Judecătorii 20
1 Toţii copiii lui Israel au ieşit dela Dan până la Beer-Şeba şi ţara Galaadului, şi adunarea s-a strâns ca un singur om înaintea Domnului, la Miţpa.
2 Căpeteniile întregului popor, toate seminţiile lui Israel, au venit în adunarea poporului lui Dumnezeu: erau patru sute de mii de oameni pedeştri, cari scoteau sabia.
3 Şi fiii lui Beniamin au auzit că se suiseră copiii lui Israel la Miţpa. Copiii lui Israel au zis: ,,Spuneţi cum s-a întâmplat această nelegiuire?``
4 Atunci Levitul, bărbatul femeii care fusese ucisă, a luat cuvântul, şi a zis: ,,Ajunsesem, împreună cu ţiitoarea mea, la Ghibea lui Beniamin, ca să rămânem peste noapte acolo.
5 Locuitorii din Ghibea s-au sculat împotriva mea, şi au înconjurat noaptea casa în care eram. Aveau de gând să mă omoare, au siluit pe ţiitoarea mea, până când a murit.
6 Mi-am luat ţiitoarea, şi am tăiat-o în bucăţi, pe cari le-am trimes în tot ţinutul moştenirii lui Israel; căci au săvârşit o nelegiuire şi o mişelie în Israel.
7 Iată-vă pe toţi, copii ai lui Israel; sfătuiţi-vă, şi luaţi o hotărâre aici!``
8 Tot poporul s-a sculat ca un singur om, şi a zis: ,,Niciunul din noi să nu se ducă în cortul lui, şi nimeni să nu se întoarcă acasă.
9 Iată acum ce vom face cetăţii Ghibea: să mergem împotriva ei după cum vom ieşi la sorţ.
10 Să luăm din toate seminţiile lui Israel zece oameni din o sută, o sută dintr-o mie, şi o mie din zece mii; ei să se ducă să caute merinde pentru popor, pentruca, la întoarcerea lor, să facem cetăţii Ghibea din Beniamin potrivit cu toată mişelia pe care a făcut-o ea în Israel.``
11 Astfel toţi bărbaţii lui Israel s-au strâns împotriva cetăţii, uniţi ca un singur om.
12 Seminţiile lui Israel au trimes nişte oameni în toate familiile lui Beniamin, ca să-i spună: ,,Ce înseamnă nelegiuirea aceasta care s-a făcut între voi?
13 Scoateţi afară acum pe oamenii aceia stricaţi din Ghibea, ca să-i omorâm şi să curăţim răul din mijlocul lui Israel.`` Dar Beniamiţii n-au vrut să asculte glasul fraţilor lor, copiii lui Israel.
14 Beniamiţii au ieşit din cetăţile lor, şi s-au strâns la Ghibea, ca să lupte împotriva copiilor lui Israel.
15 Numărul Beniamiţilor ieşiţi în ziua aceea din cetăţi fost de douăzeci şi şase de mii de oameni, cari scoteau sabia, fără să se mai socotească şi locuitorii din Ghibea, cari alcătuiau şapte sute de oameni aleşi.
16 În tot poporul acesta, erau şapte sute de oameni aleşi cari nu se slujeau de mâna dreaptă; toţi aceştia, aruncând o piatră cu praştia, puteau să ochească un fir de păr, şi nu dădeau greş.
17 S-a făcut şi numărătoarea bărbaţilor lui Israel, afară de ai lui Beniamin, şi s-a găsit patru sute de mii cari scoteau sabia, toţi bărbaţii de război.
18 Şi copiii lui Israel s-au sculat, s-au suit la Betel, şi au întrebat pe Dumnezeu, zicând: ,,Cine din noi să se suie întâi ca să lupte împotriva fiilor lui Beniamin?`` Domnul a răspuns: ,,Iuda să se suie întâi.``
19 Copiii lui Israel au pornit disdedimineaţă, şi au tăbărât la Ghibea.
20 Şi bărbaţii lui Israel au înaintat ca să înceapă lupta împotriva bărbaţilor lui Beniamin, şi s-au aşezat în linie de bătae împotriva lor înaintea cetăţii Ghibea.
21 Fiii lui Beniamin au ieşit din Ghibea, şi în ziua aceea au culcat la pământ douăzeci şi două de mii de oameni din Israel.
22 Poporul, bărbaţii lui Israel, s-au îmbărbătat, şi s-au aşezat din nou în linie de bătaie în locul unde se aşezaseră în ziua întâi.
23 Şi copiii lui Israel s-au suit, şi au plâns înaintea Domnului până seara; au întrebat pe Domnul, şi au zis: ,,Să mă mai sui la luptă împotriva fiilor fratelui meu Beniamin?`` Domnul a răspuns: ,,Suiţi-vă împotriva lui.``
24 Copiii lui Israel au înaintat împotriva fiilor lui Beniamin, în ziua a doua.
25 Şi în aceeaş zi, Beniamiţii le-au ieşit înainte din Ghibea, şi iarăş au culcat la pământ optsprezece mii de oameni din copiii lui Israel, toţi în stare să poarte armele.
26 Toţii copiii lui Israel şi tot poporul s-au suit şi au venit la Betel; au plâns şi au rămas acolo înaintea Domnului, au postit în ziua aceea până seara, şi au adus arderi de tot şi jertfe de mulţămire înaintea Domnului.
27 Şi copiii lui Israel au întrebat pe Domnul-acolo se găsea atunci chivotul legământului lui Dumnezeu,
28 şi Fineas, fiul lui Eleazar, fiul lui Aaron, stătea pe vremea aceea înaintea lui Dumnezeu, -şi au zis: ,,Să mai pornesc la luptă împotriva fiilor fratelui meu Beniamin, sau să mă las?`` Domnul a răspuns: ,,Suiţi-vă, căci mâne îi voi da în mânile voastre.``
29 Atunci Israel a pus nişte oameni la pândă în jurul cetăţii Ghibea.
30 Copiii lui Israel s-au suit împotriva fiilor lui Beniamin, a treia zi, şi s-au aşezat în linie de bătaie înaintea cetăţii Ghibea, ca şi în celelalte dăţi.
31 Şi fiii lui Beniamin au ieşit înaintea poporului, şi au fost traşi departe de cetate. Au început să lovească de moarte în popor, ca şi în celelalte dăţi, pe drumurile cele mari, cari suie: unul la Betel şi altul la Ghibea prin câmpie, şi au ucis aproape treizeci de bărbaţi din Israel.
32 Fiii lui Beniamin ziceau: ,,Iată-i bătuţi înaintea noastră ca şi mai înainte!`` Dar copiii lui Israel ziceau: ,,Să fugim, şi să-i tragem departe de cetate la drumul mare.``
33 Toţi bărbaţii lui Israel şi-au părăsit locurile, şi s-au înşiruit de bătaie la Baal-Tamar; şi oamenii lui Israel, cari stăteau la pândă, s-au aruncat din locul în care erau, din Maare-Ghibea.
34 Zece mii de oameni aleşi din tot Israelul au ajuns înaintea cetăţii Ghibea. Lupta a fost aprigă, şi Beniamiţii nu-şi închipuiau prăpădul prin care aveau să treacă.
35 Domnul a bătut pe Beniamin înaintea lui Israel, şi copiii lui Israel au ucis în ziua aceea douăzeci şi cinci de mii o sută de oameni din Beniamin, toţi în stare să poarte armele.
36 Fiii lui Beniamin credeau că bărbaţii lui Israel sânt bătuţi, căci aceştia făceau loc Beniamiţilor şi se bizuiau pe oamenii pe cari-i puseseră la pândă împotriva cetăţii Ghibea.
37 Oamenii dela pândă s-au aruncat repede asupra cetăţii Ghibea, au pornit înainte şi au trecut toată cetatea prin ascuţişul săbiei.
38 După un semn asupra căruia se învoiseră cu bărbaţii lui Israel, cei dela pândă aveau să facă să se înalţe din cetate un fum gros.
39 Atunci bărbaţii lui Israel s-au întors în luptă. Beniaminţii le omorâseră aproape treizeci de oameni, şi ziceau: ,,Negreşit, iată-i bătuţi înaintea noastră ca în cea dintâi luptă!``
40 Dar un fum gros începea să se înalţe atunci din cetate. Beniamiţii s-au uitat înapoi; şi iată că flăcările se ridicau din cetatea întreagă spre cer.
41 Bărbaţii lui Israel se întorseseră; şi bărbaţii lui Beniamin s-au înspăimântat, văzând prăpădul care avea să-i ajungă.
