Judecătorii 19
1 Pe vremea când nu era împărat în Israel, un Levit, care locuia la marginea muntelui lui Efraim, şi-a luat ca ţiitoare o femeie din Betleemul lui Iuda.
2 Ţiitoarea nu i-a fost credincioasă, şi l-a părăsit ca să se ducă în casa tatălui ei în Betleemul lui Iuda, unde a rămas timp de patru luni.
3 Bărbatul ei s-a sculat şi s-a dus la ea, ca să-i vorbească inimii şi s-o aducă înapoi. Avea cu el pe sluga lui şi doi măgari. Ea l-a adus în casa tatălui ei; şi când l-a văzut tatăl femeii aceleia tinere, l-a primit cu bucurie.
4 Socrul său, tatăl femeii aceleia tinere, l-a ţinut la el trei zile. Au mâncat şi au băut, şi au rămas noaptea acolo.
5 A patra zi, s-au sculat dis de dimineaţă, şi Levitul se pregătea să plece. Dar tatăl tinerei femei a zis ginerelui său: ,,Ia o bucată de pâne, ca să prinzi la inimă; şi apoi veţi pleca.``
6 Şi au şezut de au mâncat şi au băut amândoi. Apoi tatăl tinerei femei a zis bărbatului: ,,Hotărăşte-te dar să rămâi aici la noapte, şi să ţi se veselească inima.``
7 Bărbatul se scula să plece; dar în urma stăruinţelor socrului său, a rămas acolo şi noaptea aceea.
8 În ziua a cincea, s-a sculat dis de dimineaţă să plece. Atunci tatăl tinerei femei a zis: ,,Întăreşte-ţi mai întâi inima, te rog; şi rămâi până ce se va pleca ziua spre seară.`` Şi au mâncat amândoi.
9 Bărbatul se scula să plece, cu ţiitoarea şi sluga lui; dar socrul-său, tatăl tinerei femei, i-a zis: ,,Iată că ziua a trecut, e târziu, rămâi dar peste noapte aici; iată că ziua se pleacă spre noapte, rămâi aici peste noapte, şi să ţi se veselească inima; mâne vă veţi scula disdedimineaţă ca să porniţi la drum, şi te vei duce la cortul tău.``
10 Bărbatul n-a vrut să mai rămână şi în noaptea aceea, ci s-a sculat şi a plecat. A ajuns până în faţa Iebusului, adică Ierusalimul, cu cei doi măgari înşălaţi şi cu ţiitoarea lui.
11 Când s-au apropiat de Iebus, ziua se plecase mult spre seară. Sluga a zis atunci stăpânului său: ,,Haidem, să ne îndreptăm spre cetatea aceasta a Iebusiţilor, şi să rămânem în ea peste noapte``.
12 Stăpânul său i-a răspuns: ,,Nu putem să intrăm într-o cetate străină, unde nu sânt copii de ai lui Israel, ci să mergem până la Ghibea.``
13 A mai zis slugii sale: ,,Haidem, să ne apropiem de unul din locurile acestea, Ghibea sau Rama, şi să rămânem acolo peste noapte``.
14 Au mers mai departe, şi apunea soarele când s-au apropiat de Ghibea, care este a lui Beniamin.
15 S-au îndreptat într-acolo ca să se ducă să rămână peste noapte în Ghibea. Levitul a intrat, şi s-a oprit în piaţa cetăţii. Nu s-a găsit nimeni care să-i primească în casă să rămână peste noapte.
16 Şi iată că un bătrân se întorcea seara dela munca câmpului; omul acesta era din muntele lui Efraim, locuia pentru o vreme la Ghibea, şi oamenii din locul acela erau Beniamiţi.
17 El a ridicat ochii şi a văzut pe călător în piaţa cetăţii. Şi bătrânul i-a zis: ,,Încotro mergi, şi de unde vii?``
18 El i-a răspuns: ,,Venim din Betleemul lui Iuda şi mergem până la marginea muntelui lui Efraim, de unde sânt. Mă dusesem la Betleemul lui Iuda, şi acum mă duc la casa Domnului. Dar nu se găseşte nimeni să mă primească în casă.
19 Avem însă paie şi nutreţ pentru măgarii noştri; avem şi pâne şi vin pentru mine, pentru roaba ta, şi pentru băiatul care este cu robii tăi. Nu ducem lipsă de nimic.``
20 Bătrânul a zis: ,,Pacea să fie cu tine! Toate nevoile tale le iau asupra mea, numai să nu rămâi în piaţă peste noapte.``
21 L-a dus în casa lui, şi a dat nutreţ măgarilor. Călătorii şi-au spălat picioarele; apoi au mâncat şi au băut.
22 Pe când se veseleau ei, iată că oamenii din cetate, nişte fii ai lui Belial, oameni stricaţi, au înconjurat casa, au bătut la poartă, şi au zis bătrânului, stăpânul casei: ,,Scoate pe omul acela care a intrat la tine, ca să ne împreunăm cu el.``
23 Stăpânul casei a ieşit la ei, şi le-a zis: ,,Nu, fraţilor, vă rog să nu faceţi un lucru aşa de rău; fiindcă omul acesta a intrat în casa mea, nu săvârşiţi mişelia aceasta.
24 Iată că am o fată fecioară, şi omul acesta are o ţiitoare; vi le voi aduce afară: necinstiţi-le, şi faceţi-le ce vă va plăcea. Dar nu săvârşiţi cu omul acesta o faptă aşa de nelegiuită``.
25 Oamenii aceia n-au vrut să-l asculte. Atunci omul şi-a luat ţiitoarea, şi le-a adus-o afară. Ei s-au împreunat cu ea, şi şi-au bătut joc de ea toată noaptea până dimineaţa: şi i-au dat drumul când se lumina de ziuă.
26 Către ziuă, femeia aceasta a venit şi a căzut la uşa casei omului la care era bărbatul ei, şi a rămas acolo până la ziuă.
27 Şi dimineaţa, bărbatul ei s-a sculat, a deschis uşa casei, şi a ieşit ca să-şi urmeze drumul mai departe. Dar iată că femeia, ţiitoarea lui, era întinsă la uşa casei, cu mânile pe prag.
28 El i-a zis: ,,Scoală-te, şi haidem să mergem!`` Ea n-a răspuns. Atunci bărbatul a pus-o pe măgar, şi a plecat acasă.
29 Când a ajuns acasă, a luat un cuţit, a apucat pe ţiitoarea lui, şi a tăiat-o mădular cu mădular în douăsprezece bucăţi, pe cari le-a trimes în tot ţinutul lui Israel.
30 Toţi cei ce au văzut lucrul acesta, au zis: ,,Niciodată nu s-a întâmplat şi nu s-a văzut aşa ceva, decând s-au suit copiii lui Israel din Egipt până în ziua de azi; luaţi aminte dar la lucrul aceasta, sfătuiţi-vă şi vorbiţi!``
{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":4325,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tribe of Benjamin","title_en":"Tribe of Benjamin","content_ro":"<h3>BENJAMIN, T<span>ribe of<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>One of the smallest of the 12 tribes of Israel, made up of descendants of Jacob’s youngest son (Nm 1:36). In the OT the tribe is often referred to as simply “Benjamin.” Though small, the tribe of Benjamin played an important role in Israelite history, particularly in their conduct as great warriors (Jgs 20:13-16; 1 Chr 12:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>At the Israelite conquest of Canaan, after the tribes of Judah and Ephraim had received their territory, the first lot came to Benjamin. The tribe was allotted territory between Judah and Ephraim, a strip of land between Mt Ephraim and the Judean hills. The southern boundary with Judah was clearly defined: through the valley of Hinnom immediately south of Jerusalem to a point north of the Dead Sea. Its eastern limit was the Jordan, and its northern boundary with Ephraim ran from the Jordan to Bethel to Ataroth-addar south of Lower Beth-horon (Jos 18:11-20).<\/p>\n<p>Benjamin’s territory extended about 28 miles (45.1 kilometers) from west to east and 12 miles (19.3 kilometers) north to south. It was hilly country, strategically located to control key passes, but with fertile hill basins. Among its hill settlements were the important towns of Jerusalem, Jericho, Bethel, Gibeon, Gibeah, and Mizpeh (Jos 18:21-28). Not all of its towns were immediately taken from their previous possessors; Jerusalem, for example, was in the hands of the Jebusites until David’s time. The environment bred a hardy race of highlanders, well described in Jacob’s blessing of Benjamin as “a wolf that prowls” (Gn 49:27).<\/p>\n<p>Ehud of Benjamin was one of the early judges in Canaan, a “deliverer” of the Israelites who killed Eglon, king of Moab (Jgs 3:15). Members of the tribe later helped Deborah and Barak defeat Sisera (5:14). The tribe continued to produce great men: political leaders (1 Chr 27:21), captains in Saul’s army (2 Sm 4:2) and David’s army (23:29), skilled archers (1 Chr 8:40), and overseers in Solomon’s labor force (1 Kgs 4:18).<\/p>\n<p>Less noble traits were also shown by Benjamin’s descendants. Palti, a Benjaminite, was one of the scouts making a bad report when the 12 spies returned from the land of Canaan (Nm 13:1-2, 9, 31-33). The tribe as a whole displayed disobedience and lack of consistent courage by failing to clear their inheritance of Canaanites (Jgs 1:21). Following the custom of the day, the whole tribe defended the lewd treatment and murder of a concubine from another tribe by a few of their members (chs 19–20). That act of gross immorality united the other tribes against them, and the tribe of Benjamin was almost decimated. To keep the tribe from dying out, the other tribes allowed the Benjaminites to take captive several hundred women who then became their wives (Jgs 21).<\/p>\n<p>Benjamin’s tribe proved to be dependable in various ways. During the exodus from Egypt, it took its place in the organization (Nm 1:11) and the army (2:22) and made its tribal offerings (7:60). It demonstrated remarkable loyalty to the throne, initially to Saul and his family (2 Sm 2:8-31). Later David received its faithful support, as did his descendants, for Benjamin remained with Judah, loyal to Solomon’s son Rehoboam when Jeroboam led a secession (1 Kgs 12:21-24).<\/p>\n<p>Other men of Benjamin (often called Benjaminites) spoken of in the OT include Cush, of whom David sang (Ps 7 superscription); Jeremiah the prophet, who, though a Levite, lived within Benjamin’s tribe (Jer 1:1; 32:8); and Mordecai, uncle and adviser to Queen Esther (Est 2:5).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the apostle Paul made no apologies for his ancestry, twice referring to himself as a Hebrew of Benjamin’s tribe (Rom 11:1; Phil 3:5). In his sermon at Antioch of Pisidia, Paul also mentioned Benjamin as the tribe of King Saul, in his brief account of Israel’s history (Acts 13:21). In one other NT reference Benjamin is named with the other 11 tribes in John’s apocalyptic vision (Rv 7:8). <em>See<\/em> Benjamin (Person) #1.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BENJAMIN, T<span>ribe of<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>One of the smallest of the 12 tribes of Israel, made up of descendants of Jacob’s youngest son (Nm 1:36). In the OT the tribe is often referred to as simply “Benjamin.” Though small, the tribe of Benjamin played an important role in Israelite history, particularly in their conduct as great warriors (Jgs 20:13-16; 1 Chr 12:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>At the Israelite conquest of Canaan, after the tribes of Judah and Ephraim had received their territory, the first lot came to Benjamin. The tribe was allotted territory between Judah and Ephraim, a strip of land between Mt Ephraim and the Judean hills. The southern boundary with Judah was clearly defined: through the valley of Hinnom immediately south of Jerusalem to a point north of the Dead Sea. Its eastern limit was the Jordan, and its northern boundary with Ephraim ran from the Jordan to Bethel to Ataroth-addar south of Lower Beth-horon (Jos 18:11-20).<\/p>\n<p>Benjamin’s territory extended about 28 miles (45.1 kilometers) from west to east and 12 miles (19.3 kilometers) north to south. It was hilly country, strategically located to control key passes, but with fertile hill basins. Among its hill settlements were the important towns of Jerusalem, Jericho, Bethel, Gibeon, Gibeah, and Mizpeh (Jos 18:21-28). Not all of its towns were immediately taken from their previous possessors; Jerusalem, for example, was in the hands of the Jebusites until David’s time. The environment bred a hardy race of highlanders, well described in Jacob’s blessing of Benjamin as “a wolf that prowls” (Gn 49:27).<\/p>\n<p>Ehud of Benjamin was one of the early judges in Canaan, a “deliverer” of the Israelites who killed Eglon, king of Moab (Jgs 3:15). Members of the tribe later helped Deborah and Barak defeat Sisera (5:14). The tribe continued to produce great men: political leaders (1 Chr 27:21), captains in Saul’s army (2 Sm 4:2) and David’s army (23:29), skilled archers (1 Chr 8:40), and overseers in Solomon’s labor force (1 Kgs 4:18).<\/p>\n<p>Less noble traits were also shown by Benjamin’s descendants. Palti, a Benjaminite, was one of the scouts making a bad report when the 12 spies returned from the land of Canaan (Nm 13:1-2, 9, 31-33). The tribe as a whole displayed disobedience and lack of consistent courage by failing to clear their inheritance of Canaanites (Jgs 1:21). Following the custom of the day, the whole tribe defended the lewd treatment and murder of a concubine from another tribe by a few of their members (chs 19–20). That act of gross immorality united the other tribes against them, and the tribe of Benjamin was almost decimated. To keep the tribe from dying out, the other tribes allowed the Benjaminites to take captive several hundred women who then became their wives (Jgs 21).<\/p>\n<p>Benjamin’s tribe proved to be dependable in various ways. During the exodus from Egypt, it took its place in the organization (Nm 1:11) and the army (2:22) and made its tribal offerings (7:60). It demonstrated remarkable loyalty to the throne, initially to Saul and his family (2 Sm 2:8-31). Later David received its faithful support, as did his descendants, for Benjamin remained with Judah, loyal to Solomon’s son Rehoboam when Jeroboam led a secession (1 Kgs 12:21-24).<\/p>\n<p>Other men of Benjamin (often called Benjaminites) spoken of in the OT include Cush, of whom David sang (Ps 7 superscription); Jeremiah the prophet, who, though a Levite, lived within Benjamin’s tribe (Jer 1:1; 32:8); and Mordecai, uncle and adviser to Queen Esther (Est 2:5).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the apostle Paul made no apologies for his ancestry, twice referring to himself as a Hebrew of Benjamin’s tribe (Rom 11:1; Phil 3:5). In his sermon at Antioch of Pisidia, Paul also mentioned Benjamin as the tribe of King Saul, in his brief account of Israel’s history (Acts 13:21). In one other NT reference Benjamin is named with the other 11 tribes in John’s apocalyptic vision (Rv 7:8). <em>See<\/em> Benjamin (Person) #1.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BENJAMIN, Tribe of One of the smallest of the 12 tribes of Israel, made up of descendants of Jacob’s youngest son (Nm 1:36). In the OT the tribe is often referred to as simply “Benjamin.” Though small, the tribe of Benjamin played an important role in Israelite history, particularly in their conduct as great warriors (Jgs 20:13-16; 1 Chr 12:1-2). At the Israelite conquest of Canaan, after the tribes of Judah and Ephraim had received their territory, the first lot came to Benjamin. The tribe w...","summary_en":"BENJAMIN, Tribe of One of the smallest of the 12 tribes of Israel, made up of descendants of Jacob’s youngest son (Nm 1:36). In the OT the tribe is often referred to as simply “Benjamin.” Though small, the tribe of Benjamin played an important role in Israelite history, particularly in their conduct as great warriors (Jgs 20:13-16; 1 Chr 12:1-2). At the Israelite conquest of Canaan, after the tribes of Judah and Ephraim had received their territory, the first lot came to Benjamin. The tribe w...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":7363,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Concubinage*, Concubines","title_en":"Concubinage*, Concubines","content_ro":"<h3>CONCUBINAGE*, CONCUBINES<\/h3>\n<p>Practice of a man cohabiting with a woman (concubine) who is regarded only as his sexual partner or as a secondary wife in his household, of lower station than his primary wife. Concubinage was practiced in many ancient cultures, especially in Mesopotamia, where the king maintained a harem and where a private citizen might have one or two concubines in addition to his primary wife. Both types of concubinage are referred to in the Bible. A concubine was often a slave or part of the booty of war (Jgs 5:30).<\/p>\n<p>A man might have a concubine simply as an economical form of marriage, since no dowry, or bride-price, was required. A concubine could add to a man’s prestige by giving him two wives and thus an increased capacity for children. Such offspring were normally delivered onto the knees of the legal wife, thus establishing their legitimacy as family members. The concubine was also another servant to add to the man’s work force.<\/p>\n<p>In the patriarchal period, concubinage was customary (Gn 22:24; 35:22; 36:12), especially when the primary wife was childless (Gn 16:1-3; 25:5-6; 1 Chr 1:32). A concubine could exercise certain rights and secure recognition and inheritance for her offspring (note Gn 49:1-28, where the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah were included along with the sons of Leah and Rachel; cf. Gn 35:22-26). The custom was not suppressed by the Mosaic law, which must have included concubines in its treatment of multiple wives (Dt 17:17; 21:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>Concubinage continued through the period of the judges. Gideon had a concubine (Jgs 8:31), as did an unnamed man of Levi’s tribe (Jgs 19). Abuse of that man’s concubine by men from Benjamin’s tribe caused a bloody civil war (Jgs 20–21). During the period of Israel’s monarchy, the luxury of concubines could be afforded only by kings such as Saul (2 Sm 3:7), David (5:13; 15:16), Solomon (1 Kgs 11:3), and Rehoboam (2 Chr 11:21). Royal harems existed in many other cultures of that time, including Egypt, Persia (Est 2:14), and Babylon (Dn 5:2-3, 23).<\/p>\n<p>Concubines were thus a legitimate part of many ancient cultures, even when a society acknowledged the superiority of monogamous marriage. Concubinage was fostered by a desire for prestige and a large family, but could at times degenerate into a license for sexual freedom (cf. Eccl 2:8). Concubinage was part of the contemporary Greek and Roman cultures, but it was not in keeping with the teachings of Jesus (Mt 19:1-9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Family Life and Relations; Marriage, Marriage Customs.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CONCUBINAGE*, CONCUBINES<\/h3>\n<p>Practice of a man cohabiting with a woman (concubine) who is regarded only as his sexual partner or as a secondary wife in his household, of lower station than his primary wife. Concubinage was practiced in many ancient cultures, especially in Mesopotamia, where the king maintained a harem and where a private citizen might have one or two concubines in addition to his primary wife. Both types of concubinage are referred to in the Bible. A concubine was often a slave or part of the booty of war (Jgs 5:30).<\/p>\n<p>A man might have a concubine simply as an economical form of marriage, since no dowry, or bride-price, was required. A concubine could add to a man’s prestige by giving him two wives and thus an increased capacity for children. Such offspring were normally delivered onto the knees of the legal wife, thus establishing their legitimacy as family members. The concubine was also another servant to add to the man’s work force.<\/p>\n<p>In the patriarchal period, concubinage was customary (Gn 22:24; 35:22; 36:12), especially when the primary wife was childless (Gn 16:1-3; 25:5-6; 1 Chr 1:32). A concubine could exercise certain rights and secure recognition and inheritance for her offspring (note Gn 49:1-28, where the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah were included along with the sons of Leah and Rachel; cf. Gn 35:22-26). The custom was not suppressed by the Mosaic law, which must have included concubines in its treatment of multiple wives (Dt 17:17; 21:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>Concubinage continued through the period of the judges. Gideon had a concubine (Jgs 8:31), as did an unnamed man of Levi’s tribe (Jgs 19). Abuse of that man’s concubine by men from Benjamin’s tribe caused a bloody civil war (Jgs 20–21). During the period of Israel’s monarchy, the luxury of concubines could be afforded only by kings such as Saul (2 Sm 3:7), David (5:13; 15:16), Solomon (1 Kgs 11:3), and Rehoboam (2 Chr 11:21). Royal harems existed in many other cultures of that time, including Egypt, Persia (Est 2:14), and Babylon (Dn 5:2-3, 23).<\/p>\n<p>Concubines were thus a legitimate part of many ancient cultures, even when a society acknowledged the superiority of monogamous marriage. Concubinage was fostered by a desire for prestige and a large family, but could at times degenerate into a license for sexual freedom (cf. Eccl 2:8). Concubinage was part of the contemporary Greek and Roman cultures, but it was not in keeping with the teachings of Jesus (Mt 19:1-9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Family Life and Relations; Marriage, Marriage Customs.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CONCUBINAGE*, CONCUBINES Practice of a man cohabiting with a woman (concubine) who is regarded only as his sexual partner or as a secondary wife in his household, of lower station than his primary wife. Concubinage was practiced in many ancient cultures, especially in Mesopotamia, where the king maintained a harem and where a private citizen might have one or two concubines in addition to his primary wife. Both types of concubinage are referred to in the Bible. A concubine was often a slave o...","summary_en":"CONCUBINAGE*, CONCUBINES Practice of a man cohabiting with a woman (concubine) who is regarded only as his sexual partner or as a secondary wife in his household, of lower station than his primary wife. Concubinage was practiced in many ancient cultures, especially in Mesopotamia, where the king maintained a harem and where a private citizen might have one or two concubines in addition to his primary wife. Both types of concubinage are referred to in the Bible. A concubine was often a slave o...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":10983,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Mount Ephraim*","title_en":"Mount Ephraim*","content_ro":"<h3>EPHRAIM*, Mount<\/h3>\n<p>KJV expression referring to the hill country in central Palestine where Ephraim’s tribe was located (Jos 20:7; Jgs 19:1, 16, 18; 1 Sm 1:1). The area was one of the most productive in Palestine.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Ephraim (Place) #1.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EPHRAIM*, Mount<\/h3>\n<p>KJV expression referring to the hill country in central Palestine where Ephraim’s tribe was located (Jos 20:7; Jgs 19:1, 16, 18; 1 Sm 1:1). The area was one of the most productive in Palestine.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Ephraim (Place) #1.<\/p>","summary_ro":"EPHRAIM*, Mount KJV expression referring to the hill country in central Palestine where Ephraim’s tribe was located (Jos 20:7; Jgs 19:1, 16, 18; 1 Sm 1:1). The area was one of the most productive in Palestine. See also Ephraim (Place) #1.","summary_en":"EPHRAIM*, Mount KJV expression referring to the hill country in central Palestine where Ephraim’s tribe was located (Jos 20:7; Jgs 19:1, 16, 18; 1 Sm 1:1). The area was one of the most productive in Palestine. See also Ephraim (Place) #1.","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13764,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gibeah","title_en":"Gibeah","content_ro":"<h3>GIBEAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Town in the hill country of Judah (Jos 15:57). Its exact location is uncertain. Gibeah is listed as being among other towns located in the section of Judah southeast of Hebron and probably was in the fertile plateau containing Maon, Ziph, and Carmel.<\/li>\n<li>2. Town in the province of Benjamin, also called “Gibeah of Saul” (1 Sm 11:4; 15:34; Is 10:29), and its inhabitants are called Gibeathites (1 Chr 12:3). It is first mentioned in the description of the territory assigned to Benjamin (Jos 18:28, <span>kjv<\/span> “Gibeath”) and comes to prominence in the biblical narrative as a result of the atrocity recounted in Judges 19–21 of the Levite and his concubine.<\/li>\n<p>Gibeah was also noted as the home of Saul (1 Sm 10:26). After his anointing as king of Israel, Saul returned to Gibeah, which probably remained his home and his capital (10:26; 22:6; 23:19).<\/p>\n<p>The site of ancient Gibeah has been generally identified as the modern Tell el-Ful. The OT references place Gibeah north of Jerusalem, between Jerusalem and Ramah, and situated near the primary south-north road through the hill country (Jgs 19:11-19). Tell el-Ful is about three and a half miles (5.6 kilometers) north of Jerusalem and is situated on one of the highest areas in that mountain range. Excavations reveal that an early Israelite village was there about the 12th century <span>BC<\/span> and was destroyed by fire. Probably during the 11th century a stone fortress was built, and its corner tower is still evident. It probably was the citadel of Saul and his royal residence. A second fortress was built about 1000 <span>BC<\/span> but fell into disuse when David established the Israelite capital at Jerusalem. It then served as an outpost for the capital city. The tower was alternately destroyed and rebuilt through the centuries until its final destruction in the war between Antiochus III and Ptolemy V. Josephus wrote that a village existed at the site of Gibeah during the Roman period, but it finally ceased to exist with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem (<span>AD<\/span> 70).<\/p>\n<li>3. Town in the hills of Ephraim that was given to Phinehas, son of Eleazar. It was the burial site of Eleazar (Jos 24:33). An addition to the Septuagint indicates that Phinehas was also buried here. Its exact location is unknown, and several sites have been suggested: Nibi Saleh, about six miles (9.7 kilometers) northwest of Jifna; Jibia, four miles (6.5 kilometers) northwest of Jifna; et-Tell, northeast of Jifna and south of Sinjil; and Awertah, near Shechem.<\/li>\n<li>4. Gibeath-elohim (1 Sm 10:5, <span>rsv<\/span>; <span>kjv<\/span> “hill of God”; <span>nlt<\/span> “Gibeah of God”). At this site Samuel, following Saul’s anointing as king, predicted that Saul would meet a company of prophets and would prophesy with them. This was to be a sign of God’s selection of Saul as Israel’s king. Some have suggested that this is the same place as Gibeah of Benjamin, the home of Saul, but the context suggests that Saul reached this place before he arrived at his home.<\/li>\n<li>5. Hill near Kiriath-jearim, where the ark of the covenant was housed by Abinadab after its return from the Philistines and until it was moved by David to the house of Obed-edom (2 Sm 6:1-4).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>GIBEAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Town in the hill country of Judah (Jos 15:57). Its exact location is uncertain. Gibeah is listed as being among other towns located in the section of Judah southeast of Hebron and probably was in the fertile plateau containing Maon, Ziph, and Carmel.<\/li>\n<li>2. Town in the province of Benjamin, also called “Gibeah of Saul” (1 Sm 11:4; 15:34; Is 10:29), and its inhabitants are called Gibeathites (1 Chr 12:3). It is first mentioned in the description of the territory assigned to Benjamin (Jos 18:28, <span>kjv<\/span> “Gibeath”) and comes to prominence in the biblical narrative as a result of the atrocity recounted in Judges 19–21 of the Levite and his concubine.<\/li>\n<p>Gibeah was also noted as the home of Saul (1 Sm 10:26). After his anointing as king of Israel, Saul returned to Gibeah, which probably remained his home and his capital (10:26; 22:6; 23:19).<\/p>\n<p>The site of ancient Gibeah has been generally identified as the modern Tell el-Ful. The OT references place Gibeah north of Jerusalem, between Jerusalem and Ramah, and situated near the primary south-north road through the hill country (Jgs 19:11-19). Tell el-Ful is about three and a half miles (5.6 kilometers) north of Jerusalem and is situated on one of the highest areas in that mountain range. Excavations reveal that an early Israelite village was there about the 12th century <span>BC<\/span> and was destroyed by fire. Probably during the 11th century a stone fortress was built, and its corner tower is still evident. It probably was the citadel of Saul and his royal residence. A second fortress was built about 1000 <span>BC<\/span> but fell into disuse when David established the Israelite capital at Jerusalem. It then served as an outpost for the capital city. The tower was alternately destroyed and rebuilt through the centuries until its final destruction in the war between Antiochus III and Ptolemy V. Josephus wrote that a village existed at the site of Gibeah during the Roman period, but it finally ceased to exist with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem (<span>AD<\/span> 70).<\/p>\n<li>3. Town in the hills of Ephraim that was given to Phinehas, son of Eleazar. It was the burial site of Eleazar (Jos 24:33). An addition to the Septuagint indicates that Phinehas was also buried here. Its exact location is unknown, and several sites have been suggested: Nibi Saleh, about six miles (9.7 kilometers) northwest of Jifna; Jibia, four miles (6.5 kilometers) northwest of Jifna; et-Tell, northeast of Jifna and south of Sinjil; and Awertah, near Shechem.<\/li>\n<li>4. Gibeath-elohim (1 Sm 10:5, <span>rsv<\/span>; <span>kjv<\/span> “hill of God”; <span>nlt<\/span> “Gibeah of God”). At this site Samuel, following Saul’s anointing as king, predicted that Saul would meet a company of prophets and would prophesy with them. This was to be a sign of God’s selection of Saul as Israel’s king. Some have suggested that this is the same place as Gibeah of Benjamin, the home of Saul, but the context suggests that Saul reached this place before he arrived at his home.<\/li>\n<li>5. Hill near Kiriath-jearim, where the ark of the covenant was housed by Abinadab after its return from the Philistines and until it was moved by David to the house of Obed-edom (2 Sm 6:1-4).<\/li>","summary_ro":"GIBEAH 1. Town in the hill country of Judah (Jos 15:57). Its exact location is uncertain. Gibeah is listed as being among other towns located in the section of Judah southeast of Hebron and probably was in the fertile plateau containing Maon, Ziph, and Carmel. 2. Town in the province of Benjamin, also called “Gibeah of Saul” (1 Sm 11:4; 15:34; Is 10:29), and its inhabitants are called Gibeathites (1 Chr 12:3). It is first mentioned in the description of the territory assigned to Benjamin (Jos...","summary_en":"GIBEAH 1. Town in the hill country of Judah (Jos 15:57). Its exact location is uncertain. Gibeah is listed as being among other towns located in the section of Judah southeast of Hebron and probably was in the fertile plateau containing Maon, Ziph, and Carmel. 2. Town in the province of Benjamin, also called “Gibeah of Saul” (1 Sm 11:4; 15:34; Is 10:29), and its inhabitants are called Gibeathites (1 Chr 12:3). It is first mentioned in the description of the territory assigned to Benjamin (Jos...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":18189,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jabesh-Gilead (Place) Jabesh","title_en":"Jabesh-Gilead (Place) Jabesh","content_ro":"<h3>JABESH, JABESH-GILEAD (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Town appearing in the closing chapters of the book of Judges (chs 19–21). This is a sad record of the division and degradation of the land, which tells of a base atrocity committed by the men of Gibeah against a Levite’s concubine, a sanguinary war against Benjamin in consequence, and savage reprisals against Jabesh-gilead, whose community had sent no contingent to the battle. Such is the first mention of the town. The town was repopulated by neighboring Gileadites and next appears in 1 Samuel 11. East of the Jordan River, Jabesh was exposed to Ammonite attack, and Nahash of Ammon forced Jabesh-gilead to seek terms of surrender. The condition imposed by the barbarous Nahash was the loss of the right eye for all the inhabitants, a mutilation intended to humiliate Israel and destroy the military potential of a border fortress. The sequel was Saul’s forced march, a fine piece of military prowess, and a tremendous boost for the new king’s prestige. Saul gained in one swift blow the support of the Transjordanian tribes and the reduction of the frontier threat that a militarily powerful Ammon would undoubtedly offer. The men of Jabesh-gilead repaid their deep debt to Saul when the king, now unbalanced and rejected, died on Mt Gilboa with his son Jonathan in a last attempt to blunt the Philistine drive to the north. The bodies of Saul and Jonathan, hung headless over the walls of Beth-shan, were cut down and rescued by a commando force from Jabesh-gilead, who made a forced march of nine miles (14.5 kilometers) each way to honor their onetime benefactor (1 Sm 31:8-13; 1 Chr 10:8-12). When David became king, he repaid the men of Jabesh-gilead with gratitude.<\/p>\n<p>The name Jabesh is preserved in that of the Wadi el-Yabis that runs into the Jordan directly south of the southern end of the Sea of Galilee. The town itself, according to Eusebius’s generally reliable topography, was about six miles (9.7 kilometers) south of Pella on the road to Gerasa. The twin tells of Tell el-Maqereh and Tell Abu Kharaz on the Wadi el-Yabis correspond with Eusebius’s location much better than the other site suggested: Tell el-Maqlub. Tell el-Meqereh and Tell Abu Kharaz are on the eastern rim of the Jordan Valley and fit the details of the historical record—Saul’s forced march from Bezek, and the route of the Jabesh-gilead raiding party to Beth-shan.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JABESH, JABESH-GILEAD (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Town appearing in the closing chapters of the book of Judges (chs 19–21). This is a sad record of the division and degradation of the land, which tells of a base atrocity committed by the men of Gibeah against a Levite’s concubine, a sanguinary war against Benjamin in consequence, and savage reprisals against Jabesh-gilead, whose community had sent no contingent to the battle. Such is the first mention of the town. The town was repopulated by neighboring Gileadites and next appears in 1 Samuel 11. East of the Jordan River, Jabesh was exposed to Ammonite attack, and Nahash of Ammon forced Jabesh-gilead to seek terms of surrender. The condition imposed by the barbarous Nahash was the loss of the right eye for all the inhabitants, a mutilation intended to humiliate Israel and destroy the military potential of a border fortress. The sequel was Saul’s forced march, a fine piece of military prowess, and a tremendous boost for the new king’s prestige. Saul gained in one swift blow the support of the Transjordanian tribes and the reduction of the frontier threat that a militarily powerful Ammon would undoubtedly offer. The men of Jabesh-gilead repaid their deep debt to Saul when the king, now unbalanced and rejected, died on Mt Gilboa with his son Jonathan in a last attempt to blunt the Philistine drive to the north. The bodies of Saul and Jonathan, hung headless over the walls of Beth-shan, were cut down and rescued by a commando force from Jabesh-gilead, who made a forced march of nine miles (14.5 kilometers) each way to honor their onetime benefactor (1 Sm 31:8-13; 1 Chr 10:8-12). When David became king, he repaid the men of Jabesh-gilead with gratitude.<\/p>\n<p>The name Jabesh is preserved in that of the Wadi el-Yabis that runs into the Jordan directly south of the southern end of the Sea of Galilee. The town itself, according to Eusebius’s generally reliable topography, was about six miles (9.7 kilometers) south of Pella on the road to Gerasa. The twin tells of Tell el-Maqereh and Tell Abu Kharaz on the Wadi el-Yabis correspond with Eusebius’s location much better than the other site suggested: Tell el-Maqlub. Tell el-Meqereh and Tell Abu Kharaz are on the eastern rim of the Jordan Valley and fit the details of the historical record—Saul’s forced march from Bezek, and the route of the Jabesh-gilead raiding party to Beth-shan.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JABESH, JABESH-GILEAD (Place) Town appearing in the closing chapters of the book of Judges (chs 19–21). This is a sad record of the division and degradation of the land, which tells of a base atrocity committed by the men of Gibeah against a Levite’s concubine, a sanguinary war against Benjamin in consequence, and savage reprisals against Jabesh-gilead, whose community had sent no contingent to the battle. Such is the first mention of the town. The town was repopulated by neighboring Gileadit...","summary_en":"JABESH, JABESH-GILEAD (Place) Town appearing in the closing chapters of the book of Judges (chs 19–21). This is a sad record of the division and degradation of the land, which tells of a base atrocity committed by the men of Gibeah against a Levite’s concubine, a sanguinary war against Benjamin in consequence, and savage reprisals against Jabesh-gilead, whose community had sent no contingent to the battle. Such is the first mention of the town. The town was repopulated by neighboring Gileadit...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":21211,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Judges","title_en":"Book of Judges","content_ro":"<h3>JUDGES, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The book reflects a final editing of the material in the period of the early monarchy. It may well be a polemic for the righteous rule of David over against the kingship of Saul, which was molded by a secular, Canaanite conception of kingship rather than by the law of God. The author was almost certainly not Samuel, as traditionally thought, but a later compiler who relied on ancient written materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Though the judges succeeded in giving the tribes some rest from the incursions of surrounding enemies, the Israelites were continually harassed over long periods of time. Scholarly opinion differs on the duration of the period of the judges. The dating of the exodus affects the dating of the beginning of the judges. Those who take an early date for the exodus put the beginning around 1370–1360 <span>BC<\/span>, whereas others propose a date close to the end of the 13th century <span>BC<\/span>. A related issue pertains to the chronology of the judges. Does Judges give a chronological, sequential account of the period, or is the book a representative account of judges from various parts of Canaan and Transjordan who “judged” a region, a tribe, or several tribes simultaneously?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiteraryFramework\">Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that the stories in the book bear the marks of literary creativity. The stories are classics in their own right. The poetry of Deborah’s song (Jgs 5) is very moving, and the fable of Jotham (9:8-15) is a fine example of figurative speech. The care given to the stories is also reflected in the construction of the book. There are two introductions: a political one (Jgs 1:1–2:5) and a socioreligious one (2:6–3:6). The political introduction connects Judges with the story of the Conquest, when the tribes attempted to occupy the land. It prepares the reader for the political and military problems of the era of the judges. The socioreligious introduction explains why Israel had so many adversities, why the institution of the judges arose, and why the Lord never gave Israel the promised lasting rest from its enemies. The main body of the book is the story of the judges (3:7–16:31). References to the minor judges (six in all) are set within the stories of the major judges in increasing frequency. As is evident from the schema, the number of minor judges increased in frequency in proportion to the decrease in number of major judges: two major, one minor; two major, two minor; one major, three minor; one major. There is a total of 12 judges, representative of the 12 tribes of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the listing of 12 judges, representative of the various parts of Canaan and Transjordan, is to demonstrate that all tribes throughout the conquered territories experienced grave difficulties from a variety of enemies: Arameans, Moabites, Ammonites, Amalekites, Canaanites, and Philistines. Israel was hard pressed on nearly all its frontiers. The appendixes (chs 17–21), together with the two introductions, form the framework of the book. The political and socioreligious problems (1:1–3:6) are presented by way of several stories in the last chapters. The final editor who gave the book its canonical shape purposefully framed the stories of the judges so as to show lack of movement. The successes of the previous stages in redemptive history came to a standstill in the ebb and flow of the judges. Though the Lord delivered his people in many ways, they returned to the problems described in 1:1–3:6. The appendixes describe Israel’s problems representative of the period of the judges, when “there was no king in Israel” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for deliverance, and God’s raising up of a judge reflects a deuteronomic perspective with its warnings concerning disobedience and judgment. The repetitiveness of the cycle supports the contention of the anonymous narrator that Israel remained unchanged by the grace of God. However, in spite of the moral, religious, and political anarchy as well as the civil wars, the last chapter shows that the tribes are still concerned with each other’s welfare. Though the unity of God’s people has been gravely challenged, the situation is not hopeless. The book ends on a note of hope—hope for a king who may deliver Israel.<\/p>\n\n<p>Thus, there are several purposes of the book: (1) to demonstrate the meaninglessness of this stage in Israel’s development; (2) to explain why the tribes did not occupy all the land promised to the patriarchs; (3) to justify the way of God, who was gracious and patient with Israel’s repeated acts of disobedience; (4) to set forth the legitimacy of a “shepherd” king in contrast to a despotic form of kingship; and (5) to explain the urgent need for a new momentum, lest Israel succumb to the Philistines and intertribal warfare.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Political Introduction (1:1–2:5)<\/h5>\n<p>In Joshua 1–12 the warfare under Joshua is portrayed as a mobilization of Canaanite forces against Israel. By the intervention of the Lord, the Canaanite resistance was put down and the land was occupied by the tribes (chs 13–21). Joshua 13–21, however, clearly shows that each tribe had problems ridding its territory of pockets of Canaanite resistance, which were usually centered around heavily guarded and well-fortified cities (cf. 13:2-6, 13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-18).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Joshua emphasizes the successes and minimizes the problems, whereas the prologue to Judges sets the stage for the whole book by openly addressing Israel’s problems and failures. As the book unfolds, it is precisely these problems and failures that in due time bring Israel to the brink of disaster.<\/p>\n<p>The period of the judges began with the death of Joshua (Jgs 1:1; 2:8-9). The Israelites had inherited a legacy from Joshua: the law of the Lord (Jos 23:6; 24:26), the land, a challenge to obey the Lord (24:14-27), and a promise of God’s presence and help in subduing the Canaanites (23:5, 10).<\/p>\n<h6>Judah and Simeon (Jgs 1:2-20)<\/h6>\n<p>The prominence of Judah and Caleb parallels the position of Judah in Joshua (Jos 14:6–15:63; cf. also the house of Joseph, Jgs 1:22-29; cf. Jos 16–17). Judah was victorious over the cruel Adoni-bezek, who ruled over Bezek, a town of uncertain location. Judah successfully occupied the hill country, the Negev, and the western foothills. They even took Jerusalem, or an outlying suburb identified with Jerusalem (Jos 1:8), but could not retain control there (v 21) until David’s conquest of the city (2 Sm 5:6-9). Judah was victorious over the Canaanites in the region of Hebron, already conquered under Joshua (Jos 10:36). Hebron, also known as Kiriath-arba (“city of four” or “tetrapolis”), was a powerful ally of Jerusalem (v 3) and had been able to rally military support for a new assault on Israel, even after its first defeat. Caleb received Hebron, as Moses had promised (Jgs 1:20; cf. Jos 15:13). After the victory over Hebron, Judah extended its control over the southern hill country by an attack on Debir (Jgs 1:11-15; cf. Jos 15:14-19).<\/p>\n<p>The Kenites (Jgs 1:16), descendants of Jethro and therefore related to Moses by marriage, settled in the Negev around Arad and the City of Palms, which here probably refers to Tamar rather than Jericho.<\/p>\n<p>Judah secured the southern border by a victory over the Canaanites at Hormah (Jgs 1:17; cf. Nm 14:45; 21:3; Dt 1:44) and the coastal plain by victories at Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron. However, Judah’s successes in the coastal plain were resisted by a well-armed Canaanite force (Jgs 1:18-19). It occupied the Judean hill country and the Negev, but could not retain control over the plains. The Philistines were soon to take control over Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron, and incorporate them into their pentapolis.<\/p>\n<h6>Benjamin (1:21)<\/h6>\n<p>Jerusalem was situated on the border between Judah and Benjamin. Judah took the city or a suburb (Jos 1:8) but was too far removed to retain control over it. Benjamin was too weak to subdue the Jebusites. Only David succeeded in this (2 Sm 5:6-9); he incorporated it into Judah (cf. Jos 15:63), even though it originally was allotted to Benjamin (Jos 18:28).<\/p>\n<h6>Joseph: Ephraim and Manasseh (1:22-29)<\/h6>\n<p>Ephraim took Bethel, known from the patriarchal stories as a significant cultic site (Gn 12:8; 13:3-4; 28:19; 31:13; 35:1-15). However, Manasseh was unsuccessful in taking the fortified cities in the valley of Jezreel (Esdraelon): Beth-shan, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, and Megiddo. These cities controlled traffic along the east-west and north–south roads as well as the important passes through the Carmel range and the ford of the Jordan. Ephraim could not take full possession of the coastal plain, controlled by Gezer. The success of both Ephraim and Manasseh was limited.<\/p>\n<h6>The Other Four Tribes (1:30-36)<\/h6>\n<p>The other four tribes in Canaan receive brief mention. They, too, were only partially successful. Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, and especially Dan did not fully succeed in driving out the Canaanites. At best they later subjected most of them to forced labor.<\/p>\n<h6>The Failure of Israel (2:1-5)<\/h6>\n<p>The failure to subdue the land and to wipe out the Canaanites and their culture led to intermarriage and idolatry (cf. Ex 23:33; 34:12-16; Nm 33:55; Dt 7:2-5, 16; Jos 23:7, 12).<\/p>\n<p>The identity of “the angel of the Lord” who appears at Bokim is far from certain. It may be a reference to the Lord himself, to an angelic messenger, or to a prophet (cf. Jgs 6:8). He rebuked the people in the prophetic spirit and pronounced God’s judgment as taking the form of continual confrontation between Israel and the Canaanites (2:3). Their weeping and sacrificing were to no avail (2:4-5; cf. Mal 2:13). Israel stood condemned within a generation after Joshua’s death.<\/p>\n<h5>The Theological Introduction (2:6–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>The theological introduction begins where Joshua left off (Jos 24:28-31). The generation of Joshua was characterized by loyalty, but their loyalty to the Lord did not last long after the excitement of the Conquest and the demonstration of God’s presence (Jgs 2:10). Israel served Canaanite gods (Baal and Astarte) instead. Baal was the storm god, symbolic of rain and fertility, and Astarte was his cohort. The plural (Baals and Ashtaroth, 2:11-13) signifies the many local ways in which the Canaanite gods were worshiped. The religious unity was broken up into a great diversity. Thus Israel angered the Lord (vv 12-14), who sent them enemies and plunderers. Israel was unsuccessful in dealing with them, as Moses and Joshua had forewarned (Dt 28:25, 33; Jos 23:13, 16). The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for mercy, and deliverance is found throughout Judges. The people were rooted in the apostasy of their forefathers, even though the previous generation had been sensitive to God. Israel did not submit to the leadership of the judges, except to free itself from the oppressors. In fulfillment of the curses of the covenant, God swore not to give his people rest but to test them and to train them for warfare (Jgs 3:1-4), so that they might learn to respond to the challenges of a real world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Judges of Israel (3:7–16:31)<\/h5>\n<h6>Othniel (3:7-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Othniel is a transitional figure, linking the Conquest and the judges. He had involved himself in the conquest of Kiriath-sepher and was related to Caleb as his cousin and son-in-law (1:13). He repelled the Arameans led by Cushan-rishathaim, so that the land enjoyed peace for some 40 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ehud (3:12-30)<\/h6>\n<p>The Moabites, allied with the Ammonites and Amalekites, came against Israel from the east and oppressed them for 18 years under the leadership of Eglon. Ehud led the mission to bring tribute to Eglon at his palace, located probably by Jericho (the City of Palms). Ehud was uniquely qualified for this mission; being left-handed, he was able to use his double-edged sword in an unsuspecting manner to stab the king. Ehud’s success was the result of careful plotting and the element of surprise. He paid the tribute and left, only to return with a supposed oracle from the gods. The king fell for the deception and was murdered. The delay at the Moabite court gave the Israelites an opportunity to bring their forces together at the fords of the Jordan. Ehud’s success was complete; no Moabite escaped, and Israel enjoyed peace for 80 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Shamgar (3:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Shamgar’s exploits were against the Philistines in the coastal plains. He had a non-Israelite name but was probably an Israelite by birth. Like Samson he fought the Philistines with an unconventional weapon (an ox goad). His name is also mentioned in the song of Deborah (5:6).<\/p>\n<h6>Deborah and Barak (4:1–5:31)<\/h6>\n<p>The narrative now turns to the Canaanite aggressors in the north under the leadership of Jabin, king of Hazor, and Sisera, of Harosheth-haggoyim (4:1-3). The ruins of Hazor (Jos 11:13) had been rebuilt, and another Jabin (cf. v 1) ruled over the region. He had regained his military power, as he had as many as 900 chariots of iron. He oppressed Israel for 20 years (Jgs 4:3).<\/p>\n<p>God had a prophetess in Israel who led his people during this dark time (4:4). She rendered judgments under a palm tree in southern Ephraim near Benjamin (v 5). She called on Barak to muster the armies of Naphtali and Zebulun, the tribes affected by the Canaanite raids, and to engage Sisera in a surprise attack by the Kishon River (vv 6-7). Barak’s hesitancy led him to request Deborah’s presence, which resulted in his forfeiture of the honor of killing Sisera, the commander of the Canaanite forces (vv 8-10). The Lord gave success to the surprise attack from Mt Tabor, so that the Canaanites were routed, unable to use their heavy chariots, which were mired down in the swamps of the Jezreel Valley (5:20-22). The Canaanites were routed, and Sisera was killed by Jael, the wife of Heber, a Kenite who had separated from the Kenites around Arad (4:17-18; cf. 1:16). She offered him hospitality, as her family had friendly relations with the Canaanites, but heroically put him to death with a tent peg (4:18-21; 5:26-27). In successive campaigns the Israelites gained freedom from Jabin, until they destroyed his power (4:24).<\/p>\n<p>The song of Deborah (ch 5) celebrates, in poetic fashion, the victory over Jabin. It is one of the oldest poems in the Bible. It praises the God of Israel as the King who comes to protect his covenant people, and before whom the mountains move (5:2-3). He is the God of Mt Sinai (Jgs 5:4-5; cf. Dt 33:2; Ps 68:7-8; Hb 3:3-4). Though the oppressors had despoiled Israel and had made the roads unsafe for travel, and Israel was unable to defend itself (Jgs 5:6-8), the Lord raised up Deborah and Barak to lead the nobles to war (vv 9-13). They came from Ephraim, Benjamin, Zebulun, Issachar, and Naphtali (vv 14-15a, 18), but the Transjordan tribes and Asher did not want to get involved (vv 15b-17). The song then moves to the battle scene, where torrential rains bogged the chariots down (vv 19-23). Jael is celebrated as “most blessed of women,” who used her simple way of life to bring an end to Sisera (vv 24-27). She stands in contrast to Sisera’s mother, who is portrayed with all her culture waiting in vain for Sisera’s return with all of his spoils (vv 28-30). The Lord has used the simple to confound the powerful. The conclusion is a prayer for God’s judgment on all of Israel’s enemies (Jgs 5:31a; cf. Ps 68:1-3).<\/p>\n<h6>Gideon (6:1–8:35)<\/h6>\n<p>Israel’s rest for 40 years (Jgs 5:31b) was disturbed by the invasion of Midianites and Amalekites from the East (6:1-3). They destroyed the economy by invading the country at harvesttime (vv 4-6). In response to Israel’s cry, God sent a prophet with a message similar to that of the angel of the Lord (2:1-5). Then an angel appeared to Gideon and called him to lead the people in battle (6:11-14). The Lord assured him of his presence (v 16) by a sign (vv 17-22). Gideon knew that he had been visited by the Lord and built an altar called “The <span>Lord<\/span> Is Peace” in Ophrah (v 24). He responded by destroying the cultic site dedicated to Baal and Asherah at Ophrah (vv 25-28) and by initiating worship at the new altar (v 28). Baal did not protect his own altar (vv 29-32), even when challenged by Gideon’s father (v 31). Consequently, Gideon was known as Jerubbaal (meaning, “let Baal contend with him,” v 32).<\/p>\n<p>Next, Gideon mustered an army of 32,000 men from Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali (6:35; cf. 7:3b). In order to assure himself of the Lord’s presence, he asked for another sign: the sign of the fleece (6:36-40). It must be kept in mind that Gideon lived in an area in which the wonders of God had been scarce (v 13) and that he, like Moses, needed reassurance that God was with him. God responded to his growing faith. Gideon went forth with a greatly reduced army of 300 against the enemy. Of his original army, 22,000 had left because they were afraid (7:2-3; cf. Dt 20:8). Another 9,700 were sent home, though they were valiant men (7:4-8). After assuring Gideon by a dream of an enemy soldier, God used the 300 in a marvelous way to confound the Midianites (vv 9-15). God gave Israel victory over the Midianite leaders Oreb, Zeeb, Zebah, and Zalmunna (7:16–8:21). Gideon wisely avoided a possible military confrontation with Ephraim (8:1-3), pursued the enemy deep into the Transjordan, and punished the leaders of Succoth and Penuel, who did not assist him (vv 4-9, 13-16).<\/p>\n<p>This glorious victory created a new wave of interest in the idea of kingship. The men of Israel wished to establish the family of Gideon as their royal dynasty (8:22). Gideon refused, and instead wrongly set up an ephod, cast from the gold taken in battle (vv 23-27). The ephod was probably used for cultic practices, possibly divination (cf. 17:5).<\/p>\n<p>Gideon’s era also came to an end. He was God’s instrument, giving Israel rest for 40 years. He fathered 70 sons and died in old age. God had richly blessed him, even though he had led Israel astray with his ephod. Thereafter, Israel returned to Baal worship (8:33-35).<\/p>\n<p>In the wake of Gideon’s era, his son Abimelech attempted to establish dynastic continuity by having himself installed as king at Shechem (9:1-6). With the support of his relatives at Shechem, Abimelech had all his brothers killed except Jotham (vv 4-5). After Abimelech’s coronation, Jotham set forth his opposition to his brother in a proverbial manner (vv 7-20), and went into hiding. Three years later Abimelech’s evil schemes entrapped him when the citizens of Shechem rebelled. He furiously attacked the city and destroyed it. A short time later, however, he was wounded at Thebez by a millstone dropped by a woman from the tower in which she had sought refuge from him. His servant put him out of his misery as per his request. This episode demonstrates how bad a despotic king may be. Again, God’s justice prevailed.<\/p>\n<h6>Tola (10:1-2)<\/h6>\n<p>Tola was a minor judge from Issachar who judged Israel for 23 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jair (10:3-5)<\/h6>\n<p>Jair was a minor judge from Gilead who judged Israel for 22 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jephthah (10:6–12:7)<\/h6>\n<p>A recapitulation (10:6-16) of the cycle (idolatry, enemies, cry for help, momentary repentance) sets the introduction to the Jephthah narrative. Under attack from the Ammonites, the elders of Gilead requested help from Jephthah (10:17–11:8), who promised to help them on the condition that he remain their leader even after the war (vv 9-10). At a solemn ceremony he becomes their “head” at Mizpah (v 11). Jephthah opened up correspondence with the Ammonite king, in which he argued for Israel’s rights on the basis of the Israelites’ historic claim to the land as granted to them by the Lord (vv 12–27). Instead of going out immediately to war, he hoped that “the <span>Lord<\/span>, the Judge” would settle the dispute (v 27); but the Ammonite king was unimpressed. When the Spirit of God came over him, Jephthah led Israel into battle, but only after making a rash vow. He was victorious but found out that his vow to sacrifice whatever came first out of his house required him to sacrifice his daughter. Debate continues as to whether he offered her up as a human sacrifice or whether she sacrificed marriage (see discussion under Jephthah).<\/p>\n<p>The Ephraimites seemed to have had an insatiable desire for war. Earlier they had complained to Gideon, who successfully defused their threats (8:1-3). Jephthah fought them, however, because the Israelites living in Transjordan had been reviled as “renegades” (12:1-4). Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed by the fords of the Jordan in this civil war. Thereafter, Jephthah ruled for only six years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ibzan (12:8-10)<\/h6>\n<p>Ibzan was a minor judge from Bethlehem who ruled Israel for seven years.<\/p>\n<h6>Elon (12:11)<\/h6>\n<p>A minor judge from Zebulun, Elon ruled Israel for ten years.<\/p>\n<h6>Abdon (12:13-15)<\/h6>\n<p>Abdon was a minor judge from Pirathon, the location of which is uncertain. He ruled for eight years.<\/p>\n<h6>Samson (13:1–16:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Samson’s greatness in the history of redemption is due to his miraculous birth (13:1-24), his service as a Nazirite (13:7; cf. Nm 6:1-21), the repeated overpowering by the Spirit of the Lord (Jgs 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14), the single-handed exploits against the Philistines (Ashkelon, 14:19; the fields, 15:1-6; Ramath Etam, 15:7-17; Gaza, 16:1-3, 23-30), and his occasional dependence on the Lord (15:18-19; 16:28-30). However, his personal life was flawed because of his weakness for Philistine women (chs 14, 16). Having been seduced by Delilah, he was imprisoned at Gaza. He died in the collapse of Dagon’s temple, praying that the Lord would permit him to get revenge (16:28-30). He was buried in his father’s tomb in the territory of Dan (16:31).<\/p>\n<h5>Epilogue (17–21)<\/h5>\n<p>The cyclical nature of Israel’s existence was without movement. Rest from enemies was always temporary. Israel was not yet ready for dynastic kingship, and whatever one may say of the three years of Abimelech, it was a kingship of the worst sort. Israel vacillated between idolatry and belief in the true Lord. The period of the judges was unstable, marked by petty individualism and provincialism. Yet God remained sovereign in the affairs of his people. The epilogue contains two stories: the story of Micah and the Danite migration (chs 17–18) and the civil war (chs 19–21). The epilogue is bound together by the phrase “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25, <span>niv<\/span>). The symmetric recurrence (two times in each narrative) emphasizes the anarchy and inability of the tribes to unite together to serve God as a covenant people.<\/p>\n<h6>Micah and the Danites (17–18)<\/h6>\n<p>Micah was an Ephraimite who established a shrine and hired one of his own sons, and then a Levite from Bethlehem, to serve as its priests (ch 17). Unable to keep their patrimony, the Danites left to establish themselves at the foot of Mt Hermon. They took the idols and the Levite from Micah’s shrine and set up a cultic city at the newly established city of Dan, built on the ruins of Laish (ch 18). Thus, they set up a cultic center that rivaled the tabernacle at Shiloh (18:31).<\/p>\n<h6>The Civil War (19–21)<\/h6>\n<p>The people of Gibeah, which belonged to Benjamin, sexually abused the concubine of a Levite so that she died. Like the Levite of chapters 17 and 18, she was from Bethlehem (19:1). Dramatically, the Levite sent pieces of her corpse to all the tribes, which assembled against the Benjamites because they protected the criminals of Gibeah (19:29–20:19). In the ensuing battle the population of Benjamin was decimated (20:20-48). The 11 tribes gave them 400 virgins taken in a civil war against Jabesh-gilead (21:6-15). These were not enough, however. Because of the threat of the extinction of Benjamin and the vow not to give their daughters in marriage to any Benjamite, the Israelites devised a plan by which the Benjamites could take Israelite virgins dancing in the festival at Shiloh. Benjamin thus was able to rebuild its towns and settlements.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Gideon; Jephthah; Samson.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JUDGES, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The book reflects a final editing of the material in the period of the early monarchy. It may well be a polemic for the righteous rule of David over against the kingship of Saul, which was molded by a secular, Canaanite conception of kingship rather than by the law of God. The author was almost certainly not Samuel, as traditionally thought, but a later compiler who relied on ancient written materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Though the judges succeeded in giving the tribes some rest from the incursions of surrounding enemies, the Israelites were continually harassed over long periods of time. Scholarly opinion differs on the duration of the period of the judges. The dating of the exodus affects the dating of the beginning of the judges. Those who take an early date for the exodus put the beginning around 1370–1360 <span>BC<\/span>, whereas others propose a date close to the end of the 13th century <span>BC<\/span>. A related issue pertains to the chronology of the judges. Does Judges give a chronological, sequential account of the period, or is the book a representative account of judges from various parts of Canaan and Transjordan who “judged” a region, a tribe, or several tribes simultaneously?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiteraryFramework\">Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that the stories in the book bear the marks of literary creativity. The stories are classics in their own right. The poetry of Deborah’s song (Jgs 5) is very moving, and the fable of Jotham (9:8-15) is a fine example of figurative speech. The care given to the stories is also reflected in the construction of the book. There are two introductions: a political one (Jgs 1:1–2:5) and a socioreligious one (2:6–3:6). The political introduction connects Judges with the story of the Conquest, when the tribes attempted to occupy the land. It prepares the reader for the political and military problems of the era of the judges. The socioreligious introduction explains why Israel had so many adversities, why the institution of the judges arose, and why the Lord never gave Israel the promised lasting rest from its enemies. The main body of the book is the story of the judges (3:7–16:31). References to the minor judges (six in all) are set within the stories of the major judges in increasing frequency. As is evident from the schema, the number of minor judges increased in frequency in proportion to the decrease in number of major judges: two major, one minor; two major, two minor; one major, three minor; one major. There is a total of 12 judges, representative of the 12 tribes of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the listing of 12 judges, representative of the various parts of Canaan and Transjordan, is to demonstrate that all tribes throughout the conquered territories experienced grave difficulties from a variety of enemies: Arameans, Moabites, Ammonites, Amalekites, Canaanites, and Philistines. Israel was hard pressed on nearly all its frontiers. The appendixes (chs 17–21), together with the two introductions, form the framework of the book. The political and socioreligious problems (1:1–3:6) are presented by way of several stories in the last chapters. The final editor who gave the book its canonical shape purposefully framed the stories of the judges so as to show lack of movement. The successes of the previous stages in redemptive history came to a standstill in the ebb and flow of the judges. Though the Lord delivered his people in many ways, they returned to the problems described in 1:1–3:6. The appendixes describe Israel’s problems representative of the period of the judges, when “there was no king in Israel” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for deliverance, and God’s raising up of a judge reflects a deuteronomic perspective with its warnings concerning disobedience and judgment. The repetitiveness of the cycle supports the contention of the anonymous narrator that Israel remained unchanged by the grace of God. However, in spite of the moral, religious, and political anarchy as well as the civil wars, the last chapter shows that the tribes are still concerned with each other’s welfare. Though the unity of God’s people has been gravely challenged, the situation is not hopeless. The book ends on a note of hope—hope for a king who may deliver Israel.