirit lives in us” (1 Jn 3:24).<\/p>\n<p>The indwelling Spirit helped the disciples remember Jesus’ words and actions (Jn 14:26) so that they could teach and write about them with acumen. This means that Jesus did not intend that the preservation of his teachings should be left to chance. All too often theories attempting to explain the way in which the traditions about Jesus and his teachings were transmitted in the period before there were any written Gospels are suggested without any reference to the Holy Spirit. It is not acceptable to concentrate on so-called laws of oral tradition and pay no attention to the unique factor in this case—the Holy Spirit. It is part of the Spirit’s mission to preserve and transmit the teaching of Jesus. What Jesus says in this passage about the Spirit has far-reaching significance for the formation of the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Another important function is the activity of the Spirit in the world. Jesus made it clear that the Spirit would convict of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment (Jn 16:8). Without the activity of the Spirit, there would be no possibility of the disciples making any impact on the world. Nevertheless, Jesus warned that the world could not receive the Spirit because it did not know him (14:17). The mystery of the Spirit is that he dwells in every believer. This indwelling aspect is of great importance and was particularly developed in the writings of Paul.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHumanity\">Teachings about Humanity<\/p>\n<p>Jesus taught about God’s providential care over all human beings. A person’s hairs are all numbered (Mt 10:30), which is a vivid way of saying that God is concerned about the details of human life. But God is far more concerned with the eternal soul. Jesus made it clear that it would be unprofitable for anyone to gain the world and to lose his or her soul (Mt 16:26; Mk 8:36; Lk 9:25). The focus falls on what a person is and not what he or she has. Jesus even said that a maimed body was preferable to a forfeited life (Mk 9:43-47). One’s total fulfillment depends more on one’s spiritual condition than on one’s environment or physical well-being. He was not, of course, unconcerned about people’s physical state, as his many healings show, but his major concern was with people’s relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus never viewed humans as isolated individuals. Within God’s community people were expected to have responsibility toward one another. The Sermon on the Mount illustrated this social emphasis in the teaching of Jesus. Those who are merciful to others will obtain mercy (Mt 5:7). There is special commendation for peacemakers (v 9). The disciples of Jesus are expected to bring light to others (v 16). They are expected to give more than expected (v 40). Jesus is clearly saying that people have responsibility beyond themselves.<\/p>\n<p>The relation of people to God is one of dependence. Jesus taught men and women to pray to God for daily bread (Mt 6:11) as a reminder that they cannot be wholly self-sufficient. He allowed no place in his teaching for humans to boast in their own achievements.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had some specific things to say about home life. He accepted the sanctity of the marriage contract (Mt 5:31-32; cf. 19:3-9) and therefore showed a high regard for the honor and rights of the wife. It was more in his actions and attitudes rather than his specific teachings that Jesus showed his regard for the status of women. When he spoke of men, he often used the term in the sense of people, including both men and women. There is no suggestion that in matters of faith women were in the least inferior to men. Moreover, Luke points out how many women supported Jesus and his disciples in their travels.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had a high view of the human potential but also acknowledged their present condition. The stress on repentance (Mt 4:17) shows a sinfulness of which people need to repent. This sense of need is implicit in the instances where Jesus pronounces forgiveness (e.g., to the paralytic, Mt 9:1-8; and to the woman who anointed him, Lk 7:47-48). In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus instructs his disciples to pray for forgiveness (Mt 6:12; Lk 11:4). He takes for granted that they need it and desire to obtain it.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus gives no support to any self-righteousness in men or women. This is the burden of his criticism of the religious leaders in various sayings, but particularly in Matthew 23. He was critical of Jewish teachers because they placed so much importance on works of merit as contributing to salvation. His whole approach depended on humans casting themselves on the mercy of God. This is vividly illustrated in the parable about the Pharisee and the tax collector at prayer (Lk 18:10-14). It was the latter who threw himself on the mercy of God and who was commended by Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Undoubtedly, Jesus regarded sin as universal. He never suggested that there was anyone who was exempt from it. The major concept of sin in his teachings was alienation from God. This comes out clearly in John’s Gospel, with its strong antithesis between light and darkness, life and death (cf. Jn 5:24). Indeed, the “world” in John’s Gospel represents the system that takes no account of God. But sin is also seen as enslavement to Satan. The life and teachings of Jesus are seen against the background of spiritual conflict. Jesus can even say to his opponents, “You are of your father the devil” (Jn 8:44). He assumes throughout that there are hostile forces bringing man into subjection.<\/p>\n<p>In the parable of the prodigal son, sin against God is linked with sin before the father. In other words, it is regarded in terms of rebellion and revolt (Lk 15:21). This is a different assessment of the son’s offense than the one arrived at by the elder brother, who could see it only in terms of property. The view that humans are essentially in a state of rebellion against God is a basic tenet of Paul’s theological position, and it is important to note that it finds its root in the teachings of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>There is no question that Jesus had much to say about condemnation. Those who did not believe and were therefore outside the provision of salvation that Jesus had made are declared to be already condemned (Jn 3:18). At various times Jesus mentioned judgment to come, which shows that a person’s destiny is related to his or her present spiritual condition. Against this background of humanity’s spiritual need, the whole mission of Jesus must be seen. A person, if left to himself or herself, would be totally unable to achieve salvation, but Jesus came to offer eternal life to those who believe in him (Jn 3:16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheChurch\">Teachings about the Church<\/p>\n<p>Some have supposed that Jesus did not predict that there would be a church. But on two occasions he used the word “church,” which means a people called out by God. On one of the occasions—at Caesarea Philippi—Jesus told Peter that he would build his church upon the rock (Mt 16:16-19). It seems most probable that “rock” was intended to link the foundation of the church to Peter’s particular confession about Jesus. It is certain that the later church was a community that affirmed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is important to note that it is Christ himself who is the builder of the church. He assured his disciples that it would be impregnable (the gates of hades would not overcome it). Moreover, one of the functions of the church was to proclaim forgiveness of sins, and this is implied in what Jesus said to Peter. That the words were not intended to refer exclusively to him is clear from Matthew 18:18, where similar words were addressed to all the disciples. The church, according to Matthew 18:17, was to be a community that could settle disputes between believers.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to these specific references to the church, Jesus assumed that his followers would meet together in his name (Mt 18:19-20). In his final words in Matthew’s account, he commissioned them to teach what he had taught them and to baptize new disciples (Mt 28:19-20). He promised his presence would be with them. The command to baptize was reinforced by Jesus’ own example in submitting to John’s baptism. One other special rite that Jesus expected his disciples to observe was the Lord’s Supper. His instructions about this presuppose a later community that could observe it. Since the form of words used in the institution point to the meaning of the death of Christ, it is clear that Jesus intended the future community to be frequently reminded of the center of the faith. The Christian church was to be a group of people who knew that through Christ they had entered into a new relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Although there are no references to the church in John’s Gospel, there are certainly hints that support the community idea. Jesus introduced himself as the Shepherd and spoke of his followers as forming a flock (Jn 10:16). The sheep imagery occurs again in this Gospel when Peter is instructed three times by the risen Lord to feed the sheep (Jn 21:15-17). Another figure of speech that Jesus used to bring out the group idea is that of the many branches that draw their life from the vine, and therefore belong to each other because of their common life in the vine.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus recognized that the future community would need the aid of the Spirit. His teachings on this subject laid the foundation for the evident dependence of the early church on the Spirit, as seen in the book of Acts. Finally, it should be noted that there is a close connection between the church and the kingdom, although they are not identical. The kingdom is more comprehensive than the church, which is included within it.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheFuture\">Teachings about the Future<\/p>\n<p>Jesus thought of the kingdom in terms of both present realization and future hope. The future aspect is related to the end of the age. Although he did not spell it out in specific terms, Jesus did not leave his disciples without any knowledge of how the present age would end. He gave firm assurance that he would return at some time in the future.<\/p>\n<p>He told the disciples that the Son of Man would come with his angels in his Father’s glory (Mt 16:27). In the discourse in which he answers the disciples’ question about the end of the world, he speaks again of the Son of Man coming in clouds with power and glory (Mk 13:26), probably drawn from the familiar language of Daniel 7. Jesus described various signs that would precede his own coming. He spoke of wars, conflicts, earthquakes, famines, and disturbances in the heavens. The gospel was to be preached to all nations. At the same time many false Christs would arise.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus gave such details about his return to encourage his disciples in the face of persecution. The future hope had a definitely practical purpose. The disciples were urged to watch. The coming would happen as unexpectedly as a thief in the night. Jesus said that even he himself did not know when the coming would take place (Mk 13:32).<\/p>\n<p>Another important theme affecting the future is emphasized in Jesus’ teachings about resurrection. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the body. They attempted to trap Jesus with a question about a woman who had been married seven times. They wanted to know whose husband she would be at the resurrection (Mk 12:18-27). Jesus pointed out that there would be no marriage when the dead rise. The Sadducees’ idea about resurrection was clearly wrong. Jesus’ teaching was that the resurrected would be like the angels. There is no doubt about the resurrection of the dead, although no information is given about the resurrection body. Jesus told a story about a rich man and a poor man who both died (Lk 16:19-31). In the afterlife the rich man cries out in torment, while the poor man enjoys a state of blessedness. What is most clear from this is the certainty of the afterlife and the fact of a distinction between the two men, although we are not told on what grounds the distinction is made. Elsewhere in his teachings, Jesus suggested that the most vital requirement is faith in himself. The conversation between Jesus and the dying thief on the cross suggests that paradise for the latter consisted in an awareness of the presence of Jesus (Lk 23:42-43).<\/p>\n<p>The theme of rewards and punishment occurs in many passages. In Matthew 16:27 Jesus says that the Son of Man will reward everyone according to what he or she has done. Those who are worthless are promised punishment in darkness (Mt 25:30). Moreover, Jesus spoke of a day of judgment on which men and women must give an account, even of all their careless words (12:36-37). In the parable of the sheep and the goats, he spoke of a separation that the Son of Man will make when he comes. Those commended are those who have shown concern for the believers (25:31-46).<\/p>\n<p>Among Jesus’ most solemn statements are those that speak of hell. There is no way of getting around his teachings about eternal punishment for the unrighteous (as in Mt 25:41, 46), which is opposite to the eternal life promised to the righteous. He taught that his disciples would have a place prepared for them in heaven (Jn 14:2), and spoke of a Book of Life in which the names of his disciples were written (Lk 10:20).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutMoralIssues\">Teachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\n<p>Much of the teaching of Jesus is concerned with moral issues—so much so that some scholars have concluded that this was the main burden of his teaching. But the moral teachings cannot be considered apart from the many facets of his teachings outlined above. It has been said that there are close parallels between the teachings of Jesus and the moral teachings of Judaism. What is distinctive about Jesus’ teachings about morality is that the motive and power behind moral conduct is not conceived in terms of laws that must be obeyed. Right conduct is seen to be the result of a right relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was himself the pattern for moral behavior. He made clear that his aim was to fulfill the will of God. There is no sense of legalism in his approach to ethical decisions. When—in the Sermon on the Mount—he compared his own teaching with that of Moses, he showed the importance of penetrating to the inner meaning (cf. Mt 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32). On the face of it, Jesus made more rigorous demands than the Mosaic law, because he was concerned with probing the motives as well as the actions. Many have dismissed the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount as entirely impractical, but Jesus never intended that his teaching would be easy; he set as a target nothing less than the perfection of God himself (Mt 5:48). Nevertheless, he called his yoke easy and his burden light (11:29-30), which suggests that he was not setting out an impossible ethical pattern. It must be remembered that he was not producing a manifesto for society. His concern was that each individual should have powerful motives for right decisions on matters of conduct. His reaction against a rigid application of Sabbath observance at the expense of the welfare of a needy person illustrates this point. Concern for others was rated higher than ritual correctness.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>No account of the life and teachings of Jesus would be complete without some indication of the place that Jesus Christ gained in the developing church. Such a quest naturally takes us outside the scope of the Gospels into the testimony of the book of Acts and Paul’s letters. There we can see whether the predictions of Jesus were fulfilled and whether in fact the early Christians took his teaching seriously. Although there can be no question that Jesus Christ became central to the faith of the early Christians, he was regarded from many points of view. He was seen as Messiah in the sense of a spiritual deliverer, as Lord in the sense of being sovereign over his people, as Servant in the sense of his obedience to suffering, as Son in his relation to his Father. In many ways the full understanding of what and who he was could not have occurred until after the resurrection. Therefore, we find that many facets of his teachings about himself were more fully developed in the reflections of his people. This is true in a special sense of the writings of the apostle Paul.<\/p>\n<p>Many have found a problem in linking the Gospels with their detailed presentation of the acts and teachings of Jesus with the Christ who is so central in Paul’s beliefs. The problem arises because the apostle does not refer to any specific incident in the life of Jesus and does not reflect in his epistles any acquaintance with the large amount of teaching material in the Gospels. Does this suggest that Paul had no interest in the historical Jesus? Or could it be maintained that he knew nothing about him? Those who have driven a wedge between Paul and Jesus have not given sufficient weight to those incidental indications that Paul knew a great deal more about the historical Jesus than he states in his letters. He writes, for instance, about the meekness and gentleness of Christ (2 Cor 10:1), suggesting that he knew that Jesus had said of himself that he was meek and lowly of heart (Mt 11:29). Moreover, Paul speaks of the poverty of Christ (2 Cor 8:9) and must have known that the Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head. He certainly knows the details of how Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:23-26), and he knows of his death by crucifixion. It seems reasonable to conclude that Paul assumes that his readers will be acquainted with the Gospel material.<\/p>\n<p>It is perhaps useful in this connection to inquire whether the life and teachings of Jesus played a significant part in the early Christian proclamation. One passage that is valuable in this respect is Acts 10:36-38. In Peter’s address to Cornelius, he spoke of God’s having anointed Jesus of Nazareth, and of Jesus’ having gone about doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil. It is clear that some account of the acts of Jesus was included in the early preaching, and there is no reason to suppose that this was not a regular procedure.<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that the example of Jesus was a powerful motive for promoting right behavior. Peter appeals to it in encouraging Christians who were suffering for their faith (1 Pt 2:21). Paul also knows the value of imitation (1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thes 1:6). Since Jesus was recognized as being a man who did not sin (cf. 2 Cor 5:21), his behavior patterns would have proved invaluable for those who needed a new standard for moral action. While this idea of example is unquestionably present in the Epistles, it would be quite wrong to suppose that it formed a major part of Christian doctrine.<\/p>\n<p>There are a few references to the teachings of Jesus in the non-Gospel portion of the NT. In the Letter of James, which is almost wholly practical, there are more allusions to the teachings of Jesus than anywhere else in the NT. This is especially true in echoes of the Sermon on the Mount, and it shows the strong contribution that the moral teaching of Jesus had on the ethical values of the early Christians. Most of the expositions of doctrine in the Epistles find their basis in some aspect of the teachings of Jesus. These teachings have an ongoing significance for the development of the church.<\/p>\n<p>To what extent is knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus relevant to the 21st century? Existential theologians have driven such a wedge between the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history that the latter has ceased to have any importance for them. Christians today, no less than their first-century predecessors, need to know that the object of their faith is the same one who lived and taught in Galilee and Judea.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Ascension of Christ; Christ; Christology; Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Incarnation; Jesus Christ; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven; Messiah; Parable; Savior; Son of God; Son of Man; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of<\/h3>\n<p>Because of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? What did he mean when he spoke about the kingdom? What light does his teaching throw on the meaning of his death? What did he say about the Holy Spirit? How did he describe human beings and their needs? Did he anticipate the Christian church? Did he teach anything about the end of the world? What were the main features of his moral teaching? The following sections will seek to answer these important questions.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about God<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Himself<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about His Own Death<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Humanity<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Church<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Future<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutGod\">Teachings about God<\/p>\n<p>Anyone who comes to the teachings of Jesus after reading the OT will at once recognize that much of his teaching about God is the same. Since Jesus, as all orthodox Jews of his day, accepted the testimony of the OT as inspired, it is not surprising that his approach to God was similar. This is especially true of his assumption that God was Creator. He taught a special providential care over the created order and affirmed that God watched over such small creatures as the sparrow (Mt 10:29). There is no support in the teachings of Jesus for the view that God is uninterested in the world he made.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most characteristic titles Jesus used for God was Father. This was not new, for the idea occurs in the OT, where God is seen as Father of his people Israel. This kind of fatherhood was national rather than personal. In the intertestamental period the Jews came to regard God as so holy that he was removed from direct contact with human affairs. There had to be mediators between God and people. This exalted notion of God was not conducive to the idea of God as Father, and it is against this background that the uniqueness of the personal fatherhood of God in the teaching of Jesus must be seen. There is some evidence in Judaism that prayer to God as “Our Father” was known, but what distinguishes Jesus’ teachings from that of his contemporaries is that the fatherhood of God was central to what he taught.<\/p>\n<p>The father-son relationship is particularly vivid in John’s Gospel, where Jesus as Son is seen to be in close communion with God as Father. This comes out strongly in Jesus’ prayer in John 17 and in the frequent assertions that the Father had sent the Son and that the Son was doing the will of the Father. It is this strong relationship between God and Jesus in terms of fatherhood and sonship that led Jesus to teach men to approach God in the same way. The Lord’s Prayer at once recognizes this in its opening words. It is particularly important to note that “Our Father” precedes “hallowed be thy name,” for the more intimate idea prepares the way for the more remote. Jesus never taught men to approach God with terror.<\/p>\n<p>Although there is a connection between the way in which Jesus addressed God as Father and the way in which he taught his disciples to approach God, there is also a distinction. Jesus spoke of “my Father and your Father” when he appeared to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection (Jn 20:17), but he did not say “our Father.” His sonship was unique, for he claimed that he and the Father were one (Jn 10:30).<\/p>\n<p>In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus assured his followers that their heavenly Father knows about their needs (Mt 6:32; Lk 12:30), on the strength of which they are exhorted not to be anxious. This gives some insight into the way in which Jesus’ teachings about God has a bearing on practical issues.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHimself\">Teachings about Himself<\/p>\n<p>What Jesus said about himself is of great importance, for this undoubtedly formed the basis of what the early church came to teach about him.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus used certain titles of himself or accepted them as descriptions of himself when they were used by others. The most widely used is Son of Man. This title was used by Jesus to refer to himself but was not used by anyone else. It was used, moreover, in several different kinds of sayings. Sometimes the sayings related directly to the public ministry of Jesus, like the saying that the Son of Man was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28), or that the Son of Man had authority to forgive sins (v 10). Sometimes the sayings had a direct bearing on the Passion, as when Jesus said that the Son of Man must suffer many things (Mk 8:31; note that Mt 16:21 has “he” instead of “Son of Man”). At other times the reference is to a future appearance, as when Jesus declared to the high priest that he would see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Mk 14:62). What did Jesus mean by the title, and why did he use it?<\/p>\n<p>The title “Son of Man” had been used before. The phrase occurs in Psalm 8:4, where it refers to man or humans. Again, the expression is used many times in Ezekiel as a mode of address to the prophet, but here also it means man. A rather different use occurs in Daniel 7:13, where one like a son of man comes with the clouds before the Ancient of Days. There is a strong similarity between this passage and the words of Jesus in Mark 14:62. But an important difference is that whereas Son of Man becomes a title in Mark, it is not so in Daniel. There is some evidence for the title in Jewish apocalyptic literature (e.g., in the Similitudes of Enoch), where it represents a preexistent being who will come to judge and overthrow the enemies of God. It seems evident from this that Jesus’ use of Son of Man as a title is unique.<\/p>\n<p>The Son of Man sayings are distributed throughout the four Gospels, and there are no appreciable differences in their uses. What is at first astonishing is that though the title is so widespread in the Gospels on the lips of Jesus, it never became a name by which Jesus was known by the early Christians. In fact, only in Acts 7:56 does the title appear, in this case used by Stephen. It is clear, therefore, that it had a special meaning for Jesus that it did not have for others. There is no doubt that he was referring to himself and not to someone else, as a careful study of all the Son of Man sayings shows. Those who think that Jesus was referring to someone else arrive at this conclusion only after first dispensing with some of the sayings. The most probable reason why he used the title Son of Man was because he wanted to avoid a term like Messiah, which carried with it too many political overtones. But what did Son of Man mean to Jesus? It is rich with the idea of humanness, possibly allusions to Daniel’s “son of man,” and perhaps a touch of the Suffering Servant idea from Isaiah 53. It is most likely that Jesus saw it in terms of his mission in a way that his hearers could not fully appreciate. It is also probable that the early church preferred Messiah because this title carried the meaning of a royal deliverer; also, after the death of Jesus, there would be no further fear of political misunderstanding.<\/p>\n<p>The term Messiah, or Christ, does not belong strictly to the teachings of Jesus, since he himself never used it. The most striking instance where he accepted the ascription of Messiah was in Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi. All the synoptic Gospels record the confession “You are the Christ,” while Matthew adds the significant comment by Jesus that flesh and blood had not revealed it but “my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17). He certainly accepted the confession and regarded it as revelation. One other case in the Synoptics where he does not specifically refute messiahship is his answer to the high priest’s question “Are you the Messiah?” (Mk 14:61). In John’s Gospel, Andrew tells Peter that he had found the Messiah (Jn 1:41); the woman at Samaria talks to Jesus, and he reveals that he is the Messiah (4:25-26). There was a widespread expectation among the Jews that a deliverer would come to overthrow their political enemies, the Romans. There were various ideas about his origin (a military leader or a heavenly warrior) and his methods (the Zealots believed that deliverance could come only through armed revolution). The reticence of Jesus concerning messiahship is therefore readily understandable.<\/p>\n<p>Another title of utmost importance is Son of God, although it occurs mainly in John’s Gospel. That both Mark and John regarded Jesus in this light is clear from explicit statements in their Gospels (cf. Mk 1:1; Jn 20:30-31). There are certainly passages where Messiah is linked with Son of God and where Jesus rejects neither title (cf. Mt 16:16). But in the teachings of Jesus one passage makes abundantly clear the special relationship that Jesus had with God as Son—namely, Matthew 11:27 (also Lk 10:22, a parallel passage), where Jesus implies that he is the Son of the Father.<\/p>\n<p>Many similar passages in John’s Gospel are, however, more explicit. The Son is unquestionably preexistent, because he knows he came from the Father and returns to the Father. It is not possible from the many references to sonship in John’s Gospel to come to any other conclusion than that Jesus regarded himself as divine. It is particularly important to note that it is also in this Gospel that Jesus is portrayed most clearly in his human nature with its attendant weaknesses. Nowhere in the teachings of Jesus did he explain how God could become man, but he assumed this as a fact. He taught with the authority of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheKingdomofGod\">Teachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\n<p>No one can read the synoptic Gospels without being impressed with the frequency with which the expression “kingdom of God” (or of heaven) occurs. It was clearly an important theme in the whole teaching of Jesus. It is less evident in John’s Gospel but is nevertheless still present. Many of the parables of Jesus are specifically called parables of the kingdom. Jesus’ concept of the kingdom provided a foundational idea to the Christian gospel.<\/p>\n<p>The main idea is the rule of God over people rather than a realm that belongs to God. In other words, the emphasis is on the active reigning of the King. This is important because it means that the kingdom is inextricably affected by relationships between the members and the King. It also means the kingdom will not be expressed in institutional terms.<\/p>\n<p>There is one problem with the kingdom teachings that must be faced: its timing. Some sayings imply that it is already present, while others suggest that it will not come until the future. Some scholars disavow the idea that present and future can be held together; therefore, they reject one and concentrate on the other. Those who maintain a present understanding of the kingdom developed the idea of a social gospel, since Christianity was defined as the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. According to this view, there is no place for a future arrival of the kingdom. On the other hand, some have denied altogether the present aspect and concentrate on the future. In this case, it is difficult to see in what sense the kingdom teachings are relevant.<\/p>\n<p>Yet others have insisted that since both present and future aspects are found in the Gospel records, no explanation is satisfying that denies one at the expense of the other. One possible solution is to regard the present aspects as applying to this age but as not reaching their fulfillment until the future establishment of the kingdom. A similar solution, expressed differently, is to maintain that the reality is a future kingdom but that it has spilled over into the present. Jesus intentionally included both present and future aspects.<\/p>\n<p>That the kingdom was a theme of common interest is clear from Luke 17:20-21, where the Pharisees asked Jesus when it was coming. His answer, that it was among them, shows unmistakably a present idea. This is equally true of the statement that in the exorcism of evil spirits the kingdom had arrived (Mt 12:28; Lk 11:20). Moreover, Jesus mentioned that the kingdom has been forcefully advancing (Mt 11:12), by which he did not mean by revolutionary methods, although he clearly implied that something dynamic was already happening. This idea of dynamic power is one of the most characteristic features of the kingdom. Jesus spoke of binding the strong, armed man (Lk 11:21-22), which shows that in his ministry he expected to give a powerful demonstration against the forces of darkness.<\/p>\n<p>It is evident that the kingdom Jesus proclaimed was a kingdom in which God was supreme. It was inseparably linked with his redemptive mission, in which God was bringing spiritual deliverance to his people. Moreover, the kingdom teachings of Jesus cannot be regarded in isolation. It is part of the total message; no part of that message can be divorced from any other part without distorting the whole.<\/p>\n<p>The clearest teachings on the future aspect of the kingdom are to be found in some of the parables (Mt 13) and in the discourse on the Mt of Olives (Mt 24–25; Mk 13; Lk 21). In the latter, Jesus spoke of the future using imagery drawn from Jewish literature, like the references to clouds, to glory, and to angels in relation to the coming of the Son of Man (Mk 13:26-27). In Matthew’s account there is reference to a trumpet call, another familiar feature (Mt 24:31).<\/p>\n<p>Various features from the kingdom parables give the clearest idea of the nature of the kingdom. Membership in the kingdom is not considered to be universal, for in the parable of the sower not all the soils are productive. The same separation is seen in the parable of the tares and the parable of the dragnet. The tares are destroyed and only the wheat is harvested, while the bad fish are discarded. The members of the kingdom are those who hear and understand the word of the kingdom (Mt 13:23). It is clear, therefore, that a response is necessary if the benefits of the kingdom are to be enjoyed.<\/p>\n<p>There is an emphasis on growth in the parable of the mustard seed, where rapid development occurs from small beginnings. The parables of the treasure and the pearl are intended to underline the value of the kingdom. The universal character of the kingdom comes out sharply in the parable of the vineyard, where the kingdom is said to be taken away from the Jews and given to another “nation,” presumably an allusion to the Gentiles (Mt 21:43). This is in line with the great commission Jesus gave to his disciples to preach to all nations (28:19). A universal kingdom would certainly be entirely different from the messianic kingdom idea of Judaism, in which Israel was to be the central unit. It is not easy to appreciate how revolutionary the idea was of a worldwide kingdom with Gentiles and Jews on the same footing.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHisOwnDeath\">Teachings about His Own Death<\/p>\n<p>The announcement of the kingdom must be linked with Jesus’ approach to his own death. Did Jesus see his death as an integral part of his mission? Some have maintained that he ended his life in disillusionment, but a brief survey of his teaching about his own destiny is sufficient to dispel such a theory. To the further question, “What meaning did Jesus attach to his forthcoming death?” he gave a series of passing indications that, when taken together, supply us with a basis on which to reconstruct some idea of the place of his death within the entire range of his mission.<\/p>\n<p>It is important to note that many times Jesus showed his awareness that details of his life were a fulfillment of Scripture (cf. Mt 26:24, 56; Mk 9:12; Lk 18:31; 24:25-27, 44-45). In all the instances cited, the suffering of Jesus is referred to as the subject of OT prophecy. This must mean that he had reflected on OT predictions and recognized that they could be fulfilled only through his own sufferings. In this case the Passion must be regarded as an indispensable part of Jesus’ consciousness of his own mission.<\/p>\n<p>This emphasis on fulfillment of Scripture is also seen in John’s Gospel. His statement that the Son of Man must be lifted up even as Moses lifted up the serpent (Jn 3:14) illustrates this point. Most of the passages where fulfillment of Scripture is mentioned are the comments of the Evangelist, John. But there can be no doubt that the fulfillment motive played a vital part both in Jesus’ own understanding of his mission and in the early Christians’ understanding of his death. In this connection, some hold that John puts more stress on the Incarnation as a means of salvation in that he sees it as an illumination of the mind. But this is only part of the truth, for there is more on the meaning of the death of Jesus in John’s Gospel than in the others.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospels emphasize the divine necessity of the death of Jesus. In addition to the fulfillment motive, the idea of necessity is strong in the first prediction by Jesus of his approaching death. In John’s Gospel Jesus speaks of his “hour” several times in the earlier stages of his ministry as “not yet,” but in the later stages as having arrived. There is a sense of definite movement toward a climax, the hour undoubtedly being the hour of the Passion (cf. Jn 17:1). There is not room for any disillusionment here. Jesus knew that only through the hour of death could the Father be glorified. The climax was according to an orderly plan.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus evidently regarded his death as in some ways a sacrifice. The clearest indication of this is in the words of institution at the Last Supper. The cup is connected with the blood of the new covenant, which is said to be for the “remission of sins” (Mt 26:26-28). No explanation is given of the way in which the coming death, signified by the broken bread and poured-out wine, would bring about forgiveness of sins. But the immediate realization by the early church that Christ died for our sins (cf. 1 Cor 15:3) shows that the importance of what Jesus said had been clearly grasped. The new covenant idea is parallel to the old covenant, which according to Exodus 24 was sealed with sacrificial blood; there can be little doubt that Jesus had this in mind when he spoke the words about the new covenant. It was also akin to the ideas expressed in Jeremiah 31, referring to a covenant written on the heart rather than graven in stone.<\/p>\n<p>Another aspect of the death of Christ seen especially in John’s Gospel is the sense of completion that went with it. In Jesus’ prayer in John 17, as he faces the cross, he declares that he has finished the work that the Father had given him to do (Jn 17:4). This is reinforced by the cry from the cross, “It is finished,” which only John records (19:30). This sense of accomplishment gives an air of triumph to what might otherwise have been considered a disaster.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheHolySpirit\">Teachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n<p>At several of the major events in the life of Jesus, the Evangelists note the activity of the Spirit (e.g., the Virgin Birth, the Baptism, the Temptation). It is to be expected, therefore, that Jesus would have instructed his disciples about the Spirit. However, there is surprisingly little in the synoptic Gospels on this theme. Most of the teachings come from John’s Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus began his preaching ministry in Nazareth, according to Luke, he read the statement in Isaiah 61:1-2 about the Spirit of God and applied it to himself. He saw his ministry as being inaugurated by the Spirit. This becomes clear in the way in which he responded to the charge that he cast out demons by means of Beelzebub, prince of the demons. He identified the reality of the coming of the kingdom by the fact that he was casting out evil spirits by the Spirit of God (Mt 12:28). He was, moreover, sensitive to the seriousness of blaspheming the Spirit, which he implies his accusers were in danger of doing. Whatever he did in his ministry he saw as an activity of the Spirit, and this was especially so in the contest with evil spirits.<\/p>\n<p>While warning his disciples that they would meet with opposition, Jesus assured them of the Spirit’s support when they were forced to appear before kings or governors (Mt 10:19-20; Mk 13:11). Indeed, he told them that the Spirit would speak through them, thus emphasizing that he expected a continuation of the Spirit’s activity in the future. Luke records one instance in which Jesus comments on what fathers will do for their children and asks whether God will not give the Holy Spirit to those who ask (Lk 11:13). The assumption is that God regards the Holy Spirit as the best gift to give his children. On yet another occasion, Jesus recognized that David was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote Psalm 110 (Mk 12:36), reflecting Jesus’ belief in the Spirit’s agency in the production of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of John provides a more detailed development of what Jesus taught about the Spirit. Teachings about the Spirit are usually linked to Jesus’ teachings about giving eternal life to those who believe in him and receive him. At the same time he spoke of the new birth and eternal life to Nicodemus, Jesus also spoke of the Spirit (Jn 3:3-8, 15-16). When he spoke of water of life to the Samaritan woman, he also spoke of the Spirit (4:14, 23-24). The same holds true for the discourses on the bread of life (6:48-63) and river of life (7:37-39). Throughout the Gospel, Jesus declares to various people that he can give them eternal life if they would believe in him. He promises them the water of life, the bread of life, and the light of life, but no one could really partake of these until after the Lord was resurrected. As a foretaste, as a sample, they could receive a certain measure of life via the Lord’s words, because his words were themselves spirit and life (6:63), but it was not until the Spirit would become available that the believers could actually become the recipients of the divine, eternal life.<\/p>\n<p>After the Lord’s discourse in John 6 (a discourse that was very troubling and offensive to most of his disciples), Jesus said, “It is the Spirit who gives eternal life” (6:63). When the Spirit became available, they could have life. Again, Jesus offered the water of life—even life flowing like rivers of living water—to the Jews assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles. He told them to come and drink of him. But no one could, then and there, come and drink of him. So John added a note: “This He spoke of the Spirit, . . . for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39, <span>nasb<\/span>). Once Jesus would be glorified through resurrection, the Spirit of the glorified Jesus would be available for men to drink. In John 6, Jesus offered himself as the bread of life to be eaten by men; and in John 7, he offered himself as the water of life to refresh men. But no one could eat of him or drink of him until the Spirit of the glorified Jesus was made available, as was intimated in John 6:63 and then stated plainly in John 7:39.<\/p>\n<p>In John 14:16-18, Jesus went one step further in identifying himself with the Spirit. He told the disciples that he would give them another Comforter. Then he told them that they should know who this Comforter was because he was, then and there, abiding with them and would, in the near future, be in them. Who else but Jesus was abiding with them at that time? Then after telling the disciples that the Comforter would come to them, he said, “I am coming to you.” First he said that the Comforter would come to them and abide in them, and then in the same breath he said that he would come to them and abide in them (see 14:20). In short, the coming of the Comforter to the disciples was one and the same as the coming of Jesus to the disciples. The Comforter who was dwelling with the disciples that night was the Spirit in Christ; the Comforter who would be in the disciples (after the resurrection) would be Christ in the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>On the evening of the resurrection, the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples and then breathed into them the Holy Spirit. This inbreathing, reminiscent of God’s breathing into Adam the breath of life (Gn 2:7), became the fulfillment of all that had been promised and anticipated earlier in John’s Gospel. Through this impartation, the disciples were regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This historical event marked the genesis of the new creation. Jesus could now be realized as the bread of life, the water of life, and the light of life. The believers now possessed his divine, eternal, risen life. From that time forward, Christ as Spirit indwelt his believers. Thus, in his first epistle John could say, “We know he lives in us because the Holy Spirit lives in us” (1 Jn 3:24).<\/p>\n<p>The indwelling Spirit helped the disciples remember Jesus’ words and actions (Jn 14:26) so that they could teach and write about them with acumen. This means that Jesus did not intend that the preservation of his teachings should be left to chance. All too often theories attempting to explain the way in which the traditions about Jesus and his teachings were transmitted in the period before there were any written Gospels are suggested without any reference to the Holy Spirit. It is not acceptable to concentrate on so-called laws of oral tradition and pay no attention to the unique factor in this case—the Holy Spirit. It is part of the Spirit’s mission to preserve and transmit the teaching of Jesus. What Jesus says in this passage about the Spirit has far-reaching significance for the formation of the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Another important function is the activity of the Spirit in the world. Jesus made it clear that the Spirit would convict of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment (Jn 16:8). Without the activity of the Spirit, there would be no possibility of the disciples making any impact on the world. Nevertheless, Jesus warned that the world could not receive the Spirit because it did not know him (14:17). The mystery of the Spirit is that he dwells in every believer. This indwelling aspect is of great importance and was particularly developed in the writings of Paul.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHumanity\">Teachings about Humanity<\/p>\n<p>Jesus taught about God’s providential care over all human beings. A person’s hairs are all numbered (Mt 10:30), which is a vivid way of saying that God is concerned about the details of human life. But God is far more concerned with the eternal soul. Jesus made it clear that it would be unprofitable for anyone to gain the world and to lose his or her soul (Mt 16:26; Mk 8:36; Lk 9:25). The focus falls on what a person is and not what he or she has. Jesus even said that a maimed body was preferable to a forfeited life (Mk 9:43-47). One’s total fulfillment depends more on one’s spiritual condition than on one’s environment or physical well-being. He was not, of course, unconcerned about people’s physical state, as his many healings show, but his major concern was with people’s relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus never viewed humans as isolated individuals. Within God’s community people were expected to have responsibility toward one another. The Sermon on the Mount illustrated this social emphasis in the teaching of Jesus. Those who are merciful to others will obtain mercy (Mt 5:7). There is special commendation for peacemakers (v 9). The disciples of Jesus are expected to bring light to others (v 16). They are expected to give more than expected (v 40). Jesus is clearly saying that people have responsibility beyond themselves.<\/p>\n<p>The relation of people to God is one of dependence. Jesus taught men and women to pray to God for daily bread (Mt 6:11) as a reminder that they cannot be wholly self-sufficient. He allowed no place in his teaching for humans to boast in their own achievements.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had some specific things to say about home life. He accepted the sanctity of the marriage contract (Mt 5:31-32; cf. 19:3-9) and therefore showed a high regard for the honor and rights of the wife. It was more in his actions and attitudes rather than his specific teachings that Jesus showed his regard for the status of women. When he spoke of men, he often used the term in the sense of people, including both men and women. There is no suggestion that in matters of faith women were in the least inferior to men. Moreover, Luke points out how many women supported Jesus and his disciples in their travels.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had a high view of the human potential but also acknowledged their present condition. The stress on repentance (Mt 4:17) shows a sinfulness of which people need to repent. This sense of need is implicit in the instances where Jesus pronounces forgiveness (e.g., to the paralytic, Mt 9:1-8; and to the woman who anointed him, Lk 7:47-48). In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus instructs his disciples to pray for forgiveness (Mt 6:12; Lk 11:4). He takes for granted that they need it and desire to obtain it.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus gives no support to any self-righteousness in men or women. This is the burden of his criticism of the religious leaders in various sayings, but particularly in Matthew 23. He was critical of Jewish teachers because they placed so much importance on works of merit as contributing to salvation. His whole approach depended on humans casting themselves on the mercy of God. This is vividly illustrated in the parable about the Pharisee and the tax collector at prayer (Lk 18:10-14). It was the latter who threw himself on the mercy of God and who was commended by Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Undoubtedly, Jesus regarded sin as universal. He never suggested that there was anyone who was exempt from it. The major concept of sin in his teachings was alienation from God. This comes out clearly in John’s Gospel, with its strong antithesis between light and darkness, life and death (cf. Jn 5:24). Indeed, the “world” in John’s Gospel represents the system that takes no account of God. But sin is also seen as enslavement to Satan. The life and teachings of Jesus are seen against the background of spiritual conflict. Jesus can even say to his opponents, “You are of your father the devil” (Jn 8:44). He assumes throughout that there are hostile forces bringing man into subjection.<\/p>\n<p>In the parable of the prodigal son, sin against God is linked with sin before the father. In other words, it is regarded in terms of rebellion and revolt (Lk 15:21). This is a different assessment of the son’s offense than the one arrived at by the elder brother, who could see it only in terms of property. The view that humans are essentially in a state of rebellion against God is a basic tenet of Paul’s theological position, and it is important to note that it finds its root in the teachings of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>There is no question that Jesus had much to say about condemnation. Those who did not believe and were therefore outside the provision of salvation that Jesus had made are declared to be already condemned (Jn 3:18). At various times Jesus mentioned judgment to come, which shows that a person’s destiny is related to his or her present spiritual condition. Against this background of humanity’s spiritual need, the whole mission of Jesus must be seen. A person, if left to himself or herself, would be totally unable to achieve salvation, but Jesus came to offer eternal life to those who believe in him (Jn 3:16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheChurch\">Teachings about the Church<\/p>\n<p>Some have supposed that Jesus did not predict that there would be a church. But on two occasions he used the word “church,” which means a people called out by God. On one of the occasions—at Caesarea Philippi—Jesus told Peter that he would build his church upon the rock (Mt 16:16-19). It seems most probable that “rock” was intended to link the foundation of the church to Peter’s particular confession about Jesus. It is certain that the later church was a community that affirmed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is important to note that it is Christ himself who is the builder of the church. He assured his disciples that it would be impregnable (the gates of hades would not overcome it). Moreover, one of the functions of the church was to proclaim forgiveness of sins, and this is implied in what Jesus said to Peter. That the words were not intended to refer exclusively to him is clear from Matthew 18:18, where similar words were addressed to all the disciples. The church, according to Matthew 18:17, was to be a community that could settle disputes between believers.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to these specific references to the church, Jesus assumed that his followers would meet together in his name (Mt 18:19-20). In his final words in Matthew’s account, he commissioned them to teach what he had taught them and to baptize new disciples (Mt 28:19-20). He promised his presence would be with them. The command to baptize was reinforced by Jesus’ own example in submitting to John’s baptism. One other special rite that Jesus expected his disciples to observe was the Lord’s Supper. His instructions about this presuppose a later community that could observe it. Since the form of words used in the institution point to the meaning of the death of Christ, it is clear that Jesus intended the future community to be frequently reminded of the center of the faith. The Christian church was to be a group of people who knew that through Christ they had entered into a new relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Although there are no references to the church in John’s Gospel, there are certainly hints that support the community idea. Jesus introduced himself as the Shepherd and spoke of his followers as forming a flock (Jn 10:16). The sheep imagery occurs again in this Gospel when Peter is instructed three times by the risen Lord to feed the sheep (Jn 21:15-17). Another figure of speech that Jesus used to bring out the group idea is that of the many branches that draw their life from the vine, and therefore belong to each other because of their common life in the vine.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus recognized that the future community would need the aid of the Spirit. His teachings on this subject laid the foundation for the evident dependence of the early church on the Spirit, as seen in the book of Acts. Finally, it should be noted that there is a close connection between the church and the kingdom, although they are not identical. The kingdom is more comprehensive than the church, which is included within it.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheFuture\">Teachings about the Future<\/p>\n<p>Jesus thought of the kingdom in terms of both present realization and future hope. The future aspect is related to the end of the age. Although he did not spell it out in specific terms, Jesus did not leave his disciples without any knowledge of how the present age would end. He gave firm assurance that he would return at some time in the future.<\/p>\n<p>He told the disciples that the Son of Man would come with his angels in his Father’s glory (Mt 16:27). In the discourse in which he answers the disciples’ question about the end of the world, he speaks again of the Son of Man coming in clouds with power and glory (Mk 13:26), probably drawn from the familiar language of Daniel 7. Jesus described various signs that would precede his own coming. He spoke of wars, conflicts, earthquakes, famines, and disturbances in the heavens. The gospel was to be preached to all nations. At the same time many false Christs would arise.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus gave such details about his return to encourage his disciples in the face of persecution. The future hope had a definitely practical purpose. The disciples were urged to watch. The coming would happen as unexpectedly as a thief in the night. Jesus said that even he himself did not know when the coming would take place (Mk 13:32).<\/p>\n<p>Another important theme affecting the future is emphasized in Jesus’ teachings about resurrection. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the body. They attempted to trap Jesus with a question about a woman who had been married seven times. They wanted to know whose husband she would be at the resurrection (Mk 12:18-27). Jesus pointed out that there would be no marriage when the dead rise. The Sadducees’ idea about resurrection was clearly wrong. Jesus’ teaching was that the resurrected would be like the angels. There is no doubt about the resurrection of the dead, although no information is given about the resurrection body. Jesus told a story about a rich man and a poor man who both died (Lk 16:19-31). In the afterlife the rich man cries out in torment, while the poor man enjoys a state of blessedness. What is most clear from this is the certainty of the afterlife and the fact of a distinction between the two men, although we are not told on what grounds the distinction is made. Elsewhere in his teachings, Jesus suggested that the most vital requirement is faith in himself. The conversation between Jesus and the dying thief on the cross suggests that paradise for the latter consisted in an awareness of the presence of Jesus (Lk 23:42-43).<\/p>\n<p>The theme of rewards and punishment occurs in many passages. In Matthew 16:27 Jesus says that the Son of Man will reward everyone according to what he or she has done. Those who are worthless are promised punishment in darkness (Mt 25:30). Moreover, Jesus spoke of a day of judgment on which men and women must give an account, even of all their careless words (12:36-37). In the parable of the sheep and the goats, he spoke of a separation that the Son of Man will make when he comes. Those commended are those who have shown concern for the believers (25:31-46).<\/p>\n<p>Among Jesus’ most solemn statements are those that speak of hell. There is no way of getting around his teachings about eternal punishment for the unrighteous (as in Mt 25:41, 46), which is opposite to the eternal life promised to the righteous. He taught that his disciples would have a place prepared for them in heaven (Jn 14:2), and spoke of a Book of Life in which the names of his disciples were written (Lk 10:20).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutMoralIssues\">Teachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\n<p>Much of the teaching of Jesus is concerned with moral issues—so much so that some scholars have concluded that this was the main burden of his teaching. But the moral teachings cannot be considered apart from the many facets of his teachings outlined above. It has been said that there are close parallels between the teachings of Jesus and the moral teachings of Judaism. What is distinctive about Jesus’ teachings about morality is that the motive and power behind moral conduct is not conceived in terms of laws that must be obeyed. Right conduct is seen to be the result of a right relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was himself the pattern for moral behavior. He made clear that his aim was to fulfill the will of God. There is no sense of legalism in his approach to ethical decisions. When—in the Sermon on the Mount—he compared his own teaching with that of Moses, he showed the importance of penetrating to the inner meaning (cf. Mt 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32). On the face of it, Jesus made more rigorous demands than the Mosaic law, because he was concerned with probing the motives as well as the actions. Many have dismissed the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount as entirely impractical, but Jesus never intended that his teaching would be easy; he set as a target nothing less than the perfection of God himself (Mt 5:48). Nevertheless, he called his yoke easy and his burden light (11:29-30), which suggests that he was not setting out an impossible ethical pattern. It must be remembered that he was not producing a manifesto for society. His concern was that each individual should have powerful motives for right decisions on matters of conduct. His reaction against a rigid application of Sabbath observance at the expense of the welfare of a needy person illustrates this point. Concern for others was rated higher than ritual correctness.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>No account of the life and teachings of Jesus would be complete without some indication of the place that Jesus Christ gained in the developing church. Such a quest naturally takes us outside the scope of the Gospels into the testimony of the book of Acts and Paul’s letters. There we can see whether the predictions of Jesus were fulfilled and whether in fact the early Christians took his teaching seriously. Although there can be no question that Jesus Christ became central to the faith of the early Christians, he was regarded from many points of view. He was seen as Messiah in the sense of a spiritual deliverer, as Lord in the sense of being sovereign over his people, as Servant in the sense of his obedience to suffering, as Son in his relation to his Father. In many ways the full understanding of what and who he was could not have occurred until after the resurrection. Therefore, we find that many facets of his teachings about himself were more fully developed in the reflections of his people. This is true in a special sense of the writings of the apostle Paul.<\/p>\n<p>Many have found a problem in linking the Gospels with their detailed presentation of the acts and teachings of Jesus with the Christ who is so central in Paul’s beliefs. The problem arises because the apostle does not refer to any specific incident in the life of Jesus and does not reflect in his epistles any acquaintance with the large amount of teaching material in the Gospels. Does this suggest that Paul had no interest in the historical Jesus? Or could it be maintained that he knew nothing about him? Those who have driven a wedge between Paul and Jesus have not given sufficient weight to those incidental indications that Paul knew a great deal more about the historical Jesus than he states in his letters. He writes, for instance, about the meekness and gentleness of Christ (2 Cor 10:1), suggesting that he knew that Jesus had said of himself that he was meek and lowly of heart (Mt 11:29). Moreover, Paul speaks of the poverty of Christ (2 Cor 8:9) and must have known that the Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head. He certainly knows the details of how Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:23-26), and he knows of his death by crucifixion. It seems reasonable to conclude that Paul assumes that his readers will be acquainted with the Gospel material.<\/p>\n<p>It is perhaps useful in this connection to inquire whether the life and teachings of Jesus played a significant part in the early Christian proclamation. One passage that is valuable in this respect is Acts 10:36-38. In Peter’s address to Cornelius, he spoke of God’s having anointed Jesus of Nazareth, and of Jesus’ having gone about doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil. It is clear that some account of the acts of Jesus was included in the early preaching, and there is no reason to suppose that this was not a regular procedure.<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that the example of Jesus was a powerful motive for promoting right behavior. Peter appeals to it in encouraging Christians who were suffering for their faith (1 Pt 2:21). Paul also knows the value of imitation (1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thes 1:6). Since Jesus was recognized as being a man who did not sin (cf. 2 Cor 5:21), his behavior patterns would have proved invaluable for those who needed a new standard for moral action. While this idea of example is unquestionably present in the Epistles, it would be quite wrong to suppose that it formed a major part of Christian doctrine.<\/p>\n<p>There are a few references to the teachings of Jesus in the non-Gospel portion of the NT. In the Letter of James, which is almost wholly practical, there are more allusions to the teachings of Jesus than anywhere else in the NT. This is especially true in echoes of the Sermon on the Mount, and it shows the strong contribution that the moral teaching of Jesus had on the ethical values of the early Christians. Most of the expositions of doctrine in the Epistles find their basis in some aspect of the teachings of Jesus. These teachings have an ongoing significance for the development of the church.<\/p>\n<p>To what extent is knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus relevant to the 21st century? Existential theologians have driven such a wedge between the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history that the latter has ceased to have any importance for them. Christians today, no less than their first-century predecessors, need to know that the object of their faith is the same one who lived and taught in Galilee and Judea.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Ascension of Christ; Christ; Christology; Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Incarnation; Jesus Christ; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven; Messiah; Parable; Savior; Son of God; Son of Man; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of Because of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? Wh...","summary_en":"JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of Because of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? Wh...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20219,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of John","title_en":"Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>JOHN, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>The fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospels. (See discussion above on John, the Apostle.)<\/p>\n\n<p>The Gospel appears to have been written by one who knew the Jews and the Palestine of Jesus’ day well. He was familiar with Jewish messianic expectations (e.g., Jn 1:20-21; 4:25; 7:40-42; 12:34). He knew of the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (4:9) and the contempt the Pharisees had for “the people of the land” (7:49). He knew of the importance attached to the religious schools (v 15). He knew the way the Sabbath was observed and was aware of the provision that the obligation to circumcise on the eighth day overrides the Sabbath regulations (vv 22-23). Throughout the Gospel he moved with certainty in the vast range of Jewish ideas and customs.<\/p>\n<p>It is the same with topography. The writer mentioned many places, and his place-names all seem to be used correctly. He referred to Cana, a village not mentioned in any earlier literature known to us, which means that the reference almost certainly came from someone who actually knew the place. He located Bethany with some precision as about 15 stadia from Jerusalem (about 2 miles, or 3.2 kilometers, 11:18). He had several references to places in or near Jerusalem, such as Bethesda (5:2), Siloam (9:7), and the Kidron Valley (18:1). Of course, this does not rule out some contemporary of John’s, but it makes it difficult to think of the author as a much later individual writing at a distance from Palestine. The evidence as we have it indicates that the writer was a Jew in the Palestine of Jesus’ day.<\/p>\n<p>To many careful readers, it seems that the Gospel bears the stamp of an eyewitness. For example, Jesus was teaching “in the treasury” (8:20). Nothing is made of the point; the incident could easily have been told without it. It looks like a reminiscence of someone who sees the scene in his mind’s eye as he writes. The fact that the house was filled with fragrance when the woman broke the perfume jar (12:3) does not materially affect the account but is the kind of detail that one who was there would remember. The author noted that the loaves used in the feeding of the multitude were barley loaves (6:9) and that Jesus’ tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top to bottom (19:23). He told us that the branches with which Jesus was greeted were palm branches (12:13), and that it was night when Judas went out (13:30). Such touches are found throughout the Gospel, and it seems unjustified to treat them as no more than an attempt to create verisimilitude. They seem much more like indications that the author was writing about events in which he had himself taken part.<\/p>\n<p>The early church accepted Johannine authorship without question. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all see the apostle as the author. The first to quote this Gospel by name was Theophilus of Antioch, about <span>AD<\/span> 180.<\/p>\n<p>Those who object to Johannine authorship emphasize the differences between this Gospel and the Synoptics. The argument is that if Jesus was anything like the Christ portrayed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he could not be like the Christ of the fourth Gospel. This is a completely subjective argument, ignoring the fact that any great man will appear differently to different people. The judgment of the church throughout the centuries has been that Jesus was large enough to inspire both portraits. To put the same point another way, we have no reason for holding that the first three Evangelists tell us all there is to know about Jesus. There is no contradiction. John simply brings out other aspects of Jesus’ life and teachings.<\/p>\n<p>While we cannot prove beyond all doubt that John the apostle was the author, we can say that there is more reason for holding to this view than to any other.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateOriginandDestination\">Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>It has been usual for conservatives and liberals alike to date this writing in the last decade of the first century or early in the second. Some liberal scholars have put it well into the second century, but this is not common, and it is remarkable that there has been such a considerable measure of agreement.<\/p>\n<p>It is said that this Gospel is dependent on the Synoptics, which means that it must be dated sometime after them. But this argument has been widely abandoned in recent times. There is so much in John that is without parallel in the other three Gospels, and conversely so much in the other three that John might have used had he known it, that it is very difficult indeed to hold that this writer had any of the other Gospels before him when he wrote, or even that he had read them. Such resemblances as there are seem better explained by common use of oral tradition.<\/p>\n<p>It is also argued that there is a very developed theology in John and that we must allow time for its development. Granted, the theology of this Gospel is profound, but this does not require that we must wait for it until the end of the first century. The theology of the Letter to the Romans is also profound, and there is no reason for dating that writing later than the 50s. On the ground of development, then, there is no reason for putting John later than Romans. Development is a slippery argument at best, for it usually takes place at uneven rates, and we have no means of knowing how fast it took place in the area where the author lived.<\/p>\n<p>Other arguments for a late date are no more conclusive. For example, it is urged that the ecclesiastical system presupposed by the Gospel is too late for the time of the apostle John, and that the sacramental system of chapters 3 and 6 must have taken time to develop. But John does not mention any sacrament. It is true that many scholars think these chapters refer to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but the fact is that John mentions neither.<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising in view of the way the traditional arguments have crumbled away that many in recent times are arguing that John must have been written before the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it were later, why does not John have some reference to it? Some of his language appears to be earlier. In 5:2 he says there “is” (not “was”) a pool called Bethesda. And he often refers to the Twelve as Jesus’ disciples, or “his” disciples, or the like. In later times Christians usually said “the” disciples, for they saw no need to say whose the disciples were. But in the early days, when Christians were in contact with rabbis (each of whom had his disciples), it was important to show that Jesus’ disciples were in mind. It is important also that John makes no reference to any of the synoptic Gospels. The simplest explanation is that he had not seen them. They were not yet widely circulated.<\/p>\n<p>None of this enables us to date this Gospel with precision. But the weight of evidence points to an early date (before <span>AD<\/span> 70).<\/p>\n<p>The author was John the apostle, a Jew. However, the writing gives evidence of contact with Greek thought, for example, in the reference to Christ as “the Word” in chapter 1 and the translation of words like “rabbi” (1:38). It is almost universally held that such considerations compel us to see the work as originating in a center of Greek culture, and Ephesus has traditionally been favored. Before the end of the second century we have Irenaeus writing that John published the Gospel during his residence at Ephesus.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars point to similarities between John and the Odes of Solomon, which they think came from Syria. As there are also some resemblances in the language of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in the early second century, this is held to show that John was written in Syria, probably at Antioch. Others again think that Egypt was the place, and they support this by pointing out that the oldest fragment of a manuscript of this Gospel was found there. There is no real evidence, and we are left with probabilities. There is much to be said for accepting the evidence of Irenaeus and seeing Ephesus as the place of origin, but we can scarcely say more.<\/p>\n<p>There is no real indication of the intended destination. From 20:31 we learn that the book was written that the readers might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, God’s Son, and that by believing they might have life. The Gospel, then, has an evangelistic aim. But it is also possible that “believe” means “keep on believing”—“go on in faith,” rather than “begin to believe.” That is to say, the book may have been meant from the beginning to build people up in the faith. Probably we should not distinguish between these aims too sharply. Both may well be in mind.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>Several possible backgrounds to the Gospel have been suggested. The Greek interest is obvious, and this writing has sometimes been called the Gospel of the Hellenists. The suggestion is that we should look to Greek writings, perhaps the works of the philosophers or Philo of Alexandria, to find the right background against which to understand what John has written. This approach may be seen in the work of Rudolf Bultmann, who thought specifically of Gnosticism. Indeed, for Bultmann one of the sources of this Gospel was a discourse source that he thought was taken from non-Christian Gnosticism. Not many have been prepared to follow Bultmann, but a number of recent commentators have discerned some form of Gnosticism as the backdrop to John.<\/p>\n<p>While such views are put forward seriously, there are some substantial objections. One is that, despite the confident assertions of some scholars, Gnosticism has never been shown to be earlier than Christianity. In the form in which it comes before us in history, it is a Christian heresy, and of course, the Christian faith must appear before a Christian heresy is possible. Another objection is that there is a basic difference between the two systems. Gnosticism is concerned with knowledge (the very word is derived from the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span><em>,<\/em> “knowledge”). Its “redeemer” is one who comes from heaven with knowledge. But John does not subscribe to the view that man is saved by knowledge. The Redeemer comes to take away the sin of the world (1:29). Gnosticism tells people that life is an upward struggle; Christianity tells of a Savior who came down to raise them up. It is not easy to see any form of Gnosticism as the essential background to Christianity.<\/p>\n<p>Much more significant is John’s Semitic background. Especially important here is the OT, accepted as sacred Scripture by Jew and Christian alike. It lies constantly behind John’s statements, and it must be studied carefully if John is to be understood. It is plain that John knew and loved the Septuagint, the translation into Greek of the Hebrew OT. Again and again, the Septuagint can be shown to lie behind what John says.<\/p>\n<p>In modern times important discoveries have been made at Qumran, in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. Among the scrolls unearthed in the caves of this area are several that have affinities with John. Indeed, one of the interesting facts about the scrolls is that they have more parallels with John than with any other part of the NT, a fact difficult to explain if John was written late and at a distance from Palestine. The resemblances to the Qumran writings must be viewed with care, for there is often a linguistic resemblance where the thinking is quite different. For example, both use the unusual expression “the Spirit of truth.” But where John means one of the persons of the Trinity, the scrolls speak of “a spirit of truth” and “a spirit of error” striving in the souls of people. The connection is real, but John is clearly not dependent on the scrolls for his thinking. The contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they afford additional evidence that this Gospel is basically Palestinian and must be understood against a background of first-century Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>Other backgrounds have been suggested, such as the Hermetic literature. This is a group of writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus (“Hermes Thrice-greatest”), a designation of the Egyptian god Thoth. There are indeed some points of contact with John, but they are few in comparison with those of writings rooted in Palestine. It is difficult to take such suggestions seriously. John is essentially Palestinian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The writer told us that Jesus did many “signs” (or miracles) that he had not recorded, but “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life” (Jn 20:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). John wrote to show that Jesus is the Messiah. But he did not do this simply with a view to conveying interesting information. He wanted his readers to see this knowledge as a challenge to faith; when they believe, they will have life. John sought to bring men and women to Christ; he had an evangelistic aim. That does not exhaust what he was trying to do, for his words have meaning for believers. It is important that believers have a right knowledge of Jesus and that they continue to believe.<\/p>\n<p>The main theological teaching of this Gospel, then, is that God has sent his Messiah, Jesus. He is the very Son of God, and he comes to bring life (3:16). Though Jesus told the woman at the well that he was the Messiah, this is not often said so specifically. The avoidance of the term might well be because of the political overtones it had acquired among the Jews at large. They looked for a Messiah who would fight the Romans. He would defeat them and set up a mighty world empire with its capital in Jerusalem. Jesus was not aiming at anything like that, and it was important that he avoid the kind of language that would give that impression. But though the conventional messianic terminology is avoided, John left no doubt that Jesus was God’s chosen one. Again and again he depicted Jesus as fulfilling messianic functions. For example, in the long discourse in chapter 6 we see Jesus as the bread from heaven, fulfilling the expectation that when Messiah came, he would renew the manna; and in the giving of sight to the blind man (ch 9) we have another messianic function (cf. Is 35:5).<\/p>\n<p>With this greatness of Jesus, John also combined teaching about his lowliness. A continuing, though unobtrusive, strand of Johannine teaching is that Jesus depends on the Father for everything. Apart from the Father, Jesus said, he could do nothing (Jn 5:30). His very food is to do the Father’s will (4:34). He lives through the Father (6:57). It is the Father who gives him his disciples (6:37, 44; 17:6). It is the Father who bears witness to him (5:32, 37). John insists that Jesus is in no sense independent of the Father. In the mission of Jesus, John sees the working out of the purpose of the Father.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Prologue and Chapter 1<\/h5>\n<p>John begins with a prologue (1:1-18) that is unlike anything in any of the other Gospels. In it he refers to Jesus as “the Word,” a term that has points of contact with both Greek and Hebrew thinking. As John uses it, it conveys the thought that Jesus is the expression of the mind of the Father. John speaks of the Word as God (1:1), sees him as active in creation (1:3-5), goes on to the witness borne to him by John the Baptist (1:6-8), speaks of the coming of the Word into the world (1:9-14), and finishes with a section on the greatness of the Word (1:15-18). In this prologue he briefly introduces some of the great themes that will be developed throughout the Gospel. It is a majestic introduction to the whole.<\/p>\n<p>Next we have the beginnings of Jesus’ public ministry (1:19-51). Jesus’ work was preceded by that of John the Baptist, and the Evangelist tells us first about the kind of witness that the Baptist gave to Jesus. Witness is one of his important concepts, and witness is all that John the Baptist does in this Gospel. From this witness we move to the way the first disciples came to Jesus. We learn something of how Andrew and Peter came to know the Lord. We read also of Philip and Nathanael, of whom we learn little or nothing in the other Gospels.<\/p>\n<h5>The Signs and Discourses (2:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The public ministry of Jesus is described in a very distinctive way in this Gospel. John has a long section (chs 2–12) in which he tells of a number of miracles Jesus did, interweaving into his account a series of discourses. Sometimes these are addresses given to groups of people, and sometimes they are talks with individuals. Some scholars call this section of the Gospel the Book of Signs, thus emphasizing the prominent place given to seven miracles. For John they are not simply wonders. They are meaningful; in the literal sense of the term they are <em>sign<\/em>ificant.<\/p>\n<p>The first of them is the turning of the water into wine at a marriage in Cana of Galilee (2:1-11). The water in question is connected with Jewish rites of purification (v 6), and the story is surely to teach us that Jesus transforms life. He changes the water of the law into the wine of the gospel. As a result of this “sign,” his disciples believed in him (v 11). John went on to tell how Jesus went up to Jerusalem and drove the traders out of the temple. They were selling animals for sacrifice and changing money. But their business was being done in the Court of the Gentiles, the only place in the temple where a Gentile could come to meditate and pray.<\/p>\n<p>The first discourse is on the new birth (3:1-21). Jesus talked with Nicodemus, a leading Pharisee, about the necessity for radical renewal if one is to enter the kingdom. Jesus was speaking of God’s regenerating activity, not some human reformation. Following this, John records a dispute between some of John’s disciples with a Jew on the subject of purification. This opens the way for a section that shows the superiority of Jesus over John the Baptist—by the Baptist’s own confession (3:22-36).<\/p>\n<p>The second discourse is really a long conversation Jesus had with the woman of Samaria, whom he met by a well (4:1-42). It turns on “the water of life,” a term that is not fully explained in this chapter but which we later find points to the life-giving Spirit (7:38-39). This leads to the story of the second sign, the healing of the nobleman’s son (4:46-54), notable for the fact that Jesus healed at a distance.<\/p>\n<p>The third sign is the healing of the lame man by the pool of Bethesda (5:1-18). This man had spent many years waiting for healing at the moving of the water. Jesus told him to get up and walk, and he did. Because it was done on a Sabbath, the Pharisees objected. This leads to Jesus’ third discourse, that on the divine Son (5:19-47). Here the closeness of the relationship of Jesus to the Father is stressed, and his place in the judgment is brought out. There is emphasis also on the variety of witness who encountered Jesus, which shows how reasonable it is to accept him as God’s own Son.<\/p>\n<p>John’s fourth sign is the one miracle (apart from the resurrection) found in all four Gospels: the feeding of the 5,000 (6:1-15). It is followed by Jesus’ walking on water (vv 16-21), which seems to be meant as the fifth sign (though some scholars think not; if they are right, there are only six signs). Then comes the fourth discourse, the great sermon on the bread of life (vv 22-59). Jesus is this bread, which he gives to all men and women who believe in him. There are references to eating his flesh and drinking his blood (vv 50-58), which point to his death. Some have seen in them a reference to Communion, but it is hard to see why Jesus should refer in this way to an as-yet-nonexistent sacrament. Moreover, much the same effect is attributed in the same discourse to believing (vv 35, 47). It seems best to understand Jesus as meaning that people must believe in him as the one who would die for them in order for them to have life.<\/p>\n<p>There is a section detailing Peter’s affirmation of loyalty in the face of some who drifted away from the Master (6:67-71). Then we come to the fifth discourse, on the life-giving Spirit (7:1-52). John has an important explanatory point of his own when he tells us that at the time the Spirit had not been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified (v 39). The fullness of the Spirit depends on the completion of the work of Christ in his death and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>The sixth discourse tells of the light of the world (8:12-59). This aspect of Jesus’ person and ministry is dramatically brought out in the sixth sign, the healing of the man born blind (ch 9). It is a lively narrative, as the healed man conducts a spirited defense against the Pharisees who belittled Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most beautiful of all the illustrations of Jesus’ relations to his people is that on which he dwells in the seventh discourse, where he speaks of himself as the good shepherd (ch 10). There is the obvious truth that sheep depend entirely on their shepherd, but Jesus says something else. Whereas earthly shepherds live to meet the needs of their sheep, Jesus laid down his life for his sheep.<\/p>\n<p>The final sign is the raising of Lazarus (11:1-44), a man who had been dead for four days. The story graphically brings out Jesus’ power over death and his readiness to confer the gift of life. Jesus speaks of himself as “the resurrection and the life” (v 25); death cannot defeat him. He brings life to the dead, to the spiritually dead as well as to physically dead Lazarus. John goes on to note the reaction to this miracle: some believed, but some opposed Jesus (vv 45-57). He includes a notable saying of Caiaphas, the high priest, that one man should die for the people (vv 50-52). Caiaphas was speaking as a cynical politician (better one dead, however innocent, than the whole nation be troubled). But John saw in the words the deeper meaning that Jesus’ death would bring salvation to many.<\/p>\n<p>John rounds off his account of the ministry with the story of the anointing of Jesus by a woman in Bethany, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the coming of some Greeks to Jesus, and his final summary of what he had taught (ch 12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Last Supper<\/h5>\n<p>The account of what went on in the upper room on the night before the Crucifixion is the fullest of all the four Gospels. Curiously, John says nothing about the institution of Communion, a fact that has never been satisfactorily explained. But he tells us how Jesus washed the feet of the disciples (13:1-17), an action splendidly exemplifying the spirit of lowly service so soon to be shown on the cross. Then comes the prophecy of the betrayal, an action that set in motion the events that would lead to the cross (vv 18-30).<\/p>\n<p>In the long discourse that follows, Jesus dealt with some questions posed by his followers and went on to teach them some important truths, for example, that he is the way, the truth, and the life (14:6). He develops the thought that he is the true vine, the disciples being vitally joined to him as branches to the vine. It is important for the branches to remain in the vine if they are to have life (15:1-16). Then come some words about suffering that would be of help to them in times of persecution (vv 17-25). Jesus goes on to speak about the Holy Spirit (15:26–16:15). This is a very important passage, for it contains much more about the Spirit than we find elsewhere in Jesus’ words. Jesus calls the Spirit the “Paraclete,” a title not easy to understand. It is in origin a legal term, and at least we can say that it indicates that the Spirit brings friendship, encouragement, and help. Jesus went on to speak of his approaching departure from the disciples and to prepare them for the trying time ahead (16:16-33). This part of the Gospel concludes with Jesus’ great High Priestly prayer. He prayed for the disciples to be one, as he commended them to the care of the heavenly Father (ch 17).<\/p>\n<h5>The Cross and Resurrection<\/h5>\n<p>When the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, he went forward to meet them and they fell to the ground (18:1-11). He gave himself over to them; they did not take him over. At the outset of his passion narrative, John was making the point that Jesus is sovereign. He was not being defeated by the march of events but was sovereignly doing the will of the Father. John is the only one to tell us that Jesus was taken before Annas, father-in-law to Caiaphas, the reigning high priest (18:12-14, 19-24). He tells also of Peter’s three denials of Jesus (vv 15-27). He did not spend much time on the Jewish trial, but he was much more explicit than the other Evangelists in his account of the Roman trial. Clearly, he had some special knowledge of what went on before Pilate. He presents a magnificent picture of Jesus talking with Pilate about kingship—the Son of God discussing with the representative of Caesar the meaning of sovereignty (vv 33-40).<\/p>\n<p>In his account of the Crucifixion John has a number of touches of his own, notably the way Jesus commended Mary to the care of the beloved disciple (19:26-27), the fact that the cry Jesus uttered as he died was “It is finished” (v 30), and the piercing of his side by a soldier’s spear (vv 31-37).<\/p>\n<p>John proceeds to the narrative of the burial (vv 38-42) and of the empty tomb (20:1-10). He speaks of appearances of the risen Lord to Mary Magdalene (vv 11-18), and to the disciples—both without (vv 19-23) and with Thomas (vv 24-29).<\/p>\n<p>The final chapter, an epilogue, tells of a miraculous catch of fish (21:1-14) and goes on to the moving account of Peter’s threefold declaration of love to Jesus and his restoration.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> John, The Apostle.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOHN, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>The fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospels. (See discussion above on John, the Apostle.)<\/p>\n\n<p>The Gospel appears to have been written by one who knew the Jews and the Palestine of Jesus’ day well. He was familiar with Jewish messianic expectations (e.g., Jn 1:20-21; 4:25; 7:40-42; 12:34). He knew of the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (4:9) and the contempt the Pharisees had for “the people of the land” (7:49). He knew of the importance attached to the religious schools (v 15). He knew the way the Sabbath was observed and was aware of the provision that the obligation to circumcise on the eighth day overrides the Sabbath regulations (vv 22-23). Throughout the Gospel he moved with certainty in the vast range of Jewish ideas and customs.<\/p>\n<p>It is the same with topography. The writer mentioned many places, and his place-names all seem to be used correctly. He referred to Cana, a village not mentioned in any earlier literature known to us, which means that the reference almost certainly came from someone who actually knew the place. He located Bethany with some precision as about 15 stadia from Jerusalem (about 2 miles, or 3.2 kilometers, 11:18). He had several references to places in or near Jerusalem, such as Bethesda (5:2), Siloam (9:7), and the Kidron Valley (18:1). Of course, this does not rule out some contemporary of John’s, but it makes it difficult to think of the author as a much later individual writing at a distance from Palestine. The evidence as we have it indicates that the writer was a Jew in the Palestine of Jesus’ day.<\/p>\n<p>To many careful readers, it seems that the Gospel bears the stamp of an eyewitness. For example, Jesus was teaching “in the treasury” (8:20). Nothing is made of the point; the incident could easily have been told without it. It looks like a reminiscence of someone who sees the scene in his mind’s eye as he writes. The fact that the house was filled with fragrance when the woman broke the perfume jar (12:3) does not materially affect the account but is the kind of detail that one who was there would remember. The author noted that the loaves used in the feeding of the multitude were barley loaves (6:9) and that Jesus’ tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top to bottom (19:23). He told us that the branches with which Jesus was greeted were palm branches (12:13), and that it was night when Judas went out (13:30). Such touches are found throughout the Gospel, and it seems unjustified to treat them as no more than an attempt to create verisimilitude. They seem much more like indications that the author was writing about events in which he had himself taken part.<\/p>\n<p>The early church accepted Johannine authorship without question. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all see the apostle as the author. The first to quote this Gospel by name was Theophilus of Antioch, about <span>AD<\/span> 180.<\/p>\n<p>Those who object to Johannine authorship emphasize the differences between this Gospel and the Synoptics. The argument is that if Jesus was anything like the Christ portrayed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he could not be like the Christ of the fourth Gospel. This is a completely subjective argument, ignoring the fact that any great man will appear differently to different people. The judgment of the church throughout the centuries has been that Jesus was large enough to inspire both portraits. To put the same point another way, we have no reason for holding that the first three Evangelists tell us all there is to know about Jesus. There is no contradiction. John simply brings out other aspects of Jesus’ life and teachings.<\/p>\n<p>While we cannot prove beyond all doubt that John the apostle was the author, we can say that there is more reason for holding to this view than to any other.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateOriginandDestination\">Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>It has been usual for conservatives and liberals alike to date this writing in the last decade of the first century or early in the second. Some liberal scholars have put it well into the second century, but this is not common, and it is remarkable that there has been such a considerable measure of agreement.<\/p>\n<p>It is said that this Gospel is dependent on the Synoptics, which means that it must be dated sometime after them. But this argument has been widely abandoned in recent times. There is so much in John that is without parallel in the other three Gospels, and conversely so much in the other three that John might have used had he known it, that it is very difficult indeed to hold that this writer had any of the other Gospels before him when he wrote, or even that he had read them. Such resemblances as there are seem better explained by common use of oral tradition.<\/p>\n<p>It is also argued that there is a very developed theology in John and that we must allow time for its development. Granted, the theology of this Gospel is profound, but this does not require that we must wait for it until the end of the first century. The theology of the Letter to the Romans is also profound, and there is no reason for dating that writing later than the 50s. On the ground of development, then, there is no reason for putting John later than Romans. Development is a slippery argument at best, for it usually takes place at uneven rates, and we have no means of knowing how fast it took place in the area where the author lived.<\/p>\n<p>Other arguments for a late date are no more conclusive. For example, it is urged that the ecclesiastical system presupposed by the Gospel is too late for the time of the apostle John, and that the sacramental system of chapters 3 and 6 must have taken time to develop. But John does not mention any sacrament. It is true that many scholars think these chapters refer to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but the fact is that John mentions neither.<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising in view of the way the traditional arguments have crumbled away that many in recent times are arguing that John must have been written before the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it were later, why does not John have some reference to it? Some of his language appears to be earlier. In 5:2 he says there “is” (not “was”) a pool called Bethesda. And he often refers to the Twelve as Jesus’ disciples, or “his” disciples, or the like. In later times Christians usually said “the” disciples, for they saw no need to say whose the disciples were. But in the early days, when Christians were in contact with rabbis (each of whom had his disciples), it was important to show that Jesus’ disciples were in mind. It is important also that John makes no reference to any of the synoptic Gospels. The simplest explanation is that he had not seen them. They were not yet widely circulated.<\/p>\n<p>None of this enables us to date this Gospel with precision. But the weight of evidence points to an early date (before <span>AD<\/span> 70).<\/p>\n<p>The author was John the apostle, a Jew. However, the writing gives evidence of contact with Greek thought, for example, in the reference to Christ as “the Word” in chapter 1 and the translation of words like “rabbi” (1:38). It is almost universally held that such considerations compel us to see the work as originating in a center of Greek culture, and Ephesus has traditionally been favored. Before the end of the second century we have Irenaeus writing that John published the Gospel during his residence at Ephesus.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars point to similarities between John and the Odes of Solomon, which they think came from Syria. As there are also some resemblances in the language of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in the early second century, this is held to show that John was written in Syria, probably at Antioch. Others again think that Egypt was the place, and they support this by pointing out that the oldest fragment of a manuscript of this Gospel was found there. There is no real evidence, and we are left with probabilities. There is much to be said for accepting the evidence of Irenaeus and seeing Ephesus as the place of origin, but we can scarcely say more.<\/p>\n<p>There is no real indication of the intended destination. From 20:31 we learn that the book was written that the readers might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, God’s Son, and that by believing they might have life. The Gospel, then, has an evangelistic aim. But it is also possible that “believe” means “keep on believing”—“go on in faith,” rather than “begin to believe.” That is to say, the book may have been meant from the beginning to build people up in the faith. Probably we should not distinguish between these aims too sharply. Both may well be in mind.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>Several possible backgrounds to the Gospel have been suggested. The Greek interest is obvious, and this writing has sometimes been called the Gospel of the Hellenists. The suggestion is that we should look to Greek writings, perhaps the works of the philosophers or Philo of Alexandria, to find the right background against which to understand what John has written. This approach may be seen in the work of Rudolf Bultmann, who thought specifically of Gnosticism. Indeed, for Bultmann one of the sources of this Gospel was a discourse source that he thought was taken from non-Christian Gnosticism. Not many have been prepared to follow Bultmann, but a number of recent commentators have discerned some form of Gnosticism as the backdrop to John.<\/p>\n<p>While such views are put forward seriously, there are some substantial objections. One is that, despite the confident assertions of some scholars, Gnosticism has never been shown to be earlier than Christianity. In the form in which it comes before us in history, it is a Christian heresy, and of course, the Christian faith must appear before a Christian heresy is possible. Another objection is that there is a basic difference between the two systems. Gnosticism is concerned with knowledge (the very word is derived from the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span><em>,<\/em> “knowledge”). Its “redeemer” is one who comes from heaven with knowledge. But John does not subscribe to the view that man is saved by knowledge. The Redeemer comes to take away the sin of the world (1:29). Gnosticism tells people that life is an upward struggle; Christianity tells of a Savior who came down to raise them up. It is not easy to see any form of Gnosticism as the essential background to Christianity.