42 Au dat dosul înaintea bărbaţilor lui Israel, şi au fugit pe calea care duce în pustie., Dar năvălitorii s-au luat după ei, iar pe cei ce ieşiseră din cetate i-au culcat la pământ, căci îi prinseseră la mijloc.
43 Au înconjurat pe Beniamin, l-au gonit şi l-au zdrobit de îndată ce voia să se odihnească, până în faţa cetăţii Ghibea înspre soare răsare.
44 Optsprezece mii de bărbaţi au căzut din Beniamin, toţi voinici.
45 Din ceice au dat dosul ca să fugă spre pustie la stânca Rimon, bărbaţii lui Israel au nimicit cinci mii pe drumuri; i-au urmărit până la Ghideom, şi au ucis din ei două mii.
46 Întreg numărul Beniamiţilor cari au perit în ziua aceea a fost de douăzeci şi cincii de mii de oameni în stare să poarte armele, toţi voinici.
47 Şase sute de oameni erau ceice dăduseră dosul şi fugiseră spre pustie la stânca Rimon; acolo au rămas patru luni.
48 Bărbaţii lui Israel s-au întors la fiii lui Beniamin, şi i-au trecut prin ascuţişul săbiei, dela oamenii din cetăţi până la dobitoace, şi tot ce au găsit. Au pus de asemenea foc tuturor cetăţilor pe cari le-au găsit în cale.
{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":7364,"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":8491,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Dan (Place)","title_en":"Dan (Place)","content_ro":"<h3>DAN (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Phoenician city, originally named Leshem (Jos 19:47) or Laish (Jgs 18:7), which was conquered by Dan’s tribe when it migrated northward. The city lay a day’s journey from Sidon in the valley near Beth-rehob (v 28) at the southern base of Mt Hermon. It was the most northerly point of the ancient Israelite kingdom, and was used as a topographical marker in the phrase “from Dan to Beersheba” (cf. Jgs 20:1; 2 Sm 3:10).<\/li>\n<p>The site of Dan guarded a major trading route running between Damascus and Tyre, and was therefore an important commercial center. The Nahr el-Leddan, one of the principal sources of the Jordan, rose in the area, and this made the Huleh Valley below Dan lush and fertile even in the heat of summer. Consequently, the territory around the city produced grain and vegetable crops in abundance, as well as supplying the needs of flocks and herds adequately.<\/p>\n<p>In the early Iron Age, Dan was a prosperous city, as indicated in Judges 18:7, but by the middle of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>, it had been destroyed, evidently as a result of occupation by the Danites. When Jeroboam I became king of the separate northern kingdom of Israel, Dan was one of two shrines where the golden calves were worshiped. The high place at Tell el-Qadi (Tell of Dan), a square masonry platform some 61 by 20 feet (18.6 by 6.1 meters), has been excavated, but no trace of the golden image has been found.<\/p>\n\n<p>The cultic worship of Baal at Dan survived even Jehu’s drastic purge (2 Kgs 10:28-31), but during Ben-hadad’s reign, the city fell under Syrian control (cf. v 32). When the Syrians were attempting to ward off Assyrian attacks on their eastern border during the time of Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>), Dan was reconquered by the northern kingdom. It did not remain in Israelite hands for long, however, for its inhabitants were deported to Assyria (2 Kgs 17:6) by Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 <span>BC<\/span>). Nevertheless, the site continued to be inhabited (cf. Jer 4:15; 8:16), and its high place, or acropolis, at the northern extremity of the mound was used for worship. This particular area was enlarged periodically in both Greek and Roman times, and it is from the latter period that a statue of Aphrodite came. In NT times Dan was eclipsed by Caesarea, which was only a few miles distant. Josephus (<em>War<\/em> 4.1) recorded that Titus crushed a revolt at Dan in <span>AD<\/span> 67.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Dan (Person); Dan, Tribe of.<\/p>\n<li>2. KJV rendering of an obscure Hebrew word (Vedan) in Ezekiel 27:19, alternately translated “wine,” a commodity from Uzal, in the <span>rsv<\/span>.<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Uzal (Place).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DAN (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Phoenician city, originally named Leshem (Jos 19:47) or Laish (Jgs 18:7), which was conquered by Dan’s tribe when it migrated northward. The city lay a day’s journey from Sidon in the valley near Beth-rehob (v 28) at the southern base of Mt Hermon. It was the most northerly point of the ancient Israelite kingdom, and was used as a topographical marker in the phrase “from Dan to Beersheba” (cf. Jgs 20:1; 2 Sm 3:10).<\/li>\n<p>The site of Dan guarded a major trading route running between Damascus and Tyre, and was therefore an important commercial center. The Nahr el-Leddan, one of the principal sources of the Jordan, rose in the area, and this made the Huleh Valley below Dan lush and fertile even in the heat of summer. Consequently, the territory around the city produced grain and vegetable crops in abundance, as well as supplying the needs of flocks and herds adequately.<\/p>\n<p>In the early Iron Age, Dan was a prosperous city, as indicated in Judges 18:7, but by the middle of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>, it had been destroyed, evidently as a result of occupation by the Danites. When Jeroboam I became king of the separate northern kingdom of Israel, Dan was one of two shrines where the golden calves were worshiped. The high place at Tell el-Qadi (Tell of Dan), a square masonry platform some 61 by 20 feet (18.6 by 6.1 meters), has been excavated, but no trace of the golden image has been found.<\/p>\n\n<p>The cultic worship of Baal at Dan survived even Jehu’s drastic purge (2 Kgs 10:28-31), but during Ben-hadad’s reign, the city fell under Syrian control (cf. v 32). When the Syrians were attempting to ward off Assyrian attacks on their eastern border during the time of Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>), Dan was reconquered by the northern kingdom. It did not remain in Israelite hands for long, however, for its inhabitants were deported to Assyria (2 Kgs 17:6) by Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 <span>BC<\/span>). Nevertheless, the site continued to be inhabited (cf. Jer 4:15; 8:16), and its high place, or acropolis, at the northern extremity of the mound was used for worship. This particular area was enlarged periodically in both Greek and Roman times, and it is from the latter period that a statue of Aphrodite came. In NT times Dan was eclipsed by Caesarea, which was only a few miles distant. Josephus (<em>War<\/em> 4.1) recorded that Titus crushed a revolt at Dan in <span>AD<\/span> 67.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Dan (Person); Dan, Tribe of.<\/p>\n<li>2. KJV rendering of an obscure Hebrew word (Vedan) in Ezekiel 27:19, alternately translated “wine,” a commodity from Uzal, in the <span>rsv<\/span>.<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Uzal (Place).<\/p>","summary_ro":"DAN (Place) 1. Phoenician city, originally named Leshem (Jos 19:47) or Laish (Jgs 18:7), which was conquered by Dan’s tribe when it migrated northward. The city lay a day’s journey from Sidon in the valley near Beth-rehob (v 28) at the southern base of Mt Hermon. It was the most northerly point of the ancient Israelite kingdom, and was used as a topographical marker in the phrase “from Dan to Beersheba” (cf. Jgs 20:1; 2 Sm 3:10). The site of Dan guarded a major trading route running between D...","summary_en":"DAN (Place) 1. Phoenician city, originally named Leshem (Jos 19:47) or Laish (Jgs 18:7), which was conquered by Dan’s tribe when it migrated northward. The city lay a day’s journey from Sidon in the valley near Beth-rehob (v 28) at the southern base of Mt Hermon. It was the most northerly point of the ancient Israelite kingdom, and was used as a topographical marker in the phrase “from Dan to Beersheba” (cf. Jgs 20:1; 2 Sm 3:10). The site of Dan guarded a major trading route running between D...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":8521,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tribe of Dan","title_en":"Tribe of Dan","content_ro":"<h3>DAN, Tribe of<\/h3>\n<p>Israelite tribe named for the patriarch Jacob’s fifth son. The tribe of Dan, descended from Dan’s only known son, Hushim (cf. “Shuham” in Nm 26:42-43), had little distinction in its early years. Some Danites are mentioned in the wilderness narratives: Oholiab, a craftsman of the tabernacle (Ex 31:6; 35:34; 38:23); another whose mother married an Egyptian and who blasphemed God (Lv 24:11); and Ahiezer, chief prince of Dan during the exodus (Nm 1:12).<\/p>\n<p>Dan was the second largest tribe at the first census taken in the wilderness (62,700 warriors—Nm 1:38-39). They were instructed to encamp on the north side of the Israelites’ camp along with Asher and Naphtali (Nm 2:25-31), and were to bring up the rear in the line of march (Nm 2:31; 10:25). At the second census 40 years later, just before entering the Promised Land, they had grown only to 64,400 (26:42-43), still second in size. The tribe does not stand out in the Conquest narratives (Dt 2:16–3:29; Jos 1–24; Jgs 1). Dan is listed among the tribes who reminded Israel of the covenant curses at Mt Ebal (Dt 27:13; cf. Jos 8:30-33). The tribe is called a “lion’s whelp” in Moses’ blessing (Dt 33:22). Some believe that the reference to “Bashan” in that blessing prefigured the Danites’ migration to the northern territory where they eventually settled.