<\/p>\n\n<p>Thus, there are several purposes of the book: (1) to demonstrate the meaninglessness of this stage in Israel’s development; (2) to explain why the tribes did not occupy all the land promised to the patriarchs; (3) to justify the way of God, who was gracious and patient with Israel’s repeated acts of disobedience; (4) to set forth the legitimacy of a “shepherd” king in contrast to a despotic form of kingship; and (5) to explain the urgent need for a new momentum, lest Israel succumb to the Philistines and intertribal warfare.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Political Introduction (1:1–2:5)<\/h5>\n<p>In Joshua 1–12 the warfare under Joshua is portrayed as a mobilization of Canaanite forces against Israel. By the intervention of the Lord, the Canaanite resistance was put down and the land was occupied by the tribes (chs 13–21). Joshua 13–21, however, clearly shows that each tribe had problems ridding its territory of pockets of Canaanite resistance, which were usually centered around heavily guarded and well-fortified cities (cf. 13:2-6, 13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-18).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Joshua emphasizes the successes and minimizes the problems, whereas the prologue to Judges sets the stage for the whole book by openly addressing Israel’s problems and failures. As the book unfolds, it is precisely these problems and failures that in due time bring Israel to the brink of disaster.<\/p>\n<p>The period of the judges began with the death of Joshua (Jgs 1:1; 2:8-9). The Israelites had inherited a legacy from Joshua: the law of the Lord (Jos 23:6; 24:26), the land, a challenge to obey the Lord (24:14-27), and a promise of God’s presence and help in subduing the Canaanites (23:5, 10).<\/p>\n<h6>Judah and Simeon (Jgs 1:2-20)<\/h6>\n<p>The prominence of Judah and Caleb parallels the position of Judah in Joshua (Jos 14:6–15:63; cf. also the house of Joseph, Jgs 1:22-29; cf. Jos 16–17). Judah was victorious over the cruel Adoni-bezek, who ruled over Bezek, a town of uncertain location. Judah successfully occupied the hill country, the Negev, and the western foothills. They even took Jerusalem, or an outlying suburb identified with Jerusalem (Jos 1:8), but could not retain control there (v 21) until David’s conquest of the city (2 Sm 5:6-9). Judah was victorious over the Canaanites in the region of Hebron, already conquered under Joshua (Jos 10:36). Hebron, also known as Kiriath-arba (“city of four” or “tetrapolis”), was a powerful ally of Jerusalem (v 3) and had been able to rally military support for a new assault on Israel, even after its first defeat. Caleb received Hebron, as Moses had promised (Jgs 1:20; cf. Jos 15:13). After the victory over Hebron, Judah extended its control over the southern hill country by an attack on Debir (Jgs 1:11-15; cf. Jos 15:14-19).<\/p>\n<p>The Kenites (Jgs 1:16), descendants of Jethro and therefore related to Moses by marriage, settled in the Negev around Arad and the City of Palms, which here probably refers to Tamar rather than Jericho.<\/p>\n<p>Judah secured the southern border by a victory over the Canaanites at Hormah (Jgs 1:17; cf. Nm 14:45; 21:3; Dt 1:44) and the coastal plain by victories at Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron. However, Judah’s successes in the coastal plain were resisted by a well-armed Canaanite force (Jgs 1:18-19). It occupied the Judean hill country and the Negev, but could not retain control over the plains. The Philistines were soon to take control over Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron, and incorporate them into their pentapolis.<\/p>\n<h6>Benjamin (1:21)<\/h6>\n<p>Jerusalem was situated on the border between Judah and Benjamin. Judah took the city or a suburb (Jos 1:8) but was too far removed to retain control over it. Benjamin was too weak to subdue the Jebusites. Only David succeeded in this (2 Sm 5:6-9); he incorporated it into Judah (cf. Jos 15:63), even though it originally was allotted to Benjamin (Jos 18:28).<\/p>\n<h6>Joseph: Ephraim and Manasseh (1:22-29)<\/h6>\n<p>Ephraim took Bethel, known from the patriarchal stories as a significant cultic site (Gn 12:8; 13:3-4; 28:19; 31:13; 35:1-15). However, Manasseh was unsuccessful in taking the fortified cities in the valley of Jezreel (Esdraelon): Beth-shan, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, and Megiddo. These cities controlled traffic along the east-west and north–south roads as well as the important passes through the Carmel range and the ford of the Jordan. Ephraim could not take full possession of the coastal plain, controlled by Gezer. The success of both Ephraim and Manasseh was limited.<\/p>\n<h6>The Other Four Tribes (1:30-36)<\/h6>\n<p>The other four tribes in Canaan receive brief mention. They, too, were only partially successful. Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, and especially Dan did not fully succeed in driving out the Canaanites. At best they later subjected most of them to forced labor.<\/p>\n<h6>The Failure of Israel (2:1-5)<\/h6>\n<p>The failure to subdue the land and to wipe out the Canaanites and their culture led to intermarriage and idolatry (cf. Ex 23:33; 34:12-16; Nm 33:55; Dt 7:2-5, 16; Jos 23:7, 12).<\/p>\n<p>The identity of “the angel of the Lord” who appears at Bokim is far from certain. It may be a reference to the Lord himself, to an angelic messenger, or to a prophet (cf. Jgs 6:8). He rebuked the people in the prophetic spirit and pronounced God’s judgment as taking the form of continual confrontation between Israel and the Canaanites (2:3). Their weeping and sacrificing were to no avail (2:4-5; cf. Mal 2:13). Israel stood condemned within a generation after Joshua’s death.<\/p>\n<h5>The Theological Introduction (2:6–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>The theological introduction begins where Joshua left off (Jos 24:28-31). The generation of Joshua was characterized by loyalty, but their loyalty to the Lord did not last long after the excitement of the Conquest and the demonstration of God’s presence (Jgs 2:10). Israel served Canaanite gods (Baal and Astarte) instead. Baal was the storm god, symbolic of rain and fertility, and Astarte was his cohort. The plural (Baals and Ashtaroth, 2:11-13) signifies the many local ways in which the Canaanite gods were worshiped. The religious unity was broken up into a great diversity. Thus Israel angered the Lord (vv 12-14), who sent them enemies and plunderers. Israel was unsuccessful in dealing with them, as Moses and Joshua had forewarned (Dt 28:25, 33; Jos 23:13, 16). The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for mercy, and deliverance is found throughout Judges. The people were rooted in the apostasy of their forefathers, even though the previous generation had been sensitive to God. Israel did not submit to the leadership of the judges, except to free itself from the oppressors. In fulfillment of the curses of the covenant, God swore not to give his people rest but to test them and to train them for warfare (Jgs 3:1-4), so that they might learn to respond to the challenges of a real world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Judges of Israel (3:7–16:31)<\/h5>\n<h6>Othniel (3:7-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Othniel is a transitional figure, linking the Conquest and the judges. He had involved himself in the conquest of Kiriath-sepher and was related to Caleb as his cousin and son-in-law (1:13). He repelled the Arameans led by Cushan-rishathaim, so that the land enjoyed peace for some 40 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ehud (3:12-30)<\/h6>\n<p>The Moabites, allied with the Ammonites and Amalekites, came against Israel from the east and oppressed them for 18 years under the leadership of Eglon. Ehud led the mission to bring tribute to Eglon at his palace, located probably by Jericho (the City of Palms). Ehud was uniquely qualified for this mission; being left-handed, he was able to use his double-edged sword in an unsuspecting manner to stab the king. Ehud’s success was the result of careful plotting and the element of surprise. He paid the tribute and left, only to return with a supposed oracle from the gods. The king fell for the deception and was murdered. The delay at the Moabite court gave the Israelites an opportunity to bring their forces together at the fords of the Jordan. Ehud’s success was complete; no Moabite escaped, and Israel enjoyed peace for 80 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Shamgar (3:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Shamgar’s exploits were against the Philistines in the coastal plains. He had a non-Israelite name but was probably an Israelite by birth. Like Samson he fought the Philistines with an unconventional weapon (an ox goad). His name is also mentioned in the song of Deborah (5:6).<\/p>\n<h6>Deborah and Barak (4:1–5:31)<\/h6>\n<p>The narrative now turns to the Canaanite aggressors in the north under the leadership of Jabin, king of Hazor, and Sisera, of Harosheth-haggoyim (4:1-3). The ruins of Hazor (Jos 11:13) had been rebuilt, and another Jabin (cf. v 1) ruled over the region. He had regained his military power, as he had as many as 900 chariots of iron. He oppressed Israel for 20 years (Jgs 4:3).<\/p>\n<p>God had a prophetess in Israel who led his people during this dark time (4:4). She rendered judgments under a palm tree in southern Ephraim near Benjamin (v 5). She called on Barak to muster the armies of Naphtali and Zebulun, the tribes affected by the Canaanite raids, and to engage Sisera in a surprise attack by the Kishon River (vv 6-7). Barak’s hesitancy led him to request Deborah’s presence, which resulted in his forfeiture of the honor of killing Sisera, the commander of the Canaanite forces (vv 8-10). The Lord gave success to the surprise attack from Mt Tabor, so that the Canaanites were routed, unable to use their heavy chariots, which were mired down in the swamps of the Jezreel Valley (5:20-22). The Canaanites were routed, and Sisera was killed by Jael, the wife of Heber, a Kenite who had separated from the Kenites around Arad (4:17-18; cf. 1:16). She offered him hospitality, as her family had friendly relations with the Canaanites, but heroically put him to death with a tent peg (4:18-21; 5:26-27). In successive campaigns the Israelites gained freedom from Jabin, until they destroyed his power (4:24).<\/p>\n<p>The song of Deborah (ch 5) celebrates, in poetic fashion, the victory over Jabin. It is one of the oldest poems in the Bible. It praises the God of Israel as the King who comes to protect his covenant people, and before whom the mountains move (5:2-3). He is the God of Mt Sinai (Jgs 5:4-5; cf. Dt 33:2; Ps 68:7-8; Hb 3:3-4). Though the oppressors had despoiled Israel and had made the roads unsafe for travel, and Israel was unable to defend itself (Jgs 5:6-8), the Lord raised up Deborah and Barak to lead the nobles to war (vv 9-13). They came from Ephraim, Benjamin, Zebulun, Issachar, and Naphtali (vv 14-15a, 18), but the Transjordan tribes and Asher did not want to get involved (vv 15b-17). The song then moves to the battle scene, where torrential rains bogged the chariots down (vv 19-23). Jael is celebrated as “most blessed of women,” who used her simple way of life to bring an end to Sisera (vv 24-27). She stands in contrast to Sisera’s mother, who is portrayed with all her culture waiting in vain for Sisera’s return with all of his spoils (vv 28-30). The Lord has used the simple to confound the powerful. The conclusion is a prayer for God’s judgment on all of Israel’s enemies (Jgs 5:31a; cf. Ps 68:1-3).<\/p>\n<h6>Gideon (6:1–8:35)<\/h6>\n<p>Israel’s rest for 40 years (Jgs 5:31b) was disturbed by the invasion of Midianites and Amalekites from the East (6:1-3). They destroyed the economy by invading the country at harvesttime (vv 4-6). In response to Israel’s cry, God sent a prophet with a message similar to that of the angel of the Lord (2:1-5). Then an angel appeared to Gideon and called him to lead the people in battle (6:11-14). The Lord assured him of his presence (v 16) by a sign (vv 17-22). Gideon knew that he had been visited by the Lord and built an altar called “The <span>Lord<\/span> Is Peace” in Ophrah (v 24). He responded by destroying the cultic site dedicated to Baal and Asherah at Ophrah (vv 25-28) and by initiating worship at the new altar (v 28). Baal did not protect his own altar (vv 29-32), even when challenged by Gideon’s father (v 31). Consequently, Gideon was known as Jerubbaal (meaning, “let Baal contend with him,” v 32).<\/p>\n<p>Next, Gideon mustered an army of 32,000 men from Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali (6:35; cf. 7:3b). In order to assure himself of the Lord’s presence, he asked for another sign: the sign of the fleece (6:36-40). It must be kept in mind that Gideon lived in an area in which the wonders of God had been scarce (v 13) and that he, like Moses, needed reassurance that God was with him. God responded to his growing faith. Gideon went forth with a greatly reduced army of 300 against the enemy. Of his original army, 22,000 had left because they were afraid (7:2-3; cf. Dt 20:8). Another 9,700 were sent home, though they were valiant men (7:4-8). After assuring Gideon by a dream of an enemy soldier, God used the 300 in a marvelous way to confound the Midianites (vv 9-15). God gave Israel victory over the Midianite leaders Oreb, Zeeb, Zebah, and Zalmunna (7:16–8:21). Gideon wisely avoided a possible military confrontation with Ephraim (8:1-3), pursued the enemy deep into the Transjordan, and punished the leaders of Succoth and Penuel, who did not assist him (vv 4-9, 13-16).<\/p>\n<p>This glorious victory created a new wave of interest in the idea of kingship. The men of Israel wished to establish the family of Gideon as their royal dynasty (8:22). Gideon refused, and instead wrongly set up an ephod, cast from the gold taken in battle (vv 23-27). The ephod was probably used for cultic practices, possibly divination (cf. 17:5).<\/p>\n<p>Gideon’s era also came to an end. He was God’s instrument, giving Israel rest for 40 years. He fathered 70 sons and died in old age. God had richly blessed him, even though he had led Israel astray with his ephod. Thereafter, Israel returned to Baal worship (8:33-35).<\/p>\n<p>In the wake of Gideon’s era, his son Abimelech attempted to establish dynastic continuity by having himself installed as king at Shechem (9:1-6). With the support of his relatives at Shechem, Abimelech had all his brothers killed except Jotham (vv 4-5). After Abimelech’s coronation, Jotham set forth his opposition to his brother in a proverbial manner (vv 7-20), and went into hiding. Three years later Abimelech’s evil schemes entrapped him when the citizens of Shechem rebelled. He furiously attacked the city and destroyed it. A short time later, however, he was wounded at Thebez by a millstone dropped by a woman from the tower in which she had sought refuge from him. His servant put him out of his misery as per his request. This episode demonstrates how bad a despotic king may be. Again, God’s justice prevailed.<\/p>\n<h6>Tola (10:1-2)<\/h6>\n<p>Tola was a minor judge from Issachar who judged Israel for 23 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jair (10:3-5)<\/h6>\n<p>Jair was a minor judge from Gilead who judged Israel for 22 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jephthah (10:6–12:7)<\/h6>\n<p>A recapitulation (10:6-16) of the cycle (idolatry, enemies, cry for help, momentary repentance) sets the introduction to the Jephthah narrative. Under attack from the Ammonites, the elders of Gilead requested help from Jephthah (10:17–11:8), who promised to help them on the condition that he remain their leader even after the war (vv 9-10). At a solemn ceremony he becomes their “head” at Mizpah (v 11). Jephthah opened up correspondence with the Ammonite king, in which he argued for Israel’s rights on the basis of the Israelites’ historic claim to the land as granted to them by the Lord (vv 12–27). Instead of going out immediately to war, he hoped that “the <span>Lord<\/span>, the Judge” would settle the dispute (v 27); but the Ammonite king was unimpressed. When the Spirit of God came over him, Jephthah led Israel into battle, but only after making a rash vow. He was victorious but found out that his vow to sacrifice whatever came first out of his house required him to sacrifice his daughter. Debate continues as to whether he offered her up as a human sacrifice or whether she sacrificed marriage (see discussion under Jephthah).<\/p>\n<p>The Ephraimites seemed to have had an insatiable desire for war. Earlier they had complained to Gideon, who successfully defused their threats (8:1-3). Jephthah fought them, however, because the Israelites living in Transjordan had been reviled as “renegades” (12:1-4). Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed by the fords of the Jordan in this civil war. Thereafter, Jephthah ruled for only six years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ibzan (12:8-10)<\/h6>\n<p>Ibzan was a minor judge from Bethlehem who ruled Israel for seven years.<\/p>\n<h6>Elon (12:11)<\/h6>\n<p>A minor judge from Zebulun, Elon ruled Israel for ten years.<\/p>\n<h6>Abdon (12:13-15)<\/h6>\n<p>Abdon was a minor judge from Pirathon, the location of which is uncertain. He ruled for eight years.<\/p>\n<h6>Samson (13:1–16:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Samson’s greatness in the history of redemption is due to his miraculous birth (13:1-24), his service as a Nazirite (13:7; cf. Nm 6:1-21), the repeated overpowering by the Spirit of the Lord (Jgs 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14), the single-handed exploits against the Philistines (Ashkelon, 14:19; the fields, 15:1-6; Ramath Etam, 15:7-17; Gaza, 16:1-3, 23-30), and his occasional dependence on the Lord (15:18-19; 16:28-30). However, his personal life was flawed because of his weakness for Philistine women (chs 14, 16). Having been seduced by Delilah, he was imprisoned at Gaza. He died in the collapse of Dagon’s temple, praying that the Lord would permit him to get revenge (16:28-30). He was buried in his father’s tomb in the territory of Dan (16:31).<\/p>\n<h5>Epilogue (17–21)<\/h5>\n<p>The cyclical nature of Israel’s existence was without movement. Rest from enemies was always temporary. Israel was not yet ready for dynastic kingship, and whatever one may say of the three years of Abimelech, it was a kingship of the worst sort. Israel vacillated between idolatry and belief in the true Lord. The period of the judges was unstable, marked by petty individualism and provincialism. Yet God remained sovereign in the affairs of his people. The epilogue contains two stories: the story of Micah and the Danite migration (chs 17–18) and the civil war (chs 19–21). The epilogue is bound together by the phrase “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25, <span>niv<\/span>). The symmetric recurrence (two times in each narrative) emphasizes the anarchy and inability of the tribes to unite together to serve God as a covenant people.<\/p>\n<h6>Micah and the Danites (17–18)<\/h6>\n<p>Micah was an Ephraimite who established a shrine and hired one of his own sons, and then a Levite from Bethlehem, to serve as its priests (ch 17). Unable to keep their patrimony, the Danites left to establish themselves at the foot of Mt Hermon. They took the idols and the Levite from Micah’s shrine and set up a cultic city at the newly established city of Dan, built on the ruins of Laish (ch 18). Thus, they set up a cultic center that rivaled the tabernacle at Shiloh (18:31).<\/p>\n<h6>The Civil War (19–21)<\/h6>\n<p>The people of Gibeah, which belonged to Benjamin, sexually abused the concubine of a Levite so that she died. Like the Levite of chapters 17 and 18, she was from Bethlehem (19:1). Dramatically, the Levite sent pieces of her corpse to all the tribes, which assembled against the Benjamites because they protected the criminals of Gibeah (19:29–20:19). In the ensuing battle the population of Benjamin was decimated (20:20-48). The 11 tribes gave them 400 virgins taken in a civil war against Jabesh-gilead (21:6-15). These were not enough, however. Because of the threat of the extinction of Benjamin and the vow not to give their daughters in marriage to any Benjamite, the Israelites devised a plan by which the Benjamites could take Israelite virgins dancing in the festival at Shiloh. Benjamin thus was able to rebuild its towns and settlements.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Gideon; Jephthah; Samson.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JUDGES, Book of Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail. Preview • Author • Date • Li...","summary_en":"JUDGES, Book of Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail. Preview • Author • Date • Li...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":21749,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"King","title_en":"King","content_ro":"<h3>KING<\/h3>\n<p>The word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">melek<\/span> (king) occurs more than 2,000 times in the Hebrew OT. It may refer to God (Ps 95:3) or to human rulers. Generally it designates one invested with ultimate authority and power over his subjects. In the OT, the word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">melek<\/span> designates the ruler of a tribe (“the kings of Midian,” Nm 31:8), a city (Jericho, Ai; cf. Jos 12:9-24, where 31 kings of city-states conquered by the Israelites are listed), a nation (Israel, Judah, Ammon, Moab, Aram), or an international power (such as Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, or Persia). Other words may also refer to royalty. The Philistines introduced the title <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">seren<\/span> (lord) into Hebrew vocabulary. The five Philistine cities were ruled by five lords. Another word for an Israelite king is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">nagid<\/span> (ruler). Both Saul and David were anointed as <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">nagid<\/span> over Israel (1 Sm 10:1; 16:13). In the NT and the Septuagint, the Greek version of the OT, the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">basileus<\/span> has a meaning similar to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">melek<\/span><em>.<\/em> The NT <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">basileus<\/span> refers to secular rulers living in the first century, kings of Israel, rulers of the past, and the divine King, Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The phrase “King of kings,” attributed to Jesus (1 Tm 6:15), is a Hebrew expression meaning supreme or greatest king. For example, in Ezekiel’s prediction of the fall of Tyre, Nebuchadnezzar is named the “king of kings” (Ez 26:7). The great rulers of Assyria and Babylon introduced this title. Before their time, rulers were called either “king” or “great king,” as in 2 Kings 18:28: “Hear the word of the great king, the king of Assyria” (<span>rsv<\/span>). Later rulers had their titles adjusted to keep up with the expanse of their empires.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"KingshipinIsrael\">Kingship in Israel<\/p>\n<p>God chose Abraham as the father of nations; through him and his descendants the messianic rule would be established on earth. In his promises to Abraham, God repeatedly assured him that he would become the father of a mighty nation, to whom God would give the land of Canaan, and that kings would arise from his descendants (Gn 17:6). Abraham showed his acceptance of the rule of God over his family by obeying God’s command to be circumcised, which set the clan of Abraham apart for the service of God (vv 10-14). The ultimate purpose of God’s relation with Abraham and his descendants was that God would be King over Israel and that his people would show their acceptance of his rule by their faithful obedience to him (v 9).<\/p>\n<p>At the heart of the covenant was God’s expectation of loyalty to his rule. Abraham and his descendants were to exercise their God-given “rule” over the nations by living in fellowship with the great King. Thus the Lord reestablished his dominion over mankind. Through Abraham and his descendants, he would raise up a “royal nation” to whom the full privileges of rule over his creation would be restored.<\/p>\n<p>The Lord also made a covenant with Israel. This covenant was a sovereign administration of grace and promise by which the Lord consecrated the people unto himself by the sanctions of divine law and by his very presence. The nation, witnessing God’s care for them, had to learn that by their obedience to God’s expectations the theocratic kingdom might become a reality on earth. In the Sinaitic covenant the theocracy (the rule of God) was established. Israel was entrusted with the commandments, so that they might show themselves to be a theocratic nation, as God revealed to Moses: “Now if you will obey me and keep my covenant, you will be my own special treasure from among all the nations of the earth; for all the earth belongs to me. And you will be to me a kingdom of priests, my holy nation” (Ex 19:5-6, <span>nlt<\/span>). They were God’s elect for the sake of the nations; through Israel’s priestly obedience and intercession, the whole earth might know the Creator-Redeemer.<\/p>\n<p>The qualities of God’s kingship were power, glory, fidelity, wisdom, concern, service, delegation of power to man, blessing and protection, just rule, judgment, vindication, and deliverance. Israel’s kingship was to be no different from God’s. Their varied and sometimes complex laws taught Israel to distinguish between what was holy and common, clean and unclean, the ways of God and the ways of the nations. The ways of God enhanced love, fidelity, justice, peace, harmony, service, concern for others, wise living, defense of the needy, and judgment of the guilty. The ways of the kingdoms of the world all too often promoted selfishness, anarchy, despotism, and disregard for justice.<\/p>\n<p>The Lord also instituted an organizational structure designed to promote his theocratic purposes. In the wilderness Moses and the chosen leaders of Israel (Ex 18:19-26; Nm 11:24-25; cf. Dt 1:15-18) were God’s instruments for upholding his kingship in Israel. Upon Moses’ death, Joshua took over the theocratic rule. The Lord was with him as he had been with Moses, and all Israel recognized the continuity of God’s rule in Joshua’s leadership (Dt 34:9; Jos 3:7; 4:14). Like Moses had before his death, Joshua charged the leadership and Israel to persevere in the gracious covenant relationship (Jos 23–24). However, Israel perished because of its greed, immorality, strife, and idolatry. During the period of the judges, each one did what was right in his own eyes (Jgs 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). There was no king in the land in those days. The judges were military leaders whom the Lord raised up to deliver his people from their foreign oppressors. But God remained King, regardless of the fact that Israel lived as if he were not. The period of the judges demonstrated that apostate Israel, disobedient to their King, was unsuccessful in dealing with the surrounding nations.<\/p>\n<p>The theocratic leadership was restored to Israel by the ministry of Samuel. He was born into a Levitical family and served the Lord at the Shiloh tabernacle. He was called to be a prophet—an office which had not been filled since Moses’ death (1 Sm 3:20-21). He was recognized as a judge in Israel (7:15). In Samuel the offices of priest, prophet, and king were combined. He is never called king, as his lifestyle was that of a prophet rather than that of a ruler. The carefully calculated request of the people for a king was a rejection of Samuel’s ministry. The people were not satisfied with the spiritual, charismatic leadership of Samuel. In their search for a more dynamic leader they found in the kings of the surrounding nations attractive elements: power, manifestation of glory, and stability. Thus far the tribes had experienced several civil wars that endangered the unity of Israel. It was thought that a king would remedy all of the social and political problems. Though God had foreseen the days of the monarchy in the law (Dt 17:14-20), the people were motivated to introduce the kingship for secular rather than religious reasons: “Give us a king like all the other nations have” (1 Sm 8:5); “We want to be like the nations around us. Our king will govern us and lead us into battle” (v 20, <span>nlt<\/span>). Samuel never accepted the idea of kingship; it was foreign to the theocratic ideal.<\/p>\n<p>The crucial difference between kingship in Israel and kingship in neighboring lands lay in the fact that God endowed the king of Israel with his Spirit to establish his rule on earth. God ruled for his people, and his people benefited was from his rule; he was their provider, protector, and divine warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Samuel was instrumental in anointing Saul (a sad example of kingship) and David (a good example of kingly rule under God). Saul’s kingship revealed a despotic, uncaring attitude and self-aggrandizement. He was intent on establishing his dynasty, while not caring sufficiently for the people of God. Therefore, the Lord rejected his kingship (1 Sm 15:23).<\/p>\n<p>David’s kingship, in contrast to Saul’s, was in line with God’s because it reflected the glory of Yahweh’s kingship. David’s life and rule are taken up in the two books of Samuel as a commentary on the pros and cons of kingship. Positively, David was a man after God’s heart, who sought the will of God, repented of his sin, and sought the glory of God. Negatively, David failed in his personal and family life to uphold the high standards of God’s law. Yet God was pleased to choose David’s dynasty as the lineage through which Jesus Christ would come. The prophet Nathan assured David that his dynasty would last: “Your dynasty and your kingdom will continue for all time before me, and your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sm 7:16, <span>nlt<\/span>). But God did not promise that it would be immune from prosecution or banishment.<\/p>\n<p>The outstanding qualities of the kingship of David and his son Solomon reflect the true theocratic intention: concern for the Lord, for a heart of wisdom and integrity, and for the well-being of God’s people. Concern for the Lord found expression in the preparation for and actual building of the temple (cf. Ps 132). Concern for integrity and wisdom is clearly evident, especially in David’s response to Nathan’s rebuke (2 Sm 12) and in Solomon’s request to have a heart of wisdom (1 Kgs 3). Concern for the people comes to expression in their securing the borders against enemies, achieving national unification, and bringing opportunity for economic growth. The era of David and Solomon represented a true reflection of God’s kingship on earth.<\/p>\n<p>The accounts in Kings and Chronicles unfold the subsequent history of kingship in Israel and Judah. The good kings followed the examples provided by David and Solomon in securing Jerusalem against foreign invaders, in supplying for the needs of the temple, in having God’s people instructed in the word of God, and in modeling their rule after the law of Moses. A good Davidic king loved the Lord, the temple, the law, and God’s people. He served them as a good shepherd. Evil kings were those who rejected this model of kingship in favor of the pagan models. So Omri and Ahab introduced the Phoenician culture with its Baalism, utterly disregarding the heritage of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The Davidic king was treated as a member of God’s household, being a “son” of the great King (cf. 2 Sm 7:14-16; Ps 2:6-7). The Davidic king was to be loyal to the great King, Yahweh. He, like Moses and Joshua, received his orders directly from the Lord; but unlike with Moses, the word of the Lord was mediated through the prophets. He, like Moses and Joshua, was expected to serve his God and his people.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMessiah-King\">The Messiah-King<\/p>\n<p>The descendants of David failed to maintain and expand the theocracy. By the eighth and seventh centuries <span>BC<\/span>, it was apparent that even the greatest kings were dwarfed by the stature of David and Solomon. The prophets (Is 9:2-7; 11:1-9; Jer 33:14-16; Ez 34:22-31; Mi 5:2-5) spoke of another king, the Messiah, a descendant of David who would rule permanently and by whose rule the reign of God would extend to the ends of the earth. He would put down all opposition to God’s rule, remove all enemies, and bring in an era of universal peace and righteousness. The Messiah-King would reveal the perfections of divine rule, as the Spirit of God would be upon him. His kingship would be marked by service to the people of God, so that they would be a well-cared-for flock; he would serve them as their shepherd.<\/p>\n<p>In the coming of Jesus the messianic kingdom is more clearly revealed. He is the King of whom the angels said, “The Savior—yes, the Messiah, the Lord—has been born tonight in Bethlehem, the city of David!” (Lk 2:11, <span>nlt<\/span>). These magnificent words show continuity with the prophetic word. Jesus is the Savior, whose role includes deliverance from sin but also deliverance from all causes of adversity, evil, and the effects of the curse. His mission pertains to both forgiveness and to the establishment of peace on earth (1:77-79). In this light we must look at Jesus’ ministry of healing, feeding, opposing the forces of evil, suffering, and teaching as the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth. He is the King who serves, fights against the demonic powers, and overcomes. The resurrection marks his victory, and he is crowned with glory by being seated at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:33-36; cf. 1 Cor 15:25). In being the Savior he is none other than Christ the Lord. The early apostolic preaching proclaimed that Jesus is the Messiah of God and the Lord. The lordship of Jesus is corollary to his being the Messiah. To those who call on him, he is the Savior-Messiah-Lord (Rom 10:9-15), but to those who reject him, he is the divine warrior, before whom all knees will bow and who will bring in the era of the Father’s judgment (cf. Rv 1:12-16; 19:11-21).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus taught his disciples that at his coming in glory he would be seated on his throne and all mankind would pay him obeisance. The enemies of God will be cast out from his presence, and the people of God will fully inherit the kingdom (Mt 25:31-46). In accordance with Jesus’ teaching, the members of his body, the church, are expected to work out the theocratic ideal in their lives, that by their works and faith they may glorify the Father and show that they are his (Jn 17:20-26; cf. Mt 25:33-40). This is the biblical manner of witness that Israel failed to give and that the church is privileged to give; as Paul wrote to Timothy:<\/p>\n<p>I command you before God, who gives life to all, and before Christ Jesus, . . . that you obey his commands with all purity. Then no one can find fault with you from now until our Lord Jesus Christ returns. For at the right time Christ will be revealed from heaven by the blessed and only almighty God, the King of kings and Lord of lords. He alone can never die, and he lives in light so brilliant that no human can approach him. No one has ever seen him, nor ever will. To him be honor and power forever. Amen. (1 Tm 6:13-16, <span>nlt<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Then Paul gives several instructions as to how the people of God must demonstrate their allegiance to Jesus. Throughout the book of Revelation, Jesus is viewed as King over the church (Rv 4:2, 9-11; 5:1, 9-13). At his return his kingship will be established. At this time, the enemies of the cross will see the one whom they have rejected and will bow before the messianic King (1 Cor 15:25-28). “After that the end will come, when he [Jesus] will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father, having put down all enemies of every kind” (v 24, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>KING<\/h3>\n<p>The word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">melek<\/span> (king) occurs more than 2,000 times in the Hebrew OT. It may refer to God (Ps 95:3) or to human rulers. Generally it designates one invested with ultimate authority and power over his subjects. In the OT, the word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">melek<\/span> designates the ruler of a tribe (“the kings of Midian,” Nm 31:8), a city (Jericho, Ai; cf. Jos 12:9-24, where 31 kings of city-states conquered by the Israelites are listed), a nation (Israel, Judah, Ammon, Moab, Aram), or an international power (such as Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, or Persia). Other words may also refer to royalty. The Philistines introduced the title <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">seren<\/span> (lord) into Hebrew vocabulary. The five Philistine cities were ruled by five lords. Another word for an Israelite king is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">nagid<\/span> (ruler). Both Saul and David were anointed as <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">nagid<\/span> over Israel (1 Sm 10:1; 16:13). In the NT and the Septuagint, the Greek version of the OT, the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">basileus<\/span> has a meaning similar to the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">melek<\/span><em>.<\/em> The NT <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">basileus<\/span> refers to secular rulers living in the first century, kings of Israel, rulers of the past, and the divine King, Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The phrase “King of kings,” attributed to Jesus (1 Tm 6:15), is a Hebrew expression meaning supreme or greatest king. For example, in Ezekiel’s prediction of the fall of Tyre, Nebuchadnezzar is named the “king of kings” (Ez 26:7). The great rulers of Assyria and Babylon introduced this title. Before their time, rulers were called either “king” or “great king,” as in 2 Kings 18:28: “Hear the word of the great king, the king of Assyria” (<span>rsv<\/span>). Later rulers had their titles adjusted to keep up with the expanse of their empires.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"KingshipinIsrael\">Kingship in Israel<\/p>\n<p>God chose Abraham as the father of nations; through him and his descendants the messianic rule would be established on earth. In his promises to Abraham, God repeatedly assured him that he would become the father of a mighty nation, to whom God would give the land of Canaan, and that kings would arise from his descendants (Gn 17:6). Abraham showed his acceptance of the rule of God over his family by obeying God’s command to be circumcised, which set the clan of Abraham apart for the service of God (vv 10-14). The ultimate purpose of God’s relation with Abraham and his descendants was that God would be King over Israel and that his people would show their acceptance of his rule by their faithful obedience to him (v 9).<\/p>\n<p>At the heart of the covenant was God’s expectation of loyalty to his rule. Abraham and his descendants were to exercise their God-given “rule” over the nations by living in fellowship with the great King. Thus the Lord reestablished his dominion over mankind. Through Abraham and his descendants, he would raise up a “royal nation” to whom the full privileges of rule over his creation would be restored.<\/p>\n<p>The Lord also made a covenant with Israel. This covenant was a sovereign administration of grace and promise by which the Lord consecrated the people unto himself by the sanctions of divine law and by his very presence. The nation, witnessing God’s care for them, had to learn that by their obedience to God’s expectations the theocratic kingdom might become a reality on earth. In the Sinaitic covenant the theocracy (the rule of God) was established. Israel was entrusted with the commandments, so that they might show themselves to be a theocratic nation, as God revealed to Moses: “Now if you will obey me and keep my covenant, you will be my own special treasure from among all the nations of the earth; for all the earth belongs to me. And you will be to me a kingdom of priests, my holy nation” (Ex 19:5-6, <span>nlt<\/span>). They were God’s elect for the sake of the nations; through Israel’s priestly obedience and intercession, the whole earth might know the Creator-Redeemer.<\/p>\n<p>The qualities of God’s kingship were power, glory, fidelity, wisdom, concern, service, delegation of power to man, blessing and protection, just rule, judgment, vindication, and deliverance. Israel’s kingship was to be no different from God’s. Their varied and sometimes complex laws taught Israel to distinguish between what was holy and common, clean and unclean, the ways of God and the ways of the nations. The ways of God enhanced love, fidelity, justice, peace, harmony, service, concern for others, wise living, defense of the needy, and judgment of the guilty. The ways of the kingdoms of the world all too often promoted selfishness, anarchy, despotism, and disregard for justice.<\/p>\n<p>The Lord also instituted an organizational structure designed to promote his theocratic purposes. In the wilderness Moses and the chosen leaders of Israel (Ex 18:19-26; Nm 11:24-25; cf. Dt 1:15-18) were God’s instruments for upholding his kingship in Israel. Upon Moses’ death, Joshua took over the theocratic rule. The Lord was with him as he had been with Moses, and all Israel recognized the continuity of God’s rule in Joshua’s leadership (Dt 34:9; Jos 3:7; 4:14). Like Moses had before his death, Joshua charged the leadership and Israel to persevere in the gracious covenant relationship (Jos 23–24). However, Israel perished because of its greed, immorality, strife, and idolatry. During the period of the judges, each one did what was right in his own eyes (Jgs 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). There was no king in the land in those days. The judges were military leaders whom the Lord raised up to deliver his people from their foreign oppressors. But God remained King, regardless of the fact that Israel lived as if he were not. The period of the judges demonstrated that apostate Israel, disobedient to their King, was unsuccessful in dealing with the surrounding nations.<\/p>\n<p>The theocratic leadership was restored to Israel by the ministry of Samuel. He was born into a Levitical family and served the Lord at the Shiloh tabernacle. He was called to be a prophet—an office which had not been filled since Moses’ death (1 Sm 3:20-21). He was recognized as a judge in Israel (7:15). In Samuel the offices of priest, prophet, and king were combined. He is never called king, as his lifestyle was that of a prophet rather than that of a ruler. The carefully calculated request of the people for a king was a rejection of Samuel’s ministry. The people were not satisfied with the spiritual, charismatic leadership of Samuel. In their search for a more dynamic leader they found in the kings of the surrounding nations attractive elements: power, manifestation of glory, and stability. Thus far the tribes had experienced several civil wars that endangered the unity of Israel. It was thought that a king would remedy all of the social and political problems. Though God had foreseen the days of the monarchy in the law (Dt 17:14-20), the people were motivated to introduce the kingship for secular rather than religious reasons: “Give us a king like all the other nations have” (1 Sm 8:5); “We want to be like the nations around us. Our king will govern us and lead us into battle” (v 20, <span>nlt<\/span>). Samuel never accepted the idea of kingship; it was foreign to the theocratic ideal.<\/p>\n<p>The crucial difference between kingship in Israel and kingship in neighboring lands lay in the fact that God endowed the king of Israel with his Spirit to establish his rule on earth. God ruled for his people, and his people benefited was from his rule; he was their provider, protector, and divine warrior.<\/p>\n<p>Samuel was instrumental in anointing Saul (a sad example of kingship) and David (a good example of kingly rule under God). Saul’s kingship revealed a despotic, uncaring attitude and self-aggrandizement. He was intent on establishing his dynasty, while not caring sufficiently for the people of God. Therefore, the Lord rejected his kingship (1 Sm 15:23).<\/p>\n<p>David’s kingship, in contrast to Saul’s, was in line with God’s because it reflected the glory of Yahweh’s kingship. David’s life and rule are taken up in the two books of Samuel as a commentary on the pros and cons of kingship. Positively, David was a man after God’s heart, who sought the will of God, repented of his sin, and sought the glory of God. Negatively, David failed in his personal and family life to uphold the high standards of God’s law. Yet God was pleased to choose David’s dynasty as the lineage through which Jesus Christ would come. The prophet Nathan assured David that his dynasty would last: “Your dynasty and your kingdom will continue for all time before me, and your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sm 7:16, <span>nlt<\/span>). But God did not promise that it would be immune from prosecution or banishment.<\/p>\n<p>The outstanding qualities of the kingship of David and his son Solomon reflect the true theocratic intention: concern for the Lord, for a heart of wisdom and integrity, and for the well-being of God’s people. Concern for the Lord found expression in the preparation for and actual building of the temple (cf. Ps 132). Concern for integrity and wisdom is clearly evident, especially in David’s response to Nathan’s rebuke (2 Sm 12) and in Solomon’s request to have a heart of wisdom (1 Kgs 3). Concern for the people comes to expression in their securing the borders against enemies, achieving national unification, and bringing opportunity for economic growth. The era of David and Solomon represented a true reflection of God’s kingship on earth.<\/p>\n<p>The accounts in Kings and Chronicles unfold the subsequent history of kingship in Israel and Judah. The good kings followed the examples provided by David and Solomon in securing Jerusalem against foreign invaders, in supplying for the needs of the temple, in having God’s people instructed in the word of God, and in modeling their rule after the law of Moses. A good Davidic king loved the Lord, the temple, the law, and God’s people. He served them as a good shepherd. Evil kings were those who rejected this model of kingship in favor of the pagan models. So Omri and Ahab introduced the Phoenician culture with its Baalism, utterly disregarding the heritage of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The Davidic king was treated as a member of God’s household, being a “son” of the great King (cf. 2 Sm 7:14-16; Ps 2:6-7). The Davidic king was to be loyal to the great King, Yahweh. He, like Moses and Joshua, received his orders directly from the Lord; but unlike with Moses, the word of the Lord was mediated through the prophets. He, like Moses and Joshua, was expected to serve his God and his people.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMessiah-King\">The Messiah-King<\/p>\n<p>The descendants of David failed to maintain and expand the theocracy. By the eighth and seventh centuries <span>BC<\/span>, it was apparent that even the greatest kings were dwarfed by the stature of David and Solomon. The prophets (Is 9:2-7; 11:1-9; Jer 33:14-16; Ez 34:22-31; Mi 5:2-5) spoke of another king, the Messiah, a descendant of David who would rule permanently and by whose rule the reign of God would extend to the ends of the earth. He would put down all opposition to God’s rule, remove all enemies, and bring in an era of universal peace and righteousness. The Messiah-King would reveal the perfections of divine rule, as the Spirit of God would be upon him. His kingship would be marked by service to the people of God, so that they would be a well-cared-for flock; he would serve them as their shepherd.<\/p>\n<p>In the coming of Jesus the messianic kingdom is more clearly revealed. He is the King of whom the angels said, “The Savior—yes, the Messiah, the Lord—has been born tonight in Bethlehem, the city of David!” (Lk 2:11, <span>nlt<\/span>). These magnificent words show continuity with the prophetic word. Jesus is the Savior, whose role includes deliverance from sin but also deliverance from all causes of adversity, evil, and the effects of the curse. His mission pertains to both forgiveness and to the establishment of peace on earth (1:77-79). In this light we must look at Jesus’ ministry of healing, feeding, opposing the forces of evil, suffering, and teaching as the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth. He is the King who serves, fights against the demonic powers, and overcomes. The resurrection marks his victory, and he is crowned with glory by being seated at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:33-36; cf. 1 Cor 15:25). In being the Savior he is none other than Christ the Lord. The early apostolic preaching proclaimed that Jesus is the Messiah of God and the Lord. The lordship of Jesus is corollary to his being the Messiah. To those who call on him, he is the Savior-Messiah-Lord (Rom 10:9-15), but to those who reject him, he is the divine warrior, before whom all knees will bow and who will bring in the era of the Father’s judgment (cf. Rv 1:12-16; 19:11-21).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus taught his disciples that at his coming in glory he would be seated on his throne and all mankind would pay him obeisance. The enemies of God will be cast out from his presence, and the people of God will fully inherit the kingdom (Mt 25:31-46). In accordance with Jesus’ teaching, the members of his body, the church, are expected to work out the theocratic ideal in their lives, that by their works and faith they may glorify the Father and show that they are his (Jn 17:20-26; cf. Mt 25:33-40). This is the biblical manner of witness that Israel failed to give and that the church is privileged to give; as Paul wrote to Timothy:<\/p>\n<p>I command you before God, who gives life to all, and before Christ Jesus, . . . that you obey his commands with all purity. Then no one can find fault with you from now until our Lord Jesus Christ returns. For at the right time Christ will be revealed from heaven by the blessed and only almighty God, the King of kings and Lord of lords. He alone can never die, and he lives in light so brilliant that no human can approach him. No one has ever seen him, nor ever will. To him be honor and power forever. Amen. (1 Tm 6:13-16, <span>nlt<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Then Paul gives several instructions as to how the people of God must demonstrate their allegiance to Jesus. Throughout the book of Revelation, Jesus is viewed as King over the church (Rv 4:2, 9-11; 5:1, 9-13). At his return his kingship will be established. At this time, the enemies of the cross will see the one whom they have rejected and will bow before the messianic King (1 Cor 15:25-28). “After that the end will come, when he [Jesus] will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father, having put down all enemies of every kind” (v 24, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven.<\/p>","summary_ro":"KING The word melek (king) occurs more than 2,000 times in the Hebrew OT. It may refer to God (Ps 95:3) or to human rulers. Generally it designates one invested with ultimate authority and power over his subjects. In the OT, the word melek designates the ruler of a tribe (“the kings of Midian,” Nm 31:8), a city (Jericho, Ai; cf. Jos 12:9-24, where 31 kings of city-states conquered by the Israelites are listed), a nation (Israel, Judah, Ammon, Moab, Aram), or an international power (such as Eg...","summary_en":"KING The word melek (king) occurs more than 2,000 times in the Hebrew OT. It may refer to God (Ps 95:3) or to human rulers. Generally it designates one invested with ultimate authority and power over his subjects. In the OT, the word melek designates the ruler of a tribe (“the kings of Midian,” Nm 31:8), a city (Jericho, Ai; cf. Jos 12:9-24, where 31 kings of city-states conquered by the Israelites are listed), a nation (Israel, Judah, Ammon, Moab, Aram), or an international power (such as Eg...","source":"Articles\/K.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":31339,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Priests and Levites","title_en":"Priests and Levites","content_ro":"<h3>PRIESTS AND LEVITES<\/h3>\n<p>Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levites fulfilled a variety of essentially religious duties and were equivalent approximately to the clergy in modern times. They were professional men and were supported for their full-time religious work.<\/p>\n<p>The role of the priesthood may be seen most clearly in the context of Israelite religion as a whole. At the heart of religion was a relationship with God; to be an Israelite or a Jew was to know and maintain a continuous relationship with the living God. This relationship found its outward expression in a variety of contexts: the covenant, the temple, worship, and every facet of daily life. Thus religion, understood as a relationship, had two perspectives: the relationship with God and that with fellow human beings. It had both a personal and a communal dimension to it. The priests were the guardians and servants of this life of relationship, which was at the heart of OT religion; all their functions can best be understood within the context of a relationship between God and Israel. The prophets, too, were servants of the covenant relationship. While the priests functioned as the normal servants of religion, the prophets’ role was more that of calling a delinquent people back to the relationship with God in times of crisis.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, there are frequent references to both priests and Levites; in a number of biblical texts, however, the distinction is not clear (see, e.g., Dt 18:1-8). From the scholarly point of view, the precise relationship between priests and Levites is a continuing problem that has not yet been fully resolved. In general terms, only the sons of Aaron were to assume the role of priests; all other Levites would have religious functions, though technically they would not be priests. While this distinction is clear in most biblical texts, in others there is lack of certainty and clarity. It is clear, however, that <em>priests<\/em> (Levites descended from Aaron) and <em>Levites<\/em> (other than the descendants of Aaron) all had professional religious duties to perform. The precise nature of those duties varied from time to time in the course of Israel’s history.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>• The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>• The Priests<\/p>\n<p>• The Levites<\/p>\n<p>• The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>• The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOriginsofthePriesthood\">The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood in Israel began during the time of Moses and Aaron. The exodus from Egypt was not only the liberation of a group of Hebrew slaves but also the birth of the nation of Israel. The nation that was born in the exodus was given its constitution in the covenant of Sinai. The law of this covenant established the foundations and origins of Israelite priesthood. It provides insight into the three basic categories to be considered: the high priest, the priests, and the Levites.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHighPriest\">The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>Any large and complex organization requires a head or leader, and this was true also of the Hebrew priesthood (though in its early days it was a small organization). The covenant was established through Moses, the prophet, through whom God gave the offer and substance of the covenant relationship; religious life within the covenant was to be the primary responsibility of Aaron, who was the first and chief priest.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of Israel’s priesthood, it is probable that the high priest’s office was relatively informal; he was chief or leader among his fellow priests. The office was significant, nevertheless, and involved a special ritual of investiture, special clothing, and certain special responsibilities. While the high priest’s duties were similar in principle to those of other priests, he had certain exclusive responsibilities. To some extent, his duties were administrative, pertaining to all the priests of whom he had charge. But his position was more weighty than that of an administrator; just as all priests were the servants and guardians of the covenant relationship, so the high priest was chief servant and chief guardian. In his hands rested spiritual responsibility for the entire people of God, and therein lay the true honor and gravity of his position.<\/p>\n\n<p>This spiritual seniority of the high priest is seen most clearly in certain tasks he undertook within Israel’s life of worship. The clearest example may be seen in the annual observation of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). On that day alone, the high priest entered the Holy of Holies and, standing before the “mercy seat,” he sought God’s forgiveness and mercy for the whole nation of Israel (Lv 16:1-19). It is in that ceremony that Israel’s covenant faith is seen most clearly. Israel’s religion was one of relationship with a holy God, and human evil disrupted that relationship. While all worship and sacrifices throughout the year were concerned with the continuation of the relationship, the Day of Atonement was the most solemn day of the year, in which the attention of all the people focused upon the meaning of their existence. Life held meaning only if the relationship with God could be maintained; the high priest had the great honor and heavy burden of seeking God’s mercy for all Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The special clothing worn by the high priest was symbolic of the nature and importance of his office; although all the symbolism cannot be determined, some of it is made clear in the biblical text. There are three particular themes in the symbolism. The first is beauty. The sense of beauty emerges from the quality and design of all the items of clothing, together with the use of color and precious stones. But beauty is dominant in the breastplate; the Hebrew word translated approximately as “breastplate” has as its basic sense “beauty” or “excellence.” The clothing symbolizes beauty, while beauty describes the office; the two other themes associated with the symbolism bring out the excellence of the office.<\/p>\n<p>The second theme is the role of the priest as representative of Israel before God. This essential dimension of the office of the high priest is explicitly identified in the names of the tribes of Israel in the two onyx stones in the ephod, and in the 12 precious stones attached to the breastplate. The high priest entered God’s presence to seek deliverance from God’s judgment (the breastplate is identified with judgment; Ex 28:15) for his people and in order to keep the people constantly in God’s remembrance (v 12), as symbolized by the two onyx stones. The third theme is the role of high priest as the representative of God to Israel. This dimension of the office is seen in the Urim and Thummim, kept in the breastpiece, by means of which God made known his will to Israel. The high priest, Aaron, fully robed, was a splendid figure, and the splendor of his garments indicated the magnificence of the office with which he had been entrusted.<\/p>\n<p>The high priesthood was to be passed on within the family (for the high priest was expected to be a married man), although in later history the practice was not always adhered to. On Aaron’s death, the office passed to Eleazar, one of his four sons.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriests\">The Priests<\/p>\n<p>Priests took office not as the result of a particular vocation but by virtue of priestly descent. Thus the first priests were the four sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. These four were ordained at the same time that Aaron was ordained high priest (Ex 28:1). Like him, they had special clothing, which was basically similar, though it lacked the distinctive garments of the high priest (the special ephod, the breastpiece, and the crown). The priesthood would be passed down through their sons.<\/p>\n<p>The sanctity of the priestly office was such that it was preserved from degeneration through specific laws. A man must be a descendant of Aaron to be a priest, but he was also required to meet a variety of other qualifications. He would not marry a divorcée or a former prostitute (Lv 21:7). If he was afflicted by certain kinds of disease or congenital defects, he was barred from priestly office (e.g., blindness, lameness, mutilation, being a hunchback or dwarf; vv 16-23). The principle involved was similar to that applying to animals used in sacrifice—only those free from defect or blemish were suitable for divine service.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of the priesthood there is some information provided in the biblical text concerning the specific duties of the priests. Eleazar had overall responsibility for the tabernacle and its offerings (Nm 4:16); assisted Moses in a number of duties, such as numbering the people and dividing the land (26:1-2; 32:2); and later served as an adviser to Joshua. Ithamar was responsible for the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 38:21) and supervised the families of the Gershonites and Merarites (Nm 4:28-33). Nadab and Abihu, however, died soon after their ordination as a result of a sinful act in their priestly duties (Lv 10:1-7), which may have been related in part to drunkenness (vv 8-9).<\/p>\n<p>Priestly duties, in general, fell into three areas (Dt 33:8-10). First, priests were responsible, in conjunction with the high priest, for declaring God’s will to the people. Second, they had responsibilities in religious education; they were to teach to Israel God’s ordinances and law (v 10). Third, they were to be the servants of the tabernacle, participating in Israel’s sacrifices and worship. There were a number of other duties that may have fallen to them, which they would have shared with the Levites in general.<\/p>\n<p>The priests, along with all other Levites, did not own any land, as did the other Israelite tribes. Their task was to be entirely in the direct service to God. The absence of land, however, meant that they could not support and feed themselves as could other men and women. Consequently, the law specified that they could be supported for their services by the people as a whole. They were to receive, from worshipers, portions of animals that were brought to the tabernacle, as well as corn, wine, oil, and wool.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheLevites\">The Levites<\/p>\n<p>This term includes the priests, in a broad sense, for the sons of Aaron belonged to the tribe of Levi. For practical purposes, however, the Levites were those of the tribe other than the priests. The Levites also functioned in the service of the tabernacle, though they had a subordinate position. They, too, were professional men and were paid in money and in kind for their services. Though they did not inherit tribal territory of their own, there were a number of cities set aside for their use (Nm 35:1-8), and pasturelands were designated outside those cities for their livestock.