<\/p>\n<p>Much more significant is John’s Semitic background. Especially important here is the OT, accepted as sacred Scripture by Jew and Christian alike. It lies constantly behind John’s statements, and it must be studied carefully if John is to be understood. It is plain that John knew and loved the Septuagint, the translation into Greek of the Hebrew OT. Again and again, the Septuagint can be shown to lie behind what John says.<\/p>\n<p>In modern times important discoveries have been made at Qumran, in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. Among the scrolls unearthed in the caves of this area are several that have affinities with John. Indeed, one of the interesting facts about the scrolls is that they have more parallels with John than with any other part of the NT, a fact difficult to explain if John was written late and at a distance from Palestine. The resemblances to the Qumran writings must be viewed with care, for there is often a linguistic resemblance where the thinking is quite different. For example, both use the unusual expression “the Spirit of truth.” But where John means one of the persons of the Trinity, the scrolls speak of “a spirit of truth” and “a spirit of error” striving in the souls of people. The connection is real, but John is clearly not dependent on the scrolls for his thinking. The contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they afford additional evidence that this Gospel is basically Palestinian and must be understood against a background of first-century Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>Other backgrounds have been suggested, such as the Hermetic literature. This is a group of writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus (“Hermes Thrice-greatest”), a designation of the Egyptian god Thoth. There are indeed some points of contact with John, but they are few in comparison with those of writings rooted in Palestine. It is difficult to take such suggestions seriously. John is essentially Palestinian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The writer told us that Jesus did many “signs” (or miracles) that he had not recorded, but “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life” (Jn 20:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). John wrote to show that Jesus is the Messiah. But he did not do this simply with a view to conveying interesting information. He wanted his readers to see this knowledge as a challenge to faith; when they believe, they will have life. John sought to bring men and women to Christ; he had an evangelistic aim. That does not exhaust what he was trying to do, for his words have meaning for believers. It is important that believers have a right knowledge of Jesus and that they continue to believe.<\/p>\n<p>The main theological teaching of this Gospel, then, is that God has sent his Messiah, Jesus. He is the very Son of God, and he comes to bring life (3:16). Though Jesus told the woman at the well that he was the Messiah, this is not often said so specifically. The avoidance of the term might well be because of the political overtones it had acquired among the Jews at large. They looked for a Messiah who would fight the Romans. He would defeat them and set up a mighty world empire with its capital in Jerusalem. Jesus was not aiming at anything like that, and it was important that he avoid the kind of language that would give that impression. But though the conventional messianic terminology is avoided, John left no doubt that Jesus was God’s chosen one. Again and again he depicted Jesus as fulfilling messianic functions. For example, in the long discourse in chapter 6 we see Jesus as the bread from heaven, fulfilling the expectation that when Messiah came, he would renew the manna; and in the giving of sight to the blind man (ch 9) we have another messianic function (cf. Is 35:5).<\/p>\n<p>With this greatness of Jesus, John also combined teaching about his lowliness. A continuing, though unobtrusive, strand of Johannine teaching is that Jesus depends on the Father for everything. Apart from the Father, Jesus said, he could do nothing (Jn 5:30). His very food is to do the Father’s will (4:34). He lives through the Father (6:57). It is the Father who gives him his disciples (6:37, 44; 17:6). It is the Father who bears witness to him (5:32, 37). John insists that Jesus is in no sense independent of the Father. In the mission of Jesus, John sees the working out of the purpose of the Father.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Prologue and Chapter 1<\/h5>\n<p>John begins with a prologue (1:1-18) that is unlike anything in any of the other Gospels. In it he refers to Jesus as “the Word,” a term that has points of contact with both Greek and Hebrew thinking. As John uses it, it conveys the thought that Jesus is the expression of the mind of the Father. John speaks of the Word as God (1:1), sees him as active in creation (1:3-5), goes on to the witness borne to him by John the Baptist (1:6-8), speaks of the coming of the Word into the world (1:9-14), and finishes with a section on the greatness of the Word (1:15-18). In this prologue he briefly introduces some of the great themes that will be developed throughout the Gospel. It is a majestic introduction to the whole.<\/p>\n<p>Next we have the beginnings of Jesus’ public ministry (1:19-51). Jesus’ work was preceded by that of John the Baptist, and the Evangelist tells us first about the kind of witness that the Baptist gave to Jesus. Witness is one of his important concepts, and witness is all that John the Baptist does in this Gospel. From this witness we move to the way the first disciples came to Jesus. We learn something of how Andrew and Peter came to know the Lord. We read also of Philip and Nathanael, of whom we learn little or nothing in the other Gospels.<\/p>\n<h5>The Signs and Discourses (2:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The public ministry of Jesus is described in a very distinctive way in this Gospel. John has a long section (chs 2–12) in which he tells of a number of miracles Jesus did, interweaving into his account a series of discourses. Sometimes these are addresses given to groups of people, and sometimes they are talks with individuals. Some scholars call this section of the Gospel the Book of Signs, thus emphasizing the prominent place given to seven miracles. For John they are not simply wonders. They are meaningful; in the literal sense of the term they are <em>sign<\/em>ificant.<\/p>\n<p>The first of them is the turning of the water into wine at a marriage in Cana of Galilee (2:1-11). The water in question is connected with Jewish rites of purification (v 6), and the story is surely to teach us that Jesus transforms life. He changes the water of the law into the wine of the gospel. As a result of this “sign,” his disciples believed in him (v 11). John went on to tell how Jesus went up to Jerusalem and drove the traders out of the temple. They were selling animals for sacrifice and changing money. But their business was being done in the Court of the Gentiles, the only place in the temple where a Gentile could come to meditate and pray.<\/p>\n<p>The first discourse is on the new birth (3:1-21). Jesus talked with Nicodemus, a leading Pharisee, about the necessity for radical renewal if one is to enter the kingdom. Jesus was speaking of God’s regenerating activity, not some human reformation. Following this, John records a dispute between some of John’s disciples with a Jew on the subject of purification. This opens the way for a section that shows the superiority of Jesus over John the Baptist—by the Baptist’s own confession (3:22-36).<\/p>\n<p>The second discourse is really a long conversation Jesus had with the woman of Samaria, whom he met by a well (4:1-42). It turns on “the water of life,” a term that is not fully explained in this chapter but which we later find points to the life-giving Spirit (7:38-39). This leads to the story of the second sign, the healing of the nobleman’s son (4:46-54), notable for the fact that Jesus healed at a distance.<\/p>\n<p>The third sign is the healing of the lame man by the pool of Bethesda (5:1-18). This man had spent many years waiting for healing at the moving of the water. Jesus told him to get up and walk, and he did. Because it was done on a Sabbath, the Pharisees objected. This leads to Jesus’ third discourse, that on the divine Son (5:19-47). Here the closeness of the relationship of Jesus to the Father is stressed, and his place in the judgment is brought out. There is emphasis also on the variety of witness who encountered Jesus, which shows how reasonable it is to accept him as God’s own Son.<\/p>\n<p>John’s fourth sign is the one miracle (apart from the resurrection) found in all four Gospels: the feeding of the 5,000 (6:1-15). It is followed by Jesus’ walking on water (vv 16-21), which seems to be meant as the fifth sign (though some scholars think not; if they are right, there are only six signs). Then comes the fourth discourse, the great sermon on the bread of life (vv 22-59). Jesus is this bread, which he gives to all men and women who believe in him. There are references to eating his flesh and drinking his blood (vv 50-58), which point to his death. Some have seen in them a reference to Communion, but it is hard to see why Jesus should refer in this way to an as-yet-nonexistent sacrament. Moreover, much the same effect is attributed in the same discourse to believing (vv 35, 47). It seems best to understand Jesus as meaning that people must believe in him as the one who would die for them in order for them to have life.<\/p>\n<p>There is a section detailing Peter’s affirmation of loyalty in the face of some who drifted away from the Master (6:67-71). Then we come to the fifth discourse, on the life-giving Spirit (7:1-52). John has an important explanatory point of his own when he tells us that at the time the Spirit had not been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified (v 39). The fullness of the Spirit depends on the completion of the work of Christ in his death and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>The sixth discourse tells of the light of the world (8:12-59). This aspect of Jesus’ person and ministry is dramatically brought out in the sixth sign, the healing of the man born blind (ch 9). It is a lively narrative, as the healed man conducts a spirited defense against the Pharisees who belittled Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most beautiful of all the illustrations of Jesus’ relations to his people is that on which he dwells in the seventh discourse, where he speaks of himself as the good shepherd (ch 10). There is the obvious truth that sheep depend entirely on their shepherd, but Jesus says something else. Whereas earthly shepherds live to meet the needs of their sheep, Jesus laid down his life for his sheep.<\/p>\n<p>The final sign is the raising of Lazarus (11:1-44), a man who had been dead for four days. The story graphically brings out Jesus’ power over death and his readiness to confer the gift of life. Jesus speaks of himself as “the resurrection and the life” (v 25); death cannot defeat him. He brings life to the dead, to the spiritually dead as well as to physically dead Lazarus. John goes on to note the reaction to this miracle: some believed, but some opposed Jesus (vv 45-57). He includes a notable saying of Caiaphas, the high priest, that one man should die for the people (vv 50-52). Caiaphas was speaking as a cynical politician (better one dead, however innocent, than the whole nation be troubled). But John saw in the words the deeper meaning that Jesus’ death would bring salvation to many.<\/p>\n<p>John rounds off his account of the ministry with the story of the anointing of Jesus by a woman in Bethany, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the coming of some Greeks to Jesus, and his final summary of what he had taught (ch 12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Last Supper<\/h5>\n<p>The account of what went on in the upper room on the night before the Crucifixion is the fullest of all the four Gospels. Curiously, John says nothing about the institution of Communion, a fact that has never been satisfactorily explained. But he tells us how Jesus washed the feet of the disciples (13:1-17), an action splendidly exemplifying the spirit of lowly service so soon to be shown on the cross. Then comes the prophecy of the betrayal, an action that set in motion the events that would lead to the cross (vv 18-30).<\/p>\n<p>In the long discourse that follows, Jesus dealt with some questions posed by his followers and went on to teach them some important truths, for example, that he is the way, the truth, and the life (14:6). He develops the thought that he is the true vine, the disciples being vitally joined to him as branches to the vine. It is important for the branches to remain in the vine if they are to have life (15:1-16). Then come some words about suffering that would be of help to them in times of persecution (vv 17-25). Jesus goes on to speak about the Holy Spirit (15:26–16:15). This is a very important passage, for it contains much more about the Spirit than we find elsewhere in Jesus’ words. Jesus calls the Spirit the “Paraclete,” a title not easy to understand. It is in origin a legal term, and at least we can say that it indicates that the Spirit brings friendship, encouragement, and help. Jesus went on to speak of his approaching departure from the disciples and to prepare them for the trying time ahead (16:16-33). This part of the Gospel concludes with Jesus’ great High Priestly prayer. He prayed for the disciples to be one, as he commended them to the care of the heavenly Father (ch 17).<\/p>\n<h5>The Cross and Resurrection<\/h5>\n<p>When the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, he went forward to meet them and they fell to the ground (18:1-11). He gave himself over to them; they did not take him over. At the outset of his passion narrative, John was making the point that Jesus is sovereign. He was not being defeated by the march of events but was sovereignly doing the will of the Father. John is the only one to tell us that Jesus was taken before Annas, father-in-law to Caiaphas, the reigning high priest (18:12-14, 19-24). He tells also of Peter’s three denials of Jesus (vv 15-27). He did not spend much time on the Jewish trial, but he was much more explicit than the other Evangelists in his account of the Roman trial. Clearly, he had some special knowledge of what went on before Pilate. He presents a magnificent picture of Jesus talking with Pilate about kingship—the Son of God discussing with the representative of Caesar the meaning of sovereignty (vv 33-40).<\/p>\n<p>In his account of the Crucifixion John has a number of touches of his own, notably the way Jesus commended Mary to the care of the beloved disciple (19:26-27), the fact that the cry Jesus uttered as he died was “It is finished” (v 30), and the piercing of his side by a soldier’s spear (vv 31-37).<\/p>\n<p>John proceeds to the narrative of the burial (vv 38-42) and of the empty tomb (20:1-10). He speaks of appearances of the risen Lord to Mary Magdalene (vv 11-18), and to the disciples—both without (vv 19-23) and with Thomas (vv 24-29).<\/p>\n<p>The final chapter, an epilogue, tells of a miraculous catch of fish (21:1-14) and goes on to the moving account of Peter’s threefold declaration of love to Jesus and his restoration.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> John, The Apostle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOHN, Gospel of The fourth Gospel. Preview • Author • Date, Origin, and Destination • Background • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Author At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospe...","summary_en":"JOHN, Gospel of The fourth Gospel. Preview • Author • Date, Origin, and Destination • Background • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Author At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospe...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36225,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Spirit of Jesus Christ","title_en":"Spirit of Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\n<p>The Spirit as identified with Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The most important development and element in earliest Christian understanding of the Spirit is that the Spirit is now the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pt 1:11; see also Jn 7:38; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Rv 3:1; 5:6). The Spirit is to be identified as the Spirit that bears witness to Jesus (Jn 15:26; 16:13-15; Acts 5:32; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2; 5:7-8; Rv 19:10), but also, and more profoundly, as the Spirit that inspired and empowered Jesus himself. This Spirit became available to the believers after Christ’s resurrection.<\/p>\n<p> The apostles John and Paul were quite clear in their writings about Christ becoming spirit through resurrection. The keynote verses penned by John are John 6:63; 7:37-39; 14:16-18; 20:22; and 1 John 3:24; 4:13. The critical passages written by Paul are Romans 8:9-10; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18; and 1 Corinthians 6:17.<\/p>\n<p>Revelation concerning the Spirit of Jesus is progressive in the Gospel of John. John does not tell us from the beginning that people could not actually receive eternal life until the hour of Christ’s glorification. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus declares to various people that he can give them eternal life if they would believe in him. He promises them the water of life, the bread of life, and the light of life. But no one could really partake of these until after the Lord had risen. As a foretaste, as a sample, they could receive life via the Lord’s words because his words were themselves spirit and life (Jn 6:63); however, it was not until the Spirit would become available that believers could actually become the recipients of the divine, eternal life. After the Lord’s discourse in John 6, Jesus said, “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing” (v 63). In the flesh Jesus could not give them the bread of life, but when the Spirit became available, they could have life. Again, Jesus offered the water of life—even life flowing like rivers of living water—to the Jews assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles. He told them to come and drink of him. But no one could, then and there, come and drink of him. So John added a note: “But this he spoke concerning the Spirit, for the Spirit was not yet because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39). Once Jesus would be glorified through resurrection, the Spirit of the glorified Jesus would be available for people to drink. In John 6, Jesus offered himself as the bread of life to be eaten by people; and in John 7, he offered himself as the water of life to refresh men. But no one could eat him or drink him until he became spirit, as was intimated in John 6:63 and then stated plainly in John 7:39.<\/p>\n\n<p>In John 14:16-18, Jesus went one step further in identifying himself with the Spirit. He told the disciples that he would give them another Comforter. Then he told them that they should know who this Comforter was because he was, then and there, abiding with them and would, in the near future, be in them. Who else but Jesus was abiding with them at that time? Then after telling the disciples that the Comforter would come to them, he said, “I am coming to you.” First he said that the Comforter would come to them and abide in them, and then in the same breath he said that he would come to them and abide in them (see 14:20). In short, the coming of the Comforter to the disciples was one and the same as the coming of Jesus to the disciples. The Comforter who was dwelling with the disciples that night was the Spirit in Christ; the Comforter who would be in the disciples (after the resurrection) would be Christ in the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>On the evening of the resurrection, the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples and then breathed into them the Holy Spirit. This inbreathing, reminiscent of God’s breathing into Adam the breath of life (Gn 2:7), became the fulfillment of all that had been promised and anticipated earlier in John’s Gospel. Through this impartation, the disciples became regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This historical event marked the genesis of the new creation. Jesus could now be realized as the bread of life, the water of life, and the light of life. The believers now possessed his divine, eternal, risen life. From that time forward, Christ as spirit indwelt his believers. Thus, in his first epistle John could say, “And hereby we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he gave to us” (1 Jn 3:24), and again, “Hereby we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit” (4:13).<\/p>\n<p>The apostles had quite an adjustment to make after Christ’s resurrection. They had become so accustomed to his physical presence that it was difficult for them to learn how to live by his spiritual, indwelling presence. All through the 40 days after his resurrection, from the time the apostles received the inbreathing of the Spirit, Christ was teaching the disciples to make the transfer. He would physically appear and then disappear intermittently. His appearances were very frequent in the beginning and then they steadily diminished. His aim was to guide the apostles into knowing him in his invisible presence. However, this was so new to them that he had to keep appearing to them in order to strengthen and reassure them. But his real desire was to help them live by faith and not by sight. When he appeared to the disciples as they were all together the second time, with Thomas present, he chided Thomas for his unbelief. Then he prounounced this blessing, “Blessed are those who do not see me and yet believe” (Jn 20:29).<\/p>\n<p>The apostle Paul was such a “blessed” one. He did not know Christ in the flesh. He knew only the risen Christ (2 Cor 5:15-16). In this regard, he had an advantage over the early apostles. They had a great adjustment to make, but from the very beginning, Paul knew the risen Christ as Spirit. Paul became the forerunner of all those Christians who have never seen Jesus in the flesh and who have come to experience him in the Spirit. Yes, Paul had seen the risen Lord; he was the last one to do so (1 Cor 15:8). And from that time onward he realized that Jesus was a glorified man, exalted far above all. Paul wrote much concerning this, but his writings did not leave the far-above-all Jesus far away because this was not what Paul experienced. Any experienced Christian should be able to testify that the Christ in the heavens is also the Christ in the heart.<\/p>\n<p>In his writings, Paul often speaks of the Spirit and Christ synonymously. This is evident in Romans 8:9-10. The terms “Spirit of God,” “Spirit of Christ,” and “Christ” are all used interchangeably. The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of Christ is Christ. In these verses, it is evident that Paul identified the Spirit with Christ because in Christian experience they are absolutely identical. There is no such thing as an experience of Christ apart from the Spirit. The separation and\/or distinction does exist in Trinitarian theology—and for very good reasons—but the separation is nearly nonexistent in actual experience. Several of Paul’s statements are written from the vantage point of experience.<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Corinthians 15:45, Paul says that the risen Jesus became life-giving spirit. Notice the verse does not say Jesus became the Spirit, as if the second person of the Trinity became the third, but that Jesus became spirit in the sense that his mortal existence and form were metamorphosed into a spiritual existence and form. Jesus’ person was not changed through the resurrection, only his form. With this changed spiritual form, Jesus regained the essential state of being he had emptied himself of in becoming a man. Before he became a man, he subsisted in the form of God (Phil 2:6), which form is Spirit and thereby was united to the Spirit (the third of the Trinity), while still remaining distinct. Thus, when the scripture says that the Lord “became life-giving spirit,” it does not mean that the Son became the Holy Spirit. But it does indicate that Christ, via resurrection, appropriated a new, spiritual form (while still retaining a body—a glorified one) that enabled him to commence a new spiritual existence (see 1 Pt 3:18).<\/p>\n<p>In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul explains that the NT ministry is a ministry carried out by the Spirit of the living God (v 3), who is the Spirit that gives life (v 6). In fact, the whole NT economy is characterized as “the ministry of the Spirit” (v 8). At the same time, Paul emphasizes that the function of the NT ministry is to bring God’s people to see and experience the glorious Christ (3:3, 14, 16-18; 4:4-6). It is in this context that Paul boldly declares, “The Lord is the Spirit” (3:17). He who turns his heart to the Lord is, in effect, turning his heart to the Spirit. lf the Lord were not the Spirit abiding in the believers, how could they turn their hearts to him? And how could they be transformed into the same image? Second Corinthians 3:18 says, “But we all, with unveiled face mirroring the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord-Spirit.” According to the Greek, the last phrase of this verse could be rendered “the Lord, the Spirit” (see <span>asv<\/span>) or “the Lord, who is the Spirit” (see <span>rsv<\/span>, <span>niv<\/span>) because the expression “the Spirit” is in direct apposition to “the Lord” (i.e., it is a further description of the Lord). Thus, the Lord is the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, when the Scriptures identify the Spirit with Christ and vice versa, the identification is not equivocation. Christ is not the Holy Spirit. Christ and the Spirit are distinct persons of the Trinity, as is affirmed by the overall teaching of the Word. But the Scriptures do identify Christ and the Spirit in the context of Christian experience. It would be accurate to say that Christians experience Christ through his Spirit, the Spirit of Christ. One cannot know Jesus apart from the Spirit or other than through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Resurrection.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\n<p>The Spirit as identified with Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The most important development and element in earliest Christian understanding of the Spirit is that the Spirit is now the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pt 1:11; see also Jn 7:38; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Rv 3:1; 5:6). The Spirit is to be identified as the Spirit that bears witness to Jesus (Jn 15:26; 16:13-15; Acts 5:32; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2; 5:7-8; Rv 19:10), but also, and more profoundly, as the Spirit that inspired and empowered Jesus himself. This Spirit became available to the believers after Christ’s resurrection.<\/p>\n<p> The apostles John and Paul were quite clear in their writings about Christ becoming spirit through resurrection. The keynote verses penned by John are John 6:63; 7:37-39; 14:16-18; 20:22; and 1 John 3:24; 4:13. The critical passages written by Paul are Romans 8:9-10; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18; and 1 Corinthians 6:17.<\/p>\n<p>Revelation concerning the Spirit of Jesus is progressive in the Gospel of John. John does not tell us from the beginning that people could not actually receive eternal life until the hour of Christ’s glorification. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus declares to various people that he can give them eternal life if they would believe in him. He promises them the water of life, the bread of life, and the light of life. But no one could really partake of these until after the Lord had risen. As a foretaste, as a sample, they could receive life via the Lord’s words because his words were themselves spirit and life (Jn 6:63); however, it was not until the Spirit would become available that believers could actually become the recipients of the divine, eternal life. After the Lord’s discourse in John 6, Jesus said, “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing” (v 63). In the flesh Jesus could not give them the bread of life, but when the Spirit became available, they could have life. Again, Jesus offered the water of life—even life flowing like rivers of living water—to the Jews assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles. He told them to come and drink of him. But no one could, then and there, come and drink of him. So John added a note: “But this he spoke concerning the Spirit, for the Spirit was not yet because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39). Once Jesus would be glorified through resurrection, the Spirit of the glorified Jesus would be available for people to drink. In John 6, Jesus offered himself as the bread of life to be eaten by people; and in John 7, he offered himself as the water of life to refresh men. But no one could eat him or drink him until he became spirit, as was intimated in John 6:63 and then stated plainly in John 7:39.<\/p>\n\n<p>In John 14:16-18, Jesus went one step further in identifying himself with the Spirit. He told the disciples that he would give them another Comforter. Then he told them that they should know who this Comforter was because he was, then and there, abiding with them and would, in the near future, be in them. Who else but Jesus was abiding with them at that time? Then after telling the disciples that the Comforter would come to them, he said, “I am coming to you.” First he said that the Comforter would come to them and abide in them, and then in the same breath he said that he would come to them and abide in them (see 14:20). In short, the coming of the Comforter to the disciples was one and the same as the coming of Jesus to the disciples. The Comforter who was dwelling with the disciples that night was the Spirit in Christ; the Comforter who would be in the disciples (after the resurrection) would be Christ in the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>On the evening of the resurrection, the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples and then breathed into them the Holy Spirit. This inbreathing, reminiscent of God’s breathing into Adam the breath of life (Gn 2:7), became the fulfillment of all that had been promised and anticipated earlier in John’s Gospel. Through this impartation, the disciples became regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This historical event marked the genesis of the new creation. Jesus could now be realized as the bread of life, the water of life, and the light of life. The believers now possessed his divine, eternal, risen life. From that time forward, Christ as spirit indwelt his believers. Thus, in his first epistle John could say, “And hereby we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he gave to us” (1 Jn 3:24), and again, “Hereby we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit” (4:13).<\/p>\n<p>The apostles had quite an adjustment to make after Christ’s resurrection. They had become so accustomed to his physical presence that it was difficult for them to learn how to live by his spiritual, indwelling presence. All through the 40 days after his resurrection, from the time the apostles received the inbreathing of the Spirit, Christ was teaching the disciples to make the transfer. He would physically appear and then disappear intermittently. His appearances were very frequent in the beginning and then they steadily diminished. His aim was to guide the apostles into knowing him in his invisible presence. However, this was so new to them that he had to keep appearing to them in order to strengthen and reassure them. But his real desire was to help them live by faith and not by sight. When he appeared to the disciples as they were all together the second time, with Thomas present, he chided Thomas for his unbelief. Then he prounounced this blessing, “Blessed are those who do not see me and yet believe” (Jn 20:29).<\/p>\n<p>The apostle Paul was such a “blessed” one. He did not know Christ in the flesh. He knew only the risen Christ (2 Cor 5:15-16). In this regard, he had an advantage over the early apostles. They had a great adjustment to make, but from the very beginning, Paul knew the risen Christ as Spirit. Paul became the forerunner of all those Christians who have never seen Jesus in the flesh and who have come to experience him in the Spirit. Yes, Paul had seen the risen Lord; he was the last one to do so (1 Cor 15:8). And from that time onward he realized that Jesus was a glorified man, exalted far above all. Paul wrote much concerning this, but his writings did not leave the far-above-all Jesus far away because this was not what Paul experienced. Any experienced Christian should be able to testify that the Christ in the heavens is also the Christ in the heart.<\/p>\n<p>In his writings, Paul often speaks of the Spirit and Christ synonymously. This is evident in Romans 8:9-10. The terms “Spirit of God,” “Spirit of Christ,” and “Christ” are all used interchangeably. The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of Christ is Christ. In these verses, it is evident that Paul identified the Spirit with Christ because in Christian experience they are absolutely identical. There is no such thing as an experience of Christ apart from the Spirit. The separation and\/or distinction does exist in Trinitarian theology—and for very good reasons—but the separation is nearly nonexistent in actual experience. Several of Paul’s statements are written from the vantage point of experience.<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Corinthians 15:45, Paul says that the risen Jesus became life-giving spirit. Notice the verse does not say Jesus became the Spirit, as if the second person of the Trinity became the third, but that Jesus became spirit in the sense that his mortal existence and form were metamorphosed into a spiritual existence and form. Jesus’ person was not changed through the resurrection, only his form. With this changed spiritual form, Jesus regained the essential state of being he had emptied himself of in becoming a man. Before he became a man, he subsisted in the form of God (Phil 2:6), which form is Spirit and thereby was united to the Spirit (the third of the Trinity), while still remaining distinct. Thus, when the scripture says that the Lord “became life-giving spirit,” it does not mean that the Son became the Holy Spirit. But it does indicate that Christ, via resurrection, appropriated a new, spiritual form (while still retaining a body—a glorified one) that enabled him to commence a new spiritual existence (see 1 Pt 3:18).<\/p>\n<p>In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul explains that the NT ministry is a ministry carried out by the Spirit of the living God (v 3), who is the Spirit that gives life (v 6). In fact, the whole NT economy is characterized as “the ministry of the Spirit” (v 8). At the same time, Paul emphasizes that the function of the NT ministry is to bring God’s people to see and experience the glorious Christ (3:3, 14, 16-18; 4:4-6). It is in this context that Paul boldly declares, “The Lord is the Spirit” (3:17). He who turns his heart to the Lord is, in effect, turning his heart to the Spirit. lf the Lord were not the Spirit abiding in the believers, how could they turn their hearts to him? And how could they be transformed into the same image? Second Corinthians 3:18 says, “But we all, with unveiled face mirroring the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord-Spirit.” According to the Greek, the last phrase of this verse could be rendered “the Lord, the Spirit” (see <span>asv<\/span>) or “the Lord, who is the Spirit” (see <span>rsv<\/span>, <span>niv<\/span>) because the expression “the Spirit” is in direct apposition to “the Lord” (i.e., it is a further description of the Lord). Thus, the Lord is the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion, when the Scriptures identify the Spirit with Christ and vice versa, the identification is not equivocation. Christ is not the Holy Spirit. Christ and the Spirit are distinct persons of the Trinity, as is affirmed by the overall teaching of the Word. But the Scriptures do identify Christ and the Spirit in the context of Christian experience. It would be accurate to say that Christians experience Christ through his Spirit, the Spirit of Christ. One cannot know Jesus apart from the Spirit or other than through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Resurrection.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST The Spirit as identified with Jesus Christ. The most important development and element in earliest Christian understanding of the Spirit is that the Spirit is now the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pt 1:11; see also Jn 7:38; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Rv 3:1; 5:6). The Spirit is to be identified as the Spirit that bears witness to Jesus (Jn 15:26; 16:13-15; Acts 5:32; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2; 5:7-8; Rv 19:10), but also, and more profoundly, as t...","summary_en":"SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST The Spirit as identified with Jesus Christ. The most important development and element in earliest Christian understanding of the Spirit is that the Spirit is now the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pt 1:11; see also Jn 7:38; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Rv 3:1; 5:6). The Spirit is to be identified as the Spirit that bears witness to Jesus (Jn 15:26; 16:13-15; Acts 5:32; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2; 5:7-8; Rv 19:10), but also, and more profoundly, as t...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":56471,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:39","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:39","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:39<\/strong> In Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, his life and <em>the Spirit<\/em> were poured out (see 19:34; 20:22).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:39<\/strong> In Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, his life and <em>the Spirit<\/em> were poured out (see 19:34; 20:22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:39 In Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, his life and the Spirit were poured out (see 19:34; 20:22).","summary_en":"7:39 In Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, his life and the Spirit were poured out (see 19:34; 20:22).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":84097,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:39","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:39","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:39<\/strong> In Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, his life and <em>the Spirit<\/em> were poured out (see 19:34; 20:22).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:39<\/strong> In Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, his life and <em>the Spirit<\/em> were poured out (see 19:34; 20:22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:39 In Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, his life and the Spirit were poured out (see 19:34; 20:22).","summary_en":"7:39 In Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, his life and the Spirit were poured out (see 19:34; 20:22).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":111723,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:39","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:39","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:39<\/strong> In Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, his life and <em>the Spirit<\/em> were poured out (see 19:34; 20:22).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:39<\/strong> In Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, his life and <em>the Spirit<\/em> were poured out (see 19:34; 20:22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:39 In Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, his life and the Spirit were poured out (see 19:34; 20:22).","summary_en":"7:39 In Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, his life and the Spirit were poured out (see 19:34; 20:22).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":139349,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:39","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:39","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:39<\/strong> In Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, his life and <em>the Spirit<\/em> were poured out (see 19:34; 20:22).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:39<\/strong> In Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, his life and <em>the Spirit<\/em> were poured out (see 19:34; 20:22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:39 In Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, his life and the Spirit were poured out (see 19:34; 20:22).","summary_en":"7:39 In Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, his life and the Spirit were poured out (see 19:34; 20:22).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65971,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Our Advocate","title_en":"Our Advocate","content_ro":"<h3>Our Advocate<\/h3>\n<p>On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span> (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal meaning of a lawyer providing advice or counsel is closer to the mark. “Comforter” is another popular translation, but this can also be misleading; the older English meaning of someone who strengthens (an “encourager”) is more accurate to the New Testament concept of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Jesus described the Spirit as <em>another<\/em> Advocate (14:16). Jesus, who is the first advocate (see 1 Jn 2:1), sent a second Advocate, the Holy Spirit. Every task of the Spirit described in John 14–16 is a task Jesus undertook elsewhere in the Gospel. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would come to encourage, instruct, and strengthen his followers. In fact, the Spirit would sustain Jesus’ own presence among his disciples. Five promises about the Spirit each indicate a different work that the Spirit does (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-8, 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit became available to Jesus’ disciples after his death (see 7:39; 20:22). The Spirit now continues the work of Jesus and his presence in the life of believers (14:16-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 2:25; 24:15; 2 Sam 15:12; 1 Kgs 12:6-14; 1 Chr 27:32; Job 16:18-22; Isa 1:26; 9:6; John 14:1–16:15; Gal 3:19-20; 6:13; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; 1 Jn 2:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Our Advocate<\/h3>\n<p>On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span> (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal meaning of a lawyer providing advice or counsel is closer to the mark. “Comforter” is another popular translation, but this can also be misleading; the older English meaning of someone who strengthens (an “encourager”) is more accurate to the New Testament concept of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Jesus described the Spirit as <em>another<\/em> Advocate (14:16). Jesus, who is the first advocate (see 1 Jn 2:1), sent a second Advocate, the Holy Spirit. Every task of the Spirit described in John 14–16 is a task Jesus undertook elsewhere in the Gospel. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would come to encourage, instruct, and strengthen his followers. In fact, the Spirit would sustain Jesus’ own presence among his disciples. Five promises about the Spirit each indicate a different work that the Spirit does (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-8, 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit became available to Jesus’ disciples after his death (see 7:39; 20:22). The Spirit now continues the work of Jesus and his presence in the life of believers (14:16-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 2:25; 24:15; 2 Sam 15:12; 1 Kgs 12:6-14; 1 Chr 27:32; Job 16:18-22; Isa 1:26; 9:6; John 14:1–16:15; Gal 3:19-20; 6:13; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; 1 Jn 2:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"Our Advocate On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word paraklētos (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal mea...","summary_en":"Our Advocate On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word paraklētos (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal mea...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93597,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Our Advocate","title_en":"Our Advocate","content_ro":"<h3>Our Advocate<\/h3>\n<p>On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span> (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal meaning of a lawyer providing advice or counsel is closer to the mark. “Comforter” is another popular translation, but this can also be misleading; the older English meaning of someone who strengthens (an “encourager”) is more accurate to the New Testament concept of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Jesus described the Spirit as <em>another<\/em> Advocate (14:16). Jesus, who is the first advocate (see 1 Jn 2:1), sent a second Advocate, the Holy Spirit. Every task of the Spirit described in John 14–16 is a task Jesus undertook elsewhere in the Gospel. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would come to encourage, instruct, and strengthen his followers. In fact, the Spirit would sustain Jesus’ own presence among his disciples. Five promises about the Spirit each indicate a different work that the Spirit does (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-8, 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit became available to Jesus’ disciples after his death (see 7:39; 20:22). The Spirit now continues the work of Jesus and his presence in the life of believers (14:16-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 2:25; 24:15; 2 Sam 15:12; 1 Kgs 12:6-14; 1 Chr 27:32; Job 16:18-22; Isa 1:26; 9:6; John 14:1–16:15; Gal 3:19-20; 6:13; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; 1 Jn 2:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Our Advocate<\/h3>\n<p>On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span> (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal meaning of a lawyer providing advice or counsel is closer to the mark. “Comforter” is another popular translation, but this can also be misleading; the older English meaning of someone who strengthens (an “encourager”) is more accurate to the New Testament concept of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Jesus described the Spirit as <em>another<\/em> Advocate (14:16). Jesus, who is the first advocate (see 1 Jn 2:1), sent a second Advocate, the Holy Spirit. Every task of the Spirit described in John 14–16 is a task Jesus undertook elsewhere in the Gospel. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would come to encourage, instruct, and strengthen his followers. In fact, the Spirit would sustain Jesus’ own presence among his disciples. Five promises about the Spirit each indicate a different work that the Spirit does (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-8, 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit became available to Jesus’ disciples after his death (see 7:39; 20:22). The Spirit now continues the work of Jesus and his presence in the life of believers (14:16-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 2:25; 24:15; 2 Sam 15:12; 1 Kgs 12:6-14; 1 Chr 27:32; Job 16:18-22; Isa 1:26; 9:6; John 14:1–16:15; Gal 3:19-20; 6:13; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; 1 Jn 2:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"Our Advocate On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word paraklētos (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal mea...","summary_en":"Our Advocate On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word paraklētos (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal mea...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":121223,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Our Advocate","title_en":"Our Advocate","content_ro":"<h3>Our Advocate<\/h3>\n<p>On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span> (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal meaning of a lawyer providing advice or counsel is closer to the mark. “Comforter” is another popular translation, but this can also be misleading; the older English meaning of someone who strengthens (an “encourager”) is more accurate to the New Testament concept of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Jesus described the Spirit as <em>another<\/em> Advocate (14:16). Jesus, who is the first advocate (see 1 Jn 2:1), sent a second Advocate, the Holy Spirit. Every task of the Spirit described in John 14–16 is a task Jesus undertook elsewhere in the Gospel. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would come to encourage, instruct, and strengthen his followers. In fact, the Spirit would sustain Jesus’ own presence among his disciples. Five promises about the Spirit each indicate a different work that the Spirit does (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-8, 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit became available to Jesus’ disciples after his death (see 7:39; 20:22). The Spirit now continues the work of Jesus and his presence in the life of believers (14:16-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 2:25; 24:15; 2 Sam 15:12; 1 Kgs 12:6-14; 1 Chr 27:32; Job 16:18-22; Isa 1:26; 9:6; John 14:1–16:15; Gal 3:19-20; 6:13; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; 1 Jn 2:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Our Advocate<\/h3>\n<p>On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span> (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal meaning of a lawyer providing advice or counsel is closer to the mark. “Comforter” is another popular translation, but this can also be misleading; the older English meaning of someone who strengthens (an “encourager”) is more accurate to the New Testament concept of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Jesus described the Spirit as <em>another<\/em> Advocate (14:16). Jesus, who is the first advocate (see 1 Jn 2:1), sent a second Advocate, the Holy Spirit. Every task of the Spirit described in John 14–16 is a task Jesus undertook elsewhere in the Gospel. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would come to encourage, instruct, and strengthen his followers. In fact, the Spirit would sustain Jesus’ own presence among his disciples. Five promises about the Spirit each indicate a different work that the Spirit does (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-8, 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit became available to Jesus’ disciples after his death (see 7:39; 20:22). The Spirit now continues the work of Jesus and his presence in the life of believers (14:16-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 2:25; 24:15; 2 Sam 15:12; 1 Kgs 12:6-14; 1 Chr 27:32; Job 16:18-22; Isa 1:26; 9:6; John 14:1–16:15; Gal 3:19-20; 6:13; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; 1 Jn 2:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"Our Advocate On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word paraklētos (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal mea...","summary_en":"Our Advocate On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word paraklētos (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal mea...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148849,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Our Advocate","title_en":"Our Advocate","content_ro":"<h3>Our Advocate<\/h3>\n<p>On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span> (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal meaning of a lawyer providing advice or counsel is closer to the mark. “Comforter” is another popular translation, but this can also be misleading; the older English meaning of someone who strengthens (an “encourager”) is more accurate to the New Testament concept of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Jesus described the Spirit as <em>another<\/em> Advocate (14:16). Jesus, who is the first advocate (see 1 Jn 2:1), sent a second Advocate, the Holy Spirit. Every task of the Spirit described in John 14–16 is a task Jesus undertook elsewhere in the Gospel. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would come to encourage, instruct, and strengthen his followers. In fact, the Spirit would sustain Jesus’ own presence among his disciples. Five promises about the Spirit each indicate a different work that the Spirit does (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-8, 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit became available to Jesus’ disciples after his death (see 7:39; 20:22). The Spirit now continues the work of Jesus and his presence in the life of believers (14:16-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 2:25; 24:15; 2 Sam 15:12; 1 Kgs 12:6-14; 1 Chr 27:32; Job 16:18-22; Isa 1:26; 9:6; John 14:1–16:15; Gal 3:19-20; 6:13; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; 1 Jn 2:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Our Advocate<\/h3>\n<p>On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span> (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal meaning of a lawyer providing advice or counsel is closer to the mark. “Comforter” is another popular translation, but this can also be misleading; the older English meaning of someone who strengthens (an “encourager”) is more accurate to the New Testament concept of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">paraklētos<\/span><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Jesus described the Spirit as <em>another<\/em> Advocate (14:16). Jesus, who is the first advocate (see 1 Jn 2:1), sent a second Advocate, the Holy Spirit. Every task of the Spirit described in John 14–16 is a task Jesus undertook elsewhere in the Gospel. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would come to encourage, instruct, and strengthen his followers. In fact, the Spirit would sustain Jesus’ own presence among his disciples. Five promises about the Spirit each indicate a different work that the Spirit does (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-8, 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit became available to Jesus’ disciples after his death (see 7:39; 20:22). The Spirit now continues the work of Jesus and his presence in the life of believers (14:16-26).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 2:25; 24:15; 2 Sam 15:12; 1 Kgs 12:6-14; 1 Chr 27:32; Job 16:18-22; Isa 1:26; 9:6; John 14:1–16:15; Gal 3:19-20; 6:13; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; 1 Jn 2:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"Our Advocate On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word paraklētos (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal mea...","summary_en":"Our Advocate On four occasions in the Gospel of John, the unusual Greek word paraklētos (“called alongside,” “advocate”) is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). This term occurs elsewhere in Greek literature, where it refers to a legal advocate—someone who speaks in a person’s defense and provides legal counsel. “Counselor” is a popular translation of this term, but the therapeutic connotations of this word in contemporary English are misleading; the older legal mea...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"40":[{"id":41340,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"David","title_en":"David","content_ro":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","summary_en":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":68966,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"David","title_en":"David","content_ro":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","summary_en":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":96592,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"David","title_en":"David","content_ro":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","summary_en":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124218,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"David","title_en":"David","content_ro":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","summary_en":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20168,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of John","title_en":"Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>JOHN, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>The fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospels. (See discussion above on John, the Apostle.)<\/p>\n\n<p>The Gospel appears to have been written by one who knew the Jews and the Palestine of Jesus’ day well. He was familiar with Jewish messianic expectations (e.g., Jn 1:20-21; 4:25; 7:40-42; 12:34). He knew of the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (4:9) and the contempt the Pharisees had for “the people of the land” (7:49). He knew of the importance attached to the religious schools (v 15). He knew the way the Sabbath was observed and was aware of the provision that the obligation to circumcise on the eighth day overrides the Sabbath regulations (vv 22-23). Throughout the Gospel he moved with certainty in the vast range of Jewish ideas and customs.<\/p>\n<p>It is the same with topography. The writer mentioned many places, and his place-names all seem to be used correctly. He referred to Cana, a village not mentioned in any earlier literature known to us, which means that the reference almost certainly came from someone who actually knew the place. He located Bethany with some precision as about 15 stadia from Jerusalem (about 2 miles, or 3.2 kilometers, 11:18). He had several references to places in or near Jerusalem, such as Bethesda (5:2), Siloam (9:7), and the Kidron Valley (18:1). Of course, this does not rule out some contemporary of John’s, but it makes it difficult to think of the author as a much later individual writing at a distance from Palestine. The evidence as we have it indicates that the writer was a Jew in the Palestine of Jesus’ day.<\/p>\n<p>To many careful readers, it seems that the Gospel bears the stamp of an eyewitness. For example, Jesus was teaching “in the treasury” (8:20). Nothing is made of the point; the incident could easily have been told without it. It looks like a reminiscence of someone who sees the scene in his mind’s eye as he writes. The fact that the house was filled with fragrance when the woman broke the perfume jar (12:3) does not materially affect the account but is the kind of detail that one who was there would remember. The author noted that the loaves used in the feeding of the multitude were barley loaves (6:9) and that Jesus’ tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top to bottom (19:23). He told us that the branches with which Jesus was greeted were palm branches (12:13), and that it was night when Judas went out (13:30). Such touches are found throughout the Gospel, and it seems unjustified to treat them as no more than an attempt to create verisimilitude. They seem much more like indications that the author was writing about events in which he had himself taken part.<\/p>\n<p>The early church accepted Johannine authorship without question. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all see the apostle as the author. The first to quote this Gospel by name was Theophilus of Antioch, about <span>AD<\/span> 180.<\/p>\n<p>Those who object to Johannine authorship emphasize the differences between this Gospel and the Synoptics. The argument is that if Jesus was anything like the Christ portrayed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he could not be like the Christ of the fourth Gospel. This is a completely subjective argument, ignoring the fact that any great man will appear differently to different people. The judgment of the church throughout the centuries has been that Jesus was large enough to inspire both portraits. To put the same point another way, we have no reason for holding that the first three Evangelists tell us all there is to know about Jesus. There is no contradiction. John simply brings out other aspects of Jesus’ life and teachings.<\/p>\n<p>While we cannot prove beyond all doubt that John the apostle was the author, we can say that there is more reason for holding to this view than to any other.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateOriginandDestination\">Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>It has been usual for conservatives and liberals alike to date this writing in the last decade of the first century or early in the second. Some liberal scholars have put it well into the second century, but this is not common, and it is remarkable that there has been such a considerable measure of agreement.<\/p>\n<p>It is said that this Gospel is dependent on the Synoptics, which means that it must be dated sometime after them. But this argument has been widely abandoned in recent times. There is so much in John that is without parallel in the other three Gospels, and conversely so much in the other three that John might have used had he known it, that it is very difficult indeed to hold that this writer had any of the other Gospels before him when he wrote, or even that he had read them. Such resemblances as there are seem better explained by common use of oral tradition.<\/p>\n<p>It is also argued that there is a very developed theology in John and that we must allow time for its development. Granted, the theology of this Gospel is profound, but this does not require that we must wait for it until the end of the first century. The theology of the Letter to the Romans is also profound, and there is no reason for dating that writing later than the 50s. On the ground of development, then, there is no reason for putting John later than Romans. Development is a slippery argument at best, for it usually takes place at uneven rates, and we have no means of knowing how fast it took place in the area where the author lived.<\/p>\n<p>Other arguments for a late date are no more conclusive. For example, it is urged that the ecclesiastical system presupposed by the Gospel is too late for the time of the apostle John, and that the sacramental system of chapters 3 and 6 must have taken time to develop. But John does not mention any sacrament. It is true that many scholars think these chapters refer to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but the fact is that John mentions neither.<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising in view of the way the traditional arguments have crumbled away that many in recent times are arguing that John must have been written before the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it were later, why does not John have some reference to it? Some of his language appears to be earlier. In 5:2 he says there “is” (not “was”) a pool called Bethesda. And he often refers to the Twelve as Jesus’ disciples, or “his” disciples, or the like. In later times Christians usually said “the” disciples, for they saw no need to say whose the disciples were. But in the early days, when Christians were in contact with rabbis (each of whom had his disciples), it was important to show that Jesus’ disciples were in mind. It is important also that John makes no reference to any of the synoptic Gospels. The simplest explanation is that he had not seen them. They were not yet widely circulated.<\/p>\n<p>None of this enables us to date this Gospel with precision. But the weight of evidence points to an early date (before <span>AD<\/span> 70).<\/p>\n<p>The author was John the apostle, a Jew. However, the writing gives evidence of contact with Greek thought, for example, in the reference to Christ as “the Word” in chapter 1 and the translation of words like “rabbi” (1:38). It is almost universally held that such considerations compel us to see the work as originating in a center of Greek culture, and Ephesus has traditionally been favored. Before the end of the second century we have Irenaeus writing that John published the Gospel during his residence at Ephesus.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars point to similarities between John and the Odes of Solomon, which they think came from Syria. As there are also some resemblances in the language of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in the early second century, this is held to show that John was written in Syria, probably at Antioch. Others again think that Egypt was the place, and they support this by pointing out that the oldest fragment of a manuscript of this Gospel was found there. There is no real evidence, and we are left with probabilities. There is much to be said for accepting the evidence of Irenaeus and seeing Ephesus as the place of origin, but we can scarcely say more.<\/p>\n<p>There is no real indication of the intended destination. From 20:31 we learn that the book was written that the readers might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, God’s Son, and that by believing they might have life. The Gospel, then, has an evangelistic aim. But it is also possible that “believe” means “keep on believing”—“go on in faith,” rather than “begin to believe.” That is to say, the book may have been meant from the beginning to build people up in the faith. Probably we should not distinguish between these aims too sharply. Both may well be in mind.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>Several possible backgrounds to the Gospel have been suggested. The Greek interest is obvious, and this writing has sometimes been called the Gospel of the Hellenists. The suggestion is that we should look to Greek writings, perhaps the works of the philosophers or Philo of Alexandria, to find the right background against which to understand what John has written. This approach may be seen in the work of Rudolf Bultmann, who thought specifically of Gnosticism. Indeed, for Bultmann one of the sources of this Gospel was a discourse source that he thought was taken from non-Christian Gnosticism. Not many have been prepared to follow Bultmann, but a number of recent commentators have discerned some form of Gnosticism as the backdrop to John.<\/p>\n<p>While such views are put forward seriously, there are some substantial objections. One is that, despite the confident assertions of some scholars, Gnosticism has never been shown to be earlier than Christianity. In the form in which it comes before us in history, it is a Christian heresy, and of course, the Christian faith must appear before a Christian heresy is possible. Another objection is that there is a basic difference between the two systems. Gnosticism is concerned with knowledge (the very word is derived from the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span><em>,<\/em> “knowledge”). Its “redeemer” is one who comes from heaven with knowledge. But John does not subscribe to the view that man is saved by knowledge. The Redeemer comes to take away the sin of the world (1:29). Gnosticism tells people that life is an upward struggle; Christianity tells of a Savior who came down to raise them up. It is not easy to see any form of Gnosticism as the essential background to Christianity.<\/p>\n<p>Much more significant is John’s Semitic background. Especially important here is the OT, accepted as sacred Scripture by Jew and Christian alike. It lies constantly behind John’s statements, and it must be studied carefully if John is to be understood. It is plain that John knew and loved the Septuagint, the translation into Greek of the Hebrew OT. Again and again, the Septuagint can be shown to lie behind what John says.<\/p>\n<p>In modern times important discoveries have been made at Qumran, in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. Among the scrolls unearthed in the caves of this area are several that have affinities with John. Indeed, one of the interesting facts about the scrolls is that they have more parallels with John than with any other part of the NT, a fact difficult to explain if John was written late and at a distance from Palestine. The resemblances to the Qumran writings must be viewed with care, for there is often a linguistic resemblance where the thinking is quite different. For example, both use the unusual expression “the Spirit of truth.” But where John means one of the persons of the Trinity, the scrolls speak of “a spirit of truth” and “a spirit of error” striving in the souls of people. The connection is real, but John is clearly not dependent on the scrolls for his thinking. The contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they afford additional evidence that this Gospel is basically Palestinian and must be understood against a background of first-century Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>Other backgrounds have been suggested, such as the Hermetic literature. This is a group of writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus (“Hermes Thrice-greatest”), a designation of the Egyptian god Thoth. There are indeed some points of contact with John, but they are few in comparison with those of writings rooted in Palestine. It is difficult to take such suggestions seriously. John is essentially Palestinian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The writer told us that Jesus did many “signs” (or miracles) that he had not recorded, but “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life” (Jn 20:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). John wrote to show that Jesus is the Messiah. But he did not do this simply with a view to conveying interesting information. He wanted his readers to see this knowledge as a challenge to faith; when they believe, they will have life. John sought to bring men and women to Christ; he had an evangelistic aim. That does not exhaust what he was trying to do, for his words have meaning for believers. It is important that believers have a right knowledge of Jesus and that they continue to believe.<\/p>\n<p>The main theological teaching of this Gospel, then, is that God has sent his Messiah, Jesus. He is the very Son of God, and he comes to bring life (3:16). Though Jesus told the woman at the well that he was the Messiah, this is not often said so specifically. The avoidance of the term might well be because of the political overtones it had acquired among the Jews at large. They looked for a Messiah who would fight the Romans. He would defeat them and set up a mighty world empire with its capital in Jerusalem. Jesus was not aiming at anything like that, and it was important that he avoid the kind of language that would give that impression. But though the conventional messianic terminology is avoided, John left no doubt that Jesus was God’s chosen one. Again and again he depicted Jesus as fulfilling messianic functions. For example, in the long discourse in chapter 6 we see Jesus as the bread from heaven, fulfilling the expectation that when Messiah came, he would renew the manna; and in the giving of sight to the blind man (ch 9) we have another messianic function (cf. Is 35:5).<\/p>\n<p>With this greatness of Jesus, John also combined teaching about his lowliness. A continuing, though unobtrusive, strand of Johannine teaching is that Jesus depends on the Father for everything. Apart from the Father, Jesus said, he could do nothing (Jn 5:30). His very food is to do the Father’s will (4:34). He lives through the Father (6:57). It is the Father who gives him his disciples (6:37, 44; 17:6). It is the Father who bears witness to him (5:32, 37). John insists that Jesus is in no sense independent of the Father. In the mission of Jesus, John sees the working out of the purpose of the Father.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Prologue and Chapter 1<\/h5>\n<p>John begins with a prologue (1:1-18) that is unlike anything in any of the other Gospels. In it he refers to Jesus as “the Word,” a term that has points of contact with both Greek and Hebrew thinking. As John uses it, it conveys the thought that Jesus is the expression of the mind of the Father. John speaks of the Word as God (1:1), sees him as active in creation (1:3-5), goes on to the witness borne to him by John the Baptist (1:6-8), speaks of the coming of the Word into the world (1:9-14), and finishes with a section on the greatness of the Word (1:15-18). In this prologue he briefly introduces some of the great themes that will be developed throughout the Gospel. It is a majestic introduction to the whole.<\/p>\n<p>Next we have the beginnings of Jesus’ public ministry (1:19-51). Jesus’ work was preceded by that of John the Baptist, and the Evangelist tells us first about the kind of witness that the Baptist gave to Jesus. Witness is one of his important concepts, and witness is all that John the Baptist does in this Gospel. From this witness we move to the way the first disciples came to Jesus. We learn something of how Andrew and Peter came to know the Lord. We read also of Philip and Nathanael, of whom we learn little or nothing in the other Gospels.<\/p>\n<h5>The Signs and Discourses (2:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The public ministry of Jesus is described in a very distinctive way in this Gospel. John has a long section (chs 2–12) in which he tells of a number of miracles Jesus did, interweaving into his account a series of discourses. Sometimes these are addresses given to groups of people, and sometimes they are talks with individuals. Some scholars call this section of the Gospel the Book of Signs, thus emphasizing the prominent place given to seven miracles. For John they are not simply wonders. They are meaningful; in the literal sense of the term they are <em>sign<\/em>ificant.<\/p>\n<p>The first of them is the turning of the water into wine at a marriage in Cana of Galilee (2:1-11). The water in question is connected with Jewish rites of purification (v 6), and the story is surely to teach us that Jesus transforms life. He changes the water of the law into the wine of the gospel. As a result of this “sign,” his disciples believed in him (v 11). John went on to tell how Jesus went up to Jerusalem and drove the traders out of the temple. They were selling animals for sacrifice and changing money. But their business was being done in the Court of the Gentiles, the only place in the temple where a Gentile could come to meditate and pray.<\/p>\n<p>The first discourse is on the new birth (3:1-21). Jesus talked with Nicodemus, a leading Pharisee, about the necessity for radical renewal if one is to enter the kingdom. Jesus was speaking of God’s regenerating activity, not some human reformation. Following this, John records a dispute between some of John’s disciples with a Jew on the subject of purification. This opens the way for a section that shows the superiority of Jesus over John the Baptist—by the Baptist’s own confession (3:22-36).<\/p>\n<p>The second discourse is really a long conversation Jesus had with the woman of Samaria, whom he met by a well (4:1-42). It turns on “the water of life,” a term that is not fully explained in this chapter but which we later find points to the life-giving Spirit (7:38-39). This leads to the story of the second sign, the healing of the nobleman’s son (4:46-54), notable for the fact that Jesus healed at a distance.<\/p>\n<p>The third sign is the healing of the lame man by the pool of Bethesda (5:1-18). This man had spent many years waiting for healing at the moving of the water. Jesus told him to get up and walk, and he did. Because it was done on a Sabbath, the Pharisees objected. This leads to Jesus’ third discourse, that on the divine Son (5:19-47). Here the closeness of the relationship of Jesus to the Father is stressed, and his place in the judgment is brought out. There is emphasis also on the variety of witness who encountered Jesus, which shows how reasonable it is to accept him as God’s own Son.<\/p>\n<p>John’s fourth sign is the one miracle (apart from the resurrection) found in all four Gospels: the feeding of the 5,000 (6:1-15). It is followed by Jesus’ walking on water (vv 16-21), which seems to be meant as the fifth sign (though some scholars think not; if they are right, there are only six signs). Then comes the fourth discourse, the great sermon on the bread of life (vv 22-59). Jesus is this bread, which he gives to all men and women who believe in him. There are references to eating his flesh and drinking his blood (vv 50-58), which point to his death. Some have seen in them a reference to Communion, but it is hard to see why Jesus should refer in this way to an as-yet-nonexistent sacrament. Moreover, much the same effect is attributed in the same discourse to believing (vv 35, 47). It seems best to understand Jesus as meaning that people must believe in him as the one who would die for them in order for them to have life.<\/p>\n<p>There is a section detailing Peter’s affirmation of loyalty in the face of some who drifted away from the Master (6:67-71). Then we come to the fifth discourse, on the life-giving Spirit (7:1-52). John has an important explanatory point of his own when he tells us that at the time the Spirit had not been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified (v 39). The fullness of the Spirit depends on the completion of the work of Christ in his death and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>The sixth discourse tells of the light of the world (8:12-59). This aspect of Jesus’ person and ministry is dramatically brought out in the sixth sign, the healing of the man born blind (ch 9). It is a lively narrative, as the healed man conducts a spirited defense against the Pharisees who belittled Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most beautiful of all the illustrations of Jesus’ relations to his people is that on which he dwells in the seventh discourse, where he speaks of himself as the good shepherd (ch 10). There is the obvious truth that sheep depend entirely on their shepherd, but Jesus says something else. Whereas earthly shepherds live to meet the needs of their sheep, Jesus laid down his life for his sheep.<\/p>\n<p>The final sign is the raising of Lazarus (11:1-44), a man who had been dead for four days. The story graphically brings out Jesus’ power over death and his readiness to confer the gift of life. Jesus speaks of himself as “the resurrection and the life” (v 25); death cannot defeat him. He brings life to the dead, to the spiritually dead as well as to physically dead Lazarus. John goes on to note the reaction to this miracle: some believed, but some opposed Jesus (vv 45-57). He includes a notable saying of Caiaphas, the high priest, that one man should die for the people (vv 50-52). Caiaphas was speaking as a cynical politician (better one dead, however innocent, than the whole nation be troubled). But John saw in the words the deeper meaning that Jesus’ death would bring salvation to many.<\/p>\n<p>John rounds off his account of the ministry with the story of the anointing of Jesus by a woman in Bethany, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the coming of some Greeks to Jesus, and his final summary of what he had taught (ch 12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Last Supper<\/h5>\n<p>The account of what went on in the upper room on the night before the Crucifixion is the fullest of all the four Gospels. Curiously, John says nothing about the institution of Communion, a fact that has never been satisfactorily explained. But he tells us how Jesus washed the feet of the disciples (13:1-17), an action splendidly exemplifying the spirit of lowly service so soon to be shown on the cross. Then comes the prophecy of the betrayal, an action that set in motion the events that would lead to the cross (vv 18-30).<\/p>\n<p>In the long discourse that follows, Jesus dealt with some questions posed by his followers and went on to teach them some important truths, for example, that he is the way, the truth, and the life (14:6). He develops the thought that he is the true vine, the disciples being vitally joined to him as branches to the vine. It is important for the branches to remain in the vine if they are to have life (15:1-16). Then come some words about suffering that would be of help to them in times of persecution (vv 17-25). Jesus goes on to speak about the Holy Spirit (15:26–16:15). This is a very important passage, for it contains much more about the Spirit than we find elsewhere in Jesus’ words. Jesus calls the Spirit the “Paraclete,” a title not easy to understand. It is in origin a legal term, and at least we can say that it indicates that the Spirit brings friendship, encouragement, and help. Jesus went on to speak of his approaching departure from the disciples and to prepare them for the trying time ahead (16:16-33). This part of the Gospel concludes with Jesus’ great High Priestly prayer. He prayed for the disciples to be one, as he commended them to the care of the heavenly Father (ch 17).<\/p>\n<h5>The Cross and Resurrection<\/h5>\n<p>When the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, he went forward to meet them and they fell to the ground (18:1-11). He gave himself over to them; they did not take him over. At the outset of his passion narrative, John was making the point that Jesus is sovereign. He was not being defeated by the march of events but was sovereignly doing the will of the Father. John is the only one to tell us that Jesus was taken before Annas, father-in-law to Caiaphas, the reigning high priest (18:12-14, 19-24). He tells also of Peter’s three denials of Jesus (vv 15-27). He did not spend much time on the Jewish trial, but he was much more explicit than the other Evangelists in his account of the Roman trial. Clearly, he had some special knowledge of what went on before Pilate. He presents a magnificent picture of Jesus talking with Pilate about kingship—the Son of God discussing with the representative of Caesar the meaning of sovereignty (vv 33-40).<\/p>\n<p>In his account of the Crucifixion John has a number of touches of his own, notably the way Jesus commended Mary to the care of the beloved disciple (19:26-27), the fact that the cry Jesus uttered as he died was “It is finished” (v 30), and the piercing of his side by a soldier’s spear (vv 31-37).<\/p>\n<p>John proceeds to the narrative of the burial (vv 38-42) and of the empty tomb (20:1-10). He speaks of appearances of the risen Lord to Mary Magdalene (vv 11-18), and to the disciples—both without (vv 19-23) and with Thomas (vv 24-29).<\/p>\n<p>The final chapter, an epilogue, tells of a miraculous catch of fish (21:1-14) and goes on to the moving account of Peter’s threefold declaration of love to Jesus and his restoration.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> John, The Apostle.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOHN, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>The fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospels. (See discussion above on John, the Apostle.)<\/p>\n\n<p>The Gospel appears to have been written by one who knew the Jews and the Palestine of Jesus’ day well. He was familiar with Jewish messianic expectations (e.g., Jn 1:20-21; 4:25; 7:40-42; 12:34). He knew of the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (4:9) and the contempt the Pharisees had for “the people of the land” (7:49). He knew of the importance attached to the religious schools (v 15). He knew the way the Sabbath was observed and was aware of the provision that the obligation to circumcise on the eighth day overrides the Sabbath regulations (vv 22-23). Throughout the Gospel he moved with certainty in the vast range of Jewish ideas and customs.<\/p>\n<p>It is the same with topography. The writer mentioned many places, and his place-names all seem to be used correctly. He referred to Cana, a village not mentioned in any earlier literature known to us, which means that the reference almost certainly came from someone who actually knew the place. He located Bethany with some precision as about 15 stadia from Jerusalem (about 2 miles, or 3.2 kilometers, 11:18). He had several references to places in or near Jerusalem, such as Bethesda (5:2), Siloam (9:7), and the Kidron Valley (18:1). Of course, this does not rule out some contemporary of John’s, but it makes it difficult to think of the author as a much later individual writing at a distance from Palestine. The evidence as we have it indicates that the writer was a Jew in the Palestine of Jesus’ day.<\/p>\n<p>To many careful readers, it seems that the Gospel bears the stamp of an eyewitness. For example, Jesus was teaching “in the treasury” (8:20). Nothing is made of the point; the incident could easily have been told without it. It looks like a reminiscence of someone who sees the scene in his mind’s eye as he writes. The fact that the house was filled with fragrance when the woman broke the perfume jar (12:3) does not materially affect the account but is the kind of detail that one who was there would remember. The author noted that the loaves used in the feeding of the multitude were barley loaves (6:9) and that Jesus’ tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top to bottom (19:23). He told us that the branches with which Jesus was greeted were palm branches (12:13), and that it was night when Judas went out (13:30). Such touches are found throughout the Gospel, and it seems unjustified to treat them as no more than an attempt to create verisimilitude. They seem much more like indications that the author was writing about events in which he had himself taken part.<\/p>\n<p>The early church accepted Johannine authorship without question. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all see the apostle as the author. The first to quote this Gospel by name was Theophilus of Antioch, about <span>AD<\/span> 180.<\/p>\n<p>Those who object to Johannine authorship emphasize the differences between this Gospel and the Synoptics. The argument is that if Jesus was anything like the Christ portrayed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he could not be like the Christ of the fourth Gospel. This is a completely subjective argument, ignoring the fact that any great man will appear differently to different people. The judgment of the church throughout the centuries has been that Jesus was large enough to inspire both portraits. To put the same point another way, we have no reason for holding that the first three Evangelists tell us all there is to know about Jesus. There is no contradiction. John simply brings out other aspects of Jesus’ life and teachings.<\/p>\n<p>While we cannot prove beyond all doubt that John the apostle was the author, we can say that there is more reason for holding to this view than to any other.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateOriginandDestination\">Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>It has been usual for conservatives and liberals alike to date this writing in the last decade of the first century or early in the second. Some liberal scholars have put it well into the second century, but this is not common, and it is remarkable that there has been such a considerable measure of agreement.<\/p>\n<p>It is said that this Gospel is dependent on the Synoptics, which means that it must be dated sometime after them. But this argument has been widely abandoned in recent times. There is so much in John that is without parallel in the other three Gospels, and conversely so much in the other three that John might have used had he known it, that it is very difficult indeed to hold that this writer had any of the other Gospels before him when he wrote, or even that he had read them. Such resemblances as there are seem better explained by common use of oral tradition.<\/p>\n<p>It is also argued that there is a very developed theology in John and that we must allow time for its development. Granted, the theology of this Gospel is profound, but this does not require that we must wait for it until the end of the first century. The theology of the Letter to the Romans is also profound, and there is no reason for dating that writing later than the 50s. On the ground of development, then, there is no reason for putting John later than Romans. Development is a slippery argument at best, for it usually takes place at uneven rates, and we have no means of knowing how fast it took place in the area where the author lived.<\/p>\n<p>Other arguments for a late date are no more conclusive. For example, it is urged that the ecclesiastical system presupposed by the Gospel is too late for the time of the apostle John, and that the sacramental system of chapters 3 and 6 must have taken time to develop. But John does not mention any sacrament. It is true that many scholars think these chapters refer to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but the fact is that John mentions neither.<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising in view of the way the traditional arguments have crumbled away that many in recent times are arguing that John must have been written before the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it were later, why does not John have some reference to it? Some of his language appears to be earlier. In 5:2 he says there “is” (not “was”) a pool called Bethesda. And he often refers to the Twelve as Jesus’ disciples, or “his” disciples, or the like. In later times Christians usually said “the” disciples, for they saw no need to say whose the disciples were. But in the early days, when Christians were in contact with rabbis (each of whom had his disciples), it was important to show that Jesus’ disciples were in mind. It is important also that John makes no reference to any of the synoptic Gospels. The simplest explanation is that he had not seen them. They were not yet widely circulated.<\/p>\n<p>None of this enables us to date this Gospel with precision. But the weight of evidence points to an early date (before <span>AD<\/span> 70).<\/p>\n<p>The author was John the apostle, a Jew. However, the writing gives evidence of contact with Greek thought, for example, in the reference to Christ as “the Word” in chapter 1 and the translation of words like “rabbi” (1:38). It is almost universally held that such considerations compel us to see the work as originating in a center of Greek culture, and Ephesus has traditionally been favored. Before the end of the second century we have Irenaeus writing that John published the Gospel during his residence at Ephesus.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars point to similarities between John and the Odes of Solomon, which they think came from Syria. As there are also some resemblances in the language of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in the early second century, this is held to show that John was written in Syria, probably at Antioch. Others again think that Egypt was the place, and they support this by pointing out that the oldest fragment of a manuscript of this Gospel was found there. There is no real evidence, and we are left with probabilities. There is much to be said for accepting the evidence of Irenaeus and seeing Ephesus as the place of origin, but we can scarcely say more.<\/p>\n<p>There is no real indication of the intended destination. From 20:31 we learn that the book was written that the readers might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, God’s Son, and that by believing they might have life. The Gospel, then, has an evangelistic aim. But it is also possible that “believe” means “keep on believing”—“go on in faith,” rather than “begin to believe.” That is to say, the book may have been meant from the beginning to build people up in the faith. Probably we should not distinguish between these aims too sharply. Both may well be in mind.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>Several possible backgrounds to the Gospel have been suggested. The Greek interest is obvious, and this writing has sometimes been called the Gospel of the Hellenists. The suggestion is that we should look to Greek writings, perhaps the works of the philosophers or Philo of Alexandria, to find the right background against which to understand what John has written. This approach may be seen in the work of Rudolf Bultmann, who thought specifically of Gnosticism. Indeed, for Bultmann one of the sources of this Gospel was a discourse source that he thought was taken from non-Christian Gnosticism. Not many have been prepared to follow Bultmann, but a number of recent commentators have discerned some form of Gnosticism as the backdrop to John.<\/p>\n<p>While such views are put forward seriously, there are some substantial objections. One is that, despite the confident assertions of some scholars, Gnosticism has never been shown to be earlier than Christianity. In the form in which it comes before us in history, it is a Christian heresy, and of course, the Christian faith must appear before a Christian heresy is possible. Another objection is that there is a basic difference between the two systems. Gnosticism is concerned with knowledge (the very word is derived from the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span><em>,<\/em> “knowledge”). Its “redeemer” is one who comes from heaven with knowledge. But John does not subscribe to the view that man is saved by knowledge. The Redeemer comes to take away the sin of the world (1:29). Gnosticism tells people that life is an upward struggle; Christianity tells of a Savior who came down to raise them up. It is not easy to see any form of Gnosticism as the essential background to Christianity.<\/p>\n<p>Much more significant is John’s Semitic background. Especially important here is the OT, accepted as sacred Scripture by Jew and Christian alike. It lies constantly behind John’s statements, and it must be studied carefully if John is to be understood. It is plain that John knew and loved the Septuagint, the translation into Greek of the Hebrew OT. Again and again, the Septuagint can be shown to lie behind what John says.<\/p>\n<p>In modern times important discoveries have been made at Qumran, in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. Among the scrolls unearthed in the caves of this area are several that have affinities with John. Indeed, one of the interesting facts about the scrolls is that they have more parallels with John than with any other part of the NT, a fact difficult to explain if John was written late and at a distance from Palestine. The resemblances to the Qumran writings must be viewed with care, for there is often a linguistic resemblance where the thinking is quite different. For example, both use the unusual expression “the Spirit of truth.” But where John means one of the persons of the Trinity, the scrolls speak of “a spirit of truth” and “a spirit of error” striving in the souls of people. The connection is real, but John is clearly not dependent on the scrolls for his thinking. The contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they afford additional evidence that this Gospel is basically Palestinian and must be understood against a background of first-century Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>Other backgrounds have been suggested, such as the Hermetic literature. This is a group of writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus (“Hermes Thrice-greatest”), a designation of the Egyptian god Thoth. There are indeed some points of contact with John, but they are few in comparison with those of writings rooted in Palestine. It is difficult to take such suggestions seriously. John is essentially Palestinian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The writer told us that Jesus did many “signs” (or miracles) that he had not recorded, but “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life” (Jn 20:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). John wrote to show that Jesus is the Messiah. But he did not do this simply with a view to conveying interesting information. He wanted his readers to see this knowledge as a challenge to faith; when they believe, they will have life. John sought to bring men and women to Christ; he had an evangelistic aim. That does not exhaust what he was trying to do, for his words have meaning for believers. It is important that believers have a right knowledge of Jesus and that they continue to believe.<\/p>\n<p>The main theological teaching of this Gospel, then, is that God has sent his Messiah, Jesus. He is the very Son of God, and he comes to bring life (3:16). Though Jesus told the woman at the well that he was the Messiah, this is not often said so specifically. The avoidance of the term might well be because of the political overtones it had acquired among the Jews at large. They looked for a Messiah who would fight the Romans. He would defeat them and set up a mighty world empire with its capital in Jerusalem. Jesus was not aiming at anything like that, and it was important that he avoid the kind of language that would give that impression. But though the conventional messianic terminology is avoided, John left no doubt that Jesus was God’s chosen one. Again and again he depicted Jesus as fulfilling messianic functions. For example, in the long discourse in chapter 6 we see Jesus as the bread from heaven, fulfilling the expectation that when Messiah came, he would renew the manna; and in the giving of sight to the blind man (ch 9) we have another messianic function (cf. Is 35:5).<\/p>\n<p>With this greatness of Jesus, John also combined teaching about his lowliness. A continuing, though unobtrusive, strand of Johannine teaching is that Jesus depends on the Father for everything. Apart from the Father, Jesus said, he could do nothing (Jn 5:30). His very food is to do the Father’s will (4:34). He lives through the Father (6:57). It is the Father who gives him his disciples (6:37, 44; 17:6). It is the Father who bears witness to him (5:32, 37). John insists that Jesus is in no sense independent of the Father. In the mission of Jesus, John sees the working out of the purpose of the Father.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Prologue and Chapter 1<\/h5>\n<p>John begins with a prologue (1:1-18) that is unlike anything in any of the other Gospels. In it he refers to Jesus as “the Word,” a term that has points of contact with both Greek and Hebrew thinking. As John uses it, it conveys the thought that Jesus is the expression of the mind of the Father. John speaks of the Word as God (1:1), sees him as active in creation (1:3-5), goes on to the witness borne to him by John the Baptist (1:6-8), speaks of the coming of the Word into the world (1:9-14), and finishes with a section on the greatness of the Word (1:15-18). In this prologue he briefly introduces some of the great themes that will be developed throughout the Gospel. It is a majestic introduction to the whole.<\/p>\n<p>Next we have the beginnings of Jesus’ public ministry (1:19-51). Jesus’ work was preceded by that of John the Baptist, and the Evangelist tells us first about the kind of witness that the Baptist gave to Jesus. Witness is one of his important concepts, and witness is all that John the Baptist does in this Gospel. From this witness we move to the way the first disciples came to Jesus. We learn something of how Andrew and Peter came to know the Lord. We read also of Philip and Nathanael, of whom we learn little or nothing in the other Gospels.<\/p>\n<h5>The Signs and Discourses (2:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The public ministry of Jesus is described in a very distinctive way in this Gospel. John has a long section (chs 2–12) in which he tells of a number of miracles Jesus did, interweaving into his account a series of discourses. Sometimes these are addresses given to groups of people, and sometimes they are talks with individuals. Some scholars call this section of the Gospel the Book of Signs, thus emphasizing the prominent place given to seven miracles. For John they are not simply wonders. They are meaningful; in the literal sense of the term they are <em>sign<\/em>ificant.<\/p>\n<p>The first of them is the turning of the water into wine at a marriage in Cana of Galilee (2:1-11). The water in question is connected with Jewish rites of purification (v 6), and the story is surely to teach us that Jesus transforms life. He changes the water of the law into the wine of the gospel. As a result of this “sign,” his disciples believed in him (v 11). John went on to tell how Jesus went up to Jerusalem and drove the traders out of the temple. They were selling animals for sacrifice and changing money. But their business was being done in the Court of the Gentiles, the only place in the temple where a Gentile could come to meditate and pray.<\/p>\n<p>The first discourse is on the new birth (3:1-21). Jesus talked with Nicodemus, a leading Pharisee, about the necessity for radical renewal if one is to enter the kingdom. Jesus was speaking of God’s regenerating activity, not some human reformation. Following this, John records a dispute between some of John’s disciples with a Jew on the subject of purification. This opens the way for a section that shows the superiority of Jesus over John the Baptist—by the Baptist’s own confession (3:22-36).<\/p>\n<p>The second discourse is really a long conversation Jesus had with the woman of Samaria, whom he met by a well (4:1-42). It turns on “the water of life,” a term that is not fully explained in this chapter but which we later find points to the life-giving Spirit (7:38-39). This leads to the story of the second sign, the healing of the nobleman’s son (4:46-54), notable for the fact that Jesus healed at a distance.<\/p>\n<p>The third sign is the healing of the lame man by the pool of Bethesda (5:1-18). This man had spent many years waiting for healing at the moving of the water. Jesus told him to get up and walk, and he did. Because it was done on a Sabbath, the Pharisees objected. This leads to Jesus’ third discourse, that on the divine Son (5:19-47). Here the closeness of the relationship of Jesus to the Father is stressed, and his place in the judgment is brought out. There is emphasis also on the variety of witness who encountered Jesus, which shows how reasonable it is to accept him as God’s own Son.<\/p>\n<p>John’s fourth sign is the one miracle (apart from the resurrection) found in all four Gospels: the feeding of the 5,000 (6:1-15). It is followed by Jesus’ walking on water (vv 16-21), which seems to be meant as the fifth sign (though some scholars think not; if they are right, there are only six signs). Then comes the fourth discourse, the great sermon on the bread of life (vv 22-59). Jesus is this bread, which he gives to all men and women who believe in him. There are references to eating his flesh and drinking his blood (vv 50-58), which point to his death. Some have seen in them a reference to Communion, but it is hard to see why Jesus should refer in this way to an as-yet-nonexistent sacrament. Moreover, much the same effect is attributed in the same discourse to believing (vv 35, 47). It seems best to understand Jesus as meaning that people must believe in him as the one who would die for them in order for them to have life.<\/p>\n<p>There is a section detailing Peter’s affirmation of loyalty in the face of some who drifted away from the Master (6:67-71). Then we come to the fifth discourse, on the life-giving Spirit (7:1-52). John has an important explanatory point of his own when he tells us that at the time the Spirit had not been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified (v 39). The fullness of the Spirit depends on the completion of the work of Christ in his death and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>The sixth discourse tells of the light of the world (8:12-59). This aspect of Jesus’ person and ministry is dramatically brought out in the sixth sign, the healing of the man born blind (ch 9). It is a lively narrative, as the healed man conducts a spirited defense against the Pharisees who belittled Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most beautiful of all the illustrations of Jesus’ relations to his people is that on which he dwells in the seventh discourse, where he speaks of himself as the good shepherd (ch 10). There is the obvious truth that sheep depend entirely on their shepherd, but Jesus says something else. Whereas earthly shepherds live to meet the needs of their sheep, Jesus laid down his life for his sheep.