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most significant references to Dan’s tribe is the account of its northward migration (Jos 19:40-48; Jgs 18). The Danites had been allotted a portion of Canaan between Judah and Ephraim bordering the Mediterranean seacoast (Jos 19:40-46; Jgs 5:17), but were unable to occupy their territory except for the valley at Zorah and Eshtaol (Jgs 13:25; 18:2). As a result, a group of Danites, discouraged with their situation, marched north and captured Laish, located about 25 miles (40 kilometers) north of the Sea of Galilee and just below Israel’s northernmost border. Laish was renamed Dan at that time (18:27-29). Their association with that northern territory eventually gave rise to the expression “from Dan to Beersheba” (Jgs 20:1; 2 Sm 3:10) as designating Israel’s northern and southern borders.<\/p>\n<p>Southern Dan continued for some time, as illustrated in the exploits of Samson of the tribe of Dan (Jgs 13–16). Evidently the southern Danites gradually merged into the tribe of Judah, and no historical reference to the southern Danite tribe is made in the rest of the OT. The Danites were mentioned in King David’s time as mustering a considerable army loyal to David (1 Chr 12:35; 27:22).<\/p>\n<p>The Danites were among the tribes who did not drive the Canaanites from their territory (Jos 13:4-5; cf. Jgs 1:34-35). Joshua had to prod them into the task at the Shiloh assembly (Jos 18:1-4; 19:40-48). Eventually the Danites gave up the effort and sought other lands in the north, where conquest was easier. Their disobedience was further manifested in their open sin of setting up a “graven image” and establishing a rival priesthood, even though their priest was a Levite (Jgs 18:30-31). The result of that idolatry was that, at the division of the Israelite kingdom at the end of King Solomon’s reign, King Jeroboam of the northern kingdom of Israel chose the city of Dan as one of the idol shrines in which to set up the golden calves (1 Kgs 12:28-29). The Danites’ apostasy, and that of the other northern tribes, continued throughout their history (2 Kgs 10:29), and because of it they were eventually carried captive to Assyria (2 Kgs 17:1-23).<\/p>\n<p>The tribe name is mentioned in the prophet Ezekiel’s idealized description of the restored land and Jerusalem (Ez 48:1-2, 32). In the NT, the apostle John omitted the tribe from a list of Israel’s tribes (Rv 7:4-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of; Dan (Person); Dan (Place).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DAN, Tribe of<\/h3>\n<p>Israelite tribe named for the patriarch Jacob’s fifth son. The tribe of Dan, descended from Dan’s only known son, Hushim (cf. “Shuham” in Nm 26:42-43), had little distinction in its early years. Some Danites are mentioned in the wilderness narratives: Oholiab, a craftsman of the tabernacle (Ex 31:6; 35:34; 38:23); another whose mother married an Egyptian and who blasphemed God (Lv 24:11); and Ahiezer, chief prince of Dan during the exodus (Nm 1:12).<\/p>\n<p>Dan was the second largest tribe at the first census taken in the wilderness (62,700 warriors—Nm 1:38-39). They were instructed to encamp on the north side of the Israelites’ camp along with Asher and Naphtali (Nm 2:25-31), and were to bring up the rear in the line of march (Nm 2:31; 10:25). At the second census 40 years later, just before entering the Promised Land, they had grown only to 64,400 (26:42-43), still second in size. The tribe does not stand out in the Conquest narratives (Dt 2:16–3:29; Jos 1–24; Jgs 1). Dan is listed among the tribes who reminded Israel of the covenant curses at Mt Ebal (Dt 27:13; cf. Jos 8:30-33). The tribe is called a “lion’s whelp” in Moses’ blessing (Dt 33:22). Some believe that the reference to “Bashan” in that blessing prefigured the Danites’ migration to the northern territory where they eventually settled.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most significant references to Dan’s tribe is the account of its northward migration (Jos 19:40-48; Jgs 18). The Danites had been allotted a portion of Canaan between Judah and Ephraim bordering the Mediterranean seacoast (Jos 19:40-46; Jgs 5:17), but were unable to occupy their territory except for the valley at Zorah and Eshtaol (Jgs 13:25; 18:2). As a result, a group of Danites, discouraged with their situation, marched north and captured Laish, located about 25 miles (40 kilometers) north of the Sea of Galilee and just below Israel’s northernmost border. Laish was renamed Dan at that time (18:27-29). Their association with that northern territory eventually gave rise to the expression “from Dan to Beersheba” (Jgs 20:1; 2 Sm 3:10) as designating Israel’s northern and southern borders.<\/p>\n<p>Southern Dan continued for some time, as illustrated in the exploits of Samson of the tribe of Dan (Jgs 13–16). Evidently the southern Danites gradually merged into the tribe of Judah, and no historical reference to the southern Danite tribe is made in the rest of the OT. The Danites were mentioned in King David’s time as mustering a considerable army loyal to David (1 Chr 12:35; 27:22).<\/p>\n<p>The Danites were among the tribes who did not drive the Canaanites from their territory (Jos 13:4-5; cf. Jgs 1:34-35). Joshua had to prod them into the task at the Shiloh assembly (Jos 18:1-4; 19:40-48). Eventually the Danites gave up the effort and sought other lands in the north, where conquest was easier. Their disobedience was further manifested in their open sin of setting up a “graven image” and establishing a rival priesthood, even though their priest was a Levite (Jgs 18:30-31). The result of that idolatry was that, at the division of the Israelite kingdom at the end of King Solomon’s reign, King Jeroboam of the northern kingdom of Israel chose the city of Dan as one of the idol shrines in which to set up the golden calves (1 Kgs 12:28-29). The Danites’ apostasy, and that of the other northern tribes, continued throughout their history (2 Kgs 10:29), and because of it they were eventually carried captive to Assyria (2 Kgs 17:1-23).<\/p>\n<p>The tribe name is mentioned in the prophet Ezekiel’s idealized description of the restored land and Jerusalem (Ez 48:1-2, 32). In the NT, the apostle John omitted the tribe from a list of Israel’s tribes (Rv 7:4-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of; Dan (Person); Dan (Place).<\/p>","summary_ro":"DAN, Tribe of Israelite tribe named for the patriarch Jacob’s fifth son. The tribe of Dan, descended from Dan’s only known son, Hushim (cf. “Shuham” in Nm 26:42-43), had little distinction in its early years. Some Danites are mentioned in the wilderness narratives: Oholiab, a craftsman of the tabernacle (Ex 31:6; 35:34; 38:23); another whose mother married an Egyptian and who blasphemed God (Lv 24:11); and Ahiezer, chief prince of Dan during the exodus (Nm 1:12). Dan was the second largest tr...","summary_en":"DAN, Tribe of Israelite tribe named for the patriarch Jacob’s fifth son. The tribe of Dan, descended from Dan’s only known son, Hushim (cf. “Shuham” in Nm 26:42-43), had little distinction in its early years. Some Danites are mentioned in the wilderness narratives: Oholiab, a craftsman of the tabernacle (Ex 31:6; 35:34; 38:23); another whose mother married an Egyptian and who blasphemed God (Lv 24:11); and Ahiezer, chief prince of Dan during the exodus (Nm 1:12). Dan was the second largest tr...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13848,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gilead (Place)","title_en":"Gilead (Place)","content_ro":"<h3>GILEAD (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Region east of the Jordan River. Generally used to designate the territory occupied by all the Transjordanian Israelite tribes (Jgs 20:1; 2 Kgs 10:33; Jer 50:19; Zec 10:10). Specifically, Gilead is the area of the Transjordan lying between the Yarmuk and Arnon Rivers and divided by the Jabbok River.<\/li>\n<p>The so-called Dome of Gilead is an extension of the central hill country of Judah, rising to heights of more than 3,000 feet (914.4 meters) above the Jordan Valley. The valleys and hills were well watered by numerous rivers and tributaries, making flatter portions of the countryside well suited for agriculture, especially olive trees, grapevines, and grains (cf. Jer 8:22; 46:11; Hos 2:8). The densely forested and rugged hills were sometimes compared to those of Lebanon (Jer 22:6; Zec 10:10) and made the land a refuge for those in flight, since the terrain prohibited ready pursuit by enemies (cf. Gn 31:21; 1 Sm 13:7).<\/p>\n<p>Originally the region of Gilead was allotted to the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh (Nm 32). The period of the judges saw Israelite security there assailed by the Midianites and Amalekites, only to be checked by the military exploits of Gideon (Jgs 6–7). Half a century later, Jephthah was recalled from his banishment to rescue Gilead from oppressive Ammonite rule (chs 10–11). During the united monarchy, Saul delivered Jabesh-gilead from Ammonite dominance (1 Sm 11:1-11; 31:8-13; 2 Sm 2:1-7). Abner installed Ish-bosheth as a rival to David in Gilead (2 Sm 2:8-9). David conquered the Ammonites controlling Gilead as he extended the borders of Israel (8:11-12; 10:1-19). He fled there for refuge in the face of Absalom’s rebellion (chs 15–17) and was finally restored to the throne when Absalom was slain in the forest of Ephraim (chs 18–19). Gilead remained a battleground during the divided monarchy, as first the Israelites warred with the Syrians (Arameans; 1 Kgs 20:23-43; 22:1-4, 29-40; 2 Kgs 13:22; Am 1:3) and then with the Assyrians, who wrested the territory from Pekah in 733 <span>BC<\/span> and deported the Israelite population, thus severing Gilead’s tie to the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 15:27-31).<\/p>\n<li>2. A city condemned for its evil (Hos 6:8), possibly an abbreviated name for Jabesh-gilead or Ramoth-gilead. This may be the same Gilead that was identified with Mizpah #5. (cf. Jgs 10:17-18).