<\/p>\n<p>The Levites were divided into three principal families, the descendants of Kohath, Gershon, and Merari (Nm 4). Each of these families had particular responsibilities with respect to the care and transport of the tabernacle. The sons of Kohath carried the tabernacle furniture (after it had been covered by the priests), the sons of Gershon cared for the coverings and screens, and the sons of Merari carried and erected the tabernacle’s frame. The priests, by contrast, were responsible for the transportation of the ark of the covenant. The role of each Levite, as servant of the tabernacle, was restricted; he undertook his professional duties between the ages of 25 and 50 (8:24-26).<\/p>\n<p>Although many of the duties of the Levites were of a mundane nature, they also had a very significant religious role. The law required that all the firstborn, including firstborn sons, be given to God, recalling the slaying of the firstborn at the exodus from Egypt. The Levites’ role in religion was that of being accepted by God in the place of the firstborn sons of Israel (Nm 3:11-13); their cattle, too, were accepted in place of the Israelites’ firstborn cattle. In the census taken in the time of Moses, the firstborn Israelites exceeded the number of the Levites, and a five-shekel redemption fee had to be paid into the priestly coffers for each person in excess (vv 40-51). The representative and substitutionary nature of the Levites can be seen in Israelite religion. Like the priests, they played a part in the larger activity of mediation between God and Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The law of Deuteronomy specifies a number of duties that may have fallen upon both priests and Levites (though the texts are ambiguous). These duties included participation in the activity of the law courts as judges, perhaps with special reference to religious crimes (Dt 17:8-9), taking care of the Book of the Law (v 18), controlling the lives and health of lepers (24:8), and participating directly in the conduct of covenant renewal ceremonies (27:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHistoryoftheInstitution\">The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>In theory, the covenant law of Moses determined the nature and course of the offices of priests and Levites for the future history of Israel. In practice, however, changing historical circumstances and changes in the shape of Israel’s religion and culture altered the shape of the priesthood and the role of the Levites from time to time. And even more significantly, the persons who held the offices shaped them and their effectiveness through their faithfulness or unfaithfulness.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood before the Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>In the time of Joshua, the priests continued to undertake their important task of carrying the ark of the covenant. The Levites assisted in the division and allocation of the newly acquired land among the Israelite tribes. In Joshua 21, there is a detailed list of the allocation of cities to both priests and Levites, in fulfillment of the earlier legislation. In the days of the settlement, beyond the Conquest, there is some evidence that the Levites took over the priestly duty of transporting the ark (1 Sm 6:15; 2 Sm 15:24).<\/p>\n<p>The writer of the book of Judges has recorded two stories that illuminate the lives of particular Levites. The first, the story of Micah (Jgs 17–18), describes the establishment of a local shrine in which Micah’s son was appointed as a priest (though he was not of Levite or Aaronic descent). Later, Micah hired an itinerant Levite to function as a priest in his shrine, though subsequently that Levite was persuaded to serve the tribe of Dan as a priest. It is difficult to fit the details of this story into the theoretical model of priests and Levites, though the story may illustrate the confused state of Israel’s religion at the time. What is particularly significant is that the role of the Levite-priest was primarily oracular (18:5-6). The second story in Judges is the rather horrifying account of a Levite and his concubine (ch 19). The story illustrates the moral decline and lack of law and order in Israel at the time, but it sheds little light on the role of the Levites.<\/p>\n<p>More information is provided about the priesthood during the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>, immediately before the establishment of the monarchy. The tabernacle (by now probably a semipermanent structure) and the ark of the covenant were located in Shiloh. The priest in charge of the sanctuary in Shiloh was Eli, who may have been a descendant of Aaron’s son Ithamar. His two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, also served as priests, indicating that the principle of family descent was still operative with respect to the priesthood. But although Eli was a faithful priest, his two sons abused the office.<\/p>\n<p>The precise role of Samuel in this period is unclear. He was primarily a judge and a prophet, but it is difficult to determine whether he was also a priest. In the historical narrative, he is not called a priest, though Psalm 99:6 might be interpreted to indicate his priestly office. There are a number of passages, however, that indicate he acted like a priest. For example, he offered sacrifices (1 Sm 7:9-10); as a young man he served in the sanctuary of Shiloh and wore an ephod (ch 2). Furthermore, one of the biblical genealogies implies priestly descent (1 Chr 6:23-30). Nevertheless, he is not normally identified as a priest and the introduction to his story refers to him as an Ephraimite, by descent from his father (1 Sm 1:1), not a Levite. If the priest is perceived as a permanent servant of the sanctuary, as was Eli, then it is clear that Samuel was not a priest. But the priestly role of Samuel may perhaps be related to the fact that his mother “lent” him to God (v 28) while he was still a boy.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Time of David and Solomon<\/h5>\n<p>Several radical changes took place during the reign of David and Solomon. These were a result, primarily, of the establishment of a permanent temple in Jerusalem and the installation of the ark of the covenant there. During the time of Saul, the first king of Israel, the social structure was essentially the same as it had been in the time of the judges. Saul, as king, was a military leader, but his relationship to religion and the priesthood was not clearly determined.<\/p>\n<p>David changed the situation in many important respects. After his capture of the city of Jerusalem, he made that place the political and religious capital of his nation. The religious centrality of Jerusalem was assured by moving the ark of the covenant there, together with the tabernacle. Jerusalem now became the permanent location of the ark, and therefore the permanent center of religion; at the same time, the various regional shrines, which had developed in the premonarchical period, were gradually eliminated.<\/p>\n<p>These changes had numerous implications for the priesthood and the Levites. During David’s reign, there were two principal priests, Abiathar and Zadok. Abiathar, a former priest of Nob, had joined David before his rise to power; he appears to have been a descendant of Eli, and through him of Ithamar, one of Aaron’s sons. Zadok’s background is less clear, though his lineage appears to go back to Aaron’s other son, Eleazar. These two priests are always named together in the texts describing David’s reign, and Zadok is always mentioned before Abiathar. Although neither is explicitly identified as high priest in the ancient texts, there is some evidence to suggest that Abiathar functioned as high priest (1 Kgs 2:35); in NT times, he is identified as such (Mk 2:26). Zadok, during David’s reign, may have been particularly responsible for the care of the ark of the covenant (2 Sm 15:24-25). These two priests had a significant position in David’s royal establishment; they may also have shared overall responsibility for the priests, whose lives were now centered on the Jerusalem temple.<\/p>\n<p>Much of David’s time was focused upon the preparations for building a permanent temple for God. In the preparation for the temple, and in its completion during the reign of King Solomon, the new activities of the Levites may be seen. (The construction of a permanent temple automatically removed their former responsibilities related to the care and transportation of the tabernacle.) Large numbers of Levites were employed as laborers in the actual building of the temple. Others found new tasks in the worship of God in the tabernacle during David’s reign and in the temple upon its completion. To the Levites, and especially to Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, was given primary responsibility for the music of worship; this involved not only singing but also the playing of a variety of instruments in the temple’s orchestra or band. The Levites had also a variety of other tasks; they worked as gatekeepers at the sanctuary, assisted the priests in the preparation of sacrifices, kept the sanctuary clean, and functioned as general administrative and legal officers (1 Chr 23:1-32). Other Levites functioned as bankers, with primary responsibility for the temple treasuries (26:20-28).<\/p>\n<p>Following David’s death, there was a dispute over the royal succession, from which Solomon emerged as the new king. During his reign, the temple was brought to its completion and the regular worship of the nation was conducted there. In the matter of succession, however, Abiathar had supported a losing candidate, and when Solomon was made king, he lost his important office in the royal court. During Solomon’s reign, the control of the priesthood passed into the hands of Zadok.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Divided Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>The great empire, which had been built by David and maintained by Solomon, collapsed after Solomon’s death. From the ruins, two new and relatively insignificant states emerged. The southern kingdom, Judah, retained Jerusalem as its capital and the temple as its center of worship. The northern kingdom, Israel, located its first capital at Shechem, from where it was later moved to Tirzah.<\/p>\n<p>In the southern state of Judah, the priests and Levites continued to function normally within the Jerusalem temple. The office of high priest continued to be passed on by descent within the family of Zadok, who had held office in Solomon’s reign. The continuity of office in this family was to be retained down into the time of the second temple, when the Zadokite succession was interrupted about 171 <span>BC<\/span>. Nevertheless, for all the continuity of religion in Jerusalem, all was not well with religion in Judah, neither during the reign of its first king, Rehoboam, nor during the reigns of his successors. During Rehoboam’s reign, there was a decline in religion and also in the priesthood, when popular forms of religion were introduced as a result of foreign influence (1 Kgs 14:22-24). The history of the southern kingdom was marked by periods of religious decline followed by reform, often as a result of the activities of the prophets. The role of the priesthood was all too rarely one of spiritual leadership, and the priests themselves were often the subject of criticism by the prophets (e.g., Jer 2:8, 26).<\/p>\n<p>The northern kingdom, whose first king was Jeroboam I, inevitably had to introduce some radical changes in religion. Jeroboam could not recognize the temple of Jerusalem, partly because it lay outside his state and partly because it was intimately associated with the royal line of David. Jeroboam established two principal shrines in his kingdom, both of which were to retain importance during the relatively short life of the northern kingdom (200 years). The first was at Bethel, in the southern part of his kingdom near the border of Judah (it was only about 12 miles, or 19.3 kilometers, north of Jerusalem). The second shrine, or sanctuary, was at Dan, in the far northern part of his kingdom.<\/p>\n<p>Both these sanctuaries had ancient associations with the Hebrew traditions. Bethel is referred to as early as the time of Abram (Gn 12:8), and the sanctuary at Dan is known from the history of the judges (Jgs 18). There may indeed have been priests and Levites still residing in these two places, descendants of the former servants of the sanctuaries. But Jeroboam established a non-Levitical priesthood to serve in these sanctuaries and in various smaller shrines or “high places,” thereby cutting off the religious tradition of the northern state even more radically from that of Judah. The royal sanctuary at Bethel, so close to the Jerusalem temple, may have been set up in deliberate competition with the Judean sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>The history of the priesthood in the northern kingdom is no more impressive than that of Judah. Many of the prophets, including Amos, Hosea, and Jeremiah, condemned the northern sanctuaries and their priests. Hosea was forceful in his condemnation: “As marauders lie in ambush for a man, so do bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem, committing shameful crimes” (Hos 6:9, <span>niv<\/span>). Those to whom the spiritual lives of the chosen people had been entrusted only rarely lived up to their responsibilities.<\/p>\n<h5>Priests and Levites during and after the Exile<\/h5>\n<p>The northern kingdom came to its end in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, defeated by the armies of Assyria, but religious life continued in Judah for a while longer. Eventually, the end of the southern state came about 586 <span>BC<\/span>; the defeat of the state by the Babylonians was accompanied by the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple (Lam 2:20). The Babylonian commander took Seraiah, the high priest, and Zephaniah, his assistant, to Riblah, where, along with other officials, they were executed (2 Kgs 25:18-21). Then a policy of exile was established by the Babylonians; the most important and influential people of Judah were deported to Babylon, while the less significant were allowed to remain, for they were unlikely to cause trouble. Of those exiled from Judah, many may have been priests (Jer 29:1), for they were men of influence. By way of contrast, it seems likely that a much smaller number of Levites was exiled, reflecting perhaps their inferior social position.<\/p>\n<p>In the city of Jerusalem there was little normal religious life during the years of the exile; the altar had been destroyed and was not restored until after the exile. No doubt some kind of activity continued, but it was an impoverished form of religion. Most of the priests were in exile in Babylon, but they could not function, for there was no temple or sanctuary. Ezekiel implies that God himself was the only “sanctuary” for the exiles (Ez 11:16). Not until the return from exile and the restoration of Jerusalem and its temple could the normal functions of priests and Levites resume.<\/p>\n<p>When the Babylonian Empire was defeated, the new Persian conquerors instituted a policy whereby the Hebrew exiles could return to their homeland. Of those returning, 4,289 are designated as priests and members of priestly families, while only 341 were Levites (Ezr 2:36-42); the imbalance probably reflects the imbalance in the number of those exiled initially. Under Joshua (Jeshua), the priest, and Zerubbabel, work began on the restoration. The priests played a significant role in the first year of the return, in the restoration of the altar in Jerusalem, so that sacrifice and worship to God could resume. Once the altar had been restored, the work began on the temple itself in the second year of the return. In this work, both the priests and the Levites were involved, and the laying of new foundations for the temple began. When the foundation had been laid, both priests, in their vestments, and Levites, in their role as singers and musicians, participated in the ceremony of dedication (3:8-13). Again, when the temple had been rebuilt, both priests and Levites participated in the ceremony of dedication (6:16-18). The restoration, however, was concerned with more than buildings; it also involved a moral and religious component. Though priests and Levites helped in this task, they were also affected by it. Many, for example, had married foreign wives (9:1), and thus had to conform to Ezra’s reform laws.<\/p>\n<p>To some extent, the priests and Levites resumed their normal duties in the worship of the postexilic period. The priests were engaged in the conduct of the temple worship. The Levites assisted, as temple servants (Neh 11:3), as treasurers and collectors of tithes (10:37-39), and as instructors or teachers of the law of God (8:7-9). Nevertheless, the history of the priesthood after the exile is not free of blemish. Condemnation of the abuses of the priestly office was delivered by the prophet Malachi (Mal 1:6–2:9). Malachi catalogues a list of priestly evils reminiscent of the evil priests who lived during the time of the monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest continued after the exile among the descendants of Zadok, being held first by Joshua (Hg 1:1). The different political circumstances, however, changed the nature of the high priestly office. Whereas in the days of the monarchy the high priest was subservient to the king, there was no king, in the proper sense, after the exile. From a political perspective, the Jews were members of a province or colony; for practical purposes, they were a community based upon a common religion. The high priest was no longer subject to the secular authority of a Jewish king, but his religious authority was considerable, and in some ways his functions were similar to those of a king in preexilic times.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood in the Maccabean Period<\/h5>\n<p>During the second century <span>BC<\/span>, some changes took place in the priesthood, particularly with respect to the office of high priest, which marked the end of the OT era and set the background for the NT period. Judea, in the second century, was ruled by the Seleucid kings, who had inherited a portion of the massive Greek Empire established by Alexander the Great. The Judean province was controlled internally under the high priesthood, whose authority was received from the Seleucid kings.<\/p>\n<p>For the first three decades of the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the high priesthood remained with the Zadokite line of descent. The high priests were members of the (Zadokite) Oniad family: first, Onias III (198–174 <span>BC<\/span>); then Jason, brother of Onias III (174–171 <span>BC<\/span>). It was in the period of Jason that there began a series of events that would terminate the Zadokite tradition.<\/p>\n<p>Onias III had opposed the Hellenization policy of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), which threatened to undermine the Jewish faith. Antiochus replaced Onias by Jason, who in effect purchased the high priesthood from the Seleucid king. In purchasing the priestly office, Jason had set a dangerous precedent; although he was of Zadokite descent, his act implied that the office could be bought and that descent was not vital. The opponents of Jason, the Tobiads, were able to remove him from office and have their own candidate, Menelaus (who was not a Zadokite), appointed in his place. This act resulted in a civil war between those supporting Jason and those supporting Menelaus, and the war in turn culminated in ruthless repressive measures by Antiochus Epiphanes; there were massacres in Jerusalem, and the temple was desecrated (167 <span>BC<\/span>). The desecration of the temple led to the Maccabean revolt, as a result of which the Jews regained their independence for a short time. Menelaus retained the office of high priest until 161 <span>BC<\/span> and was succeeded by Alcimus (161–159 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>There then followed a period during which there was no high priest for seven years. The political climate, however, was such that it became unlikely that the Zadokite line would ever regain the high priesthood, which had been established in the time of King Solomon. The Maccabean Jonathan gained control of Jerusalem, and in 152 <span>BC<\/span>, with the approval of the Seleucid king, he was formally invested with the high priest’s robes of office. He was succeeded as high priest and ruler by his brother Simon in 143 <span>BC<\/span>, who also held the office with the approval of the Seleucids (Demetrius II). But in the third year of his reign (140 <span>BC<\/span>), the high priesthood of Simon received public approval in a great religious assembly, and the family of Simon became “high priest forever” (1 Macc 14:41-47). That event marked the real termination of the Zadokite tradition and the foundation of the Hasmonean line.<\/p>\n<p>The establishment of the high priestly office outside the Zadokite line did not go without challenge. It is probable that a sect within Judaism, now known as the Essenes, was born in reaction to the high priesthood of Simon. The Essenes (better known for the Dead Sea Scrolls) appear to have been founded by a Zadokite priest who rejected the authenticity and authority of Simon. Thus, in a limited sense, the Zadokite priests continued to survive.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriesthoodinNewTestamentTimes\">The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>In the early NT period, both priests and Levites continued to function within the Jewish religion. Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, was a priest belonging to the division of Abijah (Lk 1:5), and his wife was also of priestly descent. When Zechariah was visited by an angel, he was engaged at the time in priestly duties in the Jerusalem temple—various divisions of priests took responsibility for the temple services for a period of time and then returned to their homes (v 23), as another division took over. The distinction between priests and Levites is also maintained in the NT (Jn 1:19) and appears in Jesus’ parable concerning the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:31-32). Both priests and Levites were among the earliest converts to Christianity; Barnabas was a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36), and several priests responded to the proclamation of the gospel (6:7).<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest is frequently referred to in the NT. Several high priests are named, the plurality of current and former holders of the office reflecting the nature of the position as an essentially political appointment (as distinct from its oldest definition, that of an office passing from father to son on the death of the father). The two most significant high priests in the NT are those who held office during the lifetime of Jesus. Annas was high priest about <span>AD<\/span> 6 to 15, but even after he ceased to hold the office formally, he continued to exert considerable influence through his son-in-law, the high priest Caiaphas (c. <span>AD<\/span> 18–36). Both were significant figures in the trial of Jesus. At a later date, Ananias, son of Nedebaeus, was high priest (c. <span>AD<\/span> 47–58) and president of the Sanhedrin during the time in which Paul was brought to trial.<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood held considerable authority in NT times. Most internal and religious matters in the Roman province of Judea were within the authority of the Sanhedrin, which functioned as a kind of provincial government, though its powers were limited in certain matters by Rome. Its membership included the ruling and former high priests and a large number of Sadducees, many of whom belonged to influential priestly families. This priestly influence in the Sanhedrin was indicative of the important role of the temple in Jewish life during the first century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>In <span>AD<\/span> 70, following the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, a radical change came about in the significance of the priesthood in Judaism. The end of the temple removed in effect the purpose for the existence of the priesthood. Although the priesthood continued after a fashion until the Bar-Kochba rebellion in <span>AD<\/span> 135, its days were numbered after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Since the end of the first century <span>AD<\/span>, Judaism has developed without priests, and its course down to the present century has been charted by the rabbis, the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Priesthood.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PRIESTS AND LEVITES<\/h3>\n<p>Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levites fulfilled a variety of essentially religious duties and were equivalent approximately to the clergy in modern times. They were professional men and were supported for their full-time religious work.<\/p>\n<p>The role of the priesthood may be seen most clearly in the context of Israelite religion as a whole. At the heart of religion was a relationship with God; to be an Israelite or a Jew was to know and maintain a continuous relationship with the living God. This relationship found its outward expression in a variety of contexts: the covenant, the temple, worship, and every facet of daily life. Thus religion, understood as a relationship, had two perspectives: the relationship with God and that with fellow human beings. It had both a personal and a communal dimension to it. The priests were the guardians and servants of this life of relationship, which was at the heart of OT religion; all their functions can best be understood within the context of a relationship between God and Israel. The prophets, too, were servants of the covenant relationship. While the priests functioned as the normal servants of religion, the prophets’ role was more that of calling a delinquent people back to the relationship with God in times of crisis.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, there are frequent references to both priests and Levites; in a number of biblical texts, however, the distinction is not clear (see, e.g., Dt 18:1-8). From the scholarly point of view, the precise relationship between priests and Levites is a continuing problem that has not yet been fully resolved. In general terms, only the sons of Aaron were to assume the role of priests; all other Levites would have religious functions, though technically they would not be priests. While this distinction is clear in most biblical texts, in others there is lack of certainty and clarity. It is clear, however, that <em>priests<\/em> (Levites descended from Aaron) and <em>Levites<\/em> (other than the descendants of Aaron) all had professional religious duties to perform. The precise nature of those duties varied from time to time in the course of Israel’s history.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>• The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>• The Priests<\/p>\n<p>• The Levites<\/p>\n<p>• The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>• The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOriginsofthePriesthood\">The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood in Israel began during the time of Moses and Aaron. The exodus from Egypt was not only the liberation of a group of Hebrew slaves but also the birth of the nation of Israel. The nation that was born in the exodus was given its constitution in the covenant of Sinai. The law of this covenant established the foundations and origins of Israelite priesthood. It provides insight into the three basic categories to be considered: the high priest, the priests, and the Levites.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHighPriest\">The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>Any large and complex organization requires a head or leader, and this was true also of the Hebrew priesthood (though in its early days it was a small organization). The covenant was established through Moses, the prophet, through whom God gave the offer and substance of the covenant relationship; religious life within the covenant was to be the primary responsibility of Aaron, who was the first and chief priest.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of Israel’s priesthood, it is probable that the high priest’s office was relatively informal; he was chief or leader among his fellow priests. The office was significant, nevertheless, and involved a special ritual of investiture, special clothing, and certain special responsibilities. While the high priest’s duties were similar in principle to those of other priests, he had certain exclusive responsibilities. To some extent, his duties were administrative, pertaining to all the priests of whom he had charge. But his position was more weighty than that of an administrator; just as all priests were the servants and guardians of the covenant relationship, so the high priest was chief servant and chief guardian. In his hands rested spiritual responsibility for the entire people of God, and therein lay the true honor and gravity of his position.<\/p>\n\n<p>This spiritual seniority of the high priest is seen most clearly in certain tasks he undertook within Israel’s life of worship. The clearest example may be seen in the annual observation of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). On that day alone, the high priest entered the Holy of Holies and, standing before the “mercy seat,” he sought God’s forgiveness and mercy for the whole nation of Israel (Lv 16:1-19). It is in that ceremony that Israel’s covenant faith is seen most clearly. Israel’s religion was one of relationship with a holy God, and human evil disrupted that relationship. While all worship and sacrifices throughout the year were concerned with the continuation of the relationship, the Day of Atonement was the most solemn day of the year, in which the attention of all the people focused upon the meaning of their existence. Life held meaning only if the relationship with God could be maintained; the high priest had the great honor and heavy burden of seeking God’s mercy for all Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The special clothing worn by the high priest was symbolic of the nature and importance of his office; although all the symbolism cannot be determined, some of it is made clear in the biblical text. There are three particular themes in the symbolism. The first is beauty. The sense of beauty emerges from the quality and design of all the items of clothing, together with the use of color and precious stones. But beauty is dominant in the breastplate; the Hebrew word translated approximately as “breastplate” has as its basic sense “beauty” or “excellence.” The clothing symbolizes beauty, while beauty describes the office; the two other themes associated with the symbolism bring out the excellence of the office.<\/p>\n<p>The second theme is the role of the priest as representative of Israel before God. This essential dimension of the office of the high priest is explicitly identified in the names of the tribes of Israel in the two onyx stones in the ephod, and in the 12 precious stones attached to the breastplate. The high priest entered God’s presence to seek deliverance from God’s judgment (the breastplate is identified with judgment; Ex 28:15) for his people and in order to keep the people constantly in God’s remembrance (v 12), as symbolized by the two onyx stones. The third theme is the role of high priest as the representative of God to Israel. This dimension of the office is seen in the Urim and Thummim, kept in the breastpiece, by means of which God made known his will to Israel. The high priest, Aaron, fully robed, was a splendid figure, and the splendor of his garments indicated the magnificence of the office with which he had been entrusted.<\/p>\n<p>The high priesthood was to be passed on within the family (for the high priest was expected to be a married man), although in later history the practice was not always adhered to. On Aaron’s death, the office passed to Eleazar, one of his four sons.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriests\">The Priests<\/p>\n<p>Priests took office not as the result of a particular vocation but by virtue of priestly descent. Thus the first priests were the four sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. These four were ordained at the same time that Aaron was ordained high priest (Ex 28:1). Like him, they had special clothing, which was basically similar, though it lacked the distinctive garments of the high priest (the special ephod, the breastpiece, and the crown). The priesthood would be passed down through their sons.<\/p>\n<p>The sanctity of the priestly office was such that it was preserved from degeneration through specific laws. A man must be a descendant of Aaron to be a priest, but he was also required to meet a variety of other qualifications. He would not marry a divorcée or a former prostitute (Lv 21:7). If he was afflicted by certain kinds of disease or congenital defects, he was barred from priestly office (e.g., blindness, lameness, mutilation, being a hunchback or dwarf; vv 16-23). The principle involved was similar to that applying to animals used in sacrifice—only those free from defect or blemish were suitable for divine service.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of the priesthood there is some information provided in the biblical text concerning the specific duties of the priests. Eleazar had overall responsibility for the tabernacle and its offerings (Nm 4:16); assisted Moses in a number of duties, such as numbering the people and dividing the land (26:1-2; 32:2); and later served as an adviser to Joshua. Ithamar was responsible for the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 38:21) and supervised the families of the Gershonites and Merarites (Nm 4:28-33). Nadab and Abihu, however, died soon after their ordination as a result of a sinful act in their priestly duties (Lv 10:1-7), which may have been related in part to drunkenness (vv 8-9).<\/p>\n<p>Priestly duties, in general, fell into three areas (Dt 33:8-10). First, priests were responsible, in conjunction with the high priest, for declaring God’s will to the people. Second, they had responsibilities in religious education; they were to teach to Israel God’s ordinances and law (v 10). Third, they were to be the servants of the tabernacle, participating in Israel’s sacrifices and worship. There were a number of other duties that may have fallen to them, which they would have shared with the Levites in general.<\/p>\n<p>The priests, along with all other Levites, did not own any land, as did the other Israelite tribes. Their task was to be entirely in the direct service to God. The absence of land, however, meant that they could not support and feed themselves as could other men and women. Consequently, the law specified that they could be supported for their services by the people as a whole. They were to receive, from worshipers, portions of animals that were brought to the tabernacle, as well as corn, wine, oil, and wool.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheLevites\">The Levites<\/p>\n<p>This term includes the priests, in a broad sense, for the sons of Aaron belonged to the tribe of Levi. For practical purposes, however, the Levites were those of the tribe other than the priests. The Levites also functioned in the service of the tabernacle, though they had a subordinate position. They, too, were professional men and were paid in money and in kind for their services. Though they did not inherit tribal territory of their own, there were a number of cities set aside for their use (Nm 35:1-8), and pasturelands were designated outside those cities for their livestock.<\/p>\n<p>The Levites were divided into three principal families, the descendants of Kohath, Gershon, and Merari (Nm 4). Each of these families had particular responsibilities with respect to the care and transport of the tabernacle. The sons of Kohath carried the tabernacle furniture (after it had been covered by the priests), the sons of Gershon cared for the coverings and screens, and the sons of Merari carried and erected the tabernacle’s frame. The priests, by contrast, were responsible for the transportation of the ark of the covenant. The role of each Levite, as servant of the tabernacle, was restricted; he undertook his professional duties between the ages of 25 and 50 (8:24-26).<\/p>\n<p>Although many of the duties of the Levites were of a mundane nature, they also had a very significant religious role. The law required that all the firstborn, including firstborn sons, be given to God, recalling the slaying of the firstborn at the exodus from Egypt. The Levites’ role in religion was that of being accepted by God in the place of the firstborn sons of Israel (Nm 3:11-13); their cattle, too, were accepted in place of the Israelites’ firstborn cattle. In the census taken in the time of Moses, the firstborn Israelites exceeded the number of the Levites, and a five-shekel redemption fee had to be paid into the priestly coffers for each person in excess (vv 40-51). The representative and substitutionary nature of the Levites can be seen in Israelite religion. Like the priests, they played a part in the larger activity of mediation between God and Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The law of Deuteronomy specifies a number of duties that may have fallen upon both priests and Levites (though the texts are ambiguous). These duties included participation in the activity of the law courts as judges, perhaps with special reference to religious crimes (Dt 17:8-9), taking care of the Book of the Law (v 18), controlling the lives and health of lepers (24:8), and participating directly in the conduct of covenant renewal ceremonies (27:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHistoryoftheInstitution\">The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>In theory, the covenant law of Moses determined the nature and course of the offices of priests and Levites for the future history of Israel. In practice, however, changing historical circumstances and changes in the shape of Israel’s religion and culture altered the shape of the priesthood and the role of the Levites from time to time. And even more significantly, the persons who held the offices shaped them and their effectiveness through their faithfulness or unfaithfulness.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood before the Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>In the time of Joshua, the priests continued to undertake their important task of carrying the ark of the covenant. The Levites assisted in the division and allocation of the newly acquired land among the Israelite tribes. In Joshua 21, there is a detailed list of the allocation of cities to both priests and Levites, in fulfillment of the earlier legislation. In the days of the settlement, beyond the Conquest, there is some evidence that the Levites took over the priestly duty of transporting the ark (1 Sm 6:15; 2 Sm 15:24).<\/p>\n<p>The writer of the book of Judges has recorded two stories that illuminate the lives of particular Levites. The first, the story of Micah (Jgs 17–18), describes the establishment of a local shrine in which Micah’s son was appointed as a priest (though he was not of Levite or Aaronic descent). Later, Micah hired an itinerant Levite to function as a priest in his shrine, though subsequently that Levite was persuaded to serve the tribe of Dan as a priest. It is difficult to fit the details of this story into the theoretical model of priests and Levites, though the story may illustrate the confused state of Israel’s religion at the time. What is particularly significant is that the role of the Levite-priest was primarily oracular (18:5-6). The second story in Judges is the rather horrifying account of a Levite and his concubine (ch 19). The story illustrates the moral decline and lack of law and order in Israel at the time, but it sheds little light on the role of the Levites.<\/p>\n<p>More information is provided about the priesthood during the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>, immediately before the establishment of the monarchy. The tabernacle (by now probably a semipermanent structure) and the ark of the covenant were located in Shiloh. The priest in charge of the sanctuary in Shiloh was Eli, who may have been a descendant of Aaron’s son Ithamar. His two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, also served as priests, indicating that the principle of family descent was still operative with respect to the priesthood. But although Eli was a faithful priest, his two sons abused the office.<\/p>\n<p>The precise role of Samuel in this period is unclear. He was primarily a judge and a prophet, but it is difficult to determine whether he was also a priest. In the historical narrative, he is not called a priest, though Psalm 99:6 might be interpreted to indicate his priestly office. There are a number of passages, however, that indicate he acted like a priest. For example, he offered sacrifices (1 Sm 7:9-10); as a young man he served in the sanctuary of Shiloh and wore an ephod (ch 2). Furthermore, one of the biblical genealogies implies priestly descent (1 Chr 6:23-30). Nevertheless, he is not normally identified as a priest and the introduction to his story refers to him as an Ephraimite, by descent from his father (1 Sm 1:1), not a Levite. If the priest is perceived as a permanent servant of the sanctuary, as was Eli, then it is clear that Samuel was not a priest. But the priestly role of Samuel may perhaps be related to the fact that his mother “lent” him to God (v 28) while he was still a boy.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Time of David and Solomon<\/h5>\n<p>Several radical changes took place during the reign of David and Solomon. These were a result, primarily, of the establishment of a permanent temple in Jerusalem and the installation of the ark of the covenant there. During the time of Saul, the first king of Israel, the social structure was essentially the same as it had been in the time of the judges. Saul, as king, was a military leader, but his relationship to religion and the priesthood was not clearly determined.<\/p>\n<p>David changed the situation in many important respects. After his capture of the city of Jerusalem, he made that place the political and religious capital of his nation. The religious centrality of Jerusalem was assured by moving the ark of the covenant there, together with the tabernacle. Jerusalem now became the permanent location of the ark, and therefore the permanent center of religion; at the same time, the various regional shrines, which had developed in the premonarchical period, were gradually eliminated.<\/p>\n<p>These changes had numerous implications for the priesthood and the Levites. During David’s reign, there were two principal priests, Abiathar and Zadok. Abiathar, a former priest of Nob, had joined David before his rise to power; he appears to have been a descendant of Eli, and through him of Ithamar, one of Aaron’s sons. Zadok’s background is less clear, though his lineage appears to go back to Aaron’s other son, Eleazar. These two priests are always named together in the texts describing David’s reign, and Zadok is always mentioned before Abiathar. Although neither is explicitly identified as high priest in the ancient texts, there is some evidence to suggest that Abiathar functioned as high priest (1 Kgs 2:35); in NT times, he is identified as such (Mk 2:26). Zadok, during David’s reign, may have been particularly responsible for the care of the ark of the covenant (2 Sm 15:24-25). These two priests had a significant position in David’s royal establishment; they may also have shared overall responsibility for the priests, whose lives were now centered on the Jerusalem temple.<\/p>\n<p>Much of David’s time was focused upon the preparations for building a permanent temple for God. In the preparation for the temple, and in its completion during the reign of King Solomon, the new activities of the Levites may be seen. (The construction of a permanent temple automatically removed their former responsibilities related to the care and transportation of the tabernacle.) Large numbers of Levites were employed as laborers in the actual building of the temple. Others found new tasks in the worship of God in the tabernacle during David’s reign and in the temple upon its completion. To the Levites, and especially to Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, was given primary responsibility for the music of worship; this involved not only singing but also the playing of a variety of instruments in the temple’s orchestra or band. The Levites had also a variety of other tasks; they worked as gatekeepers at the sanctuary, assisted the priests in the preparation of sacrifices, kept the sanctuary clean, and functioned as general administrative and legal officers (1 Chr 23:1-32). Other Levites functioned as bankers, with primary responsibility for the temple treasuries (26:20-28).<\/p>\n<p>Following David’s death, there was a dispute over the royal succession, from which Solomon emerged as the new king. During his reign, the temple was brought to its completion and the regular worship of the nation was conducted there. In the matter of succession, however, Abiathar had supported a losing candidate, and when Solomon was made king, he lost his important office in the royal court. During Solomon’s reign, the control of the priesthood passed into the hands of Zadok.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Divided Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>The great empire, which had been built by David and maintained by Solomon, collapsed after Solomon’s death. From the ruins, two new and relatively insignificant states emerged. The southern kingdom, Judah, retained Jerusalem as its capital and the temple as its center of worship. The northern kingdom, Israel, located its first capital at Shechem, from where it was later moved to Tirzah.<\/p>\n<p>In the southern state of Judah, the priests and Levites continued to function normally within the Jerusalem temple. The office of high priest continued to be passed on by descent within the family of Zadok, who had held office in Solomon’s reign. The continuity of office in this family was to be retained down into the time of the second temple, when the Zadokite succession was interrupted about 171 <span>BC<\/span>. Nevertheless, for all the continuity of religion in Jerusalem, all was not well with religion in Judah, neither during the reign of its first king, Rehoboam, nor during the reigns of his successors. During Rehoboam’s reign, there was a decline in religion and also in the priesthood, when popular forms of religion were introduced as a result of foreign influence (1 Kgs 14:22-24). The history of the southern kingdom was marked by periods of religious decline followed by reform, often as a result of the activities of the prophets. The role of the priesthood was all too rarely one of spiritual leadership, and the priests themselves were often the subject of criticism by the prophets (e.g., Jer 2:8, 26).<\/p>\n<p>The northern kingdom, whose first king was Jeroboam I, inevitably had to introduce some radical changes in religion. Jeroboam could not recognize the temple of Jerusalem, partly because it lay outside his state and partly because it was intimately associated with the royal line of David. Jeroboam established two principal shrines in his kingdom, both of which were to retain importance during the relatively short life of the northern kingdom (200 years). The first was at Bethel, in the southern part of his kingdom near the border of Judah (it was only about 12 miles, or 19.3 kilometers, north of Jerusalem). The second shrine, or sanctuary, was at Dan, in the far northern part of his kingdom.<\/p>\n<p>Both these sanctuaries had ancient associations with the Hebrew traditions. Bethel is referred to as early as the time of Abram (Gn 12:8), and the sanctuary at Dan is known from the history of the judges (Jgs 18). There may indeed have been priests and Levites still residing in these two places, descendants of the former servants of the sanctuaries. But Jeroboam established a non-Levitical priesthood to serve in these sanctuaries and in various smaller shrines or “high places,” thereby cutting off the religious tradition of the northern state even more radically from that of Judah. The royal sanctuary at Bethel, so close to the Jerusalem temple, may have been set up in deliberate competition with the Judean sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>The history of the priesthood in the northern kingdom is no more impressive than that of Judah. Many of the prophets, including Amos, Hosea, and Jeremiah, condemned the northern sanctuaries and their priests. Hosea was forceful in his condemnation: “As marauders lie in ambush for a man, so do bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem, committing shameful crimes” (Hos 6:9, <span>niv<\/span>). Those to whom the spiritual lives of the chosen people had been entrusted only rarely lived up to their responsibilities.<\/p>\n<h5>Priests and Levites during and after the Exile<\/h5>\n<p>The northern kingdom came to its end in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, defeated by the armies of Assyria, but religious life continued in Judah for a while longer. Eventually, the end of the southern state came about 586 <span>BC<\/span>; the defeat of the state by the Babylonians was accompanied by the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple (Lam 2:20). The Babylonian commander took Seraiah, the high priest, and Zephaniah, his assistant, to Riblah, where, along with other officials, they were executed (2 Kgs 25:18-21). Then a policy of exile was established by the Babylonians; the most important and influential people of Judah were deported to Babylon, while the less significant were allowed to remain, for they were unlikely to cause trouble. Of those exiled from Judah, many may have been priests (Jer 29:1), for they were men of influence. By way of contrast, it seems likely that a much smaller number of Levites was exiled, reflecting perhaps their inferior social position.<\/p>\n<p>In the city of Jerusalem there was little normal religious life during the years of the exile; the altar had been destroyed and was not restored until after the exile. No doubt some kind of activity continued, but it was an impoverished form of religion. Most of the priests were in exile in Babylon, but they could not function, for there was no temple or sanctuary. Ezekiel implies that God himself was the only “sanctuary” for the exiles (Ez 11:16). Not until the return from exile and the restoration of Jerusalem and its temple could the normal functions of priests and Levites resume.<\/p>\n<p>When the Babylonian Empire was defeated, the new Persian conquerors instituted a policy whereby the Hebrew exiles could return to their homeland. Of those returning, 4,289 are designated as priests and members of priestly families, while only 341 were Levites (Ezr 2:36-42); the imbalance probably reflects the imbalance in the number of those exiled initially. Under Joshua (Jeshua), the priest, and Zerubbabel, work began on the restoration. The priests played a significant role in the first year of the return, in the restoration of the altar in Jerusalem, so that sacrifice and worship to God could resume. Once the altar had been restored, the work began on the temple itself in the second year of the return. In this work, both the priests and the Levites were involved, and the laying of new foundations for the temple began. When the foundation had been laid, both priests, in their vestments, and Levites, in their role as singers and musicians, participated in the ceremony of dedication (3:8-13). Again, when the temple had been rebuilt, both priests and Levites participated in the ceremony of dedication (6:16-18). The restoration, however, was concerned with more than buildings; it also involved a moral and religious component. Though priests and Levites helped in this task, they were also affected by it. Many, for example, had married foreign wives (9:1), and thus had to conform to Ezra’s reform laws.<\/p>\n<p>To some extent, the priests and Levites resumed their normal duties in the worship of the postexilic period. The priests were engaged in the conduct of the temple worship. The Levites assisted, as temple servants (Neh 11:3), as treasurers and collectors of tithes (10:37-39), and as instructors or teachers of the law of God (8:7-9). Nevertheless, the history of the priesthood after the exile is not free of blemish. Condemnation of the abuses of the priestly office was delivered by the prophet Malachi (Mal 1:6–2:9). Malachi catalogues a list of priestly evils reminiscent of the evil priests who lived during the time of the monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest continued after the exile among the descendants of Zadok, being held first by Joshua (Hg 1:1). The different political circumstances, however, changed the nature of the high priestly office. Whereas in the days of the monarchy the high priest was subservient to the king, there was no king, in the proper sense, after the exile. From a political perspective, the Jews were members of a province or colony; for practical purposes, they were a community based upon a common religion. The high priest was no longer subject to the secular authority of a Jewish king, but his religious authority was considerable, and in some ways his functions were similar to those of a king in preexilic times.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood in the Maccabean Period<\/h5>\n<p>During the second century <span>BC<\/span>, some changes took place in the priesthood, particularly with respect to the office of high priest, which marked the end of the OT era and set the background for the NT period. Judea, in the second century, was ruled by the Seleucid kings, who had inherited a portion of the massive Greek Empire established by Alexander the Great. The Judean province was controlled internally under the high priesthood, whose authority was received from the Seleucid kings.<\/p>\n<p>For the first three decades of the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the high priesthood remained with the Zadokite line of descent. The high priests were members of the (Zadokite) Oniad family: first, Onias III (198–174 <span>BC<\/span>); then Jason, brother of Onias III (174–171 <span>BC<\/span>). It was in the period of Jason that there began a series of events that would terminate the Zadokite tradition.<\/p>\n<p>Onias III had opposed the Hellenization policy of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), which threatened to undermine the Jewish faith. Antiochus replaced Onias by Jason, who in effect purchased the high priesthood from the Seleucid king. In purchasing the priestly office, Jason had set a dangerous precedent; although he was of Zadokite descent, his act implied that the office could be bought and that descent was not vital. The opponents of Jason, the Tobiads, were able to remove him from office and have their own candidate, Menelaus (who was not a Zadokite), appointed in his place. This act resulted in a civil war between those supporting Jason and those supporting Menelaus, and the war in turn culminated in ruthless repressive measures by Antiochus Epiphanes; there were massacres in Jerusalem, and the temple was desecrated (167 <span>BC<\/span>). The desecration of the temple led to the Maccabean revolt, as a result of which the Jews regained their independence for a short time. Menelaus retained the office of high priest until 161 <span>BC<\/span> and was succeeded by Alcimus (161–159 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>There then followed a period during which there was no high priest for seven years. The political climate, however, was such that it became unlikely that the Zadokite line would ever regain the high priesthood, which had been established in the time of King Solomon. The Maccabean Jonathan gained control of Jerusalem, and in 152 <span>BC<\/span>, with the approval of the Seleucid king, he was formally invested with the high priest’s robes of office. He was succeeded as high priest and ruler by his brother Simon in 143 <span>BC<\/span>, who also held the office with the approval of the Seleucids (Demetrius II). But in the third year of his reign (140 <span>BC<\/span>), the high priesthood of Simon received public approval in a great religious assembly, and the family of Simon became “high priest forever” (1 Macc 14:41-47). That event marked the real termination of the Zadokite tradition and the foundation of the Hasmonean line.<\/p>\n<p>The establishment of the high priestly office outside the Zadokite line did not go without challenge. It is probable that a sect within Judaism, now known as the Essenes, was born in reaction to the high priesthood of Simon. The Essenes (better known for the Dead Sea Scrolls) appear to have been founded by a Zadokite priest who rejected the authenticity and authority of Simon. Thus, in a limited sense, the Zadokite priests continued to survive.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriesthoodinNewTestamentTimes\">The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>In the early NT period, both priests and Levites continued to function within the Jewish religion. Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, was a priest belonging to the division of Abijah (Lk 1:5), and his wife was also of priestly descent. When Zechariah was visited by an angel, he was engaged at the time in priestly duties in the Jerusalem temple—various divisions of priests took responsibility for the temple services for a period of time and then returned to their homes (v 23), as another division took over. The distinction between priests and Levites is also maintained in the NT (Jn 1:19) and appears in Jesus’ parable concerning the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:31-32). Both priests and Levites were among the earliest converts to Christianity; Barnabas was a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36), and several priests responded to the proclamation of the gospel (6:7).<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest is frequently referred to in the NT. Several high priests are named, the plurality of current and former holders of the office reflecting the nature of the position as an essentially political appointment (as distinct from its oldest definition, that of an office passing from father to son on the death of the father). The two most significant high priests in the NT are those who held office during the lifetime of Jesus. Annas was high priest about <span>AD<\/span> 6 to 15, but even after he ceased to hold the office formally, he continued to exert considerable influence through his son-in-law, the high priest Caiaphas (c. <span>AD<\/span> 18–36). Both were significant figures in the trial of Jesus. At a later date, Ananias, son of Nedebaeus, was high priest (c. <span>AD<\/span> 47–58) and president of the Sanhedrin during the time in which Paul was brought to trial.<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood held considerable authority in NT times. Most internal and religious matters in the Roman province of Judea were within the authority of the Sanhedrin, which functioned as a kind of provincial government, though its powers were limited in certain matters by Rome. Its membership included the ruling and former high priests and a large number of Sadducees, many of whom belonged to influential priestly families. This priestly influence in the Sanhedrin was indicative of the important role of the temple in Jewish life during the first century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>In <span>AD<\/span> 70, following the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, a radical change came about in the significance of the priesthood in Judaism. The end of the temple removed in effect the purpose for the existence of the priesthood. Although the priesthood continued after a fashion until the Bar-Kochba rebellion in <span>AD<\/span> 135, its days were numbered after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Since the end of the first century <span>AD<\/span>, Judaism has developed without priests, and its course down to the present century has been charted by the rabbis, the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Priesthood.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PRIESTS AND LEVITES Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levit...","summary_en":"PRIESTS AND LEVITES Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levit...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45940,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:1","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:1–21:25<\/strong> This second epilogue (see study note on 17:1–21:25) shifts the focus from individuals to whole tribes. Beginning with the outrage in the Benjamite town of Gibeah (ch 19), which led to civil war (ch 20) and the decimation of Benjamin, and moving on to the attempt to rescue the tribe from oblivion (ch 21), the book concludes with the now-familiar refrain, <em>in those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes<\/em>. This was perhaps the low point in Israel’s own remembered history; this is “what they did in Gibeah” that Hosea, 400 years later, would liken to the depths to which Ephraim had sunk (Hos 9:9; 10:9). • The way had been cleared for a transition from charismatic leadership to what might be called “covenant-charismatic kingship,” i.e., kingship that combined living under the Lord’s covenant (Deut 17:14-20) with the anointing of the Spirit for the task of ruling, as with Saul and David.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:1–21:25<\/strong> This second epilogue (see study note on 17:1–21:25) shifts the focus from individuals to whole tribes. Beginning with the outrage in the Benjamite town of Gibeah (ch 19), which led to civil war (ch 20) and the decimation of Benjamin, and moving on to the attempt to rescue the tribe from oblivion (ch 21), the book concludes with the now-familiar refrain, <em>in those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes<\/em>. This was perhaps the low point in Israel’s own remembered history; this is “what they did in Gibeah” that Hosea, 400 years later, would liken to the depths to which Ephraim had sunk (Hos 9:9; 10:9). • The way had been cleared for a transition from charismatic leadership to what might be called “covenant-charismatic kingship,” i.e., kingship that combined living under the Lord’s covenant (Deut 17:14-20) with the anointing of the Spirit for the task of ruling, as with Saul and David.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:1–21:25 This second epilogue (see study note on 17:1–21:25) shifts the focus from individuals to whole tribes. Beginning with the outrage in the Benjamite town of Gibeah (ch 19), which led to civil war (ch 20) and the decimation of Benjamin, and moving on to the attempt to rescue the tribe from oblivion (ch 21), the book concludes with the now-familiar refrain, in those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes. This was perhaps the low point in Is...","summary_en":"19:1–21:25 This second epilogue (see study note on 17:1–21:25) shifts the focus from individuals to whole tribes. Beginning with the outrage in the Benjamite town of Gibeah (ch 19), which led to civil war (ch 20) and the decimation of Benjamin, and moving on to the attempt to rescue the tribe from oblivion (ch 21), the book concludes with the now-familiar refrain, in those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes. This was perhaps the low point in Is...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45941,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:1","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:1<\/strong> A <em>concubine<\/em> was a second-class wife. In a society where polygamy was common, a concubine could be purchased, acquired as repayment of debt, or taken in war. A concubine was sometimes added to make up for a deficiency in a legitimate wife (e.g., Gen 16:1-4; 30:3-13; 35:22), but in the case of the Levite there appears to have been no other wife.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:1<\/strong> A <em>concubine<\/em> was a second-class wife. In a society where polygamy was common, a concubine could be purchased, acquired as repayment of debt, or taken in war. A concubine was sometimes added to make up for a deficiency in a legitimate wife (e.g., Gen 16:1-4; 30:3-13; 35:22), but in the case of the Levite there appears to have been no other wife.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:1 A concubine was a second-class wife. In a society where polygamy was common, a concubine could be purchased, acquired as repayment of debt, or taken in war. A concubine was sometimes added to make up for a deficiency in a legitimate wife (e.g., Gen 16:1-4; 30:3-13; 35:22), but in the case of the Levite there appears to have been no other wife.","summary_en":"19:1 A concubine was a second-class wife. In a society where polygamy was common, a concubine could be purchased, acquired as repayment of debt, or taken in war. A concubine was sometimes added to make up for a deficiency in a legitimate wife (e.g., Gen 16:1-4; 30:3-13; 35:22), but in the case of the Levite there appears to have been no other wife.