<\/p>\n<p>The final sign is the raising of Lazarus (11:1-44), a man who had been dead for four days. The story graphically brings out Jesus’ power over death and his readiness to confer the gift of life. Jesus speaks of himself as “the resurrection and the life” (v 25); death cannot defeat him. He brings life to the dead, to the spiritually dead as well as to physically dead Lazarus. John goes on to note the reaction to this miracle: some believed, but some opposed Jesus (vv 45-57). He includes a notable saying of Caiaphas, the high priest, that one man should die for the people (vv 50-52). Caiaphas was speaking as a cynical politician (better one dead, however innocent, than the whole nation be troubled). But John saw in the words the deeper meaning that Jesus’ death would bring salvation to many.<\/p>\n<p>John rounds off his account of the ministry with the story of the anointing of Jesus by a woman in Bethany, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the coming of some Greeks to Jesus, and his final summary of what he had taught (ch 12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Last Supper<\/h5>\n<p>The account of what went on in the upper room on the night before the Crucifixion is the fullest of all the four Gospels. Curiously, John says nothing about the institution of Communion, a fact that has never been satisfactorily explained. But he tells us how Jesus washed the feet of the disciples (13:1-17), an action splendidly exemplifying the spirit of lowly service so soon to be shown on the cross. Then comes the prophecy of the betrayal, an action that set in motion the events that would lead to the cross (vv 18-30).<\/p>\n<p>In the long discourse that follows, Jesus dealt with some questions posed by his followers and went on to teach them some important truths, for example, that he is the way, the truth, and the life (14:6). He develops the thought that he is the true vine, the disciples being vitally joined to him as branches to the vine. It is important for the branches to remain in the vine if they are to have life (15:1-16). Then come some words about suffering that would be of help to them in times of persecution (vv 17-25). Jesus goes on to speak about the Holy Spirit (15:26–16:15). This is a very important passage, for it contains much more about the Spirit than we find elsewhere in Jesus’ words. Jesus calls the Spirit the “Paraclete,” a title not easy to understand. It is in origin a legal term, and at least we can say that it indicates that the Spirit brings friendship, encouragement, and help. Jesus went on to speak of his approaching departure from the disciples and to prepare them for the trying time ahead (16:16-33). This part of the Gospel concludes with Jesus’ great High Priestly prayer. He prayed for the disciples to be one, as he commended them to the care of the heavenly Father (ch 17).<\/p>\n<h5>The Cross and Resurrection<\/h5>\n<p>When the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, he went forward to meet them and they fell to the ground (18:1-11). He gave himself over to them; they did not take him over. At the outset of his passion narrative, John was making the point that Jesus is sovereign. He was not being defeated by the march of events but was sovereignly doing the will of the Father. John is the only one to tell us that Jesus was taken before Annas, father-in-law to Caiaphas, the reigning high priest (18:12-14, 19-24). He tells also of Peter’s three denials of Jesus (vv 15-27). He did not spend much time on the Jewish trial, but he was much more explicit than the other Evangelists in his account of the Roman trial. Clearly, he had some special knowledge of what went on before Pilate. He presents a magnificent picture of Jesus talking with Pilate about kingship—the Son of God discussing with the representative of Caesar the meaning of sovereignty (vv 33-40).<\/p>\n<p>In his account of the Crucifixion John has a number of touches of his own, notably the way Jesus commended Mary to the care of the beloved disciple (19:26-27), the fact that the cry Jesus uttered as he died was “It is finished” (v 30), and the piercing of his side by a soldier’s spear (vv 31-37).<\/p>\n<p>John proceeds to the narrative of the burial (vv 38-42) and of the empty tomb (20:1-10). He speaks of appearances of the risen Lord to Mary Magdalene (vv 11-18), and to the disciples—both without (vv 19-23) and with Thomas (vv 24-29).<\/p>\n<p>The final chapter, an epilogue, tells of a miraculous catch of fish (21:1-14) and goes on to the moving account of Peter’s threefold declaration of love to Jesus and his restoration.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> John, The Apostle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOHN, Gospel of The fourth Gospel. Preview • Author • Date, Origin, and Destination • Background • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Author At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospe...","summary_en":"JOHN, Gospel of The fourth Gospel. Preview • Author • Date, Origin, and Destination • Background • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Author At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospe...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":31585,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Prophecy","title_en":"Prophecy","content_ro":"<h3>PROPHECY<\/h3>\n<p>Term, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Prophecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Types of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• The Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• Prophecy in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• The Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ProphecyintheOldTestament\">Prophecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>One of the clearest and most significant statements on the nature of prophetic inspiration in the OT is found in Numbers 12:6-8: “The <span>Lord<\/span> said to them, ‘Now listen to me! Even with prophets, I the <span>Lord<\/span> communicate by visions and dreams. But that is not how I communicate with my servant Moses. He is entrusted with my entire house. I speak to him face to face, directly and not in riddles! He sees the <span>Lord<\/span> as he is’ ” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Several important insights into the nature of prophetic inspiration are found in this passage: (1) The prophetic gift of Moses was unique in that he alone received revelations directly from God. (2) Ordinarily, prophetic revelation was received through the medium of a dream or a vision. (3) The meaning of prophetic revelation is not always completely clear; prophecy is sometimes ambiguous.<\/p>\n<p>Further insight into the nature of prophetic revelation is found in Deuteronomy 18:18: “I [God] will raise up for them a prophet like you [Moses] from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (<span>rsv<\/span>). While this passage is of interest because Jesus was identified as “the prophet like Moses” who came in fulfillment of this prediction (Acts 3:22; 7:37), the more immediate historical reference is to the succession of prophets that guided Israel from Joshua to Malachi. The phrase “I will put my words in his mouth” refers to the process of divine inspiration and is reminiscent of the common OT prophetic formula “the word of the Lord came to [such and such a prophet]” (for examples, see 1 Sm 15:10; 2 Sm 24:11; 1 Kgs 19:9; Jon 1:1; Hg 1:1; 2:1, 20; Zec 7:1, 8; 8:1). A true prophet is one who speaks (or repeats) all that God has told him.<\/p>\n<h5>Modes of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\n<p>Dreams were a commonly recognized mode of inspiration throughout the ancient world, though they were more highly regarded in Greece than in ancient Israel. Revelatory dreams in the Bible fall into two major categories: (1) dreams whose meaning is self-evident, and (2) symbolic dreams that usually require the expertise of an interpreter of dreams. Both types normally involve both visual and auditory elements. In those dreams whose meaning is self-evident, normally a supernatural being (God or an angel) appears to the dreamer and speaks to him or her in a straightforward manner.<\/p>\n<p>More frequently, revelatory dreams have symbolic elements that require interpretation. The two great dream interpreters of the OT are Joseph and Daniel; the latter is clearly a prophet. The two symbolic dreams that Joseph himself dreamed (Gn 37:5-11) had sufficiently self-evident meaning so that his brothers and father were able to interpret them immediately. More complex were the dreams of the butler and baker (40:1-19) and of Pharaoh (41:1-36), which Joseph was able to interpret with the help of God. Similarly, Daniel was enabled to interpret the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar (Dn 2:25-45; 4:4-27). The skill in interpreting such dreams was attributed by both Joseph and Daniel to God (Gn 40:8; 41:16, 25; Dn 2:27-30; cf. 4:9). While dreams are used almost interchangeably with visions in referring to modes of prophetic inspiration (Jl 2:28), dreams do not occupy a significant part in the prophetic revelations of any of the OT prophets, with the exception of Daniel.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most characteristic modes of prophetic inspiration was the vision (Nm 12:6; 24:4, 16; Hos 12:10). The revelatory visions experienced by the prophets were not limited to visual phenomena alone but also included the auditory dimension as well. In Isaiah 1:1, the author describes his entire prophetic book as a “vision”: “These visions concerning Judah and Jerusalem came to Isaiah son of Amoz during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah—all kings of Judah” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Yet in the very next verse, Isaiah says, “Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth! This is what the <span>Lord<\/span> says.” Again, in Amos 1:1, “The <em>words<\/em> of Amos, who was among the shepherds of Tekoa, which he <em>saw<\/em> concerning Israel” (<span>rsv<\/span>, emphasis added).<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\n<p>All prophecy, whether biblical or not, presupposes that the prophet either possessed or was possessed by a personal supernatural power. The external behavioral manifestations of this possession can exhibit great variety.<\/p>\n<p>The prophetic phenomenon generally designated “ecstatic” prophecy appears to have existed in Canaan prior to the arrival of the Hebrew tribes in the 13th century <span>BC<\/span>. The first reference to ecstatic prophecy in Israel occurs in 1 Samuel 10:5-13 (11th century <span>BC<\/span>), and it persisted at least till the sixth century <span>BC<\/span> (Jer 29:26).<\/p>\n<p>The ecstatic prophet achieves a trancelike state by self-induced means. The most common devices used to achieve a state of ecstasy were musical instruments, such as the harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre (1 Sm 10:5). Among the prophets of Baal, self-flagellation was another means of inducing ecstasy (1 Kgs 18:28-29).<\/p>\n<p>This kind of prophetic ecstasy was usually practiced by groups of prophets (1 Sm 10:5), and such ecstasy was contagious. When Saul met a band of such prophets, the Spirit of God came upon him and he, too, began to prophesy (vv 10-13), a phenomenon that occurred repeatedly to various messengers sent by Saul on a later occasion (19:20-22). At that time Saul again prophesied, and his ecstatic behavior is described in 1 Samuel 19:24. When Elisha was asked to prophesy for King Jehoram of Israel, he first requested a minstrel. When the minstrel played, the power of the Lord came upon him (2 Kgs 3:15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TypesofOldTestamentProphets\">Types of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\n<p>There are two basic types of prophetic commission in the OT. One type is that of a narrative call by God to a particular individual whose objections to the call are gradually overcome in a dialogue between himself and God. The classic example of this type of prophetic commission is found in Jeremiah 1:4-8:<\/p>\n<p>The <span>Lord<\/span> gave me a message. He said, “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my spokesman to the world.”<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>“O Sovereign <span>Lord<\/span>,” I said, “I can’t speak for you! I’m too young!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>“Don’t say that,” the <span>Lord<\/span> replied, “for you must go wherever I send you and say whatever I tell you. And don’t be afraid of the people, for I will be with you and take care of you. I, the <span>Lord<\/span>, have spoken!” (<span>nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Similar prophetic commissions including such dialogues are associated with the calls of Moses (Ex 3:1–4:17) and Gideon (Jgs 6:11-17).<\/p>\n<p>The second major form of prophetic commission is the “throne vision.” An outstanding example is Isaiah 6:1-8:<\/p>\n<p>In the year King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord. He was sitting on a lofty throne, and the train of his robe filled the Temple. . . .<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Then I said, “My destruction is sealed, for I am a sinful man and a member of a sinful race. Yet I have seen the King, the <span>Lord<\/span> Almighty!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>Then one of the seraphim flew over to the altar, and he picked up a burning coal with a pair of tongs. He touched my lips with it and said, “See, this coal has touched your lips. Now your guilt is removed, and your sins are forgiven.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>Then I heard the Lord asking, “Whom should I send as a messenger to my people? Who will go for us?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>And I said, “Lord, I’ll go! Send me.” (<span>nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Here we have an account of the visionary presence of a prophet in the heavenly council; in this case, however, the prophet participates in the deliberations and thereby receives a prophetic commission. Though few prophets have left accounts of their divine commissions, most of them appear to have been conscious of having been “sent” by God (Is 48:16; Hos 8:1; Am 7:14-15). According to Jeremiah, false prophets did not receive such divine commissions (Jer 23:21, 32; 28:15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMessageoftheProphets\">The Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of the Message<\/h5>\n<p>The most common introductory formula for prophetic oracles in the OT is the phrase “Thus says the Lord,” which occurs hundreds of times in prophetic contexts. This formula clearly implies that the pronouncement so introduced is not the word of the prophet who utters the oracle but of the God of Israel who delivered his word to his prophet. The use of this formula also reiterates the prophet’s sense of divine commission. In oracles introduced in this manner, God speaks in the first person. In fact, virtually all Israelite prophetic utterance is formulated as the direct speech of the God of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets used many literary forms in which to express their oracles. Two of the more widely used forms of prophetic speech are the judgment speech and the oracle of salvation. The judgment speech is composed of at least two central elements: the speech of rebuke or invective, and the pronouncement of judgment (see 2 Kgs 1:3-4). The second common prophetic speech form is the oracle of salvation (see Is 41:8-13). Other fixed forms of prophetic speech include the prophecy of salvation (43:14-21), the proclamation of salvation (41:17-20; 42:14-17; 43:16-21; 49:7-12), and the woe oracle (Is 5:8-10; 10:1-4; Am 5:18-24; 6:1-7; Mi 2:1-5).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of the Message<\/h5>\n<p>The common adage that OT prophets were not “foretellers” but “forthtellers” is not strictly correct. All of the prophets predict the future. Such prediction, however, is based not on human curiosity of what the future will hold but rather is rooted in the future consequences of past or present violations of the covenant, or on a future act of deliverance that will provide hope for a discouraged people. Most of the prophetic speeches that have been preserved in the OT were originally delivered as public proclamations or sermons. Most of these prophetic proclamations were evoked by the iniquity and apostasy of Israel. Hosea and Jeremiah condemned Israel because she had broken the covenant (Jer 11:2-3; Hos 8:1).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets are frequently associated with social justice and social reform, and these elements were unquestionably an important dimension of their message. Amos denounced the rich who afflicted the poor (Am 2:6-8; 4:1; 5:11; 8:4-6). He railed against sexual immorality (2:6-8) and against those who take bribes (5:12). Hosea provided a list of prevalent vices, including lying, killing, stealing, adultery, and idolatry (Hos 4:2). Idolatry was a particular target for his denunciations (8:5; 11:2). The background for such heated denunciations of Israel’s behavior is God’s unquenchable love for Israel (Is 43:4; Jer 31:3; Hos 3:1; 11:1-4; 14:4; Mal 1:2), which is inseparable from his election of Israel (Is 43:1; Jer 33:24; Ez 20:5; Hos 3).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets were concerned not only with the transgressions of Israel and the historical judgment that would inevitably follow but also with the achievement of a final future time of bliss. The message of many of the prophets is thoroughly eschatological (i.e., pertaining to the end times). One such eschatological concept is that of the Day of the Lord. The concept of the Day of the Lord first appears in Amos, where the emphasis lies on the disaster that will befall Israel on that day. Amos’s emphasis on disaster notwithstanding, the Day of the Lord is a conception that had both salvific as well as judgmental overtones for Israel. While the disaster that will occur in the Day of the Lord can be viewed in terms of a literal historical fulfillment in the tragic events of 722 <span>BC<\/span> (the fall of Samaria) and 586 <span>BC<\/span> (the fall of Judah), there are nevertheless features of these predictions that transcend historical fulfillment and reach toward eschatological fulfillment.<\/p>\n<p>Since the Israelite conception of “salvation” was largely temporal in its dimensions, it included such blessings as length of life, fruitfulness of the womb and field, peace and victory over one’s enemies, the abundance of water, and so on. In harmony with this conception of salvation, the future age is conceived in precisely those terms, as in Amos 9:13-15.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets pictured a time when David himself, or someone very much like him, would return and inaugurate a golden era reminiscent of the great Davidic and Solomonic period. The covenant of God with David was not a conditional covenant but rather one that was absolutely inviolable (2 Sm 7:4-17; Ps 89; Jer 33:19-22), and it was with this knowledge that the prophets could look forward confidently to a restoration of David’s throne (Jer 17:24-26; 23:5-6; 33:14-15).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ProphecyintheNewTestament\">Prophecy in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In contrast to the few self-proclaimed prophets of the intertestamental period, early Christianity began with a flurry of prophetic activity that lasted well into the second century <span>AD<\/span>. Jesus, his disciples and followers, and the early Christians were convinced that the times in which they lived were times in which OT prophecy was being fulfilled (Mk 1:14-15; Acts 2:16-21; Rom 16:25-27; 1 Cor 10:11). Yet this era was not only one of fulfillment but also one of the renewal of the prophetic gift.<\/p>\n<h5>John the Baptist<\/h5>\n<p>John the Baptist is remembered in the NT primarily as the forerunner of Jesus whose coming was predicted by Malachi (Mal 4:5-6). Yet, in his own right, John proclaimed the imminent judgment of God with a flair of denunciation and rebuke reminiscent of the OT prophets. John’s costume, consisting of a hairy cloak and a leather girdle (Mk 1:6), was reminiscent of the typical garb of OT prophets (1 Kgs 19:19; 2 Kgs 1:8; 2:13-14; Zec 13:4). John was regarded as a prophet by people everywhere (Mt 14:5; 17:10-13; Mk 9:11-13; 11:32; Lk 1:76; 7:26). Luke reports, in a style similar to the OT prophetic narratives, that “the word of God came to John” (Lk 3:2). Two short prophetic speeches have been preserved in Matthew 3:7-10 (cf. Lk 3:7-9) and Mark 1:7-8 (cf. Mt 3:11-12; Lk 3:15-18). In the first speech, John denounced those of his generation who had transgressed the covenant law and exhorted them to change their manner of life. In the second speech, John predicted the coming of the Mighty One, Jesus (Mt 3:11; Mk 1:7; Lk 3:16; Jn 1:15, 27, 30; Acts 13:25). John’s style, however, was not precisely that of the OT prophets. His pronouncements were made on his own authority; never did he use formulas such as “thus says the Lord,” or present his prophetic utterances as if they were speeches made by God. Yet, in spite of these differences, John is appropriately regarded as the last representative of the OT prophetic tradition (Mt 11:13; Lk 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus of Nazareth<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus was popularly regarded as a prophet (Mt 16:14; 21:10-11; Mk 6:14-15; 8:28; Lk 7:16, 39; 9:8, 19; Jn 6:14; 7:40, 52). This assessment was based as much on the mighty deeds Jesus performed as on his prophetic speeches and predictions. Though Jesus nowhere claimed prophetic status directly, that claim is implicit in Mark 6:4: “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown” (cf. Mt 13:57; Lk 4:24). It is implicit as well in Luke 13:33: “Yes, today, tomorrow, and the next day I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem!” (<span>nlt<\/span>). In Acts, Jesus is regarded as “the prophet like Moses” predicted in Deuteronomy 18:18 (Acts 3:22; 7:37). Matthew presents Jesus as the New Moses, but he does not particularly emphasize his prophetic role. John, however, like Luke, emphasizes Jesus’ role as the prophet (Jn 4:19; 6:14-15; 7:40).<\/p>\n<p>While the Gospels and Acts reflect the notion that Jesus was a prophet, they also emphasize the fact that he was much more than a prophet. Nevertheless, the notion of prophetism was sufficiently important in early Judaism that Jesus’ recognition as a prophet is very significant. There are 12 solid reasons for regarding Jesus as a prophet in the OT tradition: (1) The sovereign authority of Jesus’ teaching (Mk 1:27), a feature underlined by his use of the introductory formula “(Amen) I say to you,” which is reminiscent of the formula “thus says the Lord” used by the OT prophets. (2) The poetic character of many of Jesus’ sayings is unlike contemporary rabbinic teaching but is similar to the poetic rhetoric of the OT prophets. (3) Jesus experienced visions (Lk 10:18) like the ancient prophets. (4) Jesus, like the prophets, made many predictions (Mt 23:38; Mk 13:2; 14:58; Lk 13:35; etc.). (5) Like the OT prophets, Jesus performed symbolic acts (such as the cleansing of the temple, the entry into Jerusalem, and the Last Supper). (6) Jesus, like the prophets, when necessary, rejected the formal observance of religious ritual and emphasized the moral and spiritual dimensions of obedience to God. (7) Jesus announced the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God—an eschatological proclamation similar to those made by the prophets. (8) Like the OT prophets, Jesus functioned as a preacher of repentance. (9) Jesus, like many of the prophets, was conscious of a special calling of God (Mt 15:24; Mk 8:31; 9:37; 14:36; Lk 4:18-26). (10) Jesus, like the prophets, received divine revelation through intimate communion with God (Mt 11:27; Lk 10:22). (11) Like the prophets, Jesus represented God; to obey him was to obey God, to reject him was to reject God (Mk 9:37; cf. Ez 33:30-33). (12) Like the prophets, Jesus was conscious of a mission to all Israel (Mt 15:24; 19:28; Lk 22:30).<\/p>\n<p>Among the many prophetic predictions of Jesus are the following:<\/p>\n<p>1. Predictions of the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God (Mt 10:7-8, 23; 23:39; Mk 1:15; 9:1; 13:28-29)<\/p>\n<li>2. Predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Mt 23:37-39; 24:2; 26:61; 27:40; Mk 13:2; 14:58; 15:29; Lk 13:34-35; 21:6; Jn 2:19-21)<\/li>\n<li>3. Predictions of the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 10:23, 32-33; 12:40; 13:40-41; 16:27; 24:27, 37-39; Mk 8:38; 13:26-27; 14:62; Lk 9:26; 11:30; 12:8-9; 17:24, 26)<\/li>\n<li>4. Predictions of the end of the age. The longest prophetic section in the Gospels is the eschatological discourse of Jesus in Mark 13:1-32 (cf. Mt 24:1-36; Lk 21:5-33), in which a number of predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age are woven into a lengthy discourse to the disciples.<\/li>\n<h5>Prophecy as a Gift for the Believers<\/h5>\n<p>The beginning of prophetic activity in early Christianity, according to Acts, coincided with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the earliest Christians on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-21). Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost indicates that the outpouring of the Spirit fulfilled Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:4, 17-21; cf. Jl 2:28-32). Further, since the Spirit had been poured out upon all early Christians (that Spirit being a Spirit of prophecy), all are actual or potential prophets.<\/p>\n<p>According to 1 Corinthians 12:28 (see also Rom 12:6; Eph 4:11), God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, and third teachers. The names of several early Christian prophets have been preserved. These include Agabus (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10-11); Judas and Silas (15:32); Barnabas, Simeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Paul (13:1); and the four virgin daughters of Philip the evangelist (21:8-9). John, the author of Revelation, was certainly a prophet (Rv 1:3; 22:9, 18), though he never directly assumed that title.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRoleoftheChristianProphet\">The Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\n<p>Christian prophets were leaders in early Christian communities (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11), who exercised their gift in church gatherings (Acts 13:1-3; 11:27-28; 1 Cor 12–14; Rv 1:10). Since the Spirit of God was particularly active in Christian worship, prophecy was a major means whereby God communicated with his people. Prophets, like apostles and teachers, did not hold offices in local communities like bishops, elders, and deacons. Rather, they were chosen, not by individual congregations, but by divine commission and so were honored and accepted in all local communities.<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian prophets were both itinerant and settled, though itinerant prophets seem to have been more prevalent in Syria-Palestine and Asia Minor than in the European churches.<\/p>\n<h5>The Function of Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>According to Paul, the central purpose of prophecy (as of all other spiritual gifts) is that of building up or edifying the church. According to 1 Corinthians 14:3, “one who prophesies is helping others grow in the Lord, encouraging and comforting them” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Again, in 1 Corinthians 14:4, Paul states that the “one who speaks a word of prophecy strengthens the entire church.” Paul discussed the subject of spiritual gifts, particularly tongues speaking and prophecy, because the Corinthians had placed an excessive emphasis on speaking in tongues. Paul did not object to speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:18, 39), but he did point out that, since it was generally incomprehensible, the church could not be edified by it. Prophecy, which consisted of comprehensible speech inspired by the Spirit, contributed to the mutual edification, encouragement, and consolation of all present (1 Cor 14:20-25, 39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>We know only a little about the content of prophecies uttered in the first-century church. Prophetic utterance occasionally provided divine guidance in making important decisions in early Christianity. Through a prophetic utterance, Paul and Barnabas were selected for a particular mission (Acts 13:1-3; cf. 1 Tm 1:18; 4:14). Probably through prophetic utterance, Paul and Timothy were forbidden to preach the gospel in Asia (Acts 16:6), and they were similarly forbidden by the Spirit of Jesus to go into Bithynia (v 7). Perhaps the most frequent use of prophecy is the prediction of the future. Agabus predicted a universal famine (11:28) and the imminent arrest of Paul (21:11). Other prophets had also predicted his impending imprisonment (20:23). The prophecies contained in the Revelation of John are all oriented toward the future events that will gradually unfold in the last days. Yet the purpose of John’s elaborate prophecy is not to satisfy the curiosity of his audience but rather to comfort and encourage them in the midst of persecution.<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>Unlike the prophets of the OT, Christian prophets did not always present their message in the form of a direct speech from God or Jesus. There are few, if any, formal indicators of the presence of prophetic speech in early Christian literature. The book of Revelation is one notable exception.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Dreams; Oracle; Promise; Prophet, Prophetess; Prophets, False; Visions.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PROPHECY<\/h3>\n<p>Term, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Prophecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Types of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• The Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• Prophecy in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• The Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ProphecyintheOldTestament\">Prophecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>One of the clearest and most significant statements on the nature of prophetic inspiration in the OT is found in Numbers 12:6-8: “The <span>Lord<\/span> said to them, ‘Now listen to me! Even with prophets, I the <span>Lord<\/span> communicate by visions and dreams. But that is not how I communicate with my servant Moses. He is entrusted with my entire house. I speak to him face to face, directly and not in riddles! He sees the <span>Lord<\/span> as he is’ ” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Several important insights into the nature of prophetic inspiration are found in this passage: (1) The prophetic gift of Moses was unique in that he alone received revelations directly from God. (2) Ordinarily, prophetic revelation was received through the medium of a dream or a vision. (3) The meaning of prophetic revelation is not always completely clear; prophecy is sometimes ambiguous.<\/p>\n<p>Further insight into the nature of prophetic revelation is found in Deuteronomy 18:18: “I [God] will raise up for them a prophet like you [Moses] from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (<span>rsv<\/span>). While this passage is of interest because Jesus was identified as “the prophet like Moses” who came in fulfillment of this prediction (Acts 3:22; 7:37), the more immediate historical reference is to the succession of prophets that guided Israel from Joshua to Malachi. The phrase “I will put my words in his mouth” refers to the process of divine inspiration and is reminiscent of the common OT prophetic formula “the word of the Lord came to [such and such a prophet]” (for examples, see 1 Sm 15:10; 2 Sm 24:11; 1 Kgs 19:9; Jon 1:1; Hg 1:1; 2:1, 20; Zec 7:1, 8; 8:1). A true prophet is one who speaks (or repeats) all that God has told him.<\/p>\n<h5>Modes of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\n<p>Dreams were a commonly recognized mode of inspiration throughout the ancient world, though they were more highly regarded in Greece than in ancient Israel. Revelatory dreams in the Bible fall into two major categories: (1) dreams whose meaning is self-evident, and (2) symbolic dreams that usually require the expertise of an interpreter of dreams. Both types normally involve both visual and auditory elements. In those dreams whose meaning is self-evident, normally a supernatural being (God or an angel) appears to the dreamer and speaks to him or her in a straightforward manner.<\/p>\n<p>More frequently, revelatory dreams have symbolic elements that require interpretation. The two great dream interpreters of the OT are Joseph and Daniel; the latter is clearly a prophet. The two symbolic dreams that Joseph himself dreamed (Gn 37:5-11) had sufficiently self-evident meaning so that his brothers and father were able to interpret them immediately. More complex were the dreams of the butler and baker (40:1-19) and of Pharaoh (41:1-36), which Joseph was able to interpret with the help of God. Similarly, Daniel was enabled to interpret the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar (Dn 2:25-45; 4:4-27). The skill in interpreting such dreams was attributed by both Joseph and Daniel to God (Gn 40:8; 41:16, 25; Dn 2:27-30; cf. 4:9). While dreams are used almost interchangeably with visions in referring to modes of prophetic inspiration (Jl 2:28), dreams do not occupy a significant part in the prophetic revelations of any of the OT prophets, with the exception of Daniel.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most characteristic modes of prophetic inspiration was the vision (Nm 12:6; 24:4, 16; Hos 12:10). The revelatory visions experienced by the prophets were not limited to visual phenomena alone but also included the auditory dimension as well. In Isaiah 1:1, the author describes his entire prophetic book as a “vision”: “These visions concerning Judah and Jerusalem came to Isaiah son of Amoz during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah—all kings of Judah” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Yet in the very next verse, Isaiah says, “Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth! This is what the <span>Lord<\/span> says.” Again, in Amos 1:1, “The <em>words<\/em> of Amos, who was among the shepherds of Tekoa, which he <em>saw<\/em> concerning Israel” (<span>rsv<\/span>, emphasis added).<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\n<p>All prophecy, whether biblical or not, presupposes that the prophet either possessed or was possessed by a personal supernatural power. The external behavioral manifestations of this possession can exhibit great variety.<\/p>\n<p>The prophetic phenomenon generally designated “ecstatic” prophecy appears to have existed in Canaan prior to the arrival of the Hebrew tribes in the 13th century <span>BC<\/span>. The first reference to ecstatic prophecy in Israel occurs in 1 Samuel 10:5-13 (11th century <span>BC<\/span>), and it persisted at least till the sixth century <span>BC<\/span> (Jer 29:26).<\/p>\n<p>The ecstatic prophet achieves a trancelike state by self-induced means. The most common devices used to achieve a state of ecstasy were musical instruments, such as the harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre (1 Sm 10:5). Among the prophets of Baal, self-flagellation was another means of inducing ecstasy (1 Kgs 18:28-29).<\/p>\n<p>This kind of prophetic ecstasy was usually practiced by groups of prophets (1 Sm 10:5), and such ecstasy was contagious. When Saul met a band of such prophets, the Spirit of God came upon him and he, too, began to prophesy (vv 10-13), a phenomenon that occurred repeatedly to various messengers sent by Saul on a later occasion (19:20-22). At that time Saul again prophesied, and his ecstatic behavior is described in 1 Samuel 19:24. When Elisha was asked to prophesy for King Jehoram of Israel, he first requested a minstrel. When the minstrel played, the power of the Lord came upon him (2 Kgs 3:15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TypesofOldTestamentProphets\">Types of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\n<p>There are two basic types of prophetic commission in the OT. One type is that of a narrative call by God to a particular individual whose objections to the call are gradually overcome in a dialogue between himself and God. The classic example of this type of prophetic commission is found in Jeremiah 1:4-8:<\/p>\n<p>The <span>Lord<\/span> gave me a message. He said, “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my spokesman to the world.”<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>“O Sovereign <span>Lord<\/span>,” I said, “I can’t speak for you! I’m too young!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>“Don’t say that,” the <span>Lord<\/span> replied, “for you must go wherever I send you and say whatever I tell you. And don’t be afraid of the people, for I will be with you and take care of you. I, the <span>Lord<\/span>, have spoken!” (<span>nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Similar prophetic commissions including such dialogues are associated with the calls of Moses (Ex 3:1–4:17) and Gideon (Jgs 6:11-17).<\/p>\n<p>The second major form of prophetic commission is the “throne vision.” An outstanding example is Isaiah 6:1-8:<\/p>\n<p>In the year King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord. He was sitting on a lofty throne, and the train of his robe filled the Temple. . . .<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Then I said, “My destruction is sealed, for I am a sinful man and a member of a sinful race. Yet I have seen the King, the <span>Lord<\/span> Almighty!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>Then one of the seraphim flew over to the altar, and he picked up a burning coal with a pair of tongs. He touched my lips with it and said, “See, this coal has touched your lips. Now your guilt is removed, and your sins are forgiven.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>Then I heard the Lord asking, “Whom should I send as a messenger to my people? Who will go for us?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>And I said, “Lord, I’ll go! Send me.” (<span>nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Here we have an account of the visionary presence of a prophet in the heavenly council; in this case, however, the prophet participates in the deliberations and thereby receives a prophetic commission. Though few prophets have left accounts of their divine commissions, most of them appear to have been conscious of having been “sent” by God (Is 48:16; Hos 8:1; Am 7:14-15). According to Jeremiah, false prophets did not receive such divine commissions (Jer 23:21, 32; 28:15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMessageoftheProphets\">The Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of the Message<\/h5>\n<p>The most common introductory formula for prophetic oracles in the OT is the phrase “Thus says the Lord,” which occurs hundreds of times in prophetic contexts. This formula clearly implies that the pronouncement so introduced is not the word of the prophet who utters the oracle but of the God of Israel who delivered his word to his prophet. The use of this formula also reiterates the prophet’s sense of divine commission. In oracles introduced in this manner, God speaks in the first person. In fact, virtually all Israelite prophetic utterance is formulated as the direct speech of the God of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets used many literary forms in which to express their oracles. Two of the more widely used forms of prophetic speech are the judgment speech and the oracle of salvation. The judgment speech is composed of at least two central elements: the speech of rebuke or invective, and the pronouncement of judgment (see 2 Kgs 1:3-4). The second common prophetic speech form is the oracle of salvation (see Is 41:8-13). Other fixed forms of prophetic speech include the prophecy of salvation (43:14-21), the proclamation of salvation (41:17-20; 42:14-17; 43:16-21; 49:7-12), and the woe oracle (Is 5:8-10; 10:1-4; Am 5:18-24; 6:1-7; Mi 2:1-5).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of the Message<\/h5>\n<p>The common adage that OT prophets were not “foretellers” but “forthtellers” is not strictly correct. All of the prophets predict the future. Such prediction, however, is based not on human curiosity of what the future will hold but rather is rooted in the future consequences of past or present violations of the covenant, or on a future act of deliverance that will provide hope for a discouraged people. Most of the prophetic speeches that have been preserved in the OT were originally delivered as public proclamations or sermons. Most of these prophetic proclamations were evoked by the iniquity and apostasy of Israel. Hosea and Jeremiah condemned Israel because she had broken the covenant (Jer 11:2-3; Hos 8:1).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets are frequently associated with social justice and social reform, and these elements were unquestionably an important dimension of their message. Amos denounced the rich who afflicted the poor (Am 2:6-8; 4:1; 5:11; 8:4-6). He railed against sexual immorality (2:6-8) and against those who take bribes (5:12). Hosea provided a list of prevalent vices, including lying, killing, stealing, adultery, and idolatry (Hos 4:2). Idolatry was a particular target for his denunciations (8:5; 11:2). The background for such heated denunciations of Israel’s behavior is God’s unquenchable love for Israel (Is 43:4; Jer 31:3; Hos 3:1; 11:1-4; 14:4; Mal 1:2), which is inseparable from his election of Israel (Is 43:1; Jer 33:24; Ez 20:5; Hos 3).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets were concerned not only with the transgressions of Israel and the historical judgment that would inevitably follow but also with the achievement of a final future time of bliss. The message of many of the prophets is thoroughly eschatological (i.e., pertaining to the end times). One such eschatological concept is that of the Day of the Lord. The concept of the Day of the Lord first appears in Amos, where the emphasis lies on the disaster that will befall Israel on that day. Amos’s emphasis on disaster notwithstanding, the Day of the Lord is a conception that had both salvific as well as judgmental overtones for Israel. While the disaster that will occur in the Day of the Lord can be viewed in terms of a literal historical fulfillment in the tragic events of 722 <span>BC<\/span> (the fall of Samaria) and 586 <span>BC<\/span> (the fall of Judah), there are nevertheless features of these predictions that transcend historical fulfillment and reach toward eschatological fulfillment.<\/p>\n<p>Since the Israelite conception of “salvation” was largely temporal in its dimensions, it included such blessings as length of life, fruitfulness of the womb and field, peace and victory over one’s enemies, the abundance of water, and so on. In harmony with this conception of salvation, the future age is conceived in precisely those terms, as in Amos 9:13-15.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets pictured a time when David himself, or someone very much like him, would return and inaugurate a golden era reminiscent of the great Davidic and Solomonic period. The covenant of God with David was not a conditional covenant but rather one that was absolutely inviolable (2 Sm 7:4-17; Ps 89; Jer 33:19-22), and it was with this knowledge that the prophets could look forward confidently to a restoration of David’s throne (Jer 17:24-26; 23:5-6; 33:14-15).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ProphecyintheNewTestament\">Prophecy in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In contrast to the few self-proclaimed prophets of the intertestamental period, early Christianity began with a flurry of prophetic activity that lasted well into the second century <span>AD<\/span>. Jesus, his disciples and followers, and the early Christians were convinced that the times in which they lived were times in which OT prophecy was being fulfilled (Mk 1:14-15; Acts 2:16-21; Rom 16:25-27; 1 Cor 10:11). Yet this era was not only one of fulfillment but also one of the renewal of the prophetic gift.<\/p>\n<h5>John the Baptist<\/h5>\n<p>John the Baptist is remembered in the NT primarily as the forerunner of Jesus whose coming was predicted by Malachi (Mal 4:5-6). Yet, in his own right, John proclaimed the imminent judgment of God with a flair of denunciation and rebuke reminiscent of the OT prophets. John’s costume, consisting of a hairy cloak and a leather girdle (Mk 1:6), was reminiscent of the typical garb of OT prophets (1 Kgs 19:19; 2 Kgs 1:8; 2:13-14; Zec 13:4). John was regarded as a prophet by people everywhere (Mt 14:5; 17:10-13; Mk 9:11-13; 11:32; Lk 1:76; 7:26). Luke reports, in a style similar to the OT prophetic narratives, that “the word of God came to John” (Lk 3:2). Two short prophetic speeches have been preserved in Matthew 3:7-10 (cf. Lk 3:7-9) and Mark 1:7-8 (cf. Mt 3:11-12; Lk 3:15-18). In the first speech, John denounced those of his generation who had transgressed the covenant law and exhorted them to change their manner of life. In the second speech, John predicted the coming of the Mighty One, Jesus (Mt 3:11; Mk 1:7; Lk 3:16; Jn 1:15, 27, 30; Acts 13:25). John’s style, however, was not precisely that of the OT prophets. His pronouncements were made on his own authority; never did he use formulas such as “thus says the Lord,” or present his prophetic utterances as if they were speeches made by God. Yet, in spite of these differences, John is appropriately regarded as the last representative of the OT prophetic tradition (Mt 11:13; Lk 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus of Nazareth<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus was popularly regarded as a prophet (Mt 16:14; 21:10-11; Mk 6:14-15; 8:28; Lk 7:16, 39; 9:8, 19; Jn 6:14; 7:40, 52). This assessment was based as much on the mighty deeds Jesus performed as on his prophetic speeches and predictions. Though Jesus nowhere claimed prophetic status directly, that claim is implicit in Mark 6:4: “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown” (cf. Mt 13:57; Lk 4:24). It is implicit as well in Luke 13:33: “Yes, today, tomorrow, and the next day I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem!” (<span>nlt<\/span>). In Acts, Jesus is regarded as “the prophet like Moses” predicted in Deuteronomy 18:18 (Acts 3:22; 7:37). Matthew presents Jesus as the New Moses, but he does not particularly emphasize his prophetic role. John, however, like Luke, emphasizes Jesus’ role as the prophet (Jn 4:19; 6:14-15; 7:40).<\/p>\n<p>While the Gospels and Acts reflect the notion that Jesus was a prophet, they also emphasize the fact that he was much more than a prophet. Nevertheless, the notion of prophetism was sufficiently important in early Judaism that Jesus’ recognition as a prophet is very significant. There are 12 solid reasons for regarding Jesus as a prophet in the OT tradition: (1) The sovereign authority of Jesus’ teaching (Mk 1:27), a feature underlined by his use of the introductory formula “(Amen) I say to you,” which is reminiscent of the formula “thus says the Lord” used by the OT prophets. (2) The poetic character of many of Jesus’ sayings is unlike contemporary rabbinic teaching but is similar to the poetic rhetoric of the OT prophets. (3) Jesus experienced visions (Lk 10:18) like the ancient prophets. (4) Jesus, like the prophets, made many predictions (Mt 23:38; Mk 13:2; 14:58; Lk 13:35; etc.). (5) Like the OT prophets, Jesus performed symbolic acts (such as the cleansing of the temple, the entry into Jerusalem, and the Last Supper). (6) Jesus, like the prophets, when necessary, rejected the formal observance of religious ritual and emphasized the moral and spiritual dimensions of obedience to God. (7) Jesus announced the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God—an eschatological proclamation similar to those made by the prophets. (8) Like the OT prophets, Jesus functioned as a preacher of repentance. (9) Jesus, like many of the prophets, was conscious of a special calling of God (Mt 15:24; Mk 8:31; 9:37; 14:36; Lk 4:18-26). (10) Jesus, like the prophets, received divine revelation through intimate communion with God (Mt 11:27; Lk 10:22). (11) Like the prophets, Jesus represented God; to obey him was to obey God, to reject him was to reject God (Mk 9:37; cf. Ez 33:30-33). (12) Like the prophets, Jesus was conscious of a mission to all Israel (Mt 15:24; 19:28; Lk 22:30).<\/p>\n<p>Among the many prophetic predictions of Jesus are the following:<\/p>\n<p>1. Predictions of the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God (Mt 10:7-8, 23; 23:39; Mk 1:15; 9:1; 13:28-29)<\/p>\n<li>2. Predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Mt 23:37-39; 24:2; 26:61; 27:40; Mk 13:2; 14:58; 15:29; Lk 13:34-35; 21:6; Jn 2:19-21)<\/li>\n<li>3. Predictions of the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 10:23, 32-33; 12:40; 13:40-41; 16:27; 24:27, 37-39; Mk 8:38; 13:26-27; 14:62; Lk 9:26; 11:30; 12:8-9; 17:24, 26)<\/li>\n<li>4. Predictions of the end of the age. The longest prophetic section in the Gospels is the eschatological discourse of Jesus in Mark 13:1-32 (cf. Mt 24:1-36; Lk 21:5-33), in which a number of predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age are woven into a lengthy discourse to the disciples.<\/li>\n<h5>Prophecy as a Gift for the Believers<\/h5>\n<p>The beginning of prophetic activity in early Christianity, according to Acts, coincided with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the earliest Christians on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-21). Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost indicates that the outpouring of the Spirit fulfilled Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:4, 17-21; cf. Jl 2:28-32). Further, since the Spirit had been poured out upon all early Christians (that Spirit being a Spirit of prophecy), all are actual or potential prophets.<\/p>\n<p>According to 1 Corinthians 12:28 (see also Rom 12:6; Eph 4:11), God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, and third teachers. The names of several early Christian prophets have been preserved. These include Agabus (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10-11); Judas and Silas (15:32); Barnabas, Simeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Paul (13:1); and the four virgin daughters of Philip the evangelist (21:8-9). John, the author of Revelation, was certainly a prophet (Rv 1:3; 22:9, 18), though he never directly assumed that title.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRoleoftheChristianProphet\">The Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\n<p>Christian prophets were leaders in early Christian communities (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11), who exercised their gift in church gatherings (Acts 13:1-3; 11:27-28; 1 Cor 12–14; Rv 1:10). Since the Spirit of God was particularly active in Christian worship, prophecy was a major means whereby God communicated with his people. Prophets, like apostles and teachers, did not hold offices in local communities like bishops, elders, and deacons. Rather, they were chosen, not by individual congregations, but by divine commission and so were honored and accepted in all local communities.<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian prophets were both itinerant and settled, though itinerant prophets seem to have been more prevalent in Syria-Palestine and Asia Minor than in the European churches.<\/p>\n<h5>The Function of Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>According to Paul, the central purpose of prophecy (as of all other spiritual gifts) is that of building up or edifying the church. According to 1 Corinthians 14:3, “one who prophesies is helping others grow in the Lord, encouraging and comforting them” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Again, in 1 Corinthians 14:4, Paul states that the “one who speaks a word of prophecy strengthens the entire church.” Paul discussed the subject of spiritual gifts, particularly tongues speaking and prophecy, because the Corinthians had placed an excessive emphasis on speaking in tongues. Paul did not object to speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:18, 39), but he did point out that, since it was generally incomprehensible, the church could not be edified by it. Prophecy, which consisted of comprehensible speech inspired by the Spirit, contributed to the mutual edification, encouragement, and consolation of all present (1 Cor 14:20-25, 39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>We know only a little about the content of prophecies uttered in the first-century church. Prophetic utterance occasionally provided divine guidance in making important decisions in early Christianity. Through a prophetic utterance, Paul and Barnabas were selected for a particular mission (Acts 13:1-3; cf. 1 Tm 1:18; 4:14). Probably through prophetic utterance, Paul and Timothy were forbidden to preach the gospel in Asia (Acts 16:6), and they were similarly forbidden by the Spirit of Jesus to go into Bithynia (v 7). Perhaps the most frequent use of prophecy is the prediction of the future. Agabus predicted a universal famine (11:28) and the imminent arrest of Paul (21:11). Other prophets had also predicted his impending imprisonment (20:23). The prophecies contained in the Revelation of John are all oriented toward the future events that will gradually unfold in the last days. Yet the purpose of John’s elaborate prophecy is not to satisfy the curiosity of his audience but rather to comfort and encourage them in the midst of persecution.<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>Unlike the prophets of the OT, Christian prophets did not always present their message in the form of a direct speech from God or Jesus. There are few, if any, formal indicators of the presence of prophetic speech in early Christian literature. The book of Revelation is one notable exception.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Dreams; Oracle; Promise; Prophet, Prophetess; Prophets, False; Visions.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PROPHECY Term, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration. Preview • Prophecy in the Old Testament • Types of Old Testament Prophets • The Message of the Prophets • Prophecy in the ...","summary_en":"PROPHECY Term, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration. Preview • Prophecy in the Old Testament • Types of Old Testament Prophets • The Message of the Prophets • Prophecy in the ...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":39676,"type":"chart","type_label":"Diagramă","type_icon":"📊","type_color":"#3b82f6","title_ro":"Messianic Prophecies and Fulfillments","title_en":"Messianic Prophecies and Fulfillments","content_ro":"<h3>Messianic Prophecies and Fulfillments<\/h3>\n<p>For the Gospel writers, one of the main reasons for believing in Jesus was the way his life fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah. Following is a list of some of the main prophecies.<\/p>\n<table>\n <tr>\n <td><p class=\"td\"\/><\/td>\n <td><p><strong>Old Testament Prophecies<\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n <td><p><strong>New Testament Fulfillment<\/strong><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 1. Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Micah 5:2<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 2:1-6<\/p><p>Luke 2:1-20<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 2. Messiah was to be born of a virgin<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 7:14<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 1:18-25<\/p><p>Luke 1:26-38<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 3. Messiah was to be a prophet like Moses<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>John 7:40<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 4. Messiah was to enter Jerusalem in triumph<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Zechariah 9:9<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 21:1-9<\/p><p>John 12:12-16<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 5. Messiah was to be rejected by his own people<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 53:1, 3<\/p><p>Psalm 118:22<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 26:3-4<\/p><p>John 12:37-43<\/p><p>Acts 4:1-12<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 6. Messiah was to be betrayed by one of his followers<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 41:9<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 26:14-16, 47-50<\/p><p>Luke 22:19-23<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 7. Messiah was to be tried and condemned<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 53:8<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Luke 23:1-25<\/p><p>Matthew 27:1-2<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 8. Messiah was to be silent before his accusers<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 53:7<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:12-14<\/p><p>Mark 15:3-4<\/p><p>Luke 23:8-10<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 9. Messiah was to be struck and spat on by his enemies<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 50:6<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 26:67; 27:30<\/p><p>Mark 14:65<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>10. Messiah was to be mocked and insulted<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 22:7-8<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:39-44<\/p><p>Luke 23:11, 35<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>11. Messiah was to die by crucifixion<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 22:14, 16-17<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:31<\/p><p>Mark 15:20, 25<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>12. Messiah was to suffer with criminals and pray for his enemies<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 53:12<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:38<\/p><p>Mark 15:27, 28<\/p><p>Luke 23:32-34<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>13. Messiah was to be given vinegar<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 69:21<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:34<\/p><p>John 19:28-30<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>14. Others were to cast lots for Messiah’s garments<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 22:18<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:35<\/p><p>John 19:23-24<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>15. Messiah’s bones were not to be broken<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Exodus 12:46<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>John 19:31-36<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>16. Messiah was to die as a sacrifice for sin<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 53:5-6, 8, 10-12<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>John 1:29; 11:49-52<\/p><p>Acts 10:43; 13:38, 39<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>17. Messiah was to be raised from the dead<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 16:10<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 28:1-10<\/p><p>Acts 2:22-32<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>18. Messiah is now at God’s right hand<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 110:1<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Mark 16:19<\/p><p>Luke 24:50-51<\/p><\/td><\/tr><\/table>","content_en":"<h3>Messianic Prophecies and Fulfillments<\/h3>\n<p>For the Gospel writers, one of the main reasons for believing in Jesus was the way his life fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah. Following is a list of some of the main prophecies.<\/p>\n<table>\n <tr>\n <td><p class=\"td\"\/><\/td>\n <td><p><strong>Old Testament Prophecies<\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n <td><p><strong>New Testament Fulfillment<\/strong><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 1. Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Micah 5:2<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 2:1-6<\/p><p>Luke 2:1-20<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 2. Messiah was to be born of a virgin<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 7:14<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 1:18-25<\/p><p>Luke 1:26-38<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 3. Messiah was to be a prophet like Moses<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>John 7:40<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 4. Messiah was to enter Jerusalem in triumph<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Zechariah 9:9<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 21:1-9<\/p><p>John 12:12-16<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 5. Messiah was to be rejected by his own people<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 53:1, 3<\/p><p>Psalm 118:22<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 26:3-4<\/p><p>John 12:37-43<\/p><p>Acts 4:1-12<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 6. Messiah was to be betrayed by one of his followers<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 41:9<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 26:14-16, 47-50<\/p><p>Luke 22:19-23<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 7. Messiah was to be tried and condemned<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 53:8<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Luke 23:1-25<\/p><p>Matthew 27:1-2<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 8. Messiah was to be silent before his accusers<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 53:7<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:12-14<\/p><p>Mark 15:3-4<\/p><p>Luke 23:8-10<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 9. Messiah was to be struck and spat on by his enemies<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 50:6<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 26:67; 27:30<\/p><p>Mark 14:65<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>10. Messiah was to be mocked and insulted<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 22:7-8<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:39-44<\/p><p>Luke 23:11, 35<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>11. Messiah was to die by crucifixion<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 22:14, 16-17<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:31<\/p><p>Mark 15:20, 25<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>12. Messiah was to suffer with criminals and pray for his enemies<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 53:12<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:38<\/p><p>Mark 15:27, 28<\/p><p>Luke 23:32-34<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>13. Messiah was to be given vinegar<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 69:21<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:34<\/p><p>John 19:28-30<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>14. Others were to cast lots for Messiah’s garments<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 22:18<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:35<\/p><p>John 19:23-24<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>15. Messiah’s bones were not to be broken<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Exodus 12:46<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>John 19:31-36<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>16. Messiah was to die as a sacrifice for sin<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 53:5-6, 8, 10-12<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>John 1:29; 11:49-52<\/p><p>Acts 10:43; 13:38, 39<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>17. Messiah was to be raised from the dead<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 16:10<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 28:1-10<\/p><p>Acts 2:22-32<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>18. Messiah is now at God’s right hand<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 110:1<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Mark 16:19<\/p><p>Luke 24:50-51<\/p><\/td><\/tr><\/table>","summary_ro":"Messianic Prophecies and Fulfillments For the Gospel writers, one of the main reasons for believing in Jesus was the way his life fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah. Following is a list of some of the main prophecies. Old Testament Prophecies New Testament Fulfillment  1. Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2 Matthew 2:1-6Luke 2:1-20  2. Messiah was to be born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:18-25Luke 1:26-38  3. Messiah was to be a prophet like Moses Deuterono...","summary_en":"Messianic Prophecies and Fulfillments For the Gospel writers, one of the main reasons for believing in Jesus was the way his life fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah. Following is a list of some of the main prophecies. Old Testament Prophecies New Testament Fulfillment  1. Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2 Matthew 2:1-6Luke 2:1-20  2. Messiah was to be born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:18-25Luke 1:26-38  3. Messiah was to be a prophet like Moses Deuterono...","source":"Charts\/Charts.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65114,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Messiah","title_en":"The Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","summary_en":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65909,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","title_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","summary_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","summary_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":92740,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Messiah","title_en":"The Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","summary_en":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93535,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","title_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","summary_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","summary_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":120366,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Messiah","title_en":"The Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","summary_en":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":121161,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","title_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","summary_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","summary_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":147992,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Messiah","title_en":"The Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Messiah<\/h3>\n<p>The Greek term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> is equivalent to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh<\/span> (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judaism, the term <em>messiah<\/em> was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant expectation among Jews in Jesus’ time was that the Messiah would be a political warrior who would lead Israel to victory over its oppressors and reestablish Israel as a separate kingdom (see <em>Psalms of Solomon<\/em> 17–18). Some Jews saw the Messiah as a forerunner of the Kingdom of God. The community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, expected a Messiah who would function both as a priest and as a political warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Given such ambiguity, it is not surprising that Jesus avoided the title. He taught his followers that he would suffer according to Isaiah’s predictions (Isa 52:13–53:12, which Jews interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel). The emphasis Jesus gave to suffering and service as the path of victory (Matt 16:21-28; 20:25-28) collided with the popular Jewish paradigm of the Messiah as a royal conqueror. It was, however, God’s means of bringing about his Kingdom (see Luke 2:25-32; John 12:37-50; Acts 2:29-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:6; Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; Isa 52:13–53:12; Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10; Matt 2:4-6; 11:2-6; 16:13-20; 17:10-12; 22:41-46; 24:23-27; 26:62-65; Luke 2:8-11, 25-35; 3:15-18; 23:35-43; 24:26-27, 46-47; John 4:21-29; 7:25-27, 31, 40-43; 12:34-50; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:25-28; 9:22; 13:23-25; 17:3; 26:22-23; 28:17-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","summary_en":"The Messiah The Greek term christos is equivalent to the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), and both terms can be translated as “Messiah.” In Judaism, the term messiah was understood in a variety of ways. The Old Testament refers to people, not all of them honorable, who were specially anointed by God for a variety of reasons or tasks (Exod 28:41; 1 Sam 9:16; 1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 45:1).The prophets expected a future Messiah who would usher in God’s Kingdom (Dan 9:25-26; Zech 9:9-10). The dominant ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148787,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","title_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>The world still lives in darkness and cannot understand the realities of life or of God (1:5, 10). Divine revelation is inaccessible to the world. In fact, when the light of God penetrates the darkness, exposing the ugliness of the world, many people flee deeper into the darkness because they prefer it to the light (3:19-20). Only the transforming power of God’s Spirit can provide understanding and help people see clearly as children of God (3:21; 8:12; 12:35-36, 46).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 6:8-13; 56:10-11; Matt 13:11-17; John 1:10-11; 3:19-20; John 7:32-36; 9:40-41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:13-18; 4:3-4; 1 Jn 2:9-11; Rev 3:17<\/p>","summary_ro":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","summary_en":"Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John Throughout John’s Gospel, people encountering Jesus misunderstood him (see John 3:4; 4:11, 33; 7:35; 11:12-13). They were divided over the question of Jesus’ identity. When they perceived what he was really saying, some wanted to arrest him while others wanted to become his followers (7:40-44). Only later, when Jesus’ disciples had received the Spirit, did they really understand his significance (see 16:12-13). The world still lives in darkness and canno...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"41":[{"id":13174,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Galilee","title_en":"Galilee","content_ro":"<h3>GALILEE<\/h3>\n<p>Area in northern Palestine that, in Israel’s earlier history, had boundaries that were not clearly defined but that became more precisely defined in the period of Roman rule. The English name Galilee comes from two Hebrew words meaning “circuit” or “district.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalBackground\">Historical Background<\/p>\n<p>In OT times Galilee was not significant in Israelite life, but in NT times it was a prominent Jewish population center. Galilee is first mentioned in the Bible as the location of Kedesh, a city of refuge in the hill country of Naphtali (Jos 20:7; cf. 21:32; 1 Chr 6:76).<\/p>\n<p>Galilee originally designated the area occupied by the tribes of Naphtali, Zebulun (Is 9:1), and possibly Asher (if Cabul in Jos 19:27 is the same city as in 1 Kgs 9:11-13). None of those tribes was able to completely expel the original Canaanite inhabitants (Jgs 1:30-33; 2:1-4), and as a result, Galilee tended to be racially mixed. The cities that King Solomon gave to Hiram, gentile king of Tyre, were within Galilee (1 Kgs 9:11), and the gentile intermixture in that area may have influenced Solomon’s choice of those cities for a gift. This racially mixed condition is also the probable basis for the designation in Isaiah 9:1, “Galilee of the nations” (cf. Mt 4:15; 1 Macc 5:15).<\/p>\n<p>During the monarchy, Galilee was a buffer zone between Israel and Syria, and it bore the brunt of Syrian invasions against Israel. This fact is cited by the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:1), but he saw it as the prelude to a brighter day when the messianic king would reign. Galilee was conquered by Syrian King Ben-hadad (1 Kgs 15:20) and was probably recovered by Israel’s King Ahab. Galilee was later subjugated by the Arameans under Hazael (2 Kgs 10:32; 12:18; 13:22) and regained by Jeroboam II (2 Kgs 14:23-25). As a result of Assyrian conquests in the area of Damascus and Galilee in 732 <span>BC<\/span> by Tiglath-pileser III (2 Kgs 15:29), more Gentiles were imported into the area while many of the Jewish inhabitants were deported. This naturally led to greater gentile influence and domination in Galilee. Under the successive influence of Babylonia, Persia, Greece, and Syria, Galilee was constantly experiencing infiltration and migration. From the time of the Assyrian conquest of Israel to about the end of the second century <span>BC<\/span>, Galilee’s population was dominated by Gentiles, with only a few Jews.<\/p>\n<p>The Jews remaining in Galilee were brought to Judea by Simon Maccabeus in 164 <span>BC<\/span> (1 Macc 5:21-23). Galilee was conquered by Aristobulus I (104–103 <span>BC<\/span>), who forced the inhabitants to be circumcised and to submit to Jewish laws, a work that probably already had been initiated by John Hyrcanus (134–104 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n\n<p>Herod the Great (ruler under Rome, 37–4 <span>BC<\/span>) affixed Galilee to his kingdom, and more Jews were attracted there. Josephus recorded that Galilee had 240 cities and villages and 100,000 men available to fight against the Romans. After the death of Herod the Great, Galilee was included in the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas (4 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 39). With the banishment of Herod Antipas in <span>AD<\/span> 39, Galilee was added to the territory of Herod Agrippa I, who ruled it until he died in <span>AD<\/span> 44. Rome directly administered Galilee until it was put under the rule of Herod Agrippa II. By siding with the Romans during the Jewish revolts, he was able to retain his position until <span>AD<\/span> 100. In spite of the Galileans’ attempt to gain independence, the revolutionary faction was brought under subjection by Vespasian in <span>AD<\/span> 67. After Herod Agrippa II’s death, Galilee became part of the Roman province of Syria.<\/p>\n<p>Following the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Sanhedrin and many other Jews of southern Palestine flocked to Galilee. As a result, such cities as Tiberias and Sepphoris became Jewish, and the dispersed Jews came to think of Galilee as their center. Tiberias became a center for Jewish learning, and it was there that such major contributions as the Tiberian system of vowel pointing the Hebrew consonantal text were made, as well as the formulation of the Mishnah and the Palestinian Talmud.<\/p>\n<p>From about <span>AD<\/span> 451 until the Muslim rule over Galilee began in the seventh century, Galilee was governed by the Christian patriarchate of Jerusalem, set up by the Council of Chalcedon in <span>AD<\/span> 451. Muslim rule from the seventh century on was continuous except for the intervals caused by the twelfth-century Crusades and World War I. All of Galilee has been included in the modern state of Israel since its establishment in 1948.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Boundaries\">Boundaries<\/p>\n<p>Galilee was bounded on the east by the upper Jordan River and the Sea of Galilee and on the south by the plain of Esdraelon, which served as a natural boundary between Galilee and Samaria. At times the plain was included in Galilee, as it was during the intertestamental period (1 Macc 10:30; 12:47-49). While the northern boundary was uncertain and variable during Galilee’s history, in NT times it reached to Lake Huleh. The western boundary followed the Mediterranean Sea to Mt Carmel.<\/p>\n<p>From the time of the divided kingdom until the Assyrian conquest of Galilee (734 <span>BC<\/span>), it was the northernmost part of the kingdom of Israel. The area was divided into upper Galilee and lower Galilee by the plain of Ramah, which ran between Capernaum and Ptolemais (cf. Jdt 1:8; 1 Macc 12:49; Josephus’s <em>War<\/em> 3.3.1). In the Mishnah (compilation of early rabbinical interpretation of the Law), Galilee is divided into three parts corresponding to the natural divisions of plain, hill country, and mountain. Under Roman rule, Galilee was about 25 to 30 miles (40 to 50 kilometers) from east to west and about 35 to 40 miles (55 to 65 kilometers) from north to south.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Geography\">Geography<\/p>\n<p>The attractive Galilean landscape is made up of volcanic limestone hills and fertile alluvial plains. Its climate is cooler than that of any other part of Palestine, and its beauty and fertility contrast sharply with the barren, sun-baked hills of southern Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>The physical features range from the high mountains in the north to the plain of Esdraelon in the south. Mt Tabor is prominent on the east, while Mt Carmel stands out on the west. Much of upper Galilee is 3,000 feet (914.4 meters) above sea level, and in NT times it was largely forested and less densely inhabited than lower Galilee. Lower Galilee starts at 1,500 to 2,000 feet (450 to 600 meters) above sea level and descends sharply to the Sea of Galilee, more than 600 feet (182.9 meters) below sea level.<\/p>\n<p>Besides the average annual rainfall of 25 inches (63.5 centimeters), Galilee is watered by the streams that flow from springs in the hills and are the main sources of the beautiful Kishon River at Janin, and the headwaters of the Jordan River, the largest river in Palestine. The ground is also moistened by heavy dews resulting from climatic conditions created by the Lebanon mountain range to the north.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cities\">Cities<\/p>\n<p>Among the more notable cities in Galilee’s early history were Kedesh in Naphtali, a city of refuge (Jos 20:7; 21:32; 1 Chr 6:76), and Hazor, about 10 miles (16.1 kilometers) north of the Sea of Galilee (Jos 11:10; 1 Kgs 9:15). During the time of Christ, Chorazin (Mt 11:21) and Capernaum (4:13; 11:23) were prominent cities located in the northeast near the Sea of Galilee. Capernaum seems to have been a center for Jesus’ ministry in the area (Mt 4:13; Mk 2:1; 9:33; etc.). Nazareth is especially significant as the city of Christ’s childhood (Mt 2:22-23; Lk 2:39; 4:16; etc.). Nain (Lk 7:11-17), located on the northern edge of the mountain now called Little Hermon, and Cana of Galilee (Jn 2:1-11) also figured prominently in Christ’s ministry. Sepphoris and Tiberias were important cities during Roman administration.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"RoadsandTravel\">Roads and Travel<\/p>\n<p>Many roads traversed Galilee, and those in NT times were superior due to Roman construction and maintenance.<\/p>\n<p>Among the best-known trade routes was the Via Maris (the Way of the Sea), which ran through Galilee on its way from Damascus to Egypt. Another main road ran from Tiberias, near the Sea of Galilee, to Acco (Ptolemais), a port on the Phoenician coast. Major caravan routes also connected Galilee with the markets of the East. The area was tied together by a network of spurs and connecting roads that branched from the main highways.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Inhabitants\">Inhabitants<\/p>\n<p>The occupants of Galilee (Galileans) were basically Jewish in religious and patriotic orientation, but they were composed of various ethnic elements. The influence of this mixture was sufficient to cause recognizable differences in speech from that of southern Palestine (cf. Mt 26:69, 73). The Galileans absorbed more Greek and Roman influences than did the Judean Jews. The racial mixture, differences in speech, and location caused Judean Jews to view Galilee and its inhabitants with contempt (Jn 1:46; 7:41, 52).<\/p>\n<p>Lower Galilee was densely settled with villages, and in NT times the population was probably about three million. The fertility of the soil and resultant fruitfulness of the country produced a prosperous Jewish populace, particularly in the centuries immediately after the time of Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Government\">Government<\/p>\n<p>Galilee was under the Roman rule of emperors Augustus and Tiberius during the time of Christ. Roman fortifications throughout Galilee were a constant reminder of the presence and influence of the Roman Empire. During Christ’s ministry, Rome installed the tetrarch Herod Antipas (Mt 14:1; Lk 23:5-7) to rule the territory. He was appointed to office when 17 years old. Sepphoris was his first capital; in about <span>AD<\/span> 22 he built Tiberias on the shore of the Sea of Galilee as his new capital, in honor of the emperor.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Products\">Products<\/p>\n<p>Abundant crops enabled Galilee to provide produce for the neighboring Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon around the middle of the first century <span>AD<\/span>. Main crops included grapes, pomegranates, olives, and grains. Fishing in the Sea of Galilee was a prominent business in NT times (Mk 1:14-20).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusandGalilee\">Jesus and Galilee<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was raised in Galilee (Lk 4:16), and 11 of his 12 disciples were from there (Judas Iscariot was the only Judean).<\/p>\n<p>The culture, commerce, farming, and fishing business of the area formed the background for much of Jesus’ ministry, as his parables show (Mt 20:1-8; 21:33; Mk 4:3; Lk 13:6-9). The first three Gospels are largely occupied with Christ’s ministry in Galilee, with much of it being spent around the Sea of Galilee. Most of his parables (19 of 32) were spoken here, and the vast majority of his miracles (25 of 33) were performed in Galilee. Jesus received his greatest response in this region. The Sermon on the Mount was spoken in Galilee, and one of its mountains was the scene of the Lord’s transfiguration. Many of the women who followed Christ and ministered to him also came from there (Mt 27:55). Two of Christ’s most significant postresurrection appearances took place in Galilee (Mt 28:16-20; Jn 21:1-23), and one of Christ’s own titles, Jesus of Nazareth (Jn 1:45), identified him as a Galilean.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Galileans\">Galileans<\/p>\n<p>Since Jesus and most of the 12 disciples were from Galilee, it was natural for the term to be applied to all of his followers, especially since it implied that the movement was not as pure as Judean Judaism. Some interpreters believe that Luke 22:59 is an example of the use of “Galilean” as a title; in Acts 1:11 and 2:7 it is merely a geographical reference. One sure reference to Christians by that title appears in the work of the pagan philosopher Epictetus (<span>AD<\/span> 50?–135?), who was impressed with how Christians died for their faith. It is not clear how common the title of Galilean was, but it had obviously spread from Judea to Rome, where Epictetus lived.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Palestine; Sea of Galilee.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GALILEE<\/h3>\n<p>Area in northern Palestine that, in Israel’s earlier history, had boundaries that were not clearly defined but that became more precisely defined in the period of Roman rule. The English name Galilee comes from two Hebrew words meaning “circuit” or “district.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalBackground\">Historical Background<\/p>\n<p>In OT times Galilee was not significant in Israelite life, but in NT times it was a prominent Jewish population center. Galilee is first mentioned in the Bible as the location of Kedesh, a city of refuge in the hill country of Naphtali (Jos 20:7; cf. 21:32; 1 Chr 6:76).<\/p>\n<p>Galilee originally designated the area occupied by the tribes of Naphtali, Zebulun (Is 9:1), and possibly Asher (if Cabul in Jos 19:27 is the same city as in 1 Kgs 9:11-13). None of those tribes was able to completely expel the original Canaanite inhabitants (Jgs 1:30-33; 2:1-4), and as a result, Galilee tended to be racially mixed. The cities that King Solomon gave to Hiram, gentile king of Tyre, were within Galilee (1 Kgs 9:11), and the gentile intermixture in that area may have influenced Solomon’s choice of those cities for a gift. This racially mixed condition is also the probable basis for the designation in Isaiah 9:1, “Galilee of the nations” (cf. Mt 4:15; 1 Macc 5:15).<\/p>\n<p>During the monarchy, Galilee was a buffer zone between Israel and Syria, and it bore the brunt of Syrian invasions against Israel. This fact is cited by the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:1), but he saw it as the prelude to a brighter day when the messianic king would reign. Galilee was conquered by Syrian King Ben-hadad (1 Kgs 15:20) and was probably recovered by Israel’s King Ahab. Galilee was later subjugated by the Arameans under Hazael (2 Kgs 10:32; 12:18; 13:22) and regained by Jeroboam II (2 Kgs 14:23-25). As a result of Assyrian conquests in the area of Damascus and Galilee in 732 <span>BC<\/span> by Tiglath-pileser III (2 Kgs 15:29), more Gentiles were imported into the area while many of the Jewish inhabitants were deported. This naturally led to greater gentile influence and domination in Galilee. Under the successive influence of Babylonia, Persia, Greece, and Syria, Galilee was constantly experiencing infiltration and migration. From the time of the Assyrian conquest of Israel to about the end of the second century <span>BC<\/span>, Galilee’s population was dominated by Gentiles, with only a few Jews.<\/p>\n<p>The Jews remaining in Galilee were brought to Judea by Simon Maccabeus in 164 <span>BC<\/span> (1 Macc 5:21-23). Galilee was conquered by Aristobulus I (104–103 <span>BC<\/span>), who forced the inhabitants to be circumcised and to submit to Jewish laws, a work that probably already had been initiated by John Hyrcanus (134–104 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n\n<p>Herod the Great (ruler under Rome, 37–4 <span>BC<\/span>) affixed Galilee to his kingdom, and more Jews were attracted there. Josephus recorded that Galilee had 240 cities and villages and 100,000 men available to fight against the Romans. After the death of Herod the Great, Galilee was included in the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas (4 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 39). With the banishment of Herod Antipas in <span>AD<\/span> 39, Galilee was added to the territory of Herod Agrippa I, who ruled it until he died in <span>AD<\/span> 44. Rome directly administered Galilee until it was put under the rule of Herod Agrippa II. By siding with the Romans during the Jewish revolts, he was able to retain his position until <span>AD<\/span> 100. In spite of the Galileans’ attempt to gain independence, the revolutionary faction was brought under subjection by Vespasian in <span>AD<\/span> 67. After Herod Agrippa II’s death, Galilee became part of the Roman province of Syria.<\/p>\n<p>Following the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Sanhedrin and many other Jews of southern Palestine flocked to Galilee. As a result, such cities as Tiberias and Sepphoris became Jewish, and the dispersed Jews came to think of Galilee as their center. Tiberias became a center for Jewish learning, and it was there that such major contributions as the Tiberian system of vowel pointing the Hebrew consonantal text were made, as well as the formulation of the Mishnah and the Palestinian Talmud.<\/p>\n<p>From about <span>AD<\/span> 451 until the Muslim rule over Galilee began in the seventh century, Galilee was governed by the Christian patriarchate of Jerusalem, set up by the Council of Chalcedon in <span>AD<\/span> 451. Muslim rule from the seventh century on was continuous except for the intervals caused by the twelfth-century Crusades and World War I. All of Galilee has been included in the modern state of Israel since its establishment in 1948.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Boundaries\">Boundaries<\/p>\n<p>Galilee was bounded on the east by the upper Jordan River and the Sea of Galilee and on the south by the plain of Esdraelon, which served as a natural boundary between Galilee and Samaria. At times the plain was included in Galilee, as it was during the intertestamental period (1 Macc 10:30; 12:47-49). While the northern boundary was uncertain and variable during Galilee’s history, in NT times it reached to Lake Huleh. The western boundary followed the Mediterranean Sea to Mt Carmel.<\/p>\n<p>From the time of the divided kingdom until the Assyrian conquest of Galilee (734 <span>BC<\/span>), it was the northernmost part of the kingdom of Israel. The area was divided into upper Galilee and lower Galilee by the plain of Ramah, which ran between Capernaum and Ptolemais (cf. Jdt 1:8; 1 Macc 12:49; Josephus’s <em>War<\/em> 3.3.1). In the Mishnah (compilation of early rabbinical interpretation of the Law), Galilee is divided into three parts corresponding to the natural divisions of plain, hill country, and mountain. Under Roman rule, Galilee was about 25 to 30 miles (40 to 50 kilometers) from east to west and about 35 to 40 miles (55 to 65 kilometers) from north to south.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Geography\">Geography<\/p>\n<p>The attractive Galilean landscape is made up of volcanic limestone hills and fertile alluvial plains. Its climate is cooler than that of any other part of Palestine, and its beauty and fertility contrast sharply with the barren, sun-baked hills of southern Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>The physical features range from the high mountains in the north to the plain of Esdraelon in the south. Mt Tabor is prominent on the east, while Mt Carmel stands out on the west. Much of upper Galilee is 3,000 feet (914.4 meters) above sea level, and in NT times it was largely forested and less densely inhabited than lower Galilee. Lower Galilee starts at 1,500 to 2,000 feet (450 to 600 meters) above sea level and descends sharply to the Sea of Galilee, more than 600 feet (182.9 meters) below sea level.<\/p>\n<p>Besides the average annual rainfall of 25 inches (63.5 centimeters), Galilee is watered by the streams that flow from springs in the hills and are the main sources of the beautiful Kishon River at Janin, and the headwaters of the Jordan River, the largest river in Palestine. The ground is also moistened by heavy dews resulting from climatic conditions created by the Lebanon mountain range to the north.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cities\">Cities<\/p>\n<p>Among the more notable cities in Galilee’s early history were Kedesh in Naphtali, a city of refuge (Jos 20:7; 21:32; 1 Chr 6:76), and Hazor, about 10 miles (16.1 kilometers) north of the Sea of Galilee (Jos 11:10; 1 Kgs 9:15). During the time of Christ, Chorazin (Mt 11:21) and Capernaum (4:13; 11:23) were prominent cities located in the northeast near the Sea of Galilee. Capernaum seems to have been a center for Jesus’ ministry in the area (Mt 4:13; Mk 2:1; 9:33; etc.). Nazareth is especially significant as the city of Christ’s childhood (Mt 2:22-23; Lk 2:39; 4:16; etc.). Nain (Lk 7:11-17), located on the northern edge of the mountain now called Little Hermon, and Cana of Galilee (Jn 2:1-11) also figured prominently in Christ’s ministry. Sepphoris and Tiberias were important cities during Roman administration.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"RoadsandTravel\">Roads and Travel<\/p>\n<p>Many roads traversed Galilee, and those in NT times were superior due to Roman construction and maintenance.<\/p>\n<p>Among the best-known trade routes was the Via Maris (the Way of the Sea), which ran through Galilee on its way from Damascus to Egypt. Another main road ran from Tiberias, near the Sea of Galilee, to Acco (Ptolemais), a port on the Phoenician coast. Major caravan routes also connected Galilee with the markets of the East. The area was tied together by a network of spurs and connecting roads that branched from the main highways.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Inhabitants\">Inhabitants<\/p>\n<p>The occupants of Galilee (Galileans) were basically Jewish in religious and patriotic orientation, but they were composed of various ethnic elements. The influence of this mixture was sufficient to cause recognizable differences in speech from that of southern Palestine (cf. Mt 26:69, 73). The Galileans absorbed more Greek and Roman influences than did the Judean Jews. The racial mixture, differences in speech, and location caused Judean Jews to view Galilee and its inhabitants with contempt (Jn 1:46; 7:41, 52).<\/p>\n<p>Lower Galilee was densely settled with villages, and in NT times the population was probably about three million. The fertility of the soil and resultant fruitfulness of the country produced a prosperous Jewish populace, particularly in the centuries immediately after the time of Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Government\">Government<\/p>\n<p>Galilee was under the Roman rule of emperors Augustus and Tiberius during the time of Christ. Roman fortifications throughout Galilee were a constant reminder of the presence and influence of the Roman Empire. During Christ’s ministry, Rome installed the tetrarch Herod Antipas (Mt 14:1; Lk 23:5-7) to rule the territory. He was appointed to office when 17 years old. Sepphoris was his first capital; in about <span>AD<\/span> 22 he built Tiberias on the shore of the Sea of Galilee as his new capital, in honor of the emperor.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Products\">Products<\/p>\n<p>Abundant crops enabled Galilee to provide produce for the neighboring Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon around the middle of the first century <span>AD<\/span>. Main crops included grapes, pomegranates, olives, and grains. Fishing in the Sea of Galilee was a prominent business in NT times (Mk 1:14-20).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusandGalilee\">Jesus and Galilee<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was raised in Galilee (Lk 4:16), and 11 of his 12 disciples were from there (Judas Iscariot was the only Judean).<\/p>\n<p>The culture, commerce, farming, and fishing business of the area formed the background for much of Jesus’ ministry, as his parables show (Mt 20:1-8; 21:33; Mk 4:3; Lk 13:6-9). The first three Gospels are largely occupied with Christ’s ministry in Galilee, with much of it being spent around the Sea of Galilee. Most of his parables (19 of 32) were spoken here, and the vast majority of his miracles (25 of 33) were performed in Galilee. Jesus received his greatest response in this region. The Sermon on the Mount was spoken in Galilee, and one of its mountains was the scene of the Lord’s transfiguration. Many of the women who followed Christ and ministered to him also came from there (Mt 27:55). Two of Christ’s most significant postresurrection appearances took place in Galilee (Mt 28:16-20; Jn 21:1-23), and one of Christ’s own titles, Jesus of Nazareth (Jn 1:45), identified him as a Galilean.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Galileans\">Galileans<\/p>\n<p>Since Jesus and most of the 12 disciples were from Galilee, it was natural for the term to be applied to all of his followers, especially since it implied that the movement was not as pure as Judean Judaism. Some interpreters believe that Luke 22:59 is an example of the use of “Galilean” as a title; in Acts 1:11 and 2:7 it is merely a geographical reference. One sure reference to Christians by that title appears in the work of the pagan philosopher Epictetus (<span>AD<\/span> 50?–135?), who was impressed with how Christians died for their faith. It is not clear how common the title of Galilean was, but it had obviously spread from Judea to Rome, where Epictetus lived.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Palestine; Sea of Galilee.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GALILEE Area in northern Palestine that, in Israel’s earlier history, had boundaries that were not clearly defined but that became more precisely defined in the period of Roman rule. The English name Galilee comes from two Hebrew words meaning “circuit” or “district.” Historical Background In OT times Galilee was not significant in Israelite life, but in NT times it was a prominent Jewish population center. Galilee is first mentioned in the Bible as the location of Kedesh, a city of refuge in...","summary_en":"GALILEE Area in northern Palestine that, in Israel’s earlier history, had boundaries that were not clearly defined but that became more precisely defined in the period of Roman rule. The English name Galilee comes from two Hebrew words meaning “circuit” or “district.” Historical Background In OT times Galilee was not significant in Israelite life, but in NT times it was a prominent Jewish population center. Galilee is first mentioned in the Bible as the location of Kedesh, a city of refuge in...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":56472,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:41","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:41","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:41-42<\/strong> These Jews, different from the crowd (7:25-27) who thought <em>the Messiah<\/em> would appear mysteriously, believed the prophecy that the Messiah would be from <em>Bethlehem<\/em> of Judea (see Mic 5:2). However, they stumbled over the fact that Jesus seemed to be from <em>Galilee<\/em><em>,<\/em> where he grew up.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:41-42<\/strong> These Jews, different from the crowd (7:25-27) who thought <em>the Messiah<\/em> would appear mysteriously, believed the prophecy that the Messiah would be from <em>Bethlehem<\/em> of Judea (see Mic 5:2). However, they stumbled over the fact that Jesus seemed to be from <em>Galilee<\/em><em>,<\/em> where he grew up.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:41-42 These Jews, different from the crowd (7:25-27) who thought the Messiah would appear mysteriously, believed the prophecy that the Messiah would be from Bethlehem of Judea (see Mic 5:2). However, they stumbled over the fact that Jesus seemed to be from Galilee, where he grew up.","summary_en":"7:41-42 These Jews, different from the crowd (7:25-27) who thought the Messiah would appear mysteriously, believed the prophecy that the Messiah would be from Bethlehem of Judea (see Mic 5:2). However, they stumbled over the fact that Jesus seemed to be from Galilee, where he grew up.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":84098,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:41","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:41","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:41-42<\/strong> These Jews, different from the crowd (7:25-27) who thought <em>the Messiah<\/em> would appear mysteriously, believed the prophecy that the Messiah would be from <em>Bethlehem<\/em> of Judea (see Mic 5:2). However, they stumbled over the fact that Jesus seemed to be from <em>Galilee<\/em><em>,<\/em> where he grew up.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:41-42<\/strong> These Jews, different from the crowd (7:25-27) who thought <em>the Messiah<\/em> would appear mysteriously, believed the prophecy that the Messiah would be from <em>Bethlehem<\/em> of Judea (see Mic 5:2). However, they stumbled over the fact that Jesus seemed to be from <em>Galilee<\/em><em>,<\/em> where he grew up.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:41-42 These Jews, different from the crowd (7:25-27) who thought the Messiah would appear mysteriously, believed the prophecy that the Messiah would be from Bethlehem of Judea (see Mic 5:2). However, they stumbled over the fact that Jesus seemed to be from Galilee, where he grew up.","summary_en":"7:41-42 These Jews, different from the crowd (7:25-27) who thought the Messiah would appear mysteriously, believed the prophecy that the Messiah would be from Bethlehem of Judea (see Mic 5:2). However, they stumbled over the fact that Jesus seemed to be from Galilee, where he grew up.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":111724,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:41","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:41","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:41-42<\/strong> These Jews, different from the crowd (7:25-27) who thought <em>the Messiah<\/em> would appear mysteriously, believed the prophecy that the Messiah would be from <em>Bethlehem<\/em> of Judea (see Mic 5:2). However, they stumbled over the fact that Jesus seemed to be from <em>Galilee<\/em><em>,<\/em> where he grew up.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:41-42<\/strong> These Jews, different from the crowd (7:25-27) who thought <em>the Messiah<\/em> would appear mysteriously, believed the prophecy that the Messiah would be from <em>Bethlehem<\/em> of Judea (see Mic 5:2). However, they stumbled over the fact that Jesus seemed to be from <em>Galilee<\/em><em>,<\/em> where he grew up.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:41-42 These Jews, different from the crowd (7:25-27) who thought the Messiah would appear mysteriously, believed the prophecy that the Messiah would be from Bethlehem of Judea (see Mic 5:2). However, they stumbled over the fact that Jesus seemed to be from Galilee, where he grew up.","summary_en":"7:41-42 These Jews, different from the crowd (7:25-27) who thought the Messiah would appear mysteriously, believed the prophecy that the Messiah would be from Bethlehem of Judea (see Mic 5:2). However, they stumbled over the fact that Jesus seemed to be from Galilee, where he grew up.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":139350,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:41","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:41","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:41-42<\/strong> These Jews, different from the crowd (7:25-27) who thought <em>the Messiah<\/em> would appear mysteriously, believed the prophecy that the Messiah would be from <em>Bethlehem<\/em> of Judea (see Mic 5:2). However, they stumbled over the fact that Jesus seemed to be from <em>Galilee<\/em><em>,<\/em> where he grew up.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:41-42<\/strong> These Jews, different from the crowd (7:25-27) who thought <em>the Messiah<\/em> would appear mysteriously, believed the prophecy that the Messiah would be from <em>Bethlehem<\/em> of Judea (see Mic 5:2). However, they stumbled over the fact that Jesus seemed to be from <em>Galilee<\/em><em>,<\/em> where he grew up.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:41-42 These Jews, different from the crowd (7:25-27) who thought the Messiah would appear mysteriously, believed the prophecy that the Messiah would be from Bethlehem of Judea (see Mic 5:2). However, they stumbled over the fact that Jesus seemed to be from Galilee, where he grew up.","summary_en":"7:41-42 These Jews, different from the crowd (7:25-27) who thought the Messiah would appear mysteriously, believed the prophecy that the Messiah would be from Bethlehem of Judea (see Mic 5:2). However, they stumbled over the fact that Jesus seemed to be from Galilee, where he grew up.