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>GILEAD (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Region east of the Jordan River. Generally used to designate the territory occupied by all the Transjordanian Israelite tribes (Jgs 20:1; 2 Kgs 10:33; Jer 50:19; Zec 10:10). Specifically, Gilead is the area of the Transjordan lying between the Yarmuk and Arnon Rivers and divided by the Jabbok River.<\/li>\n<p>The so-called Dome of Gilead is an extension of the central hill country of Judah, rising to heights of more than 3,000 feet (914.4 meters) above the Jordan Valley. The valleys and hills were well watered by numerous rivers and tributaries, making flatter portions of the countryside well suited for agriculture, especially olive trees, grapevines, and grains (cf. Jer 8:22; 46:11; Hos 2:8). The densely forested and rugged hills were sometimes compared to those of Lebanon (Jer 22:6; Zec 10:10) and made the land a refuge for those in flight, since the terrain prohibited ready pursuit by enemies (cf. Gn 31:21; 1 Sm 13:7).<\/p>\n<p>Originally the region of Gilead was allotted to the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh (Nm 32). The period of the judges saw Israelite security there assailed by the Midianites and Amalekites, only to be checked by the military exploits of Gideon (Jgs 6–7). Half a century later, Jephthah was recalled from his banishment to rescue Gilead from oppressive Ammonite rule (chs 10–11). During the united monarchy, Saul delivered Jabesh-gilead from Ammonite dominance (1 Sm 11:1-11; 31:8-13; 2 Sm 2:1-7). Abner installed Ish-bosheth as a rival to David in Gilead (2 Sm 2:8-9). David conquered the Ammonites controlling Gilead as he extended the borders of Israel (8:11-12; 10:1-19). He fled there for refuge in the face of Absalom’s rebellion (chs 15–17) and was finally restored to the throne when Absalom was slain in the forest of Ephraim (chs 18–19). Gilead remained a battleground during the divided monarchy, as first the Israelites warred with the Syrians (Arameans; 1 Kgs 20:23-43; 22:1-4, 29-40; 2 Kgs 13:22; Am 1:3) and then with the Assyrians, who wrested the territory from Pekah in 733 <span>BC<\/span> and deported the Israelite population, thus severing Gilead’s tie to the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 15:27-31).<\/p>\n<li>2. A city condemned for its evil (Hos 6:8), possibly an abbreviated name for Jabesh-gilead or Ramoth-gilead. This may be the same Gilead that was identified with Mizpah #5. (cf. Jgs 10:17-18).<\/li>","summary_ro":"GILEAD (Place) 1. Region east of the Jordan River. Generally used to designate the territory occupied by all the Transjordanian Israelite tribes (Jgs 20:1; 2 Kgs 10:33; Jer 50:19; Zec 10:10). Specifically, Gilead is the area of the Transjordan lying between the Yarmuk and Arnon Rivers and divided by the Jabbok River. The so-called Dome of Gilead is an extension of the central hill country of Judah, rising to heights of more than 3,000 feet (914.4 meters) above the Jordan Valley. The valleys a...","summary_en":"GILEAD (Place) 1. Region east of the Jordan River. Generally used to designate the territory occupied by all the Transjordanian Israelite tribes (Jgs 20:1; 2 Kgs 10:33; Jer 50:19; Zec 10:10). Specifically, Gilead is the area of the Transjordan lying between the Yarmuk and Arnon Rivers and divided by the Jabbok River. The so-called Dome of Gilead is an extension of the central hill country of Judah, rising to heights of more than 3,000 feet (914.4 meters) above the Jordan Valley. The valleys a...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":21189,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Judeans Judea","title_en":"Judeans Judea","content_ro":"<h3>JUDEA, JUDEANS<\/h3>\n<p>“Land of the Jews,” particularly after the Captivity. Since most of the Israelites who returned from the exile were from the tribe of Judah, they were called Judeans or Jews and their land, Judea. This part of the Holy Land has always been of great interest to the Bible student because of the location of such places as Jerusalem and Bethlehem within the area and because of the events of Christ’s life and ministry that occurred here.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Definition\">Definition<\/p>\n<p>First used in Ezra 5:8, the term there designates a province of the Persian Empire. It is also spoken of in the literature of the Maccabean period after Greece had taken control of the area from the Persians (1 Macc 5:45; 7:10). In Roman times Judea was annexed to the Roman province of Syria until the time of Herod the Great, who was declared king of Judea in about 37 <span>BC<\/span>. On occasion, the term Judea seems to mean all the territory occupied by the Jewish nation, that is, all of western Palestine (Lk 23:5; Acts 10:37; 26:20). Secular writers of NT times, including Strabo, Tacitus, and Philo, used the term in the wider sense. But in its ordinary and strict sense it denoted the southern district of Palestine. The other two districts or divisions were Galilee in the north and Samaria in the center.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Geography\">Geography<\/p>\n<p>While the geographic boundaries of Judea were not always the same in different historical periods, the province did include the territories once belonging to the tribes of Judah, Dan, Benjamin, and Simeon. The northern boundary, separating Judea and Samaria, is less definite than the others since there is no natural geographic barrier—no valley, no body of water, no break in the terrain—to indicate a division. It is thought, however, that the northern boundary line ran from Joppa on the Mediterranean to a point on the Jordan River about 10 to 12 miles (16 to 19 kilometers) north of the Dead Sea.<\/p>\n<p>The southern boundary extended from a point about seven miles (11 kilometers) southwest of Gaza near the coast through Beersheba to the Dead Sea. According to Judges 20:1, Beersheba was the southern boundary of the nation, and it is therefore properly considered the southern limit of Judea. The eastern boundary was the Dead Sea, and the western boundary the Mediterranean Sea. Judea therefore was in shape a square of territory approximately 45 miles (72 kilometers) wide on each side.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"History\">History<\/p>\n<p>The history of Judea begins in the Persian period (539–331 <span>BC<\/span>), when Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to rebuild their temple and their holy city of Jerusalem. In the Greek period (334–167 <span>BC<\/span>) the area came under the control of the Seleucids, descendants of one of Alexander’s generals who ruled in Syria. Their attempts to destroy the Jewish religion led to a Jewish revolt under the leadership of the Hasmonean family, and the Jews enjoyed nearly a hundred years of independence (167–63 <span>BC<\/span>). In 63 <span>BC<\/span> Pompey conquered Palestine for Rome, and eventually Herod the Great was made king (37–4 <span>BC<\/span>), being succeeded by his son Herod Archelaus (4 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 6). The Romans then appointed a series of imperial governors called procurators, and these ruled Judea, Samaria, and Idumea (south of Judea) until the Jewish revolt of 66–70, with the exception of the years 41 to 44, when the grandson of Herod the Great, Herod Agrippa I, ruled all of Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>The fate of Judea has been the fate of all Palestine, and it has continued to know many cruel conquerors since the close of NT times. The country was under the heel of Rome until 330, when it came under Constantinople, or Byzantium, and saw the building of many Christian churches (330–634). The Persians again invaded (607–629), destroying Christian churches and killing many people. The Arab period (634–1099) saw the coming of Muslim control of Judea, which was interrupted by the Crusaders (1099–1263), who were determined to rescue the Holy Land from the Muslims. After the final defeat of the Crusaders, the Muslims regained control until the modern period (1917–present). After World War I, Judea was a part of the British mandate over Palestine. In 1948 it was partitioned between Israel and Jordan, and as a result of Israel’s victories in the Six Day War of June 1967, Judea was reunited and came once again under the control of the Jews.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Diaspora of the Jews; Judaism; Palestine; Postexilic Period.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JUDEA, JUDEANS<\/h3>\n<p>“Land of the Jews,” particularly after the Captivity. Since most of the Israelites who returned from the exile were from the tribe of Judah, they were called Judeans or Jews and their land, Judea. This part of the Holy Land has always been of great interest to the Bible student because of the location of such places as Jerusalem and Bethlehem within the area and because of the events of Christ’s life and ministry that occurred here.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Definition\">Definition<\/p>\n<p>First used in Ezra 5:8, the term there designates a province of the Persian Empire. It is also spoken of in the literature of the Maccabean period after Greece had taken control of the area from the Persians (1 Macc 5:45; 7:10). In Roman times Judea was annexed to the Roman province of Syria until the time of Herod the Great, who was declared king of Judea in about 37 <span>BC<\/span>. On occasion, the term Judea seems to mean all the territory occupied by the Jewish nation, that is, all of western Palestine (Lk 23:5; Acts 10:37; 26:20). Secular writers of NT times, including Strabo, Tacitus, and Philo, used the term in the wider sense. But in its ordinary and strict sense it denoted the southern district of Palestine. The other two districts or divisions were Galilee in the north and Samaria in the center.