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73566,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:1","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:1–21:25<\/strong> This second epilogue (see study note on 17:1–21:25) shifts the focus from individuals to whole tribes. Beginning with the outrage in the Benjamite town of Gibeah (ch 19), which led to civil war (ch 20) and the decimation of Benjamin, and moving on to the attempt to rescue the tribe from oblivion (ch 21), the book concludes with the now-familiar refrain, <em>in those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes<\/em>. This was perhaps the low point in Israel’s own remembered history; this is “what they did in Gibeah” that Hosea, 400 years later, would liken to the depths to which Ephraim had sunk (Hos 9:9; 10:9). • The way had been cleared for a transition from charismatic leadership to what might be called “covenant-charismatic kingship,” i.e., kingship that combined living under the Lord’s covenant (Deut 17:14-20) with the anointing of the Spirit for the task of ruling, as with Saul and David.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:1–21:25<\/strong> This second epilogue (see study note on 17:1–21:25) shifts the focus from individuals to whole tribes. Beginning with the outrage in the Benjamite town of Gibeah (ch 19), which led to civil war (ch 20) and the decimation of Benjamin, and moving on to the attempt to rescue the tribe from oblivion (ch 21), the book concludes with the now-familiar refrain, <em>in those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes<\/em>. This was perhaps the low point in Israel’s own remembered history; this is “what they did in Gibeah” that Hosea, 400 years later, would liken to the depths to which Ephraim had sunk (Hos 9:9; 10:9). • The way had been cleared for a transition from charismatic leadership to what might be called “covenant-charismatic kingship,” i.e., kingship that combined living under the Lord’s covenant (Deut 17:14-20) with the anointing of the Spirit for the task of ruling, as with Saul and David.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:1–21:25 This second epilogue (see study note on 17:1–21:25) shifts the focus from individuals to whole tribes. Beginning with the outrage in the Benjamite town of Gibeah (ch 19), which led to civil war (ch 20) and the decimation of Benjamin, and moving on to the attempt to rescue the tribe from oblivion (ch 21), the book concludes with the now-familiar refrain, in those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes. This was perhaps the low point in Is...","summary_en":"19:1–21:25 This second epilogue (see study note on 17:1–21:25) shifts the focus from individuals to whole tribes. Beginning with the outrage in the Benjamite town of Gibeah (ch 19), which led to civil war (ch 20) and the decimation of Benjamin, and moving on to the attempt to rescue the tribe from oblivion (ch 21), the book concludes with the now-familiar refrain, in those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes. This was perhaps the low point in Is...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73567,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:1","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:1<\/strong> A <em>concubine<\/em> was a second-class wife. In a society where polygamy was common, a concubine could be purchased, acquired as repayment of debt, or taken in war. A concubine was sometimes added to make up for a deficiency in a legitimate wife (e.g., Gen 16:1-4; 30:3-13; 35:22), but in the case of the Levite there appears to have been no other wife.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:1<\/strong> A <em>concubine<\/em> was a second-class wife. In a society where polygamy was common, a concubine could be purchased, acquired as repayment of debt, or taken in war. A concubine was sometimes added to make up for a deficiency in a legitimate wife (e.g., Gen 16:1-4; 30:3-13; 35:22), but in the case of the Levite there appears to have been no other wife.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:1 A concubine was a second-class wife. In a society where polygamy was common, a concubine could be purchased, acquired as repayment of debt, or taken in war. A concubine was sometimes added to make up for a deficiency in a legitimate wife (e.g., Gen 16:1-4; 30:3-13; 35:22), but in the case of the Levite there appears to have been no other wife.","summary_en":"19:1 A concubine was a second-class wife. In a society where polygamy was common, a concubine could be purchased, acquired as repayment of debt, or taken in war. A concubine was sometimes added to make up for a deficiency in a legitimate wife (e.g., Gen 16:1-4; 30:3-13; 35:22), but in the case of the Levite there appears to have been no other wife.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101192,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:1","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:1–21:25<\/strong> This second epilogue (see study note on 17:1–21:25) shifts the focus from individuals to whole tribes. Beginning with the outrage in the Benjamite town of Gibeah (ch 19), which led to civil war (ch 20) and the decimation of Benjamin, and moving on to the attempt to rescue the tribe from oblivion (ch 21), the book concludes with the now-familiar refrain, <em>in those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes<\/em>. This was perhaps the low point in Israel’s own remembered history; this is “what they did in Gibeah” that Hosea, 400 years later, would liken to the depths to which Ephraim had sunk (Hos 9:9; 10:9). • The way had been cleared for a transition from charismatic leadership to what might be called “covenant-charismatic kingship,” i.e., kingship that combined living under the Lord’s covenant (Deut 17:14-20) with the anointing of the Spirit for the task of ruling, as with Saul and David.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:1–21:25<\/strong> This second epilogue (see study note on 17:1–21:25) shifts the focus from individuals to whole tribes. Beginning with the outrage in the Benjamite town of Gibeah (ch 19), which led to civil war (ch 20) and the decimation of Benjamin, and moving on to the attempt to rescue the tribe from oblivion (ch 21), the book concludes with the now-familiar refrain, <em>in those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes<\/em>. This was perhaps the low point in Israel’s own remembered history; this is “what they did in Gibeah” that Hosea, 400 years later, would liken to the depths to which Ephraim had sunk (Hos 9:9; 10:9). • The way had been cleared for a transition from charismatic leadership to what might be called “covenant-charismatic kingship,” i.e., kingship that combined living under the Lord’s covenant (Deut 17:14-20) with the anointing of the Spirit for the task of ruling, as with Saul and David.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:1–21:25 This second epilogue (see study note on 17:1–21:25) shifts the focus from individuals to whole tribes. Beginning with the outrage in the Benjamite town of Gibeah (ch 19), which led to civil war (ch 20) and the decimation of Benjamin, and moving on to the attempt to rescue the tribe from oblivion (ch 21), the book concludes with the now-familiar refrain, in those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes. This was perhaps the low point in Is...","summary_en":"19:1–21:25 This second epilogue (see study note on 17:1–21:25) shifts the focus from individuals to whole tribes. Beginning with the outrage in the Benjamite town of Gibeah (ch 19), which led to civil war (ch 20) and the decimation of Benjamin, and moving on to the attempt to rescue the tribe from oblivion (ch 21), the book concludes with the now-familiar refrain, in those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes. This was perhaps the low point in Is...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101193,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:1","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:1<\/strong> A <em>concubine<\/em> was a second-class wife. In a society where polygamy was common, a concubine could be purchased, acquired as repayment of debt, or taken in war. A concubine was sometimes added to make up for a deficiency in a legitimate wife (e.g., Gen 16:1-4; 30:3-13; 35:22), but in the case of the Levite there appears to have been no other wife.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:1<\/strong> A <em>concubine<\/em> was a second-class wife. In a society where polygamy was common, a concubine could be purchased, acquired as repayment of debt, or taken in war. A concubine was sometimes added to make up for a deficiency in a legitimate wife (e.g., Gen 16:1-4; 30:3-13; 35:22), but in the case of the Levite there appears to have been no other wife.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:1 A concubine was a second-class wife. In a society where polygamy was common, a concubine could be purchased, acquired as repayment of debt, or taken in war. A concubine was sometimes added to make up for a deficiency in a legitimate wife (e.g., Gen 16:1-4; 30:3-13; 35:22), but in the case of the Levite there appears to have been no other wife.","summary_en":"19:1 A concubine was a second-class wife. In a society where polygamy was common, a concubine could be purchased, acquired as repayment of debt, or taken in war. A concubine was sometimes added to make up for a deficiency in a legitimate wife (e.g., Gen 16:1-4; 30:3-13; 35:22), but in the case of the Levite there appears to have been no other wife.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128818,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:1","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:1–21:25<\/strong> This second epilogue (see study note on 17:1–21:25) shifts the focus from individuals to whole tribes. Beginning with the outrage in the Benjamite town of Gibeah (ch 19), which led to civil war (ch 20) and the decimation of Benjamin, and moving on to the attempt to rescue the tribe from oblivion (ch 21), the book concludes with the now-familiar refrain, <em>in those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes<\/em>. This was perhaps the low point in Israel’s own remembered history; this is “what they did in Gibeah” that Hosea, 400 years later, would liken to the depths to which Ephraim had sunk (Hos 9:9; 10:9). • The way had been cleared for a transition from charismatic leadership to what might be called “covenant-charismatic kingship,” i.e., kingship that combined living under the Lord’s covenant (Deut 17:14-20) with the anointing of the Spirit for the task of ruling, as with Saul and David.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:1–21:25<\/strong> This second epilogue (see study note on 17:1–21:25) shifts the focus from individuals to whole tribes. Beginning with the outrage in the Benjamite town of Gibeah (ch 19), which led to civil war (ch 20) and the decimation of Benjamin, and moving on to the attempt to rescue the tribe from oblivion (ch 21), the book concludes with the now-familiar refrain, <em>in those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes<\/em>. This was perhaps the low point in Israel’s own remembered history; this is “what they did in Gibeah” that Hosea, 400 years later, would liken to the depths to which Ephraim had sunk (Hos 9:9; 10:9). • The way had been cleared for a transition from charismatic leadership to what might be called “covenant-charismatic kingship,” i.e., kingship that combined living under the Lord’s covenant (Deut 17:14-20) with the anointing of the Spirit for the task of ruling, as with Saul and David.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:1–21:25 This second epilogue (see study note on 17:1–21:25) shifts the focus from individuals to whole tribes. Beginning with the outrage in the Benjamite town of Gibeah (ch 19), which led to civil war (ch 20) and the decimation of Benjamin, and moving on to the attempt to rescue the tribe from oblivion (ch 21), the book concludes with the now-familiar refrain, in those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes. This was perhaps the low point in Is...","summary_en":"19:1–21:25 This second epilogue (see study note on 17:1–21:25) shifts the focus from individuals to whole tribes. Beginning with the outrage in the Benjamite town of Gibeah (ch 19), which led to civil war (ch 20) and the decimation of Benjamin, and moving on to the attempt to rescue the tribe from oblivion (ch 21), the book concludes with the now-familiar refrain, in those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes. This was perhaps the low point in Is...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128819,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:1","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:1<\/strong> A <em>concubine<\/em> was a second-class wife. In a society where polygamy was common, a concubine could be purchased, acquired as repayment of debt, or taken in war. A concubine was sometimes added to make up for a deficiency in a legitimate wife (e.g., Gen 16:1-4; 30:3-13; 35:22), but in the case of the Levite there appears to have been no other wife.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:1<\/strong> A <em>concubine<\/em> was a second-class wife. In a society where polygamy was common, a concubine could be purchased, acquired as repayment of debt, or taken in war. A concubine was sometimes added to make up for a deficiency in a legitimate wife (e.g., Gen 16:1-4; 30:3-13; 35:22), but in the case of the Levite there appears to have been no other wife.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:1 A concubine was a second-class wife. In a society where polygamy was common, a concubine could be purchased, acquired as repayment of debt, or taken in war. A concubine was sometimes added to make up for a deficiency in a legitimate wife (e.g., Gen 16:1-4; 30:3-13; 35:22), but in the case of the Levite there appears to have been no other wife.","summary_en":"19:1 A concubine was a second-class wife. In a society where polygamy was common, a concubine could be purchased, acquired as repayment of debt, or taken in war. A concubine was sometimes added to make up for a deficiency in a legitimate wife (e.g., Gen 16:1-4; 30:3-13; 35:22), but in the case of the Levite there appears to have been no other wife.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":59685,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Human Sexuality","title_en":"Human Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\n<p>Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\n<p>Although sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\n<p>Human sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\n<p>Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\n<p>Although sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\n<p>Human sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","summary_en":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":61055,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Social Chaos in Judges","title_en":"Social Chaos in Judges","content_ro":"<h3>Social Chaos in Judges<\/h3>\n<p>While the book of Judges celebrates divine rescue through heroes, it also chronicles the inadequacy of the status quo. A decline in individual piety throughout the period was accompanied by a rise in social dysfunction, powerfully expressed in chapter 5 (e.g., 5:6-8). Three features of the times stand out: First, the tribes had little ability to function in unison, even when faced by a common enemy (see, e.g., the Gideon and Jephthah stories; chs 8, 12). The civil strife within and between tribes reflects covenant disobedience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, the breakdown of civil society is also evidenced throughout the book. Abimelech’s murder of Gideon’s sons, Jephthah’s apparent sacrifice of his daughter, and Samson’s acts of revenge toward the Philistines highlight the depravity and lack of civility that characterized this period.<\/p>\n<p>Third, religious apostasy was widespread in those days. The “evil in the <span>Lord<\/span>’s sight” committed by the Israelites was repeatedly connected to idolatry (Judg 2:11-13; 3:7; 10:6). The altar to Baal and the Asherah pole in Gideon’s town of Ophrah (6:25-30) indicate flagrant abandonment of the Lord, as do the worship of the golden ephod made by Gideon (8:27) and the return to worshiping Baal after Gideon’s death (8:33-35). Samson’s intermarriage with the Philistines also directly contradicted the covenant commands (see Deut 7:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Social chaos culminates in the closing chapters (Judg 17–21). The incident of Micah, the Levite, and the Danites (chs 17–18) combines religious irregularities with lawless marauding, theft, and violence. The climactic final epilogue (chs 19–21) describes a tragic civil war and the utter abandonment of civility. Marital breakdown, inhospitality, rape, and murder (ch 19) led to the near elimination of the Benjamites (ch 20), who were spared only by the complete decimation of a historic city (Jabesh-gilead) and a sham ceremony in which maidens were seized to become wives (21:6-23). Little wonder that the book concludes, “In those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes” (21:25).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Judg 5:6-8; 6:25-27; 8:1-35; 12:1-15; 17:1–21:25; Ps 11:2-7; Prov 28:2-3; Jer 5:7-9; 12:1-17; Mic 3:9-12; 7:2-7; Rom 1:21-32; Gal 5:19-23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Social Chaos in Judges<\/h3>\n<p>While the book of Judges celebrates divine rescue through heroes, it also chronicles the inadequacy of the status quo. A decline in individual piety throughout the period was accompanied by a rise in social dysfunction, powerfully expressed in chapter 5 (e.g., 5:6-8). Three features of the times stand out: First, the tribes had little ability to function in unison, even when faced by a common enemy (see, e.g., the Gideon and Jephthah stories; chs 8, 12). The civil strife within and between tribes reflects covenant disobedience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, the breakdown of civil society is also evidenced throughout the book. Abimelech’s murder of Gideon’s sons, Jephthah’s apparent sacrifice of his daughter, and Samson’s acts of revenge toward the Philistines highlight the depravity and lack of civility that characterized this period.<\/p>\n<p>Third, religious apostasy was widespread in those days. The “evil in the <span>Lord<\/span>’s sight” committed by the Israelites was repeatedly connected to idolatry (Judg 2:11-13; 3:7; 10:6). The altar to Baal and the Asherah pole in Gideon’s town of Ophrah (6:25-30) indicate flagrant abandonment of the Lord, as do the worship of the golden ephod made by Gideon (8:27) and the return to worshiping Baal after Gideon’s death (8:33-35). Samson’s intermarriage with the Philistines also directly contradicted the covenant commands (see Deut 7:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Social chaos culminates in the closing chapters (Judg 17–21). The incident of Micah, the Levite, and the Danites (chs 17–18) combines religious irregularities with lawless marauding, theft, and violence. The climactic final epilogue (chs 19–21) describes a tragic civil war and the utter abandonment of civility. Marital breakdown, inhospitality, rape, and murder (ch 19) led to the near elimination of the Benjamites (ch 20), who were spared only by the complete decimation of a historic city (Jabesh-gilead) and a sham ceremony in which maidens were seized to become wives (21:6-23). Little wonder that the book concludes, “In those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes” (21:25).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Judg 5:6-8; 6:25-27; 8:1-35; 12:1-15; 17:1–21:25; Ps 11:2-7; Prov 28:2-3; Jer 5:7-9; 12:1-17; Mic 3:9-12; 7:2-7; Rom 1:21-32; Gal 5:19-23<\/p>","summary_ro":"Social Chaos in Judges While the book of Judges celebrates divine rescue through heroes, it also chronicles the inadequacy of the status quo. A decline in individual piety throughout the period was accompanied by a rise in social dysfunction, powerfully expressed in chapter 5 (e.g., 5:6-8). Three features of the times stand out: First, the tribes had little ability to function in unison, even when faced by a common enemy (see, e.g., the Gideon and Jephthah stories; chs 8, 12). The civil strif...","summary_en":"Social Chaos in Judges While the book of Judges celebrates divine rescue through heroes, it also chronicles the inadequacy of the status quo. A decline in individual piety throughout the period was accompanied by a rise in social dysfunction, powerfully expressed in chapter 5 (e.g., 5:6-8). Three features of the times stand out: First, the tribes had little ability to function in unison, even when faced by a common enemy (see, e.g., the Gideon and Jephthah stories; chs 8, 12). The civil strif...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":87311,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Human Sexuality","title_en":"Human Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\n<p>Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\n<p>Although sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\n<p>Human sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\n<p>Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\n<p>Although sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\n<p>Human sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","summary_en":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":88681,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Social Chaos in Judges","title_en":"Social Chaos in Judges","content_ro":"<h3>Social Chaos in Judges<\/h3>\n<p>While the book of Judges celebrates divine rescue through heroes, it also chronicles the inadequacy of the status quo. A decline in individual piety throughout the period was accompanied by a rise in social dysfunction, powerfully expressed in chapter 5 (e.g., 5:6-8). Three features of the times stand out: First, the tribes had little ability to function in unison, even when faced by a common enemy (see, e.g., the Gideon and Jephthah stories; chs 8, 12). The civil strife within and between tribes reflects covenant disobedience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, the breakdown of civil society is also evidenced throughout the book. Abimelech’s murder of Gideon’s sons, Jephthah’s apparent sacrifice of his daughter, and Samson’s acts of revenge toward the Philistines highlight the depravity and lack of civility that characterized this period.<\/p>\n<p>Third, religious apostasy was widespread in those days. The “evil in the <span>Lord<\/span>’s sight” committed by the Israelites was repeatedly connected to idolatry (Judg 2:11-13; 3:7; 10:6). The altar to Baal and the Asherah pole in Gideon’s town of Ophrah (6:25-30) indicate flagrant abandonment of the Lord, as do the worship of the golden ephod made by Gideon (8:27) and the return to worshiping Baal after Gideon’s death (8:33-35). Samson’s intermarriage with the Philistines also directly contradicted the covenant commands (see Deut 7:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Social chaos culminates in the closing chapters (Judg 17–21). The incident of Micah, the Levite, and the Danites (chs 17–18) combines religious irregularities with lawless marauding, theft, and violence. The climactic final epilogue (chs 19–21) describes a tragic civil war and the utter abandonment of civility. Marital breakdown, inhospitality, rape, and murder (ch 19) led to the near elimination of the Benjamites (ch 20), who were spared only by the complete decimation of a historic city (Jabesh-gilead) and a sham ceremony in which maidens were seized to become wives (21:6-23). Little wonder that the book concludes, “In those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes” (21:25).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Judg 5:6-8; 6:25-27; 8:1-35; 12:1-15; 17:1–21:25; Ps 11:2-7; Prov 28:2-3; Jer 5:7-9; 12:1-17; Mic 3:9-12; 7:2-7; Rom 1:21-32; Gal 5:19-23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Social Chaos in Judges<\/h3>\n<p>While the book of Judges celebrates divine rescue through heroes, it also chronicles the inadequacy of the status quo. A decline in individual piety throughout the period was accompanied by a rise in social dysfunction, powerfully expressed in chapter 5 (e.g., 5:6-8). Three features of the times stand out: First, the tribes had little ability to function in unison, even when faced by a common enemy (see, e.g., the Gideon and Jephthah stories; chs 8, 12). The civil strife within and between tribes reflects covenant disobedience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, the breakdown of civil society is also evidenced throughout the book. Abimelech’s murder of Gideon’s sons, Jephthah’s apparent sacrifice of his daughter, and Samson’s acts of revenge toward the Philistines highlight the depravity and lack of civility that characterized this period.<\/p>\n<p>Third, religious apostasy was widespread in those days. The “evil in the <span>Lord<\/span>’s sight” committed by the Israelites was repeatedly connected to idolatry (Judg 2:11-13; 3:7; 10:6). The altar to Baal and the Asherah pole in Gideon’s town of Ophrah (6:25-30) indicate flagrant abandonment of the Lord, as do the worship of the golden ephod made by Gideon (8:27) and the return to worshiping Baal after Gideon’s death (8:33-35). Samson’s intermarriage with the Philistines also directly contradicted the covenant commands (see Deut 7:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Social chaos culminates in the closing chapters (Judg 17–21). The incident of Micah, the Levite, and the Danites (chs 17–18) combines religious irregularities with lawless marauding, theft, and violence. The climactic final epilogue (chs 19–21) describes a tragic civil war and the utter abandonment of civility. Marital breakdown, inhospitality, rape, and murder (ch 19) led to the near elimination of the Benjamites (ch 20), who were spared only by the complete decimation of a historic city (Jabesh-gilead) and a sham ceremony in which maidens were seized to become wives (21:6-23). Little wonder that the book concludes, “In those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes” (21:25).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Judg 5:6-8; 6:25-27; 8:1-35; 12:1-15; 17:1–21:25; Ps 11:2-7; Prov 28:2-3; Jer 5:7-9; 12:1-17; Mic 3:9-12; 7:2-7; Rom 1:21-32; Gal 5:19-23<\/p>","summary_ro":"Social Chaos in Judges While the book of Judges celebrates divine rescue through heroes, it also chronicles the inadequacy of the status quo. A decline in individual piety throughout the period was accompanied by a rise in social dysfunction, powerfully expressed in chapter 5 (e.g., 5:6-8). Three features of the times stand out: First, the tribes had little ability to function in unison, even when faced by a common enemy (see, e.g., the Gideon and Jephthah stories; chs 8, 12). The civil strif...","summary_en":"Social Chaos in Judges While the book of Judges celebrates divine rescue through heroes, it also chronicles the inadequacy of the status quo. A decline in individual piety throughout the period was accompanied by a rise in social dysfunction, powerfully expressed in chapter 5 (e.g., 5:6-8). Three features of the times stand out: First, the tribes had little ability to function in unison, even when faced by a common enemy (see, e.g., the Gideon and Jephthah stories; chs 8, 12). The civil strif...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":114937,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Human Sexuality","title_en":"Human Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\n<p>Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\n<p>Although sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\n<p>Human sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\n<p>Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\n<p>Although sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\n<p>Human sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","summary_en":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":116307,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Social Chaos in Judges","title_en":"Social Chaos in Judges","content_ro":"<h3>Social Chaos in Judges<\/h3>\n<p>While the book of Judges celebrates divine rescue through heroes, it also chronicles the inadequacy of the status quo. A decline in individual piety throughout the period was accompanied by a rise in social dysfunction, powerfully expressed in chapter 5 (e.g., 5:6-8). Three features of the times stand out: First, the tribes had little ability to function in unison, even when faced by a common enemy (see, e.g., the Gideon and Jephthah stories; chs 8, 12). The civil strife within and between tribes reflects covenant disobedience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, the breakdown of civil society is also evidenced throughout the book. Abimelech’s murder of Gideon’s sons, Jephthah’s apparent sacrifice of his daughter, and Samson’s acts of revenge toward the Philistines highlight the depravity and lack of civility that characterized this period.<\/p>\n<p>Third, religious apostasy was widespread in those days. The “evil in the <span>Lord<\/span>’s sight” committed by the Israelites was repeatedly connected to idolatry (Judg 2:11-13; 3:7; 10:6). The altar to Baal and the Asherah pole in Gideon’s town of Ophrah (6:25-30) indicate flagrant abandonment of the Lord, as do the worship of the golden ephod made by Gideon (8:27) and the return to worshiping Baal after Gideon’s death (8:33-35). Samson’s intermarriage with the Philistines also directly contradicted the covenant commands (see Deut 7:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Social chaos culminates in the closing chapters (Judg 17–21). The incident of Micah, the Levite, and the Danites (chs 17–18) combines religious irregularities with lawless marauding, theft, and violence. The climactic final epilogue (chs 19–21) describes a tragic civil war and the utter abandonment of civility. Marital breakdown, inhospitality, rape, and murder (ch 19) led to the near elimination of the Benjamites (ch 20), who were spared only by the complete decimation of a historic city (Jabesh-gilead) and a sham ceremony in which maidens were seized to become wives (21:6-23). Little wonder that the book concludes, “In those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes” (21:25).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Judg 5:6-8; 6:25-27; 8:1-35; 12:1-15; 17:1–21:25; Ps 11:2-7; Prov 28:2-3; Jer 5:7-9; 12:1-17; Mic 3:9-12; 7:2-7; Rom 1:21-32; Gal 5:19-23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Social Chaos in Judges<\/h3>\n<p>While the book of Judges celebrates divine rescue through heroes, it also chronicles the inadequacy of the status quo. A decline in individual piety throughout the period was accompanied by a rise in social dysfunction, powerfully expressed in chapter 5 (e.g., 5:6-8). Three features of the times stand out: First, the tribes had little ability to function in unison, even when faced by a common enemy (see, e.g., the Gideon and Jephthah stories; chs 8, 12). The civil strife within and between tribes reflects covenant disobedience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, the breakdown of civil society is also evidenced throughout the book. Abimelech’s murder of Gideon’s sons, Jephthah’s apparent sacrifice of his daughter, and Samson’s acts of revenge toward the Philistines highlight the depravity and lack of civility that characterized this period.<\/p>\n<p>Third, religious apostasy was widespread in those days. The “evil in the <span>Lord<\/span>’s sight” committed by the Israelites was repeatedly connected to idolatry (Judg 2:11-13; 3:7; 10:6). The altar to Baal and the Asherah pole in Gideon’s town of Ophrah (6:25-30) indicate flagrant abandonment of the Lord, as do the worship of the golden ephod made by Gideon (8:27) and the return to worshiping Baal after Gideon’s death (8:33-35). Samson’s intermarriage with the Philistines also directly contradicted the covenant commands (see Deut 7:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Social chaos culminates in the closing chapters (Judg 17–21). The incident of Micah, the Levite, and the Danites (chs 17–18) combines religious irregularities with lawless marauding, theft, and violence. The climactic final epilogue (chs 19–21) describes a tragic civil war and the utter abandonment of civility. Marital breakdown, inhospitality, rape, and murder (ch 19) led to the near elimination of the Benjamites (ch 20), who were spared only by the complete decimation of a historic city (Jabesh-gilead) and a sham ceremony in which maidens were seized to become wives (21:6-23). Little wonder that the book concludes, “In those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes” (21:25).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Judg 5:6-8; 6:25-27; 8:1-35; 12:1-15; 17:1–21:25; Ps 11:2-7; Prov 28:2-3; Jer 5:7-9; 12:1-17; Mic 3:9-12; 7:2-7; Rom 1:21-32; Gal 5:19-23<\/p>","summary_ro":"Social Chaos in Judges While the book of Judges celebrates divine rescue through heroes, it also chronicles the inadequacy of the status quo. A decline in individual piety throughout the period was accompanied by a rise in social dysfunction, powerfully expressed in chapter 5 (e.g., 5:6-8). Three features of the times stand out: First, the tribes had little ability to function in unison, even when faced by a common enemy (see, e.g., the Gideon and Jephthah stories; chs 8, 12). The civil strif...","summary_en":"Social Chaos in Judges While the book of Judges celebrates divine rescue through heroes, it also chronicles the inadequacy of the status quo. A decline in individual piety throughout the period was accompanied by a rise in social dysfunction, powerfully expressed in chapter 5 (e.g., 5:6-8). Three features of the times stand out: First, the tribes had little ability to function in unison, even when faced by a common enemy (see, e.g., the Gideon and Jephthah stories; chs 8, 12). The civil strif...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":142563,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Human Sexuality","title_en":"Human Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\n<p>Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\n<p>Although sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\n<p>Human sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\n<p>Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\n<p>Although sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\n<p>Human sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","summary_en":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":143933,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Social Chaos in Judges","title_en":"Social Chaos in Judges","content_ro":"<h3>Social Chaos in Judges<\/h3>\n<p>While the book of Judges celebrates divine rescue through heroes, it also chronicles the inadequacy of the status quo. A decline in individual piety throughout the period was accompanied by a rise in social dysfunction, powerfully expressed in chapter 5 (e.g., 5:6-8). Three features of the times stand out: First, the tribes had little ability to function in unison, even when faced by a common enemy (see, e.g., the Gideon and Jephthah stories; chs 8, 12). The civil strife within and between tribes reflects covenant disobedience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, the breakdown of civil society is also evidenced throughout the book. Abimelech’s murder of Gideon’s sons, Jephthah’s apparent sacrifice of his daughter, and Samson’s acts of revenge toward the Philistines highlight the depravity and lack of civility that characterized this period.<\/p>\n<p>Third, religious apostasy was widespread in those days. The “evil in the <span>Lord<\/span>’s sight” committed by the Israelites was repeatedly connected to idolatry (Judg 2:11-13; 3:7; 10:6). The altar to Baal and the Asherah pole in Gideon’s town of Ophrah (6:25-30) indicate flagrant abandonment of the Lord, as do the worship of the golden ephod made by Gideon (8:27) and the return to worshiping Baal after Gideon’s death (8:33-35). Samson’s intermarriage with the Philistines also directly contradicted the covenant commands (see Deut 7:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Social chaos culminates in the closing chapters (Judg 17–21). The incident of Micah, the Levite, and the Danites (chs 17–18) combines religious irregularities with lawless marauding, theft, and violence. The climactic final epilogue (chs 19–21) describes a tragic civil war and the utter abandonment of civility. Marital breakdown, inhospitality, rape, and murder (ch 19) led to the near elimination of the Benjamites (ch 20), who were spared only by the complete decimation of a historic city (Jabesh-gilead) and a sham ceremony in which maidens were seized to become wives (21:6-23). Little wonder that the book concludes, “In those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes” (21:25).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Judg 5:6-8; 6:25-27; 8:1-35; 12:1-15; 17:1–21:25; Ps 11:2-7; Prov 28:2-3; Jer 5:7-9; 12:1-17; Mic 3:9-12; 7:2-7; Rom 1:21-32; Gal 5:19-23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Social Chaos in Judges<\/h3>\n<p>While the book of Judges celebrates divine rescue through heroes, it also chronicles the inadequacy of the status quo. A decline in individual piety throughout the period was accompanied by a rise in social dysfunction, powerfully expressed in chapter 5 (e.g., 5:6-8). Three features of the times stand out: First, the tribes had little ability to function in unison, even when faced by a common enemy (see, e.g., the Gideon and Jephthah stories; chs 8, 12). The civil strife within and between tribes reflects covenant disobedience.<\/p>\n<p>Second, the breakdown of civil society is also evidenced throughout the book. Abimelech’s murder of Gideon’s sons, Jephthah’s apparent sacrifice of his daughter, and Samson’s acts of revenge toward the Philistines highlight the depravity and lack of civility that characterized this period.<\/p>\n<p>Third, religious apostasy was widespread in those days. The “evil in the <span>Lord<\/span>’s sight” committed by the Israelites was repeatedly connected to idolatry (Judg 2:11-13; 3:7; 10:6). The altar to Baal and the Asherah pole in Gideon’s town of Ophrah (6:25-30) indicate flagrant abandonment of the Lord, as do the worship of the golden ephod made by Gideon (8:27) and the return to worshiping Baal after Gideon’s death (8:33-35). Samson’s intermarriage with the Philistines also directly contradicted the covenant commands (see Deut 7:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Social chaos culminates in the closing chapters (Judg 17–21). The incident of Micah, the Levite, and the Danites (chs 17–18) combines religious irregularities with lawless marauding, theft, and violence. The climactic final epilogue (chs 19–21) describes a tragic civil war and the utter abandonment of civility. Marital breakdown, inhospitality, rape, and murder (ch 19) led to the near elimination of the Benjamites (ch 20), who were spared only by the complete decimation of a historic city (Jabesh-gilead) and a sham ceremony in which maidens were seized to become wives (21:6-23). Little wonder that the book concludes, “In those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes” (21:25).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Judg 5:6-8; 6:25-27; 8:1-35; 12:1-15; 17:1–21:25; Ps 11:2-7; Prov 28:2-3; Jer 5:7-9; 12:1-17; Mic 3:9-12; 7:2-7; Rom 1:21-32; Gal 5:19-23<\/p>","summary_ro":"Social Chaos in Judges While the book of Judges celebrates divine rescue through heroes, it also chronicles the inadequacy of the status quo. A decline in individual piety throughout the period was accompanied by a rise in social dysfunction, powerfully expressed in chapter 5 (e.g., 5:6-8). Three features of the times stand out: First, the tribes had little ability to function in unison, even when faced by a common enemy (see, e.g., the Gideon and Jephthah stories; chs 8, 12). The civil strif...","summary_en":"Social Chaos in Judges While the book of Judges celebrates divine rescue through heroes, it also chronicles the inadequacy of the status quo. A decline in individual piety throughout the period was accompanied by a rise in social dysfunction, powerfully expressed in chapter 5 (e.g., 5:6-8). Three features of the times stand out: First, the tribes had little ability to function in unison, even when faced by a common enemy (see, e.g., the Gideon and Jephthah stories; chs 8, 12). The civil strif...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"2":[{"id":31760,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Prostitution Prostitute","title_en":"Prostitution Prostitute","content_ro":"<h3>PROSTITUTE, PROSTITUTION<\/h3>\n<p>Person guilty of illicit sexual relationships; figuratively, one who worships an idol. The term “prostitute” translates four different words found in the Bible. One type of prostitute was the man or woman, married or unmarried, who committed immoral acts (Gn 34:31; Jgs 19:2; Prv 23:27). A different kind of prostitute was the temple prostitute of heathen religions in which fornication was part of the worship (Gn 38:21-22; Dt 23:17; Hos 4:14). Such prostitution was forbidden by the law of Moses (Lv 19:29; 21:9). The “strange woman” was another kind of prostitute (1 Kgs 11:1; Prv 5:20; 6:24; 7:5; 23:27). There are different opinions for why that name was given to prostitutes. One explanation is that it referred to a man leaving his own wife for another, who ought to be a stranger to him (Prv 5:17-20). It may also have referred to a foreign woman (Nm 25:1; Jos 23:13). “Prostitute” also refers to any woman, married or single, who practices unlawful sexual indulgence, whether for lust or monetary gain (Mt 21:31-32; Lk 15:30; 1 Cor 6:15-16; Heb 11:31; Jas 2:25).<\/p>\n<p>Prostitution appeared early in Israel’s life and continued throughout biblical history. Most biblical passages strongly condemn the practice of prostitution in any form. The priestly law of Leviticus 21:9 provided that a priest’s daughter who practiced prostitution was to be burned to death. A priest could not marry a prostitute (Lv 19:29), and the wages of prostitution could not be used to pay vows in the temple (Dt 23:18). These prohibitions served to keep the worship of the Lord free from the practice of cult prostitution.<\/p>\n<p>The sons of Jacob killed Hamor and his son Shechem, justifying their act by saying: “Should he treat our sister like a prostitute?” (Gn 34:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). Amaziah’s wife was to become a prostitute (Am 7:17) as punishment for his treatment of the prophet Amos.<\/p>\n<p>In the first century, prostitutes and tax collectors were equally detested by the Jews (Mt 21:32). According to Paul, the body of a Christian belongs to Christ and should not be joined to a prostitute’s body (1 Cor 6:15-16). Proverbs is replete with warnings to those who would go in to prostitutes.<\/p>\n<p>A few biblical passages do, however, seem to accept the prostitute as a member of the community. Tamar temporarily served as a prostitute to remind her father-in-law of his promise to her (Gn 38:14-15). Rahab the prostitute had a special place in Hebrew history because she had befriended the Hebrew spies (Jos 2:4-16; Heb 11:31).<\/p>\n<p>The words “prostitute” and “prostitution” were used figuratively for idolatry, especially in the prophetic books (Jer 2:20; Rv 17:1, 5, 15-16; 19:2). This figurative use was based on the marriagelike relationship of the Lord and his people (Jer 3:20). When the people gave their allegiance to idols rather than to God, he charged that they were prostitutes for other gods (Jgs 8:33). The same idea is found in the NT (Rv 17).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PROSTITUTE, PROSTITUTION<\/h3>\n<p>Person guilty of illicit sexual relationships; figuratively, one who worships an idol. The term “prostitute” translates four different words found in the Bible. One type of prostitute was the man or woman, married or unmarried, who committed immoral acts (Gn 34:31; Jgs 19:2; Prv 23:27). A different kind of prostitute was the temple prostitute of heathen religions in which fornication was part of the worship (Gn 38:21-22; Dt 23:17; Hos 4:14). Such prostitution was forbidden by the law of Moses (Lv 19:29; 21:9). The “strange woman” was another kind of prostitute (1 Kgs 11:1; Prv 5:20; 6:24; 7:5; 23:27). There are different opinions for why that name was given to prostitutes. One explanation is that it referred to a man leaving his own wife for another, who ought to be a stranger to him (Prv 5:17-20). It may also have referred to a foreign woman (Nm 25:1; Jos 23:13). “Prostitute” also refers to any woman, married or single, who practices unlawful sexual indulgence, whether for lust or monetary gain (Mt 21:31-32; Lk 15:30; 1 Cor 6:15-16; Heb 11:31; Jas 2:25).<\/p>\n<p>Prostitution appeared early in Israel’s life and continued throughout biblical history. Most biblical passages strongly condemn the practice of prostitution in any form. The priestly law of Leviticus 21:9 provided that a priest’s daughter who practiced prostitution was to be burned to death. A priest could not marry a prostitute (Lv 19:29), and the wages of prostitution could not be used to pay vows in the temple (Dt 23:18). These prohibitions served to keep the worship of the Lord free from the practice of cult prostitution.<\/p>\n<p>The sons of Jacob killed Hamor and his son Shechem, justifying their act by saying: “Should he treat our sister like a prostitute?” (Gn 34:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). Amaziah’s wife was to become a prostitute (Am 7:17) as punishment for his treatment of the prophet Amos.<\/p>\n<p>In the first century, prostitutes and tax collectors were equally detested by the Jews (Mt 21:32). According to Paul, the body of a Christian belongs to Christ and should not be joined to a prostitute’s body (1 Cor 6:15-16). Proverbs is replete with warnings to those who would go in to prostitutes.<\/p>\n<p>A few biblical passages do, however, seem to accept the prostitute as a member of the community. Tamar temporarily served as a prostitute to remind her father-in-law of his promise to her (Gn 38:14-15). Rahab the prostitute had a special place in Hebrew history because she had befriended the Hebrew spies (Jos 2:4-16; Heb 11:31).<\/p>\n<p>The words “prostitute” and “prostitution” were used figuratively for idolatry, especially in the prophetic books (Jer 2:20; Rv 17:1, 5, 15-16; 19:2). This figurative use was based on the marriagelike relationship of the Lord and his people (Jer 3:20). When the people gave their allegiance to idols rather than to God, he charged that they were prostitutes for other gods (Jgs 8:33). The same idea is found in the NT (Rv 17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"PROSTITUTE, PROSTITUTION Person guilty of illicit sexual relationships; figuratively, one who worships an idol. The term “prostitute” translates four different words found in the Bible. One type of prostitute was the man or woman, married or unmarried, who committed immoral acts (Gn 34:31; Jgs 19:2; Prv 23:27). A different kind of prostitute was the temple prostitute of heathen religions in which fornication was part of the worship (Gn 38:21-22; Dt 23:17; Hos 4:14). Such prostitution was forb...","summary_en":"PROSTITUTE, PROSTITUTION Person guilty of illicit sexual relationships; figuratively, one who worships an idol. The term “prostitute” translates four different words found in the Bible. One type of prostitute was the man or woman, married or unmarried, who committed immoral acts (Gn 34:31; Jgs 19:2; Prv 23:27). A different kind of prostitute was the temple prostitute of heathen religions in which fornication was part of the worship (Gn 38:21-22; Dt 23:17; Hos 4:14). Such prostitution was forb...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"4":[{"id":45942,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:4","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:4<\/strong> The woman’s <em>father<\/em> demonstrated typical Near Eastern hospitality, in contrast to what would later transpire in Gibeah (19:14-28). The scene in Bethlehem offers reconciliation and the promise of a new beginning.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:4<\/strong> The woman’s <em>father<\/em> demonstrated typical Near Eastern hospitality, in contrast to what would later transpire in Gibeah (19:14-28). The scene in Bethlehem offers reconciliation and the promise of a new beginning.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:4 The woman’s father demonstrated typical Near Eastern hospitality, in contrast to what would later transpire in Gibeah (19:14-28). The scene in Bethlehem offers reconciliation and the promise of a new beginning.","summary_en":"19:4 The woman’s father demonstrated typical Near Eastern hospitality, in contrast to what would later transpire in Gibeah (19:14-28). The scene in Bethlehem offers reconciliation and the promise of a new beginning.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73568,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:4","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:4<\/strong> The woman’s <em>father<\/em> demonstrated typical Near Eastern hospitality, in contrast to what would later transpire in Gibeah (19:14-28). The scene in Bethlehem offers reconciliation and the promise of a new beginning.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:4<\/strong> The woman’s <em>father<\/em> demonstrated typical Near Eastern hospitality, in contrast to what would later transpire in Gibeah (19:14-28). The scene in Bethlehem offers reconciliation and the promise of a new beginning.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:4 The woman’s father demonstrated typical Near Eastern hospitality, in contrast to what would later transpire in Gibeah (19:14-28). The scene in Bethlehem offers reconciliation and the promise of a new beginning.","summary_en":"19:4 The woman’s father demonstrated typical Near Eastern hospitality, in contrast to what would later transpire in Gibeah (19:14-28). The scene in Bethlehem offers reconciliation and the promise of a new beginning.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101194,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:4","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:4<\/strong> The woman’s <em>father<\/em> demonstrated typical Near Eastern hospitality, in contrast to what would later transpire in Gibeah (19:14-28). The scene in Bethlehem offers reconciliation and the promise of a new beginning.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:4<\/strong> The woman’s <em>father<\/em> demonstrated typical Near Eastern hospitality, in contrast to what would later transpire in Gibeah (19:14-28). The scene in Bethlehem offers reconciliation and the promise of a new beginning.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:4 The woman’s father demonstrated typical Near Eastern hospitality, in contrast to what would later transpire in Gibeah (19:14-28). The scene in Bethlehem offers reconciliation and the promise of a new beginning.","summary_en":"19:4 The woman’s father demonstrated typical Near Eastern hospitality, in contrast to what would later transpire in Gibeah (19:14-28). The scene in Bethlehem offers reconciliation and the promise of a new beginning.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128820,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:4","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:4<\/strong> The woman’s <em>father<\/em> demonstrated typical Near Eastern hospitality, in contrast to what would later transpire in Gibeah (19:14-28). The scene in Bethlehem offers reconciliation and the promise of a new beginning.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:4<\/strong> The woman’s <em>father<\/em> demonstrated typical Near Eastern hospitality, in contrast to what would later transpire in Gibeah (19:14-28). The scene in Bethlehem offers reconciliation and the promise of a new beginning.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:4 The woman’s father demonstrated typical Near Eastern hospitality, in contrast to what would later transpire in Gibeah (19:14-28). The scene in Bethlehem offers reconciliation and the promise of a new beginning.","summary_en":"19:4 The woman’s father demonstrated typical Near Eastern hospitality, in contrast to what would later transpire in Gibeah (19:14-28). The scene in Bethlehem offers reconciliation and the promise of a new beginning.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"5":[{"id":15667,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Heart","title_en":"Heart","content_ro":"<h3>HEART<\/h3>\n<p>Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">leb<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kardia<\/span>) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PhysicalHeart\">Physical Heart<\/p>\n<p>That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physical food and wine affect the heart (Jgs 19:5; Ps 104:15; Acts 14:17), and the heart can “faint” and “tremble.” The heart’s position in the body yields an obvious metaphor for “the center” (Mt 12:40).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PyschologicalHeart\">Pyschological Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart attends intellectually (e.g., Jer 12:11); it also perceives (Jn 12:40), understands (1 Kgs 3:9), debates (Mk 2:6), reflects (Lk 2:19), remembers (Lk 2:51), thinks (Dt 8:17), imagines (Lk 1:51), is wise (Eccl 1:17, <span>kjv<\/span>), has technical skill (Ex 28:3, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Emotionally, the heart experiences intoxicated merriment (1 Sm 25:36), gladness (Is 30:29), joy (Jn 16:22), sorrow (Neh 2:2), anguish (Rom 9:2), bitterness (Prv 14:10), anxiety (1 Sm 4:13), despair (Eccl 2:20), love (2 Sm 14:1), trust (Ps 112:7), affection (2 Cor 7:3), lust (Mt 5:28), callousness (Mk 3:5), hatred (Lv 19:17), fear (Gn 42:28), jealousy (Jas 3:14), desire (Rom 10:1), discouragement (Nm 32:9), sympathy (Ex 23:9), anger (Dt 19:6, <span>kjv<\/span>), irresolution (2 Chr 13:7, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Volitionally, the heart can purpose (1 Cor 4:5), incline to (1 Sm 14:7), prompt (2 Kgs 12:4; cf. Prv 4:23), be steadfast (Acts 11:23), be willing (Ex 35:22), contrive evil (Acts 5:4), or follow its “treasure” (Mt 6:21).<\/p>\n<p>Morally, the heart can be gentle, lowly (Mt 11:29), holy (1 Thes 3:13), faithful (Neh 9:8), upright (Ps 97:11), pure, single-minded (Jas 4:8), clean (Acts 15:8), loving toward God (Mk 12:30) and others (1 Pt 1:22), hardened, or sensitive (Ez 11:19). Scripture’s emphasis falls upon the heart’s evil (Gn 6:5 and throughout), as self-deceiving (Jas 1:26), deceitful (Jer 17:9), avaricious (Mt 6:19-21), lustful (Mt 5:28), arrogant (Is 9:9), impious (Acts 7:51), perverse (Ps 101:4), and impenitent (Rom 2:5). Nothing defiles a man worse than his own heart (Mk 7:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Yet out of the heart can come good (Lk 6:45; 8:15). Even when frustrated by circumstances or by fear, the heart’s good intention remains good; its evil intent, bad (1 Kgs 8:18; Mt 5:28).<\/p>\n<p>Being so complex, a person’s heart is sadly divided, and Scripture often extols a perfect, whole, true (i.e., united) heart (Gn 20:5; Ps 86:11; Acts 8:37). The “heart” signifies the total inner self, a person’s hidden core of being (1 Pt 3:4), with which one communes, which one “pours out” in prayer, words, and deeds (Ps 62:8; Mt 15:18-19). It is the genuine self, distinguished from appearance, public position, and physical presence (1 Sm 16:7; 2 Cor 5:12; 1 Thes 2:17). And this “heart-self” has its own nature, character, and disposition (Dn 4:16; 7:4, <span>kjv<\/span>; cf. Mt 12:33-37).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheSpiritualHeart\">The Spiritual Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart is especially important in biblical religion. The mystery of the hidden self is fully known to God and to Christ (Jer 17:10; Lk 9:47; Rom 8:27), and the heart is the seat of our knowledge of God (2 Cor 4:6). The state of heart governs the vision of God (Mt 5:8); from the heart one speaks to God (Ps 27:8); the heart is the locus of divine indwelling (2 Cor 1:22; Gal 4:6; Eph 3:17).<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, moral evil in the heart is seen in biblical perspective as sin against God. Senseless hearts are darkened, often secretly idolatrous, far from God, “not right” before God (Dt 29:18-19; Mt 15:8; Acts 8:21; Rom 1:21). Yet the Lord will not despise a broken, contrite heart (Ps 51:17). When one’s heart is turned toward God, he promises to make it sensitive to divine things, renewed and purified (Dt 4:29; 2 Kgs 23:25; Ps 51:10; Jl 2:13; Ez 36:25-27). God’s law shall then be written on the heart as the inward guide and incentive (Jer 31:33; Heb 8:10; cf. 2 Cor 3:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>In Christian terms, such transformation involves believing the gospel from the “honest and good heart” that provides fruitful soil for the Word of God (Lk 8:15; Rom 10:9). The true heart draws near to God, loves him with all its intellect, feeling, and will (Lk 10:27; Heb 10:22). Then God gives strength, reward, renewal, grace, peace, and joy to the heart (Ps 73:26; Is 57:15; Acts 2:46; Phil 4:7; Heb 13:9). So the ancient ideal becomes possible again, that of being “a man after God’s own heart” (1 Sm 13:14; Acts 13:22).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEART<\/h3>\n<p>Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">leb<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kardia<\/span>) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PhysicalHeart\">Physical Heart<\/p>\n<p>That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physical food and wine affect the heart (Jgs 19:5; Ps 104:15; Acts 14:17), and the heart can “faint” and “tremble.” The heart’s position in the body yields an obvious metaphor for “the center” (Mt 12:40).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PyschologicalHeart\">Pyschological Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart attends intellectually (e.g., Jer 12:11); it also perceives (Jn 12:40), understands (1 Kgs 3:9), debates (Mk 2:6), reflects (Lk 2:19), remembers (Lk 2:51), thinks (Dt 8:17), imagines (Lk 1:51), is wise (Eccl 1:17, <span>kjv<\/span>), has technical skill (Ex 28:3, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Emotionally, the heart experiences intoxicated merriment (1 Sm 25:36), gladness (Is 30:29), joy (Jn 16:22), sorrow (Neh 2:2), anguish (Rom 9:2), bitterness (Prv 14:10), anxiety (1 Sm 4:13), despair (Eccl 2:20), love (2 Sm 14:1), trust (Ps 112:7), affection (2 Cor 7:3), lust (Mt 5:28), callousness (Mk 3:5), hatred (Lv 19:17), fear (Gn 42:28), jealousy (Jas 3:14), desire (Rom 10:1), discouragement (Nm 32:9), sympathy (Ex 23:9), anger (Dt 19:6, <span>kjv<\/span>), irresolution (2 Chr 13:7, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Volitionally, the heart can purpose (1 Cor 4:5), incline to (1 Sm 14:7), prompt (2 Kgs 12:4; cf. Prv 4:23), be steadfast (Acts 11:23), be willing (Ex 35:22), contrive evil (Acts 5:4), or follow its “treasure” (Mt 6:21).<\/p>\n<p>Morally, the heart can be gentle, lowly (Mt 11:29), holy (1 Thes 3:13), faithful (Neh 9:8), upright (Ps 97:11), pure, single-minded (Jas 4:8), clean (Acts 15:8), loving toward God (Mk 12:30) and others (1 Pt 1:22), hardened, or sensitive (Ez 11:19). Scripture’s emphasis falls upon the heart’s evil (Gn 6:5 and throughout), as self-deceiving (Jas 1:26), deceitful (Jer 17:9), avaricious (Mt 6:19-21), lustful (Mt 5:28), arrogant (Is 9:9), impious (Acts 7:51), perverse (Ps 101:4), and impenitent (Rom 2:5). Nothing defiles a man worse than his own heart (Mk 7:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Yet out of the heart can come good (Lk 6:45; 8:15). Even when frustrated by circumstances or by fear, the heart’s good intention remains good; its evil intent, bad (1 Kgs 8:18; Mt 5:28).<\/p>\n<p>Being so complex, a person’s heart is sadly divided, and Scripture often extols a perfect, whole, true (i.e., united) heart (Gn 20:5; Ps 86:11; Acts 8:37). The “heart” signifies the total inner self, a person’s hidden core of being (1 Pt 3:4), with which one communes, which one “pours out” in prayer, words, and deeds (Ps 62:8; Mt 15:18-19). It is the genuine self, distinguished from appearance, public position, and physical presence (1 Sm 16:7; 2 Cor 5:12; 1 Thes 2:17). And this “heart-self” has its own nature, character, and disposition (Dn 4:16; 7:4, <span>kjv<\/span>; cf. Mt 12:33-37).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheSpiritualHeart\">The Spiritual Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart is especially important in biblical religion. The mystery of the hidden self is fully known to God and to Christ (Jer 17:10; Lk 9:47; Rom 8:27), and the heart is the seat of our knowledge of God (2 Cor 4:6). The state of heart governs the vision of God (Mt 5:8); from the heart one speaks to God (Ps 27:8); the heart is the locus of divine indwelling (2 Cor 1:22; Gal 4:6; Eph 3:17).<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, moral evil in the heart is seen in biblical perspective as sin against God. Senseless hearts are darkened, often secretly idolatrous, far from God, “not right” before God (Dt 29:18-19; Mt 15:8; Acts 8:21; Rom 1:21). Yet the Lord will not despise a broken, contrite heart (Ps 51:17). When one’s heart is turned toward God, he promises to make it sensitive to divine things, renewed and purified (Dt 4:29; 2 Kgs 23:25; Ps 51:10; Jl 2:13; Ez 36:25-27). God’s law shall then be written on the heart as the inward guide and incentive (Jer 31:33; Heb 8:10; cf. 2 Cor 3:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>In Christian terms, such transformation involves believing the gospel from the “honest and good heart” that provides fruitful soil for the Word of God (Lk 8:15; Rom 10:9). The true heart draws near to God, loves him with all its intellect, feeling, and will (Lk 10:27; Heb 10:22). Then God gives strength, reward, renewal, grace, peace, and joy to the heart (Ps 73:26; Is 57:15; Acts 2:46; Phil 4:7; Heb 13:9). So the ancient ideal becomes possible again, that of being “a man after God’s own heart” (1 Sm 13:14; Acts 13:22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEART Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being. In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew leb; Greek kardia) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great. Physical Heart That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see nlt mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physi...","summary_en":"HEART Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being. In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew leb; Greek kardia) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great. Physical Heart That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see nlt mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physi...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24878,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Significance of Meals","title_en":"Significance of Meals","content_ro":"<h3>MEALS, Significance of<\/h3>\n<p>The meal played a significant role in family, social, and religious life. The evening meal was the time when all family members normally were gathered together, and was thus an important time of fellowship. Providing food for the traveler was both a social and a religious responsibility, while the ideal of a quiet social life was realized by having friends break bread with the family and discuss the problems of the day by the light of small oil lamps. The significance of the meal retains its central focus both in the Jewish religion with the Passover meal and in Christianity with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.<\/p>\n<p>In the ancient Near East two meals were normally eaten during the day. The first was the noonday meal, usually consumed by laborers in the field and consisting of such items as small cakes or flat loaves, figs or olives, and possibly cheese or curds of goats’ milk. This was considered a small meal, eaten for sustenance and refreshment at a time of relaxation and respite from the heat of the sun and the labor of the day (Ru 2:14). Breakfast was considered unnecessary, and biblical references to any such form of early morning meal are very few (Jgs 19:5; Jn 21:12).<\/p>\n<p>Whereas in Egypt the main meal was served at noon, among the Hebrews the evening meal was the most important social occasion of the day. Then the exhausted field workers could return home to relax after their day’s work and enjoy the feeling of communal warmth as the family gathered together for their principal meal. This occasion coincided with the arrival of darkness, a time when there was insufficient light for fieldwork to continue.