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"42":[{"id":41318,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"David","title_en":"David","content_ro":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","summary_en":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":68944,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"David","title_en":"David","content_ro":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","summary_en":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":96570,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"David","title_en":"David","content_ro":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","summary_en":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124196,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"David","title_en":"David","content_ro":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","summary_en":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":4511,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Bethlehem","title_en":"Bethlehem","content_ro":"<h3>BETHLEHEM<\/h3>\n<li>1. “City of David” and the birthplace of Jesus Christ, five miles (8 kilometers) south of Jerusalem. This city is sometimes called Bethlehem-judah (<span>kjv<\/span>) or Ephrath (Gn 35:19; Mi 5:2) to distinguish it from the Bethlehem of Zebulun.<\/li>\n<p>As an early Canaanite settlement, it was associated with the patriarchs, for Rachel died and was buried in its vicinity (Gn 35:16, 19; 48:7). The earliest known historical reference to Bethlehem occurs in the Amarna texts (14th century <span>BC<\/span>) in which battle reports refer to <em>bitil u-lahama<\/em> south of Jerusalem. The name may have meant “house of (the goddess) Lahama.” A branch of Caleb’s family settled there, and Caleb’s son Salma was known as “the father of Bethlehem” (1 Chr 2:51). Bethlehem was the home of a young Levite who served as priest to Micah (Jgs 17:7-8), and of Boaz, Ruth, Obed, and Jesse, the Bethlehemite, David’s father (Ru 4:11, 17; 1 Sm 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>Bethlehem was the birthplace of David (1 Sm 17:12) and the home of one of David’s mighty men, Elhanan (2 Sm 23:24; 1 Chr 11:26). It was the scene of a daring exploit by three of David’s warriors; they broke through the cordon of Philistine marauders occupying Bethlehem to bring David water from the well (or cistern) near the city gate of his hometown (2 Sm 23:14-17). Much later, Bethlehem is mentioned as being adjacent to the village of Geruth-kimham, where Jews fleeing from the Babylonians stayed en route to Egypt (Jer 41:17). People from Bethlehem were among those returning from the Babylonian exile (Ezr 2:21; Neh 7:26; 1 Esd 5:17).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus was born there, Bethlehem was only a village (Mt 2:1-16; Lk 2:4-6, 15; Jn 7:42). Under the census decree of Caesar Augustus, Joseph had to go to Bethlehem “because he was of the house and lineage of David” (Lk 2:4). The family may still have had property there. The birth of Jesus possibly took place in a cave in the rocks outside the town. The early Christian writer Justin Martyr thought so, as did Origen some years later. Origen frequently resided in the Holy Land and wrote, “In Bethlehem you are shown the cave where he was born, and within the cave the manger where he was wrapped in swaddling clothes.”<\/p>\n<p>Jerome later described the grotto over which the Emperor Constantine had built a basilica. In excavations in 1934–35, evidence indicated a second period of building in the reign of Justinian (<span>AD<\/span> 527–565), when Constantine’s basilica was extended beyond its original proportions. Steps lead down to the grotto, the rectangular shape of which suggests that Constantine’s builders reshaped the original. But there is no description of the grotto prior to the construction of Constantine’s basilica.<\/p>\n<li>2. Town in Zebulun (Jos 19:15), probably the home of the judge Ibzan (Jgs 12:8-10), an early ruler of Israel. It is identified today with the village of Beit Lahm, some seven miles (11.3 kilometers) northwest of Nazareth.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>BETHLEHEM<\/h3>\n<li>1. “City of David” and the birthplace of Jesus Christ, five miles (8 kilometers) south of Jerusalem. This city is sometimes called Bethlehem-judah (<span>kjv<\/span>) or Ephrath (Gn 35:19; Mi 5:2) to distinguish it from the Bethlehem of Zebulun.<\/li>\n<p>As an early Canaanite settlement, it was associated with the patriarchs, for Rachel died and was buried in its vicinity (Gn 35:16, 19; 48:7). The earliest known historical reference to Bethlehem occurs in the Amarna texts (14th century <span>BC<\/span>) in which battle reports refer to <em>bitil u-lahama<\/em> south of Jerusalem. The name may have meant “house of (the goddess) Lahama.” A branch of Caleb’s family settled there, and Caleb’s son Salma was known as “the father of Bethlehem” (1 Chr 2:51). Bethlehem was the home of a young Levite who served as priest to Micah (Jgs 17:7-8), and of Boaz, Ruth, Obed, and Jesse, the Bethlehemite, David’s father (Ru 4:11, 17; 1 Sm 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>Bethlehem was the birthplace of David (1 Sm 17:12) and the home of one of David’s mighty men, Elhanan (2 Sm 23:24; 1 Chr 11:26). It was the scene of a daring exploit by three of David’s warriors; they broke through the cordon of Philistine marauders occupying Bethlehem to bring David water from the well (or cistern) near the city gate of his hometown (2 Sm 23:14-17). Much later, Bethlehem is mentioned as being adjacent to the village of Geruth-kimham, where Jews fleeing from the Babylonians stayed en route to Egypt (Jer 41:17). People from Bethlehem were among those returning from the Babylonian exile (Ezr 2:21; Neh 7:26; 1 Esd 5:17).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus was born there, Bethlehem was only a village (Mt 2:1-16; Lk 2:4-6, 15; Jn 7:42). Under the census decree of Caesar Augustus, Joseph had to go to Bethlehem “because he was of the house and lineage of David” (Lk 2:4). The family may still have had property there. The birth of Jesus possibly took place in a cave in the rocks outside the town. The early Christian writer Justin Martyr thought so, as did Origen some years later. Origen frequently resided in the Holy Land and wrote, “In Bethlehem you are shown the cave where he was born, and within the cave the manger where he was wrapped in swaddling clothes.”<\/p>\n<p>Jerome later described the grotto over which the Emperor Constantine had built a basilica. In excavations in 1934–35, evidence indicated a second period of building in the reign of Justinian (<span>AD<\/span> 527–565), when Constantine’s basilica was extended beyond its original proportions. Steps lead down to the grotto, the rectangular shape of which suggests that Constantine’s builders reshaped the original. But there is no description of the grotto prior to the construction of Constantine’s basilica.<\/p>\n<li>2. Town in Zebulun (Jos 19:15), probably the home of the judge Ibzan (Jgs 12:8-10), an early ruler of Israel. It is identified today with the village of Beit Lahm, some seven miles (11.3 kilometers) northwest of Nazareth.<\/li>","summary_ro":"BETHLEHEM 1. “City of David” and the birthplace of Jesus Christ, five miles (8 kilometers) south of Jerusalem. This city is sometimes called Bethlehem-judah (kjv) or Ephrath (Gn 35:19; Mi 5:2) to distinguish it from the Bethlehem of Zebulun. As an early Canaanite settlement, it was associated with the patriarchs, for Rachel died and was buried in its vicinity (Gn 35:16, 19; 48:7). The earliest known historical reference to Bethlehem occurs in the Amarna texts (14th century BC) in which battle...","summary_en":"BETHLEHEM 1. “City of David” and the birthplace of Jesus Christ, five miles (8 kilometers) south of Jerusalem. This city is sometimes called Bethlehem-judah (kjv) or Ephrath (Gn 35:19; Mi 5:2) to distinguish it from the Bethlehem of Zebulun. As an early Canaanite settlement, it was associated with the patriarchs, for Rachel died and was buried in its vicinity (Gn 35:16, 19; 48:7). The earliest known historical reference to Bethlehem occurs in the Amarna texts (14th century BC) in which battle...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":8771,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"David","title_en":"David","content_ro":"<h3>DAVID<\/h3>\n<p>Israel’s most important king. David’s kingdom represented the epitome of Israel’s power and influence during the nation’s OT history.<\/p>\n<p>The two books in the OT devoted to David’s reign are 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. His earlier years are recorded in 1 Samuel, beginning at chapter 16. Almost half of the biblical psalms are ascribed to David. His importance extends into the NT, where he is identified as an ancestor of Jesus Christ and forerunner of the messianic king.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Early Years<\/p>\n<p>• Preparation for Kingship<\/p>\n<p>• David as King<\/p>\n<p>David’s Lasting Influence<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"EarlyYears\">Early Years<\/p>\n<h5>Family<\/h5>\n<p>David was the youngest son in Jesse’s family, part of Judah’s tribe. The family lived in Bethlehem, about six miles (10 kilometers) south of Jerusalem. His great-grandmother was Ruth, from the land of Moab (Ru 4:18-22). Genealogies in both the OT and the NT trace David’s lineage back to Judah, son of the patriarch Jacob (1 Chr 2:3-15; Mt 1:3-6; Lk 3:31-33).<\/p>\n<h5>Training and Talents<\/h5>\n<p>Little is known about David’s early life. As a boy, he took care of his father’s sheep, risking his life to kill attacking bears and lions. Later, David publicly acknowledged God’s help and strength in protecting the flocks under his care (1 Sm 17:34-37).<\/p>\n<p>David was an accomplished musician. He had developed his ability as a harpist so well that, when a musician was needed at the royal court of King Saul, someone immediately recommended David.<\/p>\n<p>In Jesse’s family, David was regarded as unimportant. When the nationally known prophet Samuel visited Jesse’s home, all the older sons were on hand to meet him; David was tending the sheep. Samuel had been instructed by God to anoint a king from Jesse’s family, not knowing beforehand which son to anoint. Sensing divine restraint as seven brothers passed before him, he made further inquiry. When he learned that Jesse had one other son, David was immediately summoned. David was anointed by Samuel and endowed with the Spirit of the Lord (1 Sm 16:1-13). Whatever Jesse and his family understood by that anointing, it seems to have made no immediate change in David’s pattern of living. He continued to tend the sheep.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PreparationforKingship\">Preparation for Kingship<\/p>\n<p>During his youth, David was willing to serve others, even though he had been anointed king. It was his willingness to take supplies to three of his older brothers in the army that gave him his opportunity for national fame.<\/p>\n<p>As a young man, David was also sensitive toward God. While greeting his brothers on the battlefield, he was disturbed by the Philistine Goliath’s defiance of God’s armies. Although rebuked by his brothers, David accepted the challenge to take on Goliath. He had a reasonable confidence that God, who had helped him encounter a lion and a bear, would aid him against a champion warrior. So, with faith in God and using his ability to sling stones, David killed Goliath (1 Sm 17:12-58).<\/p>\n<h5>National Fame<\/h5>\n<p>Killing Goliath made David a hero to the nation of Israel. It also brought him into close relationship with the royal family of Saul. But success and national acclaim brought on the jealousy of Saul and ultimately resulted in David’s expulsion from the land of Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Royal Court<\/h5>\n<p>Saul promised his oldest daughter, Merab, to David in marriage, but then Saul went back on the promise and offered David another daughter, Michal. The dowry of trophies from dead Philistines demanded by Saul was designed to bring about David’s death at Philistine hands. But again David was victorious. Women sang praises of his exploits, intensifying Saul’s jealousy and further endangering David’s life (1 Sm 18:6-30).<\/p>\n<p>In the meantime, David and Saul’s son Jonathan developed a deep friendship. When they made a covenant, Jonathan gave David his choicest military equipment (sword, bow, and belt). Although Saul tried to turn Jonathan against David, the friendship deepened. Because Saul was trying to kill him, David had to flee from the court and live as a fugitive.<\/p>\n<p>After Jonathan had warned David of Saul’s continuing designs on his life, David went to Ramah to see the prophet Samuel. Together they went to Naioth, near Ramah. After sending several groups of men after David, Saul finally went with them himself. All his attempts to seize David were thwarted by the Spirit of God, who caused Saul and his men to prophesy all night in religious fervor (1 Sm 19).<\/p>\n<p>Conferring again with Jonathan, David realized that Saul’s jealousy had developed into hatred. Jonathan, aware that David would be the future king of Israel, requested assurance that his descendants would receive protection under David’s rule (1 Sm 20).<\/p>\n<h5>Life as a Fugitive<\/h5>\n<p>Fleeing from Saul, David stopped at Nob. By deceiving Ahimelech, who was officiating as priest there, David obtained food supplies and Goliath’s sword (kept as a trophy). An Edomite named Doeg, chief of Saul’s herdsmen, saw what happened at Nob. David continued his flight, taking refuge temporarily in Gath with King Achish (1 Sm 21), then finding shelter in the cave of Adullam, located 10 miles (16.1 kilometers) southwest of Bethlehem. There his relatives and about 400 fighting men joined him. He went to Mizpeh in Moab, appealing to the Moabite king for protection, especially for his parents. When the prophet Gad warned him not to stay there, David moved back to Judah to the Hereth woods (1 Sm 22:1-5).<\/p>\n<p>David’s freedom of movement enraged Saul, who charged his own people with conspiracy. When Doeg reported what he had witnessed at Nob, Saul executed Ahimelech and 84 other priests, then massacred all of Nob’s inhabitants. One priest named Abiathar escaped to report Saul’s atrocities to David, who assured him of protection (1 Sm 22:6-23).<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines were always ready to take advantage of any weakness in Israel. David’s reprisal after a Philistine raid on Keilah, 12 miles (19.3 kilometers) southwest of Bethlehem, gave Saul an opportunity to attack David, who escaped to the wilderness of Ziph, a desert area near Hebron. David and Jonathan met for the last time in that wilderness. Pursued by Saul’s army, David fled still farther south. He was almost encircled in uninhabited country near Maon when Saul had to march his army off to respond to a Philistine attack (1 Sm 23).<\/p>\n<p>At his next place of refuge, En-gedi, on the western shore of the Dead Sea, David was attacked by Saul with 3,000 soldiers. David had an opportunity to kill Saul but refused to harm the “Lord’s anointed” king of Israel. Learning of David’s loyalty, Saul confessed his sin in seeking David’s life (1 Sm 24).<\/p>\n<p>During the years they roamed the wilderness in the Maon\/Ziph\/En-gedi area, David’s band provided protection for Nabal, a rich man living in Maon with large flocks of sheep at Carmel. In exchange for that protection, David proposed that Nabal share some of his wealth. Nabal’s scorn angered David, but Nabal’s wife, Abigail, appealed to David not to take revenge. When Abigail told Nabal of his narrow escape, he was evidently so shocked that he had a heart seizure. He died ten days later, and Abigail later became David’s wife (1 Sm 25).<\/p>\n<p>Once more Saul came with an army of 3,000 men into the Ziph Desert to find David, and David again passed up an opportunity to harm the king. Finally realizing the folly of seeking David’s life, Saul abandoned pursuit (1 Sm 26).<\/p>\n<h5>Refuge in Philistia<\/h5>\n<p>David continued to feel unsafe in Saul’s kingdom. Returning to Gath in Philistine country, he was welcomed by King Achish. His followers were allotted the city of Ziklag, where they lived for about 16 months, attracting new recruits from Judah and the rest of Israel (1 Sm 27; 1 Chr 12:19-22).<\/p>\n<p>The Philistine army, marching up to the Megiddo Valley to fight Saul’s army, was uneasy with David’s guerrillas in their rear column, so the commanders put pressure on Achish to dismiss David. When he returned to Ziklag, David found that the city had just been raided by the Amalekites. He pursued the enemy, rescued his people and goods, and divided the spoils with those who had remained behind to guard the supplies (1 Sm 29–30). Meanwhile, the Philistines routed the Israelites at Mt Gilboa, killing Jonathan and two of Saul’s other sons in a fierce battle. Saul, badly wounded, killed himself with his own sword (ch 31).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DavidasKing\">David as King<\/p>\n<p>David ruled over Israel for about 40 years, although the accounts of his reign do not contain enough information for an exact chronology. He began his rule at Hebron and reigned over Judah’s territory for seven or eight years. With the death of Saul’s successor, Ishbosheth, David was recognized as king by all the tribes and made Jerusalem his capital. During the next decade, he unified Israel through military and economic expansion. Then came approximately 10 years of disruption in the royal family. The last years of David’s reign seem to have been devoted to plans for the Jerusalem temple, which was built in the reign of his son Solomon.<\/p>\n<h5>The Years in Hebron<\/h5>\n<p>David was subjected to an unusually rugged period of training for his kingship. Serving under Saul, he gained experience in military exploits against the Philistines. Then, during his fugitive wanderings in the desert area of southern Judah, he ingratiated himself with the landholders and sheep raisers by giving them protection. Being recognized as an outlaw of Israel even enabled him to negotiate diplomatic relations with Moab and Philistia.<\/p>\n<p>David was in Philistine country when news came to him that both Saul and Jonathan had been slain. In a beautiful elegy he paid tribute to his friend Jonathan as well as to King Saul (2 Sm 1).<\/p>\n<p>Sure of God’s guidance, David returned to his home, where the leaders of Judah anointed him king at Hebron. He sent a message of commendation to the men of Jabesh for providing a respectable burial for King Saul, probably also bidding for their support.<\/p>\n<p>Confusion probably swept through Israel when Saul was killed, because the Philistines occupied much of the land. Various leaders gathered whatever fighting men they could find, as old tribal loyalties reasserted themselves. David had most of Judah’s tribe firmly behind him.<\/p>\n<p>A kind of civil war broke out between the followers of David and those of Saul, with David gaining the allegiance of more and more people. Saul’s general, Abner, eventually negotiated peace with David, who requested the restoration of Michal as his wife, indicating that he held no animosity toward Saul’s dynasty. With the consent of Saul’s son Ishbosheth, whom Abner had enthroned as king, Abner went to Hebron and pledged Israel’s support for David. But Abner was killed by Joab, one of David’s captains, in a family vendetta, and soon afterward Ishbosheth was assassinated. David publicly mourned Abner’s death and had Ishbosheth’s two murderers executed. Thus, when Saul’s dynasty ended, David was seen by the people not so much as a challenger but as a logical successor. Hence, he was recognized as king by all Israel (2 Sm 2–4).<\/p>\n<h5>Consolidation in Jerusalem<\/h5>\n<p>When the Israelites turned to David as king, the Philistines became alarmed and attacked (2 Sm 5; 1 Chr 14:8-17). David was strong enough to defeat them and thus unify the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>In search of a more central location for his capital, David turned toward the city of Jerusalem, a Jebusite stronghold. Joab responded to his challenge to conquer the city and was rewarded by being made general of David’s army. Jerusalem became known as the “city of David” (1 Chr 11:4-9).<\/p>\n<p>In the same way that he had organized his earliest followers into an effective guerrilla band (1 Chr 11:1–12:22) at Hebron, David began organizing the whole nation (12:23-40). Once established in Jerusalem, he quickly gained recognition from the Phoenicians, contracting for their artisans to build him a magnificent palace in the new capital (14:1-2). He also made sure that Jerusalem would become Israel’s religious center (2 Sm 6; 1 Chr 13–16). His abortive attempt to move the ark of the covenant by oxcart (cf. Nm 4) reminded the powerful king that he still had to do things God’s way to be successful.<\/p>\n<p>With Jerusalem well established as the nation’s capital, David intended to build God a temple. He shared his plan with the prophet Nathan, whose immediate response was positive. That night, however, God sent a message via Nathan that David should not build the temple. David’s throne would be established eternally, the prophet said, and unlike Saul, King David would have a son to succeed him and perpetuate the kingdom; that son would build the temple (2 Sm 7; 1 Chr 17).<\/p>\n<h5>Prosperity and Supremacy<\/h5>\n<p>Little is recorded about the expansion of David’s rule from the tribal area of Judah to a vast empire stretching from the Nile River of Egypt to regions of the Tigris-Euphrates valley. Nothing in secular history negates the biblical perspective that David had the most powerful kingdom in the heart of that “Fertile Crescent” about 1000 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>It is likely that skirmishes with the Philistines to the west were frequent until they finally became subservient to David and paid him tribute. In Saul’s day the Philistines had enjoyed a monopoly on the use of iron (1 Sm 13:19-21). The fact that David freely used iron near the end of his reign (1 Chr 22:3) hints at profound economic changes in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>David’s kingdom expanded southward as he built military garrisons in Edomite territory. Beyond Edom, he controlled the Moabites and Amalekites, who paid him tribute in silver and gold. To the northeast, Israelite domination was extended over the Ammonites and the Arameans, whose capital was Damascus. David’s treatment of both friends and enemies seemed to contribute to the strength of his kingdom (2 Sm 8–10). Although he was a brilliant military strategist who used all the means and resources available to bring Israel success, David was humble enough to glorify God (2 Sm 22; see Ps 18).<\/p>\n<h5>Sin in the Royal Family<\/h5>\n<p>A lengthy section of the book of 2 Samuel (chs 11–20) gives a remarkably frank account of sin, crime, and rebellion in David’s family. The king’s own imperfections are clearly portrayed; the king of Israel himself could not escape God’s judgement when he did wrong.<\/p>\n<p>Although polygamy was then a Near Eastern status symbol, it was forbidden for a king of Israel (Dt 17:17). David practiced polygamy, however; some of his marriages undoubtedly had political implications (such as his marriages to Saul’s daughter Michal and to princess Maacah of Geshur). Flagrant sins of incest, murder, and rebellion in his family brought David much suffering and almost cost him the throne.<\/p>\n<p>David’s sin of adultery with Bathsheba, committed at the height of his military success and territorial expansion, led him further into evil: he planned a strategy to have Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, killed on the front line of battle. David seems to have excluded God from consideration in that segment of his personal life. Yet when the prophet Nathan confronted the king with his sins, David acknowledged his guilt. He confessed his sin and pleaded with God for forgiveness (as in Pss 32 and 51). God forgave him, but for nearly ten years David endured the consequences of his lack of self-restraint and his failure to exercise discipline in his family. Although unsurpassed in military and diplomatic strategy, David lacked strength of character in his domestic affairs. Evil fermented in his own house; the father’s self-indulgence was soon reflected in Amnon’s crime of incest, followed by Absalom’s murder of his brother.<\/p>\n<p>Having incurred his father’s disfavor, Absalom took refuge in Geshur with his mother’s people for three years. Joab, David’s general, was eventually able to reconcile David with his alienated son. Absalom, however, having taken advantage of his position in the royal family to gain a following, went to Hebron, staged a surprise rebellion, and proclaimed himself king throughout Israel. His strong following posed such a threat that David fled from Jerusalem. David, still a master strategist, gained time through a ruse to organize his forces and put down his son’s rebellion. Absalom was killed while trying to flee; his death plunged David into grief.<\/p>\n<p>On his return to Jerusalem, David had to work at undoing the damage caused by Absalom’s revolt. His own tribe of Judah, for example, had supported Absalom. Another rebellion, fomented by Sheba of Benjamin’s tribe, had to be suppressed by Joab before the nation could settle down.<\/p>\n<h5>David’s Last Years<\/h5>\n<p>Although David was not permitted to build the temple in Jerusalem, he made extensive preparations for that project during the last years of his reign. He stockpiled materials and organized the kingdom for efficient use of domestic and foreign labor. He also outlined details for religious worship in the new structure (1 Chr 21–29).<\/p>\n<p>The military and civic organization developed by David was probably patterned after Egyptian practice. The army, rigidly controlled by officers of proven loyalty to the king, included mercenaries. The king also appointed trusted supervisors over farms, livestock, and orchards in various parts of his empire (1 Chr 27:25-31).<\/p>\n<p>David took, or at least began, a census of Israel (2 Sm 24; 1 Chr 21). The incompleteness of the accounts leaves unanswered such questions as the reason for God’s punishment. The king overruled Joab’s objection and insisted that the census be taken. Since David later seemed keenly aware that he had sinned in taking the census, it may be that he was motivated by pride to ascertain his exact military strength (approx. 1.5 million men). God may also have been judging the people for their support of the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba.<\/p>\n<p>Through the prophet Gad, David was given a choice of punishments for his sin. He chose a three-day pestilence. As David and the elders repented, they saw an angel on the threshing floor of the Jebusite Ornan (Araunah). David offered sacrifice there and prayed for his people. Later he purchased the threshing floor, located just outside the city of Jerusalem, concluding that it should be the site for the temple to be built by his son Solomon (1 Chr 21:28–22:1).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DavidsLastingInfluence\">David’s Lasting Influence<\/p>\n<h5>The Writer of Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>The OT book of Psalms became one of the most popular books in ancient Israel, and has remained so among countless millions of people throughout the centuries. These words of praise prepared by David were intended for use in the temple worship (2 Chr 29:30). The 73 psalms ascribed to David generally grew out of his own relationship to God and to other persons.<\/p>\n\n<p>David probably compiled Book I of the book of Psalms (1–41) and Book IV (90–106), since most of those psalms were written by David himself. Other psalms of his (Pss 51–71) are in Book II (42–72), which was probably compiled by Solomon. As those psalms were used for worship in later generations, various people added others until the time of Ezra.<\/p>\n<p>David’s psalms provided much of the poetry that was set to music for Israel’s worship. His organization of the priests and Levites and his provision of instruments for worship (2 Chr 7:6; 8:14) set the pattern for generations to come in the religious life of Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>David in the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\n<p>David, recognized as the greatest Israelite king, is often mentioned as a standard of comparison in the writings of the OT prophets. Isaiah (as in Is 7:2, 13; 22:22) and Jeremiah often referred to their contemporary kings as belonging to the “house” or “throne” of David. Contrasting David with some of his descendants who did not honor God, both Isaiah and Jeremiah predicted a messianic ruler who would establish justice and righteousness on the throne of David forever (Is 9:7; Jer 33:15). When Isaiah described the coming ruler, he identified him as being from the lineage of Jesse, David’s father (Is 11:1-10). Predicting a period of universal peace, Isaiah saw the capital in “Zion,” identified with the city of David (2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel promised the restoration of David as king in an eschatological and messianic sense (Ez 37:24-25), and of “my servant David” as Israel’s shepherd (34:23). Hosea likewise identified the future ruler as King David (Hos 3:5). Amos assured the people that God would restore the “tabernacle” of David (Am 9:11) so that they could again dwell in safety. Zechariah referred five times to the “house of David” (in Zec 12–13, <span>rsv<\/span>), encouraging the hope of a restoration of David’s glorious dynasty. The concept of the eternal throne promised to David during his reign was delineated in the message of the prophets even while they were announcing judgments to come on the rulers and people of their time.<\/p>\n<h5>David in the New Testament<\/h5>\n<p>David is frequently mentioned by the Gospel writers, who established Jesus’ identity as the “son of David.” The covenant God made with David was that an eternal king would come from David’s family (Mt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mk 10:48; 12:35; Lk 18:38-39; 20:41). According to Mark 11:10 and John 7:42, the Jews of Jesus’ day expected the Messiah (Christ) to be a descendant of David. While stating that Jesus came from the lineage of David, the Gospels also clearly teach that Jesus was the Son of God (Mt 22:41-45; Mk 12:35-37; Lk 20:41-44).<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Acts, David is recognized as the recipient of God’s promises that were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. David is also seen as a prophet whom the Holy Spirit inspired to write the psalms (Acts 1:16; 2:22-36; 4:25; 13:26-39).<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Revelation, Jesus is designated as having the “key of David” (Rv 3:7), and as being “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David” (5:5). Jesus is quoted as asserting that “I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star” (22:16).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Christology; Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Israel, History of; King; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven; Messiah.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DAVID<\/h3>\n<p>Israel’s most important king. David’s kingdom represented the epitome of Israel’s power and influence during the nation’s OT history.<\/p>\n<p>The two books in the OT devoted to David’s reign are 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. His earlier years are recorded in 1 Samuel, beginning at chapter 16. Almost half of the biblical psalms are ascribed to David. His importance extends into the NT, where he is identified as an ancestor of Jesus Christ and forerunner of the messianic king.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Early Years<\/p>\n<p>• Preparation for Kingship<\/p>\n<p>• David as King<\/p>\n<p>David’s Lasting Influence<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"EarlyYears\">Early Years<\/p>\n<h5>Family<\/h5>\n<p>David was the youngest son in Jesse’s family, part of Judah’s tribe. The family lived in Bethlehem, about six miles (10 kilometers) south of Jerusalem. His great-grandmother was Ruth, from the land of Moab (Ru 4:18-22). Genealogies in both the OT and the NT trace David’s lineage back to Judah, son of the patriarch Jacob (1 Chr 2:3-15; Mt 1:3-6; Lk 3:31-33).<\/p>\n<h5>Training and Talents<\/h5>\n<p>Little is known about David’s early life. As a boy, he took care of his father’s sheep, risking his life to kill attacking bears and lions. Later, David publicly acknowledged God’s help and strength in protecting the flocks under his care (1 Sm 17:34-37).<\/p>\n<p>David was an accomplished musician. He had developed his ability as a harpist so well that, when a musician was needed at the royal court of King Saul, someone immediately recommended David.<\/p>\n<p>In Jesse’s family, David was regarded as unimportant. When the nationally known prophet Samuel visited Jesse’s home, all the older sons were on hand to meet him; David was tending the sheep. Samuel had been instructed by God to anoint a king from Jesse’s family, not knowing beforehand which son to anoint. Sensing divine restraint as seven brothers passed before him, he made further inquiry. When he learned that Jesse had one other son, David was immediately summoned. David was anointed by Samuel and endowed with the Spirit of the Lord (1 Sm 16:1-13). Whatever Jesse and his family understood by that anointing, it seems to have made no immediate change in David’s pattern of living. He continued to tend the sheep.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PreparationforKingship\">Preparation for Kingship<\/p>\n<p>During his youth, David was willing to serve others, even though he had been anointed king. It was his willingness to take supplies to three of his older brothers in the army that gave him his opportunity for national fame.<\/p>\n<p>As a young man, David was also sensitive toward God. While greeting his brothers on the battlefield, he was disturbed by the Philistine Goliath’s defiance of God’s armies. Although rebuked by his brothers, David accepted the challenge to take on Goliath. He had a reasonable confidence that God, who had helped him encounter a lion and a bear, would aid him against a champion warrior. So, with faith in God and using his ability to sling stones, David killed Goliath (1 Sm 17:12-58).<\/p>\n<h5>National Fame<\/h5>\n<p>Killing Goliath made David a hero to the nation of Israel. It also brought him into close relationship with the royal family of Saul. But success and national acclaim brought on the jealousy of Saul and ultimately resulted in David’s expulsion from the land of Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Royal Court<\/h5>\n<p>Saul promised his oldest daughter, Merab, to David in marriage, but then Saul went back on the promise and offered David another daughter, Michal. The dowry of trophies from dead Philistines demanded by Saul was designed to bring about David’s death at Philistine hands. But again David was victorious. Women sang praises of his exploits, intensifying Saul’s jealousy and further endangering David’s life (1 Sm 18:6-30).<\/p>\n<p>In the meantime, David and Saul’s son Jonathan developed a deep friendship. When they made a covenant, Jonathan gave David his choicest military equipment (sword, bow, and belt). Although Saul tried to turn Jonathan against David, the friendship deepened. Because Saul was trying to kill him, David had to flee from the court and live as a fugitive.<\/p>\n<p>After Jonathan had warned David of Saul’s continuing designs on his life, David went to Ramah to see the prophet Samuel. Together they went to Naioth, near Ramah. After sending several groups of men after David, Saul finally went with them himself. All his attempts to seize David were thwarted by the Spirit of God, who caused Saul and his men to prophesy all night in religious fervor (1 Sm 19).<\/p>\n<p>Conferring again with Jonathan, David realized that Saul’s jealousy had developed into hatred. Jonathan, aware that David would be the future king of Israel, requested assurance that his descendants would receive protection under David’s rule (1 Sm 20).<\/p>\n<h5>Life as a Fugitive<\/h5>\n<p>Fleeing from Saul, David stopped at Nob. By deceiving Ahimelech, who was officiating as priest there, David obtained food supplies and Goliath’s sword (kept as a trophy). An Edomite named Doeg, chief of Saul’s herdsmen, saw what happened at Nob. David continued his flight, taking refuge temporarily in Gath with King Achish (1 Sm 21), then finding shelter in the cave of Adullam, located 10 miles (16.1 kilometers) southwest of Bethlehem. There his relatives and about 400 fighting men joined him. He went to Mizpeh in Moab, appealing to the Moabite king for protection, especially for his parents. When the prophet Gad warned him not to stay there, David moved back to Judah to the Hereth woods (1 Sm 22:1-5).<\/p>\n<p>David’s freedom of movement enraged Saul, who charged his own people with conspiracy. When Doeg reported what he had witnessed at Nob, Saul executed Ahimelech and 84 other priests, then massacred all of Nob’s inhabitants. One priest named Abiathar escaped to report Saul’s atrocities to David, who assured him of protection (1 Sm 22:6-23).<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines were always ready to take advantage of any weakness in Israel. David’s reprisal after a Philistine raid on Keilah, 12 miles (19.3 kilometers) southwest of Bethlehem, gave Saul an opportunity to attack David, who escaped to the wilderness of Ziph, a desert area near Hebron. David and Jonathan met for the last time in that wilderness. Pursued by Saul’s army, David fled still farther south. He was almost encircled in uninhabited country near Maon when Saul had to march his army off to respond to a Philistine attack (1 Sm 23).<\/p>\n<p>At his next place of refuge, En-gedi, on the western shore of the Dead Sea, David was attacked by Saul with 3,000 soldiers. David had an opportunity to kill Saul but refused to harm the “Lord’s anointed” king of Israel. Learning of David’s loyalty, Saul confessed his sin in seeking David’s life (1 Sm 24).<\/p>\n<p>During the years they roamed the wilderness in the Maon\/Ziph\/En-gedi area, David’s band provided protection for Nabal, a rich man living in Maon with large flocks of sheep at Carmel. In exchange for that protection, David proposed that Nabal share some of his wealth. Nabal’s scorn angered David, but Nabal’s wife, Abigail, appealed to David not to take revenge. When Abigail told Nabal of his narrow escape, he was evidently so shocked that he had a heart seizure. He died ten days later, and Abigail later became David’s wife (1 Sm 25).<\/p>\n<p>Once more Saul came with an army of 3,000 men into the Ziph Desert to find David, and David again passed up an opportunity to harm the king. Finally realizing the folly of seeking David’s life, Saul abandoned pursuit (1 Sm 26).<\/p>\n<h5>Refuge in Philistia<\/h5>\n<p>David continued to feel unsafe in Saul’s kingdom. Returning to Gath in Philistine country, he was welcomed by King Achish. His followers were allotted the city of Ziklag, where they lived for about 16 months, attracting new recruits from Judah and the rest of Israel (1 Sm 27; 1 Chr 12:19-22).<\/p>\n<p>The Philistine army, marching up to the Megiddo Valley to fight Saul’s army, was uneasy with David’s guerrillas in their rear column, so the commanders put pressure on Achish to dismiss David. When he returned to Ziklag, David found that the city had just been raided by the Amalekites. He pursued the enemy, rescued his people and goods, and divided the spoils with those who had remained behind to guard the supplies (1 Sm 29–30). Meanwhile, the Philistines routed the Israelites at Mt Gilboa, killing Jonathan and two of Saul’s other sons in a fierce battle. Saul, badly wounded, killed himself with his own sword (ch 31).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DavidasKing\">David as King<\/p>\n<p>David ruled over Israel for about 40 years, although the accounts of his reign do not contain enough information for an exact chronology. He began his rule at Hebron and reigned over Judah’s territory for seven or eight years. With the death of Saul’s successor, Ishbosheth, David was recognized as king by all the tribes and made Jerusalem his capital. During the next decade, he unified Israel through military and economic expansion. Then came approximately 10 years of disruption in the royal family. The last years of David’s reign seem to have been devoted to plans for the Jerusalem temple, which was built in the reign of his son Solomon.<\/p>\n<h5>The Years in Hebron<\/h5>\n<p>David was subjected to an unusually rugged period of training for his kingship. Serving under Saul, he gained experience in military exploits against the Philistines. Then, during his fugitive wanderings in the desert area of southern Judah, he ingratiated himself with the landholders and sheep raisers by giving them protection. Being recognized as an outlaw of Israel even enabled him to negotiate diplomatic relations with Moab and Philistia.<\/p>\n<p>David was in Philistine country when news came to him that both Saul and Jonathan had been slain. In a beautiful elegy he paid tribute to his friend Jonathan as well as to King Saul (2 Sm 1).<\/p>\n<p>Sure of God’s guidance, David returned to his home, where the leaders of Judah anointed him king at Hebron. He sent a message of commendation to the men of Jabesh for providing a respectable burial for King Saul, probably also bidding for their support.<\/p>\n<p>Confusion probably swept through Israel when Saul was killed, because the Philistines occupied much of the land. Various leaders gathered whatever fighting men they could find, as old tribal loyalties reasserted themselves. David had most of Judah’s tribe firmly behind him.<\/p>\n<p>A kind of civil war broke out between the followers of David and those of Saul, with David gaining the allegiance of more and more people. Saul’s general, Abner, eventually negotiated peace with David, who requested the restoration of Michal as his wife, indicating that he held no animosity toward Saul’s dynasty. With the consent of Saul’s son Ishbosheth, whom Abner had enthroned as king, Abner went to Hebron and pledged Israel’s support for David. But Abner was killed by Joab, one of David’s captains, in a family vendetta, and soon afterward Ishbosheth was assassinated. David publicly mourned Abner’s death and had Ishbosheth’s two murderers executed. Thus, when Saul’s dynasty ended, David was seen by the people not so much as a challenger but as a logical successor. Hence, he was recognized as king by all Israel (2 Sm 2–4).<\/p>\n<h5>Consolidation in Jerusalem<\/h5>\n<p>When the Israelites turned to David as king, the Philistines became alarmed and attacked (2 Sm 5; 1 Chr 14:8-17). David was strong enough to defeat them and thus unify the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>In search of a more central location for his capital, David turned toward the city of Jerusalem, a Jebusite stronghold. Joab responded to his challenge to conquer the city and was rewarded by being made general of David’s army. Jerusalem became known as the “city of David” (1 Chr 11:4-9).<\/p>\n<p>In the same way that he had organized his earliest followers into an effective guerrilla band (1 Chr 11:1–12:22) at Hebron, David began organizing the whole nation (12:23-40). Once established in Jerusalem, he quickly gained recognition from the Phoenicians, contracting for their artisans to build him a magnificent palace in the new capital (14:1-2). He also made sure that Jerusalem would become Israel’s religious center (2 Sm 6; 1 Chr 13–16). His abortive attempt to move the ark of the covenant by oxcart (cf. Nm 4) reminded the powerful king that he still had to do things God’s way to be successful.<\/p>\n<p>With Jerusalem well established as the nation’s capital, David intended to build God a temple. He shared his plan with the prophet Nathan, whose immediate response was positive. That night, however, God sent a message via Nathan that David should not build the temple. David’s throne would be established eternally, the prophet said, and unlike Saul, King David would have a son to succeed him and perpetuate the kingdom; that son would build the temple (2 Sm 7; 1 Chr 17).<\/p>\n<h5>Prosperity and Supremacy<\/h5>\n<p>Little is recorded about the expansion of David’s rule from the tribal area of Judah to a vast empire stretching from the Nile River of Egypt to regions of the Tigris-Euphrates valley. Nothing in secular history negates the biblical perspective that David had the most powerful kingdom in the heart of that “Fertile Crescent” about 1000 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>It is likely that skirmishes with the Philistines to the west were frequent until they finally became subservient to David and paid him tribute. In Saul’s day the Philistines had enjoyed a monopoly on the use of iron (1 Sm 13:19-21). The fact that David freely used iron near the end of his reign (1 Chr 22:3) hints at profound economic changes in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>David’s kingdom expanded southward as he built military garrisons in Edomite territory. Beyond Edom, he controlled the Moabites and Amalekites, who paid him tribute in silver and gold. To the northeast, Israelite domination was extended over the Ammonites and the Arameans, whose capital was Damascus. David’s treatment of both friends and enemies seemed to contribute to the strength of his kingdom (2 Sm 8–10). Although he was a brilliant military strategist who used all the means and resources available to bring Israel success, David was humble enough to glorify God (2 Sm 22; see Ps 18).<\/p>\n<h5>Sin in the Royal Family<\/h5>\n<p>A lengthy section of the book of 2 Samuel (chs 11–20) gives a remarkably frank account of sin, crime, and rebellion in David’s family. The king’s own imperfections are clearly portrayed; the king of Israel himself could not escape God’s judgement when he did wrong.<\/p>\n<p>Although polygamy was then a Near Eastern status symbol, it was forbidden for a king of Israel (Dt 17:17). David practiced polygamy, however; some of his marriages undoubtedly had political implications (such as his marriages to Saul’s daughter Michal and to princess Maacah of Geshur). Flagrant sins of incest, murder, and rebellion in his family brought David much suffering and almost cost him the throne.<\/p>\n<p>David’s sin of adultery with Bathsheba, committed at the height of his military success and territorial expansion, led him further into evil: he planned a strategy to have Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, killed on the front line of battle. David seems to have excluded God from consideration in that segment of his personal life. Yet when the prophet Nathan confronted the king with his sins, David acknowledged his guilt. He confessed his sin and pleaded with God for forgiveness (as in Pss 32 and 51). God forgave him, but for nearly ten years David endured the consequences of his lack of self-restraint and his failure to exercise discipline in his family. Although unsurpassed in military and diplomatic strategy, David lacked strength of character in his domestic affairs. Evil fermented in his own house; the father’s self-indulgence was soon reflected in Amnon’s crime of incest, followed by Absalom’s murder of his brother.<\/p>\n<p>Having incurred his father’s disfavor, Absalom took refuge in Geshur with his mother’s people for three years. Joab, David’s general, was eventually able to reconcile David with his alienated son. Absalom, however, having taken advantage of his position in the royal family to gain a following, went to Hebron, staged a surprise rebellion, and proclaimed himself king throughout Israel. His strong following posed such a threat that David fled from Jerusalem. David, still a master strategist, gained time through a ruse to organize his forces and put down his son’s rebellion. Absalom was killed while trying to flee; his death plunged David into grief.<\/p>\n<p>On his return to Jerusalem, David had to work at undoing the damage caused by Absalom’s revolt. His own tribe of Judah, for example, had supported Absalom. Another rebellion, fomented by Sheba of Benjamin’s tribe, had to be suppressed by Joab before the nation could settle down.<\/p>\n<h5>David’s Last Years<\/h5>\n<p>Although David was not permitted to build the temple in Jerusalem, he made extensive preparations for that project during the last years of his reign. He stockpiled materials and organized the kingdom for efficient use of domestic and foreign labor. He also outlined details for religious worship in the new structure (1 Chr 21–29).<\/p>\n<p>The military and civic organization developed by David was probably patterned after Egyptian practice. The army, rigidly controlled by officers of proven loyalty to the king, included mercenaries. The king also appointed trusted supervisors over farms, livestock, and orchards in various parts of his empire (1 Chr 27:25-31).<\/p>\n<p>David took, or at least began, a census of Israel (2 Sm 24; 1 Chr 21). The incompleteness of the accounts leaves unanswered such questions as the reason for God’s punishment. The king overruled Joab’s objection and insisted that the census be taken. Since David later seemed keenly aware that he had sinned in taking the census, it may be that he was motivated by pride to ascertain his exact military strength (approx. 1.5 million men). God may also have been judging the people for their support of the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba.<\/p>\n<p>Through the prophet Gad, David was given a choice of punishments for his sin. He chose a three-day pestilence. As David and the elders repented, they saw an angel on the threshing floor of the Jebusite Ornan (Araunah). David offered sacrifice there and prayed for his people. Later he purchased the threshing floor, located just outside the city of Jerusalem, concluding that it should be the site for the temple to be built by his son Solomon (1 Chr 21:28–22:1).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DavidsLastingInfluence\">David’s Lasting Influence<\/p>\n<h5>The Writer of Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>The OT book of Psalms became one of the most popular books in ancient Israel, and has remained so among countless millions of people throughout the centuries. These words of praise prepared by David were intended for use in the temple worship (2 Chr 29:30). The 73 psalms ascribed to David generally grew out of his own relationship to God and to other persons.<\/p>\n\n<p>David probably compiled Book I of the book of Psalms (1–41) and Book IV (90–106), since most of those psalms were written by David himself. Other psalms of his (Pss 51–71) are in Book II (42–72), which was probably compiled by Solomon. As those psalms were used for worship in later generations, various people added others until the time of Ezra.<\/p>\n<p>David’s psalms provided much of the poetry that was set to music for Israel’s worship. His organization of the priests and Levites and his provision of instruments for worship (2 Chr 7:6; 8:14) set the pattern for generations to come in the religious life of Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>David in the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\n<p>David, recognized as the greatest Israelite king, is often mentioned as a standard of comparison in the writings of the OT prophets. Isaiah (as in Is 7:2, 13; 22:22) and Jeremiah often referred to their contemporary kings as belonging to the “house” or “throne” of David. Contrasting David with some of his descendants who did not honor God, both Isaiah and Jeremiah predicted a messianic ruler who would establish justice and righteousness on the throne of David forever (Is 9:7; Jer 33:15). When Isaiah described the coming ruler, he identified him as being from the lineage of Jesse, David’s father (Is 11:1-10). Predicting a period of universal peace, Isaiah saw the capital in “Zion,” identified with the city of David (2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel promised the restoration of David as king in an eschatological and messianic sense (Ez 37:24-25), and of “my servant David” as Israel’s shepherd (34:23). Hosea likewise identified the future ruler as King David (Hos 3:5). Amos assured the people that God would restore the “tabernacle” of David (Am 9:11) so that they could again dwell in safety. Zechariah referred five times to the “house of David” (in Zec 12–13, <span>rsv<\/span>), encouraging the hope of a restoration of David’s glorious dynasty. The concept of the eternal throne promised to David during his reign was delineated in the message of the prophets even while they were announcing judgments to come on the rulers and people of their time.<\/p>\n<h5>David in the New Testament<\/h5>\n<p>David is frequently mentioned by the Gospel writers, who established Jesus’ identity as the “son of David.” The covenant God made with David was that an eternal king would come from David’s family (Mt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mk 10:48; 12:35; Lk 18:38-39; 20:41). According to Mark 11:10 and John 7:42, the Jews of Jesus’ day expected the Messiah (Christ) to be a descendant of David. While stating that Jesus came from the lineage of David, the Gospels also clearly teach that Jesus was the Son of God (Mt 22:41-45; Mk 12:35-37; Lk 20:41-44).<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Acts, David is recognized as the recipient of God’s promises that were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. David is also seen as a prophet whom the Holy Spirit inspired to write the psalms (Acts 1:16; 2:22-36; 4:25; 13:26-39).<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Revelation, Jesus is designated as having the “key of David” (Rv 3:7), and as being “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David” (5:5). Jesus is quoted as asserting that “I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star” (22:16).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Christology; Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Israel, History of; King; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven; Messiah.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DAVID Israel’s most important king. David’s kingdom represented the epitome of Israel’s power and influence during the nation’s OT history. The two books in the OT devoted to David’s reign are 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. His earlier years are recorded in 1 Samuel, beginning at chapter 16. Almost half of the biblical psalms are ascribed to David. His importance extends into the NT, where he is identified as an ancestor of Jesus Christ and forerunner of the messianic king. Preview • Early Years ...","summary_en":"DAVID Israel’s most important king. David’s kingdom represented the epitome of Israel’s power and influence during the nation’s OT history. The two books in the OT devoted to David’s reign are 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. His earlier years are recorded in 1 Samuel, beginning at chapter 16. Almost half of the biblical psalms are ascribed to David. His importance extends into the NT, where he is identified as an ancestor of Jesus Christ and forerunner of the messianic king. Preview • Early Years ...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"45":[{"id":42072,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Pharisees","title_en":"The Pharisees","content_ro":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","summary_en":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69698,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Pharisees","title_en":"The Pharisees","content_ro":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","summary_en":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97324,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Pharisees","title_en":"The Pharisees","content_ro":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","summary_en":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124950,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Pharisees","title_en":"The Pharisees","content_ro":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","summary_en":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":56473,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:45","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:45","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:45-52<\/strong> The story concludes with the Jewish leaders frustrated and the world divided over Jesus (cp. 7:25-27, 31-32). • <em>guards returned:<\/em> See 7:32.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:45-52<\/strong> The story concludes with the Jewish leaders frustrated and the world divided over Jesus (cp. 7:25-27, 31-32). • <em>guards returned:<\/em> See 7:32.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:45-52 The story concludes with the Jewish leaders frustrated and the world divided over Jesus (cp. 7:25-27, 31-32). • guards returned: See 7:32.","summary_en":"7:45-52 The story concludes with the Jewish leaders frustrated and the world divided over Jesus (cp. 7:25-27, 31-32). • guards returned: See 7:32.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":84099,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:45","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:45","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:45-52<\/strong> The story concludes with the Jewish leaders frustrated and the world divided over Jesus (cp. 7:25-27, 31-32). • <em>guards returned:<\/em> See 7:32.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:45-52<\/strong> The story concludes with the Jewish leaders frustrated and the world divided over Jesus (cp. 7:25-27, 31-32). • <em>guards returned:<\/em> See 7:32.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:45-52 The story concludes with the Jewish leaders frustrated and the world divided over Jesus (cp. 7:25-27, 31-32). • guards returned: See 7:32.","summary_en":"7:45-52 The story concludes with the Jewish leaders frustrated and the world divided over Jesus (cp. 7:25-27, 31-32). • guards returned: See 7:32.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":111725,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:45","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:45","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:45-52<\/strong> The story concludes with the Jewish leaders frustrated and the world divided over Jesus (cp. 7:25-27, 31-32). • <em>guards returned:<\/em> See 7:32.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:45-52<\/strong> The story concludes with the Jewish leaders frustrated and the world divided over Jesus (cp. 7:25-27, 31-32). • <em>guards returned:<\/em> See 7:32.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:45-52 The story concludes with the Jewish leaders frustrated and the world divided over Jesus (cp. 7:25-27, 31-32). • guards returned: See 7:32.","summary_en":"7:45-52 The story concludes with the Jewish leaders frustrated and the world divided over Jesus (cp. 7:25-27, 31-32). • guards returned: See 7:32.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":139351,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:45","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:45","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:45-52<\/strong> The story concludes with the Jewish leaders frustrated and the world divided over Jesus (cp. 7:25-27, 31-32). • <em>guards returned:<\/em> See 7:32.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:45-52<\/strong> The story concludes with the Jewish leaders frustrated and the world divided over Jesus (cp. 7:25-27, 31-32). • <em>guards returned:<\/em> See 7:32.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:45-52 The story concludes with the Jewish leaders frustrated and the world divided over Jesus (cp. 7:25-27, 31-32). • guards returned: See 7:32.","summary_en":"7:45-52 The story concludes with the Jewish leaders frustrated and the world divided over Jesus (cp. 7:25-27, 31-32). • guards returned: See 7:32.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"49":[{"id":20171,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of John","title_en":"Gospel of John","content_ro":"<h3>JOHN, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>The fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospels. (See discussion above on John, the Apostle.)<\/p>\n\n<p>The Gospel appears to have been written by one who knew the Jews and the Palestine of Jesus’ day well. He was familiar with Jewish messianic expectations (e.g., Jn 1:20-21; 4:25; 7:40-42; 12:34). He knew of the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (4:9) and the contempt the Pharisees had for “the people of the land” (7:49). He knew of the importance attached to the religious schools (v 15). He knew the way the Sabbath was observed and was aware of the provision that the obligation to circumcise on the eighth day overrides the Sabbath regulations (vv 22-23). Throughout the Gospel he moved with certainty in the vast range of Jewish ideas and customs.<\/p>\n<p>It is the same with topography. The writer mentioned many places, and his place-names all seem to be used correctly. He referred to Cana, a village not mentioned in any earlier literature known to us, which means that the reference almost certainly came from someone who actually knew the place. He located Bethany with some precision as about 15 stadia from Jerusalem (about 2 miles, or 3.2 kilometers, 11:18). He had several references to places in or near Jerusalem, such as Bethesda (5:2), Siloam (9:7), and the Kidron Valley (18:1). Of course, this does not rule out some contemporary of John’s, but it makes it difficult to think of the author as a much later individual writing at a distance from Palestine. The evidence as we have it indicates that the writer was a Jew in the Palestine of Jesus’ day.<\/p>\n<p>To many careful readers, it seems that the Gospel bears the stamp of an eyewitness. For example, Jesus was teaching “in the treasury” (8:20). Nothing is made of the point; the incident could easily have been told without it. It looks like a reminiscence of someone who sees the scene in his mind’s eye as he writes. The fact that the house was filled with fragrance when the woman broke the perfume jar (12:3) does not materially affect the account but is the kind of detail that one who was there would remember. The author noted that the loaves used in the feeding of the multitude were barley loaves (6:9) and that Jesus’ tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top to bottom (19:23). He told us that the branches with which Jesus was greeted were palm branches (12:13), and that it was night when Judas went out (13:30). Such touches are found throughout the Gospel, and it seems unjustified to treat them as no more than an attempt to create verisimilitude. They seem much more like indications that the author was writing about events in which he had himself taken part.<\/p>\n<p>The early church accepted Johannine authorship without question. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all see the apostle as the author. The first to quote this Gospel by name was Theophilus of Antioch, about <span>AD<\/span> 180.<\/p>\n<p>Those who object to Johannine authorship emphasize the differences between this Gospel and the Synoptics. The argument is that if Jesus was anything like the Christ portrayed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he could not be like the Christ of the fourth Gospel. This is a completely subjective argument, ignoring the fact that any great man will appear differently to different people. The judgment of the church throughout the centuries has been that Jesus was large enough to inspire both portraits. To put the same point another way, we have no reason for holding that the first three Evangelists tell us all there is to know about Jesus. There is no contradiction. John simply brings out other aspects of Jesus’ life and teachings.<\/p>\n<p>While we cannot prove beyond all doubt that John the apostle was the author, we can say that there is more reason for holding to this view than to any other.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateOriginandDestination\">Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>It has been usual for conservatives and liberals alike to date this writing in the last decade of the first century or early in the second. Some liberal scholars have put it well into the second century, but this is not common, and it is remarkable that there has been such a considerable measure of agreement.<\/p>\n<p>It is said that this Gospel is dependent on the Synoptics, which means that it must be dated sometime after them. But this argument has been widely abandoned in recent times. There is so much in John that is without parallel in the other three Gospels, and conversely so much in the other three that John might have used had he known it, that it is very difficult indeed to hold that this writer had any of the other Gospels before him when he wrote, or even that he had read them. Such resemblances as there are seem better explained by common use of oral tradition.<\/p>\n<p>It is also argued that there is a very developed theology in John and that we must allow time for its development. Granted, the theology of this Gospel is profound, but this does not require that we must wait for it until the end of the first century. The theology of the Letter to the Romans is also profound, and there is no reason for dating that writing later than the 50s. On the ground of development, then, there is no reason for putting John later than Romans. Development is a slippery argument at best, for it usually takes place at uneven rates, and we have no means of knowing how fast it took place in the area where the author lived.<\/p>\n<p>Other arguments for a late date are no more conclusive. For example, it is urged that the ecclesiastical system presupposed by the Gospel is too late for the time of the apostle John, and that the sacramental system of chapters 3 and 6 must have taken time to develop. But John does not mention any sacrament. It is true that many scholars think these chapters refer to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but the fact is that John mentions neither.<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising in view of the way the traditional arguments have crumbled away that many in recent times are arguing that John must have been written before the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it were later, why does not John have some reference to it? Some of his language appears to be earlier. In 5:2 he says there “is” (not “was”) a pool called Bethesda. And he often refers to the Twelve as Jesus’ disciples, or “his” disciples, or the like. In later times Christians usually said “the” disciples, for they saw no need to say whose the disciples were. But in the early days, when Christians were in contact with rabbis (each of whom had his disciples), it was important to show that Jesus’ disciples were in mind. It is important also that John makes no reference to any of the synoptic Gospels. The simplest explanation is that he had not seen them. They were not yet widely circulated.<\/p>\n<p>None of this enables us to date this Gospel with precision. But the weight of evidence points to an early date (before <span>AD<\/span> 70).<\/p>\n<p>The author was John the apostle, a Jew. However, the writing gives evidence of contact with Greek thought, for example, in the reference to Christ as “the Word” in chapter 1 and the translation of words like “rabbi” (1:38). It is almost universally held that such considerations compel us to see the work as originating in a center of Greek culture, and Ephesus has traditionally been favored. Before the end of the second century we have Irenaeus writing that John published the Gospel during his residence at Ephesus.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars point to similarities between John and the Odes of Solomon, which they think came from Syria. As there are also some resemblances in the language of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in the early second century, this is held to show that John was written in Syria, probably at Antioch. Others again think that Egypt was the place, and they support this by pointing out that the oldest fragment of a manuscript of this Gospel was found there. There is no real evidence, and we are left with probabilities. There is much to be said for accepting the evidence of Irenaeus and seeing Ephesus as the place of origin, but we can scarcely say more.<\/p>\n<p>There is no real indication of the intended destination. From 20:31 we learn that the book was written that the readers might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, God’s Son, and that by believing they might have life. The Gospel, then, has an evangelistic aim. But it is also possible that “believe” means “keep on believing”—“go on in faith,” rather than “begin to believe.” That is to say, the book may have been meant from the beginning to build people up in the faith. Probably we should not distinguish between these aims too sharply. Both may well be in mind.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>Several possible backgrounds to the Gospel have been suggested. The Greek interest is obvious, and this writing has sometimes been called the Gospel of the Hellenists. The suggestion is that we should look to Greek writings, perhaps the works of the philosophers or Philo of Alexandria, to find the right background against which to understand what John has written. This approach may be seen in the work of Rudolf Bultmann, who thought specifically of Gnosticism. Indeed, for Bultmann one of the sources of this Gospel was a discourse source that he thought was taken from non-Christian Gnosticism. Not many have been prepared to follow Bultmann, but a number of recent commentators have discerned some form of Gnosticism as the backdrop to John.<\/p>\n<p>While such views are put forward seriously, there are some substantial objections. One is that, despite the confident assertions of some scholars, Gnosticism has never been shown to be earlier than Christianity. In the form in which it comes before us in history, it is a Christian heresy, and of course, the Christian faith must appear before a Christian heresy is possible. Another objection is that there is a basic difference between the two systems. Gnosticism is concerned with knowledge (the very word is derived from the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span><em>,<\/em> “knowledge”). Its “redeemer” is one who comes from heaven with knowledge. But John does not subscribe to the view that man is saved by knowledge. The Redeemer comes to take away the sin of the world (1:29). Gnosticism tells people that life is an upward struggle; Christianity tells of a Savior who came down to raise them up. It is not easy to see any form of Gnosticism as the essential background to Christianity.<\/p>\n<p>Much more significant is John’s Semitic background. Especially important here is the OT, accepted as sacred Scripture by Jew and Christian alike. It lies constantly behind John’s statements, and it must be studied carefully if John is to be understood. It is plain that John knew and loved the Septuagint, the translation into Greek of the Hebrew OT. Again and again, the Septuagint can be shown to lie behind what John says.<\/p>\n<p>In modern times important discoveries have been made at Qumran, in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. Among the scrolls unearthed in the caves of this area are several that have affinities with John. Indeed, one of the interesting facts about the scrolls is that they have more parallels with John than with any other part of the NT, a fact difficult to explain if John was written late and at a distance from Palestine. The resemblances to the Qumran writings must be viewed with care, for there is often a linguistic resemblance where the thinking is quite different. For example, both use the unusual expression “the Spirit of truth.” But where John means one of the persons of the Trinity, the scrolls speak of “a spirit of truth” and “a spirit of error” striving in the souls of people. The connection is real, but John is clearly not dependent on the scrolls for his thinking. The contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they afford additional evidence that this Gospel is basically Palestinian and must be understood against a background of first-century Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>Other backgrounds have been suggested, such as the Hermetic literature. This is a group of writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus (“Hermes Thrice-greatest”), a designation of the Egyptian god Thoth. There are indeed some points of contact with John, but they are few in comparison with those of writings rooted in Palestine. It is difficult to take such suggestions seriously. John is essentially Palestinian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The writer told us that Jesus did many “signs” (or miracles) that he had not recorded, but “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life” (Jn 20:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). John wrote to show that Jesus is the Messiah. But he did not do this simply with a view to conveying interesting information. He wanted his readers to see this knowledge as a challenge to faith; when they believe, they will have life. John sought to bring men and women to Christ; he had an evangelistic aim. That does not exhaust what he was trying to do, for his words have meaning for believers. It is important that believers have a right knowledge of Jesus and that they continue to believe.<\/p>\n<p>The main theological teaching of this Gospel, then, is that God has sent his Messiah, Jesus. He is the very Son of God, and he comes to bring life (3:16). Though Jesus told the woman at the well that he was the Messiah, this is not often said so specifically. The avoidance of the term might well be because of the political overtones it had acquired among the Jews at large. They looked for a Messiah who would fight the Romans. He would defeat them and set up a mighty world empire with its capital in Jerusalem. Jesus was not aiming at anything like that, and it was important that he avoid the kind of language that would give that impression. But though the conventional messianic terminology is avoided, John left no doubt that Jesus was God’s chosen one. Again and again he depicted Jesus as fulfilling messianic functions. For example, in the long discourse in chapter 6 we see Jesus as the bread from heaven, fulfilling the expectation that when Messiah came, he would renew the manna; and in the giving of sight to the blind man (ch 9) we have another messianic function (cf. Is 35:5).<\/p>\n<p>With this greatness of Jesus, John also combined teaching about his lowliness. A continuing, though unobtrusive, strand of Johannine teaching is that Jesus depends on the Father for everything. Apart from the Father, Jesus said, he could do nothing (Jn 5:30). His very food is to do the Father’s will (4:34). He lives through the Father (6:57). It is the Father who gives him his disciples (6:37, 44; 17:6). It is the Father who bears witness to him (5:32, 37). John insists that Jesus is in no sense independent of the Father. In the mission of Jesus, John sees the working out of the purpose of the Father.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Prologue and Chapter 1<\/h5>\n<p>John begins with a prologue (1:1-18) that is unlike anything in any of the other Gospels. In it he refers to Jesus as “the Word,” a term that has points of contact with both Greek and Hebrew thinking. As John uses it, it conveys the thought that Jesus is the expression of the mind of the Father. John speaks of the Word as God (1:1), sees him as active in creation (1:3-5), goes on to the witness borne to him by John the Baptist (1:6-8), speaks of the coming of the Word into the world (1:9-14), and finishes with a section on the greatness of the Word (1:15-18). In this prologue he briefly introduces some of the great themes that will be developed throughout the Gospel. It is a majestic introduction to the whole.<\/p>\n<p>Next we have the beginnings of Jesus’ public ministry (1:19-51). Jesus’ work was preceded by that of John the Baptist, and the Evangelist tells us first about the kind of witness that the Baptist gave to Jesus. Witness is one of his important concepts, and witness is all that John the Baptist does in this Gospel. From this witness we move to the way the first disciples came to Jesus. We learn something of how Andrew and Peter came to know the Lord. We read also of Philip and Nathanael, of whom we learn little or nothing in the other Gospels.<\/p>\n<h5>The Signs and Discourses (2:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The public ministry of Jesus is described in a very distinctive way in this Gospel. John has a long section (chs 2–12) in which he tells of a number of miracles Jesus did, interweaving into his account a series of discourses. Sometimes these are addresses given to groups of people, and sometimes they are talks with individuals. Some scholars call this section of the Gospel the Book of Signs, thus emphasizing the prominent place given to seven miracles. For John they are not simply wonders. They are meaningful; in the literal sense of the term they are <em>sign<\/em>ificant.<\/p>\n<p>The first of them is the turning of the water into wine at a marriage in Cana of Galilee (2:1-11). The water in question is connected with Jewish rites of purification (v 6), and the story is surely to teach us that Jesus transforms life. He changes the water of the law into the wine of the gospel. As a result of this “sign,” his disciples believed in him (v 11). John went on to tell how Jesus went up to Jerusalem and drove the traders out of the temple. They were selling animals for sacrifice and changing money. But their business was being done in the Court of the Gentiles, the only place in the temple where a Gentile could come to meditate and pray.<\/p>\n<p>The first discourse is on the new birth (3:1-21). Jesus talked with Nicodemus, a leading Pharisee, about the necessity for radical renewal if one is to enter the kingdom. Jesus was speaking of God’s regenerating activity, not some human reformation. Following this, John records a dispute between some of John’s disciples with a Jew on the subject of purification. This opens the way for a section that shows the superiority of Jesus over John the Baptist—by the Baptist’s own confession (3:22-36).<\/p>\n<p>The second discourse is really a long conversation Jesus had with the woman of Samaria, whom he met by a well (4:1-42). It turns on “the water of life,” a term that is not fully explained in this chapter but which we later find points to the life-giving Spirit (7:38-39). This leads to the story of the second sign, the healing of the nobleman’s son (4:46-54), notable for the fact that Jesus healed at a distance.<\/p>\n<p>The third sign is the healing of the lame man by the pool of Bethesda (5:1-18). This man had spent many years waiting for healing at the moving of the water. Jesus told him to get up and walk, and he did. Because it was done on a Sabbath, the Pharisees objected. This leads to Jesus’ third discourse, that on the divine Son (5:19-47). Here the closeness of the relationship of Jesus to the Father is stressed, and his place in the judgment is brought out. There is emphasis also on the variety of witness who encountered Jesus, which shows how reasonable it is to accept him as God’s own Son.<\/p>\n<p>John’s fourth sign is the one miracle (apart from the resurrection) found in all four Gospels: the feeding of the 5,000 (6:1-15). It is followed by Jesus’ walking on water (vv 16-21), which seems to be meant as the fifth sign (though some scholars think not; if they are right, there are only six signs). Then comes the fourth discourse, the great sermon on the bread of life (vv 22-59). Jesus is this bread, which he gives to all men and women who believe in him. There are references to eating his flesh and drinking his blood (vv 50-58), which point to his death. Some have seen in them a reference to Communion, but it is hard to see why Jesus should refer in this way to an as-yet-nonexistent sacrament. Moreover, much the same effect is attributed in the same discourse to believing (vv 35, 47). It seems best to understand Jesus as meaning that people must believe in him as the one who would die for them in order for them to have life.<\/p>\n<p>There is a section detailing Peter’s affirmation of loyalty in the face of some who drifted away from the Master (6:67-71). Then we come to the fifth discourse, on the life-giving Spirit (7:1-52). John has an important explanatory point of his own when he tells us that at the time the Spirit had not been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified (v 39). The fullness of the Spirit depends on the completion of the work of Christ in his death and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>The sixth discourse tells of the light of the world (8:12-59). This aspect of Jesus’ person and ministry is dramatically brought out in the sixth sign, the healing of the man born blind (ch 9). It is a lively narrative, as the healed man conducts a spirited defense against the Pharisees who belittled Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most beautiful of all the illustrations of Jesus’ relations to his people is that on which he dwells in the seventh discourse, where he speaks of himself as the good shepherd (ch 10). There is the obvious truth that sheep depend entirely on their shepherd, but Jesus says something else. Whereas earthly shepherds live to meet the needs of their sheep, Jesus laid down his life for his sheep.<\/p>\n<p>The final sign is the raising of Lazarus (11:1-44), a man who had been dead for four days. The story graphically brings out Jesus’ power over death and his readiness to confer the gift of life. Jesus speaks of himself as “the resurrection and the life” (v 25); death cannot defeat him. He brings life to the dead, to the spiritually dead as well as to physically dead Lazarus. John goes on to note the reaction to this miracle: some believed, but some opposed Jesus (vv 45-57). He includes a notable saying of Caiaphas, the high priest, that one man should die for the people (vv 50-52). Caiaphas was speaking as a cynical politician (better one dead, however innocent, than the whole nation be troubled). But John saw in the words the deeper meaning that Jesus’ death would bring salvation to many.<\/p>\n<p>John rounds off his account of the ministry with the story of the anointing of Jesus by a woman in Bethany, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the coming of some Greeks to Jesus, and his final summary of what he had taught (ch 12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Last Supper<\/h5>\n<p>The account of what went on in the upper room on the night before the Crucifixion is the fullest of all the four Gospels. Curiously, John says nothing about the institution of Communion, a fact that has never been satisfactorily explained. But he tells us how Jesus washed the feet of the disciples (13:1-17), an action splendidly exemplifying the spirit of lowly service so soon to be shown on the cross. Then comes the prophecy of the betrayal, an action that set in motion the events that would lead to the cross (vv 18-30).<\/p>\n<p>In the long discourse that follows, Jesus dealt with some questions posed by his followers and went on to teach them some important truths, for example, that he is the way, the truth, and the life (14:6). He develops the thought that he is the true vine, the disciples being vitally joined to him as branches to the vine. It is important for the branches to remain in the vine if they are to have life (15:1-16). Then come some words about suffering that would be of help to them in times of persecution (vv 17-25). Jesus goes on to speak about the Holy Spirit (15:26–16:15). This is a very important passage, for it contains much more about the Spirit than we find elsewhere in Jesus’ words. Jesus calls the Spirit the “Paraclete,” a title not easy to understand. It is in origin a legal term, and at least we can say that it indicates that the Spirit brings friendship, encouragement, and help. Jesus went on to speak of his approaching departure from the disciples and to prepare them for the trying time ahead (16:16-33). This part of the Gospel concludes with Jesus’ great High Priestly prayer. He prayed for the disciples to be one, as he commended them to the care of the heavenly Father (ch 17).<\/p>\n<h5>The Cross and Resurrection<\/h5>\n<p>When the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, he went forward to meet them and they fell to the ground (18:1-11). He gave himself over to them; they did not take him over. At the outset of his passion narrative, John was making the point that Jesus is sovereign. He was not being defeated by the march of events but was sovereignly doing the will of the Father. John is the only one to tell us that Jesus was taken before Annas, father-in-law to Caiaphas, the reigning high priest (18:12-14, 19-24). He tells also of Peter’s three denials of Jesus (vv 15-27). He did not spend much time on the Jewish trial, but he was much more explicit than the other Evangelists in his account of the Roman trial. Clearly, he had some special knowledge of what went on before Pilate. He presents a magnificent picture of Jesus talking with Pilate about kingship—the Son of God discussing with the representative of Caesar the meaning of sovereignty (vv 33-40).<\/p>\n<p>In his account of the Crucifixion John has a number of touches of his own, notably the way Jesus commended Mary to the care of the beloved disciple (19:26-27), the fact that the cry Jesus uttered as he died was “It is finished” (v 30), and the piercing of his side by a soldier’s spear (vv 31-37).<\/p>\n<p>John proceeds to the narrative of the burial (vv 38-42) and of the empty tomb (20:1-10). He speaks of appearances of the risen Lord to Mary Magdalene (vv 11-18), and to the disciples—both without (vv 19-23) and with Thomas (vv 24-29).<\/p>\n<p>The final chapter, an epilogue, tells of a miraculous catch of fish (21:1-14) and goes on to the moving account of Peter’s threefold declaration of love to Jesus and his restoration.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> John, The Apostle.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOHN, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>The fourth Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospels. (See discussion above on John, the Apostle.)<\/p>\n\n<p>The Gospel appears to have been written by one who knew the Jews and the Palestine of Jesus’ day well. He was familiar with Jewish messianic expectations (e.g., Jn 1:20-21; 4:25; 7:40-42; 12:34). He knew of the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (4:9) and the contempt the Pharisees had for “the people of the land” (7:49). He knew of the importance attached to the religious schools (v 15). He knew the way the Sabbath was observed and was aware of the provision that the obligation to circumcise on the eighth day overrides the Sabbath regulations (vv 22-23). Throughout the Gospel he moved with certainty in the vast range of Jewish ideas and customs.<\/p>\n<p>It is the same with topography. The writer mentioned many places, and his place-names all seem to be used correctly. He referred to Cana, a village not mentioned in any earlier literature known to us, which means that the reference almost certainly came from someone who actually knew the place. He located Bethany with some precision as about 15 stadia from Jerusalem (about 2 miles, or 3.2 kilometers, 11:18). He had several references to places in or near Jerusalem, such as Bethesda (5:2), Siloam (9:7), and the Kidron Valley (18:1). Of course, this does not rule out some contemporary of John’s, but it makes it difficult to think of the author as a much later individual writing at a distance from Palestine. The evidence as we have it indicates that the writer was a Jew in the Palestine of Jesus’ day.<\/p>\n<p>To many careful readers, it seems that the Gospel bears the stamp of an eyewitness. For example, Jesus was teaching “in the treasury” (8:20). Nothing is made of the point; the incident could easily have been told without it. It looks like a reminiscence of someone who sees the scene in his mind’s eye as he writes. The fact that the house was filled with fragrance when the woman broke the perfume jar (12:3) does not materially affect the account but is the kind of detail that one who was there would remember. The author noted that the loaves used in the feeding of the multitude were barley loaves (6:9) and that Jesus’ tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top to bottom (19:23). He told us that the branches with which Jesus was greeted were palm branches (12:13), and that it was night when Judas went out (13:30). Such touches are found throughout the Gospel, and it seems unjustified to treat them as no more than an attempt to create verisimilitude. They seem much more like indications that the author was writing about events in which he had himself taken part.<\/p>\n<p>The early church accepted Johannine authorship without question. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all see the apostle as the author. The first to quote this Gospel by name was Theophilus of Antioch, about <span>AD<\/span> 180.<\/p>\n<p>Those who object to Johannine authorship emphasize the differences between this Gospel and the Synoptics. The argument is that if Jesus was anything like the Christ portrayed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he could not be like the Christ of the fourth Gospel. This is a completely subjective argument, ignoring the fact that any great man will appear differently to different people. The judgment of the church throughout the centuries has been that Jesus was large enough to inspire both portraits. To put the same point another way, we have no reason for holding that the first three Evangelists tell us all there is to know about Jesus. There is no contradiction. John simply brings out other aspects of Jesus’ life and teachings.<\/p>\n<p>While we cannot prove beyond all doubt that John the apostle was the author, we can say that there is more reason for holding to this view than to any other.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateOriginandDestination\">Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>It has been usual for conservatives and liberals alike to date this writing in the last decade of the first century or early in the second. Some liberal scholars have put it well into the second century, but this is not common, and it is remarkable that there has been such a considerable measure of agreement.<\/p>\n<p>It is said that this Gospel is dependent on the Synoptics, which means that it must be dated sometime after them. But this argument has been widely abandoned in recent times. There is so much in John that is without parallel in the other three Gospels, and conversely so much in the other three that John might have used had he known it, that it is very difficult indeed to hold that this writer had any of the other Gospels before him when he wrote, or even that he had read them. Such resemblances as there are seem better explained by common use of oral tradition.<\/p>\n<p>It is also argued that there is a very developed theology in John and that we must allow time for its development. Granted, the theology of this Gospel is profound, but this does not require that we must wait for it until the end of the first century. The theology of the Letter to the Romans is also profound, and there is no reason for dating that writing later than the 50s. On the ground of development, then, there is no reason for putting John later than Romans. Development is a slippery argument at best, for it usually takes place at uneven rates, and we have no means of knowing how fast it took place in the area where the author lived.<\/p>\n<p>Other arguments for a late date are no more conclusive. For example, it is urged that the ecclesiastical system presupposed by the Gospel is too late for the time of the apostle John, and that the sacramental system of chapters 3 and 6 must have taken time to develop. But John does not mention any sacrament. It is true that many scholars think these chapters refer to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but the fact is that John mentions neither.<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising in view of the way the traditional arguments have crumbled away that many in recent times are arguing that John must have been written before the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70. If it were later, why does not John have some reference to it? Some of his language appears to be earlier. In 5:2 he says there “is” (not “was”) a pool called Bethesda. And he often refers to the Twelve as Jesus’ disciples, or “his” disciples, or the like. In later times Christians usually said “the” disciples, for they saw no need to say whose the disciples were. But in the early days, when Christians were in contact with rabbis (each of whom had his disciples), it was important to show that Jesus’ disciples were in mind. It is important also that John makes no reference to any of the synoptic Gospels. The simplest explanation is that he had not seen them. They were not yet widely circulated.<\/p>\n<p>None of this enables us to date this Gospel with precision. But the weight of evidence points to an early date (before <span>AD<\/span> 70).<\/p>\n<p>The author was John the apostle, a Jew. However, the writing gives evidence of contact with Greek thought, for example, in the reference to Christ as “the Word” in chapter 1 and the translation of words like “rabbi” (1:38). It is almost universally held that such considerations compel us to see the work as originating in a center of Greek culture, and Ephesus has traditionally been favored. Before the end of the second century we have Irenaeus writing that John published the Gospel during his residence at Ephesus.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars point to similarities between John and the Odes of Solomon, which they think came from Syria. As there are also some resemblances in the language of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in the early second century, this is held to show that John was written in Syria, probably at Antioch. Others again think that Egypt was the place, and they support this by pointing out that the oldest fragment of a manuscript of this Gospel was found there. There is no real evidence, and we are left with probabilities. There is much to be said for accepting the evidence of Irenaeus and seeing Ephesus as the place of origin, but we can scarcely say more.<\/p>\n<p>There is no real indication of the intended destination. From 20:31 we learn that the book was written that the readers might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, God’s Son, and that by believing they might have life. The Gospel, then, has an evangelistic aim. But it is also possible that “believe” means “keep on believing”—“go on in faith,” rather than “begin to believe.” That is to say, the book may have been meant from the beginning to build people up in the faith. Probably we should not distinguish between these aims too sharply. Both may well be in mind.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>Several possible backgrounds to the Gospel have been suggested. The Greek interest is obvious, and this writing has sometimes been called the Gospel of the Hellenists. The suggestion is that we should look to Greek writings, perhaps the works of the philosophers or Philo of Alexandria, to find the right background against which to understand what John has written. This approach may be seen in the work of Rudolf Bultmann, who thought specifically of Gnosticism. Indeed, for Bultmann one of the sources of this Gospel was a discourse source that he thought was taken from non-Christian Gnosticism. Not many have been prepared to follow Bultmann, but a number of recent commentators have discerned some form of Gnosticism as the backdrop to John.<\/p>\n<p>While such views are put forward seriously, there are some substantial objections. One is that, despite the confident assertions of some scholars, Gnosticism has never been shown to be earlier than Christianity. In the form in which it comes before us in history, it is a Christian heresy, and of course, the Christian faith must appear before a Christian heresy is possible. Another objection is that there is a basic difference between the two systems. Gnosticism is concerned with knowledge (the very word is derived from the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span><em>,<\/em> “knowledge”). Its “redeemer” is one who comes from heaven with knowledge. But John does not subscribe to the view that man is saved by knowledge. The Redeemer comes to take away the sin of the world (1:29). Gnosticism tells people that life is an upward struggle; Christianity tells of a Savior who came down to raise them up. It is not easy to see any form of Gnosticism as the essential background to Christianity.<\/p>\n<p>Much more significant is John’s Semitic background. Especially important here is the OT, accepted as sacred Scripture by Jew and Christian alike. It lies constantly behind John’s statements, and it must be studied carefully if John is to be understood. It is plain that John knew and loved the Septuagint, the translation into Greek of the Hebrew OT. Again and again, the Septuagint can be shown to lie behind what John says.<\/p>\n<p>In modern times important discoveries have been made at Qumran, in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. Among the scrolls unearthed in the caves of this area are several that have affinities with John. Indeed, one of the interesting facts about the scrolls is that they have more parallels with John than with any other part of the NT, a fact difficult to explain if John was written late and at a distance from Palestine. The resemblances to the Qumran writings must be viewed with care, for there is often a linguistic resemblance where the thinking is quite different. For example, both use the unusual expression “the Spirit of truth.” But where John means one of the persons of the Trinity, the scrolls speak of “a spirit of truth” and “a spirit of error” striving in the souls of people. The connection is real, but John is clearly not dependent on the scrolls for his thinking. The contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they afford additional evidence that this Gospel is basically Palestinian and must be understood against a background of first-century Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>Other backgrounds have been suggested, such as the Hermetic literature. This is a group of writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus (“Hermes Thrice-greatest”), a designation of the Egyptian god Thoth. There are indeed some points of contact with John, but they are few in comparison with those of writings rooted in Palestine. It is difficult to take such suggestions seriously. John is essentially Palestinian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The writer told us that Jesus did many “signs” (or miracles) that he had not recorded, but “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life” (Jn 20:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). John wrote to show that Jesus is the Messiah. But he did not do this simply with a view to conveying interesting information. He wanted his readers to see this knowledge as a challenge to faith; when they believe, they will have life. John sought to bring men and women to Christ; he had an evangelistic aim. That does not exhaust what he was trying to do, for his words have meaning for believers. It is important that believers have a right knowledge of Jesus and that they continue to believe.<\/p>\n<p>The main theological teaching of this Gospel, then, is that God has sent his Messiah, Jesus. He is the very Son of God, and he comes to bring life (3:16). Though Jesus told the woman at the well that he was the Messiah, this is not often said so specifically. The avoidance of the term might well be because of the political overtones it had acquired among the Jews at large. They looked for a Messiah who would fight the Romans. He would defeat them and set up a mighty world empire with its capital in Jerusalem. Jesus was not aiming at anything like that, and it was important that he avoid the kind of language that would give that impression. But though the conventional messianic terminology is avoided, John left no doubt that Jesus was God’s chosen one. Again and again he depicted Jesus as fulfilling messianic functions. For example, in the long discourse in chapter 6 we see Jesus as the bread from heaven, fulfilling the expectation that when Messiah came, he would renew the manna; and in the giving of sight to the blind man (ch 9) we have another messianic function (cf. Is 35:5).<\/p>\n<p>With this greatness of Jesus, John also combined teaching about his lowliness. A continuing, though unobtrusive, strand of Johannine teaching is that Jesus depends on the Father for everything. Apart from the Father, Jesus said, he could do nothing (Jn 5:30). His very food is to do the Father’s will (4:34). He lives through the Father (6:57). It is the Father who gives him his disciples (6:37, 44; 17:6). It is the Father who bears witness to him (5:32, 37). John insists that Jesus is in no sense independent of the Father. In the mission of Jesus, John sees the working out of the purpose of the Father.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Prologue and Chapter 1<\/h5>\n<p>John begins with a prologue (1:1-18) that is unlike anything in any of the other Gospels. In it he refers to Jesus as “the Word,” a term that has points of contact with both Greek and Hebrew thinking. As John uses it, it conveys the thought that Jesus is the expression of the mind of the Father. John speaks of the Word as God (1:1), sees him as active in creation (1:3-5), goes on to the witness borne to him by John the Baptist (1:6-8), speaks of the coming of the Word into the world (1:9-14), and finishes with a section on the greatness of the Word (1:15-18). In this prologue he briefly introduces some of the great themes that will be developed throughout the Gospel. It is a majestic introduction to the whole.<\/p>\n<p>Next we have the beginnings of Jesus’ public ministry (1:19-51). Jesus’ work was preceded by that of John the Baptist, and the Evangelist tells us first about the kind of witness that the Baptist gave to Jesus. Witness is one of his important concepts, and witness is all that John the Baptist does in this Gospel. From this witness we move to the way the first disciples came to Jesus. We learn something of how Andrew and Peter came to know the Lord. We read also of Philip and Nathanael, of whom we learn little or nothing in the other Gospels.<\/p>\n<h5>The Signs and Discourses (2:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The public ministry of Jesus is described in a very distinctive way in this Gospel. John has a long section (chs 2–12) in which he tells of a number of miracles Jesus did, interweaving into his account a series of discourses. Sometimes these are addresses given to groups of people, and sometimes they are talks with individuals. Some scholars call this section of the Gospel the Book of Signs, thus emphasizing the prominent place given to seven miracles. For John they are not simply wonders. They are meaningful; in the literal sense of the term they are <em>sign<\/em>ificant.