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Geography\">Geography<\/p>\n<p>While the geographic boundaries of Judea were not always the same in different historical periods, the province did include the territories once belonging to the tribes of Judah, Dan, Benjamin, and Simeon. The northern boundary, separating Judea and Samaria, is less definite than the others since there is no natural geographic barrier—no valley, no body of water, no break in the terrain—to indicate a division. It is thought, however, that the northern boundary line ran from Joppa on the Mediterranean to a point on the Jordan River about 10 to 12 miles (16 to 19 kilometers) north of the Dead Sea.<\/p>\n<p>The southern boundary extended from a point about seven miles (11 kilometers) southwest of Gaza near the coast through Beersheba to the Dead Sea. According to Judges 20:1, Beersheba was the southern boundary of the nation, and it is therefore properly considered the southern limit of Judea. The eastern boundary was the Dead Sea, and the western boundary the Mediterranean Sea. Judea therefore was in shape a square of territory approximately 45 miles (72 kilometers) wide on each side.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"History\">History<\/p>\n<p>The history of Judea begins in the Persian period (539–331 <span>BC<\/span>), when Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to rebuild their temple and their holy city of Jerusalem. In the Greek period (334–167 <span>BC<\/span>) the area came under the control of the Seleucids, descendants of one of Alexander’s generals who ruled in Syria. Their attempts to destroy the Jewish religion led to a Jewish revolt under the leadership of the Hasmonean family, and the Jews enjoyed nearly a hundred years of independence (167–63 <span>BC<\/span>). In 63 <span>BC<\/span> Pompey conquered Palestine for Rome, and eventually Herod the Great was made king (37–4 <span>BC<\/span>), being succeeded by his son Herod Archelaus (4 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 6). The Romans then appointed a series of imperial governors called procurators, and these ruled Judea, Samaria, and Idumea (south of Judea) until the Jewish revolt of 66–70, with the exception of the years 41 to 44, when the grandson of Herod the Great, Herod Agrippa I, ruled all of Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>The fate of Judea has been the fate of all Palestine, and it has continued to know many cruel conquerors since the close of NT times. The country was under the heel of Rome until 330, when it came under Constantinople, or Byzantium, and saw the building of many Christian churches (330–634). The Persians again invaded (607–629), destroying Christian churches and killing many people. The Arab period (634–1099) saw the coming of Muslim control of Judea, which was interrupted by the Crusaders (1099–1263), who were determined to rescue the Holy Land from the Muslims. After the final defeat of the Crusaders, the Muslims regained control until the modern period (1917–present). After World War I, Judea was a part of the British mandate over Palestine. In 1948 it was partitioned between Israel and Jordan, and as a result of Israel’s victories in the Six Day War of June 1967, Judea was reunited and came once again under the control of the Jews.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Diaspora of the Jews; Judaism; Palestine; Postexilic Period.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JUDEA, JUDEANS “Land of the Jews,” particularly after the Captivity. Since most of the Israelites who returned from the exile were from the tribe of Judah, they were called Judeans or Jews and their land, Judea. This part of the Holy Land has always been of great interest to the Bible student because of the location of such places as Jerusalem and Bethlehem within the area and because of the events of Christ’s life and ministry that occurred here. Definition First used in Ezra 5:8, the term t...","summary_en":"JUDEA, JUDEANS “Land of the Jews,” particularly after the Captivity. Since most of the Israelites who returned from the exile were from the tribe of Judah, they were called Judeans or Jews and their land, Judea. This part of the Holy Land has always been of great interest to the Bible student because of the location of such places as Jerusalem and Bethlehem within the area and because of the events of Christ’s life and ministry that occurred here. Definition First used in Ezra 5:8, the term t...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":26114,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Mizpah","title_en":"Mizpah","content_ro":"<h3>MIZPAH<\/h3>\n<p>Name meaning “watchtower” in Hebrew (alternately spelled Mizpeh) used to designate a number of different locations mentioned in the OT and Apocrypha.<\/p>\n<p>1. Place in Gilead where Jacob and Laban made a covenant (Gn 31:49) and set up a heap of stones to mark the borders between their territories.<\/p>\n<li>2. Place referred to as “the land of Mizpah” (Jos 11:3) or the “valley of Mizpah” (Jos 11:8) near Mt Hermon and inhabited by the Hivites.<\/li>\n<li>3. Town in Judah near Lachish referred to in Joshua 15:38.<\/li>\n<li>4. Place in the tribal area of Benjamin (Jos 18:26). It was here that the Israelites gathered to war against the tribe of Benjamin (Jgs 20:1; 21:1) after the men of Gibeah had abused and killed the concubine of a visiting Levite. It was here that Samuel called all Israel together to pray for victory over the Philistines (1 Sm 7:5-8). Later, Samuel called for an assembly at Mizpah to publicly designate Saul as king and to instruct the people and king in the ways of the kingdom (10:17-25). In the time of Asa, Mizpah was a fortified town on the border between Israel and Judah (1 Kgs 15:22). After the fall of Jerusalem in 586 <span>BC<\/span> to the Babylonians, Mizpah became the residence of Gedaliah the governor (2 Kgs 25:23-24; Jer 40:10), who was murdered there by Ishmael of the “royal seed” (Jer 41:3). Two days later Ishmael murdered a company of pilgrims who were going to Jerusalem to bring their offerings at the ruined temple, and he cast their bodies into a cistern that had been constructed centuries earlier by Asa.<\/li>\n<p>In the intertestamental period Mizpah continued to be an important religious center. Judas Maccabeus called the people together at Mizpah “because Israel formerly had a place of prayer in Mizpah” (1 Macc 3:46).<\/p>\n<li>5. Home of Jephthah, from which he led the Israelites in battle against the Ammonites, and to which he returned to carry out his vow (Jgs 10–11). This is possibly the same place as the Ramath-mizpeh of Joshua 13:26 and is thought by many to be identified with Khirbat Jal’ad just south of the Jabbok.<\/li>\n<li>6. Town in Moab to which David fled from Saul (1 Sm 22:3).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>MIZPAH<\/h3>\n<p>Name meaning “watchtower” in Hebrew (alternately spelled Mizpeh) used to designate a number of different locations mentioned in the OT and Apocrypha.<\/p>\n<p>1. Place in Gilead where Jacob and Laban made a covenant (Gn 31:49) and set up a heap of stones to mark the borders between their territories.<\/p>\n<li>2. Place referred to as “the land of Mizpah” (Jos 11:3) or the “valley of Mizpah” (Jos 11:8) near Mt Hermon and inhabited by the Hivites.<\/li>\n<li>3. Town in Judah near Lachish referred to in Joshua 15:38.<\/li>\n<li>4. Place in the tribal area of Benjamin (Jos 18:26). It was here that the Israelites gathered to war against the tribe of Benjamin (Jgs 20:1; 21:1) after the men of Gibeah had abused and killed the concubine of a visiting Levite. It was here that Samuel called all Israel together to pray for victory over the Philistines (1 Sm 7:5-8). Later, Samuel called for an assembly at Mizpah to publicly designate Saul as king and to instruct the people and king in the ways of the kingdom (10:17-25). In the time of Asa, Mizpah was a fortified town on the border between Israel and Judah (1 Kgs 15:22). After the fall of Jerusalem in 586 <span>BC<\/span> to the Babylonians, Mizpah became the residence of Gedaliah the governor (2 Kgs 25:23-24; Jer 40:10), who was murdered there by Ishmael of the “royal seed” (Jer 41:3). Two days later Ishmael murdered a company of pilgrims who were going to Jerusalem to bring their offerings at the ruined temple, and he cast their bodies into a cistern that had been constructed centuries earlier by Asa.<\/li>\n<p>In the intertestamental period Mizpah continued to be an important religious center. Judas Maccabeus called the people together at Mizpah “because Israel formerly had a place of prayer in Mizpah” (1 Macc 3:46).<\/p>\n<li>5. Home of Jephthah, from which he led the Israelites in battle against the Ammonites, and to which he returned to carry out his vow (Jgs 10–11). This is possibly the same place as the Ramath-mizpeh of Joshua 13:26 and is thought by many to be identified with Khirbat Jal’ad just south of the Jabbok.<\/li>\n<li>6. Town in Moab to which David fled from Saul (1 Sm 22:3).<\/li>","summary_ro":"MIZPAH Name meaning “watchtower” in Hebrew (alternately spelled Mizpeh) used to designate a number of different locations mentioned in the OT and Apocrypha. 1. Place in Gilead where Jacob and Laban made a covenant (Gn 31:49) and set up a heap of stones to mark the borders between their territories. 2. Place referred to as “the land of Mizpah” (Jos 11:3) or the “valley of Mizpah” (Jos 11:8) near Mt Hermon and inhabited by the Hivites. 3. Town in Judah near Lachish referred to in Joshua 15:38. ...","summary_en":"MIZPAH Name meaning “watchtower” in Hebrew (alternately spelled Mizpeh) used to designate a number of different locations mentioned in the OT and Apocrypha. 1. Place in Gilead where Jacob and Laban made a covenant (Gn 31:49) and set up a heap of stones to mark the borders between their territories. 2. Place referred to as “the land of Mizpah” (Jos 11:3) or the “valley of Mizpah” (Jos 11:8) near Mt Hermon and inhabited by the Hivites. 3. Town in Judah near Lachish referred to in Joshua 15:38. ...