<\/p>\n<p>The laborer’s meal consisted of bread or cakes made of hand-ground grain, goats’ cheese or curds, vegetables (especially beans, lentils, leeks, and peas, which were popular for the sake of variety although not always plentiful), and figs, olives, raisins, and dates. Meat was usually available, but for the majority was a luxury item. Food was cooked in olive oil, and honey was used for sweetening.<\/p>\n<p>The meal was eaten together by the entire family. There was no separate dining room in the average house, and during the patriarchal period, meals were consumed while the family was seated on the floor, a mat often serving as a table (Gn 37:25). Canaanite seating habits were adopted subsequently, and chairs and small tables were used (1 Kgs 13:20; Ps 23:5; Ez 23:41). Eating in the Egyptian fashion in a reclining position became popular and continued throughout the Roman period. Musical entertainment, dancing, and riddles were sometimes provided on festive occasions for family and guests, since the meal period was the normal time for entertainment in Near Eastern society.<\/p>\n<p>By NT times, a separate upper room often served as a dining room. Guests reclined by leaning on the left elbow so that they were close enough together on their couches to facilitate easy conversation. There was a strict hierarchy to the seating arrangements (cf. Gn 43:33; 1 Sm 9:22; Mt 23:6; Mk 12:39; Lk 14:8) at all formal meals, the “highest” place being that to the right of the servants as they entered the room and the lowest to their left.<\/p>\n<p>Guests washed their hands before and after meals, and normally partook of a form of meat and\/or vegetable stew from a common bowl placed in the center of the table. Instead of cutlery, pieces of bread held in the fingers were made into the shape of a small scoop and dipped into the bowl. There would usually be only one main dish requiring preparation, so that the woman who had cooked the meal could partake of it with her guests, thus fulfilling the ideals of community at mealtimes.<\/p>\n<p>On several occasions in the NT Jesus is mentioned as eating meals with disciples and friends. He and his followers were guests at the wedding feast held in Cana of Galilee (Jn 2:1-10), and also at a dinner given by Matthew (Mt 9:10), as well as at another given by Simon the Pharisee (Lk 7:36-50). Jesus also was entertained at dinner somewhat unexpectedly by Zacchaeus (19:6-7). On several occasions Jesus was a guest at a family gathering held at the home of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus in Bethany (Lk 10:38-42; Jn 12:2). Following the customs of smaller towns and villages, passersby may well have called into the house to greet Jesus and perhaps converse with other guests.<\/p>\n<p>There are two important meals described in Scripture, one involving the old covenant and the other the new, in which meals had a redemptive meaning for the people of God. The first was the institution of the Passover at the time of Israel’s departure from Egypt under Moses (Ex 12). The second was the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Both are discussed in detail in separate articles.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Food and Food Preparation; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Lord’s Supper, The; Passover.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MEALS, Significance of<\/h3>\n<p>The meal played a significant role in family, social, and religious life. The evening meal was the time when all family members normally were gathered together, and was thus an important time of fellowship. Providing food for the traveler was both a social and a religious responsibility, while the ideal of a quiet social life was realized by having friends break bread with the family and discuss the problems of the day by the light of small oil lamps. The significance of the meal retains its central focus both in the Jewish religion with the Passover meal and in Christianity with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.<\/p>\n<p>In the ancient Near East two meals were normally eaten during the day. The first was the noonday meal, usually consumed by laborers in the field and consisting of such items as small cakes or flat loaves, figs or olives, and possibly cheese or curds of goats’ milk. This was considered a small meal, eaten for sustenance and refreshment at a time of relaxation and respite from the heat of the sun and the labor of the day (Ru 2:14). Breakfast was considered unnecessary, and biblical references to any such form of early morning meal are very few (Jgs 19:5; Jn 21:12).<\/p>\n<p>Whereas in Egypt the main meal was served at noon, among the Hebrews the evening meal was the most important social occasion of the day. Then the exhausted field workers could return home to relax after their day’s work and enjoy the feeling of communal warmth as the family gathered together for their principal meal. This occasion coincided with the arrival of darkness, a time when there was insufficient light for fieldwork to continue.<\/p>\n<p>The laborer’s meal consisted of bread or cakes made of hand-ground grain, goats’ cheese or curds, vegetables (especially beans, lentils, leeks, and peas, which were popular for the sake of variety although not always plentiful), and figs, olives, raisins, and dates. Meat was usually available, but for the majority was a luxury item. Food was cooked in olive oil, and honey was used for sweetening.<\/p>\n<p>The meal was eaten together by the entire family. There was no separate dining room in the average house, and during the patriarchal period, meals were consumed while the family was seated on the floor, a mat often serving as a table (Gn 37:25). Canaanite seating habits were adopted subsequently, and chairs and small tables were used (1 Kgs 13:20; Ps 23:5; Ez 23:41). Eating in the Egyptian fashion in a reclining position became popular and continued throughout the Roman period. Musical entertainment, dancing, and riddles were sometimes provided on festive occasions for family and guests, since the meal period was the normal time for entertainment in Near Eastern society.<\/p>\n<p>By NT times, a separate upper room often served as a dining room. Guests reclined by leaning on the left elbow so that they were close enough together on their couches to facilitate easy conversation. There was a strict hierarchy to the seating arrangements (cf. Gn 43:33; 1 Sm 9:22; Mt 23:6; Mk 12:39; Lk 14:8) at all formal meals, the “highest” place being that to the right of the servants as they entered the room and the lowest to their left.<\/p>\n<p>Guests washed their hands before and after meals, and normally partook of a form of meat and\/or vegetable stew from a common bowl placed in the center of the table. Instead of cutlery, pieces of bread held in the fingers were made into the shape of a small scoop and dipped into the bowl. There would usually be only one main dish requiring preparation, so that the woman who had cooked the meal could partake of it with her guests, thus fulfilling the ideals of community at mealtimes.<\/p>\n<p>On several occasions in the NT Jesus is mentioned as eating meals with disciples and friends. He and his followers were guests at the wedding feast held in Cana of Galilee (Jn 2:1-10), and also at a dinner given by Matthew (Mt 9:10), as well as at another given by Simon the Pharisee (Lk 7:36-50). Jesus also was entertained at dinner somewhat unexpectedly by Zacchaeus (19:6-7). On several occasions Jesus was a guest at a family gathering held at the home of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus in Bethany (Lk 10:38-42; Jn 12:2). Following the customs of smaller towns and villages, passersby may well have called into the house to greet Jesus and perhaps converse with other guests.<\/p>\n<p>There are two important meals described in Scripture, one involving the old covenant and the other the new, in which meals had a redemptive meaning for the people of God. The first was the institution of the Passover at the time of Israel’s departure from Egypt under Moses (Ex 12). The second was the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Both are discussed in detail in separate articles.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Food and Food Preparation; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Lord’s Supper, The; Passover.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MEALS, Significance of The meal played a significant role in family, social, and religious life. The evening meal was the time when all family members normally were gathered together, and was thus an important time of fellowship. Providing food for the traveler was both a social and a religious responsibility, while the ideal of a quiet social life was realized by having friends break bread with the family and discuss the problems of the day by the light of small oil lamps. The significance o...","summary_en":"MEALS, Significance of The meal played a significant role in family, social, and religious life. The evening meal was the time when all family members normally were gathered together, and was thus an important time of fellowship. Providing food for the traveler was both a social and a religious responsibility, while the ideal of a quiet social life was realized by having friends break bread with the family and discuss the problems of the day by the light of small oil lamps. The significance o...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45943,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:5","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:5-7<\/strong> Although some have suggested that the delay in leaving was analogous to Samson’s seven-day bridal feast (14:10-20), the picture may reflect nothing more than the father’s reluctance to bid his daughter farewell.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:5-7<\/strong> Although some have suggested that the delay in leaving was analogous to Samson’s seven-day bridal feast (14:10-20), the picture may reflect nothing more than the father’s reluctance to bid his daughter farewell.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:5-7 Although some have suggested that the delay in leaving was analogous to Samson’s seven-day bridal feast (14:10-20), the picture may reflect nothing more than the father’s reluctance to bid his daughter farewell.","summary_en":"19:5-7 Although some have suggested that the delay in leaving was analogous to Samson’s seven-day bridal feast (14:10-20), the picture may reflect nothing more than the father’s reluctance to bid his daughter farewell.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73569,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:5","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:5-7<\/strong> Although some have suggested that the delay in leaving was analogous to Samson’s seven-day bridal feast (14:10-20), the picture may reflect nothing more than the father’s reluctance to bid his daughter farewell.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:5-7<\/strong> Although some have suggested that the delay in leaving was analogous to Samson’s seven-day bridal feast (14:10-20), the picture may reflect nothing more than the father’s reluctance to bid his daughter farewell.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:5-7 Although some have suggested that the delay in leaving was analogous to Samson’s seven-day bridal feast (14:10-20), the picture may reflect nothing more than the father’s reluctance to bid his daughter farewell.","summary_en":"19:5-7 Although some have suggested that the delay in leaving was analogous to Samson’s seven-day bridal feast (14:10-20), the picture may reflect nothing more than the father’s reluctance to bid his daughter farewell.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101195,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:5","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:5-7<\/strong> Although some have suggested that the delay in leaving was analogous to Samson’s seven-day bridal feast (14:10-20), the picture may reflect nothing more than the father’s reluctance to bid his daughter farewell.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:5-7<\/strong> Although some have suggested that the delay in leaving was analogous to Samson’s seven-day bridal feast (14:10-20), the picture may reflect nothing more than the father’s reluctance to bid his daughter farewell.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:5-7 Although some have suggested that the delay in leaving was analogous to Samson’s seven-day bridal feast (14:10-20), the picture may reflect nothing more than the father’s reluctance to bid his daughter farewell.","summary_en":"19:5-7 Although some have suggested that the delay in leaving was analogous to Samson’s seven-day bridal feast (14:10-20), the picture may reflect nothing more than the father’s reluctance to bid his daughter farewell.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128821,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:5","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:5-7<\/strong> Although some have suggested that the delay in leaving was analogous to Samson’s seven-day bridal feast (14:10-20), the picture may reflect nothing more than the father’s reluctance to bid his daughter farewell.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:5-7<\/strong> Although some have suggested that the delay in leaving was analogous to Samson’s seven-day bridal feast (14:10-20), the picture may reflect nothing more than the father’s reluctance to bid his daughter farewell.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:5-7 Although some have suggested that the delay in leaving was analogous to Samson’s seven-day bridal feast (14:10-20), the picture may reflect nothing more than the father’s reluctance to bid his daughter farewell.","summary_en":"19:5-7 Although some have suggested that the delay in leaving was analogous to Samson’s seven-day bridal feast (14:10-20), the picture may reflect nothing more than the father’s reluctance to bid his daughter farewell.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"10":[{"id":45944,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:10","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:10<\/strong> <em>Jebus:<\/em> See study note on 1:21. The city’s old name and its foreign status in Israel persisted until its capture by David (2 Sam 5:6-10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:10<\/strong> <em>Jebus:<\/em> See study note on 1:21. The city’s old name and its foreign status in Israel persisted until its capture by David (2 Sam 5:6-10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:10 Jebus: See study note on 1:21. The city’s old name and its foreign status in Israel persisted until its capture by David (2 Sam 5:6-10).","summary_en":"19:10 Jebus: See study note on 1:21. The city’s old name and its foreign status in Israel persisted until its capture by David (2 Sam 5:6-10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73570,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:10","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:10<\/strong> <em>Jebus:<\/em> See study note on 1:21. The city’s old name and its foreign status in Israel persisted until its capture by David (2 Sam 5:6-10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:10<\/strong> <em>Jebus:<\/em> See study note on 1:21. The city’s old name and its foreign status in Israel persisted until its capture by David (2 Sam 5:6-10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:10 Jebus: See study note on 1:21. The city’s old name and its foreign status in Israel persisted until its capture by David (2 Sam 5:6-10).","summary_en":"19:10 Jebus: See study note on 1:21. The city’s old name and its foreign status in Israel persisted until its capture by David (2 Sam 5:6-10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101196,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:10","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:10<\/strong> <em>Jebus:<\/em> See study note on 1:21. The city’s old name and its foreign status in Israel persisted until its capture by David (2 Sam 5:6-10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:10<\/strong> <em>Jebus:<\/em> See study note on 1:21. The city’s old name and its foreign status in Israel persisted until its capture by David (2 Sam 5:6-10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:10 Jebus: See study note on 1:21. The city’s old name and its foreign status in Israel persisted until its capture by David (2 Sam 5:6-10).","summary_en":"19:10 Jebus: See study note on 1:21. The city’s old name and its foreign status in Israel persisted until its capture by David (2 Sam 5:6-10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128822,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:10","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:10<\/strong> <em>Jebus:<\/em> See study note on 1:21. The city’s old name and its foreign status in Israel persisted until its capture by David (2 Sam 5:6-10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:10<\/strong> <em>Jebus:<\/em> See study note on 1:21. The city’s old name and its foreign status in Israel persisted until its capture by David (2 Sam 5:6-10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:10 Jebus: See study note on 1:21. The city’s old name and its foreign status in Israel persisted until its capture by David (2 Sam 5:6-10).","summary_en":"19:10 Jebus: See study note on 1:21. The city’s old name and its foreign status in Israel persisted until its capture by David (2 Sam 5:6-10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":61405,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Jerusalem","title_en":"Jerusalem","content_ro":"<h3>Jerusalem<\/h3>\n<p>Jerusalem was a functioning city as early as four hundred years before the time of David. It was never fully captured during the conquest and the period of the judges (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21), and peaceful relations were evidently established between the autonomous Jebusite enclave and the surrounding Israelites (Judg 19:10-12). So impregnable was Jerusalem that the Old Testament records only three successful invaders: David, Jehoash (2 Kgs 14:11-14), and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (2 Kgs 25:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>Whatever David’s method of capturing Jerusalem (his use of a water tunnel is debatable—see study note on 5:8), he secured Jerusalem as the political, and eventually spiritual, capital of Israel. Psalm 48 speaks beautifully and powerfully of Jerusalem as a fortress. Its towers, bulwarks, and easily defensible citadels with their rugged terrain could produce a false sense of security, if not idolatry. Psalm 48:1-3 reminds the reader that God’s living presence, not the topography of the city, made Jerusalem safe.<\/p>\n<p>Both the Old Testament and the New Testament call Jerusalem a “holy city” (see Neh 11:1, 18; Isa 52:1; Dan 9:24; Matt 4:5; 27:53; Rev 21:2). It is the only city so described in the Bible. Wherein lies this city’s holiness? It cannot be a reflection of the holiness of its occupants. In fact, so unholy was the populace that the city was decimated by the Babylonians in 586 <span>BC<\/span>. Nor was it a holy city because it was Israel’s capital for several centuries. Jerusalem was a holy city, first of all, because God chose it (1 Kgs 8:44, 48; 11:13, 32, 36; 2 Chr 6:5, 34). And because he chose it, he put his glory and his name there (see 1 Kgs 14:21; 2 Chr 12:13; Ezek 8–10; 43:1-27).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels and Acts, Jerusalem was still a city of great importance. Herod the Great (37–4 <span>BC<\/span>) had expanded the city and conducted extensive building projects—including the Temple. It remained the center of Israel’s spiritual life (see e.g., Acts 2:46; 3:1-26; 5:12), and many events in the lives of Jesus and his followers occurred in Jerusalem. Jesus had some harsh words for Jerusalem (see Matt 23:37-39)—especially its leadership—and he was eventually put to death there. Jesus warned of impending judgment on the city (see Mark 13:1-2; Luke 21:20-24), and his words were actualized in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>But the New Testament also introduces the new Jerusalem, the heavenly city comprised of God’s holy people (Heb 11:10; Rev 3:12; 21:2). As the earthly Jerusalem was the sphere in which the glorious presence and reign of God was partially actualized through King David and his successors, the new Jerusalem represents the government of Jesus Christ, the son of David, and his everlasting presence with his people (cp. John 1:14; Rev 21:3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21; 2 Sam 5:6-9; 1 Kgs 8:1; 2 Kgs 18:13-17; 25:1-10; 2 Chr 3:1; 12:1-12; 26:9, 15; 32:1-5, 27-30; Ezra 1:1-6; Neh 1:1–6:19; Ps 48:1-3; 125:2; Isa 14:32; 52:1-3; Gal 4:25-26; Heb 12:22-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Jerusalem<\/h3>\n<p>Jerusalem was a functioning city as early as four hundred years before the time of David. It was never fully captured during the conquest and the period of the judges (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21), and peaceful relations were evidently established between the autonomous Jebusite enclave and the surrounding Israelites (Judg 19:10-12). So impregnable was Jerusalem that the Old Testament records only three successful invaders: David, Jehoash (2 Kgs 14:11-14), and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (2 Kgs 25:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>Whatever David’s method of capturing Jerusalem (his use of a water tunnel is debatable—see study note on 5:8), he secured Jerusalem as the political, and eventually spiritual, capital of Israel. Psalm 48 speaks beautifully and powerfully of Jerusalem as a fortress. Its towers, bulwarks, and easily defensible citadels with their rugged terrain could produce a false sense of security, if not idolatry. Psalm 48:1-3 reminds the reader that God’s living presence, not the topography of the city, made Jerusalem safe.<\/p>\n<p>Both the Old Testament and the New Testament call Jerusalem a “holy city” (see Neh 11:1, 18; Isa 52:1; Dan 9:24; Matt 4:5; 27:53; Rev 21:2). It is the only city so described in the Bible. Wherein lies this city’s holiness? It cannot be a reflection of the holiness of its occupants. In fact, so unholy was the populace that the city was decimated by the Babylonians in 586 <span>BC<\/span>. Nor was it a holy city because it was Israel’s capital for several centuries. Jerusalem was a holy city, first of all, because God chose it (1 Kgs 8:44, 48; 11:13, 32, 36; 2 Chr 6:5, 34). And because he chose it, he put his glory and his name there (see 1 Kgs 14:21; 2 Chr 12:13; Ezek 8–10; 43:1-27).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels and Acts, Jerusalem was still a city of great importance. Herod the Great (37–4 <span>BC<\/span>) had expanded the city and conducted extensive building projects—including the Temple. It remained the center of Israel’s spiritual life (see e.g., Acts 2:46; 3:1-26; 5:12), and many events in the lives of Jesus and his followers occurred in Jerusalem. Jesus had some harsh words for Jerusalem (see Matt 23:37-39)—especially its leadership—and he was eventually put to death there. Jesus warned of impending judgment on the city (see Mark 13:1-2; Luke 21:20-24), and his words were actualized in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>But the New Testament also introduces the new Jerusalem, the heavenly city comprised of God’s holy people (Heb 11:10; Rev 3:12; 21:2). As the earthly Jerusalem was the sphere in which the glorious presence and reign of God was partially actualized through King David and his successors, the new Jerusalem represents the government of Jesus Christ, the son of David, and his everlasting presence with his people (cp. John 1:14; Rev 21:3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21; 2 Sam 5:6-9; 1 Kgs 8:1; 2 Kgs 18:13-17; 25:1-10; 2 Chr 3:1; 12:1-12; 26:9, 15; 32:1-5, 27-30; Ezra 1:1-6; Neh 1:1–6:19; Ps 48:1-3; 125:2; Isa 14:32; 52:1-3; Gal 4:25-26; Heb 12:22-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"Jerusalem Jerusalem was a functioning city as early as four hundred years before the time of David. It was never fully captured during the conquest and the period of the judges (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21), and peaceful relations were evidently established between the autonomous Jebusite enclave and the surrounding Israelites (Judg 19:10-12). So impregnable was Jerusalem that the Old Testament records only three successful invaders: David, Jehoash (2 Kgs 14:11-14), and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon...","summary_en":"Jerusalem Jerusalem was a functioning city as early as four hundred years before the time of David. It was never fully captured during the conquest and the period of the judges (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21), and peaceful relations were evidently established between the autonomous Jebusite enclave and the surrounding Israelites (Judg 19:10-12). So impregnable was Jerusalem that the Old Testament records only three successful invaders: David, Jehoash (2 Kgs 14:11-14), and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":89031,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Jerusalem","title_en":"Jerusalem","content_ro":"<h3>Jerusalem<\/h3>\n<p>Jerusalem was a functioning city as early as four hundred years before the time of David. It was never fully captured during the conquest and the period of the judges (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21), and peaceful relations were evidently established between the autonomous Jebusite enclave and the surrounding Israelites (Judg 19:10-12). So impregnable was Jerusalem that the Old Testament records only three successful invaders: David, Jehoash (2 Kgs 14:11-14), and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (2 Kgs 25:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>Whatever David’s method of capturing Jerusalem (his use of a water tunnel is debatable—see study note on 5:8), he secured Jerusalem as the political, and eventually spiritual, capital of Israel. Psalm 48 speaks beautifully and powerfully of Jerusalem as a fortress. Its towers, bulwarks, and easily defensible citadels with their rugged terrain could produce a false sense of security, if not idolatry. Psalm 48:1-3 reminds the reader that God’s living presence, not the topography of the city, made Jerusalem safe.<\/p>\n<p>Both the Old Testament and the New Testament call Jerusalem a “holy city” (see Neh 11:1, 18; Isa 52:1; Dan 9:24; Matt 4:5; 27:53; Rev 21:2). It is the only city so described in the Bible. Wherein lies this city’s holiness? It cannot be a reflection of the holiness of its occupants. In fact, so unholy was the populace that the city was decimated by the Babylonians in 586 <span>BC<\/span>. Nor was it a holy city because it was Israel’s capital for several centuries. Jerusalem was a holy city, first of all, because God chose it (1 Kgs 8:44, 48; 11:13, 32, 36; 2 Chr 6:5, 34). And because he chose it, he put his glory and his name there (see 1 Kgs 14:21; 2 Chr 12:13; Ezek 8–10; 43:1-27).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels and Acts, Jerusalem was still a city of great importance. Herod the Great (37–4 <span>BC<\/span>) had expanded the city and conducted extensive building projects—including the Temple. It remained the center of Israel’s spiritual life (see e.g., Acts 2:46; 3:1-26; 5:12), and many events in the lives of Jesus and his followers occurred in Jerusalem. Jesus had some harsh words for Jerusalem (see Matt 23:37-39)—especially its leadership—and he was eventually put to death there. Jesus warned of impending judgment on the city (see Mark 13:1-2; Luke 21:20-24), and his words were actualized in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>But the New Testament also introduces the new Jerusalem, the heavenly city comprised of God’s holy people (Heb 11:10; Rev 3:12; 21:2). As the earthly Jerusalem was the sphere in which the glorious presence and reign of God was partially actualized through King David and his successors, the new Jerusalem represents the government of Jesus Christ, the son of David, and his everlasting presence with his people (cp. John 1:14; Rev 21:3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21; 2 Sam 5:6-9; 1 Kgs 8:1; 2 Kgs 18:13-17; 25:1-10; 2 Chr 3:1; 12:1-12; 26:9, 15; 32:1-5, 27-30; Ezra 1:1-6; Neh 1:1–6:19; Ps 48:1-3; 125:2; Isa 14:32; 52:1-3; Gal 4:25-26; Heb 12:22-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Jerusalem<\/h3>\n<p>Jerusalem was a functioning city as early as four hundred years before the time of David. It was never fully captured during the conquest and the period of the judges (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21), and peaceful relations were evidently established between the autonomous Jebusite enclave and the surrounding Israelites (Judg 19:10-12). So impregnable was Jerusalem that the Old Testament records only three successful invaders: David, Jehoash (2 Kgs 14:11-14), and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (2 Kgs 25:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>Whatever David’s method of capturing Jerusalem (his use of a water tunnel is debatable—see study note on 5:8), he secured Jerusalem as the political, and eventually spiritual, capital of Israel. Psalm 48 speaks beautifully and powerfully of Jerusalem as a fortress. Its towers, bulwarks, and easily defensible citadels with their rugged terrain could produce a false sense of security, if not idolatry. Psalm 48:1-3 reminds the reader that God’s living presence, not the topography of the city, made Jerusalem safe.<\/p>\n<p>Both the Old Testament and the New Testament call Jerusalem a “holy city” (see Neh 11:1, 18; Isa 52:1; Dan 9:24; Matt 4:5; 27:53; Rev 21:2). It is the only city so described in the Bible. Wherein lies this city’s holiness? It cannot be a reflection of the holiness of its occupants. In fact, so unholy was the populace that the city was decimated by the Babylonians in 586 <span>BC<\/span>. Nor was it a holy city because it was Israel’s capital for several centuries. Jerusalem was a holy city, first of all, because God chose it (1 Kgs 8:44, 48; 11:13, 32, 36; 2 Chr 6:5, 34). And because he chose it, he put his glory and his name there (see 1 Kgs 14:21; 2 Chr 12:13; Ezek 8–10; 43:1-27).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels and Acts, Jerusalem was still a city of great importance. Herod the Great (37–4 <span>BC<\/span>) had expanded the city and conducted extensive building projects—including the Temple. It remained the center of Israel’s spiritual life (see e.g., Acts 2:46; 3:1-26; 5:12), and many events in the lives of Jesus and his followers occurred in Jerusalem. Jesus had some harsh words for Jerusalem (see Matt 23:37-39)—especially its leadership—and he was eventually put to death there. Jesus warned of impending judgment on the city (see Mark 13:1-2; Luke 21:20-24), and his words were actualized in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>But the New Testament also introduces the new Jerusalem, the heavenly city comprised of God’s holy people (Heb 11:10; Rev 3:12; 21:2). As the earthly Jerusalem was the sphere in which the glorious presence and reign of God was partially actualized through King David and his successors, the new Jerusalem represents the government of Jesus Christ, the son of David, and his everlasting presence with his people (cp. John 1:14; Rev 21:3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21; 2 Sam 5:6-9; 1 Kgs 8:1; 2 Kgs 18:13-17; 25:1-10; 2 Chr 3:1; 12:1-12; 26:9, 15; 32:1-5, 27-30; Ezra 1:1-6; Neh 1:1–6:19; Ps 48:1-3; 125:2; Isa 14:32; 52:1-3; Gal 4:25-26; Heb 12:22-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"Jerusalem Jerusalem was a functioning city as early as four hundred years before the time of David. It was never fully captured during the conquest and the period of the judges (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21), and peaceful relations were evidently established between the autonomous Jebusite enclave and the surrounding Israelites (Judg 19:10-12). So impregnable was Jerusalem that the Old Testament records only three successful invaders: David, Jehoash (2 Kgs 14:11-14), and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon...","summary_en":"Jerusalem Jerusalem was a functioning city as early as four hundred years before the time of David. It was never fully captured during the conquest and the period of the judges (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21), and peaceful relations were evidently established between the autonomous Jebusite enclave and the surrounding Israelites (Judg 19:10-12). So impregnable was Jerusalem that the Old Testament records only three successful invaders: David, Jehoash (2 Kgs 14:11-14), and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":116657,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Jerusalem","title_en":"Jerusalem","content_ro":"<h3>Jerusalem<\/h3>\n<p>Jerusalem was a functioning city as early as four hundred years before the time of David. It was never fully captured during the conquest and the period of the judges (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21), and peaceful relations were evidently established between the autonomous Jebusite enclave and the surrounding Israelites (Judg 19:10-12). So impregnable was Jerusalem that the Old Testament records only three successful invaders: David, Jehoash (2 Kgs 14:11-14), and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (2 Kgs 25:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>Whatever David’s method of capturing Jerusalem (his use of a water tunnel is debatable—see study note on 5:8), he secured Jerusalem as the political, and eventually spiritual, capital of Israel. Psalm 48 speaks beautifully and powerfully of Jerusalem as a fortress. Its towers, bulwarks, and easily defensible citadels with their rugged terrain could produce a false sense of security, if not idolatry. Psalm 48:1-3 reminds the reader that God’s living presence, not the topography of the city, made Jerusalem safe.<\/p>\n<p>Both the Old Testament and the New Testament call Jerusalem a “holy city” (see Neh 11:1, 18; Isa 52:1; Dan 9:24; Matt 4:5; 27:53; Rev 21:2). It is the only city so described in the Bible. Wherein lies this city’s holiness? It cannot be a reflection of the holiness of its occupants. In fact, so unholy was the populace that the city was decimated by the Babylonians in 586 <span>BC<\/span>. Nor was it a holy city because it was Israel’s capital for several centuries. Jerusalem was a holy city, first of all, because God chose it (1 Kgs 8:44, 48; 11:13, 32, 36; 2 Chr 6:5, 34). And because he chose it, he put his glory and his name there (see 1 Kgs 14:21; 2 Chr 12:13; Ezek 8–10; 43:1-27).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels and Acts, Jerusalem was still a city of great importance. Herod the Great (37–4 <span>BC<\/span>) had expanded the city and conducted extensive building projects—including the Temple. It remained the center of Israel’s spiritual life (see e.g., Acts 2:46; 3:1-26; 5:12), and many events in the lives of Jesus and his followers occurred in Jerusalem. Jesus had some harsh words for Jerusalem (see Matt 23:37-39)—especially its leadership—and he was eventually put to death there. Jesus warned of impending judgment on the city (see Mark 13:1-2; Luke 21:20-24), and his words were actualized in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>But the New Testament also introduces the new Jerusalem, the heavenly city comprised of God’s holy people (Heb 11:10; Rev 3:12; 21:2). As the earthly Jerusalem was the sphere in which the glorious presence and reign of God was partially actualized through King David and his successors, the new Jerusalem represents the government of Jesus Christ, the son of David, and his everlasting presence with his people (cp. John 1:14; Rev 21:3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21; 2 Sam 5:6-9; 1 Kgs 8:1; 2 Kgs 18:13-17; 25:1-10; 2 Chr 3:1; 12:1-12; 26:9, 15; 32:1-5, 27-30; Ezra 1:1-6; Neh 1:1–6:19; Ps 48:1-3; 125:2; Isa 14:32; 52:1-3; Gal 4:25-26; Heb 12:22-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Jerusalem<\/h3>\n<p>Jerusalem was a functioning city as early as four hundred years before the time of David. It was never fully captured during the conquest and the period of the judges (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21), and peaceful relations were evidently established between the autonomous Jebusite enclave and the surrounding Israelites (Judg 19:10-12). So impregnable was Jerusalem that the Old Testament records only three successful invaders: David, Jehoash (2 Kgs 14:11-14), and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (2 Kgs 25:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>Whatever David’s method of capturing Jerusalem (his use of a water tunnel is debatable—see study note on 5:8), he secured Jerusalem as the political, and eventually spiritual, capital of Israel. Psalm 48 speaks beautifully and powerfully of Jerusalem as a fortress. Its towers, bulwarks, and easily defensible citadels with their rugged terrain could produce a false sense of security, if not idolatry. Psalm 48:1-3 reminds the reader that God’s living presence, not the topography of the city, made Jerusalem safe.<\/p>\n<p>Both the Old Testament and the New Testament call Jerusalem a “holy city” (see Neh 11:1, 18; Isa 52:1; Dan 9:24; Matt 4:5; 27:53; Rev 21:2). It is the only city so described in the Bible. Wherein lies this city’s holiness? It cannot be a reflection of the holiness of its occupants. In fact, so unholy was the populace that the city was decimated by the Babylonians in 586 <span>BC<\/span>. Nor was it a holy city because it was Israel’s capital for several centuries. Jerusalem was a holy city, first of all, because God chose it (1 Kgs 8:44, 48; 11:13, 32, 36; 2 Chr 6:5, 34). And because he chose it, he put his glory and his name there (see 1 Kgs 14:21; 2 Chr 12:13; Ezek 8–10; 43:1-27).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels and Acts, Jerusalem was still a city of great importance. Herod the Great (37–4 <span>BC<\/span>) had expanded the city and conducted extensive building projects—including the Temple. It remained the center of Israel’s spiritual life (see e.g., Acts 2:46; 3:1-26; 5:12), and many events in the lives of Jesus and his followers occurred in Jerusalem. Jesus had some harsh words for Jerusalem (see Matt 23:37-39)—especially its leadership—and he was eventually put to death there. Jesus warned of impending judgment on the city (see Mark 13:1-2; Luke 21:20-24), and his words were actualized in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>But the New Testament also introduces the new Jerusalem, the heavenly city comprised of God’s holy people (Heb 11:10; Rev 3:12; 21:2). As the earthly Jerusalem was the sphere in which the glorious presence and reign of God was partially actualized through King David and his successors, the new Jerusalem represents the government of Jesus Christ, the son of David, and his everlasting presence with his people (cp. John 1:14; Rev 21:3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21; 2 Sam 5:6-9; 1 Kgs 8:1; 2 Kgs 18:13-17; 25:1-10; 2 Chr 3:1; 12:1-12; 26:9, 15; 32:1-5, 27-30; Ezra 1:1-6; Neh 1:1–6:19; Ps 48:1-3; 125:2; Isa 14:32; 52:1-3; Gal 4:25-26; Heb 12:22-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"Jerusalem Jerusalem was a functioning city as early as four hundred years before the time of David. It was never fully captured during the conquest and the period of the judges (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21), and peaceful relations were evidently established between the autonomous Jebusite enclave and the surrounding Israelites (Judg 19:10-12). So impregnable was Jerusalem that the Old Testament records only three successful invaders: David, Jehoash (2 Kgs 14:11-14), and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon...","summary_en":"Jerusalem Jerusalem was a functioning city as early as four hundred years before the time of David. It was never fully captured during the conquest and the period of the judges (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21), and peaceful relations were evidently established between the autonomous Jebusite enclave and the surrounding Israelites (Judg 19:10-12). So impregnable was Jerusalem that the Old Testament records only three successful invaders: David, Jehoash (2 Kgs 14:11-14), and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":144283,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Jerusalem","title_en":"Jerusalem","content_ro":"<h3>Jerusalem<\/h3>\n<p>Jerusalem was a functioning city as early as four hundred years before the time of David. It was never fully captured during the conquest and the period of the judges (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21), and peaceful relations were evidently established between the autonomous Jebusite enclave and the surrounding Israelites (Judg 19:10-12). So impregnable was Jerusalem that the Old Testament records only three successful invaders: David, Jehoash (2 Kgs 14:11-14), and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (2 Kgs 25:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>Whatever David’s method of capturing Jerusalem (his use of a water tunnel is debatable—see study note on 5:8), he secured Jerusalem as the political, and eventually spiritual, capital of Israel. Psalm 48 speaks beautifully and powerfully of Jerusalem as a fortress. Its towers, bulwarks, and easily defensible citadels with their rugged terrain could produce a false sense of security, if not idolatry. Psalm 48:1-3 reminds the reader that God’s living presence, not the topography of the city, made Jerusalem safe.<\/p>\n<p>Both the Old Testament and the New Testament call Jerusalem a “holy city” (see Neh 11:1, 18; Isa 52:1; Dan 9:24; Matt 4:5; 27:53; Rev 21:2). It is the only city so described in the Bible. Wherein lies this city’s holiness? It cannot be a reflection of the holiness of its occupants. In fact, so unholy was the populace that the city was decimated by the Babylonians in 586 <span>BC<\/span>. Nor was it a holy city because it was Israel’s capital for several centuries. Jerusalem was a holy city, first of all, because God chose it (1 Kgs 8:44, 48; 11:13, 32, 36; 2 Chr 6:5, 34). And because he chose it, he put his glory and his name there (see 1 Kgs 14:21; 2 Chr 12:13; Ezek 8–10; 43:1-27).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels and Acts, Jerusalem was still a city of great importance. Herod the Great (37–4 <span>BC<\/span>) had expanded the city and conducted extensive building projects—including the Temple. It remained the center of Israel’s spiritual life (see e.g., Acts 2:46; 3:1-26; 5:12), and many events in the lives of Jesus and his followers occurred in Jerusalem. Jesus had some harsh words for Jerusalem (see Matt 23:37-39)—especially its leadership—and he was eventually put to death there. Jesus warned of impending judgment on the city (see Mark 13:1-2; Luke 21:20-24), and his words were actualized in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>But the New Testament also introduces the new Jerusalem, the heavenly city comprised of God’s holy people (Heb 11:10; Rev 3:12; 21:2). As the earthly Jerusalem was the sphere in which the glorious presence and reign of God was partially actualized through King David and his successors, the new Jerusalem represents the government of Jesus Christ, the son of David, and his everlasting presence with his people (cp. John 1:14; Rev 21:3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21; 2 Sam 5:6-9; 1 Kgs 8:1; 2 Kgs 18:13-17; 25:1-10; 2 Chr 3:1; 12:1-12; 26:9, 15; 32:1-5, 27-30; Ezra 1:1-6; Neh 1:1–6:19; Ps 48:1-3; 125:2; Isa 14:32; 52:1-3; Gal 4:25-26; Heb 12:22-24<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Jerusalem<\/h3>\n<p>Jerusalem was a functioning city as early as four hundred years before the time of David. It was never fully captured during the conquest and the period of the judges (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21), and peaceful relations were evidently established between the autonomous Jebusite enclave and the surrounding Israelites (Judg 19:10-12). So impregnable was Jerusalem that the Old Testament records only three successful invaders: David, Jehoash (2 Kgs 14:11-14), and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (2 Kgs 25:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>Whatever David’s method of capturing Jerusalem (his use of a water tunnel is debatable—see study note on 5:8), he secured Jerusalem as the political, and eventually spiritual, capital of Israel. Psalm 48 speaks beautifully and powerfully of Jerusalem as a fortress. Its towers, bulwarks, and easily defensible citadels with their rugged terrain could produce a false sense of security, if not idolatry. Psalm 48:1-3 reminds the reader that God’s living presence, not the topography of the city, made Jerusalem safe.<\/p>\n<p>Both the Old Testament and the New Testament call Jerusalem a “holy city” (see Neh 11:1, 18; Isa 52:1; Dan 9:24; Matt 4:5; 27:53; Rev 21:2). It is the only city so described in the Bible. Wherein lies this city’s holiness? It cannot be a reflection of the holiness of its occupants. In fact, so unholy was the populace that the city was decimated by the Babylonians in 586 <span>BC<\/span>. Nor was it a holy city because it was Israel’s capital for several centuries. Jerusalem was a holy city, first of all, because God chose it (1 Kgs 8:44, 48; 11:13, 32, 36; 2 Chr 6:5, 34). And because he chose it, he put his glory and his name there (see 1 Kgs 14:21; 2 Chr 12:13; Ezek 8–10; 43:1-27).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels and Acts, Jerusalem was still a city of great importance. Herod the Great (37–4 <span>BC<\/span>) had expanded the city and conducted extensive building projects—including the Temple. It remained the center of Israel’s spiritual life (see e.g., Acts 2:46; 3:1-26; 5:12), and many events in the lives of Jesus and his followers occurred in Jerusalem. Jesus had some harsh words for Jerusalem (see Matt 23:37-39)—especially its leadership—and he was eventually put to death there. Jesus warned of impending judgment on the city (see Mark 13:1-2; Luke 21:20-24), and his words were actualized in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>But the New Testament also introduces the new Jerusalem, the heavenly city comprised of God’s holy people (Heb 11:10; Rev 3:12; 21:2). As the earthly Jerusalem was the sphere in which the glorious presence and reign of God was partially actualized through King David and his successors, the new Jerusalem represents the government of Jesus Christ, the son of David, and his everlasting presence with his people (cp. John 1:14; Rev 21:3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21; 2 Sam 5:6-9; 1 Kgs 8:1; 2 Kgs 18:13-17; 25:1-10; 2 Chr 3:1; 12:1-12; 26:9, 15; 32:1-5, 27-30; Ezra 1:1-6; Neh 1:1–6:19; Ps 48:1-3; 125:2; Isa 14:32; 52:1-3; Gal 4:25-26; Heb 12:22-24<\/p>","summary_ro":"Jerusalem Jerusalem was a functioning city as early as four hundred years before the time of David. It was never fully captured during the conquest and the period of the judges (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21), and peaceful relations were evidently established between the autonomous Jebusite enclave and the surrounding Israelites (Judg 19:10-12). So impregnable was Jerusalem that the Old Testament records only three successful invaders: David, Jehoash (2 Kgs 14:11-14), and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon...","summary_en":"Jerusalem Jerusalem was a functioning city as early as four hundred years before the time of David. It was never fully captured during the conquest and the period of the judges (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:8, 21), and peaceful relations were evidently established between the autonomous Jebusite enclave and the surrounding Israelites (Judg 19:10-12). So impregnable was Jerusalem that the Old Testament records only three successful invaders: David, Jehoash (2 Kgs 14:11-14), and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"11":[{"id":13768,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gibeah","title_en":"Gibeah","content_ro":"<h3>GIBEAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Town in the hill country of Judah (Jos 15:57). Its exact location is uncertain. Gibeah is listed as being among other towns located in the section of Judah southeast of Hebron and probably was in the fertile plateau containing Maon, Ziph, and Carmel.<\/li>\n<li>2. Town in the province of Benjamin, also called “Gibeah of Saul” (1 Sm 11:4; 15:34; Is 10:29), and its inhabitants are called Gibeathites (1 Chr 12:3). It is first mentioned in the description of the territory assigned to Benjamin (Jos 18:28, <span>kjv<\/span> “Gibeath”) and comes to prominence in the biblical narrative as a result of the atrocity recounted in Judges 19–21 of the Levite and his concubine.<\/li>\n<p>Gibeah was also noted as the home of Saul (1 Sm 10:26). After his anointing as king of Israel, Saul returned to Gibeah, which probably remained his home and his capital (10:26; 22:6; 23:19).<\/p>\n<p>The site of ancient Gibeah has been generally identified as the modern Tell el-Ful. The OT references place Gibeah north of Jerusalem, between Jerusalem and Ramah, and situated near the primary south-north road through the hill country (Jgs 19:11-19). Tell el-Ful is about three and a half miles (5.6 kilometers) north of Jerusalem and is situated on one of the highest areas in that mountain range. Excavations reveal that an early Israelite village was there about the 12th century <span>BC<\/span> and was destroyed by fire. Probably during the 11th century a stone fortress was built, and its corner tower is still evident. It probably was the citadel of Saul and his royal residence. A second fortress was built about 1000 <span>BC<\/span> but fell into disuse when David established the Israelite capital at Jerusalem. It then served as an outpost for the capital city. The tower was alternately destroyed and rebuilt through the centuries until its final destruction in the war between Antiochus III and Ptolemy V. Josephus wrote that a village existed at the site of Gibeah during the Roman period, but it finally ceased to exist with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem (<span>AD<\/span> 70).<\/p>\n<li>3. Town in the hills of Ephraim that was given to Phinehas, son of Eleazar. It was the burial site of Eleazar (Jos 24:33). An addition to the Septuagint indicates that Phinehas was also buried here. Its exact location is unknown, and several sites have been suggested: Nibi Saleh, about six miles (9.7 kilometers) northwest of Jifna; Jibia, four miles (6.5 kilometers) northwest of Jifna; et-Tell, northeast of Jifna and south of Sinjil; and Awertah, near Shechem.<\/li>\n<li>4. Gibeath-elohim (1 Sm 10:5, <span>rsv<\/span>; <span>kjv<\/span> “hill of God”; <span>nlt<\/span> “Gibeah of God”). At this site Samuel, following Saul’s anointing as king, predicted that Saul would meet a company of prophets and would prophesy with them. This was to be a sign of God’s selection of Saul as Israel’s king. Some have suggested that this is the same place as Gibeah of Benjamin, the home of Saul, but the context suggests that Saul reached this place before he arrived at his home.<\/li>\n<li>5. Hill near Kiriath-jearim, where the ark of the covenant was housed by Abinadab after its return from the Philistines and until it was moved by David to the house of Obed-edom (2 Sm 6:1-4).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>GIBEAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Town in the hill country of Judah (Jos 15:57). Its exact location is uncertain. Gibeah is listed as being among other towns located in the section of Judah southeast of Hebron and probably was in the fertile plateau containing Maon, Ziph, and Carmel.<\/li>\n<li>2. Town in the province of Benjamin, also called “Gibeah of Saul” (1 Sm 11:4; 15:34; Is 10:29), and its inhabitants are called Gibeathites (1 Chr 12:3). It is first mentioned in the description of the territory assigned to Benjamin (Jos 18:28, <span>kjv<\/span> “Gibeath”) and comes to prominence in the biblical narrative as a result of the atrocity recounted in Judges 19–21 of the Levite and his concubine.<\/li>\n<p>Gibeah was also noted as the home of Saul (1 Sm 10:26). After his anointing as king of Israel, Saul returned to Gibeah, which probably remained his home and his capital (10:26; 22:6; 23:19).<\/p>\n<p>The site of ancient Gibeah has been generally identified as the modern Tell el-Ful. The OT references place Gibeah north of Jerusalem, between Jerusalem and Ramah, and situated near the primary south-north road through the hill country (Jgs 19:11-19). Tell el-Ful is about three and a half miles (5.6 kilometers) north of Jerusalem and is situated on one of the highest areas in that mountain range. Excavations reveal that an early Israelite village was there about the 12th century <span>BC<\/span> and was destroyed by fire. Probably during the 11th century a stone fortress was built, and its corner tower is still evident. It probably was the citadel of Saul and his royal residence. A second fortress was built about 1000 <span>BC<\/span> but fell into disuse when David established the Israelite capital at Jerusalem. It then served as an outpost for the capital city. The tower was alternately destroyed and rebuilt through the centuries until its final destruction in the war between Antiochus III and Ptolemy V. Josephus wrote that a village existed at the site of Gibeah during the Roman period, but it finally ceased to exist with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem (<span>AD<\/span> 70).<\/p>\n<li>3. Town in the hills of Ephraim that was given to Phinehas, son of Eleazar. It was the burial site of Eleazar (Jos 24:33). An addition to the Septuagint indicates that Phinehas was also buried here. Its exact location is unknown, and several sites have been suggested: Nibi Saleh, about six miles (9.7 kilometers) northwest of Jifna; Jibia, four miles (6.5 kilometers) northwest of Jifna; et-Tell, northeast of Jifna and south of Sinjil; and Awertah, near Shechem.<\/li>\n<li>4. Gibeath-elohim (1 Sm 10:5, <span>rsv<\/span>; <span>kjv<\/span> “hill of God”; <span>nlt<\/span> “Gibeah of God”). At this site Samuel, following Saul’s anointing as king, predicted that Saul would meet a company of prophets and would prophesy with them. This was to be a sign of God’s selection of Saul as Israel’s king. Some have suggested that this is the same place as Gibeah of Benjamin, the home of Saul, but the context suggests that Saul reached this place before he arrived at his home.<\/li>\n<li>5. Hill near Kiriath-jearim, where the ark of the covenant was housed by Abinadab after its return from the Philistines and until it was moved by David to the house of Obed-edom (2 Sm 6:1-4).<\/li>","summary_ro":"GIBEAH 1. Town in the hill country of Judah (Jos 15:57). Its exact location is uncertain. Gibeah is listed as being among other towns located in the section of Judah southeast of Hebron and probably was in the fertile plateau containing Maon, Ziph, and Carmel. 2. Town in the province of Benjamin, also called “Gibeah of Saul” (1 Sm 11:4; 15:34; Is 10:29), and its inhabitants are called Gibeathites (1 Chr 12:3). It is first mentioned in the description of the territory assigned to Benjamin (Jos...","summary_en":"GIBEAH 1. Town in the hill country of Judah (Jos 15:57). Its exact location is uncertain. Gibeah is listed as being among other towns located in the section of Judah southeast of Hebron and probably was in the fertile plateau containing Maon, Ziph, and Carmel. 2. Town in the province of Benjamin, also called “Gibeah of Saul” (1 Sm 11:4; 15:34; Is 10:29), and its inhabitants are called Gibeathites (1 Chr 12:3). It is first mentioned in the description of the territory assigned to Benjamin (Jos...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24627,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Master","title_en":"Master","content_ro":"<h3>MASTER<\/h3>\n<p>Word used to translate five different Hebrew words and seven different Greek terms with root meanings of owner (Is 1:3), elder (Dn 1:3), sovereign (1 Pt 2:18), teacher (Lk 6:40), superintendent (Lk 5:5), lord (Gn 39:3), sir (Jgs 19:11), rabbi (Mk 9:5), and captain (Acts 27:11); often used to describe Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>One of the Greek words, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kurios<\/span><em>,<\/em> has multiple meanings with important implications for interpretation. It variously means sir or mister (Lk 14:21), master (Mt 6:24), lord (Acts 25:26), and the Lord God (Eph 6:9). Usually the context clearly indicates the specific meaning intended.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MASTER<\/h3>\n<p>Word used to translate five different Hebrew words and seven different Greek terms with root meanings of owner (Is 1:3), elder (Dn 1:3), sovereign (1 Pt 2:18), teacher (Lk 6:40), superintendent (Lk 5:5), lord (Gn 39:3), sir (Jgs 19:11), rabbi (Mk 9:5), and captain (Acts 27:11); often used to describe Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>One of the Greek words, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kurios<\/span><em>,<\/em> has multiple meanings with important implications for interpretation. It variously means sir or mister (Lk 14:21), master (Mt 6:24), lord (Acts 25:26), and the Lord God (Eph 6:9). Usually the context clearly indicates the specific meaning intended.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MASTER Word used to translate five different Hebrew words and seven different Greek terms with root meanings of owner (Is 1:3), elder (Dn 1:3), sovereign (1 Pt 2:18), teacher (Lk 6:40), superintendent (Lk 5:5), lord (Gn 39:3), sir (Jgs 19:11), rabbi (Mk 9:5), and captain (Acts 27:11); often used to describe Jesus. One of the Greek words, kurios, has multiple meanings with important implications for interpretation. It variously means sir or mister (Lk 14:21), master (Mt 6:24), lord (Acts 25:26...","summary_en":"MASTER Word used to translate five different Hebrew words and seven different Greek terms with root meanings of owner (Is 1:3), elder (Dn 1:3), sovereign (1 Pt 2:18), teacher (Lk 6:40), superintendent (Lk 5:5), lord (Gn 39:3), sir (Jgs 19:11), rabbi (Mk 9:5), and captain (Acts 27:11); often used to describe Jesus. One of the Greek words, kurios, has multiple meanings with important implications for interpretation. It variously means sir or mister (Lk 14:21), master (Mt 6:24), lord (Acts 25:26...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"13":[{"id":32358,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ramah","title_en":"Ramah","content_ro":"<h3>RAMAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. One of the cities located in the territory allotted to Benjamin’s tribe for an inheritance, listed between Gibeon and Beeroth (Jos 18:25). In the proximity of this town, Rachel, Jacob’s wife, was buried (Mt 2:18; cf. Gn 35:16-21; Jer 31:15). Ramah, positioned near Bethel, was the place where Deborah judged Israel (Jgs 4:5). This city was a temporary resting place for a Levite and his concubine traveling north from Bethlehem (19:13).<\/li>\n<p>During the period of the divided kingdom (930– 722 <span>BC<\/span>), King Baasha of Israel (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>) fortified Ramah. From Ramah, Baasha was able to prevent an invasion of King Asa’s (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) Judean army. Baasha later abandoned the city and hurried his army north to repulse a Syrian offensive led by King Ben-hadad I (c. 885 <span>BC<\/span>). Asa dismantled Ramah’s military fortifications, using the material to build the towns of Geba and Mizpah (1 Kgs 15:17-22; 2 Chr 16:1-6).<\/p>\n<p>The cities of Geba, Ramah, and Gibeah formed the route taken by the Assyrian army during Sennacherib’s military incursion into Judah (c. 701 <span>BC<\/span>) against King Hezekiah and Jerusalem (Is 10:29). Later King Nebuchadnezzar used Ramah as a place of detainment for the Jews being deported to Babylon. Here Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, released Jeremiah from among the captives (Jer 40:1).<\/p>\n<p>Following the Babylonian captivity, inhabitants of Ramah returned with Zerubbabel to Palestine and rebuilt this city (Ezr 2:26; Neh 7:30). Some suggest that the postexilic town of Ramah was another Benjaminite town located farther west near the coastal plain (Neh 11:33). The site of Ramah is identified with the modern village of er-Ram, five miles (8 kilometers) north of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<li>2. City in the Negev marking the southern extremity of the territory allotted to the tribe of Simeon within Judah’s inheritance (Jos 19:8); also called Ramoth of the Negev (1 Sm 30:27) and Baalath-beer (Jos 19:8; cf. 1 Chr 4:33). <em>See<\/em> Baalath-beer.<\/li>\n<li>3. Town defining the boundary of the territory assigned to Asher’s tribe for an inheritance, mentioned between Sidon and Tyre (Jos 19:29).<\/li>\n<li>4. One of 19 fortified cities given to Naphtali’s tribe for a possession, mentioned between Adamah and Hazor (Jos 19:36). Its location is identifiable with the modern town of er-Rameh, about 11 miles (17.7 kilometers) northwest of the Sea of Galilee.<\/li>\n<li>5. Home of Samuel’s parents, Elkanah and Hannah; the birthplace of Samuel (1 Sm 1:19; 2:11); and later his home (7:17; 16:13). Samuel judged Israel from Ramah, Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah (7:17). Saul first met Samuel at this city (9:6-10). Here the elders of Israel petitioned Samuel to appoint a king for them (8:4), and later this city provided David a place of refuge from King Saul (19:18–20:1). Samuel was buried at Ramah (25:1; 28:3). Ramah is alternately called Ramathaim-zophim in 1 Samuel 1:1.<\/li>\n<li>6. Abbreviated name for Ramoth-gilead (2 Kgs 8:29; 2 Chr 22:6). <em>See<\/em> Ramoth-gilead.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>RAMAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. One of the cities located in the territory allotted to Benjamin’s tribe for an inheritance, listed between Gibeon and Beeroth (Jos 18:25). In the proximity of this town, Rachel, Jacob’s wife, was buried (Mt 2:18; cf. Gn 35:16-21; Jer 31:15). Ramah, positioned near Bethel, was the place where Deborah judged Israel (Jgs 4:5). This city was a temporary resting place for a Levite and his concubine traveling north from Bethlehem (19:13).<\/li>\n<p>During the period of the divided kingdom (930– 722 <span>BC<\/span>), King Baasha of Israel (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>) fortified Ramah. From Ramah, Baasha was able to prevent an invasion of King Asa’s (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) Judean army. Baasha later abandoned the city and hurried his army north to repulse a Syrian offensive led by King Ben-hadad I (c. 885 <span>BC<\/span>). Asa dismantled Ramah’s military fortifications, using the material to build the towns of Geba and Mizpah (1 Kgs 15:17-22; 2 Chr 16:1-6).<\/p>\n<p>The cities of Geba, Ramah, and Gibeah formed the route taken by the Assyrian army during Sennacherib’s military incursion into Judah (c. 701 <span>BC<\/span>) against King Hezekiah and Jerusalem (Is 10:29). Later King Nebuchadnezzar used Ramah as a place of detainment for the Jews being deported to Babylon. Here Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, released Jeremiah from among the captives (Jer 40:1).<\/p>\n<p>Following the Babylonian captivity, inhabitants of Ramah returned with Zerubbabel to Palestine and rebuilt this city (Ezr 2:26; Neh 7:30). Some suggest that the postexilic town of Ramah was another Benjaminite town located farther west near the coastal plain (Neh 11:33). The site of Ramah is identified with the modern village of er-Ram, five miles (8 kilometers) north of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<li>2. City in the Negev marking the southern extremity of the territory allotted to the tribe of Simeon within Judah’s inheritance (Jos 19:8); also called Ramoth of the Negev (1 Sm 30:27) and Baalath-beer (Jos 19:8; cf. 1 Chr 4:33). <em>See<\/em> Baalath-beer.<\/li>\n<li>3. Town defining the boundary of the territory assigned to Asher’s tribe for an inheritance, mentioned between Sidon and Tyre (Jos 19:29).<\/li>\n<li>4. One of 19 fortified cities given to Naphtali’s tribe for a possession, mentioned between Adamah and Hazor (Jos 19:36). Its location is identifiable with the modern town of er-Rameh, about 11 miles (17.7 kilometers) northwest of the Sea of Galilee.