<\/p>\n<p>The first of them is the turning of the water into wine at a marriage in Cana of Galilee (2:1-11). The water in question is connected with Jewish rites of purification (v 6), and the story is surely to teach us that Jesus transforms life. He changes the water of the law into the wine of the gospel. As a result of this “sign,” his disciples believed in him (v 11). John went on to tell how Jesus went up to Jerusalem and drove the traders out of the temple. They were selling animals for sacrifice and changing money. But their business was being done in the Court of the Gentiles, the only place in the temple where a Gentile could come to meditate and pray.<\/p>\n<p>The first discourse is on the new birth (3:1-21). Jesus talked with Nicodemus, a leading Pharisee, about the necessity for radical renewal if one is to enter the kingdom. Jesus was speaking of God’s regenerating activity, not some human reformation. Following this, John records a dispute between some of John’s disciples with a Jew on the subject of purification. This opens the way for a section that shows the superiority of Jesus over John the Baptist—by the Baptist’s own confession (3:22-36).<\/p>\n<p>The second discourse is really a long conversation Jesus had with the woman of Samaria, whom he met by a well (4:1-42). It turns on “the water of life,” a term that is not fully explained in this chapter but which we later find points to the life-giving Spirit (7:38-39). This leads to the story of the second sign, the healing of the nobleman’s son (4:46-54), notable for the fact that Jesus healed at a distance.<\/p>\n<p>The third sign is the healing of the lame man by the pool of Bethesda (5:1-18). This man had spent many years waiting for healing at the moving of the water. Jesus told him to get up and walk, and he did. Because it was done on a Sabbath, the Pharisees objected. This leads to Jesus’ third discourse, that on the divine Son (5:19-47). Here the closeness of the relationship of Jesus to the Father is stressed, and his place in the judgment is brought out. There is emphasis also on the variety of witness who encountered Jesus, which shows how reasonable it is to accept him as God’s own Son.<\/p>\n<p>John’s fourth sign is the one miracle (apart from the resurrection) found in all four Gospels: the feeding of the 5,000 (6:1-15). It is followed by Jesus’ walking on water (vv 16-21), which seems to be meant as the fifth sign (though some scholars think not; if they are right, there are only six signs). Then comes the fourth discourse, the great sermon on the bread of life (vv 22-59). Jesus is this bread, which he gives to all men and women who believe in him. There are references to eating his flesh and drinking his blood (vv 50-58), which point to his death. Some have seen in them a reference to Communion, but it is hard to see why Jesus should refer in this way to an as-yet-nonexistent sacrament. Moreover, much the same effect is attributed in the same discourse to believing (vv 35, 47). It seems best to understand Jesus as meaning that people must believe in him as the one who would die for them in order for them to have life.<\/p>\n<p>There is a section detailing Peter’s affirmation of loyalty in the face of some who drifted away from the Master (6:67-71). Then we come to the fifth discourse, on the life-giving Spirit (7:1-52). John has an important explanatory point of his own when he tells us that at the time the Spirit had not been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified (v 39). The fullness of the Spirit depends on the completion of the work of Christ in his death and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>The sixth discourse tells of the light of the world (8:12-59). This aspect of Jesus’ person and ministry is dramatically brought out in the sixth sign, the healing of the man born blind (ch 9). It is a lively narrative, as the healed man conducts a spirited defense against the Pharisees who belittled Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most beautiful of all the illustrations of Jesus’ relations to his people is that on which he dwells in the seventh discourse, where he speaks of himself as the good shepherd (ch 10). There is the obvious truth that sheep depend entirely on their shepherd, but Jesus says something else. Whereas earthly shepherds live to meet the needs of their sheep, Jesus laid down his life for his sheep.<\/p>\n<p>The final sign is the raising of Lazarus (11:1-44), a man who had been dead for four days. The story graphically brings out Jesus’ power over death and his readiness to confer the gift of life. Jesus speaks of himself as “the resurrection and the life” (v 25); death cannot defeat him. He brings life to the dead, to the spiritually dead as well as to physically dead Lazarus. John goes on to note the reaction to this miracle: some believed, but some opposed Jesus (vv 45-57). He includes a notable saying of Caiaphas, the high priest, that one man should die for the people (vv 50-52). Caiaphas was speaking as a cynical politician (better one dead, however innocent, than the whole nation be troubled). But John saw in the words the deeper meaning that Jesus’ death would bring salvation to many.<\/p>\n<p>John rounds off his account of the ministry with the story of the anointing of Jesus by a woman in Bethany, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the coming of some Greeks to Jesus, and his final summary of what he had taught (ch 12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Last Supper<\/h5>\n<p>The account of what went on in the upper room on the night before the Crucifixion is the fullest of all the four Gospels. Curiously, John says nothing about the institution of Communion, a fact that has never been satisfactorily explained. But he tells us how Jesus washed the feet of the disciples (13:1-17), an action splendidly exemplifying the spirit of lowly service so soon to be shown on the cross. Then comes the prophecy of the betrayal, an action that set in motion the events that would lead to the cross (vv 18-30).<\/p>\n<p>In the long discourse that follows, Jesus dealt with some questions posed by his followers and went on to teach them some important truths, for example, that he is the way, the truth, and the life (14:6). He develops the thought that he is the true vine, the disciples being vitally joined to him as branches to the vine. It is important for the branches to remain in the vine if they are to have life (15:1-16). Then come some words about suffering that would be of help to them in times of persecution (vv 17-25). Jesus goes on to speak about the Holy Spirit (15:26–16:15). This is a very important passage, for it contains much more about the Spirit than we find elsewhere in Jesus’ words. Jesus calls the Spirit the “Paraclete,” a title not easy to understand. It is in origin a legal term, and at least we can say that it indicates that the Spirit brings friendship, encouragement, and help. Jesus went on to speak of his approaching departure from the disciples and to prepare them for the trying time ahead (16:16-33). This part of the Gospel concludes with Jesus’ great High Priestly prayer. He prayed for the disciples to be one, as he commended them to the care of the heavenly Father (ch 17).<\/p>\n<h5>The Cross and Resurrection<\/h5>\n<p>When the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, he went forward to meet them and they fell to the ground (18:1-11). He gave himself over to them; they did not take him over. At the outset of his passion narrative, John was making the point that Jesus is sovereign. He was not being defeated by the march of events but was sovereignly doing the will of the Father. John is the only one to tell us that Jesus was taken before Annas, father-in-law to Caiaphas, the reigning high priest (18:12-14, 19-24). He tells also of Peter’s three denials of Jesus (vv 15-27). He did not spend much time on the Jewish trial, but he was much more explicit than the other Evangelists in his account of the Roman trial. Clearly, he had some special knowledge of what went on before Pilate. He presents a magnificent picture of Jesus talking with Pilate about kingship—the Son of God discussing with the representative of Caesar the meaning of sovereignty (vv 33-40).<\/p>\n<p>In his account of the Crucifixion John has a number of touches of his own, notably the way Jesus commended Mary to the care of the beloved disciple (19:26-27), the fact that the cry Jesus uttered as he died was “It is finished” (v 30), and the piercing of his side by a soldier’s spear (vv 31-37).<\/p>\n<p>John proceeds to the narrative of the burial (vv 38-42) and of the empty tomb (20:1-10). He speaks of appearances of the risen Lord to Mary Magdalene (vv 11-18), and to the disciples—both without (vv 19-23) and with Thomas (vv 24-29).<\/p>\n<p>The final chapter, an epilogue, tells of a miraculous catch of fish (21:1-14) and goes on to the moving account of Peter’s threefold declaration of love to Jesus and his restoration.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> John, The Apostle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOHN, Gospel of The fourth Gospel. Preview • Author • Date, Origin, and Destination • Background • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Author At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospe...","summary_en":"JOHN, Gospel of The fourth Gospel. Preview • Author • Date, Origin, and Destination • Background • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Author At the end of this Gospel we are told that it was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 21:20, 24), but unfortunately the book nowhere tells us who this disciple was. Evidence shows that the most probable identification is with the apostle John. He fills the place we would have expected John to fill from what we know from the other Gospe...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":21073,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Judaism","title_en":"Judaism","content_ro":"<h3>JUDAISM<\/h3>\n<p>Religion and culture of the Jewish people from the beginning of the postexilic period (538 <span>BC<\/span>) to modern times. The term “Judaism” is derived from “Judah,” the name of the southern kingdom of ancient Israel, while “Jew” is a shortened form of “Judeans.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePeriodoftheSecondTemple\">The Period of the Second Temple (515 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 70)<\/p>\n<h5>Historical Survey<\/h5>\n<p>The united kingdom of Israel under Saul, David, and Solomon came to an end shortly after the death of Solomon. Rehoboam, his son, provoked a revolt about 930 <span>BC<\/span> on the part of the 10 northern tribes by levying unreasonably high taxes (1 Kgs 12). From that time on, the kingdoms of Israel (or Samaria, the northern kingdom) and Judah (the southern kingdom) maintained a separate existence. The northern kingdom fell to the Assyrians in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, and thousands of captives, primarily members of the upper class, were exiled forcibly and taken to Assyria, where they presumably intermarried with the native population and disappeared from history. The kingdom of Judah survived as an independent state until 597 <span>BC<\/span>, when it came under the control of the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar. The temple was finally destroyed in 586 <span>BC<\/span> and many captives were carried off to Babylonia, beginning a period of exile that was to last two generations. The Babylonians were defeated by Cyrus the Persian in 539 <span>BC<\/span>, and the following year the king issued a decree permitting all captive peoples to return to the lands of their origin (2 Chr 36:22-23; Ezr 1). At least four waves of Jewish expatriates returned from Mesopotamia to Judea during the century following the decree of Cyrus, under such leaders as Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Many Jews, however, chose to remain in their adopted Mesopotamian homeland. The dedication of the second temple in the spring of 515 <span>BC<\/span> provided a formal end to the exilic period of 70 years (Jer 29:10), and was a direct result of the prophetic exhortations of Haggai and Zechariah.<\/p>\n<p>In Judea the Jewish people were ruled by governors who held office at the pleasure of the Persian king. One of the earlier governors was Zerubabbel (Hg 1:1; 2:1-2), a descendant of David (1 Chr 3:10-19). In some way he shared rule with the high priest Jeshua ben Jehozadak. Palestine was part of one of the 20 satrapies of the Persian Empire, which lasted from 539 to 331 <span>BC<\/span>, when it fell to the Greeks under Alexander the Great. Little is known about the historical developments in Palestine during most of the Persian period. When Alexander died in 323 <span>BC<\/span>, his empire was divided up among his generals; Egypt and Palestine fell to Ptolemy I. The Ptolemies were benevolent despots who allowed the Jews of Palestine a measure of freedom and autonomy. After the battle of Paneion in 198 <span>BC<\/span>, Palestine came under the rule of the Seleucid Empire, founded by Seleucus I, another of Alexander’s generals.<\/p>\n<p>The Seleucid Empire embraced a very large area with a diverse population, extending from Asia Minor and Palestine in the west to the borders of India on the east. Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) ascended the Seleucid throne in 175 <span>BC<\/span> and attempted to unify his vast empire by Hellenizing it (i.e., by forcing the adoption of Greek language and culture). Local cultures and religions were forcibly suppressed as a result of this policy, and the Jewish state in Palestine was perhaps the hardest hit of all. In 167 <span>BC<\/span> Antiochus IV dedicated the temple in Jerusalem to Olympian Zeus, sacrificed a sow on the altar, destroyed scrolls containing the Jewish Scriptures, and forbade the rite of circumcision. This repression triggered a revolt led by an aged priest named Mattathias and his sons. The Seleucids were repulsed, and finally in 164 <span>BC<\/span> the temple was retaken by Mattathias’s son Judas the Maccabee (an epithet meaning “the hammer”). This Jewish victory has been commemorated annually by the festival of Hanukkah (“dedication”). Judas and his brothers, called Maccabees or Hasmoneans (Mattathias was of the house of Hasmon), and their descendants ruled Judea from 164 to 63 <span>BC<\/span>, when Palestine fell to the Roman general Pompey. Thereafter, Palestine remained a vassal of Rome.<\/p>\n<p>Hyrcanus, a Hasmonean, was high priest after the conquest of Judea by the Romans, though Antipater (an Idumean) was the real power behind Hyrcanus. The sons of Antipater, Phasael and Herod, were governors of Jerusalem and Galilee, respectively. Upon the assassination of Antipater in 43 <span>BC<\/span>, and through his connections in Rome, Herod (later called Herod the Great) was named king of Judea by the Roman senate; he reigned from 37 to 4 <span>BC<\/span>. When he died, Palestine was divided up by the emperor Augustus (27 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 14) and placed under the governorship of three of Herod’s sons: Herod Archelaus (ethnarch of Judea, Idumea, and Samaria from 4 <span>BC<\/span> to <span>AD<\/span> 6), Herod Antipas (tetrarch of Galilee and Perea from 4 <span>BC<\/span> to <span>AD<\/span> 39), and Herod Philip (tetrarch of Batanea, Trachonitis, and other small states from 4 <span>BC<\/span> to <span>AD<\/span> 34). These territories were generally placed under Roman procurators after the sons of Herod had died or been deposed. For a brief period (<span>AD<\/span> 41–44), Herod Agrippa I, the grandson of Herod the Great, ruled virtually the same territory as his grandfather. Upon his death (narrated in Acts 12:20-23), his territories were placed under Roman procurators. The greed and ineptitude of these procurators provoked the Jewish populace to rebel. The ill-fated Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66–73 resulted in the destruction of the second temple by the tenth Roman legion under Titus in <span>AD<\/span> 70. The revolt was completely quelled in <span>AD<\/span> 73, when more than 900 Jews under siege in the desert fortress of Masada near the Dead Sea committed mass suicide rather than fall into Roman hands. These tragic events ended permanently the temple cult and the priestly system in Judaism.<\/p>\n<h5>Social and Religious Developments<\/h5>\n<p>The Babylonian conquest of Judea and the destruction of the Solomonic temple in 586 <span>BC<\/span> produced dramatic social and religious changes in Jewish life. The cessation of the temple cult struck a serious blow at the heart of the Israelite religion, since the Jerusalem temple alone was the legitimate and divinely appointed place for discharging much of the ritual requirement of the Mosaic law, chiefly the sacrificial cult. Even the three annual pilgrimage festivals, Succoth (Tabernacles), Pesach (Passover), and Shavuoth (Weeks) could no longer be observed by pious Jews who had remained in Judea after 586 <span>BC<\/span>. When after 538 <span>BC<\/span> many exiles chose to return to Judea, many others elected to remain in their new homeland. For the latter, the temple cult, even when reinstituted in 516 <span>BC<\/span>, could no longer play a significant role in their religious lives.<\/p>\n<p>During the exilic and early postexilic period, the peculiar Jewish institution of the synagogue (a Greek word meaning “gathering place”) began to evolve. The synagogue became such a popular and useful institution for Jewish communities outside Palestine that in the centuries after the dedication of the second temple they sprang up throughout Palestine, many in Jerusalem itself. By the end of the second temple period, the synagogue had come to play three important functions in Jewish life: it served as a house of prayer, a house of study, and a place of assembly. First-century <span>AD<\/span> synagogue worship is illustrated in Luke 4:16-30 and Acts 13:13-42. The focus of the service was a reading of a selection from the Torah (Law of Moses), then one from the Haphtorah (Prophets). These readings were followed by a homily based on Scripture. Other elements in first-century <span>AD<\/span> synagogue worship included the recitation of the Shema (“Hear, O Israel”), a combination of biblical passages including Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 11:13-21 and Numbers 15:37-41, and the Shemoneh Esreh (Eighteen Benedictions) called the Amidah (“standing”) because it was recited while standing upright. Jews also wore fringes on their garments in obedience to Numbers 15:38-39 (Mt 23:5), and phylacteries on their foreheads and left arms. Phylacteries are little boxes containing the portions of Scripture recited in Shema; they were used in literal fulfillment of the command in Deuteronomy 6:8. Archaeologists have discovered first-century phylacteries in the ruins of Masada.<\/p>\n<p>Outside of Palestine, Mesopotamia became the second most important center of Judaism. The Babylonian Jewish community was known as the Golah (“captivity”), and its titular head was called the Resh Galuta or Exilarch (both terms mean “leader of the captivity”). By the end of the exilic period, the descendants of the ancient original captives had forgotten Hebrew and had adopted Aramaic, the international language of the ancient Near East and sister language to Hebrew, as their first language. Even in Palestine, Aramaic was the primary language spoken. Thus, when portions of Scripture were read in synagogue services in Hebrew, most of those present were unable to understand what was read. This problem was solved by providing a methurgeman (translator) who would translate orally short sections of Scripture. Eventually these targums (“translations”) were reduced to writing, beginning in the second century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>By the first century <span>AD<\/span>, it had been estimated that there were from four to seven million Jews in the Greco-Roman world, perhaps three to four times the population of Palestine. Jews in lands outside of Palestine came to be known collectively as the Diaspora (“scattering”). After the Greeks dominated the Mediterranean world through Alexander and his successors, Greek became the common language throughout this region. Just as Mesopotamian Jews spoke Aramaic in place of Hebrew, so Jews in the Greco-Roman world came to speak Greek. By the middle of the third century <span>BC<\/span>, Hellenistic Jews began to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. This translation, called the Septuagint (a term meaning “seventy,” based on a legend that it was translated simultaneously by seventy Jewish scholars), contained a more extensive canon of Scripture than that recognized by Palestinian Judaism. This reflects the more liberal attitudes of Hellenistic Jews.<\/p>\n<p>During the second century <span>BC<\/span>, most of the major sects within Palestinian Judaism came into being. The Hasidim (“pious”) were members of a religious association that aided the Hasmoneans in the revolt against the Seleucids (1 Macc 2:42; 7:13) but later opposed them when they claimed rights to the priesthood. Both the Pharisees and Essenes may have their origin in this religious sect. The Sadducees were perhaps connected with Zadok, a high priest appointed by David. Zadok’s descendants were regarded as the only legitimate priestly line; they were devoted above the Levites in Ezekiel 40–48. The Sadducees were a wealthy, aristocratic class that monopolized the high priesthood. They did not believe in angels, spirits, life after death, or the resurrection (Acts 23:8), nor did they accept the validity of the oral law as developed by the Pharisees. They left no writings and disappeared with the destruction of the temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees (“separated ones”) first appear in our sources toward the end of the second century <span>BC<\/span> and were involved primarily in political affairs. They represented the common people against the tyrannical Hasmonean ruler Alexander Janneus (103–76 <span>BC<\/span>), who had hundreds of Pharisees executed in reprisal. By the first century <span>AD<\/span>, the Pharisees seem wholly concerned with religious matters and were noted for the scrupulous observance of the Mosaic law as traditionally interpreted. On grounds of ritual purity, they separated themselves from other Jews who were not as scrupulous and who might contaminate them. Pharisees went about in groups called Haberim (“associates”) in which they were insulated from those who were lax religiously. In their zeal to remain faithful to the Mosaic law, the Pharisees developed an oral law (later erroneously attributed to Moses) that served as a fence around the Torah. This oral law was an interpretation and expansion of the 613 commands in the Mosaic law; it was finally compiled and reduced to written form as the Mishnah (“teaching”) in the late second century <span>AD<\/span>. Paul (Acts 22:3; 23:6; 26:5; Phil 3:5) and many other early Christians were converts from Pharisaism (Acts 15:5). Pharisaic Judaism survived the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70 to form the rabbinic Judaism that dominated Jewish religious life from the second century <span>AD<\/span> to modern times.<\/p>\n<p>The Essenes were another religious sect within Judaism that had its origins in the second century <span>BC<\/span>. Like the Pharisees, the Essenes were concerned principally with maintaining ritual purity in obedience to the law of Moses. The Essenes lived and worked in Jewish society; they tried to influence people by the simple, altruistic life they followed. Some Essenes also lived in their own communities, to which they returned each night after work. There were numerous religious factions within Judaism, and one such group, which may only have had vague connections with the Essenes, established a community on the western shore of the Dead Sea. This group regarded itself as the true Israel and in the wilderness prepared for the final visitation of God by keeping themselves pure from all defilement. Many documents written by members of this sect were discovered in caves near the Dead Sea where they had been hidden just before the Romans destroyed the settlement. These documents, the Dead Sea Scrolls, have provided detailed information about this religious sect and its beliefs.<\/p>\n<p>The Zealots were another Jewish sect, who may be related to the Sicarii (“dagger men”). This group of political activists flourished from <span>AD<\/span> 6 to 66. Regarding God alone as their sovereign, they attempted to overthrow the Romans and those who collaborated with them by violent means, including assassination. They helped to foment the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66–73 and perished with Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>Social class and status in first-century <span>AD<\/span> Palestine were determined in accordance with the rules of ritual purity. The upper class comprised members of the religious establishment, such as the Sadducees, scribes, Pharisees, and Jerusalem priests. The Sanhedrin was a deliberative body whose membership was drawn from these groups. For all practical purposes there was no middle class. The lower class consisted primarily of the Am Ha Arez (“people of the land”)—Jews who were ignorant of the law through lack of education and who did not scrupulously observe those commandments with which they were familiar. The generally hostile attitude of the Pharisees toward the Am Ha Arez is expressed in John 7:49: “But this crowd, who do not know the law, are accursed” (<span>rsv<\/span>). There was yet another social class in first-century Palestine, which can be designated as “untouchables.” This group was composed of Samaritans, tax collectors, prostitutes, shepherds, lepers, Gentiles, and perhaps worst of all, Jews who became as Gentiles (e.g., the prodigal son of Lk 15:11-32). The rules of ritual purity as generally observed prevented any form of social contact between the upper class and the untouchables, and made contacts with the Am Ha Arez highly undesirable. Against this background, the horror of the Pharisees over Jesus’ association with tax collectors and sinners is throughly understandable (Mk 2:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>A further consequence of this religious criterion for determining social class and status was an uneasy tension between Jerusalem and the rural areas of Palestine, particularly Galilee, during the last two centuries of the second temple period. Those in Jerusalem regarded Galilee as a place where ignorance of the Torah was the rule (Jn 1:46). Jerusalem was primarily a religious center, whose major industry was the temple cult. The total population of Jerusalem in the first century <span>AD<\/span> has been estimated at 25,000 to 40,000. Most of these were either artisans and craftsmen devoted to building and adorning the temple (still incomplete before it was destroyed; see Jn 2:20) or priests and Levites involved in the many ritual activities of the temple. Though Jews were expected to travel to Jerusalem for each of the three annual pilgrimage festivals, this requirement proved difficult for rural Palestinian farmers.<\/p>\n<p>Further, the tithe demanded by Mosaic command was only on the produce of the land, not upon wages or bartered goods. The rural farmers, therefore, bore the brunt of this taxation and quite naturally resented the privileged position of urban artisans, merchants, and priests who were not obliged to tithe. The temptation not to tithe the produce of the land was very great, and many farmers succumbed to it. Their untithed produce was not kosher, and thus to be avoided by those, like the Pharisees, who were religiously scrupulous. In addition to the first and second tithes demanded of farmers (the second tithe had to be spent in the vicinity of Jerusalem), it has been estimated that Roman tax levies amounted to 10 to 15 percent of an individual’s income. Religious taxes, together with Roman taxes, added up to a crushing tax burden of from 25 to 30 percent. The fact that the Jews finally revolted against their Roman oppressors in <span>AD<\/span> 66 is not difficult to comprehend. Throughout the first century <span>AD<\/span>, in fact, minor revolts in Palestine occurred with predictable frequency. Many of these occurred during the three annual pilgrimage festivals in Jerusalem, when the normal population of 25,000 to 40,000 swelled to 500,000 or more. These festivals provided ideal opportunities for uprisings, and the Romans were particularly alert for such eventualities. Jesus was executed during one such Passover festival because he was suspected of being a political revolutionary (Mk 15:26).<\/p>\n<p>The second temple period provided the setting for the rise and fall of apocalypticism within Judaism. Apocalypticism (from a Greek word meaning “revelation”) was a kind of eschatology (“account of final events”) that assumed that ideal conditions could not be restored on earth unless God first intervened climactically to destroy evil (particularly foreign oppressors) and vindicate the righteous (Israel). Apocalyptic visionaries composed many documents, called apocalypses, in which they attempted to read the signs of the times and predict the coming of the visitation of God. Since there was a widespread consciousness that the era of prophecy was over, these apocalyptists wrote not under their own names but under the names of ancient Israelite worthies, such as Moses, Abraham, Enoch, and Ezra. Among the more significant expectations of Jewish apocalypticism were (1) the coming of a Messiah; (2) the coming of a great period of tribulation, sometimes called the messianic woes; (3) the resurrection of the just; (4) the judgment of the wicked and the reward of the righteous. Apocalyptic beliefs probably provided the motivation for most—if not all—of the Jewish revolts against the Romans.<\/p>\n\n<p>Some portions of the Hebrew Scriptures were still in the process of composition at the beginning of the second temple period. The last three prophetic books—Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—were written from the end of the sixth century to the mid fifth century <span>BC<\/span>. Later rabbis expressed the opinion that the Spirit of God had been taken from Israel when these prophets ceased their labors. The Chronicler ends his work by referring to the decree of Cyrus (538 <span>BC<\/span>), and both Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther appear to have been written in the fifth century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The second temple period witnessed not only the completion of those writings that were later regarded as inspired and authoritative in Judaism but also the full recognition of all 24 sacred books. Prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 <span>BC<\/span>, the Mosaic law had not been observed with any consistency (according to 2 Kgs 22 it had been mislaid for an unknown period of time), nor had the classical prophets always received appropriate recognition. But after 586 <span>BC<\/span> the Torah occupied a position of unquestioned sanctity in the lives and thoughts of the Jewish people, replacing in many respects the temple cult even before its final dissolution in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>The Jewish Scriptures are divided into three sections, designated by Jews with the acrostic “Tanak”: (1) Torah (“Law” or “Revelation”), (2) Nebi’im (“Prophets”), and (3) Kethubim (“Writings”). It is generally claimed that while the Law and Prophets enjoyed canonical status prior to the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the Writings were finally declared canonical at the rabbinic council of Jamnia (c. <span>AD<\/span> 90), though the historicity of this is disputed. The rabbis are thought to have discussed whether certain biblical books should continue to be part of Scripture. In reality, the Jewish canon of Scripture was fully defined from traditional usage by the first century <span>BC<\/span>. The Law consisted of five books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The Prophets consisted of two sections, the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) and the Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 12 Minor Prophets). The Writings included Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Ruth, and Daniel. The total number of books in this canon is 24, identical with the Protestant canon of 39 books, since Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, and the 12 are each counted as only one book. The Alexandrian canon of Hellenistic Judaism was more extensive, and the extra books (called Apocrypha by Protestants) are all found in the Roman Catholic OT canon of 46 books.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTalmudicPeriod\">The Talmudic Period (<span>AD<\/span> 73–425)<\/p>\n<h5>Historical Survey<\/h5>\n<p>According to Jewish legend, when the Romans were about to conquer Jerusalem in the revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66–73, a prominent Pharisee, Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, feigned death and his disciples were permitted to carry him out of the besieged city in a coffin. The more likely scenario is that he received permission from the Romans to move his school from Jerusalem to Jamnia, on the coast of Palestine. The temple cult and the priestly system had disappeared, and rabbinic academies such as that of Rabbi Johanan set themselves to the enormous task of reconstructing Judaism. The older Sanhedrin was reinstituted as the Beth Din (“Court of Law”), and Gamaliel II, a grandson of Hillel, who had presided over the old Sanhedrin, became its leader with the title Nasi (“prince”), or Patriarch. The patriarchate continued until <span>AD<\/span> 425, when Emperor Theodosius II abolished the office upon the death of the last patriarch, Gamaliel VI. In Mesopotamia, Babylonian Judaism experienced a renaissance that lasted until the end of the fifth century <span>AD<\/span>. This period was called the Age of the Gaonim (“excellencies”) after the heads of the two great rabbinic academies at Sura and Pumpeditha. It was there that the great Babylonian Talmud was compiled by the fifth century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>In <span>AD<\/span> 115 various Jewish communities throughout the eastern Mediterranean, including Egypt, Cyprus, and Cyrene, revolted against the Roman emperor Trajan. Without exception these revolts were all put down by Roman legions. Finally, when the emperor Hadrian was on the brink of founding the new city of Aelia Capitolina on the site of old Jerusalem, the Jews again revolted in <span>AD<\/span> 132, led by a self-proclaimed messiah, Simeon Bar Koziba, who was called Bar-Kochba (“Son of a Star”) by his followers as an allusion to the messianic passage in Numbers 24:17. Bar-Kochba was aided by the famous rabbinic scholar Akiba. This revolt, though initially successful, was put down by the Romans under Julius Severus in 135. Shortly thereafter, Hadrian issued a decree banning all Jews from the new Aelia Capitolina.<\/p>\n<h5>Social and Religious Developments<\/h5>\n<p>During this period, the result of generations of rabbinical scholarship bore fruit with the compilation of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. The rabbinic sages consciously saw themselves as the heirs of the ancient Israelite prophets, who in turn were the heirs of the Mosaic law. They distinguished consciously between their own legal interpretations of the Mosaic law (which they called Halakah, or “walking,” i.e., a guide for life), and the commands in the Torah itself (called Mitvah, or “commandment”). The oral law, developed through generations of rabbinic discussion, was finally compiled and written down through the efforts of the patriarch Judah ha-Nasi (c. <span>AD<\/span> 135–220) during the last quarter of the second century <span>AD<\/span> and became known as the Mishnah (“teaching”). This is a topical arrangement of rabbinic discussions on such subjects as the Sabbath, firstfruits, sacrifices, and women. The Mishnah became the basis for further rabbinic discussion in both Palestine and Babylonia. The decisions of sages who flourished after the writing of the Mishnah were compiled about <span>AD<\/span> 450 in Palestine and about 500 in Babylonia. This second stage beyond the Mishnah was called the Gemara (meaning either “completion” or “repetition”). The Mishnah and the Babylonian Gemara make up the Babylonian Talmud, while the same Mishnah with the Jerusalem or Palestinian Gemara comprises the Jerusalem Talmud. Yet another type of rabbinic literature is the Midrashim (“interpretations”), which either follow the order of a particular biblical book or consist of homilies on particular biblical texts. The Targums, paraphrastic translations of Scripture into the Aramaic language, finally came to be written down beginning in the late second century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>After the destruction of the temple, rabbinic Judaism concentrated on the religious significance of the Torah and elevated scholarship to the central role that it still plays in Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism gradually exerted its influence upon diaspora Judaism under the initial leadership of Rabbi Johanan until a kind of rabbinic orthodoxy emerged during the second century. Christianity was one of the major ideological foes of rabbinic Judaism. In order to purge Jewish Christians from their midst, the rabbis introduced an additional benediction to the eighteen benedictions customarily recited at synagogue services. This 19th benediction was a curse upon the <em>minim<\/em> (Christians and other heretics), which Jewish Christians who attended synagogue services found impossible to recite. The line was firmly drawn between Judaism and Christianity by this device, which was employed late in the first century.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Dead Sea Scrolls; Essenes; Diaspora of the Jews; First Jewish Revolt; Israel, History of; Jew; Judah, Tribe of; Judaism; Pharisees; Philo, Judaeus; Postexilic Period; Sanhedrin; Talmud; Torah; Tradition; Tradition, Oral.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JUDAISM<\/h3>\n<p>Religion and culture of the Jewish people from the beginning of the postexilic period (538 <span>BC<\/span>) to modern times. The term “Judaism” is derived from “Judah,” the name of the southern kingdom of ancient Israel, while “Jew” is a shortened form of “Judeans.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePeriodoftheSecondTemple\">The Period of the Second Temple (515 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 70)<\/p>\n<h5>Historical Survey<\/h5>\n<p>The united kingdom of Israel under Saul, David, and Solomon came to an end shortly after the death of Solomon. Rehoboam, his son, provoked a revolt about 930 <span>BC<\/span> on the part of the 10 northern tribes by levying unreasonably high taxes (1 Kgs 12). From that time on, the kingdoms of Israel (or Samaria, the northern kingdom) and Judah (the southern kingdom) maintained a separate existence. The northern kingdom fell to the Assyrians in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, and thousands of captives, primarily members of the upper class, were exiled forcibly and taken to Assyria, where they presumably intermarried with the native population and disappeared from history. The kingdom of Judah survived as an independent state until 597 <span>BC<\/span>, when it came under the control of the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar. The temple was finally destroyed in 586 <span>BC<\/span> and many captives were carried off to Babylonia, beginning a period of exile that was to last two generations. The Babylonians were defeated by Cyrus the Persian in 539 <span>BC<\/span>, and the following year the king issued a decree permitting all captive peoples to return to the lands of their origin (2 Chr 36:22-23; Ezr 1). At least four waves of Jewish expatriates returned from Mesopotamia to Judea during the century following the decree of Cyrus, under such leaders as Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Many Jews, however, chose to remain in their adopted Mesopotamian homeland. The dedication of the second temple in the spring of 515 <span>BC<\/span> provided a formal end to the exilic period of 70 years (Jer 29:10), and was a direct result of the prophetic exhortations of Haggai and Zechariah.<\/p>\n<p>In Judea the Jewish people were ruled by governors who held office at the pleasure of the Persian king. One of the earlier governors was Zerubabbel (Hg 1:1; 2:1-2), a descendant of David (1 Chr 3:10-19). In some way he shared rule with the high priest Jeshua ben Jehozadak. Palestine was part of one of the 20 satrapies of the Persian Empire, which lasted from 539 to 331 <span>BC<\/span>, when it fell to the Greeks under Alexander the Great. Little is known about the historical developments in Palestine during most of the Persian period. When Alexander died in 323 <span>BC<\/span>, his empire was divided up among his generals; Egypt and Palestine fell to Ptolemy I. The Ptolemies were benevolent despots who allowed the Jews of Palestine a measure of freedom and autonomy. After the battle of Paneion in 198 <span>BC<\/span>, Palestine came under the rule of the Seleucid Empire, founded by Seleucus I, another of Alexander’s generals.<\/p>\n<p>The Seleucid Empire embraced a very large area with a diverse population, extending from Asia Minor and Palestine in the west to the borders of India on the east. Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) ascended the Seleucid throne in 175 <span>BC<\/span> and attempted to unify his vast empire by Hellenizing it (i.e., by forcing the adoption of Greek language and culture). Local cultures and religions were forcibly suppressed as a result of this policy, and the Jewish state in Palestine was perhaps the hardest hit of all. In 167 <span>BC<\/span> Antiochus IV dedicated the temple in Jerusalem to Olympian Zeus, sacrificed a sow on the altar, destroyed scrolls containing the Jewish Scriptures, and forbade the rite of circumcision. This repression triggered a revolt led by an aged priest named Mattathias and his sons. The Seleucids were repulsed, and finally in 164 <span>BC<\/span> the temple was retaken by Mattathias’s son Judas the Maccabee (an epithet meaning “the hammer”). This Jewish victory has been commemorated annually by the festival of Hanukkah (“dedication”). Judas and his brothers, called Maccabees or Hasmoneans (Mattathias was of the house of Hasmon), and their descendants ruled Judea from 164 to 63 <span>BC<\/span>, when Palestine fell to the Roman general Pompey. Thereafter, Palestine remained a vassal of Rome.<\/p>\n<p>Hyrcanus, a Hasmonean, was high priest after the conquest of Judea by the Romans, though Antipater (an Idumean) was the real power behind Hyrcanus. The sons of Antipater, Phasael and Herod, were governors of Jerusalem and Galilee, respectively. Upon the assassination of Antipater in 43 <span>BC<\/span>, and through his connections in Rome, Herod (later called Herod the Great) was named king of Judea by the Roman senate; he reigned from 37 to 4 <span>BC<\/span>. When he died, Palestine was divided up by the emperor Augustus (27 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 14) and placed under the governorship of three of Herod’s sons: Herod Archelaus (ethnarch of Judea, Idumea, and Samaria from 4 <span>BC<\/span> to <span>AD<\/span> 6), Herod Antipas (tetrarch of Galilee and Perea from 4 <span>BC<\/span> to <span>AD<\/span> 39), and Herod Philip (tetrarch of Batanea, Trachonitis, and other small states from 4 <span>BC<\/span> to <span>AD<\/span> 34). These territories were generally placed under Roman procurators after the sons of Herod had died or been deposed. For a brief period (<span>AD<\/span> 41–44), Herod Agrippa I, the grandson of Herod the Great, ruled virtually the same territory as his grandfather. Upon his death (narrated in Acts 12:20-23), his territories were placed under Roman procurators. The greed and ineptitude of these procurators provoked the Jewish populace to rebel. The ill-fated Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66–73 resulted in the destruction of the second temple by the tenth Roman legion under Titus in <span>AD<\/span> 70. The revolt was completely quelled in <span>AD<\/span> 73, when more than 900 Jews under siege in the desert fortress of Masada near the Dead Sea committed mass suicide rather than fall into Roman hands. These tragic events ended permanently the temple cult and the priestly system in Judaism.<\/p>\n<h5>Social and Religious Developments<\/h5>\n<p>The Babylonian conquest of Judea and the destruction of the Solomonic temple in 586 <span>BC<\/span> produced dramatic social and religious changes in Jewish life. The cessation of the temple cult struck a serious blow at the heart of the Israelite religion, since the Jerusalem temple alone was the legitimate and divinely appointed place for discharging much of the ritual requirement of the Mosaic law, chiefly the sacrificial cult. Even the three annual pilgrimage festivals, Succoth (Tabernacles), Pesach (Passover), and Shavuoth (Weeks) could no longer be observed by pious Jews who had remained in Judea after 586 <span>BC<\/span>. When after 538 <span>BC<\/span> many exiles chose to return to Judea, many others elected to remain in their new homeland. For the latter, the temple cult, even when reinstituted in 516 <span>BC<\/span>, could no longer play a significant role in their religious lives.<\/p>\n<p>During the exilic and early postexilic period, the peculiar Jewish institution of the synagogue (a Greek word meaning “gathering place”) began to evolve. The synagogue became such a popular and useful institution for Jewish communities outside Palestine that in the centuries after the dedication of the second temple they sprang up throughout Palestine, many in Jerusalem itself. By the end of the second temple period, the synagogue had come to play three important functions in Jewish life: it served as a house of prayer, a house of study, and a place of assembly. First-century <span>AD<\/span> synagogue worship is illustrated in Luke 4:16-30 and Acts 13:13-42. The focus of the service was a reading of a selection from the Torah (Law of Moses), then one from the Haphtorah (Prophets). These readings were followed by a homily based on Scripture. Other elements in first-century <span>AD<\/span> synagogue worship included the recitation of the Shema (“Hear, O Israel”), a combination of biblical passages including Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 11:13-21 and Numbers 15:37-41, and the Shemoneh Esreh (Eighteen Benedictions) called the Amidah (“standing”) because it was recited while standing upright. Jews also wore fringes on their garments in obedience to Numbers 15:38-39 (Mt 23:5), and phylacteries on their foreheads and left arms. Phylacteries are little boxes containing the portions of Scripture recited in Shema; they were used in literal fulfillment of the command in Deuteronomy 6:8. Archaeologists have discovered first-century phylacteries in the ruins of Masada.<\/p>\n<p>Outside of Palestine, Mesopotamia became the second most important center of Judaism. The Babylonian Jewish community was known as the Golah (“captivity”), and its titular head was called the Resh Galuta or Exilarch (both terms mean “leader of the captivity”). By the end of the exilic period, the descendants of the ancient original captives had forgotten Hebrew and had adopted Aramaic, the international language of the ancient Near East and sister language to Hebrew, as their first language. Even in Palestine, Aramaic was the primary language spoken. Thus, when portions of Scripture were read in synagogue services in Hebrew, most of those present were unable to understand what was read. This problem was solved by providing a methurgeman (translator) who would translate orally short sections of Scripture. Eventually these targums (“translations”) were reduced to writing, beginning in the second century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>By the first century <span>AD<\/span>, it had been estimated that there were from four to seven million Jews in the Greco-Roman world, perhaps three to four times the population of Palestine. Jews in lands outside of Palestine came to be known collectively as the Diaspora (“scattering”). After the Greeks dominated the Mediterranean world through Alexander and his successors, Greek became the common language throughout this region. Just as Mesopotamian Jews spoke Aramaic in place of Hebrew, so Jews in the Greco-Roman world came to speak Greek. By the middle of the third century <span>BC<\/span>, Hellenistic Jews began to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. This translation, called the Septuagint (a term meaning “seventy,” based on a legend that it was translated simultaneously by seventy Jewish scholars), contained a more extensive canon of Scripture than that recognized by Palestinian Judaism. This reflects the more liberal attitudes of Hellenistic Jews.<\/p>\n<p>During the second century <span>BC<\/span>, most of the major sects within Palestinian Judaism came into being. The Hasidim (“pious”) were members of a religious association that aided the Hasmoneans in the revolt against the Seleucids (1 Macc 2:42; 7:13) but later opposed them when they claimed rights to the priesthood. Both the Pharisees and Essenes may have their origin in this religious sect. The Sadducees were perhaps connected with Zadok, a high priest appointed by David. Zadok’s descendants were regarded as the only legitimate priestly line; they were devoted above the Levites in Ezekiel 40–48. The Sadducees were a wealthy, aristocratic class that monopolized the high priesthood. They did not believe in angels, spirits, life after death, or the resurrection (Acts 23:8), nor did they accept the validity of the oral law as developed by the Pharisees. They left no writings and disappeared with the destruction of the temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees (“separated ones”) first appear in our sources toward the end of the second century <span>BC<\/span> and were involved primarily in political affairs. They represented the common people against the tyrannical Hasmonean ruler Alexander Janneus (103–76 <span>BC<\/span>), who had hundreds of Pharisees executed in reprisal. By the first century <span>AD<\/span>, the Pharisees seem wholly concerned with religious matters and were noted for the scrupulous observance of the Mosaic law as traditionally interpreted. On grounds of ritual purity, they separated themselves from other Jews who were not as scrupulous and who might contaminate them. Pharisees went about in groups called Haberim (“associates”) in which they were insulated from those who were lax religiously. In their zeal to remain faithful to the Mosaic law, the Pharisees developed an oral law (later erroneously attributed to Moses) that served as a fence around the Torah. This oral law was an interpretation and expansion of the 613 commands in the Mosaic law; it was finally compiled and reduced to written form as the Mishnah (“teaching”) in the late second century <span>AD<\/span>. Paul (Acts 22:3; 23:6; 26:5; Phil 3:5) and many other early Christians were converts from Pharisaism (Acts 15:5). Pharisaic Judaism survived the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70 to form the rabbinic Judaism that dominated Jewish religious life from the second century <span>AD<\/span> to modern times.<\/p>\n<p>The Essenes were another religious sect within Judaism that had its origins in the second century <span>BC<\/span>. Like the Pharisees, the Essenes were concerned principally with maintaining ritual purity in obedience to the law of Moses. The Essenes lived and worked in Jewish society; they tried to influence people by the simple, altruistic life they followed. Some Essenes also lived in their own communities, to which they returned each night after work. There were numerous religious factions within Judaism, and one such group, which may only have had vague connections with the Essenes, established a community on the western shore of the Dead Sea. This group regarded itself as the true Israel and in the wilderness prepared for the final visitation of God by keeping themselves pure from all defilement. Many documents written by members of this sect were discovered in caves near the Dead Sea where they had been hidden just before the Romans destroyed the settlement. These documents, the Dead Sea Scrolls, have provided detailed information about this religious sect and its beliefs.<\/p>\n<p>The Zealots were another Jewish sect, who may be related to the Sicarii (“dagger men”). This group of political activists flourished from <span>AD<\/span> 6 to 66. Regarding God alone as their sovereign, they attempted to overthrow the Romans and those who collaborated with them by violent means, including assassination. They helped to foment the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66–73 and perished with Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>Social class and status in first-century <span>AD<\/span> Palestine were determined in accordance with the rules of ritual purity. The upper class comprised members of the religious establishment, such as the Sadducees, scribes, Pharisees, and Jerusalem priests. The Sanhedrin was a deliberative body whose membership was drawn from these groups. For all practical purposes there was no middle class. The lower class consisted primarily of the Am Ha Arez (“people of the land”)—Jews who were ignorant of the law through lack of education and who did not scrupulously observe those commandments with which they were familiar. The generally hostile attitude of the Pharisees toward the Am Ha Arez is expressed in John 7:49: “But this crowd, who do not know the law, are accursed” (<span>rsv<\/span>). There was yet another social class in first-century Palestine, which can be designated as “untouchables.” This group was composed of Samaritans, tax collectors, prostitutes, shepherds, lepers, Gentiles, and perhaps worst of all, Jews who became as Gentiles (e.g., the prodigal son of Lk 15:11-32). The rules of ritual purity as generally observed prevented any form of social contact between the upper class and the untouchables, and made contacts with the Am Ha Arez highly undesirable. Against this background, the horror of the Pharisees over Jesus’ association with tax collectors and sinners is throughly understandable (Mk 2:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>A further consequence of this religious criterion for determining social class and status was an uneasy tension between Jerusalem and the rural areas of Palestine, particularly Galilee, during the last two centuries of the second temple period. Those in Jerusalem regarded Galilee as a place where ignorance of the Torah was the rule (Jn 1:46). Jerusalem was primarily a religious center, whose major industry was the temple cult. The total population of Jerusalem in the first century <span>AD<\/span> has been estimated at 25,000 to 40,000. Most of these were either artisans and craftsmen devoted to building and adorning the temple (still incomplete before it was destroyed; see Jn 2:20) or priests and Levites involved in the many ritual activities of the temple. Though Jews were expected to travel to Jerusalem for each of the three annual pilgrimage festivals, this requirement proved difficult for rural Palestinian farmers.<\/p>\n<p>Further, the tithe demanded by Mosaic command was only on the produce of the land, not upon wages or bartered goods. The rural farmers, therefore, bore the brunt of this taxation and quite naturally resented the privileged position of urban artisans, merchants, and priests who were not obliged to tithe. The temptation not to tithe the produce of the land was very great, and many farmers succumbed to it. Their untithed produce was not kosher, and thus to be avoided by those, like the Pharisees, who were religiously scrupulous. In addition to the first and second tithes demanded of farmers (the second tithe had to be spent in the vicinity of Jerusalem), it has been estimated that Roman tax levies amounted to 10 to 15 percent of an individual’s income. Religious taxes, together with Roman taxes, added up to a crushing tax burden of from 25 to 30 percent. The fact that the Jews finally revolted against their Roman oppressors in <span>AD<\/span> 66 is not difficult to comprehend. Throughout the first century <span>AD<\/span>, in fact, minor revolts in Palestine occurred with predictable frequency. Many of these occurred during the three annual pilgrimage festivals in Jerusalem, when the normal population of 25,000 to 40,000 swelled to 500,000 or more. These festivals provided ideal opportunities for uprisings, and the Romans were particularly alert for such eventualities. Jesus was executed during one such Passover festival because he was suspected of being a political revolutionary (Mk 15:26).<\/p>\n<p>The second temple period provided the setting for the rise and fall of apocalypticism within Judaism. Apocalypticism (from a Greek word meaning “revelation”) was a kind of eschatology (“account of final events”) that assumed that ideal conditions could not be restored on earth unless God first intervened climactically to destroy evil (particularly foreign oppressors) and vindicate the righteous (Israel). Apocalyptic visionaries composed many documents, called apocalypses, in which they attempted to read the signs of the times and predict the coming of the visitation of God. Since there was a widespread consciousness that the era of prophecy was over, these apocalyptists wrote not under their own names but under the names of ancient Israelite worthies, such as Moses, Abraham, Enoch, and Ezra. Among the more significant expectations of Jewish apocalypticism were (1) the coming of a Messiah; (2) the coming of a great period of tribulation, sometimes called the messianic woes; (3) the resurrection of the just; (4) the judgment of the wicked and the reward of the righteous. Apocalyptic beliefs probably provided the motivation for most—if not all—of the Jewish revolts against the Romans.<\/p>\n\n<p>Some portions of the Hebrew Scriptures were still in the process of composition at the beginning of the second temple period. The last three prophetic books—Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—were written from the end of the sixth century to the mid fifth century <span>BC<\/span>. Later rabbis expressed the opinion that the Spirit of God had been taken from Israel when these prophets ceased their labors. The Chronicler ends his work by referring to the decree of Cyrus (538 <span>BC<\/span>), and both Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther appear to have been written in the fifth century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The second temple period witnessed not only the completion of those writings that were later regarded as inspired and authoritative in Judaism but also the full recognition of all 24 sacred books. Prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 <span>BC<\/span>, the Mosaic law had not been observed with any consistency (according to 2 Kgs 22 it had been mislaid for an unknown period of time), nor had the classical prophets always received appropriate recognition. But after 586 <span>BC<\/span> the Torah occupied a position of unquestioned sanctity in the lives and thoughts of the Jewish people, replacing in many respects the temple cult even before its final dissolution in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>The Jewish Scriptures are divided into three sections, designated by Jews with the acrostic “Tanak”: (1) Torah (“Law” or “Revelation”), (2) Nebi’im (“Prophets”), and (3) Kethubim (“Writings”). It is generally claimed that while the Law and Prophets enjoyed canonical status prior to the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the Writings were finally declared canonical at the rabbinic council of Jamnia (c. <span>AD<\/span> 90), though the historicity of this is disputed. The rabbis are thought to have discussed whether certain biblical books should continue to be part of Scripture. In reality, the Jewish canon of Scripture was fully defined from traditional usage by the first century <span>BC<\/span>. The Law consisted of five books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The Prophets consisted of two sections, the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) and the Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 12 Minor Prophets). The Writings included Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Ruth, and Daniel. The total number of books in this canon is 24, identical with the Protestant canon of 39 books, since Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, and the 12 are each counted as only one book. The Alexandrian canon of Hellenistic Judaism was more extensive, and the extra books (called Apocrypha by Protestants) are all found in the Roman Catholic OT canon of 46 books.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTalmudicPeriod\">The Talmudic Period (<span>AD<\/span> 73–425)<\/p>\n<h5>Historical Survey<\/h5>\n<p>According to Jewish legend, when the Romans were about to conquer Jerusalem in the revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66–73, a prominent Pharisee, Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, feigned death and his disciples were permitted to carry him out of the besieged city in a coffin. The more likely scenario is that he received permission from the Romans to move his school from Jerusalem to Jamnia, on the coast of Palestine. The temple cult and the priestly system had disappeared, and rabbinic academies such as that of Rabbi Johanan set themselves to the enormous task of reconstructing Judaism. The older Sanhedrin was reinstituted as the Beth Din (“Court of Law”), and Gamaliel II, a grandson of Hillel, who had presided over the old Sanhedrin, became its leader with the title Nasi (“prince”), or Patriarch. The patriarchate continued until <span>AD<\/span> 425, when Emperor Theodosius II abolished the office upon the death of the last patriarch, Gamaliel VI. In Mesopotamia, Babylonian Judaism experienced a renaissance that lasted until the end of the fifth century <span>AD<\/span>. This period was called the Age of the Gaonim (“excellencies”) after the heads of the two great rabbinic academies at Sura and Pumpeditha. It was there that the great Babylonian Talmud was compiled by the fifth century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>In <span>AD<\/span> 115 various Jewish communities throughout the eastern Mediterranean, including Egypt, Cyprus, and Cyrene, revolted against the Roman emperor Trajan. Without exception these revolts were all put down by Roman legions. Finally, when the emperor Hadrian was on the brink of founding the new city of Aelia Capitolina on the site of old Jerusalem, the Jews again revolted in <span>AD<\/span> 132, led by a self-proclaimed messiah, Simeon Bar Koziba, who was called Bar-Kochba (“Son of a Star”) by his followers as an allusion to the messianic passage in Numbers 24:17. Bar-Kochba was aided by the famous rabbinic scholar Akiba. This revolt, though initially successful, was put down by the Romans under Julius Severus in 135. Shortly thereafter, Hadrian issued a decree banning all Jews from the new Aelia Capitolina.<\/p>\n<h5>Social and Religious Developments<\/h5>\n<p>During this period, the result of generations of rabbinical scholarship bore fruit with the compilation of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. The rabbinic sages consciously saw themselves as the heirs of the ancient Israelite prophets, who in turn were the heirs of the Mosaic law. They distinguished consciously between their own legal interpretations of the Mosaic law (which they called Halakah, or “walking,” i.e., a guide for life), and the commands in the Torah itself (called Mitvah, or “commandment”). The oral law, developed through generations of rabbinic discussion, was finally compiled and written down through the efforts of the patriarch Judah ha-Nasi (c. <span>AD<\/span> 135–220) during the last quarter of the second century <span>AD<\/span> and became known as the Mishnah (“teaching”). This is a topical arrangement of rabbinic discussions on such subjects as the Sabbath, firstfruits, sacrifices, and women. The Mishnah became the basis for further rabbinic discussion in both Palestine and Babylonia. The decisions of sages who flourished after the writing of the Mishnah were compiled about <span>AD<\/span> 450 in Palestine and about 500 in Babylonia. This second stage beyond the Mishnah was called the Gemara (meaning either “completion” or “repetition”). The Mishnah and the Babylonian Gemara make up the Babylonian Talmud, while the same Mishnah with the Jerusalem or Palestinian Gemara comprises the Jerusalem Talmud. Yet another type of rabbinic literature is the Midrashim (“interpretations”), which either follow the order of a particular biblical book or consist of homilies on particular biblical texts. The Targums, paraphrastic translations of Scripture into the Aramaic language, finally came to be written down beginning in the late second century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>After the destruction of the temple, rabbinic Judaism concentrated on the religious significance of the Torah and elevated scholarship to the central role that it still plays in Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism gradually exerted its influence upon diaspora Judaism under the initial leadership of Rabbi Johanan until a kind of rabbinic orthodoxy emerged during the second century. Christianity was one of the major ideological foes of rabbinic Judaism. In order to purge Jewish Christians from their midst, the rabbis introduced an additional benediction to the eighteen benedictions customarily recited at synagogue services. This 19th benediction was a curse upon the <em>minim<\/em> (Christians and other heretics), which Jewish Christians who attended synagogue services found impossible to recite. The line was firmly drawn between Judaism and Christianity by this device, which was employed late in the first century.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Dead Sea Scrolls; Essenes; Diaspora of the Jews; First Jewish Revolt; Israel, History of; Jew; Judah, Tribe of; Judaism; Pharisees; Philo, Judaeus; Postexilic Period; Sanhedrin; Talmud; Torah; Tradition; Tradition, Oral.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JUDAISM Religion and culture of the Jewish people from the beginning of the postexilic period (538 BC) to modern times. The term “Judaism” is derived from “Judah,” the name of the southern kingdom of ancient Israel, while “Jew” is a shortened form of “Judeans.” The Period of the Second Temple (515 BC–AD 70) Historical Survey The united kingdom of Israel under Saul, David, and Solomon came to an end shortly after the death of Solomon. Rehoboam, his son, provoked a revolt about 930 BC on the pa...","summary_en":"JUDAISM Religion and culture of the Jewish people from the beginning of the postexilic period (538 BC) to modern times. The term “Judaism” is derived from “Judah,” the name of the southern kingdom of ancient Israel, while “Jew” is a shortened form of “Judeans.” The Period of the Second Temple (515 BC–AD 70) Historical Survey The united kingdom of Israel under Saul, David, and Solomon came to an end shortly after the death of Solomon. Rehoboam, his son, provoked a revolt about 930 BC on the pa...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":40441,"type":"picture","type_label":"Imagine","type_icon":"🖼️","type_color":"#ec4899","title_ro":"Papyrus Manuscript of Luke and John","title_en":"Papyrus Manuscript of Luke and John","content_ro":"<p><\/p>\n <p><strong>Papyrus Manuscript of Luke and John<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 7:49–8:22 (lacking the story of the adulterous woman), Bodmer Manuscript XIV–XV, c. 175—P75<\/p>","content_en":"<p><\/p>\n <p><strong>Papyrus Manuscript of Luke and John<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 7:49–8:22 (lacking the story of the adulterous woman), Bodmer Manuscript XIV–XV, c. 175—P75<\/p>","summary_ro":"Papyrus Manuscript of Luke and John John 7:49–8:22 (lacking the story of the adulterous woman), Bodmer Manuscript XIV–XV, c. 175—P75","summary_en":"Papyrus Manuscript of Luke and John John 7:49–8:22 (lacking the story of the adulterous woman), Bodmer Manuscript XIV–XV, c. 175—P75","source":"Pictures\/Pictures.xml","external_url":"..\/Pictures\/artfiles\/bibbod75.jpg","has_map":false,"has_picture":true},{"id":56474,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:49","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:49","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:49-51<\/strong> <em>Nicodemus<\/em> was probably in the process of coming to faith (see 3:1-21; 19:38-42). Contrary to the implication of 7:48, some of the Pharisees—not just the <em>ignorant<\/em> crowd—believed in Jesus.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:49-51<\/strong> <em>Nicodemus<\/em> was probably in the process of coming to faith (see 3:1-21; 19:38-42). Contrary to the implication of 7:48, some of the Pharisees—not just the <em>ignorant<\/em> crowd—believed in Jesus.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:49-51 Nicodemus was probably in the process of coming to faith (see 3:1-21; 19:38-42). Contrary to the implication of 7:48, some of the Pharisees—not just the ignorant crowd—believed in Jesus.","summary_en":"7:49-51 Nicodemus was probably in the process of coming to faith (see 3:1-21; 19:38-42). Contrary to the implication of 7:48, some of the Pharisees—not just the ignorant crowd—believed in Jesus.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":84100,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:49","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:49","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:49-51<\/strong> <em>Nicodemus<\/em> was probably in the process of coming to faith (see 3:1-21; 19:38-42). Contrary to the implication of 7:48, some of the Pharisees—not just the <em>ignorant<\/em> crowd—believed in Jesus.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:49-51<\/strong> <em>Nicodemus<\/em> was probably in the process of coming to faith (see 3:1-21; 19:38-42). Contrary to the implication of 7:48, some of the Pharisees—not just the <em>ignorant<\/em> crowd—believed in Jesus.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:49-51 Nicodemus was probably in the process of coming to faith (see 3:1-21; 19:38-42). Contrary to the implication of 7:48, some of the Pharisees—not just the ignorant crowd—believed in Jesus.","summary_en":"7:49-51 Nicodemus was probably in the process of coming to faith (see 3:1-21; 19:38-42). Contrary to the implication of 7:48, some of the Pharisees—not just the ignorant crowd—believed in Jesus.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":111726,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:49","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:49","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:49-51<\/strong> <em>Nicodemus<\/em> was probably in the process of coming to faith (see 3:1-21; 19:38-42). Contrary to the implication of 7:48, some of the Pharisees—not just the <em>ignorant<\/em> crowd—believed in Jesus.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:49-51<\/strong> <em>Nicodemus<\/em> was probably in the process of coming to faith (see 3:1-21; 19:38-42). Contrary to the implication of 7:48, some of the Pharisees—not just the <em>ignorant<\/em> crowd—believed in Jesus.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:49-51 Nicodemus was probably in the process of coming to faith (see 3:1-21; 19:38-42). Contrary to the implication of 7:48, some of the Pharisees—not just the ignorant crowd—believed in Jesus.","summary_en":"7:49-51 Nicodemus was probably in the process of coming to faith (see 3:1-21; 19:38-42). Contrary to the implication of 7:48, some of the Pharisees—not just the ignorant crowd—believed in Jesus.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":139352,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:49","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:49","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:49-51<\/strong> <em>Nicodemus<\/em> was probably in the process of coming to faith (see 3:1-21; 19:38-42). Contrary to the implication of 7:48, some of the Pharisees—not just the <em>ignorant<\/em> crowd—believed in Jesus.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:49-51<\/strong> <em>Nicodemus<\/em> was probably in the process of coming to faith (see 3:1-21; 19:38-42). Contrary to the implication of 7:48, some of the Pharisees—not just the <em>ignorant<\/em> crowd—believed in Jesus.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:49-51 Nicodemus was probably in the process of coming to faith (see 3:1-21; 19:38-42). Contrary to the implication of 7:48, some of the Pharisees—not just the ignorant crowd—believed in Jesus.","summary_en":"7:49-51 Nicodemus was probably in the process of coming to faith (see 3:1-21; 19:38-42). Contrary to the implication of 7:48, some of the Pharisees—not just the ignorant crowd—believed in Jesus.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"50":[{"id":42445,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Nicodemus","title_en":"Nicodemus","content_ro":"<h3>Nicodemus<\/h3>\n<p>Nicodemus was a highly respected Jewish Pharisee (John 3:1), one of the prominent members of the high council, who appears to have become a convert of Jesus. He is mentioned only in the Gospel of John.<\/p>\n<p>Intrigued by the authority of Jesus and the miracles he was doing, Nicodemus went to see him secretly, at night, in an attempt to discover who he really was. Jesus challenged him with the need to be born again if he wished to be in the Kingdom of God (John 3:1-8). The Gospel does not give us Nicodemus’s response.<\/p>\n<p>Later, however, in opposition to his colleagues on the Jewish high council, he strongly argued that Jesus should be given a fair trial (John 7:50-51). After Jesus was crucified, he bought seventy-five pounds of expensive perfumed ointment for his burial, took it to the tomb, and assisted Joseph of Arimathea in burying him (John 19:39-42). Thus, Nicodemus appears to be an example of a Pharisee who came to believe in Jesus and was willing to express that commitment publicly after his death.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 3:1-9; 7:50; 19:39-42<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Nicodemus<\/h3>\n<p>Nicodemus was a highly respected Jewish Pharisee (John 3:1), one of the prominent members of the high council, who appears to have become a convert of Jesus. He is mentioned only in the Gospel of John.<\/p>\n<p>Intrigued by the authority of Jesus and the miracles he was doing, Nicodemus went to see him secretly, at night, in an attempt to discover who he really was. Jesus challenged him with the need to be born again if he wished to be in the Kingdom of God (John 3:1-8). The Gospel does not give us Nicodemus’s response.<\/p>\n<p>Later, however, in opposition to his colleagues on the Jewish high council, he strongly argued that Jesus should be given a fair trial (John 7:50-51). After Jesus was crucified, he bought seventy-five pounds of expensive perfumed ointment for his burial, took it to the tomb, and assisted Joseph of Arimathea in burying him (John 19:39-42). Thus, Nicodemus appears to be an example of a Pharisee who came to believe in Jesus and was willing to express that commitment publicly after his death.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 3:1-9; 7:50; 19:39-42<\/p>","summary_ro":"Nicodemus Nicodemus was a highly respected Jewish Pharisee (John 3:1), one of the prominent members of the high council, who appears to have become a convert of Jesus. He is mentioned only in the Gospel of John. Intrigued by the authority of Jesus and the miracles he was doing, Nicodemus went to see him secretly, at night, in an attempt to discover who he really was. Jesus challenged him with the need to be born again if he wished to be in the Kingdom of God (John 3:1-8). The Gospel does not ...","summary_en":"Nicodemus Nicodemus was a highly respected Jewish Pharisee (John 3:1), one of the prominent members of the high council, who appears to have become a convert of Jesus. He is mentioned only in the Gospel of John. Intrigued by the authority of Jesus and the miracles he was doing, Nicodemus went to see him secretly, at night, in an attempt to discover who he really was. Jesus challenged him with the need to be born again if he wished to be in the Kingdom of God (John 3:1-8). The Gospel does not ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70071,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Nicodemus","title_en":"Nicodemus","content_ro":"<h3>Nicodemus<\/h3>\n<p>Nicodemus was a highly respected Jewish Pharisee (John 3:1), one of the prominent members of the high council, who appears to have become a convert of Jesus. He is mentioned only in the Gospel of John.<\/p>\n<p>Intrigued by the authority of Jesus and the miracles he was doing, Nicodemus went to see him secretly, at night, in an attempt to discover who he really was. Jesus challenged him with the need to be born again if he wished to be in the Kingdom of God (John 3:1-8). The Gospel does not give us Nicodemus’s response.<\/p>\n<p>Later, however, in opposition to his colleagues on the Jewish high council, he strongly argued that Jesus should be given a fair trial (John 7:50-51). After Jesus was crucified, he bought seventy-five pounds of expensive perfumed ointment for his burial, took it to the tomb, and assisted Joseph of Arimathea in burying him (John 19:39-42). Thus, Nicodemus appears to be an example of a Pharisee who came to believe in Jesus and was willing to express that commitment publicly after his death.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 3:1-9; 7:50; 19:39-42<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Nicodemus<\/h3>\n<p>Nicodemus was a highly respected Jewish Pharisee (John 3:1), one of the prominent members of the high council, who appears to have become a convert of Jesus. He is mentioned only in the Gospel of John.<\/p>\n<p>Intrigued by the authority of Jesus and the miracles he was doing, Nicodemus went to see him secretly, at night, in an attempt to discover who he really was. Jesus challenged him with the need to be born again if he wished to be in the Kingdom of God (John 3:1-8). The Gospel does not give us Nicodemus’s response.<\/p>\n<p>Later, however, in opposition to his colleagues on the Jewish high council, he strongly argued that Jesus should be given a fair trial (John 7:50-51). After Jesus was crucified, he bought seventy-five pounds of expensive perfumed ointment for his burial, took it to the tomb, and assisted Joseph of Arimathea in burying him (John 19:39-42). Thus, Nicodemus appears to be an example of a Pharisee who came to believe in Jesus and was willing to express that commitment publicly after his death.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 3:1-9; 7:50; 19:39-42<\/p>","summary_ro":"Nicodemus Nicodemus was a highly respected Jewish Pharisee (John 3:1), one of the prominent members of the high council, who appears to have become a convert of Jesus. He is mentioned only in the Gospel of John. Intrigued by the authority of Jesus and the miracles he was doing, Nicodemus went to see him secretly, at night, in an attempt to discover who he really was. Jesus challenged him with the need to be born again if he wished to be in the Kingdom of God (John 3:1-8). The Gospel does not ...","summary_en":"Nicodemus Nicodemus was a highly respected Jewish Pharisee (John 3:1), one of the prominent members of the high council, who appears to have become a convert of Jesus. He is mentioned only in the Gospel of John. Intrigued by the authority of Jesus and the miracles he was doing, Nicodemus went to see him secretly, at night, in an attempt to discover who he really was. Jesus challenged him with the need to be born again if he wished to be in the Kingdom of God (John 3:1-8). The Gospel does not ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97697,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Nicodemus","title_en":"Nicodemus","content_ro":"<h3>Nicodemus<\/h3>\n<p>Nicodemus was a highly respected Jewish Pharisee (John 3:1), one of the prominent members of the high council, who appears to have become a convert of Jesus. He is mentioned only in the Gospel of John.<\/p>\n<p>Intrigued by the authority of Jesus and the miracles he was doing, Nicodemus went to see him secretly, at night, in an attempt to discover who he really was. Jesus challenged him with the need to be born again if he wished to be in the Kingdom of God (John 3:1-8). The Gospel does not give us Nicodemus’s response.<\/p>\n<p>Later, however, in opposition to his colleagues on the Jewish high council, he strongly argued that Jesus should be given a fair trial (John 7:50-51). After Jesus was crucified, he bought seventy-five pounds of expensive perfumed ointment for his burial, took it to the tomb, and assisted Joseph of Arimathea in burying him (John 19:39-42). Thus, Nicodemus appears to be an example of a Pharisee who came to believe in Jesus and was willing to express that commitment publicly after his death.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 3:1-9; 7:50; 19:39-42<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Nicodemus<\/h3>\n<p>Nicodemus was a highly respected Jewish Pharisee (John 3:1), one of the prominent members of the high council, who appears to have become a convert of Jesus. He is mentioned only in the Gospel of John.<\/p>\n<p>Intrigued by the authority of Jesus and the miracles he was doing, Nicodemus went to see him secretly, at night, in an attempt to discover who he really was. Jesus challenged him with the need to be born again if he wished to be in the Kingdom of God (John 3:1-8). The Gospel does not give us Nicodemus’s response.<\/p>\n<p>Later, however, in opposition to his colleagues on the Jewish high council, he strongly argued that Jesus should be given a fair trial (John 7:50-51). After Jesus was crucified, he bought seventy-five pounds of expensive perfumed ointment for his burial, took it to the tomb, and assisted Joseph of Arimathea in burying him (John 19:39-42). Thus, Nicodemus appears to be an example of a Pharisee who came to believe in Jesus and was willing to express that commitment publicly after his death.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 3:1-9; 7:50; 19:39-42<\/p>","summary_ro":"Nicodemus Nicodemus was a highly respected Jewish Pharisee (John 3:1), one of the prominent members of the high council, who appears to have become a convert of Jesus. He is mentioned only in the Gospel of John. Intrigued by the authority of Jesus and the miracles he was doing, Nicodemus went to see him secretly, at night, in an attempt to discover who he really was. Jesus challenged him with the need to be born again if he wished to be in the Kingdom of God (John 3:1-8). The Gospel does not ...","summary_en":"Nicodemus Nicodemus was a highly respected Jewish Pharisee (John 3:1), one of the prominent members of the high council, who appears to have become a convert of Jesus. He is mentioned only in the Gospel of John. Intrigued by the authority of Jesus and the miracles he was doing, Nicodemus went to see him secretly, at night, in an attempt to discover who he really was. Jesus challenged him with the need to be born again if he wished to be in the Kingdom of God (John 3:1-8). The Gospel does not ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125323,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Nicodemus","title_en":"Nicodemus","content_ro":"<h3>Nicodemus<\/h3>\n<p>Nicodemus was a highly respected Jewish Pharisee (John 3:1), one of the prominent members of the high council, who appears to have become a convert of Jesus. He is mentioned only in the Gospel of John.<\/p>\n<p>Intrigued by the authority of Jesus and the miracles he was doing, Nicodemus went to see him secretly, at night, in an attempt to discover who he really was. Jesus challenged him with the need to be born again if he wished to be in the Kingdom of God (John 3:1-8). The Gospel does not give us Nicodemus’s response.<\/p>\n<p>Later, however, in opposition to his colleagues on the Jewish high council, he strongly argued that Jesus should be given a fair trial (John 7:50-51). After Jesus was crucified, he bought seventy-five pounds of expensive perfumed ointment for his burial, took it to the tomb, and assisted Joseph of Arimathea in burying him (John 19:39-42). Thus, Nicodemus appears to be an example of a Pharisee who came to believe in Jesus and was willing to express that commitment publicly after his death.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 3:1-9; 7:50; 19:39-42<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Nicodemus<\/h3>\n<p>Nicodemus was a highly respected Jewish Pharisee (John 3:1), one of the prominent members of the high council, who appears to have become a convert of Jesus. He is mentioned only in the Gospel of John.<\/p>\n<p>Intrigued by the authority of Jesus and the miracles he was doing, Nicodemus went to see him secretly, at night, in an attempt to discover who he really was. Jesus challenged him with the need to be born again if he wished to be in the Kingdom of God (John 3:1-8). The Gospel does not give us Nicodemus’s response.<\/p>\n<p>Later, however, in opposition to his colleagues on the Jewish high council, he strongly argued that Jesus should be given a fair trial (John 7:50-51). After Jesus was crucified, he bought seventy-five pounds of expensive perfumed ointment for his burial, took it to the tomb, and assisted Joseph of Arimathea in burying him (John 19:39-42). Thus, Nicodemus appears to be an example of a Pharisee who came to believe in Jesus and was willing to express that commitment publicly after his death.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>John 3:1-9; 7:50; 19:39-42<\/p>","summary_ro":"Nicodemus Nicodemus was a highly respected Jewish Pharisee (John 3:1), one of the prominent members of the high council, who appears to have become a convert of Jesus. He is mentioned only in the Gospel of John. Intrigued by the authority of Jesus and the miracles he was doing, Nicodemus went to see him secretly, at night, in an attempt to discover who he really was. Jesus challenged him with the need to be born again if he wished to be in the Kingdom of God (John 3:1-8). The Gospel does not ...","summary_en":"Nicodemus Nicodemus was a highly respected Jewish Pharisee (John 3:1), one of the prominent members of the high council, who appears to have become a convert of Jesus. He is mentioned only in the Gospel of John. Intrigued by the authority of Jesus and the miracles he was doing, Nicodemus went to see him secretly, at night, in an attempt to discover who he really was. Jesus challenged him with the need to be born again if he wished to be in the Kingdom of God (John 3:1-8). The Gospel does not ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":27527,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Nicodemus","title_en":"Nicodemus","content_ro":"<h3>NICODEMUS<\/h3>\n<p>Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin mentioned only in John’s Gospel (Jn 3:1-15; 7:50-52; 19:39-41). According to John 3, Nicodemus came to Jesus at night and acknowledged him as a teacher sent by God. He was convinced that Jesus could not perform such things if God were not with him. Following an exchange concerning the need to be born again, Jesus asked how Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish religious court, could fail to understand such things. At that time he evidently made no profession of faith, but later he did defend Jesus before the Sanhedrin (7:50-52). After Jesus’ death, Nicodemus openly assisted Joseph of Arimathea with the burial of his body (19:39-42).<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars suggest that Nicodemus was one of the Jewish leaders who believed in Jesus but did not confess him openly for fear of excommunication (12:42). Tradition subsequently held that he belonged to the household of faith, as one persuaded to believe through the message and deeds of Jesus, but remained intimidated by the religious establishment.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> John, Gospel of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NICODEMUS<\/h3>\n<p>Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin mentioned only in John’s Gospel (Jn 3:1-15; 7:50-52; 19:39-41). According to John 3, Nicodemus came to Jesus at night and acknowledged him as a teacher sent by God. He was convinced that Jesus could not perform such things if God were not with him. Following an exchange concerning the need to be born again, Jesus asked how Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish religious court, could fail to understand such things. At that time he evidently made no profession of faith, but later he did defend Jesus before the Sanhedrin (7:50-52). After Jesus’ death, Nicodemus openly assisted Joseph of Arimathea with the burial of his body (19:39-42).<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars suggest that Nicodemus was one of the Jewish leaders who believed in Jesus but did not confess him openly for fear of excommunication (12:42). Tradition subsequently held that he belonged to the household of faith, as one persuaded to believe through the message and deeds of Jesus, but remained intimidated by the religious establishment.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> John, Gospel of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"NICODEMUS Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin mentioned only in John’s Gospel (Jn 3:1-15; 7:50-52; 19:39-41). According to John 3, Nicodemus came to Jesus at night and acknowledged him as a teacher sent by God. He was convinced that Jesus could not perform such things if God were not with him. Following an exchange concerning the need to be born again, Jesus asked how Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish religious court, could fail to understand such things. At that time he evidently made no pr...","summary_en":"NICODEMUS Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin mentioned only in John’s Gospel (Jn 3:1-15; 7:50-52; 19:39-41). According to John 3, Nicodemus came to Jesus at night and acknowledged him as a teacher sent by God. He was convinced that Jesus could not perform such things if God were not with him. Following an exchange concerning the need to be born again, Jesus asked how Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish religious court, could fail to understand such things. At that time he evidently made no pr...","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65541,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Encounters with Jesus","title_en":"Encounters with Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>Encounters with Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus’ dramatic miracles and intriguing parables can overshadow his transformative encounters with individuals. In these encounters Jesus deals with people where they are and as they are. He invites people of all backgrounds, personalities, and commitments to embrace him as master and friend, to become his followers and ambassadors of his eternal Kingdom. But Jesus’ invitation to follow always comes with a choice, because the power and wealth of this world is often too heavy and distracting to carry into Kingdom service. To follow Jesus, those who encounter him usually have to abandon something and leave it behind. Those who cannot give up what this world offers are often forced to turn away from Jesus. The same choice faces all who encounter Jesus in the Gospels and hear his invitation to follow.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Andrew<\/strong> was a fisherman in Galilee, but he longed for the Messiah and his Kingdom. He followed John the Baptist until John pointed to Jesus. Then Andrew not only followed Jesus, but called others, including Peter, to come too. <em>See John 1:29-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Simeon and Anna<\/strong> had long waited to see the promised Messiah. When they saw the infant Jesus, they recognized him as the Messiah, blessed him, and praised God for his coming and the hope he brought. <em>See Luke 2:25-38<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Nathanael<\/strong> responded skeptically when he was first invited to meet Jesus, but when Jesus demonstrated that he already knew him, Nathanael’s response dramatically changed, and he followed Jesus without hesitation. <em>See John 1:43-51<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A rich man<\/strong> came to Jesus and asked what he should do to inherit eternal life. This man demonstrated humility and was careful to obey all God’s laws. Jesus loved this man but told him that he still needed to sell all his possessions, give to the poor, and follow him. The man was unwilling to abandon his wealth and in sadness walked away from Jesus. <em>See Mark 10:17-22<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Matthew<\/strong> had turned from his Jewish heritage, become a traitor to his people by collecting Roman taxes, and chosen a lifestyle of wealthy indulgence. When Jesus called him, Matthew left his old life and followed. Before joining Jesus in his travels, Matthew invited his friends to meet Jesus. <em>See Matthew 9:9-13<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Thomas<\/strong> doubted the other disciples’ claim that Jesus had come back to life. When Jesus finally appeared to Thomas, he singled Thomas out and asked him to touch his wounded, resurrected body. Thomas immediately bowed before Jesus and confessed what he believed—that Jesus was his Lord and God. <em>See John 20:19-29<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Martha<\/strong> was working hard to prepare a meal for Jesus in her home and became upset that her sister Mary was sitting and learning at Jesus’ feet. Jesus gently encouraged Martha not to be angry and pointed out that Mary had chosen best by stopping to listen. On a later occasion, Jesus confronted Martha to affirm faith in him for eternal life. <em>See Luke 10:38-42; John 11:17-27<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A Roman officer<\/strong> asked Jesus to save his dying slave but excused Jesus from coming to his unclean Gentile home, because he believed Jesus could heal his slave from where he stood. Jesus honored this Roman’s faith by doing just that. Jesus also affirmed that many Gentiles would be welcomed by faith into the Kingdom of Heaven. <em>See Matthew 8:5-13<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A woman caught in adultery<\/strong> was brought by Jewish leaders to Jesus for judgment. Stoning was the expected punishment, but Jesus, writing in the dust, asked any accuser without sin to throw the first stone. When they all walked away, Jesus told the woman to go and sin no more. <em>See John 8:1-11<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Nicodemus<\/strong>, a leading Pharisee, was cautious about being seen with Jesus, so he came to him at night. Jesus engaged Nicodemus and challenged his assumptions about spiritual truth. Nicodemus later defended Jesus in the Council. After the crucifixion, he helped to bury Jesus, revealing his commitment. <em>See John 3:1-21; 7:50-52; 19:38-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>James and John<\/strong> believed God’s Kingdom was at hand, and they requested places of honor, angering the other disciples. Jesus gently explained that true leadership is demonstrated through service, not wealth or power. The disciples would all learn this through hard experience. <em>See Mark 10:35-45; John 13:1-17<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>The people of Nazareth<\/strong> had known Jesus as Joseph’s son and couldn’t believe he could be the Messiah. Their doubt greatly limited Jesus’ miracles among them, and their anger at his claims forced him to leave. <em>See Luke 4:14-30<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>The religious leaders<\/strong> knew and obeyed external laws down to fine detail but failed to show love in more important ways. Over and over again, Jesus confronted them for this, but most of these leaders rejected Jesus’ criticism and looked for ways to destroy him. <em>See Luke 11:37-54; cp. Acts 6:8–8:1; 9:1-31<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Zacchaeus<\/strong> collected taxes for Rome, becoming wealthy at his people’s expense. He was curious about Jesus and climbed a tree to see him over the crowd. Jesus singled him out, went to his house, and called Zacchaeus to a new life. Zacchaeus repented of his ways and paid back everyone he had wronged. <em>See Luke 19:1-10<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Two followers of Jesus<\/strong> were returning home to Emmaus after Jesus’ death. Along the way, the resurrected Jesus joined them and explained from Scripture why he had died. They didn’t recognize Jesus until he broke bread with them, after which Jesus disappeared. The two joyfully went to tell the disciples that Jesus was alive. <em>See Luke 24:13-35<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A Samaritan woman<\/strong> of ill-repute went to Jacob’s well to draw water and found Jesus there. Jesus offered her living water and a new life. She was surprised but responded in faith and called others to meet the Messiah they longed for. <em>See John 4:1-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Pilate<\/strong> was pressured by the Jewish leaders to execute Jesus. He believed Jesus was innocent and sought to free him. Pilate asked Jesus, “What is truth?” but did not realize that Jesus himself was the Truth. In the end, Pilate handed Jesus over to be crucified to keep the peace. <em>See John 18:28–19:16<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Simon Peter<\/strong> denied three times that he even knew Jesus. After his resurrection, Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved him. Each time, Peter reaffirmed his love, and Jesus told him to feed his sheep. Thus, Jesus restored Peter. <em>See John 21:1-23; see also Matt 16:15-19<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matthew 8:5-13; 9:9-13; 16:15-19; Mark 10:17-22, 35-45; Luke 2:25-38; 4:14-30; 10:38-42; 11:37-54; 19:1-10; 24:13-35; John 1:29-42, 43-51; 3:1-21; 4:1-42; 7:50-52; 8:1-11; 11:17-27; 13:1-17; 18:28–19:16; 19:38-42; 20:19-29; 21:1-23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Encounters with Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus’ dramatic miracles and intriguing parables can overshadow his transformative encounters with individuals. In these encounters Jesus deals with people where they are and as they are. He invites people of all backgrounds, personalities, and commitments to embrace him as master and friend, to become his followers and ambassadors of his eternal Kingdom. But Jesus’ invitation to follow always comes with a choice, because the power and wealth of this world is often too heavy and distracting to carry into Kingdom service. To follow Jesus, those who encounter him usually have to abandon something and leave it behind. Those who cannot give up what this world offers are often forced to turn away from Jesus. The same choice faces all who encounter Jesus in the Gospels and hear his invitation to follow.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Andrew<\/strong> was a fisherman in Galilee, but he longed for the Messiah and his Kingdom. He followed John the Baptist until John pointed to Jesus. Then Andrew not only followed Jesus, but called others, including Peter, to come too. <em>See John 1:29-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Simeon and Anna<\/strong> had long waited to see the promised Messiah. When they saw the infant Jesus, they recognized him as the Messiah, blessed him, and praised God for his coming and the hope he brought. <em>See Luke 2:25-38<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Nathanael<\/strong> responded skeptically when he was first invited to meet Jesus, but when Jesus demonstrated that he already knew him, Nathanael’s response dramatically changed, and he followed Jesus without hesitation. <em>See John 1:43-51<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A rich man<\/strong> came to Jesus and asked what he should do to inherit eternal life. This man demonstrated humility and was careful to obey all God’s laws. Jesus loved this man but told him that he still needed to sell all his possessions, give to the poor, and follow him. The man was unwilling to abandon his wealth and in sadness walked away from Jesus. <em>See Mark 10:17-22<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Matthew<\/strong> had turned from his Jewish heritage, become a traitor to his people by collecting Roman taxes, and chosen a lifestyle of wealthy indulgence. When Jesus called him, Matthew left his old life and followed. Before joining Jesus in his travels, Matthew invited his friends to meet Jesus. <em>See Matthew 9:9-13<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Thomas<\/strong> doubted the other disciples’ claim that Jesus had come back to life. When Jesus finally appeared to Thomas, he singled Thomas out and asked him to touch his wounded, resurrected body. Thomas immediately bowed before Jesus and confessed what he believed—that Jesus was his Lord and God. <em>See John 20:19-29<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Martha<\/strong> was working hard to prepare a meal for Jesus in her home and became upset that her sister Mary was sitting and learning at Jesus’ feet. Jesus gently encouraged Martha not to be angry and pointed out that Mary had chosen best by stopping to listen. On a later occasion, Jesus confronted Martha to affirm faith in him for eternal life. <em>See Luke 10:38-42; John 11:17-27<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A Roman officer<\/strong> asked Jesus to save his dying slave but excused Jesus from coming to his unclean Gentile home, because he believed Jesus could heal his slave from where he stood. Jesus honored this Roman’s faith by doing just that. Jesus also affirmed that many Gentiles would be welcomed by faith into the Kingdom of Heaven. <em>See Matthew 8:5-13<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A woman caught in adultery<\/strong> was brought by Jewish leaders to Jesus for judgment. Stoning was the expected punishment, but Jesus, writing in the dust, asked any accuser without sin to throw the first stone. When they all walked away, Jesus told the woman to go and sin no more. <em>See John 8:1-11<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Nicodemus<\/strong>, a leading Pharisee, was cautious about being seen with Jesus, so he came to him at night. Jesus engaged Nicodemus and challenged his assumptions about spiritual truth. Nicodemus later defended Jesus in the Council. After the crucifixion, he helped to bury Jesus, revealing his commitment. <em>See John 3:1-21; 7:50-52; 19:38-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>James and John<\/strong> believed God’s Kingdom was at hand, and they requested places of honor, angering the other disciples. Jesus gently explained that true leadership is demonstrated through service, not wealth or power. The disciples would all learn this through hard experience. <em>See Mark 10:35-45; John 13:1-17<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>The people of Nazareth<\/strong> had known Jesus as Joseph’s son and couldn’t believe he could be the Messiah. Their doubt greatly limited Jesus’ miracles among them, and their anger at his claims forced him to leave. <em>See Luke 4:14-30<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>The religious leaders<\/strong> knew and obeyed external laws down to fine detail but failed to show love in more important ways. Over and over again, Jesus confronted them for this, but most of these leaders rejected Jesus’ criticism and looked for ways to destroy him. <em>See Luke 11:37-54; cp. Acts 6:8–8:1; 9:1-31<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Zacchaeus<\/strong> collected taxes for Rome, becoming wealthy at his people’s expense. He was curious about Jesus and climbed a tree to see him over the crowd. Jesus singled him out, went to his house, and called Zacchaeus to a new life. Zacchaeus repented of his ways and paid back everyone he had wronged. <em>See Luke 19:1-10<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Two followers of Jesus<\/strong> were returning home to Emmaus after Jesus’ death. Along the way, the resurrected Jesus joined them and explained from Scripture why he had died. They didn’t recognize Jesus until he broke bread with them, after which Jesus disappeared. The two joyfully went to tell the disciples that Jesus was alive. <em>See Luke 24:13-35<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A Samaritan woman<\/strong> of ill-repute went to Jacob’s well to draw water and found Jesus there. Jesus offered her living water and a new life. She was surprised but responded in faith and called others to meet the Messiah they longed for. <em>See John 4:1-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Pilate<\/strong> was pressured by the Jewish leaders to execute Jesus. He believed Jesus was innocent and sought to free him. Pilate asked Jesus, “What is truth?” but did not realize that Jesus himself was the Truth. In the end, Pilate handed Jesus over to be crucified to keep the peace. <em>See John 18:28–19:16<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Simon Peter<\/strong> denied three times that he even knew Jesus. After his resurrection, Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved him. Each time, Peter reaffirmed his love, and Jesus told him to feed his sheep. Thus, Jesus restored Peter. <em>See John 21:1-23; see also Matt 16:15-19<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matthew 8:5-13; 9:9-13; 16:15-19; Mark 10:17-22, 35-45; Luke 2:25-38; 4:14-30; 10:38-42; 11:37-54; 19:1-10; 24:13-35; John 1:29-42, 43-51; 3:1-21; 4:1-42; 7:50-52; 8:1-11; 11:17-27; 13:1-17; 18:28–19:16; 19:38-42; 20:19-29; 21:1-23<\/p>","summary_ro":"Encounters with Jesus Jesus’ dramatic miracles and intriguing parables can overshadow his transformative encounters with individuals. In these encounters Jesus deals with people where they are and as they are. He invites people of all backgrounds, personalities, and commitments to embrace him as master and friend, to become his followers and ambassadors of his eternal Kingdom. But Jesus’ invitation to follow always comes with a choice, because the power and wealth of this world is often too h...","summary_en":"Encounters with Jesus Jesus’ dramatic miracles and intriguing parables can overshadow his transformative encounters with individuals. In these encounters Jesus deals with people where they are and as they are. He invites people of all backgrounds, personalities, and commitments to embrace him as master and friend, to become his followers and ambassadors of his eternal Kingdom. But Jesus’ invitation to follow always comes with a choice, because the power and wealth of this world is often too h...