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45955,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:1","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:1<\/strong> This was not the <em>Mizpah<\/em> east of the Jordan associated with Jephthah (10:17; 11:11, 29, 34), but a place in central Israel. This common name means “watchtower.”<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:1<\/strong> This was not the <em>Mizpah<\/em> east of the Jordan associated with Jephthah (10:17; 11:11, 29, 34), but a place in central Israel. This common name means “watchtower.”<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:1 This was not the Mizpah east of the Jordan associated with Jephthah (10:17; 11:11, 29, 34), but a place in central Israel. This common name means “watchtower.”","summary_en":"20:1 This was not the Mizpah east of the Jordan associated with Jephthah (10:17; 11:11, 29, 34), but a place in central Israel. This common name means “watchtower.”","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73581,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:1","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:1<\/strong> This was not the <em>Mizpah<\/em> east of the Jordan associated with Jephthah (10:17; 11:11, 29, 34), but a place in central Israel. This common name means “watchtower.”<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:1<\/strong> This was not the <em>Mizpah<\/em> east of the Jordan associated with Jephthah (10:17; 11:11, 29, 34), but a place in central Israel. This common name means “watchtower.”<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:1 This was not the Mizpah east of the Jordan associated with Jephthah (10:17; 11:11, 29, 34), but a place in central Israel. This common name means “watchtower.”","summary_en":"20:1 This was not the Mizpah east of the Jordan associated with Jephthah (10:17; 11:11, 29, 34), but a place in central Israel. This common name means “watchtower.”","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101207,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:1","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:1<\/strong> This was not the <em>Mizpah<\/em> east of the Jordan associated with Jephthah (10:17; 11:11, 29, 34), but a place in central Israel. This common name means “watchtower.”<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:1<\/strong> This was not the <em>Mizpah<\/em> east of the Jordan associated with Jephthah (10:17; 11:11, 29, 34), but a place in central Israel. This common name means “watchtower.”<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:1 This was not the Mizpah east of the Jordan associated with Jephthah (10:17; 11:11, 29, 34), but a place in central Israel. This common name means “watchtower.”","summary_en":"20:1 This was not the Mizpah east of the Jordan associated with Jephthah (10:17; 11:11, 29, 34), but a place in central Israel. This common name means “watchtower.”","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128833,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:1","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:1<\/strong> This was not the <em>Mizpah<\/em> east of the Jordan associated with Jephthah (10:17; 11:11, 29, 34), but a place in central Israel. This common name means “watchtower.”<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:1<\/strong> This was not the <em>Mizpah<\/em> east of the Jordan associated with Jephthah (10:17; 11:11, 29, 34), but a place in central Israel. This common name means “watchtower.”<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:1 This was not the Mizpah east of the Jordan associated with Jephthah (10:17; 11:11, 29, 34), but a place in central Israel. This common name means “watchtower.”","summary_en":"20:1 This was not the Mizpah east of the Jordan associated with Jephthah (10:17; 11:11, 29, 34), but a place in central Israel. This common name means “watchtower.”","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":61056,"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":88682,"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":116308,"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":143934,"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}],"3":[{"id":45956,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:3","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:3<\/strong> The tribe of <em>Benjamin<\/em> had probably received the summons (19:29), so they knew that trouble was brewing.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:3<\/strong> The tribe of <em>Benjamin<\/em> had probably received the summons (19:29), so they knew that trouble was brewing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:3 The tribe of Benjamin had probably received the summons (19:29), so they knew that trouble was brewing.","summary_en":"20:3 The tribe of Benjamin had probably received the summons (19:29), so they knew that trouble was brewing.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73582,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:3","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:3<\/strong> The tribe of <em>Benjamin<\/em> had probably received the summons (19:29), so they knew that trouble was brewing.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:3<\/strong> The tribe of <em>Benjamin<\/em> had probably received the summons (19:29), so they knew that trouble was brewing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:3 The tribe of Benjamin had probably received the summons (19:29), so they knew that trouble was brewing.","summary_en":"20:3 The tribe of Benjamin had probably received the summons (19:29), so they knew that trouble was brewing.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101208,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:3","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:3<\/strong> The tribe of <em>Benjamin<\/em> had probably received the summons (19:29), so they knew that trouble was brewing.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:3<\/strong> The tribe of <em>Benjamin<\/em> had probably received the summons (19:29), so they knew that trouble was brewing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:3 The tribe of Benjamin had probably received the summons (19:29), so they knew that trouble was brewing.","summary_en":"20:3 The tribe of Benjamin had probably received the summons (19:29), so they knew that trouble was brewing.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128834,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:3","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:3<\/strong> The tribe of <em>Benjamin<\/em> had probably received the summons (19:29), so they knew that trouble was brewing.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:3<\/strong> The tribe of <em>Benjamin<\/em> had probably received the summons (19:29), so they knew that trouble was brewing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:3 The tribe of Benjamin had probably received the summons (19:29), so they knew that trouble was brewing.","summary_en":"20:3 The tribe of Benjamin had probably received the summons (19:29), so they knew that trouble was brewing.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"5":[{"id":45957,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:5","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:5<\/strong> The “troublemakers” (19:22) were <em>leading citizens<\/em> (literally <em>lords<\/em>). • <em>planning to kill me:<\/em> The death of his concubine convinced the Levite that the men of Gibeah intended his death.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:5<\/strong> The “troublemakers” (19:22) were <em>leading citizens<\/em> (literally <em>lords<\/em>). • <em>planning to kill me:<\/em> The death of his concubine convinced the Levite that the men of Gibeah intended his death.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:5 The “troublemakers” (19:22) were leading citizens (literally lords). • planning to kill me: The death of his concubine convinced the Levite that the men of Gibeah intended his death.","summary_en":"20:5 The “troublemakers” (19:22) were leading citizens (literally lords). • planning to kill me: The death of his concubine convinced the Levite that the men of Gibeah intended his death.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73583,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:5","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:5<\/strong> The “troublemakers” (19:22) were <em>leading citizens<\/em> (literally <em>lords<\/em>). • <em>planning to kill me:<\/em> The death of his concubine convinced the Levite that the men of Gibeah intended his death.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:5<\/strong> The “troublemakers” (19:22) were <em>leading citizens<\/em> (literally <em>lords<\/em>). • <em>planning to kill me:<\/em> The death of his concubine convinced the Levite that the men of Gibeah intended his death.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:5 The “troublemakers” (19:22) were leading citizens (literally lords). • planning to kill me: The death of his concubine convinced the Levite that the men of Gibeah intended his death.","summary_en":"20:5 The “troublemakers” (19:22) were leading citizens (literally lords). • planning to kill me: The death of his concubine convinced the Levite that the men of Gibeah intended his death.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101209,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:5","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:5<\/strong> The “troublemakers” (19:22) were <em>leading citizens<\/em> (literally <em>lords<\/em>). • <em>planning to kill me:<\/em> The death of his concubine convinced the Levite that the men of Gibeah intended his death.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:5<\/strong> The “troublemakers” (19:22) were <em>leading citizens<\/em> (literally <em>lords<\/em>). • <em>planning to kill me:<\/em> The death of his concubine convinced the Levite that the men of Gibeah intended his death.