<\/li>\n<li>5. Home of Samuel’s parents, Elkanah and Hannah; the birthplace of Samuel (1 Sm 1:19; 2:11); and later his home (7:17; 16:13). Samuel judged Israel from Ramah, Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah (7:17). Saul first met Samuel at this city (9:6-10). Here the elders of Israel petitioned Samuel to appoint a king for them (8:4), and later this city provided David a place of refuge from King Saul (19:18–20:1). Samuel was buried at Ramah (25:1; 28:3). Ramah is alternately called Ramathaim-zophim in 1 Samuel 1:1.<\/li>\n<li>6. Abbreviated name for Ramoth-gilead (2 Kgs 8:29; 2 Chr 22:6). <em>See<\/em> Ramoth-gilead.<\/li>","summary_ro":"RAMAH 1. One of the cities located in the territory allotted to Benjamin’s tribe for an inheritance, listed between Gibeon and Beeroth (Jos 18:25). In the proximity of this town, Rachel, Jacob’s wife, was buried (Mt 2:18; cf. Gn 35:16-21; Jer 31:15). Ramah, positioned near Bethel, was the place where Deborah judged Israel (Jgs 4:5). This city was a temporary resting place for a Levite and his concubine traveling north from Bethlehem (19:13). During the period of the divided kingdom (930– 722 ...","summary_en":"RAMAH 1. One of the cities located in the territory allotted to Benjamin’s tribe for an inheritance, listed between Gibeon and Beeroth (Jos 18:25). In the proximity of this town, Rachel, Jacob’s wife, was buried (Mt 2:18; cf. Gn 35:16-21; Jer 31:15). Ramah, positioned near Bethel, was the place where Deborah judged Israel (Jgs 4:5). This city was a temporary resting place for a Levite and his concubine traveling north from Bethlehem (19:13). During the period of the divided kingdom (930– 722 ...","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45945,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:13","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> The two Benjamite towns of <em>Gibeah<\/em> and <em>Ramah<\/em> have a prominent place in Israelite history, connected as they are with judges (Deborah, 4:5), priests (Eleazar, Josh 24:33), prophets (Samuel, 1 Sam 8:4), and kings (Saul, 1 Sam 10:26). The account of Gibeah’s noble history compounds the tragedy of the events that followed.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> The two Benjamite towns of <em>Gibeah<\/em> and <em>Ramah<\/em> have a prominent place in Israelite history, connected as they are with judges (Deborah, 4:5), priests (Eleazar, Josh 24:33), prophets (Samuel, 1 Sam 8:4), and kings (Saul, 1 Sam 10:26). The account of Gibeah’s noble history compounds the tragedy of the events that followed.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:13 The two Benjamite towns of Gibeah and Ramah have a prominent place in Israelite history, connected as they are with judges (Deborah, 4:5), priests (Eleazar, Josh 24:33), prophets (Samuel, 1 Sam 8:4), and kings (Saul, 1 Sam 10:26). The account of Gibeah’s noble history compounds the tragedy of the events that followed.","summary_en":"19:13 The two Benjamite towns of Gibeah and Ramah have a prominent place in Israelite history, connected as they are with judges (Deborah, 4:5), priests (Eleazar, Josh 24:33), prophets (Samuel, 1 Sam 8:4), and kings (Saul, 1 Sam 10:26). The account of Gibeah’s noble history compounds the tragedy of the events that followed.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73571,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:13","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> The two Benjamite towns of <em>Gibeah<\/em> and <em>Ramah<\/em> have a prominent place in Israelite history, connected as they are with judges (Deborah, 4:5), priests (Eleazar, Josh 24:33), prophets (Samuel, 1 Sam 8:4), and kings (Saul, 1 Sam 10:26). The account of Gibeah’s noble history compounds the tragedy of the events that followed.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> The two Benjamite towns of <em>Gibeah<\/em> and <em>Ramah<\/em> have a prominent place in Israelite history, connected as they are with judges (Deborah, 4:5), priests (Eleazar, Josh 24:33), prophets (Samuel, 1 Sam 8:4), and kings (Saul, 1 Sam 10:26). The account of Gibeah’s noble history compounds the tragedy of the events that followed.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:13 The two Benjamite towns of Gibeah and Ramah have a prominent place in Israelite history, connected as they are with judges (Deborah, 4:5), priests (Eleazar, Josh 24:33), prophets (Samuel, 1 Sam 8:4), and kings (Saul, 1 Sam 10:26). The account of Gibeah’s noble history compounds the tragedy of the events that followed.","summary_en":"19:13 The two Benjamite towns of Gibeah and Ramah have a prominent place in Israelite history, connected as they are with judges (Deborah, 4:5), priests (Eleazar, Josh 24:33), prophets (Samuel, 1 Sam 8:4), and kings (Saul, 1 Sam 10:26). The account of Gibeah’s noble history compounds the tragedy of the events that followed.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101197,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:13","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> The two Benjamite towns of <em>Gibeah<\/em> and <em>Ramah<\/em> have a prominent place in Israelite history, connected as they are with judges (Deborah, 4:5), priests (Eleazar, Josh 24:33), prophets (Samuel, 1 Sam 8:4), and kings (Saul, 1 Sam 10:26). The account of Gibeah’s noble history compounds the tragedy of the events that followed.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> The two Benjamite towns of <em>Gibeah<\/em> and <em>Ramah<\/em> have a prominent place in Israelite history, connected as they are with judges (Deborah, 4:5), priests (Eleazar, Josh 24:33), prophets (Samuel, 1 Sam 8:4), and kings (Saul, 1 Sam 10:26). The account of Gibeah’s noble history compounds the tragedy of the events that followed.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:13 The two Benjamite towns of Gibeah and Ramah have a prominent place in Israelite history, connected as they are with judges (Deborah, 4:5), priests (Eleazar, Josh 24:33), prophets (Samuel, 1 Sam 8:4), and kings (Saul, 1 Sam 10:26). The account of Gibeah’s noble history compounds the tragedy of the events that followed.","summary_en":"19:13 The two Benjamite towns of Gibeah and Ramah have a prominent place in Israelite history, connected as they are with judges (Deborah, 4:5), priests (Eleazar, Josh 24:33), prophets (Samuel, 1 Sam 8:4), and kings (Saul, 1 Sam 10:26). The account of Gibeah’s noble history compounds the tragedy of the events that followed.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128823,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:13","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> The two Benjamite towns of <em>Gibeah<\/em> and <em>Ramah<\/em> have a prominent place in Israelite history, connected as they are with judges (Deborah, 4:5), priests (Eleazar, Josh 24:33), prophets (Samuel, 1 Sam 8:4), and kings (Saul, 1 Sam 10:26). The account of Gibeah’s noble history compounds the tragedy of the events that followed.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> The two Benjamite towns of <em>Gibeah<\/em> and <em>Ramah<\/em> have a prominent place in Israelite history, connected as they are with judges (Deborah, 4:5), priests (Eleazar, Josh 24:33), prophets (Samuel, 1 Sam 8:4), and kings (Saul, 1 Sam 10:26). The account of Gibeah’s noble history compounds the tragedy of the events that followed.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:13 The two Benjamite towns of Gibeah and Ramah have a prominent place in Israelite history, connected as they are with judges (Deborah, 4:5), priests (Eleazar, Josh 24:33), prophets (Samuel, 1 Sam 8:4), and kings (Saul, 1 Sam 10:26). The account of Gibeah’s noble history compounds the tragedy of the events that followed.","summary_en":"19:13 The two Benjamite towns of Gibeah and Ramah have a prominent place in Israelite history, connected as they are with judges (Deborah, 4:5), priests (Eleazar, Josh 24:33), prophets (Samuel, 1 Sam 8:4), and kings (Saul, 1 Sam 10:26). The account of Gibeah’s noble history compounds the tragedy of the events that followed.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"14":[{"id":16855,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hospitality","title_en":"Hospitality","content_ro":"<h3>HOSPITALITY<\/h3>\n<p>Biblical concept often used with the terms “guest,” “stranger,” and “sojourner.” It is useful to limit the meaning of “hospitality” to benevolence done to those outside one’s normal circle of friends, as is implied in the literal meaning of the Greek word meaning “love of strangers.” Although the concept is thoroughly endorsed in the Bible, it is clearly found in nonbiblical cultures as well, especially among the nomadic peoples, where definite obligations to provide food, shelter, and protection are recognized.<\/p>\n<p>The normal exercise of hospitality in the OT can be seen in the examples of Abraham and the three visitors (Gn 18:2-8, 16), Laban’s reception of Abraham’s servant (24:15-61), and Manoah’s treatment of the angel (Jgs 13:15). But there are also cases in which the host felt compelled to take extreme steps to protect his guest, even to the harm of his own family (Gn 19:1-8; Jgs 19:14-24). The hospitality of the Shunammite family is also noteworthy, although Elisha was no stranger to them (2 Kgs 4:10).<\/p>\n<p>According to the NT, Jesus relied on the general practice of hospitality in sending out the disciples (Lk 10:7), as well as in his own travels. As the gospel was spread by traveling missionaries, Christians were commended for entertaining them in their homes (Heb 13:2; 1 Pt 4:9; 3 Jn 1:5-8). Church leaders must not exempt themselves from this ministry (1 Tm 3:2; Ti 1:8); to do so is grounds for judgment (Mt 25:43-46).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Foreigner.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HOSPITALITY<\/h3>\n<p>Biblical concept often used with the terms “guest,” “stranger,” and “sojourner.” It is useful to limit the meaning of “hospitality” to benevolence done to those outside one’s normal circle of friends, as is implied in the literal meaning of the Greek word meaning “love of strangers.” Although the concept is thoroughly endorsed in the Bible, it is clearly found in nonbiblical cultures as well, especially among the nomadic peoples, where definite obligations to provide food, shelter, and protection are recognized.<\/p>\n<p>The normal exercise of hospitality in the OT can be seen in the examples of Abraham and the three visitors (Gn 18:2-8, 16), Laban’s reception of Abraham’s servant (24:15-61), and Manoah’s treatment of the angel (Jgs 13:15). But there are also cases in which the host felt compelled to take extreme steps to protect his guest, even to the harm of his own family (Gn 19:1-8; Jgs 19:14-24). The hospitality of the Shunammite family is also noteworthy, although Elisha was no stranger to them (2 Kgs 4:10).<\/p>\n<p>According to the NT, Jesus relied on the general practice of hospitality in sending out the disciples (Lk 10:7), as well as in his own travels. As the gospel was spread by traveling missionaries, Christians were commended for entertaining them in their homes (Heb 13:2; 1 Pt 4:9; 3 Jn 1:5-8). Church leaders must not exempt themselves from this ministry (1 Tm 3:2; Ti 1:8); to do so is grounds for judgment (Mt 25:43-46).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Foreigner.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HOSPITALITY Biblical concept often used with the terms “guest,” “stranger,” and “sojourner.” It is useful to limit the meaning of “hospitality” to benevolence done to those outside one’s normal circle of friends, as is implied in the literal meaning of the Greek word meaning “love of strangers.” Although the concept is thoroughly endorsed in the Bible, it is clearly found in nonbiblical cultures as well, especially among the nomadic peoples, where definite obligations to provide food, shelter...","summary_en":"HOSPITALITY Biblical concept often used with the terms “guest,” “stranger,” and “sojourner.” It is useful to limit the meaning of “hospitality” to benevolence done to those outside one’s normal circle of friends, as is implied in the literal meaning of the Greek word meaning “love of strangers.” Although the concept is thoroughly endorsed in the Bible, it is clearly found in nonbiblical cultures as well, especially among the nomadic peoples, where definite obligations to provide food, shelter...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"15":[{"id":17555,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Inn","title_en":"Inn","content_ro":"<h3>INN<\/h3>\n<p>Place of lodging for travelers.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, the word “inn” occurs three times (<span>kjv<\/span>): twice in reference to overnight rests of Joseph’s brothers during their journeys between Egypt and Canaan (Gn 42:27; 43:21), and once in a similar situation when Moses was returning to Egypt from Midian to lead the children of Israel (Ex 4:24). The <span>rsv<\/span> translates each of these instances as “lodging place” because in the time of the patriarchs and Moses the Near East had nothing to correspond to the inn as a public place with accommodations for hire to travelers. In a settled country a traveler could ordinarily expect hospitality from the inhabitants. Throughout the Near East, hospitality was viewed as a serious social responsibility (see Gn 19:1-3; Jgs 19:15-21). In deserted areas travelers would provide for their own shelter (e.g., Gn 28:11) and sustenance (e.g., Jos 9:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>The beginning of real inns in Palestine is obscure. It has been argued that they had a foreign origin, since the rabbinic words for “inn” are borrowed from Greek and Latin. References to Rahab (Jos 2:1) as innkeeper in the Targum and in Josephus (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 5.1.12) may be anachronistic, and they provide no reliable witness to the existence of inns during the time of Joshua, though there are parallels in the Near East of women keeping an establishment providing both lodging and sexual activity for travelers. Certainly there is evidence for Greek inns as early as the fifth century <span>BC<\/span>, and they became common in the Hellenized Mediterranean. They were typically uncomfortable and dangerous.<\/p>\n<p>Such an “inn” with an “innkeeper” sheltered the victim of robbers whom the Good Samaritan befriended (Lk 10:34-35). This inn was probably much like the khan or caravansary, which has been common along the trade and pilgrimage routes of Syria since ancient times. It was built in the form of a square enclosing an open court where water and shelter were available, but the traveler typically supplied his own food and sometimes his own bedding. The Good Samaritan clearly expected the host to provide full care for the wounded man; it is difficult to tell whether this was customary or simply an accommodation to the emergency. The inn of Jesus’ story has long been identified with the Khan Hathrur, halfway between Jerusalem and Jericho, though the present structure is probably only one of many built in the same place.<\/p>\n<p>Two other well-known passages in the NT allude, not to a real inn, but to other social customs and arrangements. First, Christians from the church at Rome met the prisoner Paul at Three Taverns, a stopping place 33 miles (53 kilometers) from Rome at the intersection of the Appian Way with the road from Antium (Acts 28:15). Second, there is the “inn” from which Joseph and Mary were excluded (Lk 2:7). The word is elsewhere translated “guestchamber” (<span>kjv<\/span>) and “guest room” (Mk 14:14; Lk 22:11, <span>nlt<\/span>). The Jews of Jerusalem took pride in having enough such guest rooms to accommodate the huge influx of pilgrims keeping Passover in the city (cf. Acts 2:6-11 on the crowd at Pentecost); evidently Joseph and Mary expected such accommodation in Bethlehem for the census, but found their place already taken.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Travel.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>INN<\/h3>\n<p>Place of lodging for travelers.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, the word “inn” occurs three times (<span>kjv<\/span>): twice in reference to overnight rests of Joseph’s brothers during their journeys between Egypt and Canaan (Gn 42:27; 43:21), and once in a similar situation when Moses was returning to Egypt from Midian to lead the children of Israel (Ex 4:24). The <span>rsv<\/span> translates each of these instances as “lodging place” because in the time of the patriarchs and Moses the Near East had nothing to correspond to the inn as a public place with accommodations for hire to travelers. In a settled country a traveler could ordinarily expect hospitality from the inhabitants. Throughout the Near East, hospitality was viewed as a serious social responsibility (see Gn 19:1-3; Jgs 19:15-21). In deserted areas travelers would provide for their own shelter (e.g., Gn 28:11) and sustenance (e.g., Jos 9:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>The beginning of real inns in Palestine is obscure. It has been argued that they had a foreign origin, since the rabbinic words for “inn” are borrowed from Greek and Latin. References to Rahab (Jos 2:1) as innkeeper in the Targum and in Josephus (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 5.1.12) may be anachronistic, and they provide no reliable witness to the existence of inns during the time of Joshua, though there are parallels in the Near East of women keeping an establishment providing both lodging and sexual activity for travelers. Certainly there is evidence for Greek inns as early as the fifth century <span>BC<\/span>, and they became common in the Hellenized Mediterranean. They were typically uncomfortable and dangerous.<\/p>\n<p>Such an “inn” with an “innkeeper” sheltered the victim of robbers whom the Good Samaritan befriended (Lk 10:34-35). This inn was probably much like the khan or caravansary, which has been common along the trade and pilgrimage routes of Syria since ancient times. It was built in the form of a square enclosing an open court where water and shelter were available, but the traveler typically supplied his own food and sometimes his own bedding. The Good Samaritan clearly expected the host to provide full care for the wounded man; it is difficult to tell whether this was customary or simply an accommodation to the emergency. The inn of Jesus’ story has long been identified with the Khan Hathrur, halfway between Jerusalem and Jericho, though the present structure is probably only one of many built in the same place.<\/p>\n<p>Two other well-known passages in the NT allude, not to a real inn, but to other social customs and arrangements. First, Christians from the church at Rome met the prisoner Paul at Three Taverns, a stopping place 33 miles (53 kilometers) from Rome at the intersection of the Appian Way with the road from Antium (Acts 28:15). Second, there is the “inn” from which Joseph and Mary were excluded (Lk 2:7). The word is elsewhere translated “guestchamber” (<span>kjv<\/span>) and “guest room” (Mk 14:14; Lk 22:11, <span>nlt<\/span>). The Jews of Jerusalem took pride in having enough such guest rooms to accommodate the huge influx of pilgrims keeping Passover in the city (cf. Acts 2:6-11 on the crowd at Pentecost); evidently Joseph and Mary expected such accommodation in Bethlehem for the census, but found their place already taken.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Travel.<\/p>","summary_ro":"INN Place of lodging for travelers. In the OT, the word “inn” occurs three times (kjv): twice in reference to overnight rests of Joseph’s brothers during their journeys between Egypt and Canaan (Gn 42:27; 43:21), and once in a similar situation when Moses was returning to Egypt from Midian to lead the children of Israel (Ex 4:24). The rsv translates each of these instances as “lodging place” because in the time of the patriarchs and Moses the Near East had nothing to correspond to the inn as ...","summary_en":"INN Place of lodging for travelers. In the OT, the word “inn” occurs three times (kjv): twice in reference to overnight rests of Joseph’s brothers during their journeys between Egypt and Canaan (Gn 42:27; 43:21), and once in a similar situation when Moses was returning to Egypt from Midian to lead the children of Israel (Ex 4:24). The rsv translates each of these instances as “lodging place” because in the time of the patriarchs and Moses the Near East had nothing to correspond to the inn as ...","source":"Articles\/I.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45946,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:15","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:15<\/strong> The normal rules of hospitality in Israel and the rest of the Near East obligated a citizen of the town to take them in (cp. Isa 58:7; Luke 14:13-14; Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 3:2; 5:10; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9). The Levite had funds and provisions (Judg 19:19), so there was even less excuse. This erosion of common civility is yet another evidence of social dysfunction at the time of Judges.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:15<\/strong> The normal rules of hospitality in Israel and the rest of the Near East obligated a citizen of the town to take them in (cp. Isa 58:7; Luke 14:13-14; Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 3:2; 5:10; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9). The Levite had funds and provisions (Judg 19:19), so there was even less excuse. This erosion of common civility is yet another evidence of social dysfunction at the time of Judges.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:15 The normal rules of hospitality in Israel and the rest of the Near East obligated a citizen of the town to take them in (cp. Isa 58:7; Luke 14:13-14; Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 3:2; 5:10; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9). The Levite had funds and provisions (Judg 19:19), so there was even less excuse. This erosion of common civility is yet another evidence of social dysfunction at the time of Judges.","summary_en":"19:15 The normal rules of hospitality in Israel and the rest of the Near East obligated a citizen of the town to take them in (cp. Isa 58:7; Luke 14:13-14; Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 3:2; 5:10; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9). The Levite had funds and provisions (Judg 19:19), so there was even less excuse. This erosion of common civility is yet another evidence of social dysfunction at the time of Judges.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73572,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:15","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:15<\/strong> The normal rules of hospitality in Israel and the rest of the Near East obligated a citizen of the town to take them in (cp. Isa 58:7; Luke 14:13-14; Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 3:2; 5:10; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9). The Levite had funds and provisions (Judg 19:19), so there was even less excuse. This erosion of common civility is yet another evidence of social dysfunction at the time of Judges.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:15<\/strong> The normal rules of hospitality in Israel and the rest of the Near East obligated a citizen of the town to take them in (cp. Isa 58:7; Luke 14:13-14; Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 3:2; 5:10; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9). The Levite had funds and provisions (Judg 19:19), so there was even less excuse. This erosion of common civility is yet another evidence of social dysfunction at the time of Judges.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:15 The normal rules of hospitality in Israel and the rest of the Near East obligated a citizen of the town to take them in (cp. Isa 58:7; Luke 14:13-14; Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 3:2; 5:10; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9). The Levite had funds and provisions (Judg 19:19), so there was even less excuse. This erosion of common civility is yet another evidence of social dysfunction at the time of Judges.","summary_en":"19:15 The normal rules of hospitality in Israel and the rest of the Near East obligated a citizen of the town to take them in (cp. Isa 58:7; Luke 14:13-14; Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 3:2; 5:10; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9). The Levite had funds and provisions (Judg 19:19), so there was even less excuse. This erosion of common civility is yet another evidence of social dysfunction at the time of Judges.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101198,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:15","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:15<\/strong> The normal rules of hospitality in Israel and the rest of the Near East obligated a citizen of the town to take them in (cp. Isa 58:7; Luke 14:13-14; Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 3:2; 5:10; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9). The Levite had funds and provisions (Judg 19:19), so there was even less excuse. This erosion of common civility is yet another evidence of social dysfunction at the time of Judges.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:15<\/strong> The normal rules of hospitality in Israel and the rest of the Near East obligated a citizen of the town to take them in (cp. Isa 58:7; Luke 14:13-14; Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 3:2; 5:10; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9). The Levite had funds and provisions (Judg 19:19), so there was even less excuse. This erosion of common civility is yet another evidence of social dysfunction at the time of Judges.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:15 The normal rules of hospitality in Israel and the rest of the Near East obligated a citizen of the town to take them in (cp. Isa 58:7; Luke 14:13-14; Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 3:2; 5:10; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9). The Levite had funds and provisions (Judg 19:19), so there was even less excuse. This erosion of common civility is yet another evidence of social dysfunction at the time of Judges.","summary_en":"19:15 The normal rules of hospitality in Israel and the rest of the Near East obligated a citizen of the town to take them in (cp. Isa 58:7; Luke 14:13-14; Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 3:2; 5:10; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9). The Levite had funds and provisions (Judg 19:19), so there was even less excuse. This erosion of common civility is yet another evidence of social dysfunction at the time of Judges.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128824,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:15","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:15<\/strong> The normal rules of hospitality in Israel and the rest of the Near East obligated a citizen of the town to take them in (cp. Isa 58:7; Luke 14:13-14; Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 3:2; 5:10; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9). The Levite had funds and provisions (Judg 19:19), so there was even less excuse. This erosion of common civility is yet another evidence of social dysfunction at the time of Judges.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:15<\/strong> The normal rules of hospitality in Israel and the rest of the Near East obligated a citizen of the town to take them in (cp. Isa 58:7; Luke 14:13-14; Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 3:2; 5:10; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9). The Levite had funds and provisions (Judg 19:19), so there was even less excuse. This erosion of common civility is yet another evidence of social dysfunction at the time of Judges.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:15 The normal rules of hospitality in Israel and the rest of the Near East obligated a citizen of the town to take them in (cp. Isa 58:7; Luke 14:13-14; Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 3:2; 5:10; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9). The Levite had funds and provisions (Judg 19:19), so there was even less excuse. This erosion of common civility is yet another evidence of social dysfunction at the time of Judges.","summary_en":"19:15 The normal rules of hospitality in Israel and the rest of the Near East obligated a citizen of the town to take them in (cp. Isa 58:7; Luke 14:13-14; Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 3:2; 5:10; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9). The Levite had funds and provisions (Judg 19:19), so there was even less excuse. This erosion of common civility is yet another evidence of social dysfunction at the time of Judges.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"16":[{"id":45947,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:16","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:16","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:16<\/strong> The <em>old man<\/em> was <em>from the hill country of Ephraim<\/em> rather than the territory of Benjamin. The natives of Gibeah were all unwilling to help.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:16<\/strong> The <em>old man<\/em> was <em>from the hill country of Ephraim<\/em> rather than the territory of Benjamin. The natives of Gibeah were all unwilling to help.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:16 The old man was from the hill country of Ephraim rather than the territory of Benjamin. The natives of Gibeah were all unwilling to help.","summary_en":"19:16 The old man was from the hill country of Ephraim rather than the territory of Benjamin. The natives of Gibeah were all unwilling to help.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73573,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:16","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:16","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:16<\/strong> The <em>old man<\/em> was <em>from the hill country of Ephraim<\/em> rather than the territory of Benjamin. The natives of Gibeah were all unwilling to help.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:16<\/strong> The <em>old man<\/em> was <em>from the hill country of Ephraim<\/em> rather than the territory of Benjamin. The natives of Gibeah were all unwilling to help.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:16 The old man was from the hill country of Ephraim rather than the territory of Benjamin. The natives of Gibeah were all unwilling to help.","summary_en":"19:16 The old man was from the hill country of Ephraim rather than the territory of Benjamin. The natives of Gibeah were all unwilling to help.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101199,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:16","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:16","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:16<\/strong> The <em>old man<\/em> was <em>from the hill country of Ephraim<\/em> rather than the territory of Benjamin. The natives of Gibeah were all unwilling to help.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:16<\/strong> The <em>old man<\/em> was <em>from the hill country of Ephraim<\/em> rather than the territory of Benjamin. The natives of Gibeah were all unwilling to help.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:16 The old man was from the hill country of Ephraim rather than the territory of Benjamin. The natives of Gibeah were all unwilling to help.","summary_en":"19:16 The old man was from the hill country of Ephraim rather than the territory of Benjamin. The natives of Gibeah were all unwilling to help.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128825,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:16","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:16","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:16<\/strong> The <em>old man<\/em> was <em>from the hill country of Ephraim<\/em> rather than the territory of Benjamin. The natives of Gibeah were all unwilling to help.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:16<\/strong> The <em>old man<\/em> was <em>from the hill country of Ephraim<\/em> rather than the territory of Benjamin. The natives of Gibeah were all unwilling to help.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:16 The old man was from the hill country of Ephraim rather than the territory of Benjamin. The natives of Gibeah were all unwilling to help.","summary_en":"19:16 The old man was from the hill country of Ephraim rather than the territory of Benjamin. The natives of Gibeah were all unwilling to help.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"18":[{"id":45948,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:18","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:18<\/strong> <em>now I’m returning home:<\/em> The Levite said nothing about his own status, or about why he was traveling.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:18<\/strong> <em>now I’m returning home:<\/em> The Levite said nothing about his own status, or about why he was traveling.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:18 now I’m returning home: The Levite said nothing about his own status, or about why he was traveling.","summary_en":"19:18 now I’m returning home: The Levite said nothing about his own status, or about why he was traveling.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73574,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:18","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:18<\/strong> <em>now I’m returning home:<\/em> The Levite said nothing about his own status, or about why he was traveling.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:18<\/strong> <em>now I’m returning home:<\/em> The Levite said nothing about his own status, or about why he was traveling.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:18 now I’m returning home: The Levite said nothing about his own status, or about why he was traveling.","summary_en":"19:18 now I’m returning home: The Levite said nothing about his own status, or about why he was traveling.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101200,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:18","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:18<\/strong> <em>now I’m returning home:<\/em> The Levite said nothing about his own status, or about why he was traveling.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:18<\/strong> <em>now I’m returning home:<\/em> The Levite said nothing about his own status, or about why he was traveling.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:18 now I’m returning home: The Levite said nothing about his own status, or about why he was traveling.","summary_en":"19:18 now I’m returning home: The Levite said nothing about his own status, or about why he was traveling.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128826,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:18","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:18<\/strong> <em>now I’m returning home:<\/em> The Levite said nothing about his own status, or about why he was traveling.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:18<\/strong> <em>now I’m returning home:<\/em> The Levite said nothing about his own status, or about why he was traveling.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:18 now I’m returning home: The Levite said nothing about his own status, or about why he was traveling.","summary_en":"19:18 now I’m returning home: The Levite said nothing about his own status, or about why he was traveling.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"19":[{"id":38435,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Wine","title_en":"Wine","content_ro":"<h3>WINE<\/h3>\n<p>Beverage made from fermented grape juice.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Origin\">Origin<\/p>\n<p>Noah was among the first to produce wine (Gn 9:21), presumably on the slopes of Mt Ararat. But wine making was not confined to that region, because Egypt, and later Greece, had a fondness for the juice. In fact, wine making was known to have existed in the prehistoric period of Mesopotamia and was brought to Egypt before 3000 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The word “wine” may be identified with words for vine, vineyard, and black grapes. The vine, which brings forth the wine, was often identified in the Near Eastern world with the “tree of life.” In both Egypt and Mesopotamia a goddess was thought to protect the vine. The “mistress of the heavenly tree of life,” the goddess Siris, lived in the mountains of northwestern Assyria. First Enoch 32:4 calls the vine the tree of knowledge. According to Jewish tradition, the vine was saved from the Flood by Noah.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ProductionofWine\">Production of Wine<\/p>\n<p>Few ancient documents are extant on the art of wine making. Experience and the interests of a few early botanists appear to be the only source of knowledge available about the early vine growers. Aristotle’s gifted student Theophrastus of Eresos wrote a book entitled <em>Enquiry into Plants<\/em> showing a blend of practical experience and theory. Later, he followed with <em>On the Life of Plants,<\/em> a work giving detailed observations about wine making. His ideas on when to plant, how to prune, statements against grafting, and how to care for the vine demonstrate the Greek genius. They raised viticulture to a science that has changed little in the last 2200 years.<\/p>\n<p>Great care was taken by Greek vine growers to ensure the success of their crops. The vines were close to the ground instead of being propped. In view of this, mice and foxes were especially undesirable, and much hoeing was needed to keep the soil free of weeds. But their method, overall, was very effective.<\/p>\n<p>In early September the grapes were collected in the plains, and at the end of the month in the hills. With an initial festival of song and dance, the workers brought the bunches of grapes to the winepresses, low cement vats inclined toward one corner. After this, workers trod the grapes. The first <em>must<\/em> (juice from the crushing) was highly valued because it provided the choicest wines. The remaining juice was extracted by wringing the trodden grapes in a bag press usually made of cloth. A third class of wine was produced by mixing or even cooking the remaining grapes with some water and expressing the mixture. This type of wine was drunk only by the poor.<\/p>\n<p>At a later time the Greeks invented a beam press in which a long beam, having a turning portion at one end and heavy stones on the other, compressed layers of grapes. The ancient Near East had these different methods of extracting wine, but the treading of grapes, even in Greece, was always the favorite method.<\/p>\n<p>In Greece the fermentation period was usually six months, during which the liquid was constantly skimmed. However, in the ancient Near East the fermentation process was usually over in three or four days, the optimum growth temperature being 77 degrees. The ancients knew that any further fermentation would produce acid.<\/p>\n<p>After desired fermentation, the wine was transferred to skins or pottery jars for transport or sale. The handles and stoppers were stamped to indicate the brand, the origin, and the vintage. At this time the wine was strained through perforated metal sieves or cloth to eliminate contaminates such as grit or insects.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"KindsofWine\">Kinds of Wine<\/p>\n<p>Ancient poets discuss many different brands of wine, with Athenaeus mentioning 85 different varieties. Galen cites 60; Pliny mentions 150; and Strabo, 30. Wines are distinguished by different colors (black, red, white, or yellow) and by their taste (dry, harsh, light, or sweet). The biblical account enumerates various kinds of wine, such as the wines of Lebanon and Helbon. Hebron and Samaria were famous for their wine making. The Hebrew language has at least nine different words for wine, and the Greek has four that are mentioned in the NT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NatureofWine\">Nature of Wine<\/p>\n<p>Few would question that at least some wine of the OT was fermented. Some scholars argue, however, that certain forms of wine in the ancient world were unfermented. They contrast two Hebrew words for wine, concluding that one particular Hebrew word that refers to fresh wine meant only grape juice (Prv 3:10; Hos 9:2; Jl 2:24; Mi 6:15). The inconclusiveness of these arguments may be seen from the following points: (1) the Hebrew word is found in primarily neutral contexts; (2) often that particular word is found in contexts definitely including a fermented beverage (e.g., Gn 27:28; Hos 4:11; Mi 6:15); (3) the Ugaritic parallel to the term in question refers with certainty to a fermented wine; (4) the Septuagint equivalents refer to fermented wine; (5) fermentation in the ancient Near East, unlike Greece, took only about three days; and (6) the Mishnah provides no such evidence of the practice of having unfermented wine. There seems to have been no attempts to preserve wine in an unfermented state; it may have been a near-impossible task. A careful examination of all the Hebrew words (as well as their Semitic cognates) and the Greek words for wine demonstrates that the ancients knew little, if anything, about unfermented wine.<\/p>\n<p>Ample evidence is available to demonstrate that wine, though always fermented, was usually mixed with water in the classical and Hellenistic world. The wine was stored in large jugs called <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">amphorae<\/span><em>,<\/em> from which the wine was poured through a strainer into a large mixing bowl called a <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">krater<\/span><em>.<\/em> In the krater the wine was mixed with water. Then the drinking bowls or cups were filled.<\/p>\n<p>The amount of wine per volume varied. The mixture that represented the greatest amount of water to wine was 20 to 1, apparently because the wine was so strong (Homer, <em>Odyssey<\/em> 10.208).<\/p>\n<p>In the western Mediterranean world, the term “wine” referred to the mixture of wine and water. If one desired to mention wine without water, it was necessary to add the word “unmixed.” For the Greeks, to drink wine unmixed was regarded as barbaric. The evidence, however, seems to indicate that in the OT era wine was used without being mixed with water. The terminology of mixing water and wine is strikingly unattested. Wine diluted with water was symbolic of spiritual adulteration (Is 1:22). By Roman times, this attitude had changed. The Mishnah assumes a ratio of two parts of water to one part wine; however, later Talmudic sources speak of three to one. A natural, nondistilled wine could reach as high as 15 percent alcohol content. If watered down three parts water to one part wine, the alcohol content would be 5 percent and still fairly potent.<\/p>\n<p>Wine was mixed not only with water but also with other ingredients, similar to mixed drinks today. An example of this is seen in the Homeric “Hymn to Demeter,” where the goddess rejects straight wine and desires the drink mixed with meal, water, and a soft mint. Often strong wine was mixed into weak wine, resulting in a stronger drink. This is what is meant by “mixture” in the Bible (Ps 75:8; Is 5:22; Rv 18:6; 19:13-15). At times the fresh wine, high in sugar content, was evaporated, and this concentrated <em>must<\/em> was mixed with wine to obtain a higher alcohol content.<\/p>\n<p>There is no mention of wine being mixed with water to make it safe for drinking, as is commonly accepted. Modern examples of pollution were not common in the ancient world, although this problem appeared occasionally. Examples are myriad concerning the fresh wells, springs, and moving bodies of water in biblical times, and methods were available to purify any impure water.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WineintheOldTestament\">Wine in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The evidence, as seen above, suggests that wine in the OT was not mixed with water and was looked on with favor when taken in moderation. Judges 9:13 presents wine as that “which cheers God and men.” Psalm 104:15 portrays wine similarly: “wine which makes man’s heart glad” (cf. also Est 1:10; Eccl 10:19; Is 55:1-2; Zec 10:7). The temperate use of wine was a normal and accepted part of life (Gn 14:18; Jgs 19:19; 1 Sm 16:20). Levitical priests in service at the temple (Lv 10:8-9), Nazirites (Nm 6:3), and the Recabites (Jer 35:1-6) were forbidden to drink wine.<\/p>\n<p>Wine had many uses in the OT world. The “drink offering” was wine (Ex 29:40; Lv 23:13), and the worshiper regularly brought wine when offering sacrifice (1 Sm 1:24). In addition, a supply of wine was kept in the temple for sacrificial purposes (1 Chr 9:29). At times, wine was used in helping the weak and sick (2 Sm 16:2; Prv 31:6).<\/p>\n<p>The strong drink of the OT seems to be closely related to Mesopotamian date wine. This same date wine, high in sugar content, must have also been high in alcohol content. One Hebrew word is consistently used as strong drink (Lv 10:9; Dt 29:6; 1 Sm 1:15; Prv 20:1; 31:6; Is 29:9). There is an equivalent word to this in Ugaritic, translated “drunk,” which parallels the normal word for wine.<\/p>\n<p>Negative reactions to intemperate wine drinking abound in the OT. Isaiah condemned those who drank wine to excess (Is 28:1-8). Many admonitions of drinking wine in excess are given in the Scriptures (Prv 20:1; 21:17; 23:20-21; 23:32-34).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WineintheNewTestament\">Wine in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Wine in the NT was a fermented beverage that was mixed with various amounts of water. It was also mixed with gall (Mt 27:34) and myrrh (Mk 15:23). Evidence strongly suggests that the wine used at the Lord’s Supper was a mixture of water and wine, probably three to one in agreement with the dictates of the Mishnah. The phrase “fruit of the vine” (Mt 26:27-29) is often interpreted to mean fresh grape juice. However, fresh grape juice would be all but impossible to find.<\/p>\n<p>The NT, as the OT, argues forcefully against the unrestrained use of wine. The biblical admonition is not to be drunk with wine (Eph 5:18; 1 Pt 4:3). Leaders in the church were to practice moderation in the use of wine (1 Tm 3:3, 8; Ti 1:7); the Greek says that they should “not be addicted to wine.”<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Vines, Vineyard; Winepress.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WINE<\/h3>\n<p>Beverage made from fermented grape juice.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Origin\">Origin<\/p>\n<p>Noah was among the first to produce wine (Gn 9:21), presumably on the slopes of Mt Ararat. But wine making was not confined to that region, because Egypt, and later Greece, had a fondness for the juice. In fact, wine making was known to have existed in the prehistoric period of Mesopotamia and was brought to Egypt before 3000 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The word “wine” may be identified with words for vine, vineyard, and black grapes. The vine, which brings forth the wine, was often identified in the Near Eastern world with the “tree of life.” In both Egypt and Mesopotamia a goddess was thought to protect the vine. The “mistress of the heavenly tree of life,” the goddess Siris, lived in the mountains of northwestern Assyria. First Enoch 32:4 calls the vine the tree of knowledge. According to Jewish tradition, the vine was saved from the Flood by Noah.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ProductionofWine\">Production of Wine<\/p>\n<p>Few ancient documents are extant on the art of wine making. Experience and the interests of a few early botanists appear to be the only source of knowledge available about the early vine growers. Aristotle’s gifted student Theophrastus of Eresos wrote a book entitled <em>Enquiry into Plants<\/em> showing a blend of practical experience and theory. Later, he followed with <em>On the Life of Plants,<\/em> a work giving detailed observations about wine making. His ideas on when to plant, how to prune, statements against grafting, and how to care for the vine demonstrate the Greek genius. They raised viticulture to a science that has changed little in the last 2200 years.<\/p>\n<p>Great care was taken by Greek vine growers to ensure the success of their crops. The vines were close to the ground instead of being propped. In view of this, mice and foxes were especially undesirable, and much hoeing was needed to keep the soil free of weeds. But their method, overall, was very effective.<\/p>\n<p>In early September the grapes were collected in the plains, and at the end of the month in the hills. With an initial festival of song and dance, the workers brought the bunches of grapes to the winepresses, low cement vats inclined toward one corner. After this, workers trod the grapes. The first <em>must<\/em> (juice from the crushing) was highly valued because it provided the choicest wines. The remaining juice was extracted by wringing the trodden grapes in a bag press usually made of cloth. A third class of wine was produced by mixing or even cooking the remaining grapes with some water and expressing the mixture. This type of wine was drunk only by the poor.<\/p>\n<p>At a later time the Greeks invented a beam press in which a long beam, having a turning portion at one end and heavy stones on the other, compressed layers of grapes. The ancient Near East had these different methods of extracting wine, but the treading of grapes, even in Greece, was always the favorite method.<\/p>\n<p>In Greece the fermentation period was usually six months, during which the liquid was constantly skimmed. However, in the ancient Near East the fermentation process was usually over in three or four days, the optimum growth temperature being 77 degrees. The ancients knew that any further fermentation would produce acid.<\/p>\n<p>After desired fermentation, the wine was transferred to skins or pottery jars for transport or sale. The handles and stoppers were stamped to indicate the brand, the origin, and the vintage. At this time the wine was strained through perforated metal sieves or cloth to eliminate contaminates such as grit or insects.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"KindsofWine\">Kinds of Wine<\/p>\n<p>Ancient poets discuss many different brands of wine, with Athenaeus mentioning 85 different varieties. Galen cites 60; Pliny mentions 150; and Strabo, 30. Wines are distinguished by different colors (black, red, white, or yellow) and by their taste (dry, harsh, light, or sweet). The biblical account enumerates various kinds of wine, such as the wines of Lebanon and Helbon. Hebron and Samaria were famous for their wine making. The Hebrew language has at least nine different words for wine, and the Greek has four that are mentioned in the NT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NatureofWine\">Nature of Wine<\/p>\n<p>Few would question that at least some wine of the OT was fermented. Some scholars argue, however, that certain forms of wine in the ancient world were unfermented. They contrast two Hebrew words for wine, concluding that one particular Hebrew word that refers to fresh wine meant only grape juice (Prv 3:10; Hos 9:2; Jl 2:24; Mi 6:15). The inconclusiveness of these arguments may be seen from the following points: (1) the Hebrew word is found in primarily neutral contexts; (2) often that particular word is found in contexts definitely including a fermented beverage (e.g., Gn 27:28; Hos 4:11; Mi 6:15); (3) the Ugaritic parallel to the term in question refers with certainty to a fermented wine; (4) the Septuagint equivalents refer to fermented wine; (5) fermentation in the ancient Near East, unlike Greece, took only about three days; and (6) the Mishnah provides no such evidence of the practice of having unfermented wine. There seems to have been no attempts to preserve wine in an unfermented state; it may have been a near-impossible task. A careful examination of all the Hebrew words (as well as their Semitic cognates) and the Greek words for wine demonstrates that the ancients knew little, if anything, about unfermented wine.<\/p>\n<p>Ample evidence is available to demonstrate that wine, though always fermented, was usually mixed with water in the classical and Hellenistic world. The wine was stored in large jugs called <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">amphorae<\/span><em>,<\/em> from which the wine was poured through a strainer into a large mixing bowl called a <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">krater<\/span><em>.<\/em> In the krater the wine was mixed with water. Then the drinking bowls or cups were filled.<\/p>\n<p>The amount of wine per volume varied. The mixture that represented the greatest amount of water to wine was 20 to 1, apparently because the wine was so strong (Homer, <em>Odyssey<\/em> 10.208).<\/p>\n<p>In the western Mediterranean world, the term “wine” referred to the mixture of wine and water. If one desired to mention wine without water, it was necessary to add the word “unmixed.” For the Greeks, to drink wine unmixed was regarded as barbaric. The evidence, however, seems to indicate that in the OT era wine was used without being mixed with water. The terminology of mixing water and wine is strikingly unattested. Wine diluted with water was symbolic of spiritual adulteration (Is 1:22). By Roman times, this attitude had changed. The Mishnah assumes a ratio of two parts of water to one part wine; however, later Talmudic sources speak of three to one. A natural, nondistilled wine could reach as high as 15 percent alcohol content. If watered down three parts water to one part wine, the alcohol content would be 5 percent and still fairly potent.<\/p>\n<p>Wine was mixed not only with water but also with other ingredients, similar to mixed drinks today. An example of this is seen in the Homeric “Hymn to Demeter,” where the goddess rejects straight wine and desires the drink mixed with meal, water, and a soft mint. Often strong wine was mixed into weak wine, resulting in a stronger drink. This is what is meant by “mixture” in the Bible (Ps 75:8; Is 5:22; Rv 18:6; 19:13-15). At times the fresh wine, high in sugar content, was evaporated, and this concentrated <em>must<\/em> was mixed with wine to obtain a higher alcohol content.<\/p>\n<p>There is no mention of wine being mixed with water to make it safe for drinking, as is commonly accepted. Modern examples of pollution were not common in the ancient world, although this problem appeared occasionally. Examples are myriad concerning the fresh wells, springs, and moving bodies of water in biblical times, and methods were available to purify any impure water.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WineintheOldTestament\">Wine in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The evidence, as seen above, suggests that wine in the OT was not mixed with water and was looked on with favor when taken in moderation. Judges 9:13 presents wine as that “which cheers God and men.” Psalm 104:15 portrays wine similarly: “wine which makes man’s heart glad” (cf. also Est 1:10; Eccl 10:19; Is 55:1-2; Zec 10:7). The temperate use of wine was a normal and accepted part of life (Gn 14:18; Jgs 19:19; 1 Sm 16:20). Levitical priests in service at the temple (Lv 10:8-9), Nazirites (Nm 6:3), and the Recabites (Jer 35:1-6) were forbidden to drink wine.<\/p>\n<p>Wine had many uses in the OT world. The “drink offering” was wine (Ex 29:40; Lv 23:13), and the worshiper regularly brought wine when offering sacrifice (1 Sm 1:24). In addition, a supply of wine was kept in the temple for sacrificial purposes (1 Chr 9:29). At times, wine was used in helping the weak and sick (2 Sm 16:2; Prv 31:6).<\/p>\n<p>The strong drink of the OT seems to be closely related to Mesopotamian date wine. This same date wine, high in sugar content, must have also been high in alcohol content. One Hebrew word is consistently used as strong drink (Lv 10:9; Dt 29:6; 1 Sm 1:15; Prv 20:1; 31:6; Is 29:9). There is an equivalent word to this in Ugaritic, translated “drunk,” which parallels the normal word for wine.<\/p>\n<p>Negative reactions to intemperate wine drinking abound in the OT. Isaiah condemned those who drank wine to excess (Is 28:1-8). Many admonitions of drinking wine in excess are given in the Scriptures (Prv 20:1; 21:17; 23:20-21; 23:32-34).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WineintheNewTestament\">Wine in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Wine in the NT was a fermented beverage that was mixed with various amounts of water. It was also mixed with gall (Mt 27:34) and myrrh (Mk 15:23). Evidence strongly suggests that the wine used at the Lord’s Supper was a mixture of water and wine, probably three to one in agreement with the dictates of the Mishnah. The phrase “fruit of the vine” (Mt 26:27-29) is often interpreted to mean fresh grape juice. However, fresh grape juice would be all but impossible to find.<\/p>\n<p>The NT, as the OT, argues forcefully against the unrestrained use of wine. The biblical admonition is not to be drunk with wine (Eph 5:18; 1 Pt 4:3). Leaders in the church were to practice moderation in the use of wine (1 Tm 3:3, 8; Ti 1:7); the Greek says that they should “not be addicted to wine.”<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Vines, Vineyard; Winepress.<\/p>","summary_ro":"WINE Beverage made from fermented grape juice. Origin Noah was among the first to produce wine (Gn 9:21), presumably on the slopes of Mt Ararat. But wine making was not confined to that region, because Egypt, and later Greece, had a fondness for the juice. In fact, wine making was known to have existed in the prehistoric period of Mesopotamia and was brought to Egypt before 3000 BC. The word “wine” may be identified with words for vine, vineyard, and black grapes. The vine, which brings forth...","summary_en":"WINE Beverage made from fermented grape juice. Origin Noah was among the first to produce wine (Gn 9:21), presumably on the slopes of Mt Ararat. But wine making was not confined to that region, because Egypt, and later Greece, had a fondness for the juice. In fact, wine making was known to have existed in the prehistoric period of Mesopotamia and was brought to Egypt before 3000 BC. The word “wine” may be identified with words for vine, vineyard, and black grapes. The vine, which brings forth...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"20":[{"id":45949,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:20","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:20<\/strong> The note of urgency in the old man’s response foreshadowed the coming trouble (cp. Gen 19:2-3).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:20<\/strong> The note of urgency in the old man’s response foreshadowed the coming trouble (cp. Gen 19:2-3).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:20 The note of urgency in the old man’s response foreshadowed the coming trouble (cp. Gen 19:2-3).","summary_en":"19:20 The note of urgency in the old man’s response foreshadowed the coming trouble (cp. Gen 19:2-3).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73575,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:20","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:20<\/strong> The note of urgency in the old man’s response foreshadowed the coming trouble (cp. Gen 19:2-3).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:20<\/strong> The note of urgency in the old man’s response foreshadowed the coming trouble (cp. Gen 19:2-3).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:20 The note of urgency in the old man’s response foreshadowed the coming trouble (cp. Gen 19:2-3).","summary_en":"19:20 The note of urgency in the old man’s response foreshadowed the coming trouble (cp. Gen 19:2-3).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101201,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:20","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:20<\/strong> The note of urgency in the old man’s response foreshadowed the coming trouble (cp. Gen 19:2-3).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:20<\/strong> The note of urgency in the old man’s response foreshadowed the coming trouble (cp. Gen 19:2-3).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:20 The note of urgency in the old man’s response foreshadowed the coming trouble (cp. Gen 19:2-3).","summary_en":"19:20 The note of urgency in the old man’s response foreshadowed the coming trouble (cp. Gen 19:2-3).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128827,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:20","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:20<\/strong> The note of urgency in the old man’s response foreshadowed the coming trouble (cp. Gen 19:2-3).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:20<\/strong> The note of urgency in the old man’s response foreshadowed the coming trouble (cp. Gen 19:2-3).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:20 The note of urgency in the old man’s response foreshadowed the coming trouble (cp. Gen 19:2-3).","summary_en":"19:20 The note of urgency in the old man’s response foreshadowed the coming trouble (cp. Gen 19:2-3).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"21":[{"id":3928,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Bathing Bathe","title_en":"Bathing Bathe","content_ro":"<h3>BATHE, BATHING<\/h3>\n<p>To cleanse as with water; to wash oneself. In the Bible the terms “bathing” and “washing” translate, often interchangeably, a number of different words. One OT passage uses one Hebrew word for cleaning clothes, another for washing other objects, including the body (Lv 15:8-12).<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s dry climate and scarcity of water discouraged bathing except where a stream or pool was available (2 Kgs 5:10; Jn 9:7). Yet people still washed babies at birth (Ez 16:4), dead bodies in preparation for burial (Acts 9:37), and sheep for their shearing (Sg 6:6). Frequent bathing of the whole body was probably reserved for the rich (Ex 2:5), but the prevalence of dust made frequent washing of the face, hands, and feet necessary (Gn 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; 43:24; Jgs 19:21; Sg 5:3). Good grooming for the privileged demanded washing of one’s body before anointing with oil (Ru 3:3; 2 Sm 12:20; Ez 23:41). A good host provided water for a guest’s feet (Gn 18:4; Jgs 19:21; Lk 7:44; Jn 13:4-5). To wash someone’s feet was the task of a servant. For anyone else to do so was a sign of humility (1 Sm 25:41; Lk 7:44-47; Jn 13:3-16; 1 Tm 5:10).<\/p>\n<p>Most biblical references to washing or bathing deal with ritual cleansing. Priests and Levites were required to wash their clothes and faces, and sometimes bodies, before approaching the altar and on ceremonial occasions (Ex 29:4; 30:19-21; 40:7, 12, 30-32; Nm 8:21). Before a slain animal was sacrificed, its legs and intestines were washed (Lv 1:9, 13; 8:21; 9:14). Anyone who was once unclean (e.g., a leper who was healed or someone who had experienced a genital discharge) had to wash his or her clothes and bathe to be ritually pure (Lv 14:8-10; 15:5-11, 21-27). Any garment that became polluted had to be ceremonially cleansed (Lv 6:27; 13:54).<\/p>\n<p>“Washing” is also used figuratively for a cleansing from sin (Ps 51:2; Is 1:16; 4:4; Jer 2:22; 4:14; 1 Cor 6:11; Heb 10:22).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BATHE, BATHING<\/h3>\n<p>To cleanse as with water; to wash oneself. In the Bible the terms “bathing” and “washing” translate, often interchangeably, a number of different words. One OT passage uses one Hebrew word for cleaning clothes, another for washing other objects, including the body (Lv 15:8-12).<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s dry climate and scarcity of water discouraged bathing except where a stream or pool was available (2 Kgs 5:10; Jn 9:7). Yet people still washed babies at birth (Ez 16:4), dead bodies in preparation for burial (Acts 9:37), and sheep for their shearing (Sg 6:6). Frequent bathing of the whole body was probably reserved for the rich (Ex 2:5), but the prevalence of dust made frequent washing of the face, hands, and feet necessary (Gn 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; 43:24; Jgs 19:21; Sg 5:3). Good grooming for the privileged demanded washing of one’s body before anointing with oil (Ru 3:3; 2 Sm 12:20; Ez 23:41). A good host provided water for a guest’s feet (Gn 18:4; Jgs 19:21; Lk 7:44; Jn 13:4-5). To wash someone’s feet was the task of a servant. For anyone else to do so was a sign of humility (1 Sm 25:41; Lk 7:44-47; Jn 13:3-16; 1 Tm 5:10).