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93167,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Encounters with Jesus","title_en":"Encounters with Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>Encounters with Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus’ dramatic miracles and intriguing parables can overshadow his transformative encounters with individuals. In these encounters Jesus deals with people where they are and as they are. He invites people of all backgrounds, personalities, and commitments to embrace him as master and friend, to become his followers and ambassadors of his eternal Kingdom. But Jesus’ invitation to follow always comes with a choice, because the power and wealth of this world is often too heavy and distracting to carry into Kingdom service. To follow Jesus, those who encounter him usually have to abandon something and leave it behind. Those who cannot give up what this world offers are often forced to turn away from Jesus. The same choice faces all who encounter Jesus in the Gospels and hear his invitation to follow.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Andrew<\/strong> was a fisherman in Galilee, but he longed for the Messiah and his Kingdom. He followed John the Baptist until John pointed to Jesus. Then Andrew not only followed Jesus, but called others, including Peter, to come too. <em>See John 1:29-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Simeon and Anna<\/strong> had long waited to see the promised Messiah. When they saw the infant Jesus, they recognized him as the Messiah, blessed him, and praised God for his coming and the hope he brought. <em>See Luke 2:25-38<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Nathanael<\/strong> responded skeptically when he was first invited to meet Jesus, but when Jesus demonstrated that he already knew him, Nathanael’s response dramatically changed, and he followed Jesus without hesitation. <em>See John 1:43-51<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A rich man<\/strong> came to Jesus and asked what he should do to inherit eternal life. This man demonstrated humility and was careful to obey all God’s laws. Jesus loved this man but told him that he still needed to sell all his possessions, give to the poor, and follow him. The man was unwilling to abandon his wealth and in sadness walked away from Jesus. <em>See Mark 10:17-22<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Matthew<\/strong> had turned from his Jewish heritage, become a traitor to his people by collecting Roman taxes, and chosen a lifestyle of wealthy indulgence. When Jesus called him, Matthew left his old life and followed. Before joining Jesus in his travels, Matthew invited his friends to meet Jesus. <em>See Matthew 9:9-13<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Thomas<\/strong> doubted the other disciples’ claim that Jesus had come back to life. When Jesus finally appeared to Thomas, he singled Thomas out and asked him to touch his wounded, resurrected body. Thomas immediately bowed before Jesus and confessed what he believed—that Jesus was his Lord and God. <em>See John 20:19-29<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Martha<\/strong> was working hard to prepare a meal for Jesus in her home and became upset that her sister Mary was sitting and learning at Jesus’ feet. Jesus gently encouraged Martha not to be angry and pointed out that Mary had chosen best by stopping to listen. On a later occasion, Jesus confronted Martha to affirm faith in him for eternal life. <em>See Luke 10:38-42; John 11:17-27<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A Roman officer<\/strong> asked Jesus to save his dying slave but excused Jesus from coming to his unclean Gentile home, because he believed Jesus could heal his slave from where he stood. Jesus honored this Roman’s faith by doing just that. Jesus also affirmed that many Gentiles would be welcomed by faith into the Kingdom of Heaven. <em>See Matthew 8:5-13<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A woman caught in adultery<\/strong> was brought by Jewish leaders to Jesus for judgment. Stoning was the expected punishment, but Jesus, writing in the dust, asked any accuser without sin to throw the first stone. When they all walked away, Jesus told the woman to go and sin no more. <em>See John 8:1-11<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Nicodemus<\/strong>, a leading Pharisee, was cautious about being seen with Jesus, so he came to him at night. Jesus engaged Nicodemus and challenged his assumptions about spiritual truth. Nicodemus later defended Jesus in the Council. After the crucifixion, he helped to bury Jesus, revealing his commitment. <em>See John 3:1-21; 7:50-52; 19:38-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>James and John<\/strong> believed God’s Kingdom was at hand, and they requested places of honor, angering the other disciples. Jesus gently explained that true leadership is demonstrated through service, not wealth or power. The disciples would all learn this through hard experience. <em>See Mark 10:35-45; John 13:1-17<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>The people of Nazareth<\/strong> had known Jesus as Joseph’s son and couldn’t believe he could be the Messiah. Their doubt greatly limited Jesus’ miracles among them, and their anger at his claims forced him to leave. <em>See Luke 4:14-30<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>The religious leaders<\/strong> knew and obeyed external laws down to fine detail but failed to show love in more important ways. Over and over again, Jesus confronted them for this, but most of these leaders rejected Jesus’ criticism and looked for ways to destroy him. <em>See Luke 11:37-54; cp. Acts 6:8–8:1; 9:1-31<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Zacchaeus<\/strong> collected taxes for Rome, becoming wealthy at his people’s expense. He was curious about Jesus and climbed a tree to see him over the crowd. Jesus singled him out, went to his house, and called Zacchaeus to a new life. Zacchaeus repented of his ways and paid back everyone he had wronged. <em>See Luke 19:1-10<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Two followers of Jesus<\/strong> were returning home to Emmaus after Jesus’ death. Along the way, the resurrected Jesus joined them and explained from Scripture why he had died. They didn’t recognize Jesus until he broke bread with them, after which Jesus disappeared. The two joyfully went to tell the disciples that Jesus was alive. <em>See Luke 24:13-35<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A Samaritan woman<\/strong> of ill-repute went to Jacob’s well to draw water and found Jesus there. Jesus offered her living water and a new life. She was surprised but responded in faith and called others to meet the Messiah they longed for. <em>See John 4:1-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Pilate<\/strong> was pressured by the Jewish leaders to execute Jesus. He believed Jesus was innocent and sought to free him. Pilate asked Jesus, “What is truth?” but did not realize that Jesus himself was the Truth. In the end, Pilate handed Jesus over to be crucified to keep the peace. <em>See John 18:28–19:16<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Simon Peter<\/strong> denied three times that he even knew Jesus. After his resurrection, Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved him. Each time, Peter reaffirmed his love, and Jesus told him to feed his sheep. Thus, Jesus restored Peter. <em>See John 21:1-23; see also Matt 16:15-19<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matthew 8:5-13; 9:9-13; 16:15-19; Mark 10:17-22, 35-45; Luke 2:25-38; 4:14-30; 10:38-42; 11:37-54; 19:1-10; 24:13-35; John 1:29-42, 43-51; 3:1-21; 4:1-42; 7:50-52; 8:1-11; 11:17-27; 13:1-17; 18:28–19:16; 19:38-42; 20:19-29; 21:1-23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Encounters with Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus’ dramatic miracles and intriguing parables can overshadow his transformative encounters with individuals. In these encounters Jesus deals with people where they are and as they are. He invites people of all backgrounds, personalities, and commitments to embrace him as master and friend, to become his followers and ambassadors of his eternal Kingdom. But Jesus’ invitation to follow always comes with a choice, because the power and wealth of this world is often too heavy and distracting to carry into Kingdom service. To follow Jesus, those who encounter him usually have to abandon something and leave it behind. Those who cannot give up what this world offers are often forced to turn away from Jesus. The same choice faces all who encounter Jesus in the Gospels and hear his invitation to follow.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Andrew<\/strong> was a fisherman in Galilee, but he longed for the Messiah and his Kingdom. He followed John the Baptist until John pointed to Jesus. Then Andrew not only followed Jesus, but called others, including Peter, to come too. <em>See John 1:29-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Simeon and Anna<\/strong> had long waited to see the promised Messiah. When they saw the infant Jesus, they recognized him as the Messiah, blessed him, and praised God for his coming and the hope he brought. <em>See Luke 2:25-38<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Nathanael<\/strong> responded skeptically when he was first invited to meet Jesus, but when Jesus demonstrated that he already knew him, Nathanael’s response dramatically changed, and he followed Jesus without hesitation. <em>See John 1:43-51<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A rich man<\/strong> came to Jesus and asked what he should do to inherit eternal life. This man demonstrated humility and was careful to obey all God’s laws. Jesus loved this man but told him that he still needed to sell all his possessions, give to the poor, and follow him. The man was unwilling to abandon his wealth and in sadness walked away from Jesus. <em>See Mark 10:17-22<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Matthew<\/strong> had turned from his Jewish heritage, become a traitor to his people by collecting Roman taxes, and chosen a lifestyle of wealthy indulgence. When Jesus called him, Matthew left his old life and followed. Before joining Jesus in his travels, Matthew invited his friends to meet Jesus. <em>See Matthew 9:9-13<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Thomas<\/strong> doubted the other disciples’ claim that Jesus had come back to life. When Jesus finally appeared to Thomas, he singled Thomas out and asked him to touch his wounded, resurrected body. Thomas immediately bowed before Jesus and confessed what he believed—that Jesus was his Lord and God. <em>See John 20:19-29<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Martha<\/strong> was working hard to prepare a meal for Jesus in her home and became upset that her sister Mary was sitting and learning at Jesus’ feet. Jesus gently encouraged Martha not to be angry and pointed out that Mary had chosen best by stopping to listen. On a later occasion, Jesus confronted Martha to affirm faith in him for eternal life. <em>See Luke 10:38-42; John 11:17-27<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A Roman officer<\/strong> asked Jesus to save his dying slave but excused Jesus from coming to his unclean Gentile home, because he believed Jesus could heal his slave from where he stood. Jesus honored this Roman’s faith by doing just that. Jesus also affirmed that many Gentiles would be welcomed by faith into the Kingdom of Heaven. <em>See Matthew 8:5-13<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A woman caught in adultery<\/strong> was brought by Jewish leaders to Jesus for judgment. Stoning was the expected punishment, but Jesus, writing in the dust, asked any accuser without sin to throw the first stone. When they all walked away, Jesus told the woman to go and sin no more. <em>See John 8:1-11<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Nicodemus<\/strong>, a leading Pharisee, was cautious about being seen with Jesus, so he came to him at night. Jesus engaged Nicodemus and challenged his assumptions about spiritual truth. Nicodemus later defended Jesus in the Council. After the crucifixion, he helped to bury Jesus, revealing his commitment. <em>See John 3:1-21; 7:50-52; 19:38-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>James and John<\/strong> believed God’s Kingdom was at hand, and they requested places of honor, angering the other disciples. Jesus gently explained that true leadership is demonstrated through service, not wealth or power. The disciples would all learn this through hard experience. <em>See Mark 10:35-45; John 13:1-17<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>The people of Nazareth<\/strong> had known Jesus as Joseph’s son and couldn’t believe he could be the Messiah. Their doubt greatly limited Jesus’ miracles among them, and their anger at his claims forced him to leave. <em>See Luke 4:14-30<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>The religious leaders<\/strong> knew and obeyed external laws down to fine detail but failed to show love in more important ways. Over and over again, Jesus confronted them for this, but most of these leaders rejected Jesus’ criticism and looked for ways to destroy him. <em>See Luke 11:37-54; cp. Acts 6:8–8:1; 9:1-31<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Zacchaeus<\/strong> collected taxes for Rome, becoming wealthy at his people’s expense. He was curious about Jesus and climbed a tree to see him over the crowd. Jesus singled him out, went to his house, and called Zacchaeus to a new life. Zacchaeus repented of his ways and paid back everyone he had wronged. <em>See Luke 19:1-10<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Two followers of Jesus<\/strong> were returning home to Emmaus after Jesus’ death. Along the way, the resurrected Jesus joined them and explained from Scripture why he had died. They didn’t recognize Jesus until he broke bread with them, after which Jesus disappeared. The two joyfully went to tell the disciples that Jesus was alive. <em>See Luke 24:13-35<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A Samaritan woman<\/strong> of ill-repute went to Jacob’s well to draw water and found Jesus there. Jesus offered her living water and a new life. She was surprised but responded in faith and called others to meet the Messiah they longed for. <em>See John 4:1-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Pilate<\/strong> was pressured by the Jewish leaders to execute Jesus. He believed Jesus was innocent and sought to free him. Pilate asked Jesus, “What is truth?” but did not realize that Jesus himself was the Truth. In the end, Pilate handed Jesus over to be crucified to keep the peace. <em>See John 18:28–19:16<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Simon Peter<\/strong> denied three times that he even knew Jesus. After his resurrection, Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved him. Each time, Peter reaffirmed his love, and Jesus told him to feed his sheep. Thus, Jesus restored Peter. <em>See John 21:1-23; see also Matt 16:15-19<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matthew 8:5-13; 9:9-13; 16:15-19; Mark 10:17-22, 35-45; Luke 2:25-38; 4:14-30; 10:38-42; 11:37-54; 19:1-10; 24:13-35; John 1:29-42, 43-51; 3:1-21; 4:1-42; 7:50-52; 8:1-11; 11:17-27; 13:1-17; 18:28–19:16; 19:38-42; 20:19-29; 21:1-23<\/p>","summary_ro":"Encounters with Jesus Jesus’ dramatic miracles and intriguing parables can overshadow his transformative encounters with individuals. In these encounters Jesus deals with people where they are and as they are. He invites people of all backgrounds, personalities, and commitments to embrace him as master and friend, to become his followers and ambassadors of his eternal Kingdom. But Jesus’ invitation to follow always comes with a choice, because the power and wealth of this world is often too h...","summary_en":"Encounters with Jesus Jesus’ dramatic miracles and intriguing parables can overshadow his transformative encounters with individuals. In these encounters Jesus deals with people where they are and as they are. He invites people of all backgrounds, personalities, and commitments to embrace him as master and friend, to become his followers and ambassadors of his eternal Kingdom. But Jesus’ invitation to follow always comes with a choice, because the power and wealth of this world is often too h...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":120793,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Encounters with Jesus","title_en":"Encounters with Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>Encounters with Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus’ dramatic miracles and intriguing parables can overshadow his transformative encounters with individuals. In these encounters Jesus deals with people where they are and as they are. He invites people of all backgrounds, personalities, and commitments to embrace him as master and friend, to become his followers and ambassadors of his eternal Kingdom. But Jesus’ invitation to follow always comes with a choice, because the power and wealth of this world is often too heavy and distracting to carry into Kingdom service. To follow Jesus, those who encounter him usually have to abandon something and leave it behind. Those who cannot give up what this world offers are often forced to turn away from Jesus. The same choice faces all who encounter Jesus in the Gospels and hear his invitation to follow.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Andrew<\/strong> was a fisherman in Galilee, but he longed for the Messiah and his Kingdom. He followed John the Baptist until John pointed to Jesus. Then Andrew not only followed Jesus, but called others, including Peter, to come too. <em>See John 1:29-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Simeon and Anna<\/strong> had long waited to see the promised Messiah. When they saw the infant Jesus, they recognized him as the Messiah, blessed him, and praised God for his coming and the hope he brought. <em>See Luke 2:25-38<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Nathanael<\/strong> responded skeptically when he was first invited to meet Jesus, but when Jesus demonstrated that he already knew him, Nathanael’s response dramatically changed, and he followed Jesus without hesitation. <em>See John 1:43-51<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A rich man<\/strong> came to Jesus and asked what he should do to inherit eternal life. This man demonstrated humility and was careful to obey all God’s laws. Jesus loved this man but told him that he still needed to sell all his possessions, give to the poor, and follow him. The man was unwilling to abandon his wealth and in sadness walked away from Jesus. <em>See Mark 10:17-22<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Matthew<\/strong> had turned from his Jewish heritage, become a traitor to his people by collecting Roman taxes, and chosen a lifestyle of wealthy indulgence. When Jesus called him, Matthew left his old life and followed. Before joining Jesus in his travels, Matthew invited his friends to meet Jesus. <em>See Matthew 9:9-13<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Thomas<\/strong> doubted the other disciples’ claim that Jesus had come back to life. When Jesus finally appeared to Thomas, he singled Thomas out and asked him to touch his wounded, resurrected body. Thomas immediately bowed before Jesus and confessed what he believed—that Jesus was his Lord and God. <em>See John 20:19-29<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Martha<\/strong> was working hard to prepare a meal for Jesus in her home and became upset that her sister Mary was sitting and learning at Jesus’ feet. Jesus gently encouraged Martha not to be angry and pointed out that Mary had chosen best by stopping to listen. On a later occasion, Jesus confronted Martha to affirm faith in him for eternal life. <em>See Luke 10:38-42; John 11:17-27<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A Roman officer<\/strong> asked Jesus to save his dying slave but excused Jesus from coming to his unclean Gentile home, because he believed Jesus could heal his slave from where he stood. Jesus honored this Roman’s faith by doing just that. Jesus also affirmed that many Gentiles would be welcomed by faith into the Kingdom of Heaven. <em>See Matthew 8:5-13<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A woman caught in adultery<\/strong> was brought by Jewish leaders to Jesus for judgment. Stoning was the expected punishment, but Jesus, writing in the dust, asked any accuser without sin to throw the first stone. When they all walked away, Jesus told the woman to go and sin no more. <em>See John 8:1-11<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Nicodemus<\/strong>, a leading Pharisee, was cautious about being seen with Jesus, so he came to him at night. Jesus engaged Nicodemus and challenged his assumptions about spiritual truth. Nicodemus later defended Jesus in the Council. After the crucifixion, he helped to bury Jesus, revealing his commitment. <em>See John 3:1-21; 7:50-52; 19:38-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>James and John<\/strong> believed God’s Kingdom was at hand, and they requested places of honor, angering the other disciples. Jesus gently explained that true leadership is demonstrated through service, not wealth or power. The disciples would all learn this through hard experience. <em>See Mark 10:35-45; John 13:1-17<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>The people of Nazareth<\/strong> had known Jesus as Joseph’s son and couldn’t believe he could be the Messiah. Their doubt greatly limited Jesus’ miracles among them, and their anger at his claims forced him to leave. <em>See Luke 4:14-30<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>The religious leaders<\/strong> knew and obeyed external laws down to fine detail but failed to show love in more important ways. Over and over again, Jesus confronted them for this, but most of these leaders rejected Jesus’ criticism and looked for ways to destroy him. <em>See Luke 11:37-54; cp. Acts 6:8–8:1; 9:1-31<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Zacchaeus<\/strong> collected taxes for Rome, becoming wealthy at his people’s expense. He was curious about Jesus and climbed a tree to see him over the crowd. Jesus singled him out, went to his house, and called Zacchaeus to a new life. Zacchaeus repented of his ways and paid back everyone he had wronged. <em>See Luke 19:1-10<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Two followers of Jesus<\/strong> were returning home to Emmaus after Jesus’ death. Along the way, the resurrected Jesus joined them and explained from Scripture why he had died. They didn’t recognize Jesus until he broke bread with them, after which Jesus disappeared. The two joyfully went to tell the disciples that Jesus was alive. <em>See Luke 24:13-35<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A Samaritan woman<\/strong> of ill-repute went to Jacob’s well to draw water and found Jesus there. Jesus offered her living water and a new life. She was surprised but responded in faith and called others to meet the Messiah they longed for. <em>See John 4:1-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Pilate<\/strong> was pressured by the Jewish leaders to execute Jesus. He believed Jesus was innocent and sought to free him. Pilate asked Jesus, “What is truth?” but did not realize that Jesus himself was the Truth. In the end, Pilate handed Jesus over to be crucified to keep the peace. <em>See John 18:28–19:16<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Simon Peter<\/strong> denied three times that he even knew Jesus. After his resurrection, Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved him. Each time, Peter reaffirmed his love, and Jesus told him to feed his sheep. Thus, Jesus restored Peter. <em>See John 21:1-23; see also Matt 16:15-19<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matthew 8:5-13; 9:9-13; 16:15-19; Mark 10:17-22, 35-45; Luke 2:25-38; 4:14-30; 10:38-42; 11:37-54; 19:1-10; 24:13-35; John 1:29-42, 43-51; 3:1-21; 4:1-42; 7:50-52; 8:1-11; 11:17-27; 13:1-17; 18:28–19:16; 19:38-42; 20:19-29; 21:1-23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Encounters with Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus’ dramatic miracles and intriguing parables can overshadow his transformative encounters with individuals. In these encounters Jesus deals with people where they are and as they are. He invites people of all backgrounds, personalities, and commitments to embrace him as master and friend, to become his followers and ambassadors of his eternal Kingdom. But Jesus’ invitation to follow always comes with a choice, because the power and wealth of this world is often too heavy and distracting to carry into Kingdom service. To follow Jesus, those who encounter him usually have to abandon something and leave it behind. Those who cannot give up what this world offers are often forced to turn away from Jesus. The same choice faces all who encounter Jesus in the Gospels and hear his invitation to follow.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Andrew<\/strong> was a fisherman in Galilee, but he longed for the Messiah and his Kingdom. He followed John the Baptist until John pointed to Jesus. Then Andrew not only followed Jesus, but called others, including Peter, to come too. <em>See John 1:29-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Simeon and Anna<\/strong> had long waited to see the promised Messiah. When they saw the infant Jesus, they recognized him as the Messiah, blessed him, and praised God for his coming and the hope he brought. <em>See Luke 2:25-38<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Nathanael<\/strong> responded skeptically when he was first invited to meet Jesus, but when Jesus demonstrated that he already knew him, Nathanael’s response dramatically changed, and he followed Jesus without hesitation. <em>See John 1:43-51<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A rich man<\/strong> came to Jesus and asked what he should do to inherit eternal life. This man demonstrated humility and was careful to obey all God’s laws. Jesus loved this man but told him that he still needed to sell all his possessions, give to the poor, and follow him. The man was unwilling to abandon his wealth and in sadness walked away from Jesus. <em>See Mark 10:17-22<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Matthew<\/strong> had turned from his Jewish heritage, become a traitor to his people by collecting Roman taxes, and chosen a lifestyle of wealthy indulgence. When Jesus called him, Matthew left his old life and followed. Before joining Jesus in his travels, Matthew invited his friends to meet Jesus. <em>See Matthew 9:9-13<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Thomas<\/strong> doubted the other disciples’ claim that Jesus had come back to life. When Jesus finally appeared to Thomas, he singled Thomas out and asked him to touch his wounded, resurrected body. Thomas immediately bowed before Jesus and confessed what he believed—that Jesus was his Lord and God. <em>See John 20:19-29<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Martha<\/strong> was working hard to prepare a meal for Jesus in her home and became upset that her sister Mary was sitting and learning at Jesus’ feet. Jesus gently encouraged Martha not to be angry and pointed out that Mary had chosen best by stopping to listen. On a later occasion, Jesus confronted Martha to affirm faith in him for eternal life. <em>See Luke 10:38-42; John 11:17-27<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A Roman officer<\/strong> asked Jesus to save his dying slave but excused Jesus from coming to his unclean Gentile home, because he believed Jesus could heal his slave from where he stood. Jesus honored this Roman’s faith by doing just that. Jesus also affirmed that many Gentiles would be welcomed by faith into the Kingdom of Heaven. <em>See Matthew 8:5-13<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A woman caught in adultery<\/strong> was brought by Jewish leaders to Jesus for judgment. Stoning was the expected punishment, but Jesus, writing in the dust, asked any accuser without sin to throw the first stone. When they all walked away, Jesus told the woman to go and sin no more. <em>See John 8:1-11<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Nicodemus<\/strong>, a leading Pharisee, was cautious about being seen with Jesus, so he came to him at night. Jesus engaged Nicodemus and challenged his assumptions about spiritual truth. Nicodemus later defended Jesus in the Council. After the crucifixion, he helped to bury Jesus, revealing his commitment. <em>See John 3:1-21; 7:50-52; 19:38-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>James and John<\/strong> believed God’s Kingdom was at hand, and they requested places of honor, angering the other disciples. Jesus gently explained that true leadership is demonstrated through service, not wealth or power. The disciples would all learn this through hard experience. <em>See Mark 10:35-45; John 13:1-17<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>The people of Nazareth<\/strong> had known Jesus as Joseph’s son and couldn’t believe he could be the Messiah. Their doubt greatly limited Jesus’ miracles among them, and their anger at his claims forced him to leave. <em>See Luke 4:14-30<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>The religious leaders<\/strong> knew and obeyed external laws down to fine detail but failed to show love in more important ways. Over and over again, Jesus confronted them for this, but most of these leaders rejected Jesus’ criticism and looked for ways to destroy him. <em>See Luke 11:37-54; cp. Acts 6:8–8:1; 9:1-31<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Zacchaeus<\/strong> collected taxes for Rome, becoming wealthy at his people’s expense. He was curious about Jesus and climbed a tree to see him over the crowd. Jesus singled him out, went to his house, and called Zacchaeus to a new life. Zacchaeus repented of his ways and paid back everyone he had wronged. <em>See Luke 19:1-10<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Two followers of Jesus<\/strong> were returning home to Emmaus after Jesus’ death. Along the way, the resurrected Jesus joined them and explained from Scripture why he had died. They didn’t recognize Jesus until he broke bread with them, after which Jesus disappeared. The two joyfully went to tell the disciples that Jesus was alive. <em>See Luke 24:13-35<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A Samaritan woman<\/strong> of ill-repute went to Jacob’s well to draw water and found Jesus there. Jesus offered her living water and a new life. She was surprised but responded in faith and called others to meet the Messiah they longed for. <em>See John 4:1-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Pilate<\/strong> was pressured by the Jewish leaders to execute Jesus. He believed Jesus was innocent and sought to free him. Pilate asked Jesus, “What is truth?” but did not realize that Jesus himself was the Truth. In the end, Pilate handed Jesus over to be crucified to keep the peace. <em>See John 18:28–19:16<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Simon Peter<\/strong> denied three times that he even knew Jesus. After his resurrection, Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved him. Each time, Peter reaffirmed his love, and Jesus told him to feed his sheep. Thus, Jesus restored Peter. <em>See John 21:1-23; see also Matt 16:15-19<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matthew 8:5-13; 9:9-13; 16:15-19; Mark 10:17-22, 35-45; Luke 2:25-38; 4:14-30; 10:38-42; 11:37-54; 19:1-10; 24:13-35; John 1:29-42, 43-51; 3:1-21; 4:1-42; 7:50-52; 8:1-11; 11:17-27; 13:1-17; 18:28–19:16; 19:38-42; 20:19-29; 21:1-23<\/p>","summary_ro":"Encounters with Jesus Jesus’ dramatic miracles and intriguing parables can overshadow his transformative encounters with individuals. In these encounters Jesus deals with people where they are and as they are. He invites people of all backgrounds, personalities, and commitments to embrace him as master and friend, to become his followers and ambassadors of his eternal Kingdom. But Jesus’ invitation to follow always comes with a choice, because the power and wealth of this world is often too h...","summary_en":"Encounters with Jesus Jesus’ dramatic miracles and intriguing parables can overshadow his transformative encounters with individuals. In these encounters Jesus deals with people where they are and as they are. He invites people of all backgrounds, personalities, and commitments to embrace him as master and friend, to become his followers and ambassadors of his eternal Kingdom. But Jesus’ invitation to follow always comes with a choice, because the power and wealth of this world is often too h...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148419,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Encounters with Jesus","title_en":"Encounters with Jesus","content_ro":"<h3>Encounters with Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus’ dramatic miracles and intriguing parables can overshadow his transformative encounters with individuals. In these encounters Jesus deals with people where they are and as they are. He invites people of all backgrounds, personalities, and commitments to embrace him as master and friend, to become his followers and ambassadors of his eternal Kingdom. But Jesus’ invitation to follow always comes with a choice, because the power and wealth of this world is often too heavy and distracting to carry into Kingdom service. To follow Jesus, those who encounter him usually have to abandon something and leave it behind. Those who cannot give up what this world offers are often forced to turn away from Jesus. The same choice faces all who encounter Jesus in the Gospels and hear his invitation to follow.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Andrew<\/strong> was a fisherman in Galilee, but he longed for the Messiah and his Kingdom. He followed John the Baptist until John pointed to Jesus. Then Andrew not only followed Jesus, but called others, including Peter, to come too. <em>See John 1:29-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Simeon and Anna<\/strong> had long waited to see the promised Messiah. When they saw the infant Jesus, they recognized him as the Messiah, blessed him, and praised God for his coming and the hope he brought. <em>See Luke 2:25-38<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Nathanael<\/strong> responded skeptically when he was first invited to meet Jesus, but when Jesus demonstrated that he already knew him, Nathanael’s response dramatically changed, and he followed Jesus without hesitation. <em>See John 1:43-51<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A rich man<\/strong> came to Jesus and asked what he should do to inherit eternal life. This man demonstrated humility and was careful to obey all God’s laws. Jesus loved this man but told him that he still needed to sell all his possessions, give to the poor, and follow him. The man was unwilling to abandon his wealth and in sadness walked away from Jesus. <em>See Mark 10:17-22<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Matthew<\/strong> had turned from his Jewish heritage, become a traitor to his people by collecting Roman taxes, and chosen a lifestyle of wealthy indulgence. When Jesus called him, Matthew left his old life and followed. Before joining Jesus in his travels, Matthew invited his friends to meet Jesus. <em>See Matthew 9:9-13<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Thomas<\/strong> doubted the other disciples’ claim that Jesus had come back to life. When Jesus finally appeared to Thomas, he singled Thomas out and asked him to touch his wounded, resurrected body. Thomas immediately bowed before Jesus and confessed what he believed—that Jesus was his Lord and God. <em>See John 20:19-29<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Martha<\/strong> was working hard to prepare a meal for Jesus in her home and became upset that her sister Mary was sitting and learning at Jesus’ feet. Jesus gently encouraged Martha not to be angry and pointed out that Mary had chosen best by stopping to listen. On a later occasion, Jesus confronted Martha to affirm faith in him for eternal life. <em>See Luke 10:38-42; John 11:17-27<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A Roman officer<\/strong> asked Jesus to save his dying slave but excused Jesus from coming to his unclean Gentile home, because he believed Jesus could heal his slave from where he stood. Jesus honored this Roman’s faith by doing just that. Jesus also affirmed that many Gentiles would be welcomed by faith into the Kingdom of Heaven. <em>See Matthew 8:5-13<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A woman caught in adultery<\/strong> was brought by Jewish leaders to Jesus for judgment. Stoning was the expected punishment, but Jesus, writing in the dust, asked any accuser without sin to throw the first stone. When they all walked away, Jesus told the woman to go and sin no more. <em>See John 8:1-11<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Nicodemus<\/strong>, a leading Pharisee, was cautious about being seen with Jesus, so he came to him at night. Jesus engaged Nicodemus and challenged his assumptions about spiritual truth. Nicodemus later defended Jesus in the Council. After the crucifixion, he helped to bury Jesus, revealing his commitment. <em>See John 3:1-21; 7:50-52; 19:38-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>James and John<\/strong> believed God’s Kingdom was at hand, and they requested places of honor, angering the other disciples. Jesus gently explained that true leadership is demonstrated through service, not wealth or power. The disciples would all learn this through hard experience. <em>See Mark 10:35-45; John 13:1-17<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>The people of Nazareth<\/strong> had known Jesus as Joseph’s son and couldn’t believe he could be the Messiah. Their doubt greatly limited Jesus’ miracles among them, and their anger at his claims forced him to leave. <em>See Luke 4:14-30<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>The religious leaders<\/strong> knew and obeyed external laws down to fine detail but failed to show love in more important ways. Over and over again, Jesus confronted them for this, but most of these leaders rejected Jesus’ criticism and looked for ways to destroy him. <em>See Luke 11:37-54; cp. Acts 6:8–8:1; 9:1-31<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Zacchaeus<\/strong> collected taxes for Rome, becoming wealthy at his people’s expense. He was curious about Jesus and climbed a tree to see him over the crowd. Jesus singled him out, went to his house, and called Zacchaeus to a new life. Zacchaeus repented of his ways and paid back everyone he had wronged. <em>See Luke 19:1-10<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Two followers of Jesus<\/strong> were returning home to Emmaus after Jesus’ death. Along the way, the resurrected Jesus joined them and explained from Scripture why he had died. They didn’t recognize Jesus until he broke bread with them, after which Jesus disappeared. The two joyfully went to tell the disciples that Jesus was alive. <em>See Luke 24:13-35<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A Samaritan woman<\/strong> of ill-repute went to Jacob’s well to draw water and found Jesus there. Jesus offered her living water and a new life. She was surprised but responded in faith and called others to meet the Messiah they longed for. <em>See John 4:1-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Pilate<\/strong> was pressured by the Jewish leaders to execute Jesus. He believed Jesus was innocent and sought to free him. Pilate asked Jesus, “What is truth?” but did not realize that Jesus himself was the Truth. In the end, Pilate handed Jesus over to be crucified to keep the peace. <em>See John 18:28–19:16<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Simon Peter<\/strong> denied three times that he even knew Jesus. After his resurrection, Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved him. Each time, Peter reaffirmed his love, and Jesus told him to feed his sheep. Thus, Jesus restored Peter. <em>See John 21:1-23; see also Matt 16:15-19<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matthew 8:5-13; 9:9-13; 16:15-19; Mark 10:17-22, 35-45; Luke 2:25-38; 4:14-30; 10:38-42; 11:37-54; 19:1-10; 24:13-35; John 1:29-42, 43-51; 3:1-21; 4:1-42; 7:50-52; 8:1-11; 11:17-27; 13:1-17; 18:28–19:16; 19:38-42; 20:19-29; 21:1-23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Encounters with Jesus<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus’ dramatic miracles and intriguing parables can overshadow his transformative encounters with individuals. In these encounters Jesus deals with people where they are and as they are. He invites people of all backgrounds, personalities, and commitments to embrace him as master and friend, to become his followers and ambassadors of his eternal Kingdom. But Jesus’ invitation to follow always comes with a choice, because the power and wealth of this world is often too heavy and distracting to carry into Kingdom service. To follow Jesus, those who encounter him usually have to abandon something and leave it behind. Those who cannot give up what this world offers are often forced to turn away from Jesus. The same choice faces all who encounter Jesus in the Gospels and hear his invitation to follow.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Andrew<\/strong> was a fisherman in Galilee, but he longed for the Messiah and his Kingdom. He followed John the Baptist until John pointed to Jesus. Then Andrew not only followed Jesus, but called others, including Peter, to come too. <em>See John 1:29-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Simeon and Anna<\/strong> had long waited to see the promised Messiah. When they saw the infant Jesus, they recognized him as the Messiah, blessed him, and praised God for his coming and the hope he brought. <em>See Luke 2:25-38<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Nathanael<\/strong> responded skeptically when he was first invited to meet Jesus, but when Jesus demonstrated that he already knew him, Nathanael’s response dramatically changed, and he followed Jesus without hesitation. <em>See John 1:43-51<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A rich man<\/strong> came to Jesus and asked what he should do to inherit eternal life. This man demonstrated humility and was careful to obey all God’s laws. Jesus loved this man but told him that he still needed to sell all his possessions, give to the poor, and follow him. The man was unwilling to abandon his wealth and in sadness walked away from Jesus. <em>See Mark 10:17-22<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Matthew<\/strong> had turned from his Jewish heritage, become a traitor to his people by collecting Roman taxes, and chosen a lifestyle of wealthy indulgence. When Jesus called him, Matthew left his old life and followed. Before joining Jesus in his travels, Matthew invited his friends to meet Jesus. <em>See Matthew 9:9-13<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Thomas<\/strong> doubted the other disciples’ claim that Jesus had come back to life. When Jesus finally appeared to Thomas, he singled Thomas out and asked him to touch his wounded, resurrected body. Thomas immediately bowed before Jesus and confessed what he believed—that Jesus was his Lord and God. <em>See John 20:19-29<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Martha<\/strong> was working hard to prepare a meal for Jesus in her home and became upset that her sister Mary was sitting and learning at Jesus’ feet. Jesus gently encouraged Martha not to be angry and pointed out that Mary had chosen best by stopping to listen. On a later occasion, Jesus confronted Martha to affirm faith in him for eternal life. <em>See Luke 10:38-42; John 11:17-27<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A Roman officer<\/strong> asked Jesus to save his dying slave but excused Jesus from coming to his unclean Gentile home, because he believed Jesus could heal his slave from where he stood. Jesus honored this Roman’s faith by doing just that. Jesus also affirmed that many Gentiles would be welcomed by faith into the Kingdom of Heaven. <em>See Matthew 8:5-13<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A woman caught in adultery<\/strong> was brought by Jewish leaders to Jesus for judgment. Stoning was the expected punishment, but Jesus, writing in the dust, asked any accuser without sin to throw the first stone. When they all walked away, Jesus told the woman to go and sin no more. <em>See John 8:1-11<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Nicodemus<\/strong>, a leading Pharisee, was cautious about being seen with Jesus, so he came to him at night. Jesus engaged Nicodemus and challenged his assumptions about spiritual truth. Nicodemus later defended Jesus in the Council. After the crucifixion, he helped to bury Jesus, revealing his commitment. <em>See John 3:1-21; 7:50-52; 19:38-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>James and John<\/strong> believed God’s Kingdom was at hand, and they requested places of honor, angering the other disciples. Jesus gently explained that true leadership is demonstrated through service, not wealth or power. The disciples would all learn this through hard experience. <em>See Mark 10:35-45; John 13:1-17<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>The people of Nazareth<\/strong> had known Jesus as Joseph’s son and couldn’t believe he could be the Messiah. Their doubt greatly limited Jesus’ miracles among them, and their anger at his claims forced him to leave. <em>See Luke 4:14-30<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>The religious leaders<\/strong> knew and obeyed external laws down to fine detail but failed to show love in more important ways. Over and over again, Jesus confronted them for this, but most of these leaders rejected Jesus’ criticism and looked for ways to destroy him. <em>See Luke 11:37-54; cp. Acts 6:8–8:1; 9:1-31<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Zacchaeus<\/strong> collected taxes for Rome, becoming wealthy at his people’s expense. He was curious about Jesus and climbed a tree to see him over the crowd. Jesus singled him out, went to his house, and called Zacchaeus to a new life. Zacchaeus repented of his ways and paid back everyone he had wronged. <em>See Luke 19:1-10<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Two followers of Jesus<\/strong> were returning home to Emmaus after Jesus’ death. Along the way, the resurrected Jesus joined them and explained from Scripture why he had died. They didn’t recognize Jesus until he broke bread with them, after which Jesus disappeared. The two joyfully went to tell the disciples that Jesus was alive. <em>See Luke 24:13-35<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A Samaritan woman<\/strong> of ill-repute went to Jacob’s well to draw water and found Jesus there. Jesus offered her living water and a new life. She was surprised but responded in faith and called others to meet the Messiah they longed for. <em>See John 4:1-42<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Pilate<\/strong> was pressured by the Jewish leaders to execute Jesus. He believed Jesus was innocent and sought to free him. Pilate asked Jesus, “What is truth?” but did not realize that Jesus himself was the Truth. In the end, Pilate handed Jesus over to be crucified to keep the peace. <em>See John 18:28–19:16<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Simon Peter<\/strong> denied three times that he even knew Jesus. After his resurrection, Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved him. Each time, Peter reaffirmed his love, and Jesus told him to feed his sheep. Thus, Jesus restored Peter. <em>See John 21:1-23; see also Matt 16:15-19<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matthew 8:5-13; 9:9-13; 16:15-19; Mark 10:17-22, 35-45; Luke 2:25-38; 4:14-30; 10:38-42; 11:37-54; 19:1-10; 24:13-35; John 1:29-42, 43-51; 3:1-21; 4:1-42; 7:50-52; 8:1-11; 11:17-27; 13:1-17; 18:28–19:16; 19:38-42; 20:19-29; 21:1-23<\/p>","summary_ro":"Encounters with Jesus Jesus’ dramatic miracles and intriguing parables can overshadow his transformative encounters with individuals. In these encounters Jesus deals with people where they are and as they are. He invites people of all backgrounds, personalities, and commitments to embrace him as master and friend, to become his followers and ambassadors of his eternal Kingdom. But Jesus’ invitation to follow always comes with a choice, because the power and wealth of this world is often too h...","summary_en":"Encounters with Jesus Jesus’ dramatic miracles and intriguing parables can overshadow his transformative encounters with individuals. In these encounters Jesus deals with people where they are and as they are. He invites people of all backgrounds, personalities, and commitments to embrace him as master and friend, to become his followers and ambassadors of his eternal Kingdom. But Jesus’ invitation to follow always comes with a choice, because the power and wealth of this world is often too h...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"52":[{"id":4904,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of the (English) Bible*, Versions","title_en":"of the (English) Bible*, Versions","content_ro":"<h3>BIBLE*, V<span>ersions of the (English)<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Translations of the Bible in the English language.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>Versions Discussed Below:<\/p>\n<p>• Early Translations: Caedmon’s, Bede’s, Alfred the Great’s<\/p>\n<p>• Other Early Versions: Lindisfarne Gospels, Shoreham’s Psalms, Rolle’s Psalms<\/p>\n<p>• Wycliffe’s Version<\/p>\n<p>• Tyndale’s Translation<\/p>\n<p>• Coverdale’s Version<\/p>\n<p>• Thomas Matthew’s Version: The Great Bible<\/p>\n<p>• The Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible<\/p>\n<p>• The King James Version<\/p>\n<p>• The English Revised Version and the American Standard Version<\/p>\n<p>• The Twentieth Century New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• <em>The New Testament in Modern Speech<\/em><\/p>\n<p>• <em>The New Testament: A New Translation<\/em><\/p>\n<p>• <em>The Complete Bible: An American Translation<\/em><\/p>\n<p>• The Revised Standard Version<\/p>\n<p>• The <em>New English Bible<\/em><\/p>\n<p>• The <em>Good News Bible:<\/em> Today’s English Version<\/p>\n<p>• <em>The Living Bible<\/em><\/p>\n<p>• The <em>New American Standard Bible<\/em><\/p>\n<p>• The New International Version<\/p>\n<p>• <em>The Jerusalem Bible<\/em> and <em>The New American Bible<\/em><\/p>\n<p>• <em>The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text, A New Translation<\/em><\/p>\n<p>• The New King James Version<\/p>\n<p>• The Revised English Bible<\/p>\n<p>• New Revised Standard Version<\/p>\n<p>• New Living Translation<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"EarlyTranslationsCaedmonsBedesAlfredtheGreats\">Early Translations: Caedmon’s, Bede’s, Alfred the Great’s<\/p>\n<p>As the gospel spread and churches multiplied in the early centuries of the Christian era, Christians in various countries wanted to read the Bible in their own language. As a result, many translations were made in several different languages—as early as the second century. For example, there were translations done in Coptic for the Egyptians, in Syriac for those whose language was Aramaic, in Gothic for the Germanic people called the Goths, and in Latin for the Romans and Carthaginians. The most famous Latin translation was done by Jerome around 400. This translation, known as the Latin Vulgate (<em>vulgate<\/em> meaning “common”—hence, the Latin text for the common man), was used extensively in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries and centuries.<\/p>\n<p>The gospel was brought to England by missionaries from Rome in the sixth century. The Bible they carried with them was the Latin Vulgate. The Christians living in England at that time depended on monks for any kind of instruction from the Bible. The monks read and taught the Latin Bible. After a few centuries, when more monasteries were founded, the need arose for translations of the Bible in English. The earliest English translation, as far as we know, is one done by a seventh-century monk named Caedmon, who made a metrical version of parts of the Old and New Testaments. Another English churchman, named Bede, is said to have translated the Gospels into English. Tradition has it that he was translating the Gospel of John on his deathbed in 735. Another translator was Alfred the Great (reigned 871–99), who was regarded as a very literate king. He included in his laws parts of the Ten Commandments translated into English, and he also translated the Psalms.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OtherEarlyVersionsLindisfarneGospelsShorehamsPsalmsRollesPsalms\">Other Early Versions: Lindisfarne Gospels, Shoreham’s Psalms, Rolle’s Psalms<\/p>\n<p>All translations of the English Bible prior to the work of Tyndale (discussed later) were done from the Latin text. Some Latin versions of the Gospels with word-for-word English translations written between the lines, which are called interlinear translations, survive from the 10th century. The most famous translation of this period is called the Lindisfarne Gospels (950). In the late 10th century, Aelfric (c. 955–1020), abbot of Eynsham, made idiomatic translations of various parts of the Bible. Two of these translations still exist. Later, in the 1300s, William of Shoreham translated the Psalms into English and so did Richard Rolle, whose editions of the Psalms included a verse-by-verse commentary. Both of these translations, which were metrical and therefore called Psalters, were popular when John Wycliffe was a young man.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WycliffesVersion\">Wycliffe’s Version<\/p>\n<p>John Wycliffe (c. 1329–84), the most eminent Oxford theologian of his day, and his associates were the first to translate the entire Bible from Latin into English. Wycliffe has been called the “Morning Star of the Reformation” because he boldly questioned papal authority, criticized the sale of indulgences (which were supposed to release a person from punishment in purgatory), denied the reality of transubstantiation (the doctrine that the bread and wine are changed into Jesus Christ’s body and blood during Communion), and spoke out against church hierarchies. The pope reproved Wycliffe for his “heretical” teachings and asked that Oxford University dismiss him. But Oxford and many government leaders stood with Wycliffe, so he was able to survive the pope’s assaults.<\/p>\n<p>Wycliffe believed that the way to prevail in his struggle with the church’s abusive authority was to make the Bible available to the people in their own language. Then they could read for themselves about how each one of them could have a personal relationship with God through Christ Jesus—apart from any ecclesiastical authority. Wycliffe, with his associates, completed the NT around 1380 and the OT in 1382. Wycliffe concentrated his labors on the NT, while an associate, Nicholas of Hereford, did a major part of the OT. Wycliffe and his coworkers, unfamiliar with the original Hebrew and Greek, translated the Latin text into English.<\/p>\n<p>After Wycliffe finished the translation work, he organized a group of poor parishioners, known as Lollards, to go throughout England preaching Christian truths and reading the Scriptures in their mother tongue to all who would hear God’s Word. As a result the Word of God, through Wycliffe’s translation, became available to many Englishmen. He was loved and yet hated. His ecclesiastical enemies did not forget his opposition to their power or his successful efforts in making the Scriptures available to all. Several decades after he died, they condemned him for heresy, dug up his body, burned it, and threw his ashes into the Swift River.<\/p>\n<p>One of Wycliffe’s close associates, John Purvey (c. 1353–1428), continued Wycliffe’s work by producing a revision of his translation in 1388. Purvey was an excellent scholar; his work was very well received by his generation and following generations. Within less than a century, Purvey’s revision had replaced the original Wycliffe Bible.<\/p>\n<p>As was stated before, Wycliffe and his associates were the first Englishmen to translate the entire Bible into English from Latin. Therefore, their Bible was a translation of a translation, not a translation of the original languages. With the coming of the Renaissance came the resurgence of the study of the classics—and with it the resurgence of the study of Greek as well as Hebrew. Thus, for the first time in nearly 1,000 years (500–1500—the approximate time when Latin was the dominant language for scholarship, except in the Greek church) scholars began to read the NT in its original language, Greek. By 1500, Greek was being taught at Oxford.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TyndalesTranslation\">Tyndale’s Translation<\/p>\n<p>William Tyndale was born in the age of the Renaissance. He graduated in 1515 from Oxford, where he had studied the Scriptures in Greek and in Hebrew. By the time he was 30, Tyndale had committed his life to translating the Bible from the original languages into English. His heart’s desire is exemplified in a statement he made to a clergyman when refuting the view that only the clergy were qualified to read and correctly interpret the Scriptures. Tyndale said, “If God spare my life, ere many years, I will cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more of the Scripture than thou dost.”<\/p>\n<p>In 1523 Tyndale went to London seeking a place to work on his translation. When the bishop of London would not give him hospitality, he was provided a place by Humphrey Monmouth, a cloth merchant. Then, in 1524, Tyndale left England for Germany because the English church, which was still under the papal authority of Rome, strongly opposed putting the Bible into the hands of the laity. Tyndale first settled in Hamburg, Germany. Quite possibly, he met Luther in Wittenberg soon thereafter. Even if he didn’t meet Luther, he was well acquainted with Luther’s writings and Luther’s German translation of the NT (published in 1522). Throughout his lifetime, Tyndale was harassed for propagating Luther’s ideas. Both Luther and Tyndale used the same Greek text (one compiled by Erasmus in 1516) in making their translations.<\/p>\n<p>Tyndale completed his translation of the NT in 1525. Fifteen thousand copies, in six editions, were smuggled into England between the years 1525 and 1530. Church authorities did their best to confiscate copies of Tyndale’s translation and burn them, but they couldn’t stop the flow of Bibles from Germany into England. Tyndale himself could not return to England because his life was in danger since his translation had been banned. However, he continued to work abroad—correcting, revising, and reissuing his translation until his final revision appeared in 1535. Shortly thereafter, in May of 1535, Tyndale was arrested and carried off to a castle near Brussels. After being in prison for over a year, he was tried and condemned to death. He was strangled and burned at the stake on October 6, 1536. His final words were so very poignant: “Lord, open the king of England’s eyes.”<\/p>\n<p>After finishing the NT, Tyndale had begun work on a translation of the Hebrew OT, but he did not live long enough to complete his task. He had, however, translated the Pentateuch (the first five books of the OT), Jonah, and some historical books. While Tyndale was in prison, an associate of his named Miles Coverdale (1488–1569) brought to completion an entire Bible in English—based largely on Tyndale’s translation of the NT and other OT books. In other words, Coverdale finished what Tyndale had begun.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CoverdalesVersion\">Coverdale’s Version<\/p>\n<p>Miles Coverdale was a Cambridge graduate who, like Tyndale, was forced to flee England because he had been strongly influenced by Luther to the extent that he was boldly preaching against Roman Catholic doctrine. While he was abroad, Coverdale met Tyndale and then served as an assistant—especially helping Tyndale translate the Pentateuch. By the time Coverdale produced a complete translation (1537), the king of England, Henry VIII, had broken all ties with the pope and was ready to see the appearance of an English Bible. Perhaps Tyndale’s prayer had been answered—with a very ironic twist. The king gave his royal approval to Coverdale’s translation, which was based on the work done by Tyndale, the man Henry VIII had earlier condemned.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThomasMatthewsVersionTheGreatBible\">Thomas Matthew’s Version: The Great Bible<\/p>\n<p>In the same year that Coverdale’s Bible was endorsed by the king (1537), another Bible was published in England. This was the work of one called Thomas Matthew, a pseudonym for John Rogers (c. 1500–55), a friend of Tyndale. Evidently, Rogers used Tyndale’s unpublished translation of the OT historical books, other parts of Tyndale’s translation, and still other parts of Coverdale’s translation, to form an entire Bible. This Bible also received the king’s approval. Matthew’s Bible was revised in 1538 and printed for distribution in the churches throughout England. This Bible, called the Great Bible because of its size and costliness, became the first English Bible authorized for public use.<\/p>\n<p>Many editions of the Great Bible were printed in the early 1540s. However, its distribution was limited. Furthermore, King Henry’s attitude about the new translation changed. As a result, the English Parliament passed a law in 1543 restricting the use of any English translation. It was a crime for any unlicensed person to read or explain the Scriptures in public. Many copies of Tyndale’s NT and Coverdale’s Bible were burned in London.<\/p>\n<p>Greater repression was to follow. After a short period of leniency (during the reign of Edward VI, 1547–53), severe persecution came from the hands of Queen Mary. She was a Roman Catholic who was determined to restore Catholicism to England and repress Protestantism. Many Protestants were executed, including John Rogers, the Bible translator. Coverdale was arrested, then released. He fled to Geneva, a sanctuary for English Protestants.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheGenevaBibleandtheBishopsBible\">The Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible<\/p>\n<p>The English exiles in Geneva chose William Whittingham (c. 1524–79) to make an English translation of the NT for them. He used Theodore Beza’s Latin translation and consulted the Greek text. This Bible became very popular because it was small and moderately priced. The preface to the Bible and its many annotations were affected by a strong evangelical influence, as well as by the teachings of John Calvin. Calvin was one of the greatest thinkers of the Reformation, a renowned biblical commentator, and the principal leader in Geneva during those days.<\/p>\n<p>While the Geneva Bible was popular among many English men and women, it was not acceptable among many leaders in the Church of England because of its Calvinistic notes. These leaders, recognizing that the Great Bible was inferior to the Geneva Bible in style and scholarship, initiated a revision of the Great Bible. This revised Bible, published in 1568, became known as the Bishops’ Bible; it continued in use until it was superseded by the King James Version of 1611.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheKingJamesVersion\">The King James Version<\/p>\n<p>After James VI of Scotland became the king of England (known as James I), he invited several clergymen from Puritan and Anglican factions to meet together with the hope that differences could be reconciled. The meeting did not achieve this. However, during the meeting one of the Puritan leaders, John Reynolds, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, asked the king to authorize a new translation because he wanted to see a translation that was more accurate than previous translations. King James liked this idea because the Bishops’ Bible had not been successful and because he considered the notes in the Geneva Bible to be seditious. The king initiated the work and took an active part in planning the new translation. He suggested that university professors work on the translation to assure the best scholarship, and he strongly urged that they should not have any marginal notes besides those pertaining to literal renderings from the Hebrew and Greek. The absence of interpretive notes would help the translation be accepted by all the churches in England.<\/p>\n<p>More than 50 scholars, trained in Hebrew and Greek, began the work in 1607. The translation went through several committees before it was finalized. The scholars were instructed to follow the Bishops’ Bible as the basic version, as long as it adhered to the original text, and to consult the translations of Tyndale, Matthew, and Coverdale, as well as the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible when they appeared to contain more accurate renderings of the original languages. This dependence on other versions is expressed in the preface to the King James Version: “Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one . . . but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one.”<\/p>\n<p>The King James Version, known in England as the Authorized Version because it was authorized by the king, captured the best of all the preceding English translations and far exceeded all of them. It was the culmination of all the previous English Bible translations; it united high scholarship with Christian devotion and piety. It came into being at a time when the English language was vigorous and beautiful—the age of Elizabethan English and Shakesperean English. This version has justifiably been called “the noblest monument of English prose.” Indeed, the King James Version has become an enduring monument of English prose because of its gracious style, majestic language, and poetic rhythms. No other book has had such a tremendous influence on English literature, and no other translation has touched the lives of so many English-speaking people for centuries and centuries, even until the present day.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"The18thand19thCenturiesNewDiscoveriesofEarlierManuscriptsandIncreasedKnowledgeoftheOriginalLanguages\">The 18th and 19th Centuries: New Discoveries of Earlier Manuscripts and Increased Knowledge of the Original Languages<\/p>\n<p>The King James Version became the most popular English translation in the 17th and 18th centuries. It acquired the stature of becoming the standard English Bible. But the King James Version had deficiencies that did not go unnoticed by certain scholars. First, knowledge of Hebrew was inadequate in the early 17th century. The Hebrew text they used (i.e., the Masoretic Text) was adequate, but their understanding of the Hebrew vocabulary was insufficient. It would take many more years of linguistic studies to enrich and sharpen understanding of the Hebrew vocabulary. Second, the Greek text underlying the NT of the King James Version was an inferior text. The King James translators basically used a Greek text known as the Textus Receptus (or, the “Received Text”), which came from the work of Erasmus, who compiled the first Greek text to be produced on a printing press. When Erasmus compiled this text, he used five or six very late manuscripts dating from the 10th to the 13th centuries. These manuscripts were far inferior to earlier manuscripts.<\/p>\n<p>The King James translators had done well with the resources that were available to them, but those resources were insufficient, especially with respect to the NT text. After the King James Version was published, earlier and better manuscripts were discovered. Around 1630, Codex Alexandrinus was brought to England. A fifth-century manuscript containing the entire NT, it provided a fairly good witness to the NT text, especially the original text of Revelation. Two hundred years later, a German scholar named Constantin von Tischendorf discovered Codex Sinaiticus in St Catherine’s Monastery. The manuscript, dated around <span>AD<\/span> 350, is one of the two oldest manuscripts of the Greek NT. The earliest manuscript, Codex Vaticanus, had been in the Vatican’s library since at least 1475, but it was not made available to scholars until the middle of the 19th century. This manuscript, dated slightly earlier (<span>AD<\/span> 325) than Codex Sinaiticus, is one of the most reliable copies of the Greek NT.<\/p>\n<p>As these manuscripts (and others) were discovered and made public, certain scholars labored to compile a Greek text that would more closely represent the original text than did the Textus Receptus. Around 1700 John Mill produced an improved Textus Receptus, and in the 1730s Johannes Albert Bengel, known as the father of modern textual and philological studies in the NT, published a text that deviated from the Textus Receptus according to the evidence of earlier manuscripts.<\/p>\n<p>In the 1800s certain scholars began to abandon the Textus Receptus. Karl Lachman, a classical philologist, produced a fresh text in 1831 that represented the fourth-century manuscripts. Samuel Tregelles, self-taught in Latin, Hebrew, and Greek, laboring throughout his entire lifetime, concentrated all of his efforts in publishing one Greek text, which came out in six parts, from 1857 to 1872. Tischendorf devoted a lifetime of labor to discovering manuscripts and producing accurate editions of the Greek NT. He not only discovered Codex Sinaiticus, he also deciphered the palimpsest Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, collated countless manuscripts, and produced several editions of the Greek NT (the eighth edition is considered the best). Aided by the work of these scholars, two British men, Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort, worked together for 28 years to produce a volume entitled <em>The New Testament in the Original Greek<\/em> (1881). This edition of the Greek NT, based largely on Codex Vaticanus, became the standard text that was responsible for dethroning the Textus Receptus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheEnglishRevisedVersionandtheAmericanStandardVersion\">The English Revised Version and the American Standard Version<\/p>\n<p>By the latter part of the 19th century, the Christian community had been given three very good Greek NT texts: Tregelles’s, Tischendorf’s, and Westcott and Hort’s. These texts were very different from the Textus Receptus. And as was mentioned earlier, the scholarly community had accumulated more knowledge about the meaning of various Hebrew words and Greek words. Therefore, there was a great need for a new English translation based upon a better text—and with more accurate renderings of the original languages.<\/p>\n<p>A few individuals attempted to meet this need. In 1871 John Nelson Darby, leader of the Plymouth Brethren movement, produced a translation called the <em>New Translation,<\/em> which was largely based on Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. In 1872 J. B. Rotherham published a translation of Tregelles’s text, in which he attempted to reflect the emphasis inherent in the Greek text. This translation is still being published under the title <em>The Emphasized Bible.<\/em> And in 1875 Samuel Davidson produced a NT translation of Tischendorf’s text.<\/p>\n<p>The first major corporate effort was initiated in 1870 by the Convocation of Canterbury, which decided to sponsor a major revision of the King James Version. Sixty-five British scholars, working in various committees, made significant changes in the King James Version. The OT scholars corrected mistranslations of Hebrew words and reformatted poetic passages into poetic form. The NT scholars made thousands of changes based upon better textual evidence. Their goal was to make the NT revision reflect not the Textus Receptus but the texts of Tregelles, Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort. When the complete Revised Version appeared in 1885, it was received with great enthusiasm. Over three million copies sold in the first year of its publication. Unfortunately, its popularity was not long lasting because most people continued to prefer the King James Version over all other translations.<\/p>\n<p>Several American scholars had been invited to join the revision work, with the understanding that any of their suggestions not accepted by the British scholars would appear in an appendix. Furthermore, the American scholars had to agree not to publish their own American revision until after 14 years. When the time came (1901), the American Standard Version was published by several surviving members of the original American committee. This translation, generally regarded as superior to the English Revised Version, is an accurate, literal rendering of very trustworthy texts both in the OT and the New.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"The20thCenturyNewDiscoveriesandNewTranslations\">The 20th Century: New Discoveries and New Translations<\/p>\n<p>The 19th century was a fruitful era for the Greek NT and subsequent English translations; it was also a century in which Hebrew studies were greatly advanced. The 20th century has also been fruitful—especially for textual studies. Those living in the 20th century have witnessed the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, the Chester Beatty Papyri, and the Bodmer Papyri. These amazing discoveries, providing scholars with hundreds of ancient manuscripts, have greatly enhanced the effort to recover the original wording of the Old and New Testaments. At the same time, other archaeological discoveries have validated the historical accuracy of the Bible and helped Bible scholars understand the meaning of certain ancient words. For example, the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">parousia<\/span> (usually translated “coming”) was found in many ancient documents dated around the time of Christ; very often the word indicated the visitation of royalty. When this word was used in the NT concerning Christ’s second coming, the readers would think of his coming as being the visitation of a king. Another example is that in koine Greek, the expression <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">entos humon<\/span> (literally, “inside of you”) often meant “within reach.” Thus, Jesus’ statement in Luke 17:21 could mean “The kingdom is within reach.”<\/p>\n<p>As earlier and better manuscripts of the Bible have emerged, scholars have been engaged in updating the Bible texts. OT scholars have still used the Masoretic Text but have noted significant differences found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The current edition used by OT scholars is called <em>Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.<\/em> NT scholars, for the most part, have come to rely upon an edition of the Greek NT known as the Nestle-Aland text. Eberhard Nestle used the best editions of the Greek NT produced in the 19th century to compile a text that represented the majority consensus. The work of making new editions was carried on by his son for several years and then came under the care of Kurt Aland. The latest edition (the 27th) of Nestle-Aland’s <em>Novum Testamentum Graece<\/em> appeared in 1993. The same Greek text appears in another popular volume published by the United Bible Societies, called the <em>Greek New Testament<\/em> (fourth edition—1983).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Early20th-CenturyTranslationsintheLanguageofthePeople\">Early 20th-Century Translations in the Language of the People<\/p>\n<p>The thousands and thousands of papyri that were discovered in Egypt around the turn of the century displayed a form of Greek called koine Greek. Koine (meaning “common”) Greek was everyman’s Greek; it was the common language of almost everybody living in the Graeco-Roman world from the second century <span>BC<\/span> to the third century <span>AD<\/span>. In other words, it was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> of the Mediterranean world. Every educated person back then could speak, read, and write in Greek just like every educated person in modern times can speak a little English, read some English, and perhaps write in English. Koine Greek was not literary Greek (i.e., the kind of Greek written by the Greek poets and tragedians); it was the kind of Greek used in personal letters, legal documents, and other nonliterary texts.<\/p>\n<p>NT scholars began to discover that most of the NT was written in koine Greek—the language of the people. As a result, there was a strong prompting to translate the NT into the language of the people. Various translators chose to divorce themselves from the traditional Elizabethan English as found in the King James Version (and even in the English Revised Version and American Standard Version) and produce fresh renderings in the common idiom.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTwentiethCenturyNewTestament\">The Twentieth Century New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The first of these new translations was <em>The Twentieth Century New Testament<\/em> (1902). The preface to a new edition of this translation provides an excellent description of the work:<\/p>\n<p><em>The Twentieth Century New Testament<\/em> is a smooth-flowing, accurate, easy-to-read translation that captivates its readers from start to finish. Born out of a desire to make the Bible readable and understandable, it is the product of the labors of a committee of twenty men and women who worked together over many years to construct, we believe under divine surveillance, this beautifully simple rendition of the word of God. (Preface to the new edition—1961—published by Moody Press)<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheNewTestamentinModernSpeech\"><em>The New Testament in Modern Speech<\/em><\/p>\n<p>A year after the publication of <em>The Twentieth Century New Testament,<\/em> Richard Weymouth published <em>The New Testament in Modern Speech<\/em> (1903). Weymouth, who had received the first doctor of literature degree from the University of London, was headmaster of a private school in London. During his life, he spent time producing an edition of the Greek text (published in 1862) that was more accurate than the Textus Receptus, and then he labored to produce an English translation of this Greek text (called <em>The Resultant Greek Testament<\/em>) in a modern speech version. His translation was very well received; it has gone through several editions and many printings.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheNewTestamentANewTranslation\"><em>The New Testament: A New Translation<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Another new and fresh translation to appear in the early years of this century was one written by James Moffatt, a brilliant Scottish scholar. In 1913 he published his first edition of <em>The New Testament: A New Translation.<\/em> This was actually his second translation of the NT; his first was done in 1901, called <em>The Historical New Testament.<\/em> In his <em>New Translation<\/em> Moffatt’s goal was “to translate the NT exactly as one would render any piece of contemporary Hellenistic prose.” His work displays brilliance and marked independence from other versions; unfortunately it was based on Hermann von Soden’s Greek NT, which, as all scholars now know, is quite defective.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCompleteBibleAnAmericanTranslation\"><em>The Complete Bible: An American Translation<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The earliest American modern speech translation was produced by Edgar J. Goodspeed, a professor of NT at the University of Chicago. He had criticized <em>The Twentieth Century New Testament,<\/em> Weymouth’s version, and Moffatt’s translation. As a consequence, he was challenged by some other scholars to do better. He took up the challenge and in 1923 published <em>The New Testament: An American Translation.<\/em> When he made this translation, he said that he wanted to give his “version something of the force and freshness that reside in the original Greek.” He said, “I wanted my translation to make on the reader something of the impression the NT must have made on its earliest readers, and to invite the continuous reading of the whole book at a time.” His translation was a success. An OT translation followed, produced by J. M. Powis Smith and three other scholars. <em>The Complete Bible: An American Translation<\/em> was published in 1935.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRevisedStandardVersion\">The Revised Standard Version<\/p>\n<p>The English Revised Version and the American Standard Version had gained a reputation of being accurate study texts but very “wooden” in their construction. The translators who worked on the Revised Versions attempted to translate words consistently from the original language regardless of their context and sometimes even followed the word order of the Greek. This created a very unidiomatic version and called for a new revision.<\/p>\n<p>The demand for revision was strengthened by the fact that several important biblical manuscripts had been discovered in the 1930s and 1940s—namely, the Dead Sea Scrolls for the OT and the Chester Beatty Papyri for the NT. It was felt that the fresh evidence displayed in these documents should be reflected in a revision. The revision showed some textual changes in the book of Isaiah due to the Isaiah Scroll and several changes in the Pauline Epistles based on the Chester Beatty Papyrus, P46. There were other significant revisions. The story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:52–8:11) was not included in the text but in the margin because none of the early manuscripts contain this story, and the ending to Mark (16:9-20) was not included in the text because it is not found in the two earliest manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.<\/p>\n<p>The organization that held the copyright to the American Standard Version, called the International Council of Religious Education, authorized a new revision in 1937. The NT translators generally followed the 17th edition of the Nestle Text (1941), while the OT translators followed the Masoretic Text. Both groups, however, adopted readings from other ancient sources when they were considered to be more accurate. The NT was published in 1946, and the entire Bible with the OT in 1952.<\/p>\n<p>The principles of the revision were specified in the preface to the Revised Standard Version:<\/p>\n<p>The Revised Standard Version is not a new translation in the language of today. It is not a paraphrase which aims at striking idioms. It is a revision which seeks to preserve all that is best in the English Bible as it has been known and used throughout the years.<\/p>\n<p>This revision was well received by many Protestant churches and soon became their “standard” text. The Revised Standard Version was later published with the Apocrypha of the OT (1957), in a Catholic Edition (1965), and in what is called the <em>Common Bible,<\/em> which includes the OT, the NT, the Apocrypha, and the deuterocanonical books, with international endorsements by Protestants, Greek Orthodox, and Roman Catholics. Evangelical and fundamental Christians, however, did not receive the Revised Standard Version very well—primarily because of one verse, Isaiah 7:14, which reads, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.” Evangelicals and fundamentalists contend that the text should read “virgin,” not “young woman.” As a result, the Revised Standard Version was panned, if not banned, by many evangelical and fundamental Christians.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheNewEnglishBible\">The <em>New English Bible<\/em><\/p>\n<p>In the year that the NT of the Revised Standard Version was published (1946), the Church of Scotland proposed to other churches in Great Britain that it was time for a completely new translation of the Bible to be done. Those who initiated this work asked the translators to produce a fresh translation in modern idiom of the original languages; this was not to be a revision of any foregoing translation, nor was it to be a literal translation. The translators, under the direction of C. H. Dodd, were called upon to translate the meaning of the text into modern English. The preface to the NT (published in 1961), written by C. H. Dodd, explains this more fully:<\/p>\n<p>The older translators, on the whole, considered that fidelity to the original demanded that they should reproduce, as far as possible, characteristic features of the language in which it was written, such as the syntactical order of words, the structure and division of sentences, and even such irregularities of grammar as were indeed natural enough to authors writing in the easy idiom of popular Hellenistic Greek, but less natural when turned into English. The present translators were enjoined to replace Greek constructions and idioms by those of contemporary English.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>This meant a different theory and practice of translation, and one which laid a heavier burden on the translators. Fidelity in translation was not to mean keeping the general framework of the original intact while replacing Greek words by English words more or less equivalent. . . . Thus we have not felt obliged (as did the Revisers of 1881) to make an effort to render the same Greek word everywhere by the same English word. We have in this respect returned to the wholesome practice of King James’s men, who (as they expressly state in their preface) recognized no such obligation. We have conceived our task to be that of understanding the original as precisely as we could (using all available aids), and then saying again in our own native idiom what we believed the author to be saying in his.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The entire <em>New English Bible<\/em> was published in 1970; it was well received in Great Britain and in the United States (even though its idiom is extremely British) and was especially praised for its good literary style. The translators were very experimental, producing renderings never before printed in an English version and adopting certain readings from various Hebrew and Greek manuscripts never before adopted. As a result, <em>The New English Bible<\/em> was both highly praised for its ingenuity and severely criticized for its liberty.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheGoodNewsBibleTodaysEnglishVersion\">The <em>Good News Bible:<\/em> Today’s English Version<\/p>\n<p>The NT in Today’s English Version, also known as <em>Good News for Modern Man<\/em><em>,<\/em> was published by the American Bible Society in 1966. The translation was originally done by Robert Bratcher, a research associate of the translations department of the American Bible Society, and then further refined by the American Bible Society. The translation, heavily promoted by several Bible societies and very affordable, sold more than 35 million copies within six years of the time of printing. The NT translation, based upon the first edition of the <em>Greek New Testament<\/em> (the United Bible Societies, 1966), is an idiomatic version in modern and simple English. The translation was greatly influenced by the linguistic theory of dynamic equivalence and was quite successful in providing English readers with a translation that, for the most part, accurately reflects the meaning of the original texts. This is explained in the preface to the NT:<\/p>\n<p>This translation of the NT has been prepared by the American Bible Society for people who speak English as their mother tongue or as an acquired language. As a distinctly new translation, it does not conform to traditional vocabulary or style, but seeks to express the meaning of the Greek text in words and forms accepted as standard by people everywhere who employ English as a means of communication. Today’s English Version of the NT attempts to follow, in this century, the example set by the authors of the NT books, who, for the most part, wrote in the standard, or common, form of the Greek language used throughout the Roman Empire.<\/p>\n<p>Because of the success of the NT, the American Bible Society was asked by other Bible societies to make an OT translation following the same principles used in the NT. The entire Bible was published in 1976, and is known as the <em>Good News Bible:<\/em> Today’s English Version.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheLivingBible\"><em>The Living Bible<\/em><\/p>\n<p>In 1962 Kenneth Taylor published a paraphrase of the NT epistles in a volume called <em>Living Letters.<\/em> This new dynamic paraphrase, written in common vernacular, became well received and widely acclaimed—especially for its ability to communicate the message of God’s Word to the common man. In the beginning its circulation was greatly enhanced by the endorsement of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, which did much to publicize the book and distributed thousands of free copies. Taylor continued to paraphrase other portions of the Bible and publish successive volumes: <em>Living Prophecies<\/em> (1965), <em>Living Gospels<\/em> (1966), <em>Living Psalms<\/em> (1967), <em>Living Lessons of Life and Love<\/em> (1968), <em>Living Books of Moses<\/em> (1969), and <em>Living History of Moses<\/em> (1970). The entire Living Bible was published in 1971 (the <em>Living New Testament<\/em> was printed in 1966).<\/p>\n<p>Using the American Standard Version as his working text, Taylor rephrased the Bible into modern speech—such that anyone, even a child, could understand the message of the original writers. In the preface to <em>The Living Bible<\/em><em>,<\/em> Taylor explains his view of paraphrasing:<\/p>\n<p>To paraphrase is to say something in different words than the author used. It is a restatement of the author’s thoughts, using different words than he did. This book is a paraphrase of the Old and New Testaments. Its purpose is to say as exactly as possible what the writers of the Scriptures meant, and to say it simply, expanding where necessary for a clear understanding by the modern reader.<\/p>\n<p>Even though many modern readers have greatly appreciated the fact that <em>The Living Bible<\/em> made God’s Word clear to them, Taylor’s paraphrase has been criticized for being too interpretive. But that is the nature of paraphrases—and the danger as well. Taylor was aware of this when he made the paraphrase. Again, the preface clarifies:<\/p>\n<p>There are dangers in paraphrases, as well as values. For whenever the author’s exact words are not translated from the original languages, there is a possibility that the translator, however honest, may be giving the English reader something that the original writer did not mean to say.<\/p>\n<p><em>The Living Bible<\/em> has been very popular among English readers worldwide. More than 40 million copies have been sold by the publishing house Taylor specifically created to publish <em>The Living Bible.<\/em> The company is called Tyndale House Publishers—named after William Tyndale, the father of modern English translations of the Bible.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheNewAmericanStandardBible\">The <em>New American Standard Bible<\/em><\/p>\n<p>There are two modern translations that are both revisions of (or based on) the American Standard Version (1901): the Revised Standard Version (1952) and the <em>New American Standard Bible<\/em> (1971). The Lockman Foundation, a nonprofit Christian corporation committed to evangelism, promoted this revision of the American Standard Version because “the producers of this translation were imbued with the conviction that interest in the American Standard Version 1901 should be renewed and increased” (from the preface). Indeed, the American Standard Version was a monumental work of scholarship and a very accurate translation. However, its popularity was waning, and it was fast disappearing from the scene. Therefore, the Lockman Foundation organized a team of 32 scholars to prepare a new revision. These scholars, all committed to the inspiration of Scripture, strove to produce a literal translation of the Bible in the belief that such a translation “brings the contemporary reader as close as possible to the actual wording and grammatical structure of the original writers” (ibid.).<\/p>\n<p>The translators of the <em>New American Standard Bible<\/em> were instructed by the Lockman Foundation to adhere to the original languages of the Holy Scriptures as closely as possible and at the same time to obtain a fluent and readable style according to current English usage. After the <em>New American Standard Bible<\/em> was published (1963 for the NT and 1971 for the entire Bible), it received a mixed response. Some critics applauded its literal accuracy, while others sharply criticized its language for hardly being contemporary or modern.<\/p>\n<p>On the whole, the <em>New American Standard Bible<\/em> became respected as a good study Bible that accurately reflects the wording of the original languages yet is not a good translation for Bible reading. Furthermore, it must be said that this translation which was originally supposed to follow the 23d edition of the Nestle text, tends to follow the Textus Receptus, especially in its inclusion of passages considered spurious by most modern scholars.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheNewInternationalVersion\">The New International Version<\/p>\n<p>The New International Version is a completely new rendering of the original languages done by an international group of more than 100 scholars. These scholars worked many years and in several committees to produce an excellent thought-for-thought translation in contemporary English for private and public use. The New International Version is called “international” because it was prepared by distinguished scholars from English-speaking countries such as the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, and because the translators sought to use vocabulary common to the major English-speaking nations of the world.<\/p>\n<p>The translators of the New International Version sought to make a version that was midway between a literal rendering (as in the <em>New American Standard Bible<\/em>) and a free paraphrase (as in <em>The Living Bible<\/em>). Their goal was to convey in English the thought of the original writers. This is succinctly explained in the original preface to the NT:<\/p>\n<p>Certain convictions and aims guided the translators. They are all committed to the full authority and complete trustworthiness of the Scriptures. Therefore, their first concern was the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the New Testament writers. While they weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Greek text, they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the New Testament demanded frequent modifications in sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words.<\/p>\n<p>Concern for clarity of style—that it should be idiomatic without being idiosyncratic, contemporary without being dated—also motivated the translators and their consultants. They have consistently aimed at simplicity of expression, with sensitive attention to the connotation and sound of the chosen word. At the same time, they endeavored to avoid a sameness of style in order to reflect the varied styles and moods of the NT writers.<\/p>\n<p>The NT of the New International Version was published in 1973, and the entire Bible in 1978. This version has been phenomenally successful. Millions and millions of readers have adopted the New International Version as their “Bible.” Since 1987 it has outsold the King James Version, the best-seller for centuries—a remarkable indication of its popularity and acceptance in the Christian community. The New International Version, sponsored by the New York Bible Society (now the International Bible Society) and published by Zondervan Publishing House, has become a standard version used for private reading and pulpit reading in many English-speaking countries.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheJerusalemBibleandTheNewAmericanBible\">Two Modern Catholic Translations: <em>The Jerusalem Bible<\/em> and <em>The New American Bible<\/em><\/p>\n<p>In 1943 Pope Pius XII issued the famous encyclical encouraging Roman Catholics to read and study the Scriptures. At the same time, the pope recommended that the Scriptures should be translated from the original languages. Previously, all Catholic translations were based on the Latin Vulgate. This includes Knox’s translation, which was begun in 1939 and published in 1944 (the NT) and in 1955 (the whole Bible).<\/p>\n<p>The first complete Catholic Bible to be translated from the original languages is <em>The Jerusalem Bible,<\/em> published in England in 1966. <em>The Jerusalem Bible<\/em> is the English counterpart to a French translation entitled <em>La Bible de Jerusalem.<\/em> The French translation was “the culmination of decades of research and biblical scholarship” (from the preface to <em>The Jerusalem Bible<\/em>), published by the scholars of the Dominican Biblical School of Jerusalem. This Bible, which includes the Apocrypha and deuterocanonical books, contains many study helps—such as introductions to each book of the Bible, extensive notes on various passages, and maps. The study helps are an intricate part of the whole translation because it is the belief of Roman Catholic leadership that laypeople should be given interpretive helps in their reading of the sacred text. The study helps in <em>The Jerusalem Bible<\/em> were translated from the French, whereas the Bible text itself was translated from the original languages with the help of the French translation. The translation of the text produced under the editorship of Alexander Jones is considerably freer than other translations, such as the Revised Standard Version, because the translators sought to capture the meaning of the original writings in a “vigorous, contemporary literary style” (from the preface to <em>The Jerusalem Bible<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p>The first American Catholic Bible to be translated from the original languages is <em>The New American Bible<\/em> (not to be confused with the <em>New American Standard Bible<\/em>). Although this translation was published in 1970, work had begun on this version several decades before. Prior to Pope Pius’s encyclical, an American translation of the NT based on the Latin Vulgate was published—known as the Confraternity Version. After the encyclical, the OT was translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the NT redone, based on the 25th edition of the Greek Nestle-Aland text. <em>The New American Bible<\/em> has short introductions to each book of the Bible and textual notes. Kubo and Specht provide a just description of the translation itself:<\/p>\n<p>The translation itself is simple, clear, and straightforward and reads very smoothly. It is good American English, not as pungent and colorful as the N.E.B. [New English Bible]. Its translations are not striking but neither are they clumsy. They seem to be more conservative in the sense that they tend not to stray from the original. That is not to say that this is a literal translation, but it is more faithful. (<em>So Many Versions?<\/em> p 165)<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JewishTranslations\">Jewish Translations<\/p>\n<p>In the 20th century some very important Jewish translations of the Bible were published. The Jewish Publication Society created a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures called <em>The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text, A New Translation<\/em> (published in 1917). The preface to this translation explains its purpose:<\/p>\n<p>It aims to combine the spirit of Jewish tradition with the results of biblical scholarship, ancient, medieval and modern. It gives to the Jewish world a translation of the Scriptures done by men imbued with the Jewish consciousness, while the non-Jewish world, it is hoped, will welcome a translation that presents many passages from the Jewish traditional point of view.<\/p>\n<p>In 1955 the Jewish Publication Society appointed a new committee of seven eminent Jewish scholars to make a new Jewish translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. The translation called the New Jewish Version was published in 1962. A second, improved edition was published in 1973. This work is not a revision of <em>The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text;<\/em> it is a completely new translation in modern English. The translators attempted to produce a version that would carry the same message to modern man as the original did to the world of ancient times.