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:5 The “troublemakers” (19:22) were leading citizens (literally lords). • planning to kill me: The death of his concubine convinced the Levite that the men of Gibeah intended his death.","summary_en":"20:5 The “troublemakers” (19:22) were leading citizens (literally lords). • planning to kill me: The death of his concubine convinced the Levite that the men of Gibeah intended his death.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128835,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:5","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:5<\/strong> The “troublemakers” (19:22) were <em>leading citizens<\/em> (literally <em>lords<\/em>). • <em>planning to kill me:<\/em> The death of his concubine convinced the Levite that the men of Gibeah intended his death.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:5<\/strong> The “troublemakers” (19:22) were <em>leading citizens<\/em> (literally <em>lords<\/em>). • <em>planning to kill me:<\/em> The death of his concubine convinced the Levite that the men of Gibeah intended his death.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:5 The “troublemakers” (19:22) were leading citizens (literally lords). • planning to kill me: The death of his concubine convinced the Levite that the men of Gibeah intended his death.","summary_en":"20:5 The “troublemakers” (19:22) were leading citizens (literally lords). • planning to kill me: The death of his concubine convinced the Levite that the men of Gibeah intended his death.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"9":[{"id":23539,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Casting of Lots","title_en":"Casting of Lots","content_ro":"<h3>LOTS, Casting of<\/h3>\n<p>Practice common in the OT, less common in the NT prior to Pentecost, and absent in the biblical narrative after Pentecost.<\/p>\n<p>In the Bible the practice was used in a variety of circumstances, including (1) the selection of the scapegoat (Lv 16:8-10); (2) the allocation of the tribal inheritance in the Promised Land (Nm 26:55-56; Jos 14:2; Jgs 1:3); (3) the determination of the families who had to relocate to give a proper distribution of the populace or of those warriors who had to go to war where only a percentage was required (Jgs 20:9; Neh 11:1); (4) the order of the priests and their duties (1 Chr 24:5-19; Neh 10:34); (5) the determination of an offender (Jos 7:14-18; cf. Prv 18:18).<\/p>\n<p>According to biblical usage, lots seem to have been used only when the decision was important and where wisdom or biblical injunctions did not give sufficient guidance. One of the advantages of the casting of lots was the impartiality of the choice. It was held that the Lord directed the lots (Prv 16:33). The method of casting lots is not specified or described and seems to have varied according to the need of the situation (cf. Lv 16:8; Nm 26:55-56; Jgs 20:9).<\/p>\n<p>The practice of casting lots was never condemned by God and on several occasions was sanctioned by him (Lv 16:8; Prv 18:18; Is 34:17). The principle behind the procedure is set forth in Proverbs 16:33, which affirms that the disposition or result of the lot is determined by God; therefore, the theory was that the lot pronounced the will of God.<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the soldiers cast lots over Jesus’ garments (Mt 27:35), and the disciples cast lots when they selected Matthias to the apostleship in place of Judas (Acts 1:26). After the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the church, the practice of casting lots ceased. Some scholars think that there was no further need for the practice to continue, as the Holy Spirit guided the church in its decisions.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Urim and Thummim.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LOTS, Casting of<\/h3>\n<p>Practice common in the OT, less common in the NT prior to Pentecost, and absent in the biblical narrative after Pentecost.<\/p>\n<p>In the Bible the practice was used in a variety of circumstances, including (1) the selection of the scapegoat (Lv 16:8-10); (2) the allocation of the tribal inheritance in the Promised Land (Nm 26:55-56; Jos 14:2; Jgs 1:3); (3) the determination of the families who had to relocate to give a proper distribution of the populace or of those warriors who had to go to war where only a percentage was required (Jgs 20:9; Neh 11:1); (4) the order of the priests and their duties (1 Chr 24:5-19; Neh 10:34); (5) the determination of an offender (Jos 7:14-18; cf. Prv 18:18).<\/p>\n<p>According to biblical usage, lots seem to have been used only when the decision was important and where wisdom or biblical injunctions did not give sufficient guidance. One of the advantages of the casting of lots was the impartiality of the choice. It was held that the Lord directed the lots (Prv 16:33). The method of casting lots is not specified or described and seems to have varied according to the need of the situation (cf. Lv 16:8; Nm 26:55-56; Jgs 20:9).<\/p>\n<p>The practice of casting lots was never condemned by God and on several occasions was sanctioned by him (Lv 16:8; Prv 18:18; Is 34:17). The principle behind the procedure is set forth in Proverbs 16:33, which affirms that the disposition or result of the lot is determined by God; therefore, the theory was that the lot pronounced the will of God.<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the soldiers cast lots over Jesus’ garments (Mt 27:35), and the disciples cast lots when they selected Matthias to the apostleship in place of Judas (Acts 1:26). After the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the church, the practice of casting lots ceased. Some scholars think that there was no further need for the practice to continue, as the Holy Spirit guided the church in its decisions.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Urim and Thummim.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LOTS, Casting of Practice common in the OT, less common in the NT prior to Pentecost, and absent in the biblical narrative after Pentecost. In the Bible the practice was used in a variety of circumstances, including (1) the selection of the scapegoat (Lv 16:8-10); (2) the allocation of the tribal inheritance in the Promised Land (Nm 26:55-56; Jos 14:2; Jgs 1:3); (3) the determination of the families who had to relocate to give a proper distribution of the populace or of those warriors who had...","summary_en":"LOTS, Casting of Practice common in the OT, less common in the NT prior to Pentecost, and absent in the biblical narrative after Pentecost. In the Bible the practice was used in a variety of circumstances, including (1) the selection of the scapegoat (Lv 16:8-10); (2) the allocation of the tribal inheritance in the Promised Land (Nm 26:55-56; Jos 14:2; Jgs 1:3); (3) the determination of the families who had to relocate to give a proper distribution of the populace or of those warriors who had...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38170,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Warfare","title_en":"Warfare","content_ro":"<h3>WARFARE<\/h3>\n<p>The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofWarfare\">Methods of Warfare<\/p>\n<h5>Standard Combat<\/h5>\n<p>Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium <span>BC<\/span> and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of firepower at decisive points. When the Assyrians coordinated their infantry, cavalry, and chariot corps into a powerful battle machine, smaller neighboring nations were more and more compelled to retreat behind their fortifications. They could not hope to engage the massive Assyrian army in standard combat in open terrain. No period is richer in illustrated monuments than Iron Age II; the Assyrian war reliefs present detailed illustrations of their conquests and the size of fortified cities. The few scenes depicting standard combat in open terrain show chariots charging from all directions and engaging the enemy at all stages of a battle. Other formations carry out mopping-up operations, finishing off pockets of enemy resistance remaining after the chariot charge.<\/p>\n<p>The factor of terrain was always very important. In standard combat on open terrain it became conventional to place the best troops on the right side of the line. A Greek commander, Epaminodas (d. 362 <span>BC<\/span>), introduced the variant of a slanting attack by a strengthened left wing, taking the Spartan army completely by surprise. Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander continued to surprise their enemies with variations on a plan of attack based on the phalanx.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Battle in Open Terrain: The Duel<\/h5>\n<p>During certain periods in the ancient Near East, the duel presented an alternative to standard combat. The duel was a contest between two champions who represented the contending forces. The two armies would agree in advance to abide by the outcome of the fight. The duel was meant to avoid the heavy casualties of full-scale warfare. The earliest detailed written account of this unique form of warfare occurs in the Tale of Sinuhe. A chamberlain in the royal court of the 12th dynasty, Sinuhe voluntarily went into exile and traveled to northern Palestine and Syria, where he lived among Semitic tribes. There he was challenged to a duel by a local champion, whom he defeated and whose goods he then plundered.