<\/p>\n<p>Most biblical references to washing or bathing deal with ritual cleansing. Priests and Levites were required to wash their clothes and faces, and sometimes bodies, before approaching the altar and on ceremonial occasions (Ex 29:4; 30:19-21; 40:7, 12, 30-32; Nm 8:21). Before a slain animal was sacrificed, its legs and intestines were washed (Lv 1:9, 13; 8:21; 9:14). Anyone who was once unclean (e.g., a leper who was healed or someone who had experienced a genital discharge) had to wash his or her clothes and bathe to be ritually pure (Lv 14:8-10; 15:5-11, 21-27). Any garment that became polluted had to be ceremonially cleansed (Lv 6:27; 13:54).<\/p>\n<p>“Washing” is also used figuratively for a cleansing from sin (Ps 51:2; Is 1:16; 4:4; Jer 2:22; 4:14; 1 Cor 6:11; Heb 10:22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BATHE, BATHING To cleanse as with water; to wash oneself. In the Bible the terms “bathing” and “washing” translate, often interchangeably, a number of different words. One OT passage uses one Hebrew word for cleaning clothes, another for washing other objects, including the body (Lv 15:8-12). Israel’s dry climate and scarcity of water discouraged bathing except where a stream or pool was available (2 Kgs 5:10; Jn 9:7). Yet people still washed babies at birth (Ez 16:4), dead bodies in preparat...","summary_en":"BATHE, BATHING To cleanse as with water; to wash oneself. In the Bible the terms “bathing” and “washing” translate, often interchangeably, a number of different words. One OT passage uses one Hebrew word for cleaning clothes, another for washing other objects, including the body (Lv 15:8-12). Israel’s dry climate and scarcity of water discouraged bathing except where a stream or pool was available (2 Kgs 5:10; Jn 9:7). Yet people still washed babies at birth (Ez 16:4), dead bodies in preparat...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"22":[{"id":4178,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Belial*, Beliar*","title_en":"Belial*, Beliar*","content_ro":"<h3>BELIAL*, BELIAR*<\/h3>\n<p>Common Hebrew noun meaning “baseness,” “worthlessness,” “wickedness,” or “lawlessness.” Belial, however, is often rendered as a proper noun. Thus, such translations as “sons of Belial” appear (Jgs 19:22; 1 Sm 2:12, <span>kjv<\/span>), “daughter of Belial” (1 Sm 1:16), or “children of Belial” (Dt 13:13; Jgs 20:13). Newer translations generally prefer the common noun form and give such readings as “worthless rabble” or simply “worthless” and the like (Dt 13:13; Jgs 19:22; 20:13; 1 Sm 1:16; 2:12; 10:27; Prv 6:12). One possible exception to this rule is found in Nahum 1:15, which some scholars think should be rendered as “Belial,” a personalized designation of the Assyrian conqueror who had been a threat to the southern kingdom of Judah.<\/p>\n<p>Intertestamental literature often used “Belial” as a proper noun and thus prepared the way for its NT usage. In the NT the term appears once as “Belial” (or Beliar in 2 Cor 6:15) and is identified with Satan, the personification of all that is evil. Noncanonical writings of the NT period commonly used it as a name for Satan or the Antichrist.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BELIAL*, BELIAR*<\/h3>\n<p>Common Hebrew noun meaning “baseness,” “worthlessness,” “wickedness,” or “lawlessness.” Belial, however, is often rendered as a proper noun. Thus, such translations as “sons of Belial” appear (Jgs 19:22; 1 Sm 2:12, <span>kjv<\/span>), “daughter of Belial” (1 Sm 1:16), or “children of Belial” (Dt 13:13; Jgs 20:13). Newer translations generally prefer the common noun form and give such readings as “worthless rabble” or simply “worthless” and the like (Dt 13:13; Jgs 19:22; 20:13; 1 Sm 1:16; 2:12; 10:27; Prv 6:12). One possible exception to this rule is found in Nahum 1:15, which some scholars think should be rendered as “Belial,” a personalized designation of the Assyrian conqueror who had been a threat to the southern kingdom of Judah.<\/p>\n<p>Intertestamental literature often used “Belial” as a proper noun and thus prepared the way for its NT usage. In the NT the term appears once as “Belial” (or Beliar in 2 Cor 6:15) and is identified with Satan, the personification of all that is evil. Noncanonical writings of the NT period commonly used it as a name for Satan or the Antichrist.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BELIAL*, BELIAR* Common Hebrew noun meaning “baseness,” “worthlessness,” “wickedness,” or “lawlessness.” Belial, however, is often rendered as a proper noun. Thus, such translations as “sons of Belial” appear (Jgs 19:22; 1 Sm 2:12, kjv), “daughter of Belial” (1 Sm 1:16), or “children of Belial” (Dt 13:13; Jgs 20:13). Newer translations generally prefer the common noun form and give such readings as “worthless rabble” or simply “worthless” and the like (Dt 13:13; Jgs 19:22; 20:13; 1 Sm 1:16; 2...","summary_en":"BELIAL*, BELIAR* Common Hebrew noun meaning “baseness,” “worthlessness,” “wickedness,” or “lawlessness.” Belial, however, is often rendered as a proper noun. Thus, such translations as “sons of Belial” appear (Jgs 19:22; 1 Sm 2:12, kjv), “daughter of Belial” (1 Sm 1:16), or “children of Belial” (Dt 13:13; Jgs 20:13). Newer translations generally prefer the common noun form and give such readings as “worthless rabble” or simply “worthless” and the like (Dt 13:13; Jgs 19:22; 20:13; 1 Sm 1:16; 2...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45950,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:22","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:22<\/strong> <em>troublemakers:<\/em> Hebrew <em>sons of Belial;<\/em> see study notes on 1 Kgs 21:10; 1 Sam 1:16; 2 Cor 6:15. Their goal was homosexual rape. Cp. Gen 19:4-5.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:22<\/strong> <em>troublemakers:<\/em> Hebrew <em>sons of Belial;<\/em> see study notes on 1 Kgs 21:10; 1 Sam 1:16; 2 Cor 6:15. Their goal was homosexual rape. Cp. Gen 19:4-5.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:22 troublemakers: Hebrew sons of Belial; see study notes on 1 Kgs 21:10; 1 Sam 1:16; 2 Cor 6:15. Their goal was homosexual rape. Cp. Gen 19:4-5.","summary_en":"19:22 troublemakers: Hebrew sons of Belial; see study notes on 1 Kgs 21:10; 1 Sam 1:16; 2 Cor 6:15. Their goal was homosexual rape. Cp. Gen 19:4-5.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73576,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:22","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:22<\/strong> <em>troublemakers:<\/em> Hebrew <em>sons of Belial;<\/em> see study notes on 1 Kgs 21:10; 1 Sam 1:16; 2 Cor 6:15. Their goal was homosexual rape. Cp. Gen 19:4-5.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:22<\/strong> <em>troublemakers:<\/em> Hebrew <em>sons of Belial;<\/em> see study notes on 1 Kgs 21:10; 1 Sam 1:16; 2 Cor 6:15. Their goal was homosexual rape. Cp. Gen 19:4-5.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:22 troublemakers: Hebrew sons of Belial; see study notes on 1 Kgs 21:10; 1 Sam 1:16; 2 Cor 6:15. Their goal was homosexual rape. Cp. Gen 19:4-5.","summary_en":"19:22 troublemakers: Hebrew sons of Belial; see study notes on 1 Kgs 21:10; 1 Sam 1:16; 2 Cor 6:15. Their goal was homosexual rape. Cp. Gen 19:4-5.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101202,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:22","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:22<\/strong> <em>troublemakers:<\/em> Hebrew <em>sons of Belial;<\/em> see study notes on 1 Kgs 21:10; 1 Sam 1:16; 2 Cor 6:15. Their goal was homosexual rape. Cp. Gen 19:4-5.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:22<\/strong> <em>troublemakers:<\/em> Hebrew <em>sons of Belial;<\/em> see study notes on 1 Kgs 21:10; 1 Sam 1:16; 2 Cor 6:15. Their goal was homosexual rape. Cp. Gen 19:4-5.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:22 troublemakers: Hebrew sons of Belial; see study notes on 1 Kgs 21:10; 1 Sam 1:16; 2 Cor 6:15. Their goal was homosexual rape. Cp. Gen 19:4-5.","summary_en":"19:22 troublemakers: Hebrew sons of Belial; see study notes on 1 Kgs 21:10; 1 Sam 1:16; 2 Cor 6:15. Their goal was homosexual rape. Cp. Gen 19:4-5.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128828,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:22","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:22<\/strong> <em>troublemakers:<\/em> Hebrew <em>sons of Belial;<\/em> see study notes on 1 Kgs 21:10; 1 Sam 1:16; 2 Cor 6:15. Their goal was homosexual rape. Cp. Gen 19:4-5.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:22<\/strong> <em>troublemakers:<\/em> Hebrew <em>sons of Belial;<\/em> see study notes on 1 Kgs 21:10; 1 Sam 1:16; 2 Cor 6:15. Their goal was homosexual rape. Cp. Gen 19:4-5.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:22 troublemakers: Hebrew sons of Belial; see study notes on 1 Kgs 21:10; 1 Sam 1:16; 2 Cor 6:15. Their goal was homosexual rape. Cp. Gen 19:4-5.","summary_en":"19:22 troublemakers: Hebrew sons of Belial; see study notes on 1 Kgs 21:10; 1 Sam 1:16; 2 Cor 6:15. Their goal was homosexual rape. Cp. Gen 19:4-5.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"23":[{"id":45951,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:23","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:23","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:23<\/strong> <em>For this man is a guest in my house:<\/em> It was <em>shameful<\/em> to be inhospitable to a visitor, but the <em>evil<\/em> demands of the crowd went beyond lack of hospitality. They intended violence against the visitor (see 20:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:23<\/strong> <em>For this man is a guest in my house:<\/em> It was <em>shameful<\/em> to be inhospitable to a visitor, but the <em>evil<\/em> demands of the crowd went beyond lack of hospitality. They intended violence against the visitor (see 20:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:23 For this man is a guest in my house: It was shameful to be inhospitable to a visitor, but the evil demands of the crowd went beyond lack of hospitality. They intended violence against the visitor (see 20:5).","summary_en":"19:23 For this man is a guest in my house: It was shameful to be inhospitable to a visitor, but the evil demands of the crowd went beyond lack of hospitality. They intended violence against the visitor (see 20:5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73577,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:23","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:23","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:23<\/strong> <em>For this man is a guest in my house:<\/em> It was <em>shameful<\/em> to be inhospitable to a visitor, but the <em>evil<\/em> demands of the crowd went beyond lack of hospitality. They intended violence against the visitor (see 20:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:23<\/strong> <em>For this man is a guest in my house:<\/em> It was <em>shameful<\/em> to be inhospitable to a visitor, but the <em>evil<\/em> demands of the crowd went beyond lack of hospitality. They intended violence against the visitor (see 20:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:23 For this man is a guest in my house: It was shameful to be inhospitable to a visitor, but the evil demands of the crowd went beyond lack of hospitality. They intended violence against the visitor (see 20:5).","summary_en":"19:23 For this man is a guest in my house: It was shameful to be inhospitable to a visitor, but the evil demands of the crowd went beyond lack of hospitality. They intended violence against the visitor (see 20:5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101203,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:23","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:23","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:23<\/strong> <em>For this man is a guest in my house:<\/em> It was <em>shameful<\/em> to be inhospitable to a visitor, but the <em>evil<\/em> demands of the crowd went beyond lack of hospitality. They intended violence against the visitor (see 20:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:23<\/strong> <em>For this man is a guest in my house:<\/em> It was <em>shameful<\/em> to be inhospitable to a visitor, but the <em>evil<\/em> demands of the crowd went beyond lack of hospitality. They intended violence against the visitor (see 20:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:23 For this man is a guest in my house: It was shameful to be inhospitable to a visitor, but the evil demands of the crowd went beyond lack of hospitality. They intended violence against the visitor (see 20:5).","summary_en":"19:23 For this man is a guest in my house: It was shameful to be inhospitable to a visitor, but the evil demands of the crowd went beyond lack of hospitality. They intended violence against the visitor (see 20:5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128829,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:23","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:23","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:23<\/strong> <em>For this man is a guest in my house:<\/em> It was <em>shameful<\/em> to be inhospitable to a visitor, but the <em>evil<\/em> demands of the crowd went beyond lack of hospitality. They intended violence against the visitor (see 20:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:23<\/strong> <em>For this man is a guest in my house:<\/em> It was <em>shameful<\/em> to be inhospitable to a visitor, but the <em>evil<\/em> demands of the crowd went beyond lack of hospitality. They intended violence against the visitor (see 20:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:23 For this man is a guest in my house: It was shameful to be inhospitable to a visitor, but the evil demands of the crowd went beyond lack of hospitality. They intended violence against the visitor (see 20:5).","summary_en":"19:23 For this man is a guest in my house: It was shameful to be inhospitable to a visitor, but the evil demands of the crowd went beyond lack of hospitality. They intended violence against the visitor (see 20:5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"24":[{"id":45952,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:24","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:24","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:24<\/strong> The old man attempted to preserve the social obligation of hospitality at the cost of handing over the vulnerable to be harmed (cp. Jas 1:27). There is no way, for our age or theirs, to soften the horror of what followed. The period of the judges was coming to an end in deepest depravity. Something was fundamentally amiss.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:24<\/strong> The old man attempted to preserve the social obligation of hospitality at the cost of handing over the vulnerable to be harmed (cp. Jas 1:27). There is no way, for our age or theirs, to soften the horror of what followed. The period of the judges was coming to an end in deepest depravity. Something was fundamentally amiss.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:24 The old man attempted to preserve the social obligation of hospitality at the cost of handing over the vulnerable to be harmed (cp. Jas 1:27). There is no way, for our age or theirs, to soften the horror of what followed. The period of the judges was coming to an end in deepest depravity. Something was fundamentally amiss.","summary_en":"19:24 The old man attempted to preserve the social obligation of hospitality at the cost of handing over the vulnerable to be harmed (cp. Jas 1:27). There is no way, for our age or theirs, to soften the horror of what followed. The period of the judges was coming to an end in deepest depravity. Something was fundamentally amiss.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73578,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:24","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:24","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:24<\/strong> The old man attempted to preserve the social obligation of hospitality at the cost of handing over the vulnerable to be harmed (cp. Jas 1:27). There is no way, for our age or theirs, to soften the horror of what followed. The period of the judges was coming to an end in deepest depravity. Something was fundamentally amiss.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:24<\/strong> The old man attempted to preserve the social obligation of hospitality at the cost of handing over the vulnerable to be harmed (cp. Jas 1:27). There is no way, for our age or theirs, to soften the horror of what followed. The period of the judges was coming to an end in deepest depravity. Something was fundamentally amiss.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:24 The old man attempted to preserve the social obligation of hospitality at the cost of handing over the vulnerable to be harmed (cp. Jas 1:27). There is no way, for our age or theirs, to soften the horror of what followed. The period of the judges was coming to an end in deepest depravity. Something was fundamentally amiss.","summary_en":"19:24 The old man attempted to preserve the social obligation of hospitality at the cost of handing over the vulnerable to be harmed (cp. Jas 1:27). There is no way, for our age or theirs, to soften the horror of what followed. The period of the judges was coming to an end in deepest depravity. Something was fundamentally amiss.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101204,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:24","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:24","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:24<\/strong> The old man attempted to preserve the social obligation of hospitality at the cost of handing over the vulnerable to be harmed (cp. Jas 1:27). There is no way, for our age or theirs, to soften the horror of what followed. The period of the judges was coming to an end in deepest depravity. Something was fundamentally amiss.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:24<\/strong> The old man attempted to preserve the social obligation of hospitality at the cost of handing over the vulnerable to be harmed (cp. Jas 1:27). There is no way, for our age or theirs, to soften the horror of what followed. The period of the judges was coming to an end in deepest depravity. Something was fundamentally amiss.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:24 The old man attempted to preserve the social obligation of hospitality at the cost of handing over the vulnerable to be harmed (cp. Jas 1:27). There is no way, for our age or theirs, to soften the horror of what followed. The period of the judges was coming to an end in deepest depravity. Something was fundamentally amiss.","summary_en":"19:24 The old man attempted to preserve the social obligation of hospitality at the cost of handing over the vulnerable to be harmed (cp. Jas 1:27). There is no way, for our age or theirs, to soften the horror of what followed. The period of the judges was coming to an end in deepest depravity. Something was fundamentally amiss.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128830,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:24","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:24","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:24<\/strong> The old man attempted to preserve the social obligation of hospitality at the cost of handing over the vulnerable to be harmed (cp. Jas 1:27). There is no way, for our age or theirs, to soften the horror of what followed. The period of the judges was coming to an end in deepest depravity. Something was fundamentally amiss.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:24<\/strong> The old man attempted to preserve the social obligation of hospitality at the cost of handing over the vulnerable to be harmed (cp. Jas 1:27). There is no way, for our age or theirs, to soften the horror of what followed. The period of the judges was coming to an end in deepest depravity. Something was fundamentally amiss.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:24 The old man attempted to preserve the social obligation of hospitality at the cost of handing over the vulnerable to be harmed (cp. Jas 1:27). There is no way, for our age or theirs, to soften the horror of what followed. The period of the judges was coming to an end in deepest depravity. Something was fundamentally amiss.","summary_en":"19:24 The old man attempted to preserve the social obligation of hospitality at the cost of handing over the vulnerable to be harmed (cp. Jas 1:27). There is no way, for our age or theirs, to soften the horror of what followed. The period of the judges was coming to an end in deepest depravity. Something was fundamentally amiss.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"25":[{"id":45953,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:25","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:25","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:25<\/strong> Contrast the instruction to husbands in Eph 5:25-28.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:25<\/strong> Contrast the instruction to husbands in Eph 5:25-28.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:25 Contrast the instruction to husbands in Eph 5:25-28.","summary_en":"19:25 Contrast the instruction to husbands in Eph 5:25-28.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73579,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:25","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:25","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:25<\/strong> Contrast the instruction to husbands in Eph 5:25-28.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:25<\/strong> Contrast the instruction to husbands in Eph 5:25-28.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:25 Contrast the instruction to husbands in Eph 5:25-28.","summary_en":"19:25 Contrast the instruction to husbands in Eph 5:25-28.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101205,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:25","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:25","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:25<\/strong> Contrast the instruction to husbands in Eph 5:25-28.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:25<\/strong> Contrast the instruction to husbands in Eph 5:25-28.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:25 Contrast the instruction to husbands in Eph 5:25-28.","summary_en":"19:25 Contrast the instruction to husbands in Eph 5:25-28.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128831,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:25","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:25","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:25<\/strong> Contrast the instruction to husbands in Eph 5:25-28.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:25<\/strong> Contrast the instruction to husbands in Eph 5:25-28.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:25 Contrast the instruction to husbands in Eph 5:25-28.","summary_en":"19:25 Contrast the instruction to husbands in Eph 5:25-28.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"26":[{"id":11923,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Family Life and Relations","title_en":"Family Life and Relations","content_ro":"<h3>FAMILY LIFE AND RELATIONS<\/h3>\n<p>In Bible times, the family comprised members of a household, including not only parents and children, along with other relatives and concubines, but also servants, travelers, aliens, and anyone else who happened to be within the house and was therefore under the protection of the head of the family. The family of Jacob, for example, comprised three generations (Gn 46:8-26). Biblically, the term “family” is interchangeable with “house,” and “founding a house” can refer to setting up a separate dwelling as well as establishing a family. In the broader sense, “house” may refer to an entire nation (“house of Israel”). The heads of families returning from Babylon in the postexilic period controlled sometimes several hundred family members (Ezr 8:1-14). The family was a smaller part of a clan and tribe. In nomadic times the responsibilities and allegiances centered on the larger family group.<\/p>\n<p>Those who belonged to the clan knew that they had to work for common interests and accept responsibility for the whole group. All members of the family were to be protected and assisted in time of need.<\/p>\n<p>As the life of the Israelites became more settled, families (in the wider sense of the term) lived in villages surrounded by fields of wheat, barley, and flax, with areas of grazing land for sheep and goats. Each group of villages consisted of an intermarried, interdependent family group, such as that of the Danites of Zorah and Eshtaol (Jgs 18:11). The hard life of those days demanded a sharing of work and the loyal cooperation of the entire family for survival.<\/p>\n<p>As crafts and trades developed, along with a more sedentary lifestyle, sons learned their fathers’ skills and continued the family trade. Consequently, the whole village might follow a particular craft (1 Chr 4:14; Neh 11:35). By specializing in such trades, however, the villagers became less self-sufficient, depending more on farmers for food and on other specialized villages for the production of cloth or pottery (1 Chr 4:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>With the growth of cities, related groups lived together in specific areas. Many members of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah were listed in the census of Jerusalem by Nehemiah (Neh 11:4-8), and by the writer of Chronicles (1 Chr 9:3-9). One consequence of life in the cities was the fragmentation of the family group. As the bonds of the wider family were loosened, the unit consisted increasingly of a husband and wife with their children, living in one house. The size of houses that have been excavated precludes the idea of any larger family unit as the norm in OT societies.<\/p>\n<p>During the kingdom period, King David’s sons Amnon and Absalom set up their own separate houses (2 Sm 13:7-8, 20). At that time there were few slaves in Hebrew society, but they also were considered members of the family. As bonds of the wider family loosened, and the master of the household lost a degree of authority, the society became one in which the king was sovereign and all the people were his subjects.<\/p>\n<p>The early kings of Israel promoted such a change in order to establish a central ruling authority for the entire country. The king’s subjects fell broadly into the categories of employers and employees, corresponding to the rich and poor of society. By the eighth century <span>BC<\/span>, members of the wider family no longer worked for the communal good under the authority of the clan’s head; rather, individuals worked primarily for the good of their own immediate family. Hence one’s labor and devotion were focused more narrowly, and the greatest beneficiary was the king, the personal symbol of the nation.<\/p>\n<p>Emphasis on the smaller family unit increased, and old duties that had been willingly accepted by the wider groups in former times came to be neglected. People did not always help relatives in times of need, and they frequently had to be reminded of their obligations, particularly toward widows and orphans (Is 1:17; Jer 7:6). Family feuds also declined because members no longer felt responsible to take vengeance as a way to uphold the honor of the clan (2 Sm 3:27; 16:8; 2 Kgs 9:26). Nevertheless, Nehemiah expected Israelites to fight for their family honor (Neh 4:14). In NT times, the family was such a unit that it could be sold for a debt incurred by one of its members (Mt 18:25).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew religion’s emphasis on family participation in certain celebrations strengthened the small unit. The Passover, for example, was always celebrated as a family thanksgiving meal (Ex 12:3-4, 46). The prophet Samuel’s parents made a traditional annual pilgrimage to the shrine at Shiloh (1 Sm 2:19). In modern times, a young Jewish boy’s arrival at the threshold of manhood is celebrated with the Bar Mitzvah ceremony. Being so honored in the midst of a religious family preserves the ancient Hebrew tradition of family participation in religious ceremonies.<\/p>\n<p>In his preaching Jesus used the family as a symbol for the relationship of God to his people (Mt 19:14; 23:9; Lk 8:21). From the cross he handed over responsibility for the care of his mother to his disciple John (Jn 19:27).<\/p>\n<p>In NT times, the communion meals in the Jerusalem church took place by households (Acts 2:46). Early Christian meetings were held in the homes of believers because of opposition by the authorities. The book of Acts contains examples of entire families being converted to Christianity (Acts 10:24, 44-48; 16:15, 31-32). Timothy learned the gospel from his grandmother and mother (2 Tm 1:5).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Status of Family Members<\/p>\n<p>• Marital Security<\/p>\n<p>• Position of Children<\/p>\n<p>• The Rights of Children<\/p>\n<p>• Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n<p>• In New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"StatusofFamilyMembers\">Status of Family Members<\/p>\n<p>From nomadic times, a father’s authority held the family group together in their encampment, and he became the symbol of their security. In ancient patriarchal societies, the father was an absolute master who had the power of life and death over family members, ruling with unchallenged authority. Although he had extensive responsibilities for those under his care, his power was awesome and his status unquestioned.<\/p>\n<p>A man’s possessions included his wife, servants, slaves, and animals (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). In fact, the phrase “to marry a wife” comes from a Hebrew root meaning “to become the master of a wife.” A husband was as much the master of his wife as he was of his home or his fields. Consequently, the wife addressed him in a subservient manner, as a slave would address a master (Gn 18:12; Jgs 19:26). This low status for a woman extended to a daughter’s position in the ancient household. Females were always under the authority of a male relative: first, the father; then a husband. If a woman became a widow, she was subject to her husband’s nearest male relative, who became her “redeemer.” The bride price (Gn 29:18, 27; Ex 22:16-17; 1 Sm 18:25; 2 Sm 3:14) paid by her husband was not exactly a purchase of the woman from her father, but the exchange of money did stigmatize her. The amount of a bride price depended on the father’s status (Gn 34:12). The usual price was probably 20 to 30 shekels of silver. The bride received gifts of jewelry, ornaments, and clothing from her future husband, and she occasionally enjoyed some sort of financial or material return from the bride price for her own use (Jos 15:19; Jgs 1:15). When her father or husband died, the money frequently reverted to her.<\/p>\n<p>An engaged woman was considered her fiancé’s property just as much as if she were already married to him (Dt 22:23-27). The woman left her own family at marriage, to live with and become part of her new husband’s family. Normally, any succeeding marriages would be with members of that family.<\/p>\n<p>Despite the low legal status of the mother of the family, her life was not as bad as one might suppose. She was the legal wife, not an unpaid servant, and she frequently took a strong role as adviser to her husband in family affairs. Her most important function, aside from childbearing, was organization of the household, of which she was generally the respected manager. Even though the wife might have been acquired through capture in war (Dt 21:10-14), she could not be sold as a slave or daughter could (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5).<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, her position was precarious, in that she could be disowned or divorced by her husband as the result of a simple renunciation: “She is no longer my wife, and I am no longer her husband.” Perhaps he had found fault with her culinary skills, or possibly he was casting his eyes on another woman. In any event, a husband knew that if his wife did not obey even a signal or a glance, he was within his rights to obtain a divorce (cf. Ecclus 25:26). The wife, however, obtained a certain degree of protection in the letter of repudiation, by which her freedom was formally restored. Under Jewish tradition, a wife could not divorce her husband.<\/p>\n<p>In matters of domestic protocol, the Hebrew wife was not introduced to her husband’s guests, a tradition that subsequently led to considerable embarrassment for Abraham’s wife, Sarah, and for Rebekah (Gn 20:16). A woman normally remained veiled in public (24:65; 38:14; Is 47:2).<\/p>\n<p>The imagery in Proverbs 19:13 and 27:15 draws a vigorous comparison between a contentious woman and water dripping from a leaky roof. The OT leaves little doubt about the type of behavior expected from a woman. She was expected to be charming, soft-spoken, discreet, and calm (Prv 9:13; 11:16, 22; 21:9). She was also to be responsible, well-organized, intelligent, thoughtful, reverent, and a good manager of both the household and the family purse (31:10-31). A woman should also be pious and beautiful, and in NT tradition, submissive to her husband, as befitted a woman adorned with the priceless jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit (Ti 2:4-5; 1 Pt 3:1-6).<\/p>\n<p>The actions of a few women whose roles in life do not seem to fit the pattern of the meek, passive female pictured above, are recorded in the Bible and the Apocrypha. The books of Judith and Esther recount heroic tales of how national fortunes were saved by women. Deborah and Jael were renowned heroines (Jgs 4–5), and the kingdom of Judah was ruled by a vicious woman, Athaliah, for several years (2 Kgs 11). The women who stepped to the forefront of public life were exceptional and few in number. Judith was a rich widow, an unusual thing in Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MaritalSecurity\">Marital Security<\/p>\n<p>The security of a wife’s position improved considerably when she produced her first child, particularly if it was a son. A woman’s primary duty to her husband and his family was procreation (Gn 1:28; 9:1), and until she gave birth to a son, she feared displacement by a second wife or a concubine. Polygamous marriages were by no means rare, especially in wealthy families. They resulted in two ill-defined family groups, controlled by the mothers but under the overall authority of fathers; there were inevitable jealousies and frictions.<\/p>\n<p>The legal status of a woman was consistently poor in Bible times. With no evidence at all, a husband could accuse his wife of adultery, and she was compelled to face a trial by ordeal. She had to abase herself by taking an oath, eating dust and a cereal offering, and drinking bitter water. A priest, meanwhile, made pronouncements regarding the dire results that would come to her if she were guilty: she would become an outcast with no hope of survival. But if she maintained her serenity, and if her thigh did not rot nor her abdomen swell, she was considered to have “proved” her innocence. In such an event she would go free, and her husband bore no blame whatsoever for his false accusation (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a woman took a vow, it was legal only as long as her father or husband approved it. If she became a widow, the vow still remained in force and could be used against her (Nm 30:3-15).<\/p>\n<p>A woman in Israel was always under the protection of a male, be it her father, grandfather, great-grandfather, brother, husband, or some other member of her husband’s family. She had few legal rights and, in contrast to Babylonian traditions, could not inherit at her husband’s death. It is small wonder that widows were classed with orphans and the poor. A childless widow could on occasion return to her father’s family (Gn 38:11; Lv 22:13; Ru 1:8), thus becoming subject again to the authority of her father. A Hebrew widow could also remain with her late husband’s family. She would then come under the protection of her “redeemer,” a male relative of her husband’s family who assumed responsibility for her. If a husband died leaving a woman childless, it was the responsibility of the husband’s brother to marry her. The first son born of such a union was then regarded as the heir of the first husband.<\/p>\n<p>It was normal for a brother to accept the obligation for such a marriage (levirate). It could be refused on various grounds, but such refusal was considered dishonorable, for it was a man’s duty to perpetuate his brother’s name and to safeguard the family fortune.<\/p>\n<p>A redeemer’s responsibilities were considerable. In addition to the marriage, he was perhaps involved in avenging the family reputation, and he had to ensure that family property increased and remained within family control.<\/p>\n<p>If an Israelite fell into debt and was forced to sell himself into slavery, he would normally be “redeemed” by one of his relatives (Lv 25:47-49). If in his penury an Israelite had to sell his land or his house, the redeemer had the right of first refusal over all other prospective purchasers. It was as much his duty as his right to prevent family property from passing into the hands of strangers (v 25). The prophet Jeremiah bought his cousin Hanamel’s field under similar circumstances (Jer 32:6-15).<\/p>\n<p>The most familiar OT story of a childless widow, her “redeemer,” and their levirate marriage is recorded in the book of Ruth. One of Naomi’s two sons married Ruth. When Ruth was widowed, her impoverished mother-in-law, Naomi, left her home in Moab and returned to Bethlehem to sell some of the family property. Although a close relative was prepared to buy the land and keep it in the family, he was not ready to marry Ruth as well (Ru 3:12; 4:4). He knew that a son of that union would be deemed a son of the deceased, bearing the dead husband’s name, and thus ultimately inheriting the land (4:4-6). The next relative in order of kinship was Boaz, who became Ruth’s “redeemer.” He was prepared to accept the double obligation of purchasing the land and marrying Ruth (4:9-10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PositionofChildren\">Position of Children<\/p>\n<p>Children were generally well loved, but their childhood was short and they were often regarded as laborers for the house or fields. According to the law of primogeniture, the eldest son received a double portion of the estate as his birthright (Dt 21:17). Thus, he was assured of the position of family head. Even during his father’s lifetime, the eldest son took precedence over his brothers and sisters (Gn 43:33). Where twins were born, the first to emerge from the womb was considered the elder, with all the attendant privileges (25:24-26; 38:27-30).<\/p>\n<p>For a serious offense, the eldest son could lose the right of primogeniture (Gn 35:22; 49:3-4; 1 Chr 5:1), or it could be surrendered voluntarily, as Esau did by selling his birthright to his brother Jacob (Gn 25:29-34). There was a law protecting the eldest son from his father’s favoritism for a younger brother (Dt 21:15-17). Nevertheless, King David gave his kingdom to Solomon, his youngest son (1 Kgs 2:15).<\/p>\n<p>In a family with no sons, a daughter could inherit property (Nm 27:8). Frequently, parents consulted neither sons nor daughters when marriage partners were arranged for them. Marriage was often an alliance or contract between two families, and thus the wishes and concerns of individuals were considered unimportant. Love matches were few, although occasionally a son would marry in defiance of his parents, as Esau did (Gn 26:34-35). Although it was rare for young people to express their feelings and preferences about marriage in an open fashion, Saul’s daughter, Michal, made known her love for David (1 Sm 18:20).<\/p>\n<p>There is no record of legal adoption among the Hebrews, but it was practiced from ancient times in Mesopotamia. It was especially useful as a means of ensuring a childless couple that their land would be tilled and that they would be cared for in their old age. All examples of adoption mentioned in the OT took place outside the land of Israel (Ex 2:10; 1 Kgs 11:20; Est 2:7, 15) and are not examples of true adoption as a lifetime member of a family.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRightsofChildren\">The Rights of Children<\/p>\n<p>The nature of patriarchal society made for unfortunate distinctions between male and female children. The position of a daughter, who could be sold into slavery or sold to be the concubine of a man and then possibly sold again (Ex 21:7-11), was certainly inferior to that of a son. In the patriarchal period, however, both a son and a daughter could be put to death for disobeying the head of the family. One’s children could also be sacrificed in worship rituals (see Gn 22; Jgs 11). It is probable that infant sacrifice was practiced by nations neighboring Israel, including Canaan and Ammon.<\/p>\n<p>The rights of children were improved considerably with the promulgation of the code of Mosaic law. A father was no longer permitted to put his child to death without referring the case to the elders (Dt 21:18-21). Both sons and daughters could be brought before such authorities and accused of being disobedient, gluttonous, or drunkards. A father’s absolute authority even extended to his married son and family if they were living under his roof. The law also prohibited children from being held responsible for the crimes of their parents (Dt 24:16). In King David’s time a person convicted by the community had the right of appeal to the king (2 Sm 14:4-11).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew families both parents were held in high respect. Honor had to be given to both mother and father (Ex 20:12), and the law condemned offenses against either parent (21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 21:18; 27:16). Respect due to the mother is a recurrent theme in the Wisdom Literature (Prv 19:26; 20:20; cf. Ecclus 3:1-16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DailyLifeoftheHebrewFamily\">Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n<p>In the everyday affairs of a Hebrew household, it was the father’s responsibility to maintain the family fortune and to be the provider. He might work in the fields, most probably with crops of flax, barley, or wheat. Or he would work at a trade, possibly as a weaver, builder, potter, dyer, fuller, or a worker in copper or bronze. If he lived near the shore, he might be a fisherman.<\/p>\n<p>The father was also responsible for the religious well-being of the family. It was his duty to take over his sons’ education from the mother at an early age, teaching them the tenets of Hebrew religion (Ex 10:2; 12:26; Dt 4:9; 6:7). He also explained all the facets of the law and the interwoven history of the nation.<\/p>\n<p>The father was the disciplinarian of the family, with the rod being used to drive home the lessons taught (Prv 13:24; 22:15; 29:15-17). Though children were loved and valued, they were not pampered (Ecclus 30:9-12). In postexilic times education also took place within the precincts of the synagogue, and shortly before the time of Christ, a general elementary education was introduced. It was also imperative that a father teach his sons a trade, normally his own, for a man without a trade either starved or became a thief. Another important paternal responsibility was to provide wives for male offspring in the household.<\/p>\n<p>The mother was responsible for her sons’ and daughters’ early education (Prv 1:8; 6:20), teaching them religious songs and prayers as soon as they could talk. A father took over the education of his sons, but the mother continued with the daughters, training them to spin, weave, cook, clean, trim the lamps, and generally to become competent in all the household duties (31:13-31).<\/p>\n<p>With little furniture, keeping a house clean meant sweeping the floors to keep them free from dust and dirt. Cooking was at once simple and difficult. It was simple in that much of the food was cooked in the form of a soup or stew, or else made into a cake and cooked on a griddle. It was difficult in that the corn had to be ground by hand and bread was baked daily.<\/p>\n<p>A mother was expected to take wool, card it, spin it, and often weave and make clothes for her family. In addition, she would help her husband in the fields at harvesttime. Because many families had one or more olive trees, a few grapevines, and fig trees, the mother would also assist in picking the fruit. She would sometimes work at the press when the olives or grapes were being processed. Frequently the treading of grapes in the family vat would be done together by husband and wife. Drawing water from the well was considered a menial task and was generally the wife’s responsibility, although sometimes it was assigned to the children (Gn 24:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>As in all societies, there was a time when children laughed and played together (Zec 8:5; Mt 11:16), although childhood and adolescence were not recognized as specific stages of development. Children were considered as sucklings if under three, but were regarded as boys or girls when they were able to take care of themselves. A small child sat on his mother’s lap and was played with (Is 66:12). There is no evidence of organized sports for children. Toys, including whistles, rattles, dolls, and miniature cooking utensils, have been excavated at Palestinian sites.<\/p>\n<p>As soon as a boy was old enough, he took his place in the family and accepted his appointed task. Among other things, children were expected to gather fuel (Jer 7:18). Young boys and girls tended the flocks. The sheep had to be protected from marauding wild beasts, guarded against their own folly when they wandered near crevices, steered toward good pasture and water, and carried home when sick or injured (Gn 29:6; Ex 2:16). The care of cattle was also the responsibility of children (1 Sm 16:11). Of necessity, boys were trained in the various arts of war.<\/p>\n<p>Children sometimes joined their fathers in the fields, and their presence was always welcome. From earliest times, boys in particular would watch their fathers until they too picked up a tool or implement to try their skill; girls watched and learned from their mothers. Young children frequently listened to the talk of the elders at the city gates or in the villages. A visit to a sanctuary at festival time was a family affair, furnishing an ideal learning experience. As a child, Jesus accompanied his parents, Mary and Joseph, to the temple in Jerusalem (Lk 2:42-47).<\/p>\n<p>Young girls were surprisingly free to go about their appointed tasks. They were not secluded or veiled and could visit uninhibited with friends and neighbors (Gn 34:1). They were also able to converse with men without embarrassment (24:15-25; 29:11-12; 1 Sm 9:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>Mealtimes were strictly family times. It is doubtful whether a meal comparable to a breakfast was eaten, and a farmer would probably have a light lunch in the fields. The main meal of the day was prepared by the mother, and it would be eaten in the early evening. Although the variety of food available was limited, its preparation was time-consuming.<\/p>\n<p>Feast times were periods of great religious significance and were also the days when family members participated in the symbolic rituals of their faith. Among the Israelites several kinds of food were fundamental to their religious ritual. Family unity and the national religion were molded together by special meals in the home.<\/p>\n<p>Daylight played an important part in the daily habits of the people in antiquity. Although oil lamps were readily available in later periods, it was customary to rise with the sun and go to bed relatively soon after dark. The wife would probably be up before sunrise and might continue her labor after dark.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InNewTestamentTimes\">In New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>By NT times, for those who followed the Greek and Roman style, life became more elegant. Despite that, the status of many family members did not change substantially. Wealthier families had more slaves, and the children were more likely to have formal education, sometimes spending less effort on family chores. Even in Roman times, however, the father still had a legal right to accept or reject his child.<\/p>\n<p>The status of the woman had definitely improved by the NT period. A Roman matron was highly respected and exerted a strong influence over her husband. She was not sequestered in a particular section of the house, as a Greek woman was, but managed and supervised tasks in any part of her home. She helped her husband in business, had her own place in theaters, games, and religious festivals, and sometimes managed her own property. Palestinian women began to enjoy a new status and dignity as the result of Jesus’ attitude toward women and its influence on the early Christian church.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Education; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality; Widow; Woman.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FAMILY LIFE AND RELATIONS<\/h3>\n<p>In Bible times, the family comprised members of a household, including not only parents and children, along with other relatives and concubines, but also servants, travelers, aliens, and anyone else who happened to be within the house and was therefore under the protection of the head of the family. The family of Jacob, for example, comprised three generations (Gn 46:8-26). Biblically, the term “family” is interchangeable with “house,” and “founding a house” can refer to setting up a separate dwelling as well as establishing a family. In the broader sense, “house” may refer to an entire nation (“house of Israel”). The heads of families returning from Babylon in the postexilic period controlled sometimes several hundred family members (Ezr 8:1-14). The family was a smaller part of a clan and tribe. In nomadic times the responsibilities and allegiances centered on the larger family group.<\/p>\n<p>Those who belonged to the clan knew that they had to work for common interests and accept responsibility for the whole group. All members of the family were to be protected and assisted in time of need.<\/p>\n<p>As the life of the Israelites became more settled, families (in the wider sense of the term) lived in villages surrounded by fields of wheat, barley, and flax, with areas of grazing land for sheep and goats. Each group of villages consisted of an intermarried, interdependent family group, such as that of the Danites of Zorah and Eshtaol (Jgs 18:11). The hard life of those days demanded a sharing of work and the loyal cooperation of the entire family for survival.<\/p>\n<p>As crafts and trades developed, along with a more sedentary lifestyle, sons learned their fathers’ skills and continued the family trade. Consequently, the whole village might follow a particular craft (1 Chr 4:14; Neh 11:35). By specializing in such trades, however, the villagers became less self-sufficient, depending more on farmers for food and on other specialized villages for the production of cloth or pottery (1 Chr 4:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>With the growth of cities, related groups lived together in specific areas. Many members of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah were listed in the census of Jerusalem by Nehemiah (Neh 11:4-8), and by the writer of Chronicles (1 Chr 9:3-9). One consequence of life in the cities was the fragmentation of the family group. As the bonds of the wider family were loosened, the unit consisted increasingly of a husband and wife with their children, living in one house. The size of houses that have been excavated precludes the idea of any larger family unit as the norm in OT societies.<\/p>\n<p>During the kingdom period, King David’s sons Amnon and Absalom set up their own separate houses (2 Sm 13:7-8, 20). At that time there were few slaves in Hebrew society, but they also were considered members of the family. As bonds of the wider family loosened, and the master of the household lost a degree of authority, the society became one in which the king was sovereign and all the people were his subjects.<\/p>\n<p>The early kings of Israel promoted such a change in order to establish a central ruling authority for the entire country. The king’s subjects fell broadly into the categories of employers and employees, corresponding to the rich and poor of society. By the eighth century <span>BC<\/span>, members of the wider family no longer worked for the communal good under the authority of the clan’s head; rather, individuals worked primarily for the good of their own immediate family. Hence one’s labor and devotion were focused more narrowly, and the greatest beneficiary was the king, the personal symbol of the nation.<\/p>\n<p>Emphasis on the smaller family unit increased, and old duties that had been willingly accepted by the wider groups in former times came to be neglected. People did not always help relatives in times of need, and they frequently had to be reminded of their obligations, particularly toward widows and orphans (Is 1:17; Jer 7:6). Family feuds also declined because members no longer felt responsible to take vengeance as a way to uphold the honor of the clan (2 Sm 3:27; 16:8; 2 Kgs 9:26). Nevertheless, Nehemiah expected Israelites to fight for their family honor (Neh 4:14). In NT times, the family was such a unit that it could be sold for a debt incurred by one of its members (Mt 18:25).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew religion’s emphasis on family participation in certain celebrations strengthened the small unit. The Passover, for example, was always celebrated as a family thanksgiving meal (Ex 12:3-4, 46). The prophet Samuel’s parents made a traditional annual pilgrimage to the shrine at Shiloh (1 Sm 2:19). In modern times, a young Jewish boy’s arrival at the threshold of manhood is celebrated with the Bar Mitzvah ceremony. Being so honored in the midst of a religious family preserves the ancient Hebrew tradition of family participation in religious ceremonies.<\/p>\n<p>In his preaching Jesus used the family as a symbol for the relationship of God to his people (Mt 19:14; 23:9; Lk 8:21). From the cross he handed over responsibility for the care of his mother to his disciple John (Jn 19:27).<\/p>\n<p>In NT times, the communion meals in the Jerusalem church took place by households (Acts 2:46). Early Christian meetings were held in the homes of believers because of opposition by the authorities. The book of Acts contains examples of entire families being converted to Christianity (Acts 10:24, 44-48; 16:15, 31-32). Timothy learned the gospel from his grandmother and mother (2 Tm 1:5).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Status of Family Members<\/p>\n<p>• Marital Security<\/p>\n<p>• Position of Children<\/p>\n<p>• The Rights of Children<\/p>\n<p>• Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n<p>• In New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"StatusofFamilyMembers\">Status of Family Members<\/p>\n<p>From nomadic times, a father’s authority held the family group together in their encampment, and he became the symbol of their security. In ancient patriarchal societies, the father was an absolute master who had the power of life and death over family members, ruling with unchallenged authority. Although he had extensive responsibilities for those under his care, his power was awesome and his status unquestioned.<\/p>\n<p>A man’s possessions included his wife, servants, slaves, and animals (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). In fact, the phrase “to marry a wife” comes from a Hebrew root meaning “to become the master of a wife.” A husband was as much the master of his wife as he was of his home or his fields. Consequently, the wife addressed him in a subservient manner, as a slave would address a master (Gn 18:12; Jgs 19:26). This low status for a woman extended to a daughter’s position in the ancient household. Females were always under the authority of a male relative: first, the father; then a husband. If a woman became a widow, she was subject to her husband’s nearest male relative, who became her “redeemer.” The bride price (Gn 29:18, 27; Ex 22:16-17; 1 Sm 18:25; 2 Sm 3:14) paid by her husband was not exactly a purchase of the woman from her father, but the exchange of money did stigmatize her. The amount of a bride price depended on the father’s status (Gn 34:12). The usual price was probably 20 to 30 shekels of silver. The bride received gifts of jewelry, ornaments, and clothing from her future husband, and she occasionally enjoyed some sort of financial or material return from the bride price for her own use (Jos 15:19; Jgs 1:15). When her father or husband died, the money frequently reverted to her.<\/p>\n<p>An engaged woman was considered her fiancé’s property just as much as if she were already married to him (Dt 22:23-27). The woman left her own family at marriage, to live with and become part of her new husband’s family. Normally, any succeeding marriages would be with members of that family.<\/p>\n<p>Despite the low legal status of the mother of the family, her life was not as bad as one might suppose. She was the legal wife, not an unpaid servant, and she frequently took a strong role as adviser to her husband in family affairs. Her most important function, aside from childbearing, was organization of the household, of which she was generally the respected manager. Even though the wife might have been acquired through capture in war (Dt 21:10-14), she could not be sold as a slave or daughter could (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5).<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, her position was precarious, in that she could be disowned or divorced by her husband as the result of a simple renunciation: “She is no longer my wife, and I am no longer her husband.” Perhaps he had found fault with her culinary skills, or possibly he was casting his eyes on another woman. In any event, a husband knew that if his wife did not obey even a signal or a glance, he was within his rights to obtain a divorce (cf. Ecclus 25:26). The wife, however, obtained a certain degree of protection in the letter of repudiation, by which her freedom was formally restored. Under Jewish tradition, a wife could not divorce her husband.<\/p>\n<p>In matters of domestic protocol, the Hebrew wife was not introduced to her husband’s guests, a tradition that subsequently led to considerable embarrassment for Abraham’s wife, Sarah, and for Rebekah (Gn 20:16). A woman normally remained veiled in public (24:65; 38:14; Is 47:2).<\/p>\n<p>The imagery in Proverbs 19:13 and 27:15 draws a vigorous comparison between a contentious woman and water dripping from a leaky roof. The OT leaves little doubt about the type of behavior expected from a woman. She was expected to be charming, soft-spoken, discreet, and calm (Prv 9:13; 11:16, 22; 21:9). She was also to be responsible, well-organized, intelligent, thoughtful, reverent, and a good manager of both the household and the family purse (31:10-31). A woman should also be pious and beautiful, and in NT tradition, submissive to her husband, as befitted a woman adorned with the priceless jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit (Ti 2:4-5; 1 Pt 3:1-6).<\/p>\n<p>The actions of a few women whose roles in life do not seem to fit the pattern of the meek, passive female pictured above, are recorded in the Bible and the Apocrypha. The books of Judith and Esther recount heroic tales of how national fortunes were saved by women. Deborah and Jael were renowned heroines (Jgs 4–5), and the kingdom of Judah was ruled by a vicious woman, Athaliah, for several years (2 Kgs 11). The women who stepped to the forefront of public life were exceptional and few in number. Judith was a rich widow, an unusual thing in Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MaritalSecurity\">Marital Security<\/p>\n<p>The security of a wife’s position improved considerably when she produced her first child, particularly if it was a son. A woman’s primary duty to her husband and his family was procreation (Gn 1:28; 9:1), and until she gave birth to a son, she feared displacement by a second wife or a concubine. Polygamous marriages were by no means rare, especially in wealthy families. They resulted in two ill-defined family groups, controlled by the mothers but under the overall authority of fathers; there were inevitable jealousies and frictions.<\/p>\n<p>The legal status of a woman was consistently poor in Bible times. With no evidence at all, a husband could accuse his wife of adultery, and she was compelled to face a trial by ordeal. She had to abase herself by taking an oath, eating dust and a cereal offering, and drinking bitter water. A priest, meanwhile, made pronouncements regarding the dire results that would come to her if she were guilty: she would become an outcast with no hope of survival. But if she maintained her serenity, and if her thigh did not rot nor her abdomen swell, she was considered to have “proved” her innocence. In such an event she would go free, and her husband bore no blame whatsoever for his false accusation (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a woman took a vow, it was legal only as long as her father or husband approved it. If she became a widow, the vow still remained in force and could be used against her (Nm 30:3-15).<\/p>\n<p>A woman in Israel was always under the protection of a male, be it her father, grandfather, great-grandfather, brother, husband, or some other member of her husband’s family. She had few legal rights and, in contrast to Babylonian traditions, could not inherit at her husband’s death. It is small wonder that widows were classed with orphans and the poor. A childless widow could on occasion return to her father’s family (Gn 38:11; Lv 22:13; Ru 1:8), thus becoming subject again to the authority of her father. A Hebrew widow could also remain with her late husband’s family. She would then come under the protection of her “redeemer,” a male relative of her husband’s family who assumed responsibility for her. If a husband died leaving a woman childless, it was the responsibility of the husband’s brother to marry her. The first son born of such a union was then regarded as the heir of the first husband.<\/p>\n<p>It was normal for a brother to accept the obligation for such a marriage (levirate). It could be refused on various grounds, but such refusal was considered dishonorable, for it was a man’s duty to perpetuate his brother’s name and to safeguard the family fortune.<\/p>\n<p>A redeemer’s responsibilities were considerable. In addition to the marriage, he was perhaps involved in avenging the family reputation, and he had to ensure that family property increased and remained within family control.<\/p>\n<p>If an Israelite fell into debt and was forced to sell himself into slavery, he would normally be “redeemed” by one of his relatives (Lv 25:47-49). If in his penury an Israelite had to sell his land or his house, the redeemer had the right of first refusal over all other prospective purchasers. It was as much his duty as his right to prevent family property from passing into the hands of strangers (v 25). The prophet Jeremiah bought his cousin Hanamel’s field under similar circumstances (Jer 32:6-15).<\/p>\n<p>The most familiar OT story of a childless widow, her “redeemer,” and their levirate marriage is recorded in the book of Ruth. One of Naomi’s two sons married Ruth. When Ruth was widowed, her impoverished mother-in-law, Naomi, left her home in Moab and returned to Bethlehem to sell some of the family property. Although a close relative was prepared to buy the land and keep it in the family, he was not ready to marry Ruth as well (Ru 3:12; 4:4). He knew that a son of that union would be deemed a son of the deceased, bearing the dead husband’s name, and thus ultimately inheriting the land (4:4-6). The next relative in order of kinship was Boaz, who became Ruth’s “redeemer.” He was prepared to accept the double obligation of purchasing the land and marrying Ruth (4:9-10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PositionofChildren\">Position of Children<\/p>\n<p>Children were generally well loved, but their childhood was short and they were often regarded as laborers for the house or fields. According to the law of primogeniture, the eldest son received a double portion of the estate as his birthright (Dt 21:17). Thus, he was assured of the position of family head. Even during his father’s lifetime, the eldest son took precedence over his brothers and sisters (Gn 43:33). Where twins were born, the first to emerge from the womb was considered the elder, with all the attendant privileges (25:24-26; 38:27-30).