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"RevisionsoftheLate20thCentury\">Revisions of the Late 20th Century<\/p>\n<p>In the 1980s several significant revisions appeared: The New King James Version (1982); <em>The New Jerusalem Bible<\/em> (1986); <em>The New American Bible,<\/em> revised NT (1986); and The Revised English Bible (1989), which is a radical revision of <em>The New English Bible.<\/em> Other translations, such as the New International Version and Today’s English Version, were also revised in the 1980s but not publicized as such. Two other important revisions in the late 1980s and1990s are the New Revised Standard Version and the New Living Translation.<\/p>\n<p>One reason for this continual influx of new revisions and translations is the ever-changing consensus regarding the original text of the Bible. Most contemporary translators of the OT use the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible because it is generally considered the most authoritative standard text of the OT. At the same time, they make use of the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls and a few other important versions, including the Septuagint. The Masoretic Text, with up-to-date textual notes, is published in an edition called <em>Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia<\/em> (1967, 1977).<\/p>\n<p>Most translators of the NT use two standard editions of the Greek NT, which are the <em>Greek New Testament<\/em> published by the United Bible Societies (fourth revised edition, 1993) and <em>Novum Testamentum Graece,<\/em> edited by Nestle and Aland (27th edition, 1993). These two volumes, which have the same text but differ in punctuation and textual notes, represent the latest in modern textual scholarship.<\/p>\n<p>Most contemporary translators and revisers also make it their goal to reflect the changes that have occurred in the English language. One of the most obvious recent changes has been in the area of gender-inclusive language. Today’s English readers have come to expect that translations will not employ unnecessarily male-dominant language. This creates problems for modern translators of the ancient biblical text, which was originally written in a male-oriented culture. Modern translators must respect both the ancient milieu and the modern audience. Often the original language itself allows a rendering that is gender-inclusive. For example, the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">anthropos<\/span><em>,<\/em> traditionally rendered “man,” really means “human being” or “person.” (A different Greek word, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">aner<\/span><em>,<\/em> specifically refers to a male.) Likewise, in Hebrew the word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">’adam<\/span><em>,<\/em> traditionally translated “man,” usually means “human being,” while <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">’ish<\/span> specifically designates an adult male. There are other occasions where the original language is male-oriented primarily because there is no neutral gender to be used. In these cases, the biblical writers defaulted to the masculine gender. For example, in the Pentateuch most of the laws are stated in language that is replete with masculine pronouns. Since it is clear that the recipients of these laws were both males and females, however, many translators generally use gender-neutral language.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheNewKingJamesVersion\">The New King James Version<\/p>\n<p>The New King James Version (<span>nkjv<\/span>), published in 1982, is a revision of the King James Version, which is itself a literal translation. As such, the New King James Version follows the historic precedent of the Authorized Version in maintaining a literal approach to translation. The revisers have called this method of translation “complete equivalence.” This means that the revisers sought to provide a complete representation of all the information in the original text with respect to the history of usage and etymology of words in their contexts.<\/p>\n<p>The most distinctive feature of the <span>nkjv<\/span> is its underlying original text. The revisers of the <span>nkjv<\/span> NT have chosen to use the Textus Receptus rather than modern critical editions, including the Majority Text and the Nestle-Aland text. By way of concession, they have footnoted any significant textual variation from the Majority Text and modern critical editions. The Majority Text, which is the text supported by the majority of all known NT manuscripts, hardly differs from the Textus Receptus; thus, there are few significant differences noted. There are well over a thousand differences footnoted regarding the Nestle-Aland\/United Bible Societies’ text. This means that there are at least that many significant differences between the Textus Receptus and these modern critical editions.<\/p>\n<p>Though exhibiting an antiquated text, the language of the <span>nkjv<\/span> is modern. All the Elizabethan English of the original King James Version has been replaced with contemporary American English. Though much of the sentence structure of the <span>nkjv<\/span> is still dated and stilted, contemporary readers who favor the spirit of the King James Version but can’t understand much of its archaic language will appreciate this revision.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRevisedEnglishBible\">The Revised English Bible<\/p>\n<p>The Revised English Bible (1989) is a revision of <em>The New English Bible<\/em> (<span>neb<\/span>), which was published in 1971. Because the <span>neb<\/span> gained such popularity in British churches and was being regularly used for public reading, several British churches decided there should be a revision of the <span>neb<\/span> to keep the language current and the text up-to-date with modern biblical scholarship.<\/p>\n<p>For the OT, the revisers used the Masoretic Text as it appears in <em>Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia<\/em> (1967, 1977). They also made use of the Dead Sea Scrolls and a few other important versions, including the Septuagint. The revisers of the NT used Nestle-Aland’s <em>Novum Testamentum Graece<\/em> (27th edition, 1993) as their base text. This choice resulted in several textual changes from <em>The New English Bible<\/em> text, which followed a very eclectic text. The Greek text used by the <span>neb<\/span> was produced by R. V. G. Tasker <em>after<\/em> the English translation had been published. This Greek text was decided upon by the translation committee on a verse-by-verse basis. The resulting Greek text was very uneven and yet very interesting. The translators of the <span>neb<\/span> adopted readings never before put into print by English translators. The scholars working on The Revised English Bible eliminated many of these readings, however, in the interest of providing a more balanced text.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewRevisedStandardVersion\">New Revised Standard Version<\/p>\n<p>The New Revised Standard Version (<span>nrsv<\/span>), published in 1989, is an excellent example of the current trend to publish revisions rather than new translations. In the preface to this revision, Bruce Metzger, chair of the original revision committee, wrote:<\/p>\n<p>The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible is an authorized revision of the Revised Standard Version, published in 1952, which was a revision of the American Standard Version, published in 1901, which, in turn, embodied earlier revisions of the King James Version, published in 1611.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The need for issuing a revision of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible arises from three circumstances: (a) the acquisition of still older Biblical manuscripts, (b) further investigation of linguistic features of the text, and (c) changes in preferred English usage.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Metzger’s three reasons for producing the New Revised Standard Version are essentially the same reasons behind all revisions of Bible translations.<\/p>\n<p>Of all the translations, the <span>nrsv<\/span> most closely follows the text of NA<span>26<\/span>\/UBS<span>3<\/span>. No doubt this is due to Bruce Metzger’s involvement in both editorial committees—a leading member of the NA<span>26<\/span>\/UBS<span>3<\/span> committee and the chair for the <span>nrsv<\/span> committee.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most notable feature of the <span>nrsv<\/span> is its attention to gender-inclusive language. While respecting the historicity of the ancient texts, the <span>nrsv<\/span> translators attempted to make this new revision more palpable to readers who prefer gender-inclusive language. They did this by avoiding unnecessarily masculine renderings wherever possible. For example, in the NT epistles, the believers are referred to with a word that is traditionally rendered “brothers” <em>(<\/em><span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">adelphoi<\/span><em>),<\/em> yet it is clear that these epistles were addressed to all the believers—both male and female. Thus, the <span>nrsv<\/span> translators have used such phrases as “brothers and sisters” or “friends” (always with a footnote saying “Greek, brothers”) in order to represent the historical situation while remaining sensitive to modern readers.<\/p>\n<p>Metzger and the other translators were careful, however, not to overemphasize the gender-inclusiveness principle. Some readers had been hoping for a more radical revision regarding gender-inclusiveness. Many of these readers were hoping that the revision would incorporate this principle with language about God, changing phrases such as “God our father” to “God our parent.” But the <span>nrsv<\/span> revisers, under the leadership of Metzger, decided against this approach, considering it an inaccurate reflection of the original text’s intended meaning.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewLivingTranslation\">New Living Translation<\/p>\n<p>With over 40 million copies in print, <em>The Living Bible<\/em> has been a very popular version of the Bible for more than 30 years. But various criticisms spurred the translator of <em>The Living Bible,<\/em> Kenneth Taylor, to produce a revision of his paraphrase. Under the sponsorship of Tyndale House Publishers, Taylor’s company, <em>The Living Bible<\/em> underwent a thorough revision. More than 90 evangelical scholars from various theological backgrounds and denominations worked for seven years to produce the New Living Translation (<span>nlt<\/span>). As a result, the <span>nlt<\/span> is a version that is exegetically accurate and idiomatically powerful.<\/p>\n<p>The scholars carefully revised the text of <em>The Living Bible<\/em> according to the most reliable editions of the Hebrew and Greek texts. For the OT, the revisers used the Masoretic Text as it appears in <em>Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia<\/em> (1967, 1977). They also made use of the Dead Sea Scrolls and a few other important versions, including the Septuagint. The revisers of the NT used the text of NA<span>27<\/span>\/UBS<span>4<\/span> as their base text.<\/p>\n<p>The translation method behind the <span>nlt<\/span> has been described as “dynamic equivalence” or “functional equivalence.” The goal of this kind of translation is to produce in English the closest natural equivalent of the message of the Hebrew and Greek texts—both in meaning and in style. Such a translation should attempt to have the same impact upon modern readers as the original had upon its audience. To translate the Bible in this manner requires that the text be interpreted accurately and then rendered in understandable, current English. In doing this, the translators attempted to enter into the same thought pattern as the author and present the same idea, connotation, and effect in the receptor language. To guard against personal subjectivism and insure accuracy of message, the <span>nlt<\/span> was produced by a large group of scholars who were each well studied in his or her particular area. To ensure that the translation would be extremely readable and understandable, a group of stylists adjusted the wording to make it clear and fluent.<\/p>\n<p>A thought-for-thought translation created by a group of capable scholars has the potential to represent the intended meaning of the original text even more accurately than a word-for-word translation. This is illustrated by the various renderings of the Hebrew word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hesed<\/span><em>.<\/em> This term cannot be adequately translated by any single English word because it can connote love, mercy, grace, kindness, faithfulness, and loyalty. The context—not the lexicon—must determine which English term is selected for translation.<\/p>\n<p>The value of a thought-for-thought translation can be illustrated by comparing 1 Kings 2:10 in the King James Version, the New International Version, and the New Living Translation. “So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David” (<span>kjv<\/span>). “Then David rested with his fathers and was buried in the City of David” (<span>niv<\/span>). “Then David died and was buried in the City of David” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Only the New Living Translation clearly translates the intended meaning of the Hebrew idiom “slept with his fathers” into contemporary English (from the introduction to the New Living Translation).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BIBLE*, V<span>ersions of the (English)<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Translations of the Bible in the English language.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>Versions Discussed Below:<\/p>\n<p>• Early Translations: Caedmon’s, Bede’s, Alfred the Great’s<\/p>\n<p>• Other Early Versions: Lindisfarne Gospels, Shoreham’s Psalms, Rolle’s Psalms<\/p>\n<p>• Wycliffe’s Version<\/p>\n<p>• Tyndale’s Translation<\/p>\n<p>• Coverdale’s Version<\/p>\n<p>• Thomas Matthew’s Version: The Great Bible<\/p>\n<p>• The Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible<\/p>\n<p>• The King James Version<\/p>\n<p>• The English Revised Version and the American Standard Version<\/p>\n<p>• The Twentieth Century New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• <em>The New Testament in Modern Speech<\/em><\/p>\n<p>• <em>The New Testament: A New Translation<\/em><\/p>\n<p>• <em>The Complete Bible: An American Translation<\/em><\/p>\n<p>• The Revised Standard Version<\/p>\n<p>• The <em>New English Bible<\/em><\/p>\n<p>• The <em>Good News Bible:<\/em> Today’s English Version<\/p>\n<p>• <em>The Living Bible<\/em><\/p>\n<p>• The <em>New American Standard Bible<\/em><\/p>\n<p>• The New International Version<\/p>\n<p>• <em>The Jerusalem Bible<\/em> and <em>The New American Bible<\/em><\/p>\n<p>• <em>The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text, A New Translation<\/em><\/p>\n<p>• The New King James Version<\/p>\n<p>• The Revised English Bible<\/p>\n<p>• New Revised Standard Version<\/p>\n<p>• New Living Translation<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"EarlyTranslationsCaedmonsBedesAlfredtheGreats\">Early Translations: Caedmon’s, Bede’s, Alfred the Great’s<\/p>\n<p>As the gospel spread and churches multiplied in the early centuries of the Christian era, Christians in various countries wanted to read the Bible in their own language. As a result, many translations were made in several different languages—as early as the second century. For example, there were translations done in Coptic for the Egyptians, in Syriac for those whose language was Aramaic, in Gothic for the Germanic people called the Goths, and in Latin for the Romans and Carthaginians. The most famous Latin translation was done by Jerome around 400. This translation, known as the Latin Vulgate (<em>vulgate<\/em> meaning “common”—hence, the Latin text for the common man), was used extensively in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries and centuries.<\/p>\n<p>The gospel was brought to England by missionaries from Rome in the sixth century. The Bible they carried with them was the Latin Vulgate. The Christians living in England at that time depended on monks for any kind of instruction from the Bible. The monks read and taught the Latin Bible. After a few centuries, when more monasteries were founded, the need arose for translations of the Bible in English. The earliest English translation, as far as we know, is one done by a seventh-century monk named Caedmon, who made a metrical version of parts of the Old and New Testaments. Another English churchman, named Bede, is said to have translated the Gospels into English. Tradition has it that he was translating the Gospel of John on his deathbed in 735. Another translator was Alfred the Great (reigned 871–99), who was regarded as a very literate king. He included in his laws parts of the Ten Commandments translated into English, and he also translated the Psalms.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OtherEarlyVersionsLindisfarneGospelsShorehamsPsalmsRollesPsalms\">Other Early Versions: Lindisfarne Gospels, Shoreham’s Psalms, Rolle’s Psalms<\/p>\n<p>All translations of the English Bible prior to the work of Tyndale (discussed later) were done from the Latin text. Some Latin versions of the Gospels with word-for-word English translations written between the lines, which are called interlinear translations, survive from the 10th century. The most famous translation of this period is called the Lindisfarne Gospels (950). In the late 10th century, Aelfric (c. 955–1020), abbot of Eynsham, made idiomatic translations of various parts of the Bible. Two of these translations still exist. Later, in the 1300s, William of Shoreham translated the Psalms into English and so did Richard Rolle, whose editions of the Psalms included a verse-by-verse commentary. Both of these translations, which were metrical and therefore called Psalters, were popular when John Wycliffe was a young man.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WycliffesVersion\">Wycliffe’s Version<\/p>\n<p>John Wycliffe (c. 1329–84), the most eminent Oxford theologian of his day, and his associates were the first to translate the entire Bible from Latin into English. Wycliffe has been called the “Morning Star of the Reformation” because he boldly questioned papal authority, criticized the sale of indulgences (which were supposed to release a person from punishment in purgatory), denied the reality of transubstantiation (the doctrine that the bread and wine are changed into Jesus Christ’s body and blood during Communion), and spoke out against church hierarchies. The pope reproved Wycliffe for his “heretical” teachings and asked that Oxford University dismiss him. But Oxford and many government leaders stood with Wycliffe, so he was able to survive the pope’s assaults.<\/p>\n<p>Wycliffe believed that the way to prevail in his struggle with the church’s abusive authority was to make the Bible available to the people in their own language. Then they could read for themselves about how each one of them could have a personal relationship with God through Christ Jesus—apart from any ecclesiastical authority. Wycliffe, with his associates, completed the NT around 1380 and the OT in 1382. Wycliffe concentrated his labors on the NT, while an associate, Nicholas of Hereford, did a major part of the OT. Wycliffe and his coworkers, unfamiliar with the original Hebrew and Greek, translated the Latin text into English.<\/p>\n<p>After Wycliffe finished the translation work, he organized a group of poor parishioners, known as Lollards, to go throughout England preaching Christian truths and reading the Scriptures in their mother tongue to all who would hear God’s Word. As a result the Word of God, through Wycliffe’s translation, became available to many Englishmen. He was loved and yet hated. His ecclesiastical enemies did not forget his opposition to their power or his successful efforts in making the Scriptures available to all. Several decades after he died, they condemned him for heresy, dug up his body, burned it, and threw his ashes into the Swift River.<\/p>\n<p>One of Wycliffe’s close associates, John Purvey (c. 1353–1428), continued Wycliffe’s work by producing a revision of his translation in 1388. Purvey was an excellent scholar; his work was very well received by his generation and following generations. Within less than a century, Purvey’s revision had replaced the original Wycliffe Bible.<\/p>\n<p>As was stated before, Wycliffe and his associates were the first Englishmen to translate the entire Bible into English from Latin. Therefore, their Bible was a translation of a translation, not a translation of the original languages. With the coming of the Renaissance came the resurgence of the study of the classics—and with it the resurgence of the study of Greek as well as Hebrew. Thus, for the first time in nearly 1,000 years (500–1500—the approximate time when Latin was the dominant language for scholarship, except in the Greek church) scholars began to read the NT in its original language, Greek. By 1500, Greek was being taught at Oxford.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TyndalesTranslation\">Tyndale’s Translation<\/p>\n<p>William Tyndale was born in the age of the Renaissance. He graduated in 1515 from Oxford, where he had studied the Scriptures in Greek and in Hebrew. By the time he was 30, Tyndale had committed his life to translating the Bible from the original languages into English. His heart’s desire is exemplified in a statement he made to a clergyman when refuting the view that only the clergy were qualified to read and correctly interpret the Scriptures. Tyndale said, “If God spare my life, ere many years, I will cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more of the Scripture than thou dost.”<\/p>\n<p>In 1523 Tyndale went to London seeking a place to work on his translation. When the bishop of London would not give him hospitality, he was provided a place by Humphrey Monmouth, a cloth merchant. Then, in 1524, Tyndale left England for Germany because the English church, which was still under the papal authority of Rome, strongly opposed putting the Bible into the hands of the laity. Tyndale first settled in Hamburg, Germany. Quite possibly, he met Luther in Wittenberg soon thereafter. Even if he didn’t meet Luther, he was well acquainted with Luther’s writings and Luther’s German translation of the NT (published in 1522). Throughout his lifetime, Tyndale was harassed for propagating Luther’s ideas. Both Luther and Tyndale used the same Greek text (one compiled by Erasmus in 1516) in making their translations.<\/p>\n<p>Tyndale completed his translation of the NT in 1525. Fifteen thousand copies, in six editions, were smuggled into England between the years 1525 and 1530. Church authorities did their best to confiscate copies of Tyndale’s translation and burn them, but they couldn’t stop the flow of Bibles from Germany into England. Tyndale himself could not return to England because his life was in danger since his translation had been banned. However, he continued to work abroad—correcting, revising, and reissuing his translation until his final revision appeared in 1535. Shortly thereafter, in May of 1535, Tyndale was arrested and carried off to a castle near Brussels. After being in prison for over a year, he was tried and condemned to death. He was strangled and burned at the stake on October 6, 1536. His final words were so very poignant: “Lord, open the king of England’s eyes.”<\/p>\n<p>After finishing the NT, Tyndale had begun work on a translation of the Hebrew OT, but he did not live long enough to complete his task. He had, however, translated the Pentateuch (the first five books of the OT), Jonah, and some historical books. While Tyndale was in prison, an associate of his named Miles Coverdale (1488–1569) brought to completion an entire Bible in English—based largely on Tyndale’s translation of the NT and other OT books. In other words, Coverdale finished what Tyndale had begun.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CoverdalesVersion\">Coverdale’s Version<\/p>\n<p>Miles Coverdale was a Cambridge graduate who, like Tyndale, was forced to flee England because he had been strongly influenced by Luther to the extent that he was boldly preaching against Roman Catholic doctrine. While he was abroad, Coverdale met Tyndale and then served as an assistant—especially helping Tyndale translate the Pentateuch. By the time Coverdale produced a complete translation (1537), the king of England, Henry VIII, had broken all ties with the pope and was ready to see the appearance of an English Bible. Perhaps Tyndale’s prayer had been answered—with a very ironic twist. The king gave his royal approval to Coverdale’s translation, which was based on the work done by Tyndale, the man Henry VIII had earlier condemned.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThomasMatthewsVersionTheGreatBible\">Thomas Matthew’s Version: The Great Bible<\/p>\n<p>In the same year that Coverdale’s Bible was endorsed by the king (1537), another Bible was published in England. This was the work of one called Thomas Matthew, a pseudonym for John Rogers (c. 1500–55), a friend of Tyndale. Evidently, Rogers used Tyndale’s unpublished translation of the OT historical books, other parts of Tyndale’s translation, and still other parts of Coverdale’s translation, to form an entire Bible. This Bible also received the king’s approval. Matthew’s Bible was revised in 1538 and printed for distribution in the churches throughout England. This Bible, called the Great Bible because of its size and costliness, became the first English Bible authorized for public use.<\/p>\n<p>Many editions of the Great Bible were printed in the early 1540s. However, its distribution was limited. Furthermore, King Henry’s attitude about the new translation changed. As a result, the English Parliament passed a law in 1543 restricting the use of any English translation. It was a crime for any unlicensed person to read or explain the Scriptures in public. Many copies of Tyndale’s NT and Coverdale’s Bible were burned in London.<\/p>\n<p>Greater repression was to follow. After a short period of leniency (during the reign of Edward VI, 1547–53), severe persecution came from the hands of Queen Mary. She was a Roman Catholic who was determined to restore Catholicism to England and repress Protestantism. Many Protestants were executed, including John Rogers, the Bible translator. Coverdale was arrested, then released. He fled to Geneva, a sanctuary for English Protestants.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheGenevaBibleandtheBishopsBible\">The Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible<\/p>\n<p>The English exiles in Geneva chose William Whittingham (c. 1524–79) to make an English translation of the NT for them. He used Theodore Beza’s Latin translation and consulted the Greek text. This Bible became very popular because it was small and moderately priced. The preface to the Bible and its many annotations were affected by a strong evangelical influence, as well as by the teachings of John Calvin. Calvin was one of the greatest thinkers of the Reformation, a renowned biblical commentator, and the principal leader in Geneva during those days.<\/p>\n<p>While the Geneva Bible was popular among many English men and women, it was not acceptable among many leaders in the Church of England because of its Calvinistic notes. These leaders, recognizing that the Great Bible was inferior to the Geneva Bible in style and scholarship, initiated a revision of the Great Bible. This revised Bible, published in 1568, became known as the Bishops’ Bible; it continued in use until it was superseded by the King James Version of 1611.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheKingJamesVersion\">The King James Version<\/p>\n<p>After James VI of Scotland became the king of England (known as James I), he invited several clergymen from Puritan and Anglican factions to meet together with the hope that differences could be reconciled. The meeting did not achieve this. However, during the meeting one of the Puritan leaders, John Reynolds, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, asked the king to authorize a new translation because he wanted to see a translation that was more accurate than previous translations. King James liked this idea because the Bishops’ Bible had not been successful and because he considered the notes in the Geneva Bible to be seditious. The king initiated the work and took an active part in planning the new translation. He suggested that university professors work on the translation to assure the best scholarship, and he strongly urged that they should not have any marginal notes besides those pertaining to literal renderings from the Hebrew and Greek. The absence of interpretive notes would help the translation be accepted by all the churches in England.<\/p>\n<p>More than 50 scholars, trained in Hebrew and Greek, began the work in 1607. The translation went through several committees before it was finalized. The scholars were instructed to follow the Bishops’ Bible as the basic version, as long as it adhered to the original text, and to consult the translations of Tyndale, Matthew, and Coverdale, as well as the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible when they appeared to contain more accurate renderings of the original languages. This dependence on other versions is expressed in the preface to the King James Version: “Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one . . . but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one.”<\/p>\n<p>The King James Version, known in England as the Authorized Version because it was authorized by the king, captured the best of all the preceding English translations and far exceeded all of them. It was the culmination of all the previous English Bible translations; it united high scholarship with Christian devotion and piety. It came into being at a time when the English language was vigorous and beautiful—the age of Elizabethan English and Shakesperean English. This version has justifiably been called “the noblest monument of English prose.” Indeed, the King James Version has become an enduring monument of English prose because of its gracious style, majestic language, and poetic rhythms. No other book has had such a tremendous influence on English literature, and no other translation has touched the lives of so many English-speaking people for centuries and centuries, even until the present day.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"The18thand19thCenturiesNewDiscoveriesofEarlierManuscriptsandIncreasedKnowledgeoftheOriginalLanguages\">The 18th and 19th Centuries: New Discoveries of Earlier Manuscripts and Increased Knowledge of the Original Languages<\/p>\n<p>The King James Version became the most popular English translation in the 17th and 18th centuries. It acquired the stature of becoming the standard English Bible. But the King James Version had deficiencies that did not go unnoticed by certain scholars. First, knowledge of Hebrew was inadequate in the early 17th century. The Hebrew text they used (i.e., the Masoretic Text) was adequate, but their understanding of the Hebrew vocabulary was insufficient. It would take many more years of linguistic studies to enrich and sharpen understanding of the Hebrew vocabulary. Second, the Greek text underlying the NT of the King James Version was an inferior text. The King James translators basically used a Greek text known as the Textus Receptus (or, the “Received Text”), which came from the work of Erasmus, who compiled the first Greek text to be produced on a printing press. When Erasmus compiled this text, he used five or six very late manuscripts dating from the 10th to the 13th centuries. These manuscripts were far inferior to earlier manuscripts.<\/p>\n<p>The King James translators had done well with the resources that were available to them, but those resources were insufficient, especially with respect to the NT text. After the King James Version was published, earlier and better manuscripts were discovered. Around 1630, Codex Alexandrinus was brought to England. A fifth-century manuscript containing the entire NT, it provided a fairly good witness to the NT text, especially the original text of Revelation. Two hundred years later, a German scholar named Constantin von Tischendorf discovered Codex Sinaiticus in St Catherine’s Monastery. The manuscript, dated around <span>AD<\/span> 350, is one of the two oldest manuscripts of the Greek NT. The earliest manuscript, Codex Vaticanus, had been in the Vatican’s library since at least 1475, but it was not made available to scholars until the middle of the 19th century. This manuscript, dated slightly earlier (<span>AD<\/span> 325) than Codex Sinaiticus, is one of the most reliable copies of the Greek NT.<\/p>\n<p>As these manuscripts (and others) were discovered and made public, certain scholars labored to compile a Greek text that would more closely represent the original text than did the Textus Receptus. Around 1700 John Mill produced an improved Textus Receptus, and in the 1730s Johannes Albert Bengel, known as the father of modern textual and philological studies in the NT, published a text that deviated from the Textus Receptus according to the evidence of earlier manuscripts.<\/p>\n<p>In the 1800s certain scholars began to abandon the Textus Receptus. Karl Lachman, a classical philologist, produced a fresh text in 1831 that represented the fourth-century manuscripts. Samuel Tregelles, self-taught in Latin, Hebrew, and Greek, laboring throughout his entire lifetime, concentrated all of his efforts in publishing one Greek text, which came out in six parts, from 1857 to 1872. Tischendorf devoted a lifetime of labor to discovering manuscripts and producing accurate editions of the Greek NT. He not only discovered Codex Sinaiticus, he also deciphered the palimpsest Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, collated countless manuscripts, and produced several editions of the Greek NT (the eighth edition is considered the best). Aided by the work of these scholars, two British men, Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort, worked together for 28 years to produce a volume entitled <em>The New Testament in the Original Greek<\/em> (1881). This edition of the Greek NT, based largely on Codex Vaticanus, became the standard text that was responsible for dethroning the Textus Receptus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheEnglishRevisedVersionandtheAmericanStandardVersion\">The English Revised Version and the American Standard Version<\/p>\n<p>By the latter part of the 19th century, the Christian community had been given three very good Greek NT texts: Tregelles’s, Tischendorf’s, and Westcott and Hort’s. These texts were very different from the Textus Receptus. And as was mentioned earlier, the scholarly community had accumulated more knowledge about the meaning of various Hebrew words and Greek words. Therefore, there was a great need for a new English translation based upon a better text—and with more accurate renderings of the original languages.<\/p>\n<p>A few individuals attempted to meet this need. In 1871 John Nelson Darby, leader of the Plymouth Brethren movement, produced a translation called the <em>New Translation,<\/em> which was largely based on Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. In 1872 J. B. Rotherham published a translation of Tregelles’s text, in which he attempted to reflect the emphasis inherent in the Greek text. This translation is still being published under the title <em>The Emphasized Bible.<\/em> And in 1875 Samuel Davidson produced a NT translation of Tischendorf’s text.<\/p>\n<p>The first major corporate effort was initiated in 1870 by the Convocation of Canterbury, which decided to sponsor a major revision of the King James Version. Sixty-five British scholars, working in various committees, made significant changes in the King James Version. The OT scholars corrected mistranslations of Hebrew words and reformatted poetic passages into poetic form. The NT scholars made thousands of changes based upon better textual evidence. Their goal was to make the NT revision reflect not the Textus Receptus but the texts of Tregelles, Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort. When the complete Revised Version appeared in 1885, it was received with great enthusiasm. Over three million copies sold in the first year of its publication. Unfortunately, its popularity was not long lasting because most people continued to prefer the King James Version over all other translations.<\/p>\n<p>Several American scholars had been invited to join the revision work, with the understanding that any of their suggestions not accepted by the British scholars would appear in an appendix. Furthermore, the American scholars had to agree not to publish their own American revision until after 14 years. When the time came (1901), the American Standard Version was published by several surviving members of the original American committee. This translation, generally regarded as superior to the English Revised Version, is an accurate, literal rendering of very trustworthy texts both in the OT and the New.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"The20thCenturyNewDiscoveriesandNewTranslations\">The 20th Century: New Discoveries and New Translations<\/p>\n<p>The 19th century was a fruitful era for the Greek NT and subsequent English translations; it was also a century in which Hebrew studies were greatly advanced. The 20th century has also been fruitful—especially for textual studies. Those living in the 20th century have witnessed the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, the Chester Beatty Papyri, and the Bodmer Papyri. These amazing discoveries, providing scholars with hundreds of ancient manuscripts, have greatly enhanced the effort to recover the original wording of the Old and New Testaments. At the same time, other archaeological discoveries have validated the historical accuracy of the Bible and helped Bible scholars understand the meaning of certain ancient words. For example, the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">parousia<\/span> (usually translated “coming”) was found in many ancient documents dated around the time of Christ; very often the word indicated the visitation of royalty. When this word was used in the NT concerning Christ’s second coming, the readers would think of his coming as being the visitation of a king. Another example is that in koine Greek, the expression <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">entos humon<\/span> (literally, “inside of you”) often meant “within reach.” Thus, Jesus’ statement in Luke 17:21 could mean “The kingdom is within reach.”<\/p>\n<p>As earlier and better manuscripts of the Bible have emerged, scholars have been engaged in updating the Bible texts. OT scholars have still used the Masoretic Text but have noted significant differences found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The current edition used by OT scholars is called <em>Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.<\/em> NT scholars, for the most part, have come to rely upon an edition of the Greek NT known as the Nestle-Aland text. Eberhard Nestle used the best editions of the Greek NT produced in the 19th century to compile a text that represented the majority consensus. The work of making new editions was carried on by his son for several years and then came under the care of Kurt Aland. The latest edition (the 27th) of Nestle-Aland’s <em>Novum Testamentum Graece<\/em> appeared in 1993. The same Greek text appears in another popular volume published by the United Bible Societies, called the <em>Greek New Testament<\/em> (fourth edition—1983).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Early20th-CenturyTranslationsintheLanguageofthePeople\">Early 20th-Century Translations in the Language of the People<\/p>\n<p>The thousands and thousands of papyri that were discovered in Egypt around the turn of the century displayed a form of Greek called koine Greek. Koine (meaning “common”) Greek was everyman’s Greek; it was the common language of almost everybody living in the Graeco-Roman world from the second century <span>BC<\/span> to the third century <span>AD<\/span>. In other words, it was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> of the Mediterranean world. Every educated person back then could speak, read, and write in Greek just like every educated person in modern times can speak a little English, read some English, and perhaps write in English. Koine Greek was not literary Greek (i.e., the kind of Greek written by the Greek poets and tragedians); it was the kind of Greek used in personal letters, legal documents, and other nonliterary texts.<\/p>\n<p>NT scholars began to discover that most of the NT was written in koine Greek—the language of the people. As a result, there was a strong prompting to translate the NT into the language of the people. Various translators chose to divorce themselves from the traditional Elizabethan English as found in the King James Version (and even in the English Revised Version and American Standard Version) and produce fresh renderings in the common idiom.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTwentiethCenturyNewTestament\">The Twentieth Century New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The first of these new translations was <em>The Twentieth Century New Testament<\/em> (1902). The preface to a new edition of this translation provides an excellent description of the work:<\/p>\n<p><em>The Twentieth Century New Testament<\/em> is a smooth-flowing, accurate, easy-to-read translation that captivates its readers from start to finish. Born out of a desire to make the Bible readable and understandable, it is the product of the labors of a committee of twenty men and women who worked together over many years to construct, we believe under divine surveillance, this beautifully simple rendition of the word of God. (Preface to the new edition—1961—published by Moody Press)<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheNewTestamentinModernSpeech\"><em>The New Testament in Modern Speech<\/em><\/p>\n<p>A year after the publication of <em>The Twentieth Century New Testament,<\/em> Richard Weymouth published <em>The New Testament in Modern Speech<\/em> (1903). Weymouth, who had received the first doctor of literature degree from the University of London, was headmaster of a private school in London. During his life, he spent time producing an edition of the Greek text (published in 1862) that was more accurate than the Textus Receptus, and then he labored to produce an English translation of this Greek text (called <em>The Resultant Greek Testament<\/em>) in a modern speech version. His translation was very well received; it has gone through several editions and many printings.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheNewTestamentANewTranslation\"><em>The New Testament: A New Translation<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Another new and fresh translation to appear in the early years of this century was one written by James Moffatt, a brilliant Scottish scholar. In 1913 he published his first edition of <em>The New Testament: A New Translation.<\/em> This was actually his second translation of the NT; his first was done in 1901, called <em>The Historical New Testament.<\/em> In his <em>New Translation<\/em> Moffatt’s goal was “to translate the NT exactly as one would render any piece of contemporary Hellenistic prose.” His work displays brilliance and marked independence from other versions; unfortunately it was based on Hermann von Soden’s Greek NT, which, as all scholars now know, is quite defective.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCompleteBibleAnAmericanTranslation\"><em>The Complete Bible: An American Translation<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The earliest American modern speech translation was produced by Edgar J. Goodspeed, a professor of NT at the University of Chicago. He had criticized <em>The Twentieth Century New Testament,<\/em> Weymouth’s version, and Moffatt’s translation. As a consequence, he was challenged by some other scholars to do better. He took up the challenge and in 1923 published <em>The New Testament: An American Translation.<\/em> When he made this translation, he said that he wanted to give his “version something of the force and freshness that reside in the original Greek.” He said, “I wanted my translation to make on the reader something of the impression the NT must have made on its earliest readers, and to invite the continuous reading of the whole book at a time.” His translation was a success. An OT translation followed, produced by J. M. Powis Smith and three other scholars. <em>The Complete Bible: An American Translation<\/em> was published in 1935.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRevisedStandardVersion\">The Revised Standard Version<\/p>\n<p>The English Revised Version and the American Standard Version had gained a reputation of being accurate study texts but very “wooden” in their construction. The translators who worked on the Revised Versions attempted to translate words consistently from the original language regardless of their context and sometimes even followed the word order of the Greek. This created a very unidiomatic version and called for a new revision.<\/p>\n<p>The demand for revision was strengthened by the fact that several important biblical manuscripts had been discovered in the 1930s and 1940s—namely, the Dead Sea Scrolls for the OT and the Chester Beatty Papyri for the NT. It was felt that the fresh evidence displayed in these documents should be reflected in a revision. The revision showed some textual changes in the book of Isaiah due to the Isaiah Scroll and several changes in the Pauline Epistles based on the Chester Beatty Papyrus, P46. There were other significant revisions. The story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:52–8:11) was not included in the text but in the margin because none of the early manuscripts contain this story, and the ending to Mark (16:9-20) was not included in the text because it is not found in the two earliest manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.<\/p>\n<p>The organization that held the copyright to the American Standard Version, called the International Council of Religious Education, authorized a new revision in 1937. The NT translators generally followed the 17th edition of the Nestle Text (1941), while the OT translators followed the Masoretic Text. Both groups, however, adopted readings from other ancient sources when they were considered to be more accurate. The NT was published in 1946, and the entire Bible with the OT in 1952.<\/p>\n<p>The principles of the revision were specified in the preface to the Revised Standard Version:<\/p>\n<p>The Revised Standard Version is not a new translation in the language of today. It is not a paraphrase which aims at striking idioms. It is a revision which seeks to preserve all that is best in the English Bible as it has been known and used throughout the years.<\/p>\n<p>This revision was well received by many Protestant churches and soon became their “standard” text. The Revised Standard Version was later published with the Apocrypha of the OT (1957), in a Catholic Edition (1965), and in what is called the <em>Common Bible,<\/em> which includes the OT, the NT, the Apocrypha, and the deuterocanonical books, with international endorsements by Protestants, Greek Orthodox, and Roman Catholics. Evangelical and fundamental Christians, however, did not receive the Revised Standard Version very well—primarily because of one verse, Isaiah 7:14, which reads, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.” Evangelicals and fundamentalists contend that the text should read “virgin,” not “young woman.” As a result, the Revised Standard Version was panned, if not banned, by many evangelical and fundamental Christians.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheNewEnglishBible\">The <em>New English Bible<\/em><\/p>\n<p>In the year that the NT of the Revised Standard Version was published (1946), the Church of Scotland proposed to other churches in Great Britain that it was time for a completely new translation of the Bible to be done. Those who initiated this work asked the translators to produce a fresh translation in modern idiom of the original languages; this was not to be a revision of any foregoing translation, nor was it to be a literal translation. The translators, under the direction of C. H. Dodd, were called upon to translate the meaning of the text into modern English. The preface to the NT (published in 1961), written by C. H. Dodd, explains this more fully:<\/p>\n<p>The older translators, on the whole, considered that fidelity to the original demanded that they should reproduce, as far as possible, characteristic features of the language in which it was written, such as the syntactical order of words, the structure and division of sentences, and even such irregularities of grammar as were indeed natural enough to authors writing in the easy idiom of popular Hellenistic Greek, but less natural when turned into English. The present translators were enjoined to replace Greek constructions and idioms by those of contemporary English.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>This meant a different theory and practice of translation, and one which laid a heavier burden on the translators. Fidelity in translation was not to mean keeping the general framework of the original intact while replacing Greek words by English words more or less equivalent. . . . Thus we have not felt obliged (as did the Revisers of 1881) to make an effort to render the same Greek word everywhere by the same English word. We have in this respect returned to the wholesome practice of King James’s men, who (as they expressly state in their preface) recognized no such obligation. We have conceived our task to be that of understanding the original as precisely as we could (using all available aids), and then saying again in our own native idiom what we believed the author to be saying in his.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The entire <em>New English Bible<\/em> was published in 1970; it was well received in Great Britain and in the United States (even though its idiom is extremely British) and was especially praised for its good literary style. The translators were very experimental, producing renderings never before printed in an English version and adopting certain readings from various Hebrew and Greek manuscripts never before adopted. As a result, <em>The New English Bible<\/em> was both highly praised for its ingenuity and severely criticized for its liberty.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheGoodNewsBibleTodaysEnglishVersion\">The <em>Good News Bible:<\/em> Today’s English Version<\/p>\n<p>The NT in Today’s English Version, also known as <em>Good News for Modern Man<\/em><em>,<\/em> was published by the American Bible Society in 1966. The translation was originally done by Robert Bratcher, a research associate of the translations department of the American Bible Society, and then further refined by the American Bible Society. The translation, heavily promoted by several Bible societies and very affordable, sold more than 35 million copies within six years of the time of printing. The NT translation, based upon the first edition of the <em>Greek New Testament<\/em> (the United Bible Societies, 1966), is an idiomatic version in modern and simple English. The translation was greatly influenced by the linguistic theory of dynamic equivalence and was quite successful in providing English readers with a translation that, for the most part, accurately reflects the meaning of the original texts. This is explained in the preface to the NT:<\/p>\n<p>This translation of the NT has been prepared by the American Bible Society for people who speak English as their mother tongue or as an acquired language. As a distinctly new translation, it does not conform to traditional vocabulary or style, but seeks to express the meaning of the Greek text in words and forms accepted as standard by people everywhere who employ English as a means of communication. Today’s English Version of the NT attempts to follow, in this century, the example set by the authors of the NT books, who, for the most part, wrote in the standard, or common, form of the Greek language used throughout the Roman Empire.<\/p>\n<p>Because of the success of the NT, the American Bible Society was asked by other Bible societies to make an OT translation following the same principles used in the NT. The entire Bible was published in 1976, and is known as the <em>Good News Bible:<\/em> Today’s English Version.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheLivingBible\"><em>The Living Bible<\/em><\/p>\n<p>In 1962 Kenneth Taylor published a paraphrase of the NT epistles in a volume called <em>Living Letters.<\/em> This new dynamic paraphrase, written in common vernacular, became well received and widely acclaimed—especially for its ability to communicate the message of God’s Word to the common man. In the beginning its circulation was greatly enhanced by the endorsement of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, which did much to publicize the book and distributed thousands of free copies. Taylor continued to paraphrase other portions of the Bible and publish successive volumes: <em>Living Prophecies<\/em> (1965), <em>Living Gospels<\/em> (1966), <em>Living Psalms<\/em> (1967), <em>Living Lessons of Life and Love<\/em> (1968), <em>Living Books of Moses<\/em> (1969), and <em>Living History of Moses<\/em> (1970). The entire Living Bible was published in 1971 (the <em>Living New Testament<\/em> was printed in 1966).<\/p>\n<p>Using the American Standard Version as his working text, Taylor rephrased the Bible into modern speech—such that anyone, even a child, could understand the message of the original writers. In the preface to <em>The Living Bible<\/em><em>,<\/em> Taylor explains his view of paraphrasing:<\/p>\n<p>To paraphrase is to say something in different words than the author used. It is a restatement of the author’s thoughts, using different words than he did. This book is a paraphrase of the Old and New Testaments. Its purpose is to say as exactly as possible what the writers of the Scriptures meant, and to say it simply, expanding where necessary for a clear understanding by the modern reader.<\/p>\n<p>Even though many modern readers have greatly appreciated the fact that <em>The Living Bible<\/em> made God’s Word clear to them, Taylor’s paraphrase has been criticized for being too interpretive. But that is the nature of paraphrases—and the danger as well. Taylor was aware of this when he made the paraphrase. Again, the preface clarifies:<\/p>\n<p>There are dangers in paraphrases, as well as values. For whenever the author’s exact words are not translated from the original languages, there is a possibility that the translator, however honest, may be giving the English reader something that the original writer did not mean to say.<\/p>\n<p><em>The Living Bible<\/em> has been very popular among English readers worldwide. More than 40 million copies have been sold by the publishing house Taylor specifically created to publish <em>The Living Bible.<\/em> The company is called Tyndale House Publishers—named after William Tyndale, the father of modern English translations of the Bible.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheNewAmericanStandardBible\">The <em>New American Standard Bible<\/em><\/p>\n<p>There are two modern translations that are both revisions of (or based on) the American Standard Version (1901): the Revised Standard Version (1952) and the <em>New American Standard Bible<\/em> (1971). The Lockman Foundation, a nonprofit Christian corporation committed to evangelism, promoted this revision of the American Standard Version because “the producers of this translation were imbued with the conviction that interest in the American Standard Version 1901 should be renewed and increased” (from the preface). Indeed, the American Standard Version was a monumental work of scholarship and a very accurate translation. However, its popularity was waning, and it was fast disappearing from the scene. Therefore, the Lockman Foundation organized a team of 32 scholars to prepare a new revision. These scholars, all committed to the inspiration of Scripture, strove to produce a literal translation of the Bible in the belief that such a translation “brings the contemporary reader as close as possible to the actual wording and grammatical structure of the original writers” (ibid.).<\/p>\n<p>The translators of the <em>New American Standard Bible<\/em> were instructed by the Lockman Foundation to adhere to the original languages of the Holy Scriptures as closely as possible and at the same time to obtain a fluent and readable style according to current English usage. After the <em>New American Standard Bible<\/em> was published (1963 for the NT and 1971 for the entire Bible), it received a mixed response. Some critics applauded its literal accuracy, while others sharply criticized its language for hardly being contemporary or modern.<\/p>\n<p>On the whole, the <em>New American Standard Bible<\/em> became respected as a good study Bible that accurately reflects the wording of the original languages yet is not a good translation for Bible reading. Furthermore, it must be said that this translation which was originally supposed to follow the 23d edition of the Nestle text, tends to follow the Textus Receptus, especially in its inclusion of passages considered spurious by most modern scholars.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheNewInternationalVersion\">The New International Version<\/p>\n<p>The New International Version is a completely new rendering of the original languages done by an international group of more than 100 scholars. These scholars worked many years and in several committees to produce an excellent thought-for-thought translation in contemporary English for private and public use. The New International Version is called “international” because it was prepared by distinguished scholars from English-speaking countries such as the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, and because the translators sought to use vocabulary common to the major English-speaking nations of the world.<\/p>\n<p>The translators of the New International Version sought to make a version that was midway between a literal rendering (as in the <em>New American Standard Bible<\/em>) and a free paraphrase (as in <em>The Living Bible<\/em>). Their goal was to convey in English the thought of the original writers. This is succinctly explained in the original preface to the NT:<\/p>\n<p>Certain convictions and aims guided the translators. They are all committed to the full authority and complete trustworthiness of the Scriptures. Therefore, their first concern was the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the New Testament writers. While they weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Greek text, they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the New Testament demanded frequent modifications in sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words.<\/p>\n<p>Concern for clarity of style—that it should be idiomatic without being idiosyncratic, contemporary without being dated—also motivated the translators and their consultants. They have consistently aimed at simplicity of expression, with sensitive attention to the connotation and sound of the chosen word. At the same time, they endeavored to avoid a sameness of style in order to reflect the varied styles and moods of the NT writers.<\/p>\n<p>The NT of the New International Version was published in 1973, and the entire Bible in 1978. This version has been phenomenally successful. Millions and millions of readers have adopted the New International Version as their “Bible.” Since 1987 it has outsold the King James Version, the best-seller for centuries—a remarkable indication of its popularity and acceptance in the Christian community. The New International Version, sponsored by the New York Bible Society (now the International Bible Society) and published by Zondervan Publishing House, has become a standard version used for private reading and pulpit reading in many English-speaking countries.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheJerusalemBibleandTheNewAmericanBible\">Two Modern Catholic Translations: <em>The Jerusalem Bible<\/em> and <em>The New American Bible<\/em><\/p>\n<p>In 1943 Pope Pius XII issued the famous encyclical encouraging Roman Catholics to read and study the Scriptures. At the same time, the pope recommended that the Scriptures should be translated from the original languages. Previously, all Catholic translations were based on the Latin Vulgate. This includes Knox’s translation, which was begun in 1939 and published in 1944 (the NT) and in 1955 (the whole Bible).<\/p>\n<p>The first complete Catholic Bible to be translated from the original languages is <em>The Jerusalem Bible,<\/em> published in England in 1966. <em>The Jerusalem Bible<\/em> is the English counterpart to a French translation entitled <em>La Bible de Jerusalem.<\/em> The French translation was “the culmination of decades of research and biblical scholarship” (from the preface to <em>The Jerusalem Bible<\/em>), published by the scholars of the Dominican Biblical School of Jerusalem. This Bible, which includes the Apocrypha and deuterocanonical books, contains many study helps—such as introductions to each book of the Bible, extensive notes on various passages, and maps. The study helps are an intricate part of the whole translation because it is the belief of Roman Catholic leadership that laypeople should be given interpretive helps in their reading of the sacred text. The study helps in <em>The Jerusalem Bible<\/em> were translated from the French, whereas the Bible text itself was translated from the original languages with the help of the French translation. The translation of the text produced under the editorship of Alexander Jones is considerably freer than other translations, such as the Revised Standard Version, because the translators sought to capture the meaning of the original writings in a “vigorous, contemporary literary style” (from the preface to <em>The Jerusalem Bible<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p>The first American Catholic Bible to be translated from the original languages is <em>The New American Bible<\/em> (not to be confused with the <em>New American Standard Bible<\/em>). Although this translation was published in 1970, work had begun on this version several decades before. Prior to Pope Pius’s encyclical, an American translation of the NT based on the Latin Vulgate was published—known as the Confraternity Version. After the encyclical, the OT was translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the NT redone, based on the 25th edition of the Greek Nestle-Aland text. <em>The New American Bible<\/em> has short introductions to each book of the Bible and textual notes. Kubo and Specht provide a just description of the translation itself:<\/p>\n<p>The translation itself is simple, clear, and straightforward and reads very smoothly. It is good American English, not as pungent and colorful as the N.E.B. [New English Bible]. Its translations are not striking but neither are they clumsy. They seem to be more conservative in the sense that they tend not to stray from the original. That is not to say that this is a literal translation, but it is more faithful. (<em>So Many Versions?<\/em> p 165)<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JewishTranslations\">Jewish Translations<\/p>\n<p>In the 20th century some very important Jewish translations of the Bible were published. The Jewish Publication Society created a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures called <em>The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text, A New Translation<\/em> (published in 1917). The preface to this translation explains its purpose:<\/p>\n<p>It aims to combine the spirit of Jewish tradition with the results of biblical scholarship, ancient, medieval and modern. It gives to the Jewish world a translation of the Scriptures done by men imbued with the Jewish consciousness, while the non-Jewish world, it is hoped, will welcome a translation that presents many passages from the Jewish traditional point of view.<\/p>\n<p>In 1955 the Jewish Publication Society appointed a new committee of seven eminent Jewish scholars to make a new Jewish translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. The translation called the New Jewish Version was published in 1962. A second, improved edition was published in 1973. This work is not a revision of <em>The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text;<\/em> it is a completely new translation in modern English. The translators attempted to produce a version that would carry the same message to modern man as the original did to the world of ancient times.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"RevisionsoftheLate20thCentury\">Revisions of the Late 20th Century<\/p>\n<p>In the 1980s several significant revisions appeared: The New King James Version (1982); <em>The New Jerusalem Bible<\/em> (1986); <em>The New American Bible,<\/em> revised NT (1986); and The Revised English Bible (1989), which is a radical revision of <em>The New English Bible.<\/em> Other translations, such as the New International Version and Today’s English Version, were also revised in the 1980s but not publicized as such. Two other important revisions in the late 1980s and1990s are the New Revised Standard Version and the New Living Translation.<\/p>\n<p>One reason for this continual influx of new revisions and translations is the ever-changing consensus regarding the original text of the Bible. Most contemporary translators of the OT use the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible because it is generally considered the most authoritative standard text of the OT. At the same time, they make use of the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls and a few other important versions, including the Septuagint. The Masoretic Text, with up-to-date textual notes, is published in an edition called <em>Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia<\/em> (1967, 1977).<\/p>\n<p>Most translators of the NT use two standard editions of the Greek NT, which are the <em>Greek New Testament<\/em> published by the United Bible Societies (fourth revised edition, 1993) and <em>Novum Testamentum Graece,<\/em> edited by Nestle and Aland (27th edition, 1993). These two volumes, which have the same text but differ in punctuation and textual notes, represent the latest in modern textual scholarship.<\/p>\n<p>Most contemporary translators and revisers also make it their goal to reflect the changes that have occurred in the English language. One of the most obvious recent changes has been in the area of gender-inclusive language. Today’s English readers have come to expect that translations will not employ unnecessarily male-dominant language. This creates problems for modern translators of the ancient biblical text, which was originally written in a male-oriented culture. Modern translators must respect both the ancient milieu and the modern audience. Often the original language itself allows a rendering that is gender-inclusive. For example, the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">anthropos<\/span><em>,<\/em> traditionally rendered “man,” really means “human being” or “person.” (A different Greek word, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">aner<\/span><em>,<\/em> specifically refers to a male.) Likewise, in Hebrew the word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">’adam<\/span><em>,<\/em> traditionally translated “man,” usually means “human being,” while <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">’ish<\/span> specifically designates an adult male. There are other occasions where the original language is male-oriented primarily because there is no neutral gender to be used. In these cases, the biblical writers defaulted to the masculine gender. For example, in the Pentateuch most of the laws are stated in language that is replete with masculine pronouns. Since it is clear that the recipients of these laws were both males and females, however, many translators generally use gender-neutral language.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheNewKingJamesVersion\">The New King James Version<\/p>\n<p>The New King James Version (<span>nkjv<\/span>), published in 1982, is a revision of the King James Version, which is itself a literal translation. As such, the New King James Version follows the historic precedent of the Authorized Version in maintaining a literal approach to translation. The revisers have called this method of translation “complete equivalence.” This means that the revisers sought to provide a complete representation of all the information in the original text with respect to the history of usage and etymology of words in their contexts.<\/p>\n<p>The most distinctive feature of the <span>nkjv<\/span> is its underlying original text. The revisers of the <span>nkjv<\/span> NT have chosen to use the Textus Receptus rather than modern critical editions, including the Majority Text and the Nestle-Aland text. By way of concession, they have footnoted any significant textual variation from the Majority Text and modern critical editions. The Majority Text, which is the text supported by the majority of all known NT manuscripts, hardly differs from the Textus Receptus; thus, there are few significant differences noted. There are well over a thousand differences footnoted regarding the Nestle-Aland\/United Bible Societies’ text. This means that there are at least that many significant differences between the Textus Receptus and these modern critical editions.<\/p>\n<p>Though exhibiting an antiquated text, the language of the <span>nkjv<\/span> is modern. All the Elizabethan English of the original King James Version has been replaced with contemporary American English. Though much of the sentence structure of the <span>nkjv<\/span> is still dated and stilted, contemporary readers who favor the spirit of the King James Version but can’t understand much of its archaic language will appreciate this revision.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRevisedEnglishBible\">The Revised English Bible<\/p>\n<p>The Revised English Bible (1989) is a revision of <em>The New English Bible<\/em> (<span>neb<\/span>), which was published in 1971. Because the <span>neb<\/span> gained such popularity in British churches and was being regularly used for public reading, several British churches decided there should be a revision of the <span>neb<\/span> to keep the language current and the text up-to-date with modern biblical scholarship.<\/p>\n<p>For the OT, the revisers used the Masoretic Text as it appears in <em>Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia<\/em> (1967, 1977). They also made use of the Dead Sea Scrolls and a few other important versions, including the Septuagint. The revisers of the NT used Nestle-Aland’s <em>Novum Testamentum Graece<\/em> (27th edition, 1993) as their base text. This choice resulted in several textual changes from <em>The New English Bible<\/em> text, which followed a very eclectic text. The Greek text used by the <span>neb<\/span> was produced by R. V. G. Tasker <em>after<\/em> the English translation had been published. This Greek text was decided upon by the translation committee on a verse-by-verse basis. The resulting Greek text was very uneven and yet very interesting. The translators of the <span>neb<\/span> adopted readings never before put into print by English translators. The scholars working on The Revised English Bible eliminated many of these readings, however, in the interest of providing a more balanced text.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewRevisedStandardVersion\">New Revised Standard Version<\/p>\n<p>The New Revised Standard Version (<span>nrsv<\/span>), published in 1989, is an excellent example of the current trend to publish revisions rather than new translations. In the preface to this revision, Bruce Metzger, chair of the original revision committee, wrote:<\/p>\n<p>The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible is an authorized revision of the Revised Standard Version, published in 1952, which was a revision of the American Standard Version, published in 1901, which, in turn, embodied earlier revisions of the King James Version, published in 1611.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The need for issuing a revision of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible arises from three circumstances: (a) the acquisition of still older Biblical manuscripts, (b) further investigation of linguistic features of the text, and (c) changes in preferred English usage.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Metzger’s three reasons for producing the New Revised Standard Version are essentially the same reasons behind all revisions of Bible translations.<\/p>\n<p>Of all the translations, the <span>nrsv<\/span> most closely follows the text of NA<span>26<\/span>\/UBS<span>3<\/span>. No doubt this is due to Bruce Metzger’s involvement in both editorial committees—a leading member of the NA<span>26<\/span>\/UBS<span>3<\/span> committee and the chair for the <span>nrsv<\/span> committee.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most notable feature of the <span>nrsv<\/span> is its attention to gender-inclusive language. While respecting the historicity of the ancient texts, the <span>nrsv<\/span> translators attempted to make this new revision more palpable to readers who prefer gender-inclusive language. They did this by avoiding unnecessarily masculine renderings wherever possible. For example, in the NT epistles, the believers are referred to with a word that is traditionally rendered “brothers” <em>(<\/em><span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">adelphoi<\/span><em>),<\/em> yet it is clear that these epistles were addressed to all the believers—both male and female. Thus, the <span>nrsv<\/span> translators have used such phrases as “brothers and sisters” or “friends” (always with a footnote saying “Greek, brothers”) in order to represent the historical situation while remaining sensitive to modern readers.<\/p>\n<p>Metzger and the other translators were careful, however, not to overemphasize the gender-inclusiveness principle. Some readers had been hoping for a more radical revision regarding gender-inclusiveness. Many of these readers were hoping that the revision would incorporate this principle with language about God, changing phrases such as “God our father” to “God our parent.” But the <span>nrsv<\/span> revisers, under the leadership of Metzger, decided against this approach, considering it an inaccurate reflection of the original text’s intended meaning.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewLivingTranslation\">New Living Translation<\/p>\n<p>With over 40 million copies in print, <em>The Living Bible<\/em> has been a very popular version of the Bible for more than 30 years. But various criticisms spurred the translator of <em>The Living Bible,<\/em> Kenneth Taylor, to produce a revision of his paraphrase. Under the sponsorship of Tyndale House Publishers, Taylor’s company, <em>The Living Bible<\/em> underwent a thorough revision. More than 90 evangelical scholars from various theological backgrounds and denominations worked for seven years to produce the New Living Translation (<span>nlt<\/span>). As a result, the <span>nlt<\/span> is a version that is exegetically accurate and idiomatically powerful.<\/p>\n<p>The scholars carefully revised the text of <em>The Living Bible<\/em> according to the most reliable editions of the Hebrew and Greek texts. For the OT, the revisers used the Masoretic Text as it appears in <em>Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia<\/em> (1967, 1977). They also made use of the Dead Sea Scrolls and a few other important versions, including the Septuagint. The revisers of the NT used the text of NA<span>27<\/span>\/UBS<span>4<\/span> as their base text.<\/p>\n<p>The translation method behind the <span>nlt<\/span> has been described as “dynamic equivalence” or “functional equivalence.” The goal of this kind of translation is to produce in English the closest natural equivalent of the message of the Hebrew and Greek texts—both in meaning and in style. Such a translation should attempt to have the same impact upon modern readers as the original had upon its audience. To translate the Bible in this manner requires that the text be interpreted accurately and then rendered in understandable, current English. In doing this, the translators attempted to enter into the same thought pattern as the author and present the same idea, connotation, and effect in the receptor language. To guard against personal subjectivism and insure accuracy of message, the <span>nlt<\/span> was produced by a large group of scholars who were each well studied in his or her particular area. To ensure that the translation would be extremely readable and understandable, a group of stylists adjusted the wording to make it clear and fluent.<\/p>\n<p>A thought-for-thought translation created by a group of capable scholars has the potential to represent the intended meaning of the original text even more accurately than a word-for-word translation. This is illustrated by the various renderings of the Hebrew word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hesed<\/span><em>.<\/em> This term cannot be adequately translated by any single English word because it can connote love, mercy, grace, kindness, faithfulness, and loyalty. The context—not the lexicon—must determine which English term is selected for translation.<\/p>\n<p>The value of a thought-for-thought translation can be illustrated by comparing 1 Kings 2:10 in the King James Version, the New International Version, and the New Living Translation. “So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David” (<span>kjv<\/span>). “Then David rested with his fathers and was buried in the City of David” (<span>niv<\/span>). “Then David died and was buried in the City of David” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Only the New Living Translation clearly translates the intended meaning of the Hebrew idiom “slept with his fathers” into contemporary English (from the introduction to the New Living Translation).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BIBLE*, Versions of the (English) Translations of the Bible in the English language. Preview Versions Discussed Below: • Early Translations: Caedmon’s, Bede’s, Alfred the Great’s • Other Early Versions: Lindisfarne Gospels, Shoreham’s Psalms, Rolle’s Psalms • Wycliffe’s Version • Tyndale’s Translation • Coverdale’s Version • Thomas Matthew’s Version: The Great Bible • The Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible • The King James Version • The English Revised Version and the American Standard Versi...","summary_en":"BIBLE*, Versions of the (English) Translations of the Bible in the English language. Preview Versions Discussed Below: • Early Translations: Caedmon’s, Bede’s, Alfred the Great’s • Other Early Versions: Lindisfarne Gospels, Shoreham’s Psalms, Rolle’s Psalms • Wycliffe’s Version • Tyndale’s Translation • Coverdale’s Version • Thomas Matthew’s Version: The Great Bible • The Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible • The King James Version • The English Revised Version and the American Standard Versi...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":56475,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:52","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:52","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:52<\/strong> <em>no prophet ever comes from Galilee!<\/em> The Jewish leaders were apparently unaware that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, not in Galilee (see Matt 2:1; Luke 2:1-7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:52<\/strong> <em>no prophet ever comes from Galilee!<\/em> The Jewish leaders were apparently unaware that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, not in Galilee (see Matt 2:1; Luke 2:1-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:52 no prophet ever comes from Galilee! The Jewish leaders were apparently unaware that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, not in Galilee (see Matt 2:1; Luke 2:1-7).","summary_en":"7:52 no prophet ever comes from Galilee! The Jewish leaders were apparently unaware that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, not in Galilee (see Matt 2:1; Luke 2:1-7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":84101,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:52","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:52","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:52<\/strong> <em>no prophet ever comes from Galilee!<\/em> The Jewish leaders were apparently unaware that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, not in Galilee (see Matt 2:1; Luke 2:1-7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:52<\/strong> <em>no prophet ever comes from Galilee!<\/em> The Jewish leaders were apparently unaware that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, not in Galilee (see Matt 2:1; Luke 2:1-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:52 no prophet ever comes from Galilee! The Jewish leaders were apparently unaware that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, not in Galilee (see Matt 2:1; Luke 2:1-7).","summary_en":"7:52 no prophet ever comes from Galilee! The Jewish leaders were apparently unaware that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, not in Galilee (see Matt 2:1; Luke 2:1-7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":111727,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:52","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:52","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:52<\/strong> <em>no prophet ever comes from Galilee!<\/em> The Jewish leaders were apparently unaware that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, not in Galilee (see Matt 2:1; Luke 2:1-7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:52<\/strong> <em>no prophet ever comes from Galilee!<\/em> The Jewish leaders were apparently unaware that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, not in Galilee (see Matt 2:1; Luke 2:1-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:52 no prophet ever comes from Galilee! The Jewish leaders were apparently unaware that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, not in Galilee (see Matt 2:1; Luke 2:1-7).","summary_en":"7:52 no prophet ever comes from Galilee! The Jewish leaders were apparently unaware that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, not in Galilee (see Matt 2:1; Luke 2:1-7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":139353,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:52","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:52","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:52<\/strong> <em>no prophet ever comes from Galilee!<\/em> The Jewish leaders were apparently unaware that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, not in Galilee (see Matt 2:1; Luke 2:1-7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:52<\/strong> <em>no prophet ever comes from Galilee!<\/em> The Jewish leaders were apparently unaware that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, not in Galilee (see Matt 2:1; Luke 2:1-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:52 no prophet ever comes from Galilee! The Jewish leaders were apparently unaware that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, not in Galilee (see Matt 2:1; Luke 2:1-7).","summary_en":"7:52 no prophet ever comes from Galilee! The Jewish leaders were apparently unaware that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, not in Galilee (see Matt 2:1; Luke 2:1-7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"53":[{"id":4759,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"and Text of the (New Testament) Bible*, Manuscripts","title_en":"and Text of the (New Testament) Bible*, Manuscripts","content_ro":"<h3>BIBLE*, M<span>anuscripts and Text of the (New Testament)<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Copies of the NT books produced by scribes and editions made from these copies. In the centuries prior to the simultaneous-multiple production of copies via dictation (wherein many scribes in a scriptorium transcribed a text dictated to them by one reader), all manuscript copies were made singly—each scribe producing a copy from an exemplar.<\/p>\n<p>Prior to the 15th century, when Johannes Gutenberg invented movable type for the printing press, all copies of any work of literature were made by hand (hence, the name “manuscript”). According to a current tabulation, there are 99 papyrus manuscripts, 257 uncial manuscripts, and 2,795 minuscule manuscripts. We can add 2,209 Greek lectionaries to this list. Therefore, we have over 5,350 manuscript copies of the Greek NT or portions thereof. No other work of Greek literature can boast of such numbers.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Important Papyrus Manuscripts<\/p>\n<p>• Important Uncial Manuscripts<\/p>\n<p>• The Text of the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ImportantPapyrusManuscripts\">Important Papyrus Manuscripts<\/p>\n<p>Papyrus is a tall, aquatic reed, the pith of which is cut into strips, laid in a crosswork pattern and glued together to make a page for writing. The papyrus rolls of Egypt have been used as a writing surface since the early third millennium <span>BC<\/span>. The Greeks adopted papyrus around 900 <span>BC<\/span>, and later the Romans adopted its use. However, the oldest extant Greek rolls of papyrus date from the fourth century <span>BC<\/span>. Unfortunately, papyrus is perishable, requiring a dry climate for its preservation. That is why so many papyri have been discovered in the desert sands of Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>The NT papyrus manuscripts (abbreviated as “P”) are generally the earliest manuscripts of the NT. Broadly speaking, the most important ones can be categorized in three groups: the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (from Oxyrhynchus, Egypt), (2) the Beatty Papyri (named after the owner); and (3) the Bodmer Papyri (named after the owner).<\/p>\n<h5>The Oxyrhynchus Papyri<\/h5>\n<p>Beginning in 1898 B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt discovered thousands of papyrus fragments in the ancient rubbish heaps of Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. This site yielded volumes of papyrus fragments containing all sorts of written material (literature, business and legal contracts, letters, etc.) as well as over 40 manuscripts containing portions of the NT. Some of the more noteworthy papyrus manuscripts from Oxyrhynchus are as follows:<\/p>\n<h6>P1 (P. Oxy. 2)<\/h6>\n<p>This late second-century manuscript contains Matthew 1:1-9, 12, 14-20. Grenfell and Hunt in the winter of 1896–97 went to Oxyrhynchus (now called El Bahnasa) in search of ancient Christian documents. P1 was discovered on the second day of the dig. At the time of this discovery, this was the earliest extant copy of any NT portion—at least 100 years earlier than Codex Vaticanus. The copyist of P1 seems to have faithfully followed a very reliable exemplar. Where there are major variants, P1 agrees with the best Alexandrian witnesses, especially B (Codex Vaticanus), from which it rarely varies.<\/p>\n<h6>P5 (P. Oxy. 208 and 1781)<\/h6>\n<p>Two separate portions of this third-century manuscript were unearthed from Oxyrhynchus by Grenfell and Hunt, both from the same papyrus manuscript. The first portion contains John 1:23-31, 33-40 on one fragment and John 20:11-17 on another—probably on the first and last quires of a manuscript containing only the Gospel of John. This portion was published in volume II of <em>Oxyrhynchus Papyri<\/em> in 1899; the second portion—containing John 16:14-30—was not published until 1922 in volume XV of <em>Oxyrhynchus Papyri.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>After examining the first portion, Grenfell and Hunt said, “The text is a good one, and appears to have affinities with that of Codex Sinaiticus, with which the papyrus agrees in several readings not found elsewhere.” The papyrus, written in a documentary hand, is marked for its brevity.<\/p>\n<h6>P13 (P. Oxy. 657 and PSI 1292)<\/h6>\n<p>This manuscript, dated between 175 and 225, contains 12 columns from a roll preserving the text of Hebrews 2:14–5:5; 10:8-22; 10:29–11:13; 11:28–12:7. The text of Hebrews was written in a reformed documentary hand on the back of the papyrus containing the new epitome of Livy. For this reason, some scholars think the manuscript was possibly brought to Egpyt by a Roman official and left behind when he left his post. P13 very often agrees with B, and it supplements B where it is lacking—namely, from Hebrews 9:14 to the end of Hebrews. P13 and P46 display nearly the same text. Out of a total of 88 variation-units, there are 71 agreements and only 17 disagreements.<\/p>\n<h6>P77 (P. Oxy. 2683 + 4405)<\/h6>\n<p>Dated c. 150–75, this is the earliest manuscript of Matthew (23:30-39). The manuscript is clearly a literary production. It was written in an elegant hand and has what was or became a standard system of chapter division, as well as punctuation and breathing marks. P77 has close textual affinities with Codex Sinaiticus.<\/p>\n<h6>P90 (P. Oxy. 3523)<\/h6>\n<p>This second-century manuscript (c. 150–75) contains John 18:36–19:7. The handwriting (an upright, rounded, elegant script) is much like that found in P66. Furthermore, P90 has more affinity with P66 than with any other single manuscript, though it does not concur with P66 in its entirety.<\/p>\n\n<h6>P. Oxy. 4404<\/h6>\n<p>Containing Matthew 21:34-37, 43, 45, this manuscript could be the earliest extant manuscript of the NT in that the script is early Roman and therefore could be dated to the early second century.<\/p>\n<h5>The Chester Beatty Papyri<\/h5>\n<p>These manuscripts were purchased from a dealer in Egypt during the 1930s by Chester Beatty and by the University of Michigan. The three manuscripts in this collection are very early and contain a large portion of the NT text. P45 (c. 200) contains portions of all four Gospels and Acts; P46 (c. 125) has almost all of Paul’s epistles and Hebrews; and P47 (third century) contains Revelation 9–17.<\/p>\n<h6>P45 (Chester Beatty Papyrus I)<\/h6>\n<p>This codex has the four Gospels and Acts (Mt 20:24-32; 21:13-19; 25:41–26:39; Mk 4:36–9:31; 11:27–12:28; Lk 6:31–7:7; 9:26–14:33; Jn 4:51–5:2, 21-25; 10:7-25; 10:30–11:10, 18-36, 42-57; Acts 4:27–17:17). The order of books in the original intact manuscript was probably as follows: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, Acts (the so-called Western order). This manuscript was dated by Kenyon to the early third century, a date that was confirmed by the papyrologists W. Schubart and H. I. Bell. This continues to be the date assigned to this manuscript in modern handbooks on textual criticism and critical editions of the Greek NT, but the consistent formation of certain letters suggests an earlier date—maybe sometime in the late second century.<\/p>\n<p>The scribe of P45 worked without any intention of exactly reproducing his source. He wrote with a great amount of freedom—harmonizing, smoothing out, substituting at will. In short, the scribe did not actually copy words. He saw through the language to its idea-content, and copied that in words of his own choosing, or in rearranged order. Thus, in the scribe of P45 we see an exegete and a paraphraser.<\/p>\n<h6>P46 (Chester Beatty Papyrus II)<\/h6>\n<p>This codex has most of Paul’s epistles (excluding the Pastorals) in this order: Romans 5:17–6:14; 8:15–15:9; 15:11–16:27; Hebrews 1:1–13:25; 1 Corinthians 1:1–16:22; 2 Corinthians 1:1–13:13; Ephesians 1:1–6:24; Galatians 1:1–6:18; Philippians 1:1–4:23; Colossians 1:1–4:18; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 1:9–2:3; 5:5-9, 23-28 (with minor lacunae in each of the books).<\/p>\n<p>The manuscript was originally dated to the early third century. But others, since, have dated the manuscript earlier in the second century. The scribe who produced this manuscript used an early, excellent exemplar. He was a professional scribe because there are stichoi notations at the end of several books (see the conclusion of Romans, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians). The stichoi were used by professionals to note how many lines had been copied for commensurate pay. Most likely, the ex officio of the scriptorium (perhaps connected with a church library) paginated the codex and indicated the stichoi. The scribe himself made a few corrections as he went, and then several other readers made corrections here and there.<\/p>\n<p>The text of P46 shows a strong affinity with B (especially in Ephesians, Colossians, and Hebrews) and next with א (Codex Sinaiticus). P46 agrees much less with the later representatives of the Alexandrian text. In short, P46 is proto-Alexandrian. In Hebrews, P46 and P13 display nearly the same text. Out of a total of 88 variation-units, there are 71 agreements and only 17 disagreements.<\/p>\n<h6>P47 (Chester Beatty Papyrus III)<\/h6>\n<p>This third-century codex contains Revelation 9:10–17:2. The text of P47 agrees more often with that of Codex Sinaiticus than with any other manuscript (including Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus), though it often shows independence.<\/p>\n<h5>The Bodmer Papyri<\/h5>\n<p>These manuscripts were purchased by M. Martin Bodmer from a dealer in Egypt during the 1950s and 1960s. The three important papyri in this collection are P66 (c. 175, containing almost all of John), P72 (third century, having all of 1 and 2 Peter and Jude), and P75 (c. 200, containing large parts of Luke 3—John 15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h4\" id=\"P66\">P66 (Papyrus Bodmer II)<\/p>\n<p>This manuscript contains most of John’s Gospel (1:1–6:11; 6:35–14:26, 29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4, 6-7; 16:10–20:20, 22-23; 20:25–21:9). The manuscript does not include the pericope of the adulteress (7:53–8:11), making it the earliest witness to not include this spurious passage. The manuscript is usually dated as c. 200, but the renowned paleographer Herbert Hunger has argued that P66 should be dated to the first half, if not the first quarter, of the second century.<\/p>\n<p>According to recent studies, it seems evident that P66 has preserved the work of three individuals: the original scribe, a thoroughgoing corrector, and a minor corrector. With a practiced calligraphic hand, the original scribe of P66 wrote in larger print as he went along in order to fill out the codex. The large print throughout indicates that it was written to be read aloud to a Christian congregation. The text exhibits the scribe’s knowledge of other portions of Scripture (inasmuch as he harmonized John 6:69 to Matthew 16:16 and John 21:6 to Luke 5:5), his use of standard <em>nomina sacra<\/em> (a way of writing divine names), and his special use of <em>nomina sacra<\/em> for the words “cross” and “crucify.”<\/p>\n<p>The original scribe was quite free in his interaction with the text; he produced several singular readings that reveal his independent interpretation of the text. While the numerous scribal mistakes would seem to indicate that the scribe was inattentive, many of the singular readings—prior to correction—reveal that he was not detached from the narrative of the text. Rather, he became so absorbed in his reading that he often forgot the exact words he was copying. His task as a copyist was to duplicate the exemplar word for word, but this was frustrated by the fact that he was reading the text in logical semantic chunks and often became a coproducer of a new text. As a result, he continually had to stop his reading and make many in-process corrections. But he left several places uncorrected, which were later fixed by the <em>diorthotes<\/em> (official corrector). The finished product is quite good, presenting a text that is very close to the Alexandrian witnesses.<\/p>\n<h6>P72 (Papyrus Bodmer VII–VIII)<\/h6>\n<p>This manuscript, dated late third century, has an interesting collection of writings in one codex: 1 Peter 1:1–5:14; 2 Peter 1:1–3:18; Jude 1:1-25; the Nativity of Mary, the apocryphal correspondence of Paul to the Corinthians, the eleventh ode of Solomon, Melito’s Homily on the Passover, a fragment of a hymn, the Apology of Phileas, and Psalms 33 and 34.<\/p>\n<p>Scholars think that four scribes took part in producing the entire manuscript. First Peter has clear Alexandrian affinities—especially with B. Second Peter and (especially) Jude display more of an uncontrolled type text (usually associated with the “Western” text), with several independent readings.<\/p>\n<h6>P75 (Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV)<\/h6>\n<p>This codex contains most of Luke and John (Lk 3:18–4:2; 4:34–5:10; 5:37–18:18; 22:4–24:53; Jn 1:1–11:45, 48-57; 12:3–13:1, 8-9; 14:8-30; 15:7-8.) The manuscript does not include the pericope of the adulteress (7:53–8:11). The manuscript can be dated to the late second or early third century.<\/p>\n<p>The copyist of P75 was a literate scribe trained in making books. His craftsmanship shows through in his tight calligraphy and controlled copying. The handwriting displayed in this manuscript is typically called by paleographers the common angular type of the late second to early third century. The scribe’s Christianity shows in his abbreviations of the <em>nomina sacra<\/em><em>,<\/em> as well as in his abbreviation of the word “cross.” These are telltale signs of a scribe who belonged to the Christian community. Furthermore, the large typeface indicates that the manuscript was composed to be read aloud to a Christian congregation. The scribe even added a system of sectional divisions to aid any would-be lector. Thus, we have a manuscript written by a Christian for other Christians.<\/p>\n<p>There are several indications of the scribe’s Alexandrian orientation. First and foremost is his scriptoral acumen. He is the best of all the early Christian scribes, and his manuscript is an extremely accurate copy. P75 is the work of an extremely disciplined scribe who copied with the intention of being careful and accurate. Scholars generally agree that P75 displays the kind of text that was used in making Codex Vaticanus (there is 87 percent agreement between P75 and B). As such, textual scholars have a high regard for P75’s textual fidelity.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Other Papyrus Manuscripts<\/h5>\n<h6>P4 + P64 + P67<\/h6>\n<p>These three papyrus manuscripts are part of one codex dated <span>AD<\/span> 150–175. The manuscript was the work of a professional scribe, and the text is extremely accurate.<\/p>\n<h6>P32 (Rylands Papyrus 5)<\/h6>\n<p>This manuscript, preserving Titus 1:11-15; 2:3-8, is dated c. 175, making it the earliest extant copy of any of the Pastoral Epistles. P32 shows agreement with א and with F and G. Since F and G (nearly identical manuscripts) go back to the same archetype, it is possible that P32 could be linked to the same source.<\/p>\n<h6>P52 (Rylands Papyrus 457)<\/h6>\n<p>This fragment, containing John 18:31-34, 37-38, is noteworthy because of its date: c. 110–125. Many scholars (F. Kenyon, H. I. Bell, A. Deissmann, and W. H. P. Hatch) have confirmed this dating. The manuscript came from the Fayum or Oxyrhynchus site. It was acquired in 1920 by Grenfell, but it remained unnoticed among hundreds of papyri until 1934, when C. H. Roberts recognized that this fragment preserves a few verses from John’s Gospel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ImportantUncialManuscripts\">Important Uncial Manuscripts<\/p>\n<p>The manuscripts typically classified as “uncial” are so designated to differentiate them from papyrus manuscripts. In a sense, this is a misnomer because the real difference has to do with the material they are written on—vellum (treated animal hide) as compared to papyrus—not the kind of letters used. Indeed, the papyri are also written in uncials (capital letters), but the term “uncial” typically describes the majuscule lettering that was prominent in fourth-century biblical texts, such as in א, A, B, C.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Sinaiticus (or א)<\/h5>\n<p>This codex contains the entire OT and the NT in this order: the four Gospels, the Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews), Acts, the General Epistles, Revelation. It also includes the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The codex cannot be earlier than 340 (the year Eusebius died) because the Eusebian sections of the text are indicated in the margins of the Gospels by a contemporary hand. Most scholars date it 350–375.<\/p>\n<p>This codex was discovered by Constantin von Tischendorf in St Catherine’s Monastery (situated at the foot of Mt Sinai). On a visit to the monastery in 1844 he noticed in a wastebasket some parchment leaves that were being used to light the lamps. He was allowed to take this waste paper, which proved to be 43 leaves from various parts of the Greek translation of the OT.<\/p>\n<p>In 1853 he made a second trip to the monastery and found nothing. In 1859, however, on his third trip, he found not only other parts of the OT but also the complete NT. He was finally able to persuade the monastery authorities to present the manuscript to the czar, the great patron of the Greek Catholic Church, who placed it in the Imperial Library in St Petersburg. The czar gave great honors to the monastery and its authorities, and everybody seemed well pleased. Later Tischendorf was charged with having stolen the manuscript from its lawful owners, but the better textual scholars do not accept that story.<\/p>\n\n<p>The manuscript remained in the Imperial Library until 1933, when it was purchased by the British Museum for the huge sum of £100,000 (about $500,000). Textual criticism made the headlines because one manuscript was bought for this much money, raised largely by public subscription during the Great Depression. The manuscript is now on display in the manuscript room of the museum, where it is considered one of its most prized possessions.<\/p>\n<p>The text of Sinaiticus is very closely related to that of Codex Vaticanus. They agree in presenting the purest type of text, usually called the Alexandrian text type. Tischendorf greatly used the textual evidence of Codex Sinaiticus in preparing his critical editions of the Greek NT. Tischendorf thought four scribes had originally produced the codex, whom he named scribes A, B, C, D. After reinvestigation, H. J. Milne and T. C. Skeat identified only three scribes: A (who wrote the historical and poetical books of the OT, as well as most of the NT), B (who wrote the Prophets and the Shepherd of Hermas), and D (who wrote some Psalms, Tobit, Judith, and 4 Maccabees, and redid small sections of the NT). Milne and Skeat demonstrated that scribe A of Codex Vaticanus was likely the same scribe as scribe D of Codex Sinaiticus. If this true, then א is contemporary with B—perhaps produced in the same scriptorium in Alexandria. Codex Sinaiticus provides a fairly reliable witness to the NT; however, the scribe was not as careful as the scribe of B.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Alexandrinus (A)<\/h5>\n<p>This is one of the three most important codices containing early copies of the whole Bible in Greek (the other two being the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus codexes). The name Alexandrinus comes from ancient records suggesting that it was copied in Egypt during the early part of the fifth century <span>AD<\/span>. The early history of this manuscript and its Egyptian provenance is partially revealed by its flyleaves. A note by Cyril of Lucar (patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople in the 1620s) states that, according to tradition, it was written by Thecla, a noble lady of Egypt shortly after the Council of Nicaea (325) and that her name was originally inscribed at the end of the volume but the last page was lost due to mutilation. An Arabic note of the 13th or 14th century also says that the manuscript was written by “Thecla the martyr.” Another Arabic note says that is was presented to the patriarchal cell of Alexandria (c. 1098). Cyril of Lucar took the manuscript from Alexandria to Constantinople in 1621 and then gave it to Charles I of England in 1627, where it became part of the Royal Library, then later the British Museum.<\/p>\n<p>Only 773 of the original 820 or so pages still exist. The rest were lost as the book was passed down through the centuries. The surviving parts of Alexandrinus contain a Greek translation of the whole OT, the Apocrypha (including four books of Maccabees and Psalm 151), most of the NT, and some early Christian writings (of which the First and Second Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians are the most important).<\/p>\n<p>Frederick Kenyon thought the codex was the work of five scribes, to each of whom he designated a Roman numeral. According to Kenyon, scribes I and II copied the OT; scribe III did Matthew, Mark, 1 Corinthians 10:8—Philemon 1:25; scribe IV did Luke—Acts, General Epistles, Romans 1:1—1 Corinthians 10:8; and scribe V did Revelation. Milne and Skeat, however, argued that the whole codex was the work of two copyists (I and II). W. H. P. Hatch noted that many corrections have been made in the manuscript, most of them at an early date. Some of these corrections were introduced by the scribe himself, and others came from later hands.<\/p>\n<p>Evidently, the scribes of this codex used exemplars of varying quality for various sections of the NT. The exemplar used for the Gospels was of poor quality, reflecting a Byzantine text type. Its testimony in the Epistles is much better, and in Revelation it provides the best witness to the original text.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Codex Vaticanus (B)<\/h5>\n<p>Codex Vaticanus is the Vatican Manuscript, so named because it is the most famous manuscript in the Vatican Library in Rome. This manuscript has been in the Vatican’s library since at least 1475, but it was not made available to scholars, such as Constantin von Tischendorf and Samuel Tregelles, until the middle of the 19th century.<\/p>\n<p>At one time, the codex contained the whole Greek Bible, including most of the books of the Apocrypha, but it has lost many of its leaves. Originally it must have had about 820 leaves (1,640 pp), but now it has 759—617 in the OT and 142 in the NT. The major gaps of the manuscript are Genesis 1:1–46:28; 2 Samuel 2:5-7, 10-13; Psalms 106:27–138:6; Hebrews 9:14–13:25; the Pastoral Epistles; and Revelation. Each leaf measures ten and a half by ten inches (26.7 by 25.4 centimeters). Each page has three columns (two for the poetical books) with 40 to 44 lines to the column. The manuscript was written by two different scribes. It is dated in the early to middle part of the fourth century. It is not known where the manuscript originated, but it has been in the Vatican Library from the time of its earliest catalog in 1475.<\/p>\n\n<p>When Napoleon conquered Rome, he brought its treasures to Paris, including this manuscript. The scholar Hug identified it and called the attention of other scholars to it. After the downfall of Napoleon, the manuscript was returned to the Vatican Library. Competent textual scholars were not allowed to do careful work on it until a photographic edition was published in 1890. It is now on exhibit in the Vatican Library.<\/p>\n<p>The text of the Vatican Manuscript is much like that of Codex Sinaiticus. These are generally recognized as the two finest examples of the Alexandrian type of Greek text of the NT. The Greek text of the OT is very fine too, but it is not quite so important, as the original language of the OT was Hebrew. Virtually all the textual scholars since the days of Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort (who brought out their Greek Testament, including their theory of textual criticism, in 1881), recognize this neutral type of text as a very early text and a very pure text, an extremely accurate reproduction of what the original text must have been. Westcott and Hort called it a second-century text accurate in 999 out of 1,000 words so far as any matter of translatable difference was concerned. א and B are the finest examples of this type of text, but it is also found in a few other Greek uncial manuscripts, a few of the early translations, and in the writings of a few of the early church fathers. Since the days of Westcott and Hort, their theory has been confirmed by the discovery of some papyrus manuscripts, notably the Bodmer Papyri, discovered in the 1950s.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C)<\/h5>\n<p>This codex is a palimpsest (the original writing was erased and different words written on the same material). It originally contained the entire Bible but now has only parts of six OT books and portions of all NT books except 2 Thessalonians and 2 John. The single-column Bible text, written in the 5th century <span>AD<\/span>, was erased in the 12th century and replaced by a two-column text of a Greek translation of sermons or treatises by a certain Ephraem, a 4th-century Syrian church leader. Such a practice was common in periods of economic depression or when parchment was scarce. The original writing was scraped from the writing surface and the surface smoothed. Then new compositions could be written on the prepared surface. Using chemicals Tischendorf was able to read much of the erased document.<\/p>\n<p>The manuscript may have been brought from the east to Florence by a learned Greek named Andrew John Lascar in the time of Lorenzo de’Medici. Since Lascar was known as Rhyndacenus (from the river Rhyndacus), he probably came from the region of Phrygia (site of ancient Laodicea). Where the manuscript was prior to this is not known. The Ephraemi manuscript was brought to Italy in the early sixth century, where it became the property of the Medici family. Catherine de’Medici took it to France, where it remains today.<\/p>\n<p>The text of this manuscript is mixed—it is compounded from all the major text types, agreeing frequently with the later koine of Byzantine type, which most scholars regard as the least valuable type of NT text.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Bezae (D)<\/h5>\n<p>This is a Greek-Latin diglot containing Matthew—Acts, 3 John, with lacunae. Most scholars date it late fourth or early fifth century (c. 400). Some scholars think the codex was produced in either Egypt or North Africa by a scribe whose mother tongue was Latin. Another scholar (D. C. Parker) has argued that it was copied in Beirut, a center of Latin legal studies during the fifth century, where both Latin and Greek were used. Evidently, it was produced by a scribe who knew Latin better than Greek, and then was corrected by several scribes. In any event, the codex somehow came into the hands of Theodore Beza, French scholar and successor to Calvin. Beza gave it to the Cambridge University Library in 1581.<\/p>\n<p>This codex is probably the most controversial of the NT uncials because of its marked independence. Its many additions, omissions, and alterations (especially in Luke and Acts) are the work of a significant theologian. A few earlier manuscripts (P29, P38, P48, and 0171) appear to be precursors to the type of text found in D, which is considered the principal witness of the Western text-type. Thus, Codex Bezae could be a copy of an earlier revised edition. This reviser must have been a scholar who had a propensity for adding historical, biographical, and geographical details. More than anything, he was intent on filling in gaps in the narrative by adding circumstantial details.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Washingtonianus, or The Freer Gospels (W)<\/h5>\n<p>This codex, dated around 400, has the four Gospels and Acts. It is often referred to as the Freer Gospels—named after its owner, Charles Freer. The codex likely came from the ruins of a monastery near Giza. The handwriting is quite similar to that found in a fifth-century fragment of the book of Enoch found at Akhmim in 1886.<\/p>\n<p>Codex W was copied from a parent manuscript (exemplar) that had been pieced together from several different manuscripts. This is obvious because the textual presentation of W is noticeably variegated and even the stratification of the text is matched by similar variations in paragraphing. The scribe who collated the parent manuscript drew upon various sources to put together his Gospel codex. It is likely that the scribe of the parent manuscript used a text that came from North Africa (the “Western” text) for the first part of Mark, and the scribe of W used manuscripts from Antioch for Matthew and the second part of Luke to fill the gaps in the more ancient manuscript he was copying. Detailed textual analysis reveals the variegated textual stratifications of W, as follows: in Matthew the text is Byzantine; in Mark the text is first Western (1:1–5:30), then Caesarean in Mark 5:31–16:20 (akin to P45); in Luke the text is first Alexandrian (1:1–8:12), then Byzantine. John is more complicated because the first part of John (1:1–5:11), which fills a quire, was the work of a seventh-century scribe who must have replaced a damaged quire. (W<span>s<\/span> designates the work of this scribe.) This first section has a mixture of Alexandrian and Western readings, as does the rest of John.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex 1739<\/h5>\n<p>This tenth-century codex has Acts and the Epistles. The manuscript was discovered at Mt Athos in 1879 by E. von der Goltz. The manuscript has strong textual affinities with P46, B, 1739, Coptic Sahidic, Coptic Boharic, Clement, and Origen. The relationship between P46, B, and 1739 is remarkable because 1739 is a tenth-century manuscript that was copied from a fourth-century manuscript of excellent quality. According to a colophon, the scribe of 1739 for the Pauline Epistles followed a manuscript that came from Caesarea in the library of Pamphilus and that contained an Origenian text. The three manuscripts, P46, B, and 1739, form a clear textual line: from P46 (early second century) to B (early fourth century) to 1739 (tenth century based on fourth century).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTextoftheNewTestament\">The Text of the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The original text of the NT is the “published” text—that is, the text as it was in its final edited form and released for circulation in the Christian community. For some books of the NT, there is little difference between the original composition and the published text. After the author wrote or dictated his work, he (or an associate) made the final editorial corrections and then released it for distribution. As is the case for books published in modern times, so in ancient times, the original writing of the author is not always the same as what is published—due to the editorial process. Nonetheless, the author is credited with the final edited text, and the published book is attributed to the author and considered the autograph. This autograph is the original published text. Of course, in this case the autographs do not exist, so scholars have to rely on copies to recover or reconstruct the original wording.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars think it is impossible to recover the original text of the Greek NT because they have not been able to reconstruct the early history of textual transmission. Other modern scholars are less pessimistic but still quite guarded in affirming the possiblity. And yet others are optimistic because we possess many early manuscripts of excellent quality and because our view of the early period of textual transmission has been getting clearer and clearer.<\/p>\n<p>When we speak of recovering the text of the NT, we are referring to individual books of the NT, not to the entire volume per se, because each book (or group of books—such as the Pauline Epistles) had its own unique history of textual transmission. The earliest extant copy of an entire NT text is the one preserved in Codex Sinaiticus (written about <span>AD<\/span> 375). (Codex Vaticanus lacks the Pastoral Epistles and Revelation.) Prior to the fourth century, the NT was circulated in its various parts: as a single book or a group of books (such as the four Gospels or the Pauline Epistles). Manuscripts from the late first century to the third century have been found with individual books such as Matthew (P1, P77), Mark (P88), Luke (P69), John (P5, 22, 52, 66), Acts (P91), Revelation (P18, 47), or containing groups of books, such as the four Gospels with Acts (P45), the Pauline Epistles (P30, P46, P92), the Petrine Epistles and Jude (P72). Each of the books of the NT has had its own textual history and has been preserved with varying degrees of accuracy. Nonetheless, all of the books were altered from the original state due to the process of manual copying decade after decade and century after century. And the text of each of the books needs to be recovered.<\/p>\n<p>The NT text was affected with many variations in its early history. In the late first and early second century, the oral traditions and the written word existed side by side with equal status—especially with respect to the material of the Gospels. Often, the text was changed by scribes attempting to conform the written message to the oral tradition or attempting to conform one Gospel account to another. By the end of the second century and into the third century, many of the significant variant readings entered into the textual stream.<\/p>\n<p>The early period of textual transmission, however, was not completely marred by textual infidelity and scribal liberty. There were those scribes who copied the text faithfully and reverently—that is, they recognized that they were copying a sacred text written by an apostle. The formalization of canonization did not ascribe this sacredness to the text. Canonization came about as the result of common, historical recognition of the sacredness of various NT books. Certain NT books, such as the four Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s epistles were considered inspired literature from the onset. As such, certain scribes copied them with reverential fidelity.<\/p>\n<p>Other scribes, however, felt free to make “improvements” in the text—either in the interest of doctrine and harmonization or due to the influence of a competitive oral tradition. The manuscripts produced in such a manner created a kind of “popular text”—i.e., an uncontrolled text. (This text type used to be called the “Western text,” but scholars now recognize this as a misnomer.)<\/p>\n<p>During the second century, there were a few men who produced recensions of the NT text. According to Eusebius, Theodotus (and his followers) altered the text for their own purposes. In the middle of the second century, Marcion expunged his copies of the Gospel according to Luke of all references to the Jewish background of Jesus, and Tatian’s harmony of the Gospels contains several textual alterations that gave support to ascetic views. And yet another recendor created the D-type text for the Gospels and Acts. This theologically minded redactor, living in the late second or third century, created a text that had short-lived popularity. Three third-century papyri, P29, P38, P48, each containing a portion from the book of Acts, may be precursors to the D-type text in Acts. But there are other papyri containing portions of Acts that provide even earlier testimony to a purer form of Acts—namely, P45 (c. 150) and P91 (c. 200), thereby showing that the D-type text of Acts did not necessarily antedate the purer form.<\/p>\n<p>Besides these endeavors—which are all noted for creating textual impurities—there was no recension of the NT text in the second century. Rather, it was a period in which there were scribes who exercised freedom in copying and those who demonstrated acumen. The manuscripts produced by the latter are those that come closest to preserving the original text. A prime example of an accurate late-second-century manuscript is P75.<\/p>\n<p>It is a well-known fact that the text produced by the scribe of P75 is a very accurate manuscript. It is also well-known that P75 was the kind of manuscript used in formulating Codex Vaticanus—the readings of P75 and B are remarkably similar. Prior to the discovery of P75, certain scholars thought Codex Vaticanus was the work of a fourth-century recension; others (chiefly Hort) thought it must trace back to a very early and accurate copy. Hort said that Codex Vaticanus preserves “not only a very ancient text, but a very pure line of a very ancient text” (Westcott and Hort, <em>The<\/em> <em>Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek,<\/em> pp 250–51). P75 appears to have shown that Hort was right.<\/p>\n<p>Prior to the discovery of P75, many textual scholars were convinced that the second- and third-century papyri displayed a text in flux, a text characterized only by individual independence. The Chester Beatty Papyrus, P45, and the Bodmer Papyri, P66 and P72 (in 2 Peter and Jude), show this kind of independence. Scholars thought that scribes at Alexandria must have used several such texts to produce a good recension—as is exhibited in Codex Vaticanus. But we now know that Codex Vaticanus was not the result of a scholarly recension, resulting from editorial selection across the various textual histories. Rather, it is now quite clear that Codex Vaticanus was simply a copy (with some modifications) of a manuscript much like P75, not a fourth-century recension.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars may point out that this does not automatically mean that P75 and B represent the original text. What it does mean, they say, is that we have a second-century manuscript showing great affinity with a fourth-century manuscript whose quality has been highly esteemed. But various scholars have demonstrated that there was no Alexandrian recension before the time of P75 (late second century) and B (early fourth) and that both these manuscripts represent a relatively pure form of preservation of a relatively pure line of descent from the original text.<\/p>\n<p>The current view about the early text is that certain scribes in Alexandria and\/or scribes familiar with Alexandrian scriptoral practices (perhaps those in Oxyrhynchus) were probably responsible for maintaining a relatively pure text throughout the second, third, and fourth centuries. The Alexandrian scribes, associated with or actually employed by the scriptorium of the great Alexandrian library and\/or members of the scriptorium associated with the catechetical school at Alexandria (called the <em>Didaskelion<\/em>), were trained philologists, grammarians, and textual critics. Their work on the NT was not recensional—that is, it was not an organized emendation of the text. Rather, the work of purification and preservation was probably done here and there by various individuals trained in text criticism. This is apparent in the production of P66, which contains the Gospel of John. This manuscript was probably produced in an Egyptian scriptorium by a novice scribe who made many blunders, which were subsequently corrected by another scribe working in the same scriptorium. The first text produced by the novice could be classified as being very “free,” but the corrected text is far more accurate. (See the discussion on this manuscript above.)<\/p>\n<p>What appears to have happened with the copying of the NT text in the early period in Egypt has been poignantly characterized by Zuntz. He said that when a book was immensely popular (such as Homer’s <em>Iliad<\/em> and <em>Odyssey,<\/em> or Plato’s writings), it was copied with wild enthusiasm by novice and scholar alike. But when grammarians and scribes got ahold of it, they tried to rid it of textual corruption. In the process, however, they may have obliterated some authentic readings, but not many. Thus, the popular text (also known as the “Western text”) could have preserved the original wording in some cases. The popular or free kind of text is displayed in several third-century manuscripts: P9, P37, P40, P45, P72, and P78.<\/p>\n<p>In brief, this popular text is usually displayed in any kind of manuscript that was not produced by Alexandrian influences. This text, given to independence, is not as trustworthy as the Alexandrian text type. But because the Alexandrian text is known as a polished text, the popular text sometimes preserved the original wording. When a variant reading has the support of “Western” and Alexandrian texts, it is very likely original; but when the two are divided, the Alexandrian witnesses more often preserve the original wording.<\/p>\n<p>One dilemma still remains for some textual critics. They cannot explain how a P75\/B-type text coexisted with a Western-type text in the second century. All that can be said is that the Western text generally appears to be inferior to the P75\/B-type text. Of course, this kind of judgment troubles certain scholars, who point out that the esteem given to B and P75 is based on a subjective appreciation of the kind of text they contain (as over against the Western text) rather than on any kind of theoretical reconstruction of the early transmission of the text. This same subjective estimation was at work when Westcott and Hort decided that B was intrinsically superior to D (see their <em>Introduction,<\/em> pp 32–42). Yet the praxis of textual criticism time and again demonstrates that the P75\/B-type text is intrinsically superior to the Western text.<\/p>\n<p>In the final analysis, the manuscripts that represent a pure preservation of the original text are usually those called “Alexandrian.” Some scholars, such as Bruce Metzger, have called the earlier manuscripts “protoAlexandrian,” for they (or manuscripts like them) are thought of as being used to compose an Alexandrian-type text. However, this is looking at things from the perspective of the fourth century. We should look at things from the second century onward and then compare fourth-century manuscripts to those of the second. The second-century manuscripts could still be called “Alexandrian” in the sense that they were produced under Alexandrian influences. Perhaps a distinguishing terminology could be “early Alexandrian” (pre-Constantine) and “later Alexandrian” (post-Constantine). Manuscripts designated as “early Alexandrian” would generally be purer, less editorialized. Manuscripts designated “later Alexandrian” would display editorialization, as well as the influence of other textual traditions.<\/p>\n<p>The “early Alexandrian” text is reflected in many second- and third-century manuscripts. On the top of the list is P75 (c. 175), the work of a competent and careful scribe. Not far behind in quality is P4+P64+P67 (c. 150), the work of an excellent copyist. Other extremely good copies are P1 (c. 200), P20 (early third century), P23 (c. 200), P27 (third century), P28 (third century), P32 (c. 150), P39 (third century), P46 (c. 125), P65 (third century), P66 (in its corrected form—P66<span>c<\/span>; c. 150), P70 (third century), P77 (c. 150), P87 (c. 125), P90 (c. 175), and P91 (c. 200). Several of these manuscripts have been placed in the “strict” category by textual critics Kurt and Barbara Aland—that is, they exhibit “strict” scribal control and therefore are accurate copies of an exemplar, if not the original. These manuscripts are P1, P23, P35, P37, P39, P64\/67, P65, P70, and P75.<\/p>\n<p>The “later Alexandrian” text, which displays editorial polishing, is exhibited in a few manuscripts, such as א (fourth century), T (fifth century), ע (seventh century), L (eighth century), 33 (ninth century), 1739 (a tenth-century manuscript copied from a fourth-century Alexandrian manuscript much like P46), and 579 (13th century). Beginning in the fifth century, Byzantine-type manuscripts began to make their influence in Egypt. Some manuscripts dated around 400 that came from Egypt clearly reflect this influence; Codex Alexandrinus (A) is probably the best example. Other Egyptian manuscripts of this era, such as Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Washingtonianus (W) display large-scale harmonization, which cannot be directly linked to any kind of recension.<\/p>\n<p>At the end of the third century, another kind of Greek text came into being and then grew in popularity until it became the dominant text-type throughout Christendom. This is the text-type first instigated by Lucian of Antioch, according to Jerome (in his introduction to his Latin translation of the Gospels). Lucian’s text was a definite recension (i.e., a purposely created edition)—as opposed to the Alexandrian text-type that came about as the result of a process wherein the Alexandrian scribes, upon comparing many manuscripts, attempted to preserve the best text—thereby serving more as textual critics than editors. Of course, the Alexandrians did do some editing—such as we would call copy-editing. The Lucianic text is the outgrowth and culmination of the popular text; it is characterized by smoothness of language, which is achieved by the removal of obscurities and awkward grammatical constructions and by the conflation of variant readings. Lucian (and\/or his associates) must have used many different kinds of manuscripts of varying qualities to produce a harmonized, edited NT text. The kind of editorial work that went into the Lucianic text is what we would call substantive editing.<\/p>\n<p>Lucian’s text was produced prior to the Diocletian persecution (c. 303), during which time many copies of the NT were confiscated and destroyed. Not long after this period of devastation, Constantine came to power and then recognized Christianity as the state religion. There was, of course, a great need for copies of the NT to be made and distributed to churches throughout the Mediterranean world. It was at this time that Lucian’s text began to be propagated by bishops going out from the Antiochan school to churches throughout the East, taking the text with them. Lucian’s text soon became the standard text of the Eastern church and formed the basis for the Byzantine text—and is thus the ultimate authority for the Textus Receptus.<\/p>\n<p>While Lucian was forming his recension of the NT text, the Alexandrian text was taking on its final shape. As was mentioned earlier, the formation of the Alexandrian text-type was the result of a process (as opposed to a single editorial recension). The formation of the Alexandrian text involved minor textual criticism (i.e., selecting variant readings among various manuscripts) and copyediting (i.e., producing a readable text). There was far less tampering with the text in the Alexandrian text-type than in the Lucian, and the underlying manuscripts for the Alexandrian text-type were superior to those used by Lucian. Perhaps Hesychius was responsible for giving the Alexandrian text its final shape, and Athanasius of Alexandria may have been the one who made this text the archetypal text for Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>As the years went by, there were fewer and fewer Alexandrian manuscripts produced, and more and more Byzantine manuscripts manufactured. Very few Egyptians continued to read Greek (with the exception of those in St Catherine’s Monastery, the site of the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus), and the rest of the Mediterranean world turned to Latin. It was only those in the Greek-speaking churches in Greece and Byzantium that continued to make copies of the Greek text. For century after century—from the 6th to the 14th—the great majority of NT manuscripts were produced in Byzantium, all bearing the same kind of text. When the first Greek NT was printed (c. 1525), it was based on a Greek text that Erasmus had compiled, using a few late Byzantine manuscripts. This printed text, with minor revisions, became the Textus Receptus.<\/p>\n<p>Beginning in the 17th century, earlier manuscripts began to be discovered—manuscripts with a text that differed from that found in the Textus Receptus. Around 1630, Codex Alexandrinus was brought to England. An early fifth-century manuscript, containing the entire NT, it provided a good, early witness to the NT text (it is an especially good witness to the original text of Revelation). Two hundred years later, a German scholar named Constantin von Tischendorf discovered Codex Sinaiticus in St Catherine’s Monastery (located near Mt Sinai). The manuscript, dated around <span>AD<\/span> 360, is one of the two oldest vellum (treated animal hide) manuscripts of the Greek NT. The earliest vellum manuscript, Codex Vaticanus, had been in the Vatican’s library since at least 1481, but it had not been made available to scholars until the middle of the 19th century. This manuscript, dated slightly earlier (<span>AD<\/span> 350) than Codex Sinaiticus, had both the OT and NT in Greek, excluding the last part of the NT (Hebrews 9:15 to Revelation 22:21 and the Pastoral Epistles). A hundred years of textual criticism has determined that this manuscript is one of the most accurate and reliable witnesses to the original text.<\/p>\n<p>Other early and important manuscripts were discovered in the 19th century. Through the tireless labors of men like Constantin von Tischendorf, Samuel Tregelles, and F. H. A. Scrivener, manuscripts such as Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Zacynthius, and Codex Augiensis were deciphered, collated, and published.<\/p>\n<p>As the various manuscripts were discovered and made public, certain scholars labored to compile a Greek text that would more closely represent the original text than did the Textus Receptus. Around 1700 John Mill produced an improved Textus Receptus, and in the 1730s Johannes Albert Bengel (known as the father of modern textual and philological studies in the NT) published a text that deviated from the Textus Receptus according to the evidence of earlier manuscripts.<\/p>\n<p>In the 1800s certain scholars began to abandon the Textus Receptus. Karl Lachman, a classical philologist, produced a fresh text (in 1831) that represented the fourth-century manuscripts. Samuel Tregelles (self-taught in Latin, Hebrew, and Greek), laboring throughout his entire lifetime, concentrated all of his efforts in publishing one Greek text (which came out in six parts, from 1857 to 1872). As is stated in the introduction to this work, Tregelles’s goal was “to exhibit the text of the NT in the very words in which it has been transmitted on the evidence of ancient authority.” Henry Alford also compiled a Greek text based upon the best and earliest manuscripts. In his preface to <em>The Greek New Testament<\/em> (a multivolume commentary on the Greek NT, published in 1849), Alford said he labored for the “demolition of the unworthy and pedantic reverence for the received text, which stood in the way of all chance of discovering the genuine word of God.”<\/p>\n<p>During this same era, Tischendorf was devoting a lifetime of labor to discovering manuscripts and producing accurate editions of the Greek NT. In a letter to his fiancé he wrote, “I am confronted with a sacred task, the struggle to regain the original form of the NT.” In fulfillment of his desire, he discovered Codex Sinaiticus, deciphered the palimpsest Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, collated countless manuscripts, and produced several editions of the Greek NT (the eighth edition is considered the best).<\/p>\n<p>Aided by the work of the previous scholars, two British men, Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort, worked together for 28 years to produce a volume entitled <em>The New Testament in the Original Greek<\/em> (1881). Along with this publication, they made known their theory (which was chiefly Hort’s) that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (along with a few other early manuscripts) represented a text that most closely replicated the original writing. They called this text the Neutral Text. (According to their studies, the Neutral Text described certain manuscripts that had the least amount of textual corruption.) This is the text that Westcott and Hort relied upon for compiling their volume.<\/p>\n<p>The 19th century was a fruitful era for the recovery of the Greek NT; the 20th century, no less so. Those living in the 20th century have witnessed the discovery of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, the Chester Beatty Papyri, and the Bodmer Papyri. To date, there are nearly 100 papyri containing portions of the NT—several of which date from the late first century to the early fourth century. These significant discoveries, providing scholars with many ancient manuscripts, have greatly enhanced the effort to recover the original wording of the NT.<\/p>\n<p>At the beginning of the 20th century, Eberhard Nestle used the best editions of the Greek NT produced in the 19th century to compile a text that represented the majority consensus. The work of making new editions was carried on by his son for several years, and then came under the care of Kurt Aland. The latest edition (the 27th) of Nestle-Aland’s <em>Novum Testamentum Graece<\/em> appeared in 1993. The same Greek text appears in another popular volume published by the United Bible Societies, called the <em>Greek New Testament<\/em> (fourth edition). Aland has argued that the Nestle-Aland text, 27th edition (NA<span>27<\/span>), comes closer to the original text of the NT than did Tischendorf or Westcott and Hort. And in several writings he intimates that NA<span>27<\/span> may very well be the original text. Though few, if any, scholars would agree with this, the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland text is regarded by many as representing the latest and best in textual scholarship.<\/p>\n<h5>New Testament Textual Criticism<\/h5>\n<p>Textual critics working with ancient literature universally acknowledge the supremacy of earlier manuscripts over later ones. Textual critics not working with the NT would love to have the same kind of early witnesses that biblical scholars possess. In fact, many of them work with manuscripts written 1,000 years after the autographs were composed! We all marvel that the Dead Sea Scrolls have provided a text that is nearly 800 years closer to the originals than the Masoretic manuscripts, and yet many of the Dead Sea manuscripts are still over 600 to 800 years removed from the time of original composition. NT textual critics have a great advantage!<\/p>\n<p>The 19th-century NT textual scholars—such as Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort—worked on the basis that the earliest witnesses are the best witnesses. Some textual scholars have continued this line of recovery using the testimony of the earlier witnesses. But many textual scholars since the time of Westcott and Hort have been less inclined to produce editions based on the theory that the earliest reading is the best. Most present-day textual critics are more inclined to endorse the maxim: the reading that is most likely original is the one that best explains the variants.<\/p>\n<p>This maxim (or “canon” as it is sometimes called), as good as it is, produces conflicting results. For example, two scholars, using this same principle to examine the same variant unit, will not agree. One will argue that one variant was produced by a copyist attempting to emulate the author’s style; the other will claim the same variant has to be original because it accords with the author’s style. One will argue that one variant was produced by an orthodox scribe attempting to rid the text of a reading that could be used to promote heterodoxy or heresy; another will claim that the same variant has to be original because it is orthodox and accords with Christian doctrine (thus a heterodox or heretical scribe must have changed it). Furthermore, this principle allows for the possibility that the reading selected for the text can be taken from any manuscript of any date. This can lead to subjective eclecticism.<\/p>\n<p>Modern textual scholars have attempted to temper the subjectivism by employing a method called “reasoned eclecticism.” This kind of eclecticism applies a combination of internal and external considerations, whereby the character of the variants is evaluated in light of the manuscripts’ evidence and vice versa. This is supposed to produce a balanced view and serve as a check against purely subjective tendencies.<\/p>\n<p>The Alands favor the same kind of approach, calling it the local-genealogical method, which is defined as follows:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>It is impossible to proceed from the assumption of a manuscript stemma, and on the basis of a full review and analysis of the relationships obtaining among the variety of interrelated branches in the manuscript tradition, to undertake a recension of the data as one would do with other Greek texts. Decisions must be made one by one, instance by instance. This method has been characterized as eclecticism, but wrongly so. After carefully establishing the variety of readings offered in a passage and the possibilities of their interpretation, it must always then be determined afresh on the basis of external and internal criteria which of these readings (and frequently they are quite numerous) is the original, from which the others may be regarded as derivative. From the perspective of our present knowledge, this “local-genealogical” method (if it must be given a name) is the only one which meets the requirements of the NT textual tradition. (Introduction to <em>Novum Testamentum Graece,<\/em> 26th edition)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The “local-genealogical” method assumes that for any given variation unit any manuscript (or manuscripts) may have preserved the original text. Applying this method produces an extremely uneven documentary presentation of the text. Anyone studying the critical apparatus of NA<span>27<\/span> will detect that there is not an even documentary presentation. The eclecticism is dispersed throughout the text.<\/p>\n<p>“Reasoned eclecticism” and\/or the “local-genealogical” method tend to give priority to internal evidence over external evidence. But it has to be the other way around if we are going to recover the original text. This was Westcott and Hort’s opinion. With respect to their compilation of <em>The New Testament in the Original Greek,<\/em> Hort wrote, “Documentary evidence has been in most cases allowed to confer the place of honour against internal evidence” (<em>The Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek,<\/em> p 17).<\/p>\n<p>In this respect, Westcott and Hort need to be revived. Earnest Colwell was of the same mind when he wrote “Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program.” Colwell decried the growing tendency to rely entirely on the internal evidence of readings, without serious consideration of documentary evidence. He called upon scholars to make an attempt to reconstruct a history of the manuscript tradition. The abundance of manuscripts—several of which are very early—will aid scholars in this ongoing task.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BIBLE*, M<span>anuscripts and Text of the (New Testament)<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Copies of the NT books produced by scribes and editions made from these copies. In the centuries prior to the simultaneous-multiple production of copies via dictation (wherein many scribes in a scriptorium transcribed a text dictated to them by one reader), all manuscript copies were made singly—each scribe producing a copy from an exemplar.<\/p>\n<p>Prior to the 15th century, when Johannes Gutenberg invented movable type for the printing press, all copies of any work of literature were made by hand (hence, the name “manuscript”). According to a current tabulation, there are 99 papyrus manuscripts, 257 uncial manuscripts, and 2,795 minuscule manuscripts. We can add 2,209 Greek lectionaries to this list. Therefore, we have over 5,350 manuscript copies of the Greek NT or portions thereof. No other work of Greek literature can boast of such numbers.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Important Papyrus Manuscripts<\/p>\n<p>• Important Uncial Manuscripts<\/p>\n<p>• The Text of the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ImportantPapyrusManuscripts\">Important Papyrus Manuscripts<\/p>\n<p>Papyrus is a tall, aquatic reed, the pith of which is cut into strips, laid in a crosswork pattern and glued together to make a page for writing. The papyrus rolls of Egypt have been used as a writing surface since the early third millennium <span>BC<\/span>. The Greeks adopted papyrus around 900 <span>BC<\/span>, and later the Romans adopted its use. However, the oldest extant Greek rolls of papyrus date from the fourth century <span>BC<\/span>. Unfortunately, papyrus is perishable, requiring a dry climate for its preservation. That is why so many papyri have been discovered in the desert sands of Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>The NT papyrus manuscripts (abbreviated as “P”) are generally the earliest manuscripts of the NT. Broadly speaking, the most important ones can be categorized in three groups: the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (from Oxyrhynchus, Egypt), (2) the Beatty Papyri (named after the owner); and (3) the Bodmer Papyri (named after the owner).<\/p>\n<h5>The Oxyrhynchus Papyri<\/h5>\n<p>Beginning in 1898 B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt discovered thousands of papyrus fragments in the ancient rubbish heaps of Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. This site yielded volumes of papyrus fragments containing all sorts of written material (literature, business and legal contracts, letters, etc.) as well as over 40 manuscripts containing portions of the NT. Some of the more noteworthy papyrus manuscripts from Oxyrhynchus are as follows:<\/p>\n<h6>P1 (P. Oxy. 2)<\/h6>\n<p>This late second-century manuscript contains Matthew 1:1-9, 12, 14-20. Grenfell and Hunt in the winter of 1896–97 went to Oxyrhynchus (now called El Bahnasa) in search of ancient Christian documents. P1 was discovered on the second day of the dig. At the time of this discovery, this was the earliest extant copy of any NT portion—at least 100 years earlier than Codex Vaticanus. The copyist of P1 seems to have faithfully followed a very reliable exemplar. Where there are major variants, P1 agrees with the best Alexandrian witnesses, especially B (Codex Vaticanus), from which it rarely varies.<\/p>\n<h6>P5 (P. Oxy. 208 and 1781)<\/h6>\n<p>Two separate portions of this third-century manuscript were unearthed from Oxyrhynchus by Grenfell and Hunt, both from the same papyrus manuscript. The first portion contains John 1:23-31, 33-40 on one fragment and John 20:11-17 on another—probably on the first and last quires of a manuscript containing only the Gospel of John. This portion was published in volume II of <em>Oxyrhynchus Papyri<\/em> in 1899; the second portion—containing John 16:14-30—was not published until 1922 in volume XV of <em>Oxyrhynchus Papyri.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>After examining the first portion, Grenfell and Hunt said, “The text is a good one, and appears to have affinities with that of Codex Sinaiticus, with which the papyrus agrees in several readings not found elsewhere.” The papyrus, written in a documentary hand, is marked for its brevity.<\/p>\n<h6>P13 (P. Oxy. 657 and PSI 1292)<\/h6>\n<p>This manuscript, dated between 175 and 225, contains 12 columns from a roll preserving the text of Hebrews 2:14–5:5; 10:8-22; 10:29–11:13; 11:28–12:7. The text of Hebrews was written in a reformed documentary hand on the back of the papyrus containing the new epitome of Livy. For this reason, some scholars think the manuscript was possibly brought to Egpyt by a Roman official and left behind when he left his post. P13 very often agrees with B, and it supplements B where it is lacking—namely, from Hebrews 9:14 to the end of Hebrews. P13 and P46 display nearly the same text. Out of a total of 88 variation-units, there are 71 agreements and only 17 disagreements.<\/p>\n<h6>P77 (P. Oxy. 2683 + 4405)<\/h6>\n<p>Dated c. 150–75, this is the earliest manuscript of Matthew (23:30-39). The manuscript is clearly a literary production. It was written in an elegant hand and has what was or became a standard system of chapter division, as well as punctuation and breathing marks. P77 has close textual affinities with Codex Sinaiticus.<\/p>\n<h6>P90 (P. Oxy. 3523)<\/h6>\n<p>This second-century manuscript (c. 150–75) contains John 18:36–19:7. The handwriting (an upright, rounded, elegant script) is much like that found in P66. Furthermore, P90 has more affinity with P66 than with any other single manuscript, though it does not concur with P66 in its entirety.<\/p>\n\n<h6>P. Oxy. 4404<\/h6>\n<p>Containing Matthew 21:34-37, 43, 45, this manuscript could be the earliest extant manuscript of the NT in that the script is early Roman and therefore could be dated to the early second century.<\/p>\n<h5>The Chester Beatty Papyri<\/h5>\n<p>These manuscripts were purchased from a dealer in Egypt during the 1930s by Chester Beatty and by the University of Michigan. The three manuscripts in this collection are very early and contain a large portion of the NT text. P45 (c. 200) contains portions of all four Gospels and Acts; P46 (c. 125) has almost all of Paul’s epistles and Hebrews; and P47 (third century) contains Revelation 9–17.<\/p>\n<h6>P45 (Chester Beatty Papyrus I)<\/h6>\n<p>This codex has the four Gospels and Acts (Mt 20:24-32; 21:13-19; 25:41–26:39; Mk 4:36–9:31; 11:27–12:28; Lk 6:31–7:7; 9:26–14:33; Jn 4:51–5:2, 21-25; 10:7-25; 10:30–11:10, 18-36, 42-57; Acts 4:27–17:17). The order of books in the original intact manuscript was probably as follows: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, Acts (the so-called Western order). This manuscript was dated by Kenyon to the early third century, a date that was confirmed by the papyrologists W. Schubart and H. I. Bell. This continues to be the date assigned to this manuscript in modern handbooks on textual criticism and critical editions of the Greek NT, but the consistent formation of certain letters suggests an earlier date—maybe sometime in the late second century.<\/p>\n<p>The scribe of P45 worked without any intention of exactly reproducing his source. He wrote with a great amount of freedom—harmonizing, smoothing out, substituting at will. In short, the scribe did not actually copy words. He saw through the language to its idea-content, and copied that in words of his own choosing, or in rearranged order. Thus, in the scribe of P45 we see an exegete and a paraphraser.<\/p>\n<h6>P46 (Chester Beatty Papyrus II)<\/h6>\n<p>This codex has most of Paul’s epistles (excluding the Pastorals) in this order: Romans 5:17–6:14; 8:15–15:9; 15:11–16:27; Hebrews 1:1–13:25; 1 Corinthians 1:1–16:22; 2 Corinthians 1:1–13:13; Ephesians 1:1–6:24; Galatians 1:1–6:18; Philippians 1:1–4:23; Colossians 1:1–4:18; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 1:9–2:3; 5:5-9, 23-28 (with minor lacunae in each of the books).<\/p>\n<p>The manuscript was originally dated to the early third century. But others, since, have dated the manuscript earlier in the second century. The scribe who produced this manuscript used an early, excellent exemplar. He was a professional scribe because there are stichoi notations at the end of several books (see the conclusion of Romans, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians). The stichoi were used by professionals to note how many lines had been copied for commensurate pay. Most likely, the ex officio of the scriptorium (perhaps connected with a church library) paginated the codex and indicated the stichoi. The scribe himself made a few corrections as he went, and then several other readers made corrections here and there.<\/p>\n<p>The text of P46 shows a strong affinity with B (especially in Ephesians, Colossians, and Hebrews) and next with א (Codex Sinaiticus). P46 agrees much less with the later representatives of the Alexandrian text. In short, P46 is proto-Alexandrian. In Hebrews, P46 and P13 display nearly the same text. Out of a total of 88 variation-units, there are 71 agreements and only 17 disagreements.<\/p>\n<h6>P47 (Chester Beatty Papyrus III)<\/h6>\n<p>This third-century codex contains Revelation 9:10–17:2. The text of P47 agrees more often with that of Codex Sinaiticus than with any other manuscript (including Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus), though it often shows independence.<\/p>\n<h5>The Bodmer Papyri<\/h5>\n<p>These manuscripts were purchased by M. Martin Bodmer from a dealer in Egypt during the 1950s and 1960s. The three important papyri in this collection are P66 (c. 175, containing almost all of John), P72 (third century, having all of 1 and 2 Peter and Jude), and P75 (c. 200, containing large parts of Luke 3—John 15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h4\" id=\"P66\">P66 (Papyrus Bodmer II)<\/p>\n<p>This manuscript contains most of John’s Gospel (1:1–6:11; 6:35–14:26, 29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4, 6-7; 16:10–20:20, 22-23; 20:25–21:9). The manuscript does not include the pericope of the adulteress (7:53–8:11), making it the earliest witness to not include this spurious passage. The manuscript is usually dated as c. 200, but the renowned paleographer Herbert Hunger has argued that P66 should be dated to the first half, if not the first quarter, of the second century.<\/p>\n<p>According to recent studies, it seems evident that P66 has preserved the work of three individuals: the original scribe, a thoroughgoing corrector, and a minor corrector. With a practiced calligraphic hand, the original scribe of P66 wrote in larger print as he went along in order to fill out the codex. The large print throughout indicates that it was written to be read aloud to a Christian congregation. The text exhibits the scribe’s knowledge of other portions of Scripture (inasmuch as he harmonized John 6:69 to Matthew 16:16 and John 21:6 to Luke 5:5), his use of standard <em>nomina sacra<\/em> (a way of writing divine names), and his special use of <em>nomina sacra<\/em> for the words “cross” and “crucify.”<\/p>\n<p>The original scribe was quite free in his interaction with the text; he produced several singular readings that reveal his independent interpretation of the text. While the numerous scribal mistakes would seem to indicate that the scribe was inattentive, many of the singular readings—prior to correction—reveal that he was not detached from the narrative of the text. Rather, he became so absorbed in his reading that he often forgot the exact words he was copying. His task as a copyist was to duplicate the exemplar word for word, but this was frustrated by the fact that he was reading the text in logical semantic chunks and often became a coproducer of a new text. As a result, he continually had to stop his reading and make many in-process corrections. But he left several places uncorrected, which were later fixed by the <em>diorthotes<\/em> (official corrector). The finished product is quite good, presenting a text that is very close to the Alexandrian witnesses.<\/p>\n<h6>P72 (Papyrus Bodmer VII–VIII)<\/h6>\n<p>This manuscript, dated late third century, has an interesting collection of writings in one codex: 1 Peter 1:1–5:14; 2 Peter 1:1–3:18; Jude 1:1-25; the Nativity of Mary, the apocryphal correspondence of Paul to the Corinthians, the eleventh ode of Solomon, Melito’s Homily on the Passover, a fragment of a hymn, the Apology of Phileas, and Psalms 33 and 34.<\/p>\n<p>Scholars think that four scribes took part in producing the entire manuscript. First Peter has clear Alexandrian affinities—especially with B. Second Peter and (especially) Jude display more of an uncontrolled type text (usually associated with the “Western” text), with several independent readings.<\/p>\n<h6>P75 (Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV)<\/h6>\n<p>This codex contains most of Luke and John (Lk 3:18–4:2; 4:34–5:10; 5:37–18:18; 22:4–24:53; Jn 1:1–11:45, 48-57; 12:3–13:1, 8-9; 14:8-30; 15:7-8.) The manuscript does not include the pericope of the adulteress (7:53–8:11). The manuscript can be dated to the late second or early third century.<\/p>\n<p>The copyist of P75 was a literate scribe trained in making books. His craftsmanship shows through in his tight calligraphy and controlled copying. The handwriting displayed in this manuscript is typically called by paleographers the common angular type of the late second to early third century. The scribe’s Christianity shows in his abbreviations of the <em>nomina sacra<\/em><em>,<\/em> as well as in his abbreviation of the word “cross.” These are telltale signs of a scribe who belonged to the Christian community. Furthermore, the large typeface indicates that the manuscript was composed to be read aloud to a Christian congregation. The scribe even added a system of sectional divisions to aid any would-be lector. Thus, we have a manuscript written by a Christian for other Christians.<\/p>\n<p>There are several indications of the scribe’s Alexandrian orientation. First and foremost is his scriptoral acumen. He is the best of all the early Christian scribes, and his manuscript is an extremely accurate copy. P75 is the work of an extremely disciplined scribe who copied with the intention of being careful and accurate. Scholars generally agree that P75 displays the kind of text that was used in making Codex Vaticanus (there is 87 percent agreement between P75 and B). As such, textual scholars have a high regard for P75’s textual fidelity.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Other Papyrus Manuscripts<\/h5>\n<h6>P4 + P64 + P67<\/h6>\n<p>These three papyrus manuscripts are part of one codex dated <span>AD<\/span> 150–175. The manuscript was the work of a professional scribe, and the text is extremely accurate.<\/p>\n<h6>P32 (Rylands Papyrus 5)<\/h6>\n<p>This manuscript, preserving Titus 1:11-15; 2:3-8, is dated c. 175, making it the earliest extant copy of any of the Pastoral Epistles. P32 shows agreement with א and with F and G. Since F and G (nearly identical manuscripts) go back to the same archetype, it is possible that P32 could be linked to the same source.<\/p>\n<h6>P52 (Rylands Papyrus 457)<\/h6>\n<p>This fragment, containing John 18:31-34, 37-38, is noteworthy because of its date: c. 110–125. Many scholars (F. Kenyon, H. I. Bell, A. Deissmann, and W. H. P. Hatch) have confirmed this dating. The manuscript came from the Fayum or Oxyrhynchus site. It was acquired in 1920 by Grenfell, but it remained unnoticed among hundreds of papyri until 1934, when C. H. Roberts recognized that this fragment preserves a few verses from John’s Gospel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ImportantUncialManuscripts\">Important Uncial Manuscripts<\/p>\n<p>The manuscripts typically classified as “uncial” are so designated to differentiate them from papyrus manuscripts. In a sense, this is a misnomer because the real difference has to do with the material they are written on—vellum (treated animal hide) as compared to papyrus—not the kind of letters used. Indeed, the papyri are also written in uncials (capital letters), but the term “uncial” typically describes the majuscule lettering that was prominent in fourth-century biblical texts, such as in א, A, B, C.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Sinaiticus (or א)<\/h5>\n<p>This codex contains the entire OT and the NT in this order: the four Gospels, the Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews), Acts, the General Epistles, Revelation. It also includes the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The codex cannot be earlier than 340 (the year Eusebius died) because the Eusebian sections of the text are indicated in the margins of the Gospels by a contemporary hand. Most scholars date it 350–375.<\/p>\n<p>This codex was discovered by Constantin von Tischendorf in St Catherine’s Monastery (situated at the foot of Mt Sinai). On a visit to the monastery in 1844 he noticed in a wastebasket some parchment leaves that were being used to light the lamps. He was allowed to take this waste paper, which proved to be 43 leaves from various parts of the Greek translation of the OT.<\/p>\n<p>In 1853 he made a second trip to the monastery and found nothing. In 1859, however, on his third trip, he found not only other parts of the OT but also the complete NT. He was finally able to persuade the monastery authorities to present the manuscript to the czar, the great patron of the Greek Catholic Church, who placed it in the Imperial Library in St Petersburg. The czar gave great honors to the monastery and its authorities, and everybody seemed well pleased. Later Tischendorf was charged with having stolen the manuscript from its lawful owners, but the better textual scholars do not accept that story.<\/p>\n\n<p>The manuscript remained in the Imperial Library until 1933, when it was purchased by the British Museum for the huge sum of £100,000 (about $500,000). Textual criticism made the headlines because one manuscript was bought for this much money, raised largely by public subscription during the Great Depression. The manuscript is now on display in the manuscript room of the museum, where it is considered one of its most prized possessions.<\/p>\n<p>The text of Sinaiticus is very closely related to that of Codex Vaticanus. They agree in presenting the purest type of text, usually called the Alexandrian text type. Tischendorf greatly used the textual evidence of Codex Sinaiticus in preparing his critical editions of the Greek NT. Tischendorf thought four scribes had originally produced the codex, whom he named scribes A, B, C, D. After reinvestigation, H. J. Milne and T. C. Skeat identified only three scribes: A (who wrote the historical and poetical books of the OT, as well as most of the NT), B (who wrote the Prophets and the Shepherd of Hermas), and D (who wrote some Psalms, Tobit, Judith, and 4 Maccabees, and redid small sections of the NT). Milne and Skeat demonstrated that scribe A of Codex Vaticanus was likely the same scribe as scribe D of Codex Sinaiticus. If this true, then א is contemporary with B—perhaps produced in the same scriptorium in Alexandria. Codex Sinaiticus provides a fairly reliable witness to the NT; however, the scribe was not as careful as the scribe of B.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Alexandrinus (A)<\/h5>\n<p>This is one of the three most important codices containing early copies of the whole Bible in Greek (the other two being the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus codexes). The name Alexandrinus comes from ancient records suggesting that it was copied in Egypt during the early part of the fifth century <span>AD<\/span>. The early history of this manuscript and its Egyptian provenance is partially revealed by its flyleaves. A note by Cyril of Lucar (patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople in the 1620s) states that, according to tradition, it was written by Thecla, a noble lady of Egypt shortly after the Council of Nicaea (325) and that her name was originally inscribed at the end of the volume but the last page was lost due to mutilation. An Arabic note of the 13th or 14th century also says that the manuscript was written by “Thecla the martyr.” Another Arabic note says that is was presented to the patriarchal cell of Alexandria (c. 1098). Cyril of Lucar took the manuscript from Alexandria to Constantinople in 1621 and then gave it to Charles I of England in 1627, where it became part of the Royal Library, then later the British Museum.<\/p>\n<p>Only 773 of the original 820 or so pages still exist. The rest were lost as the book was passed down through the centuries. The surviving parts of Alexandrinus contain a Greek translation of the whole OT, the Apocrypha (including four books of Maccabees and Psalm 151), most of the NT, and some early Christian writings (of which the First and Second Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians are the most important).<\/p>\n<p>Frederick Kenyon thought the codex was the work of five scribes, to each of whom he designated a Roman numeral. According to Kenyon, scribes I and II copied the OT; scribe III did Matthew, Mark, 1 Corinthians 10:8—Philemon 1:25; scribe IV did Luke—Acts, General Epistles, Romans 1:1—1 Corinthians 10:8; and scribe V did Revelation. Milne and Skeat, however, argued that the whole codex was the work of two copyists (I and II). W. H. P. Hatch noted that many corrections have been made in the manuscript, most of them at an early date. Some of these corrections were introduced by the scribe himself, and others came from later hands.<\/p>\n<p>Evidently, the scribes of this codex used exemplars of varying quality for various sections of the NT. The exemplar used for the Gospels was of poor quality, reflecting a Byzantine text type. Its testimony in the Epistles is much better, and in Revelation it provides the best witness to the original text.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Codex Vaticanus (B)<\/h5>\n<p>Codex Vaticanus is the Vatican Manuscript, so named because it is the most famous manuscript in the Vatican Library in Rome. This manuscript has been in the Vatican’s library since at least 1475, but it was not made available to scholars, such as Constantin von Tischendorf and Samuel Tregelles, until the middle of the 19th century.<\/p>\n<p>At one time, the codex contained the whole Greek Bible, including most of the books of the Apocrypha, but it has lost many of its leaves. Originally it must have had about 820 leaves (1,640 pp), but now it has 759—617 in the OT and 142 in the NT. The major gaps of the manuscript are Genesis 1:1–46:28; 2 Samuel 2:5-7, 10-13; Psalms 106:27–138:6; Hebrews 9:14–13:25; the Pastoral Epistles; and Revelation. Each leaf measures ten and a half by ten inches (26.7 by 25.4 centimeters). Each page has three columns (two for the poetical books) with 40 to 44 lines to the column. The manuscript was written by two different scribes. It is dated in the early to middle part of the fourth century. It is not known where the manuscript originated, but it has been in the Vatican Library from the time of its earliest catalog in 1475.<\/p>\n\n<p>When Napoleon conquered Rome, he brought its treasures to Paris, including this manuscript. The scholar Hug identified it and called the attention of other scholars to it. After the downfall of Napoleon, the manuscript was returned to the Vatican Library. Competent textual scholars were not allowed to do careful work on it until a photographic edition was published in 1890. It is now on exhibit in the Vatican Library.<\/p>\n<p>The text of the Vatican Manuscript is much like that of Codex Sinaiticus. These are generally recognized as the two finest examples of the Alexandrian type of Greek text of the NT. The Greek text of the OT is very fine too, but it is not quite so important, as the original language of the OT was Hebrew. Virtually all the textual scholars since the days of Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort (who brought out their Greek Testament, including their theory of textual criticism, in 1881), recognize this neutral type of text as a very early text and a very pure text, an extremely accurate reproduction of what the original text must have been. Westcott and Hort called it a second-century text accurate in 999 out of 1,000 words so far as any matter of translatable difference was concerned. א and B are the finest examples of this type of text, but it is also found in a few other Greek uncial manuscripts, a few of the early translations, and in the writings of a few of the early church fathers. Since the days of Westcott and Hort, their theory has been confirmed by the discovery of some papyrus manuscripts, notably the Bodmer Papyri, discovered in the 1950s.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C)<\/h5>\n<p>This codex is a palimpsest (the original writing was erased and different words written on the same material). It originally contained the entire Bible but now has only parts of six OT books and portions of all NT books except 2 Thessalonians and 2 John. The single-column Bible text, written in the 5th century <span>AD<\/span>, was erased in the 12th century and replaced by a two-column text of a Greek translation of sermons or treatises by a certain Ephraem, a 4th-century Syrian church leader. Such a practice was common in periods of economic depression or when parchment was scarce. The original writing was scraped from the writing surface and the surface smoothed. Then new compositions could be written on the prepared surface. Using chemicals Tischendorf was able to read much of the erased document.<\/p>\n<p>The manuscript may have been brought from the east to Florence by a learned Greek named Andrew John Lascar in the time of Lorenzo de’Medici. Since Lascar was known as Rhyndacenus (from the river Rhyndacus), he probably came from the region of Phrygia (site of ancient Laodicea). Where the manuscript was prior to this is not known. The Ephraemi manuscript was brought to Italy in the early sixth century, where it became the property of the Medici family. Catherine de’Medici took it to France, where it remains today.<\/p>\n<p>The text of this manuscript is mixed—it is compounded from all the major text types, agreeing frequently with the later koine of Byzantine type, which most scholars regard as the least valuable type of NT text.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Bezae (D)<\/h5>\n<p>This is a Greek-Latin diglot containing Matthew—Acts, 3 John, with lacunae. Most scholars date it late fourth or early fifth century (c. 400). Some scholars think the codex was produced in either Egypt or North Africa by a scribe whose mother tongue was Latin. Another scholar (D. C. Parker) has argued that it was copied in Beirut, a center of Latin legal studies during the fifth century, where both Latin and Greek were used. Evidently, it was produced by a scribe who knew Latin better than Greek, and then was corrected by several scribes. In any event, the codex somehow came into the hands of Theodore Beza, French scholar and successor to Calvin. Beza gave it to the Cambridge University Library in 1581.<\/p>\n<p>This codex is probably the most controversial of the NT uncials because of its marked independence. Its many additions, omissions, and alterations (especially in Luke and Acts) are the work of a significant theologian. A few earlier manuscripts (P29, P38, P48, and 0171) appear to be precursors to the type of text found in D, which is considered the principal witness of the Western text-type. Thus, Codex Bezae could be a copy of an earlier revised edition. This reviser must have been a scholar who had a propensity for adding historical, biographical, and geographical details. More than anything, he was intent on filling in gaps in the narrative by adding circumstantial details.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex Washingtonianus, or The Freer Gospels (W)<\/h5>\n<p>This codex, dated around 400, has the four Gospels and Acts. It is often referred to as the Freer Gospels—named after its owner, Charles Freer. The codex likely came from the ruins of a monastery near Giza. The handwriting is quite similar to that found in a fifth-century fragment of the book of Enoch found at Akhmim in 1886.<\/p>\n<p>Codex W was copied from a parent manuscript (exemplar) that had been pieced together from several different manuscripts. This is obvious because the textual presentation of W is noticeably variegated and even the stratification of the text is matched by similar variations in paragraphing. The scribe who collated the parent manuscript drew upon various sources to put together his Gospel codex. It is likely that the scribe of the parent manuscript used a text that came from North Africa (the “Western” text) for the first part of Mark, and the scribe of W used manuscripts from Antioch for Matthew and the second part of Luke to fill the gaps in the more ancient manuscript he was copying. Detailed textual analysis reveals the variegated textual stratifications of W, as follows: in Matthew the text is Byzantine; in Mark the text is first Western (1:1–5:30), then Caesarean in Mark 5:31–16:20 (akin to P45); in Luke the text is first Alexandrian (1:1–8:12), then Byzantine. John is more complicated because the first part of John (1:1–5:11), which fills a quire, was the work of a seventh-century scribe who must have replaced a damaged quire. (W<span>s<\/span> designates the work of this scribe.) This first section has a mixture of Alexandrian and Western readings, as does the rest of John.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex 1739<\/h5>\n<p>This tenth-century codex has Acts and the Epistles. The manuscript was discovered at Mt Athos in 1879 by E. von der Goltz. The manuscript has strong textual affinities with P46, B, 1739, Coptic Sahidic, Coptic Boharic, Clement, and Origen. The relationship between P46, B, and 1739 is remarkable because 1739 is a tenth-century manuscript that was copied from a fourth-century manuscript of excellent quality. According to a colophon, the scribe of 1739 for the Pauline Epistles followed a manuscript that came from Caesarea in the library of Pamphilus and that contained an Origenian text. The three manuscripts, P46, B, and 1739, form a clear textual line: from P46 (early second century) to B (early fourth century) to 1739 (tenth century based on fourth century).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTextoftheNewTestament\">The Text of the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The original text of the NT is the “published” text—that is, the text as it was in its final edited form and released for circulation in the Christian community. For some books of the NT, there is little difference between the original composition and the published text. After the author wrote or dictated his work, he (or an associate) made the final editorial corrections and then released it for distribution. As is the case for books published in modern times, so in ancient times, the original writing of the author is not always the same as what is published—due to the editorial process. Nonetheless, the author is credited with the final edited text, and the published book is attributed to the author and considered the autograph. This autograph is the original published text. Of course, in this case the autographs do not exist, so scholars have to rely on copies to recover or reconstruct the original wording.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars think it is impossible to recover the original text of the Greek NT because they have not been able to reconstruct the early history of textual transmission. Other modern scholars are less pessimistic but still quite guarded in affirming the possiblity. And yet others are optimistic because we possess many early manuscripts of excellent quality and because our view of the early period of textual transmission has been getting clearer and clearer.<\/p>\n<p>When we speak of recovering the text of the NT, we are referring to individual books of the NT, not to the entire volume per se, because each book (or group of books—such as the Pauline Epistles) had its own unique history of textual transmission. The earliest extant copy of an entire NT text is the one preserved in Codex Sinaiticus (written about <span>AD<\/span> 375). (Codex Vaticanus lacks the Pastoral Epistles and Revelation.) Prior to the fourth century, the NT was circulated in its various parts: as a single book or a group of books (such as the four Gospels or the Pauline Epistles). Manuscripts from the late first century to the third century have been found with individual books such as Matthew (P1, P77), Mark (P88), Luke (P69), John (P5, 22, 52, 66), Acts (P91), Revelation (P18, 47), or containing groups of books, such as the four Gospels with Acts (P45), the Pauline Epistles (P30, P46, P92), the Petrine Epistles and Jude (P72). Each of the books of the NT has had its own textual history and has been preserved with varying degrees of accuracy. Nonetheless, all of the books were altered from the original state due to the process of manual copying decade after decade and century after century. And the text of each of the books needs to be recovered.<\/p>\n<p>The NT text was affected with many variations in its early history. In the late first and early second century, the oral traditions and the written word existed side by side with equal status—especially with respect to the material of the Gospels. Often, the text was changed by scribes attempting to conform the written message to the oral tradition or attempting to conform one Gospel account to another. By the end of the second century and into the third century, many of the significant variant readings entered into the textual stream.<\/p>\n<p>The early period of textual transmission, however, was not completely marred by textual infidelity and scribal liberty. There were those scribes who copied the text faithfully and reverently—that is, they recognized that they were copying a sacred text written by an apostle. The formalization of canonization did not ascribe this sacredness to the text. Canonization came about as the result of common, historical recognition of the sacredness of various NT books. Certain NT books, such as the four Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s epistles were considered inspired literature from the onset. As such, certain scribes copied them with reverential fidelity.<\/p>\n<p>Other scribes, however, felt free to make “improvements” in the text—either in the interest of doctrine and harmonization or due to the influence of a competitive oral tradition. The manuscripts produced in such a manner created a kind of “popular text”—i.e., an uncontrolled text. (This text type used to be called the “Western text,” but scholars now recognize this as a misnomer.)<\/p>\n<p>During the second century, there were a few men who produced recensions of the NT text. According to Eusebius, Theodotus (and his followers) altered the text for their own purposes. In the middle of the second century, Marcion expunged his copies of the Gospel according to Luke of all references to the Jewish background of Jesus, and Tatian’s harmony of the Gospels contains several textual alterations that gave support to ascetic views. And yet another recendor created the D-type text for the Gospels and Acts. This theologically minded redactor, living in the late second or third century, created a text that had short-lived popularity. Three third-century papyri, P29, P38, P48, each containing a portion from the book of Acts, may be precursors to the D-type text in Acts. But there are other papyri containing portions of Acts that provide even earlier testimony to a purer form of Acts—namely, P45 (c. 150) and P91 (c. 200), thereby showing that the D-type text of Acts did not necessarily antedate the purer form.<\/p>\n<p>Besides these endeavors—which are all noted for creating textual impurities—there was no recension of the NT text in the second century. Rather, it was a period in which there were scribes who exercised freedom in copying and those who demonstrated acumen. The manuscripts produced by the latter are those that come closest to preserving the original text. A prime example of an accurate late-second-century manuscript is P75.<\/p>\n<p>It is a well-known fact that the text produced by the scribe of P75 is a very accurate manuscript. It is also well-known that P75 was the kind of manuscript used in formulating Codex Vaticanus—the readings of P75 and B are remarkably similar. Prior to the discovery of P75, certain scholars thought Codex Vaticanus was the work of a fourth-century recension; others (chiefly Hort) thought it must trace back to a very early and accurate copy. Hort said that Codex Vaticanus preserves “not only a very ancient text, but a very pure line of a very ancient text” (Westcott and Hort, <em>The<\/em> <em>Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek,<\/em> pp 250–51). P75 appears to have shown that Hort was right.<\/p>\n<p>Prior to the discovery of P75, many textual scholars were convinced that the second- and third-century papyri displayed a text in flux, a text characterized only by individual independence. The Chester Beatty Papyrus, P45, and the Bodmer Papyri, P66 and P72 (in 2 Peter and Jude), show this kind of independence. Scholars thought that scribes at Alexandria must have used several such texts to produce a good recension—as is exhibited in Codex Vaticanus. But we now know that Codex Vaticanus was not the result of a scholarly recension, resulting from editorial selection across the various textual histories. Rather, it is now quite clear that Codex Vaticanus was simply a copy (with some modifications) of a manuscript much like P75, not a fourth-century recension.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars may point out that this does not automatically mean that P75 and B represent the original text. What it does mean, they say, is that we have a second-century manuscript showing great affinity with a fourth-century manuscript whose quality has been highly esteemed. But various scholars have demonstrated that there was no Alexandrian recension before the time of P75 (late second century) and B (early fourth) and that both these manuscripts represent a relatively pure form of preservation of a relatively pure line of descent from the original text.<\/p>\n<p>The current view about the early text is that certain scribes in Alexandria and\/or scribes familiar with Alexandrian scriptoral practices (perhaps those in Oxyrhynchus) were probably responsible for maintaining a relatively pure text throughout the second, third, and fourth centuries. The Alexandrian scribes, associated with or actually employed by the scriptorium of the great Alexandrian library and\/or members of the scriptorium associated with the catechetical school at Alexandria (called the <em>Didaskelion<\/em>), were trained philologists, grammarians, and textual critics. Their work on the NT was not recensional—that is, it was not an organized emendation of the text. Rather, the work of purification and preservation was probably done here and there by various individuals trained in text criticism. This is apparent in the production of P66, which contains the Gospel of John. This manuscript was probably produced in an Egyptian scriptorium by a novice scribe who made many blunders, which were subsequently corrected by another scribe working in the same scriptorium. The first text produced by the novice could be classified as being very “free,” but the corrected text is far more accurate. (See the discussion on this manuscript above.)<\/p>\n<p>What appears to have happened with the copying of the NT text in the early period in Egypt has been poignantly characterized by Zuntz. He said that when a book was immensely popular (such as Homer’s <em>Iliad<\/em> and <em>Odyssey,<\/em> or Plato’s writings), it was copied with wild enthusiasm by novice and scholar alike. But when grammarians and scribes got ahold of it, they tried to rid it of textual corruption. In the process, however, they may have obliterated some authentic readings, but not many. Thus, the popular text (also known as the “Western text”) could have preserved the original wording in some cases. The popular or free kind of text is displayed in several third-century manuscripts: P9, P37, P40, P45, P72, and P78.<\/p>\n<p>In brief, this popular text is usually displayed in any kind of manuscript that was not produced by Alexandrian influences. This text, given to independence, is not as trustworthy as the Alexandrian text type. But because the Alexandrian text is known as a polished text, the popular text sometimes preserved the original wording. When a variant reading has the support of “Western” and Alexandrian texts, it is very likely original; but when the two are divided, the Alexandrian witnesses more often preserve the original wording.<\/p>\n<p>One dilemma still remains for some textual critics. They cannot explain how a P75\/B-type text coexisted with a Western-type text in the second century. All that can be said is that the Western text generally appears to be inferior to the P75\/B-type text. Of course, this kind of judgment troubles certain scholars, who point out that the esteem given to B and P75 is based on a subjective appreciation of the kind of text they contain (as over against the Western text) rather than on any kind of theoretical reconstruction of the early transmission of the text. This same subjective estimation was at work when Westcott and Hort decided that B was intrinsically superior to D (see their <em>Introduction,<\/em> pp 32–42). Yet the praxis of textual criticism time and again demonstrates that the P75\/B-type text is intrinsically superior to the Western text.<\/p>\n<p>In the final analysis, the manuscripts that represent a pure preservation of the original text are usually those called “Alexandrian.” Some scholars, such as Bruce Metzger, have called the earlier manuscripts “protoAlexandrian,” for they (or manuscripts like them) are thought of as being used to compose an Alexandrian-type text. However, this is looking at things from the perspective of the fourth century. We should look at things from the second century onward and then compare fourth-century manuscripts to those of the second. The second-century manuscripts could still be called “Alexandrian” in the sense that they were produced under Alexandrian influences. Perhaps a distinguishing terminology could be “early Alexandrian” (pre-Constantine) and “later Alexandrian” (post-Constantine). Manuscripts designated as “early Alexandrian” would generally be purer, less editorialized. Manuscripts designated “later Alexandrian” would display editorialization, as well as the influence of other textual traditions.<\/p>\n<p>The “early Alexandrian” text is reflected in many second- and third-century manuscripts. On the top of the list is P75 (c. 175), the work of a competent and careful scribe. Not far behind in quality is P4+P64+P67 (c. 150), the work of an excellent copyist. Other extremely good copies are P1 (c. 200), P20 (early third century), P23 (c. 200), P27 (third century), P28 (third century), P32 (c. 150), P39 (third century), P46 (c. 125), P65 (third century), P66 (in its corrected form—P66<span>c<\/span>; c. 150), P70 (third century), P77 (c. 150), P87 (c. 125), P90 (c. 175), and P91 (c. 200). Several of these manuscripts have been placed in the “strict” category by textual critics Kurt and Barbara Aland—that is, they exhibit “strict” scribal control and therefore are accurate copies of an exemplar, if not the original. These manuscripts are P1, P23, P35, P37, P39, P64\/67, P65, P70, and P75.<\/p>\n<p>The “later Alexandrian” text, which displays editorial polishing, is exhibited in a few manuscripts, such as א (fourth century), T (fifth century), ע (seventh century), L (eighth century), 33 (ninth century), 1739 (a tenth-century manuscript copied from a fourth-century Alexandrian manuscript much like P46), and 579 (13th century). Beginning in the fifth century, Byzantine-type manuscripts began to make their influence in Egypt. Some manuscripts dated around 400 that came from Egypt clearly reflect this influence; Codex Alexandrinus (A) is probably the best example. Other Egyptian manuscripts of this era, such as Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Washingtonianus (W) display large-scale harmonization, which cannot be directly linked to any kind of recension.<\/p>\n<p>At the end of the third century, another kind of Greek text came into being and then grew in popularity until it became the dominant text-type throughout Christendom. This is the text-type first instigated by Lucian of Antioch, according to Jerome (in his introduction to his Latin translation of the Gospels). Lucian’s text was a definite recension (i.e., a purposely created edition)—as opposed to the Alexandrian text-type that came about as the result of a process wherein the Alexandrian scribes, upon comparing many manuscripts, attempted to preserve the best text—thereby serving more as textual critics than editors. Of course, the Alexandrians did do some editing—such as we would call copy-editing. The Lucianic text is the outgrowth and culmination of the popular text; it is characterized by smoothness of language, which is achieved by the removal of obscurities and awkward grammatical constructions and by the conflation of variant readings. Lucian (and\/or his associates) must have used many different kinds of manuscripts of varying qualities to produce a harmonized, edited NT text. The kind of editorial work that went into the Lucianic text is what we would call substantive editing.<\/p>\n<p>Lucian’s text was produced prior to the Diocletian persecution (c. 303), during which time many copies of the NT were confiscated and destroyed. Not long after this period of devastation, Constantine came to power and then recognized Christianity as the state religion. There was, of course, a great need for copies of the NT to be made and distributed to churches throughout the Mediterranean world. It was at this time that Lucian’s text began to be propagated by bishops going out from the Antiochan school to churches throughout the East, taking the text with them. Lucian’s text soon became the standard text of the Eastern church and formed the basis for the Byzantine text—and is thus the ultimate authority for the Textus Receptus.<\/p>\n<p>While Lucian was forming his recension of the NT text, the Alexandrian text was taking on its final shape. As was mentioned earlier, the formation of the Alexandrian text-type was the result of a process (as opposed to a single editorial recension). The formation of the Alexandrian text involved minor textual criticism (i.e., selecting variant readings among various manuscripts) and copyediting (i.e., producing a readable text). There was far less tampering with the text in the Alexandrian text-type than in the Lucian, and the underlying manuscripts for the Alexandrian text-type were superior to those used by Lucian. Perhaps Hesychius was responsible for giving the Alexandrian text its final shape, and Athanasius of Alexandria may have been the one who made this text the archetypal text for Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>As the years went by, there were fewer and fewer Alexandrian manuscripts produced, and more and more Byzantine manuscripts manufactured. Very few Egyptians continued to read Greek (with the exception of those in St Catherine’s Monastery, the site of the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus), and the rest of the Mediterranean world turned to Latin. It was only those in the Greek-speaking churches in Greece and Byzantium that continued to make copies of the Greek text. For century after century—from the 6th to the 14th—the great majority of NT manuscripts were produced in Byzantium, all bearing the same kind of text. When the first Greek NT was printed (c. 1525), it was based on a Greek text that Erasmus had compiled, using a few late Byzantine manuscripts. This printed text, with minor revisions, became the Textus Receptus.<\/p>\n<p>Beginning in the 17th century, earlier manuscripts began to be discovered—manuscripts with a text that differed from that found in the Textus Receptus. Around 1630, Codex Alexandrinus was brought to England. An early fifth-century manuscript, containing the entire NT, it provided a good, early witness to the NT text (it is an especially good witness to the original text of Revelation). Two hundred years later, a German scholar named Constantin von Tischendorf discovered Codex Sinaiticus in St Catherine’s Monastery (located near Mt Sinai). The manuscript, dated around <span>AD<\/span> 360, is one of the two oldest vellum (treated animal hide) manuscripts of the Greek NT. The earliest vellum manuscript, Codex Vaticanus, had been in the Vatican’s library since at least 1481, but it had not been made available to scholars until the middle of the 19th century. This manuscript, dated slightly earlier (<span>AD<\/span> 350) than Codex Sinaiticus, had both the OT and NT in Greek, excluding the last part of the NT (Hebrews 9:15 to Revelation 22:21 and the Pastoral Epistles). A hundred years of textual criticism has determined that this manuscript is one of the most accurate and reliable witnesses to the original text.<\/p>\n<p>Other early and important manuscripts were discovered in the 19th century. Through the tireless labors of men like Constantin von Tischendorf, Samuel Tregelles, and F. H. A. Scrivener, manuscripts such as Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Zacynthius, and Codex Augiensis were deciphered, collated, and published.<\/p>\n<p>As the various manuscripts were discovered and made public, certain scholars labored to compile a Greek text that would more closely represent the original text than did the Textus Receptus. Around 1700 John Mill produced an improved Textus Receptus, and in the 1730s Johannes Albert Bengel (known as the father of modern textual and philological studies in the NT) published a text that deviated from the Textus Receptus according to the evidence of earlier manuscripts.<\/p>\n<p>In the 1800s certain scholars began to abandon the Textus Receptus. Karl Lachman, a classical philologist, produced a fresh text (in 1831) that represented the fourth-century manuscripts. Samuel Tregelles (self-taught in Latin, Hebrew, and Greek), laboring throughout his entire lifetime, concentrated all of his efforts in publishing one Greek text (which came out in six parts, from 1857 to 1872). As is stated in the introduction to this work, Tregelles’s goal was “to exhibit the text of the NT in the very words in which it has been transmitted on the evidence of ancient authority.” Henry Alford also compiled a Greek text based upon the best and earliest manuscripts. In his preface to <em>The Greek New Testament<\/em> (a multivolume commentary on the Greek NT, published in 1849), Alford said he labored for the “demolition of the unworthy and pedantic reverence for the received text, which stood in the way of all chance of discovering the genuine word of God.”<\/p>\n<p>During this same era, Tischendorf was devoting a lifetime of labor to discovering manuscripts and producing accurate editions of the Greek NT. In a letter to his fiancé he wrote, “I am confronted with a sacred task, the struggle to regain the original form of the NT.” In fulfillment of his desire, he discovered Codex Sinaiticus, deciphered the palimpsest Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, collated countless manuscripts, and produced several editions of the Greek NT (the eighth edition is considered the best).<\/p>\n<p>Aided by the work of the previous scholars, two British men, Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort, worked together for 28 years to produce a volume entitled <em>The New Testament in the Original Greek<\/em> (1881). Along with this publication, they made known their theory (which was chiefly Hort’s) that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (along with a few other early manuscripts) represented a text that most closely replicated the original writing. They called this text the Neutral Text. (According to their studies, the Neutral Text described certain manuscripts that had the least amount of textual corruption.) This is the text that Westcott and Hort relied upon for compiling their volume.<\/p>\n<p>The 19th century was a fruitful era for the recovery of the Greek NT; the 20th century, no less so. Those living in the 20th century have witnessed the discovery of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, the Chester Beatty Papyri, and the Bodmer Papyri. To date, there are nearly 100 papyri containing portions of the NT—several of which date from the late first century to the early fourth century. These significant discoveries, providing scholars with many ancient manuscripts, have greatly enhanced the effort to recover the original wording of the NT.<\/p>\n<p>At the beginning of the 20th century, Eberhard Nestle used the best editions of the Greek NT produced in the 19th century to compile a text that represented the majority consensus. The work of making new editions was carried on by his son for several years, and then came under the care of Kurt Aland. The latest edition (the 27th) of Nestle-Aland’s <em>Novum Testamentum Graece<\/em> appeared in 1993. The same Greek text appears in another popular volume published by the United Bible Societies, called the <em>Greek New Testament<\/em> (fourth edition). Aland has argued that the Nestle-Aland text, 27th edition (NA<span>27<\/span>), comes closer to the original text of the NT than did Tischendorf or Westcott and Hort. And in several writings he intimates that NA<span>27<\/span> may very well be the original text. Though few, if any, scholars would agree with this, the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland text is regarded by many as representing the latest and best in textual scholarship.<\/p>\n<h5>New Testament Textual Criticism<\/h5>\n<p>Textual critics working with ancient literature universally acknowledge the supremacy of earlier manuscripts over later ones. Textual critics not working with the NT would love to have the same kind of early witnesses that biblical scholars possess. In fact, many of them work with manuscripts written 1,000 years after the autographs were composed! We all marvel that the Dead Sea Scrolls have provided a text that is nearly 800 years closer to the originals than the Masoretic manuscripts, and yet many of the Dead Sea manuscripts are still over 600 to 800 years removed from the time of original composition. NT textual critics have a great advantage!<\/p>\n<p>The 19th-century NT textual scholars—such as Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort—worked on the basis that the earliest witnesses are the best witnesses. Some textual scholars have continued this line of recovery using the testimony of the earlier witnesses. But many textual scholars since the time of Westcott and Hort have been less inclined to produce editions based on the theory that the earliest reading is the best. Most present-day textual critics are more inclined to endorse the maxim: the reading that is most likely original is the one that best explains the variants.<\/p>\n<p>This maxim (or “canon” as it is sometimes called), as good as it is, produces conflicting results. For example, two scholars, using this same principle to examine the same variant unit, will not agree. One will argue that one variant was produced by a copyist attempting to emulate the author’s style; the other will claim the same variant has to be original because it accords with the author’s style. One will argue that one variant was produced by an orthodox scribe attempting to rid the text of a reading that could be used to promote heterodoxy or heresy; another will claim that the same variant has to be original because it is orthodox and accords with Christian doctrine (thus a heterodox or heretical scribe must have changed it). Furthermore, this principle allows for the possibility that the reading selected for the text can be taken from any manuscript of any date. This can lead to subjective eclecticism.<\/p>\n<p>Modern textual scholars have attempted to temper the subjectivism by employing a method called “reasoned eclecticism.” This kind of eclecticism applies a combination of internal and external considerations, whereby the character of the variants is evaluated in light of the manuscripts’ evidence and vice versa. This is supposed to produce a balanced view and serve as a check against purely subjective tendencies.<\/p>\n<p>The Alands favor the same kind of approach, calling it the local-genealogical method, which is defined as follows:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>It is impossible to proceed from the assumption of a manuscript stemma, and on the basis of a full review and analysis of the relationships obtaining among the variety of interrelated branches in the manuscript tradition, to undertake a recension of the data as one would do with other Greek texts. Decisions must be made one by one, instance by instance. This method has been characterized as eclecticism, but wrongly so. After carefully establishing the variety of readings offered in a passage and the possibilities of their interpretation, it must always then be determined afresh on the basis of external and internal criteria which of these readings (and frequently they are quite numerous) is the original, from which the others may be regarded as derivative. From the perspective of our present knowledge, this “local-genealogical” method (if it must be given a name) is the only one which meets the requirements of the NT textual tradition. (Introduction to <em>Novum Testamentum Graece,<\/em> 26th edition)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The “local-genealogical” method assumes that for any given variation unit any manuscript (or manuscripts) may have preserved the original text. Applying this method produces an extremely uneven documentary presentation of the text. Anyone studying the critical apparatus of NA<span>27<\/span> will detect that there is not an even documentary presentation. The eclecticism is dispersed throughout the text.<\/p>\n<p>“Reasoned eclecticism” and\/or the “local-genealogical” method tend to give priority to internal evidence over external evidence. But it has to be the other way around if we are going to recover the original text. This was Westcott and Hort’s opinion. With respect to their compilation of <em>The New Testament in the Original Greek,<\/em> Hort wrote, “Documentary evidence has been in most cases allowed to confer the place of honour against internal evidence” (<em>The Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek,<\/em> p 17).<\/p>\n<p>In this respect, Westcott and Hort need to be revived. Earnest Colwell was of the same mind when he wrote “Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program.” Colwell decried the growing tendency to rely entirely on the internal evidence of readings, without serious consideration of documentary evidence. He called upon scholars to make an attempt to reconstruct a history of the manuscript tradition. The abundance of manuscripts—several of which are very early—will aid scholars in this ongoing task.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BIBLE*, Manuscripts and Text of the (New Testament) Copies of the NT books produced by scribes and editions made from these copies. In the centuries prior to the simultaneous-multiple production of copies via dictation (wherein many scribes in a scriptorium transcribed a text dictated to them by one reader), all manuscript copies were made singly—each scribe producing a copy from an exemplar. Prior to the 15th century, when Johannes Gutenberg invented movable type for the printing press, all ...","summary_en":"BIBLE*, Manuscripts and Text of the (New Testament) Copies of the NT books produced by scribes and editions made from these copies. In the centuries prior to the simultaneous-multiple production of copies via dictation (wherein many scribes in a scriptorium transcribed a text dictated to them by one reader), all manuscript copies were made singly—each scribe producing a copy from an exemplar. Prior to the 15th century, when Johannes Gutenberg invented movable type for the printing press, all ...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":56476,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:53","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:53","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:53–8:11<\/strong> This story, a later addition to the Gospel of John, does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts. However, it is likely an authentic story from Jesus’ life.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:53–8:11<\/strong> This story, a later addition to the Gospel of John, does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts. However, it is likely an authentic story from Jesus’ life.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:53–8:11 This story, a later addition to the Gospel of John, does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts. However, it is likely an authentic story from Jesus’ life.","summary_en":"7:53–8:11 This story, a later addition to the Gospel of John, does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts. However, it is likely an authentic story from Jesus’ life.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":84102,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:53","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:53","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:53–8:11<\/strong> This story, a later addition to the Gospel of John, does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts. However, it is likely an authentic story from Jesus’ life.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:53–8:11<\/strong> This story, a later addition to the Gospel of John, does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts. However, it is likely an authentic story from Jesus’ life.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:53–8:11 This story, a later addition to the Gospel of John, does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts. However, it is likely an authentic story from Jesus’ life.","summary_en":"7:53–8:11 This story, a later addition to the Gospel of John, does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts. However, it is likely an authentic story from Jesus’ life.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":111728,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:53","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:53","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:53–8:11<\/strong> This story, a later addition to the Gospel of John, does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts. However, it is likely an authentic story from Jesus’ life.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:53–8:11<\/strong> This story, a later addition to the Gospel of John, does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts. However, it is likely an authentic story from Jesus’ life.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:53–8:11 This story, a later addition to the Gospel of John, does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts. However, it is likely an authentic story from Jesus’ life.","summary_en":"7:53–8:11 This story, a later addition to the Gospel of John, does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts. However, it is likely an authentic story from Jesus’ life.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":139354,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ioan 7:53","title_en":"Study Note: Ioan 7:53","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:53–8:11<\/strong> This story, a later addition to the Gospel of John, does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts. However, it is likely an authentic story from Jesus’ life.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:53–8:11<\/strong> This story, a later addition to the Gospel of John, does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts. However, it is likely an authentic story from Jesus’ life.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:53–8:11 This story, a later addition to the Gospel of John, does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts. However, it is likely an authentic story from Jesus’ life.","summary_en":"7:53–8:11 This story, a later addition to the Gospel of John, does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts. However, it is likely an authentic story from Jesus’ life.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}]},"labels":{"article":"Articol","map":"Hartă","chart":"Diagramă","textbox":"Notă explicativă","picture":"Imagine","profile":"Profil","study_note":"Notă de studiu","theme_note":"Temă biblică"},"icons":{"article":"📖","map":"🗺️","chart":"📊","textbox":"💡","picture":"🖼️","profile":"👤","study_note":"📝","theme_note":"🎯"},"typeColors":{"article":"#d4af37","map":"#2d7d46","chart":"#3b82f6","textbox":"#8b5cf6","picture":"#ec4899","profile":"#f59e0b","study_note":"#06b6d4","theme_note":"#ef4444"}}