<\/p>\n<p>For a serious offense, the eldest son could lose the right of primogeniture (Gn 35:22; 49:3-4; 1 Chr 5:1), or it could be surrendered voluntarily, as Esau did by selling his birthright to his brother Jacob (Gn 25:29-34). There was a law protecting the eldest son from his father’s favoritism for a younger brother (Dt 21:15-17). Nevertheless, King David gave his kingdom to Solomon, his youngest son (1 Kgs 2:15).<\/p>\n<p>In a family with no sons, a daughter could inherit property (Nm 27:8). Frequently, parents consulted neither sons nor daughters when marriage partners were arranged for them. Marriage was often an alliance or contract between two families, and thus the wishes and concerns of individuals were considered unimportant. Love matches were few, although occasionally a son would marry in defiance of his parents, as Esau did (Gn 26:34-35). Although it was rare for young people to express their feelings and preferences about marriage in an open fashion, Saul’s daughter, Michal, made known her love for David (1 Sm 18:20).<\/p>\n<p>There is no record of legal adoption among the Hebrews, but it was practiced from ancient times in Mesopotamia. It was especially useful as a means of ensuring a childless couple that their land would be tilled and that they would be cared for in their old age. All examples of adoption mentioned in the OT took place outside the land of Israel (Ex 2:10; 1 Kgs 11:20; Est 2:7, 15) and are not examples of true adoption as a lifetime member of a family.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRightsofChildren\">The Rights of Children<\/p>\n<p>The nature of patriarchal society made for unfortunate distinctions between male and female children. The position of a daughter, who could be sold into slavery or sold to be the concubine of a man and then possibly sold again (Ex 21:7-11), was certainly inferior to that of a son. In the patriarchal period, however, both a son and a daughter could be put to death for disobeying the head of the family. One’s children could also be sacrificed in worship rituals (see Gn 22; Jgs 11). It is probable that infant sacrifice was practiced by nations neighboring Israel, including Canaan and Ammon.<\/p>\n<p>The rights of children were improved considerably with the promulgation of the code of Mosaic law. A father was no longer permitted to put his child to death without referring the case to the elders (Dt 21:18-21). Both sons and daughters could be brought before such authorities and accused of being disobedient, gluttonous, or drunkards. A father’s absolute authority even extended to his married son and family if they were living under his roof. The law also prohibited children from being held responsible for the crimes of their parents (Dt 24:16). In King David’s time a person convicted by the community had the right of appeal to the king (2 Sm 14:4-11).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew families both parents were held in high respect. Honor had to be given to both mother and father (Ex 20:12), and the law condemned offenses against either parent (21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 21:18; 27:16). Respect due to the mother is a recurrent theme in the Wisdom Literature (Prv 19:26; 20:20; cf. Ecclus 3:1-16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DailyLifeoftheHebrewFamily\">Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n<p>In the everyday affairs of a Hebrew household, it was the father’s responsibility to maintain the family fortune and to be the provider. He might work in the fields, most probably with crops of flax, barley, or wheat. Or he would work at a trade, possibly as a weaver, builder, potter, dyer, fuller, or a worker in copper or bronze. If he lived near the shore, he might be a fisherman.<\/p>\n<p>The father was also responsible for the religious well-being of the family. It was his duty to take over his sons’ education from the mother at an early age, teaching them the tenets of Hebrew religion (Ex 10:2; 12:26; Dt 4:9; 6:7). He also explained all the facets of the law and the interwoven history of the nation.<\/p>\n<p>The father was the disciplinarian of the family, with the rod being used to drive home the lessons taught (Prv 13:24; 22:15; 29:15-17). Though children were loved and valued, they were not pampered (Ecclus 30:9-12). In postexilic times education also took place within the precincts of the synagogue, and shortly before the time of Christ, a general elementary education was introduced. It was also imperative that a father teach his sons a trade, normally his own, for a man without a trade either starved or became a thief. Another important paternal responsibility was to provide wives for male offspring in the household.<\/p>\n<p>The mother was responsible for her sons’ and daughters’ early education (Prv 1:8; 6:20), teaching them religious songs and prayers as soon as they could talk. A father took over the education of his sons, but the mother continued with the daughters, training them to spin, weave, cook, clean, trim the lamps, and generally to become competent in all the household duties (31:13-31).<\/p>\n<p>With little furniture, keeping a house clean meant sweeping the floors to keep them free from dust and dirt. Cooking was at once simple and difficult. It was simple in that much of the food was cooked in the form of a soup or stew, or else made into a cake and cooked on a griddle. It was difficult in that the corn had to be ground by hand and bread was baked daily.<\/p>\n<p>A mother was expected to take wool, card it, spin it, and often weave and make clothes for her family. In addition, she would help her husband in the fields at harvesttime. Because many families had one or more olive trees, a few grapevines, and fig trees, the mother would also assist in picking the fruit. She would sometimes work at the press when the olives or grapes were being processed. Frequently the treading of grapes in the family vat would be done together by husband and wife. Drawing water from the well was considered a menial task and was generally the wife’s responsibility, although sometimes it was assigned to the children (Gn 24:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>As in all societies, there was a time when children laughed and played together (Zec 8:5; Mt 11:16), although childhood and adolescence were not recognized as specific stages of development. Children were considered as sucklings if under three, but were regarded as boys or girls when they were able to take care of themselves. A small child sat on his mother’s lap and was played with (Is 66:12). There is no evidence of organized sports for children. Toys, including whistles, rattles, dolls, and miniature cooking utensils, have been excavated at Palestinian sites.<\/p>\n<p>As soon as a boy was old enough, he took his place in the family and accepted his appointed task. Among other things, children were expected to gather fuel (Jer 7:18). Young boys and girls tended the flocks. The sheep had to be protected from marauding wild beasts, guarded against their own folly when they wandered near crevices, steered toward good pasture and water, and carried home when sick or injured (Gn 29:6; Ex 2:16). The care of cattle was also the responsibility of children (1 Sm 16:11). Of necessity, boys were trained in the various arts of war.<\/p>\n<p>Children sometimes joined their fathers in the fields, and their presence was always welcome. From earliest times, boys in particular would watch their fathers until they too picked up a tool or implement to try their skill; girls watched and learned from their mothers. Young children frequently listened to the talk of the elders at the city gates or in the villages. A visit to a sanctuary at festival time was a family affair, furnishing an ideal learning experience. As a child, Jesus accompanied his parents, Mary and Joseph, to the temple in Jerusalem (Lk 2:42-47).<\/p>\n<p>Young girls were surprisingly free to go about their appointed tasks. They were not secluded or veiled and could visit uninhibited with friends and neighbors (Gn 34:1). They were also able to converse with men without embarrassment (24:15-25; 29:11-12; 1 Sm 9:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>Mealtimes were strictly family times. It is doubtful whether a meal comparable to a breakfast was eaten, and a farmer would probably have a light lunch in the fields. The main meal of the day was prepared by the mother, and it would be eaten in the early evening. Although the variety of food available was limited, its preparation was time-consuming.<\/p>\n<p>Feast times were periods of great religious significance and were also the days when family members participated in the symbolic rituals of their faith. Among the Israelites several kinds of food were fundamental to their religious ritual. Family unity and the national religion were molded together by special meals in the home.<\/p>\n<p>Daylight played an important part in the daily habits of the people in antiquity. Although oil lamps were readily available in later periods, it was customary to rise with the sun and go to bed relatively soon after dark. The wife would probably be up before sunrise and might continue her labor after dark.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InNewTestamentTimes\">In New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>By NT times, for those who followed the Greek and Roman style, life became more elegant. Despite that, the status of many family members did not change substantially. Wealthier families had more slaves, and the children were more likely to have formal education, sometimes spending less effort on family chores. Even in Roman times, however, the father still had a legal right to accept or reject his child.<\/p>\n<p>The status of the woman had definitely improved by the NT period. A Roman matron was highly respected and exerted a strong influence over her husband. She was not sequestered in a particular section of the house, as a Greek woman was, but managed and supervised tasks in any part of her home. She helped her husband in business, had her own place in theaters, games, and religious festivals, and sometimes managed her own property. Palestinian women began to enjoy a new status and dignity as the result of Jesus’ attitude toward women and its influence on the early Christian church.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Education; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality; Widow; Woman.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FAMILY LIFE AND RELATIONS In Bible times, the family comprised members of a household, including not only parents and children, along with other relatives and concubines, but also servants, travelers, aliens, and anyone else who happened to be within the house and was therefore under the protection of the head of the family. The family of Jacob, for example, comprised three generations (Gn 46:8-26). Biblically, the term “family” is interchangeable with “house,” and “founding a house” can refe...","summary_en":"FAMILY LIFE AND RELATIONS In Bible times, the family comprised members of a household, including not only parents and children, along with other relatives and concubines, but also servants, travelers, aliens, and anyone else who happened to be within the house and was therefore under the protection of the head of the family. The family of Jacob, for example, comprised three generations (Gn 46:8-26). Biblically, the term “family” is interchangeable with “house,” and “founding a house” can refe...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"28":[{"id":45954,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:28","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:28-29<\/strong> The Levite’s actions exemplify the horror of a corrupt culture.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:28-29<\/strong> The Levite’s actions exemplify the horror of a corrupt culture.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:28-29 The Levite’s actions exemplify the horror of a corrupt culture.","summary_en":"19:28-29 The Levite’s actions exemplify the horror of a corrupt culture.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73580,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:28","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:28-29<\/strong> The Levite’s actions exemplify the horror of a corrupt culture.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:28-29<\/strong> The Levite’s actions exemplify the horror of a corrupt culture.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:28-29 The Levite’s actions exemplify the horror of a corrupt culture.","summary_en":"19:28-29 The Levite’s actions exemplify the horror of a corrupt culture.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101206,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:28","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:28-29<\/strong> The Levite’s actions exemplify the horror of a corrupt culture.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:28-29<\/strong> The Levite’s actions exemplify the horror of a corrupt culture.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:28-29 The Levite’s actions exemplify the horror of a corrupt culture.","summary_en":"19:28-29 The Levite’s actions exemplify the horror of a corrupt culture.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128832,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 19:28","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 19:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:28-29<\/strong> The Levite’s actions exemplify the horror of a corrupt culture.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:28-29<\/strong> The Levite’s actions exemplify the horror of a corrupt culture.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:28-29 The Levite’s actions exemplify the horror of a corrupt culture.","summary_en":"19:28-29 The Levite’s actions exemplify the horror of a corrupt culture.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"29":[{"id":21354,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Judges","title_en":"Book of Judges","content_ro":"<h3>JUDGES, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The book reflects a final editing of the material in the period of the early monarchy. It may well be a polemic for the righteous rule of David over against the kingship of Saul, which was molded by a secular, Canaanite conception of kingship rather than by the law of God. The author was almost certainly not Samuel, as traditionally thought, but a later compiler who relied on ancient written materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Though the judges succeeded in giving the tribes some rest from the incursions of surrounding enemies, the Israelites were continually harassed over long periods of time. Scholarly opinion differs on the duration of the period of the judges. The dating of the exodus affects the dating of the beginning of the judges. Those who take an early date for the exodus put the beginning around 1370–1360 <span>BC<\/span>, whereas others propose a date close to the end of the 13th century <span>BC<\/span>. A related issue pertains to the chronology of the judges. Does Judges give a chronological, sequential account of the period, or is the book a representative account of judges from various parts of Canaan and Transjordan who “judged” a region, a tribe, or several tribes simultaneously?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiteraryFramework\">Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that the stories in the book bear the marks of literary creativity. The stories are classics in their own right. The poetry of Deborah’s song (Jgs 5) is very moving, and the fable of Jotham (9:8-15) is a fine example of figurative speech. The care given to the stories is also reflected in the construction of the book. There are two introductions: a political one (Jgs 1:1–2:5) and a socioreligious one (2:6–3:6). The political introduction connects Judges with the story of the Conquest, when the tribes attempted to occupy the land. It prepares the reader for the political and military problems of the era of the judges. The socioreligious introduction explains why Israel had so many adversities, why the institution of the judges arose, and why the Lord never gave Israel the promised lasting rest from its enemies. The main body of the book is the story of the judges (3:7–16:31). References to the minor judges (six in all) are set within the stories of the major judges in increasing frequency. As is evident from the schema, the number of minor judges increased in frequency in proportion to the decrease in number of major judges: two major, one minor; two major, two minor; one major, three minor; one major. There is a total of 12 judges, representative of the 12 tribes of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the listing of 12 judges, representative of the various parts of Canaan and Transjordan, is to demonstrate that all tribes throughout the conquered territories experienced grave difficulties from a variety of enemies: Arameans, Moabites, Ammonites, Amalekites, Canaanites, and Philistines. Israel was hard pressed on nearly all its frontiers. The appendixes (chs 17–21), together with the two introductions, form the framework of the book. The political and socioreligious problems (1:1–3:6) are presented by way of several stories in the last chapters. The final editor who gave the book its canonical shape purposefully framed the stories of the judges so as to show lack of movement. The successes of the previous stages in redemptive history came to a standstill in the ebb and flow of the judges. Though the Lord delivered his people in many ways, they returned to the problems described in 1:1–3:6. The appendixes describe Israel’s problems representative of the period of the judges, when “there was no king in Israel” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for deliverance, and God’s raising up of a judge reflects a deuteronomic perspective with its warnings concerning disobedience and judgment. The repetitiveness of the cycle supports the contention of the anonymous narrator that Israel remained unchanged by the grace of God. However, in spite of the moral, religious, and political anarchy as well as the civil wars, the last chapter shows that the tribes are still concerned with each other’s welfare. Though the unity of God’s people has been gravely challenged, the situation is not hopeless. The book ends on a note of hope—hope for a king who may deliver Israel.<\/p>\n\n<p>Thus, there are several purposes of the book: (1) to demonstrate the meaninglessness of this stage in Israel’s development; (2) to explain why the tribes did not occupy all the land promised to the patriarchs; (3) to justify the way of God, who was gracious and patient with Israel’s repeated acts of disobedience; (4) to set forth the legitimacy of a “shepherd” king in contrast to a despotic form of kingship; and (5) to explain the urgent need for a new momentum, lest Israel succumb to the Philistines and intertribal warfare.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Political Introduction (1:1–2:5)<\/h5>\n<p>In Joshua 1–12 the warfare under Joshua is portrayed as a mobilization of Canaanite forces against Israel. By the intervention of the Lord, the Canaanite resistance was put down and the land was occupied by the tribes (chs 13–21). Joshua 13–21, however, clearly shows that each tribe had problems ridding its territory of pockets of Canaanite resistance, which were usually centered around heavily guarded and well-fortified cities (cf. 13:2-6, 13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-18).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Joshua emphasizes the successes and minimizes the problems, whereas the prologue to Judges sets the stage for the whole book by openly addressing Israel’s problems and failures. As the book unfolds, it is precisely these problems and failures that in due time bring Israel to the brink of disaster.<\/p>\n<p>The period of the judges began with the death of Joshua (Jgs 1:1; 2:8-9). The Israelites had inherited a legacy from Joshua: the law of the Lord (Jos 23:6; 24:26), the land, a challenge to obey the Lord (24:14-27), and a promise of God’s presence and help in subduing the Canaanites (23:5, 10).<\/p>\n<h6>Judah and Simeon (Jgs 1:2-20)<\/h6>\n<p>The prominence of Judah and Caleb parallels the position of Judah in Joshua (Jos 14:6–15:63; cf. also the house of Joseph, Jgs 1:22-29; cf. Jos 16–17). Judah was victorious over the cruel Adoni-bezek, who ruled over Bezek, a town of uncertain location. Judah successfully occupied the hill country, the Negev, and the western foothills. They even took Jerusalem, or an outlying suburb identified with Jerusalem (Jos 1:8), but could not retain control there (v 21) until David’s conquest of the city (2 Sm 5:6-9). Judah was victorious over the Canaanites in the region of Hebron, already conquered under Joshua (Jos 10:36). Hebron, also known as Kiriath-arba (“city of four” or “tetrapolis”), was a powerful ally of Jerusalem (v 3) and had been able to rally military support for a new assault on Israel, even after its first defeat. Caleb received Hebron, as Moses had promised (Jgs 1:20; cf. Jos 15:13). After the victory over Hebron, Judah extended its control over the southern hill country by an attack on Debir (Jgs 1:11-15; cf. Jos 15:14-19).<\/p>\n<p>The Kenites (Jgs 1:16), descendants of Jethro and therefore related to Moses by marriage, settled in the Negev around Arad and the City of Palms, which here probably refers to Tamar rather than Jericho.<\/p>\n<p>Judah secured the southern border by a victory over the Canaanites at Hormah (Jgs 1:17; cf. Nm 14:45; 21:3; Dt 1:44) and the coastal plain by victories at Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron. However, Judah’s successes in the coastal plain were resisted by a well-armed Canaanite force (Jgs 1:18-19). It occupied the Judean hill country and the Negev, but could not retain control over the plains. The Philistines were soon to take control over Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron, and incorporate them into their pentapolis.<\/p>\n<h6>Benjamin (1:21)<\/h6>\n<p>Jerusalem was situated on the border between Judah and Benjamin. Judah took the city or a suburb (Jos 1:8) but was too far removed to retain control over it. Benjamin was too weak to subdue the Jebusites. Only David succeeded in this (2 Sm 5:6-9); he incorporated it into Judah (cf. Jos 15:63), even though it originally was allotted to Benjamin (Jos 18:28).<\/p>\n<h6>Joseph: Ephraim and Manasseh (1:22-29)<\/h6>\n<p>Ephraim took Bethel, known from the patriarchal stories as a significant cultic site (Gn 12:8; 13:3-4; 28:19; 31:13; 35:1-15). However, Manasseh was unsuccessful in taking the fortified cities in the valley of Jezreel (Esdraelon): Beth-shan, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, and Megiddo. These cities controlled traffic along the east-west and north–south roads as well as the important passes through the Carmel range and the ford of the Jordan. Ephraim could not take full possession of the coastal plain, controlled by Gezer. The success of both Ephraim and Manasseh was limited.<\/p>\n<h6>The Other Four Tribes (1:30-36)<\/h6>\n<p>The other four tribes in Canaan receive brief mention. They, too, were only partially successful. Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, and especially Dan did not fully succeed in driving out the Canaanites. At best they later subjected most of them to forced labor.<\/p>\n<h6>The Failure of Israel (2:1-5)<\/h6>\n<p>The failure to subdue the land and to wipe out the Canaanites and their culture led to intermarriage and idolatry (cf. Ex 23:33; 34:12-16; Nm 33:55; Dt 7:2-5, 16; Jos 23:7, 12).<\/p>\n<p>The identity of “the angel of the Lord” who appears at Bokim is far from certain. It may be a reference to the Lord himself, to an angelic messenger, or to a prophet (cf. Jgs 6:8). He rebuked the people in the prophetic spirit and pronounced God’s judgment as taking the form of continual confrontation between Israel and the Canaanites (2:3). Their weeping and sacrificing were to no avail (2:4-5; cf. Mal 2:13). Israel stood condemned within a generation after Joshua’s death.<\/p>\n<h5>The Theological Introduction (2:6–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>The theological introduction begins where Joshua left off (Jos 24:28-31). The generation of Joshua was characterized by loyalty, but their loyalty to the Lord did not last long after the excitement of the Conquest and the demonstration of God’s presence (Jgs 2:10). Israel served Canaanite gods (Baal and Astarte) instead. Baal was the storm god, symbolic of rain and fertility, and Astarte was his cohort. The plural (Baals and Ashtaroth, 2:11-13) signifies the many local ways in which the Canaanite gods were worshiped. The religious unity was broken up into a great diversity. Thus Israel angered the Lord (vv 12-14), who sent them enemies and plunderers. Israel was unsuccessful in dealing with them, as Moses and Joshua had forewarned (Dt 28:25, 33; Jos 23:13, 16). The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for mercy, and deliverance is found throughout Judges. The people were rooted in the apostasy of their forefathers, even though the previous generation had been sensitive to God. Israel did not submit to the leadership of the judges, except to free itself from the oppressors. In fulfillment of the curses of the covenant, God swore not to give his people rest but to test them and to train them for warfare (Jgs 3:1-4), so that they might learn to respond to the challenges of a real world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Judges of Israel (3:7–16:31)<\/h5>\n<h6>Othniel (3:7-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Othniel is a transitional figure, linking the Conquest and the judges. He had involved himself in the conquest of Kiriath-sepher and was related to Caleb as his cousin and son-in-law (1:13). He repelled the Arameans led by Cushan-rishathaim, so that the land enjoyed peace for some 40 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ehud (3:12-30)<\/h6>\n<p>The Moabites, allied with the Ammonites and Amalekites, came against Israel from the east and oppressed them for 18 years under the leadership of Eglon. Ehud led the mission to bring tribute to Eglon at his palace, located probably by Jericho (the City of Palms). Ehud was uniquely qualified for this mission; being left-handed, he was able to use his double-edged sword in an unsuspecting manner to stab the king. Ehud’s success was the result of careful plotting and the element of surprise. He paid the tribute and left, only to return with a supposed oracle from the gods. The king fell for the deception and was murdered. The delay at the Moabite court gave the Israelites an opportunity to bring their forces together at the fords of the Jordan. Ehud’s success was complete; no Moabite escaped, and Israel enjoyed peace for 80 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Shamgar (3:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Shamgar’s exploits were against the Philistines in the coastal plains. He had a non-Israelite name but was probably an Israelite by birth. Like Samson he fought the Philistines with an unconventional weapon (an ox goad). His name is also mentioned in the song of Deborah (5:6).<\/p>\n<h6>Deborah and Barak (4:1–5:31)<\/h6>\n<p>The narrative now turns to the Canaanite aggressors in the north under the leadership of Jabin, king of Hazor, and Sisera, of Harosheth-haggoyim (4:1-3). The ruins of Hazor (Jos 11:13) had been rebuilt, and another Jabin (cf. v 1) ruled over the region. He had regained his military power, as he had as many as 900 chariots of iron. He oppressed Israel for 20 years (Jgs 4:3).<\/p>\n<p>God had a prophetess in Israel who led his people during this dark time (4:4). She rendered judgments under a palm tree in southern Ephraim near Benjamin (v 5). She called on Barak to muster the armies of Naphtali and Zebulun, the tribes affected by the Canaanite raids, and to engage Sisera in a surprise attack by the Kishon River (vv 6-7). Barak’s hesitancy led him to request Deborah’s presence, which resulted in his forfeiture of the honor of killing Sisera, the commander of the Canaanite forces (vv 8-10). The Lord gave success to the surprise attack from Mt Tabor, so that the Canaanites were routed, unable to use their heavy chariots, which were mired down in the swamps of the Jezreel Valley (5:20-22). The Canaanites were routed, and Sisera was killed by Jael, the wife of Heber, a Kenite who had separated from the Kenites around Arad (4:17-18; cf. 1:16). She offered him hospitality, as her family had friendly relations with the Canaanites, but heroically put him to death with a tent peg (4:18-21; 5:26-27). In successive campaigns the Israelites gained freedom from Jabin, until they destroyed his power (4:24).<\/p>\n<p>The song of Deborah (ch 5) celebrates, in poetic fashion, the victory over Jabin. It is one of the oldest poems in the Bible. It praises the God of Israel as the King who comes to protect his covenant people, and before whom the mountains move (5:2-3). He is the God of Mt Sinai (Jgs 5:4-5; cf. Dt 33:2; Ps 68:7-8; Hb 3:3-4). Though the oppressors had despoiled Israel and had made the roads unsafe for travel, and Israel was unable to defend itself (Jgs 5:6-8), the Lord raised up Deborah and Barak to lead the nobles to war (vv 9-13). They came from Ephraim, Benjamin, Zebulun, Issachar, and Naphtali (vv 14-15a, 18), but the Transjordan tribes and Asher did not want to get involved (vv 15b-17). The song then moves to the battle scene, where torrential rains bogged the chariots down (vv 19-23). Jael is celebrated as “most blessed of women,” who used her simple way of life to bring an end to Sisera (vv 24-27). She stands in contrast to Sisera’s mother, who is portrayed with all her culture waiting in vain for Sisera’s return with all of his spoils (vv 28-30). The Lord has used the simple to confound the powerful. The conclusion is a prayer for God’s judgment on all of Israel’s enemies (Jgs 5:31a; cf. Ps 68:1-3).<\/p>\n<h6>Gideon (6:1–8:35)<\/h6>\n<p>Israel’s rest for 40 years (Jgs 5:31b) was disturbed by the invasion of Midianites and Amalekites from the East (6:1-3). They destroyed the economy by invading the country at harvesttime (vv 4-6). In response to Israel’s cry, God sent a prophet with a message similar to that of the angel of the Lord (2:1-5). Then an angel appeared to Gideon and called him to lead the people in battle (6:11-14). The Lord assured him of his presence (v 16) by a sign (vv 17-22). Gideon knew that he had been visited by the Lord and built an altar called “The <span>Lord<\/span> Is Peace” in Ophrah (v 24). He responded by destroying the cultic site dedicated to Baal and Asherah at Ophrah (vv 25-28) and by initiating worship at the new altar (v 28). Baal did not protect his own altar (vv 29-32), even when challenged by Gideon’s father (v 31). Consequently, Gideon was known as Jerubbaal (meaning, “let Baal contend with him,” v 32).<\/p>\n<p>Next, Gideon mustered an army of 32,000 men from Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali (6:35; cf. 7:3b). In order to assure himself of the Lord’s presence, he asked for another sign: the sign of the fleece (6:36-40). It must be kept in mind that Gideon lived in an area in which the wonders of God had been scarce (v 13) and that he, like Moses, needed reassurance that God was with him. God responded to his growing faith. Gideon went forth with a greatly reduced army of 300 against the enemy. Of his original army, 22,000 had left because they were afraid (7:2-3; cf. Dt 20:8). Another 9,700 were sent home, though they were valiant men (7:4-8). After assuring Gideon by a dream of an enemy soldier, God used the 300 in a marvelous way to confound the Midianites (vv 9-15). God gave Israel victory over the Midianite leaders Oreb, Zeeb, Zebah, and Zalmunna (7:16–8:21). Gideon wisely avoided a possible military confrontation with Ephraim (8:1-3), pursued the enemy deep into the Transjordan, and punished the leaders of Succoth and Penuel, who did not assist him (vv 4-9, 13-16).<\/p>\n<p>This glorious victory created a new wave of interest in the idea of kingship. The men of Israel wished to establish the family of Gideon as their royal dynasty (8:22). Gideon refused, and instead wrongly set up an ephod, cast from the gold taken in battle (vv 23-27). The ephod was probably used for cultic practices, possibly divination (cf. 17:5).<\/p>\n<p>Gideon’s era also came to an end. He was God’s instrument, giving Israel rest for 40 years. He fathered 70 sons and died in old age. God had richly blessed him, even though he had led Israel astray with his ephod. Thereafter, Israel returned to Baal worship (8:33-35).<\/p>\n<p>In the wake of Gideon’s era, his son Abimelech attempted to establish dynastic continuity by having himself installed as king at Shechem (9:1-6). With the support of his relatives at Shechem, Abimelech had all his brothers killed except Jotham (vv 4-5). After Abimelech’s coronation, Jotham set forth his opposition to his brother in a proverbial manner (vv 7-20), and went into hiding. Three years later Abimelech’s evil schemes entrapped him when the citizens of Shechem rebelled. He furiously attacked the city and destroyed it. A short time later, however, he was wounded at Thebez by a millstone dropped by a woman from the tower in which she had sought refuge from him. His servant put him out of his misery as per his request. This episode demonstrates how bad a despotic king may be. Again, God’s justice prevailed.<\/p>\n<h6>Tola (10:1-2)<\/h6>\n<p>Tola was a minor judge from Issachar who judged Israel for 23 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jair (10:3-5)<\/h6>\n<p>Jair was a minor judge from Gilead who judged Israel for 22 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jephthah (10:6–12:7)<\/h6>\n<p>A recapitulation (10:6-16) of the cycle (idolatry, enemies, cry for help, momentary repentance) sets the introduction to the Jephthah narrative. Under attack from the Ammonites, the elders of Gilead requested help from Jephthah (10:17–11:8), who promised to help them on the condition that he remain their leader even after the war (vv 9-10). At a solemn ceremony he becomes their “head” at Mizpah (v 11). Jephthah opened up correspondence with the Ammonite king, in which he argued for Israel’s rights on the basis of the Israelites’ historic claim to the land as granted to them by the Lord (vv 12–27). Instead of going out immediately to war, he hoped that “the <span>Lord<\/span>, the Judge” would settle the dispute (v 27); but the Ammonite king was unimpressed. When the Spirit of God came over him, Jephthah led Israel into battle, but only after making a rash vow. He was victorious but found out that his vow to sacrifice whatever came first out of his house required him to sacrifice his daughter. Debate continues as to whether he offered her up as a human sacrifice or whether she sacrificed marriage (see discussion under Jephthah).<\/p>\n<p>The Ephraimites seemed to have had an insatiable desire for war. Earlier they had complained to Gideon, who successfully defused their threats (8:1-3). Jephthah fought them, however, because the Israelites living in Transjordan had been reviled as “renegades” (12:1-4). Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed by the fords of the Jordan in this civil war. Thereafter, Jephthah ruled for only six years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ibzan (12:8-10)<\/h6>\n<p>Ibzan was a minor judge from Bethlehem who ruled Israel for seven years.<\/p>\n<h6>Elon (12:11)<\/h6>\n<p>A minor judge from Zebulun, Elon ruled Israel for ten years.<\/p>\n<h6>Abdon (12:13-15)<\/h6>\n<p>Abdon was a minor judge from Pirathon, the location of which is uncertain. He ruled for eight years.<\/p>\n<h6>Samson (13:1–16:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Samson’s greatness in the history of redemption is due to his miraculous birth (13:1-24), his service as a Nazirite (13:7; cf. Nm 6:1-21), the repeated overpowering by the Spirit of the Lord (Jgs 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14), the single-handed exploits against the Philistines (Ashkelon, 14:19; the fields, 15:1-6; Ramath Etam, 15:7-17; Gaza, 16:1-3, 23-30), and his occasional dependence on the Lord (15:18-19; 16:28-30). However, his personal life was flawed because of his weakness for Philistine women (chs 14, 16). Having been seduced by Delilah, he was imprisoned at Gaza. He died in the collapse of Dagon’s temple, praying that the Lord would permit him to get revenge (16:28-30). He was buried in his father’s tomb in the territory of Dan (16:31).<\/p>\n<h5>Epilogue (17–21)<\/h5>\n<p>The cyclical nature of Israel’s existence was without movement. Rest from enemies was always temporary. Israel was not yet ready for dynastic kingship, and whatever one may say of the three years of Abimelech, it was a kingship of the worst sort. Israel vacillated between idolatry and belief in the true Lord. The period of the judges was unstable, marked by petty individualism and provincialism. Yet God remained sovereign in the affairs of his people. The epilogue contains two stories: the story of Micah and the Danite migration (chs 17–18) and the civil war (chs 19–21). The epilogue is bound together by the phrase “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25, <span>niv<\/span>). The symmetric recurrence (two times in each narrative) emphasizes the anarchy and inability of the tribes to unite together to serve God as a covenant people.<\/p>\n<h6>Micah and the Danites (17–18)<\/h6>\n<p>Micah was an Ephraimite who established a shrine and hired one of his own sons, and then a Levite from Bethlehem, to serve as its priests (ch 17). Unable to keep their patrimony, the Danites left to establish themselves at the foot of Mt Hermon. They took the idols and the Levite from Micah’s shrine and set up a cultic city at the newly established city of Dan, built on the ruins of Laish (ch 18). Thus, they set up a cultic center that rivaled the tabernacle at Shiloh (18:31).<\/p>\n<h6>The Civil War (19–21)<\/h6>\n<p>The people of Gibeah, which belonged to Benjamin, sexually abused the concubine of a Levite so that she died. Like the Levite of chapters 17 and 18, she was from Bethlehem (19:1). Dramatically, the Levite sent pieces of her corpse to all the tribes, which assembled against the Benjamites because they protected the criminals of Gibeah (19:29–20:19). In the ensuing battle the population of Benjamin was decimated (20:20-48). The 11 tribes gave them 400 virgins taken in a civil war against Jabesh-gilead (21:6-15). These were not enough, however. Because of the threat of the extinction of Benjamin and the vow not to give their daughters in marriage to any Benjamite, the Israelites devised a plan by which the Benjamites could take Israelite virgins dancing in the festival at Shiloh. Benjamin thus was able to rebuild its towns and settlements.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Gideon; Jephthah; Samson.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JUDGES, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The book reflects a final editing of the material in the period of the early monarchy. It may well be a polemic for the righteous rule of David over against the kingship of Saul, which was molded by a secular, Canaanite conception of kingship rather than by the law of God. The author was almost certainly not Samuel, as traditionally thought, but a later compiler who relied on ancient written materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Though the judges succeeded in giving the tribes some rest from the incursions of surrounding enemies, the Israelites were continually harassed over long periods of time. Scholarly opinion differs on the duration of the period of the judges. The dating of the exodus affects the dating of the beginning of the judges. Those who take an early date for the exodus put the beginning around 1370–1360 <span>BC<\/span>, whereas others propose a date close to the end of the 13th century <span>BC<\/span>. A related issue pertains to the chronology of the judges. Does Judges give a chronological, sequential account of the period, or is the book a representative account of judges from various parts of Canaan and Transjordan who “judged” a region, a tribe, or several tribes simultaneously?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiteraryFramework\">Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that the stories in the book bear the marks of literary creativity. The stories are classics in their own right. The poetry of Deborah’s song (Jgs 5) is very moving, and the fable of Jotham (9:8-15) is a fine example of figurative speech. The care given to the stories is also reflected in the construction of the book. There are two introductions: a political one (Jgs 1:1–2:5) and a socioreligious one (2:6–3:6). The political introduction connects Judges with the story of the Conquest, when the tribes attempted to occupy the land. It prepares the reader for the political and military problems of the era of the judges. The socioreligious introduction explains why Israel had so many adversities, why the institution of the judges arose, and why the Lord never gave Israel the promised lasting rest from its enemies. The main body of the book is the story of the judges (3:7–16:31). References to the minor judges (six in all) are set within the stories of the major judges in increasing frequency. As is evident from the schema, the number of minor judges increased in frequency in proportion to the decrease in number of major judges: two major, one minor; two major, two minor; one major, three minor; one major. There is a total of 12 judges, representative of the 12 tribes of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the listing of 12 judges, representative of the various parts of Canaan and Transjordan, is to demonstrate that all tribes throughout the conquered territories experienced grave difficulties from a variety of enemies: Arameans, Moabites, Ammonites, Amalekites, Canaanites, and Philistines. Israel was hard pressed on nearly all its frontiers. The appendixes (chs 17–21), together with the two introductions, form the framework of the book. The political and socioreligious problems (1:1–3:6) are presented by way of several stories in the last chapters. The final editor who gave the book its canonical shape purposefully framed the stories of the judges so as to show lack of movement. The successes of the previous stages in redemptive history came to a standstill in the ebb and flow of the judges. Though the Lord delivered his people in many ways, they returned to the problems described in 1:1–3:6. The appendixes describe Israel’s problems representative of the period of the judges, when “there was no king in Israel” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for deliverance, and God’s raising up of a judge reflects a deuteronomic perspective with its warnings concerning disobedience and judgment. The repetitiveness of the cycle supports the contention of the anonymous narrator that Israel remained unchanged by the grace of God. However, in spite of the moral, religious, and political anarchy as well as the civil wars, the last chapter shows that the tribes are still concerned with each other’s welfare. Though the unity of God’s people has been gravely challenged, the situation is not hopeless. The book ends on a note of hope—hope for a king who may deliver Israel.<\/p>\n\n<p>Thus, there are several purposes of the book: (1) to demonstrate the meaninglessness of this stage in Israel’s development; (2) to explain why the tribes did not occupy all the land promised to the patriarchs; (3) to justify the way of God, who was gracious and patient with Israel’s repeated acts of disobedience; (4) to set forth the legitimacy of a “shepherd” king in contrast to a despotic form of kingship; and (5) to explain the urgent need for a new momentum, lest Israel succumb to the Philistines and intertribal warfare.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Political Introduction (1:1–2:5)<\/h5>\n<p>In Joshua 1–12 the warfare under Joshua is portrayed as a mobilization of Canaanite forces against Israel. By the intervention of the Lord, the Canaanite resistance was put down and the land was occupied by the tribes (chs 13–21). Joshua 13–21, however, clearly shows that each tribe had problems ridding its territory of pockets of Canaanite resistance, which were usually centered around heavily guarded and well-fortified cities (cf. 13:2-6, 13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-18).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Joshua emphasizes the successes and minimizes the problems, whereas the prologue to Judges sets the stage for the whole book by openly addressing Israel’s problems and failures. As the book unfolds, it is precisely these problems and failures that in due time bring Israel to the brink of disaster.<\/p>\n<p>The period of the judges began with the death of Joshua (Jgs 1:1; 2:8-9). The Israelites had inherited a legacy from Joshua: the law of the Lord (Jos 23:6; 24:26), the land, a challenge to obey the Lord (24:14-27), and a promise of God’s presence and help in subduing the Canaanites (23:5, 10).<\/p>\n<h6>Judah and Simeon (Jgs 1:2-20)<\/h6>\n<p>The prominence of Judah and Caleb parallels the position of Judah in Joshua (Jos 14:6–15:63; cf. also the house of Joseph, Jgs 1:22-29; cf. Jos 16–17). Judah was victorious over the cruel Adoni-bezek, who ruled over Bezek, a town of uncertain location. Judah successfully occupied the hill country, the Negev, and the western foothills. They even took Jerusalem, or an outlying suburb identified with Jerusalem (Jos 1:8), but could not retain control there (v 21) until David’s conquest of the city (2 Sm 5:6-9). Judah was victorious over the Canaanites in the region of Hebron, already conquered under Joshua (Jos 10:36). Hebron, also known as Kiriath-arba (“city of four” or “tetrapolis”), was a powerful ally of Jerusalem (v 3) and had been able to rally military support for a new assault on Israel, even after its first defeat. Caleb received Hebron, as Moses had promised (Jgs 1:20; cf. Jos 15:13). After the victory over Hebron, Judah extended its control over the southern hill country by an attack on Debir (Jgs 1:11-15; cf. Jos 15:14-19).<\/p>\n<p>The Kenites (Jgs 1:16), descendants of Jethro and therefore related to Moses by marriage, settled in the Negev around Arad and the City of Palms, which here probably refers to Tamar rather than Jericho.<\/p>\n<p>Judah secured the southern border by a victory over the Canaanites at Hormah (Jgs 1:17; cf. Nm 14:45; 21:3; Dt 1:44) and the coastal plain by victories at Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron. However, Judah’s successes in the coastal plain were resisted by a well-armed Canaanite force (Jgs 1:18-19). It occupied the Judean hill country and the Negev, but could not retain control over the plains. The Philistines were soon to take control over Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron, and incorporate them into their pentapolis.<\/p>\n<h6>Benjamin (1:21)<\/h6>\n<p>Jerusalem was situated on the border between Judah and Benjamin. Judah took the city or a suburb (Jos 1:8) but was too far removed to retain control over it. Benjamin was too weak to subdue the Jebusites. Only David succeeded in this (2 Sm 5:6-9); he incorporated it into Judah (cf. Jos 15:63), even though it originally was allotted to Benjamin (Jos 18:28).<\/p>\n<h6>Joseph: Ephraim and Manasseh (1:22-29)<\/h6>\n<p>Ephraim took Bethel, known from the patriarchal stories as a significant cultic site (Gn 12:8; 13:3-4; 28:19; 31:13; 35:1-15). However, Manasseh was unsuccessful in taking the fortified cities in the valley of Jezreel (Esdraelon): Beth-shan, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, and Megiddo. These cities controlled traffic along the east-west and north–south roads as well as the important passes through the Carmel range and the ford of the Jordan. Ephraim could not take full possession of the coastal plain, controlled by Gezer. The success of both Ephraim and Manasseh was limited.<\/p>\n<h6>The Other Four Tribes (1:30-36)<\/h6>\n<p>The other four tribes in Canaan receive brief mention. They, too, were only partially successful. Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, and especially Dan did not fully succeed in driving out the Canaanites. At best they later subjected most of them to forced labor.<\/p>\n<h6>The Failure of Israel (2:1-5)<\/h6>\n<p>The failure to subdue the land and to wipe out the Canaanites and their culture led to intermarriage and idolatry (cf. Ex 23:33; 34:12-16; Nm 33:55; Dt 7:2-5, 16; Jos 23:7, 12).<\/p>\n<p>The identity of “the angel of the Lord” who appears at Bokim is far from certain. It may be a reference to the Lord himself, to an angelic messenger, or to a prophet (cf. Jgs 6:8). He rebuked the people in the prophetic spirit and pronounced God’s judgment as taking the form of continual confrontation between Israel and the Canaanites (2:3). Their weeping and sacrificing were to no avail (2:4-5; cf. Mal 2:13). Israel stood condemned within a generation after Joshua’s death.<\/p>\n<h5>The Theological Introduction (2:6–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>The theological introduction begins where Joshua left off (Jos 24:28-31). The generation of Joshua was characterized by loyalty, but their loyalty to the Lord did not last long after the excitement of the Conquest and the demonstration of God’s presence (Jgs 2:10). Israel served Canaanite gods (Baal and Astarte) instead. Baal was the storm god, symbolic of rain and fertility, and Astarte was his cohort. The plural (Baals and Ashtaroth, 2:11-13) signifies the many local ways in which the Canaanite gods were worshiped. The religious unity was broken up into a great diversity. Thus Israel angered the Lord (vv 12-14), who sent them enemies and plunderers. Israel was unsuccessful in dealing with them, as Moses and Joshua had forewarned (Dt 28:25, 33; Jos 23:13, 16). The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for mercy, and deliverance is found throughout Judges. The people were rooted in the apostasy of their forefathers, even though the previous generation had been sensitive to God. Israel did not submit to the leadership of the judges, except to free itself from the oppressors. In fulfillment of the curses of the covenant, God swore not to give his people rest but to test them and to train them for warfare (Jgs 3:1-4), so that they might learn to respond to the challenges of a real world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Judges of Israel (3:7–16:31)<\/h5>\n<h6>Othniel (3:7-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Othniel is a transitional figure, linking the Conquest and the judges. He had involved himself in the conquest of Kiriath-sepher and was related to Caleb as his cousin and son-in-law (1:13). He repelled the Arameans led by Cushan-rishathaim, so that the land enjoyed peace for some 40 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ehud (3:12-30)<\/h6>\n<p>The Moabites, allied with the Ammonites and Amalekites, came against Israel from the east and oppressed them for 18 years under the leadership of Eglon. Ehud led the mission to bring tribute to Eglon at his palace, located probably by Jericho (the City of Palms). Ehud was uniquely qualified for this mission; being left-handed, he was able to use his double-edged sword in an unsuspecting manner to stab the king. Ehud’s success was the result of careful plotting and the element of surprise. He paid the tribute and left, only to return with a supposed oracle from the gods. The king fell for the deception and was murdered. The delay at the Moabite court gave the Israelites an opportunity to bring their forces together at the fords of the Jordan. Ehud’s success was complete; no Moabite escaped, and Israel enjoyed peace for 80 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Shamgar (3:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Shamgar’s exploits were against the Philistines in the coastal plains. He had a non-Israelite name but was probably an Israelite by birth. Like Samson he fought the Philistines with an unconventional weapon (an ox goad). His name is also mentioned in the song of Deborah (5:6).<\/p>\n<h6>Deborah and Barak (4:1–5:31)<\/h6>\n<p>The narrative now turns to the Canaanite aggressors in the north under the leadership of Jabin, king of Hazor, and Sisera, of Harosheth-haggoyim (4:1-3). The ruins of Hazor (Jos 11:13) had been rebuilt, and another Jabin (cf. v 1) ruled over the region. He had regained his military power, as he had as many as 900 chariots of iron. He oppressed Israel for 20 years (Jgs 4:3).<\/p>\n<p>God had a prophetess in Israel who led his people during this dark time (4:4). She rendered judgments under a palm tree in southern Ephraim near Benjamin (v 5). She called on Barak to muster the armies of Naphtali and Zebulun, the tribes affected by the Canaanite raids, and to engage Sisera in a surprise attack by the Kishon River (vv 6-7). Barak’s hesitancy led him to request Deborah’s presence, which resulted in his forfeiture of the honor of killing Sisera, the commander of the Canaanite forces (vv 8-10). The Lord gave success to the surprise attack from Mt Tabor, so that the Canaanites were routed, unable to use their heavy chariots, which were mired down in the swamps of the Jezreel Valley (5:20-22). The Canaanites were routed, and Sisera was killed by Jael, the wife of Heber, a Kenite who had separated from the Kenites around Arad (4:17-18; cf. 1:16). She offered him hospitality, as her family had friendly relations with the Canaanites, but heroically put him to death with a tent peg (4:18-21; 5:26-27). In successive campaigns the Israelites gained freedom from Jabin, until they destroyed his power (4:24).<\/p>\n<p>The song of Deborah (ch 5) celebrates, in poetic fashion, the victory over Jabin. It is one of the oldest poems in the Bible. It praises the God of Israel as the King who comes to protect his covenant people, and before whom the mountains move (5:2-3). He is the God of Mt Sinai (Jgs 5:4-5; cf. Dt 33:2; Ps 68:7-8; Hb 3:3-4). Though the oppressors had despoiled Israel and had made the roads unsafe for travel, and Israel was unable to defend itself (Jgs 5:6-8), the Lord raised up Deborah and Barak to lead the nobles to war (vv 9-13). They came from Ephraim, Benjamin, Zebulun, Issachar, and Naphtali (vv 14-15a, 18), but the Transjordan tribes and Asher did not want to get involved (vv 15b-17). The song then moves to the battle scene, where torrential rains bogged the chariots down (vv 19-23). Jael is celebrated as “most blessed of women,” who used her simple way of life to bring an end to Sisera (vv 24-27). She stands in contrast to Sisera’s mother, who is portrayed with all her culture waiting in vain for Sisera’s return with all of his spoils (vv 28-30). The Lord has used the simple to confound the powerful. The conclusion is a prayer for God’s judgment on all of Israel’s enemies (Jgs 5:31a; cf. Ps 68:1-3).<\/p>\n<h6>Gideon (6:1–8:35)<\/h6>\n<p>Israel’s rest for 40 years (Jgs 5:31b) was disturbed by the invasion of Midianites and Amalekites from the East (6:1-3). They destroyed the economy by invading the country at harvesttime (vv 4-6). In response to Israel’s cry, God sent a prophet with a message similar to that of the angel of the Lord (2:1-5). Then an angel appeared to Gideon and called him to lead the people in battle (6:11-14). The Lord assured him of his presence (v 16) by a sign (vv 17-22). Gideon knew that he had been visited by the Lord and built an altar called “The <span>Lord<\/span> Is Peace” in Ophrah (v 24). He responded by destroying the cultic site dedicated to Baal and Asherah at Ophrah (vv 25-28) and by initiating worship at the new altar (v 28). Baal did not protect his own altar (vv 29-32), even when challenged by Gideon’s father (v 31). Consequently, Gideon was known as Jerubbaal (meaning, “let Baal contend with him,” v 32).<\/p>\n<p>Next, Gideon mustered an army of 32,000 men from Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali (6:35; cf. 7:3b). In order to assure himself of the Lord’s presence, he asked for another sign: the sign of the fleece (6:36-40). It must be kept in mind that Gideon lived in an area in which the wonders of God had been scarce (v 13) and that he, like Moses, needed reassurance that God was with him. God responded to his growing faith. Gideon went forth with a greatly reduced army of 300 against the enemy. Of his original army, 22,000 had left because they were afraid (7:2-3; cf. Dt 20:8). Another 9,700 were sent home, though they were valiant men (7:4-8). After assuring Gideon by a dream of an enemy soldier, God used the 300 in a marvelous way to confound the Midianites (vv 9-15). God gave Israel victory over the Midianite leaders Oreb, Zeeb, Zebah, and Zalmunna (7:16–8:21). Gideon wisely avoided a possible military confrontation with Ephraim (8:1-3), pursued the enemy deep into the Transjordan, and punished the leaders of Succoth and Penuel, who did not assist him (vv 4-9, 13-16).<\/p>\n<p>This glorious victory created a new wave of interest in the idea of kingship. The men of Israel wished to establish the family of Gideon as their royal dynasty (8:22). Gideon refused, and instead wrongly set up an ephod, cast from the gold taken in battle (vv 23-27). The ephod was probably used for cultic practices, possibly divination (cf. 17:5).<\/p>\n<p>Gideon’s era also came to an end. He was God’s instrument, giving Israel rest for 40 years. He fathered 70 sons and died in old age. God had richly blessed him, even though he had led Israel astray with his ephod. Thereafter, Israel returned to Baal worship (8:33-35).<\/p>\n<p>In the wake of Gideon’s era, his son Abimelech attempted to establish dynastic continuity by having himself installed as king at Shechem (9:1-6). With the support of his relatives at Shechem, Abimelech had all his brothers killed except Jotham (vv 4-5). After Abimelech’s coronation, Jotham set forth his opposition to his brother in a proverbial manner (vv 7-20), and went into hiding. Three years later Abimelech’s evil schemes entrapped him when the citizens of Shechem rebelled. He furiously attacked the city and destroyed it. A short time later, however, he was wounded at Thebez by a millstone dropped by a woman from the tower in which she had sought refuge from him. His servant put him out of his misery as per his request. This episode demonstrates how bad a despotic king may be. Again, God’s justice prevailed.<\/p>\n<h6>Tola (10:1-2)<\/h6>\n<p>Tola was a minor judge from Issachar who judged Israel for 23 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jair (10:3-5)<\/h6>\n<p>Jair was a minor judge from Gilead who judged Israel for 22 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jephthah (10:6–12:7)<\/h6>\n<p>A recapitulation (10:6-16) of the cycle (idolatry, enemies, cry for help, momentary repentance) sets the introduction to the Jephthah narrative. Under attack from the Ammonites, the elders of Gilead requested help from Jephthah (10:17–11:8), who promised to help them on the condition that he remain their leader even after the war (vv 9-10). At a solemn ceremony he becomes their “head” at Mizpah (v 11). Jephthah opened up correspondence with the Ammonite king, in which he argued for Israel’s rights on the basis of the Israelites’ historic claim to the land as granted to them by the Lord (vv 12–27). Instead of going out immediately to war, he hoped that “the <span>Lord<\/span>, the Judge” would settle the dispute (v 27); but the Ammonite king was unimpressed. When the Spirit of God came over him, Jephthah led Israel into battle, but only after making a rash vow. He was victorious but found out that his vow to sacrifice whatever came first out of his house required him to sacrifice his daughter. Debate continues as to whether he offered her up as a human sacrifice or whether she sacrificed marriage (see discussion under Jephthah).<\/p>\n<p>The Ephraimites seemed to have had an insatiable desire for war. Earlier they had complained to Gideon, who successfully defused their threats (8:1-3). Jephthah fought them, however, because the Israelites living in Transjordan had been reviled as “renegades” (12:1-4). Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed by the fords of the Jordan in this civil war. Thereafter, Jephthah ruled for only six years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ibzan (12:8-10)<\/h6>\n<p>Ibzan was a minor judge from Bethlehem who ruled Israel for seven years.<\/p>\n<h6>Elon (12:11)<\/h6>\n<p>A minor judge from Zebulun, Elon ruled Israel for ten years.<\/p>\n<h6>Abdon (12:13-15)<\/h6>\n<p>Abdon was a minor judge from Pirathon, the location of which is uncertain. He ruled for eight years.<\/p>\n<h6>Samson (13:1–16:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Samson’s greatness in the history of redemption is due to his miraculous birth (13:1-24), his service as a Nazirite (13:7; cf. Nm 6:1-21), the repeated overpowering by the Spirit of the Lord (Jgs 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14), the single-handed exploits against the Philistines (Ashkelon, 14:19; the fields, 15:1-6; Ramath Etam, 15:7-17; Gaza, 16:1-3, 23-30), and his occasional dependence on the Lord (15:18-19; 16:28-30). However, his personal life was flawed because of his weakness for Philistine women (chs 14, 16). Having been seduced by Delilah, he was imprisoned at Gaza. He died in the collapse of Dagon’s temple, praying that the Lord would permit him to get revenge (16:28-30). He was buried in his father’s tomb in the territory of Dan (16:31).<\/p>\n<h5>Epilogue (17–21)<\/h5>\n<p>The cyclical nature of Israel’s existence was without movement. Rest from enemies was always temporary. Israel was not yet ready for dynastic kingship, and whatever one may say of the three years of Abimelech, it was a kingship of the worst sort. Israel vacillated between idolatry and belief in the true Lord. The period of the judges was unstable, marked by petty individualism and provincialism. Yet God remained sovereign in the affairs of his people. The epilogue contains two stories: the story of Micah and the Danite migration (chs 17–18) and the civil war (chs 19–21). The epilogue is bound together by the phrase “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25, <span>niv<\/span>). The symmetric recurrence (two times in each narrative) emphasizes the anarchy and inability of the tribes to unite together to serve God as a covenant people.<\/p>\n<h6>Micah and the Danites (17–18)<\/h6>\n<p>Micah was an Ephraimite who established a shrine and hired one of his own sons, and then a Levite from Bethlehem, to serve as its priests (ch 17). Unable to keep their patrimony, the Danites left to establish themselves at the foot of Mt Hermon. They took the idols and the Levite from Micah’s shrine and set up a cultic city at the newly established city of Dan, built on the ruins of Laish (ch 18). Thus, they set up a cultic center that rivaled the tabernacle at Shiloh (18:31).<\/p>\n<h6>The Civil War (19–21)<\/h6>\n<p>The people of Gibeah, which belonged to Benjamin, sexually abused the concubine of a Levite so that she died. Like the Levite of chapters 17 and 18, she was from Bethlehem (19:1). Dramatically, the Levite sent pieces of her corpse to all the tribes, which assembled against the Benjamites because they protected the criminals of Gibeah (19:29–20:19). In the ensuing battle the population of Benjamin was decimated (20:20-48). The 11 tribes gave them 400 virgins taken in a civil war against Jabesh-gilead (21:6-15). These were not enough, however. Because of the threat of the extinction of Benjamin and the vow not to give their daughters in marriage to any Benjamite, the Israelites devised a plan by which the Benjamites could take Israelite virgins dancing in the festival at Shiloh. Benjamin thus was able to rebuild its towns and settlements.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Gideon; Jephthah; Samson.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JUDGES, Book of Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail. Preview • Author • Date • Li...","summary_en":"JUDGES, Book of Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail. Preview • Author • Date • Li...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}]},"labels":{"article":"Articol","map":"Hartă","chart":"Diagramă","textbox":"Notă explicativă","picture":"Imagine","profile":"Profil","study_note":"Notă de studiu","theme_note":"Temă biblică"},"icons":{"article":"📖","map":"🗺️","chart":"📊","textbox":"💡","picture":"🖼️","profile":"👤","study_note":"📝","theme_note":"🎯"},"typeColors":{"article":"#d4af37","map":"#2d7d46","chart":"#3b82f6","textbox":"#8b5cf6","picture":"#ec4899","profile":"#f59e0b","study_note":"#06b6d4","theme_note":"#ef4444"}}
🔍
Niciun rezultat
Nu am găsit versete care să conțină textul căutat.
Judecătorii 19
— 30 versete
Judecătorii 19
📘 Info carte
Se încarcă...
📖 Resurse