<\/p>\n<p>Although the duel was common among other armies in subsequent periods, it was evidently unknown to Israel before the encounter between David and Goliath (1 Sm 17). The Philistine army had penetrated Judah as far as Socoh and were arrayed on one hill. Drawn up against them on an opposite hill was the army of Saul. The valley of Elah separated the two camps. The Israelites were challenged daily by the Philistine champion, Goliath, who proposed that the battle be decided through combat between two warriors. David accepted his proposal, but when he killed Goliath, the Philistines fled, unwilling to honor the terms of the prior agreement. The Israelite army then entered the contest, pursuing the Philistines and inflicting heavy casualties.<\/p>\n<h5>Assaults on Fortified Cities<\/h5>\n<p>Most cities in the ancient Near East were located at sites that could be defended against attack and that possessed economic advantages. An assault on a fortified city presented opposite problems for attacker and defender. The actions of one were a direct response to the actions of the other. Systems of defense were intended to thwart methods of attack, which in turn were designed to penetrate systems of defense.<\/p>\n<p>There were five possible ways of conquering a fortified city: penetration from above the fortifications; direct penetration through the fortifications; penetration from below the fortifications; siege; and penetration by ruse. On many occasions, a combination of two or more methods was necessary to breach the defensive network.<\/p>\n<p>The biblical narrative of the conquest of Shechem by Abimelech (Jgs 9) gives an account of an assault on a fortified city in the period of the judges (Iron Age I). When the people of Shechem and their allies rebelled against Abimelech, he retaliated by attacking the city, advancing his army of mercenaries by night and launching an assault from ambush positions at dawn (9:32-35). The men of Shechem engaged in open battle outside the city gates but were forced to retreat behind the security of the city walls. The next day Abimelech directed his assault against the city itself. Dividing his forces into three groups, he assumed direct command of one, which he committed to an attack on the city gates at the decisive moment of battle (vv 43-44). The gate was breached and the main walls seized, but the city’s surviving defenders fled to an inner citadel, the temple of Baal-berith.<\/p>\n<p>Many reliefs depict groups of soldiers defending an inner citadel after a city’s wall was breached. Archaeological excavations at Shechem confirm that its temple, like those in other Canaanite cities, was built in the form of a fortified tower, supported by stout bastions near the entrance. The tower of Shechem was thus strongly fortified and occupied only a small area, enabling its defenders to concentrate their firepower on Abimelech’s troops. Since it could not be taken by storm, Abimelech ordered his soldiers to use their battle-axes to cut brushwood, which was piled against the stronghold and set on fire (Jgs 9:48-49). All of the defenders within the tower died.<\/p>\n<p>An assault on an inner citadel was always a hazardous undertaking for an attacking army, as shown in the sequel to the capture of Shechem’s tower. Abimelech turned his attention next to the city of Thebez and followed the same plan of assault that had proved successful at Shechem. But as he was preparing to burn the door of the tower to which the defenders had fled, his skull was crushed by a piece of millstone dropped on him by a woman (Jgs 9:50-53). The incident was remembered and became proverbial for the danger of approaching too closely the walls of a fortified tower (2 Sm 11:19-21).<\/p>\n<h5>Communications and Intelligence<\/h5>\n<p>From the patriarchal period (middle Bronze period), we have detailed written information on the use of communications systems in wartime. The documents from Mari on the Euphrates provide evidence for a well-developed communications system based on signaling. Signals were flashed by torches or firebrands at night in accordance with a prearranged code. The system was widely used in Mesopotamia and elsewhere to call for immediate help when a city was under attack.<\/p>\n<p>In the late Bronze period horsemen were sometimes employed for isolated communication functions. Intelligence services played a role in planning and executing military operations. The importance of intelligence and the use of spies or scouts is stressed in the biblical accounts of the conquest of the land of Canaan. Before entering the land, Moses sent men on an espionage mission. He instructed them to gather information on the topography of the land, to observe the relative strength of its inhabitants, to determine whether the land was fertile, to survey the cities and see if they were fortified, and to report on the character of the land—whether it was capable of sustaining a large population (Nm 13:17-20).<\/p>\n<p>Tactical intelligence was very important. Joshua dispatched spies to Jericho and to Ai before beginning military operations against them (Jos 2:1; 7:2). The reports he received about the offensive spirit and strength of the Canaanites enabled him to formulate an attack plan. In the period of the judges the conquest of Bethel (Jgs 1:22-26) was due directly to intelligence gathered by a reconnaissance patrol. The tribes of Joseph sent out scouts to keep the city under observation. It was strongly fortified and seemed impregnable. The scouts captured a man who emerged from the city—presumably not through the main gate, which was shut tight, but through a concealed postern or tunnel. In exchange for his own life and the safety of his family, he disclosed the location of the passage leading beneath the walls. The city was penetrated through the tunnel and captured.<\/p>\n<h5>Attack and Penetration: The Breach<\/h5>\n<p>Direct penetration through the fortifications of an ancient city meant breaching the gate or the main walls by using hammers, axes, pikes, spears, swords, or a battering ram. Illustrated monuments and written documents indicate that early in the middle Bronze period fortified cities were being attacked with battering rams. The earliest known illustration of a ram appears in a siege scene in the wall paintings from Beni Hasan (20th century <span>BC<\/span>). The ram pictured is a relatively simple device, consisting of a hutlike structure with a slightly pointed roof, which could be moved near a fortress with the help of two parallel crossbars. The structure provided cover for two or three soldiers who operated by hand a very long pole with a sharp tip, presumably of metal.<\/p>\n<p>The Mari documents provide information for the period 200 years later. They mention the effectiveness of battering rams constructed largely of wood. Although very heavy, the siege weapon could be moved over long distances. One document speaks of the use of a wagon drawn by draft animals and of a boat to transport a battering ram to the site of a besieged city.<\/p>\n<p>Moving a battering ram into position always exposed the demolition unit to heavy fire from defenders on the walls above them. Its heaviness made it cumbersome to move. Moreover, the ground adjacent to the walls was usually rough, rocky, and steep. When the chosen point of penetration was a section of the wall, an assault force had to construct an earthen ramp, occasionally strengthened on the top surface and sides with wooden planks or stones. The ramp provided a track along which the battering ram could be moved from the foot of the slope to the outer wall. Once moved into operational position, the ram had to be braked to prevent it from rolling back. The building of such a ramp was evidently necessary in Joab’s campaign against the fortified city of Abel in Beth-maacah (2 Sm 20:15). The biblical account indicates that some sort of battering ram was in use in Israel under King David during the early monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest Assyrian reliefs show that protection of the penetration units was a major consideration. High, mobile assault towers constructed of wood operated in tandem with a battering ram. Such towers, moved into position near a breach operation and manned by archers, provided covering fire directed against the defenders on the wall. Siege towers neutralized the defenders’ advantage in firepower and drew fire away from the crew engaged in breaching the walls.<\/p>\n<p>The details of the Assyrian reliefs make it possible to visualize clearly the fate of Jerusalem, as announced to the prophet Ezekiel (Ez 4:1-3; 21:22). The gate was the focal point of attack because it was the weakest point in the wall. Moreover, the path leading up to the gate made construction of a special ramp unnecessary. In the demolition of a gate, swords were sometimes used to pry the doors loose and to tear down hinges. Wooden doors unprotected by metal were often set on fire.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram continued to be used as an engine for breaching walls in the Hellenistic-Roman period. In 63 <span>BC<\/span> the Roman commander Pompey brought up battering rams from Tyre against the defenders of Jerusalem, and with them penetrated the fortified wall that enclosed the temple. The siege machine shown on Trajan’s column had a beam with an iron head shaped like a ram. It was moved up to a wall in a frame protected by a wooden roof covered with clay or hides. A variation equipped for boring into a wall was used by Titus when besieging Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram was not the only device used to effect a breach in a wall. Troops trained as sappers would tear down a section of the wall by using sharp-headed levers (pikes, swords, spears) or even sledgehammers (cf. Ez 26:8-9). In Ashurnasirpal’s army such men were issued full-length coats of mail to cover their whole bodies. Under later Assyrian kings, they were protected by both round and rectangular shields, which they carried on their backs when engaged in demolition. Later, Ashurbanipal relied exclusively on such sappers for direct penetration of a fortified city. He designed for their protection a huge shield, the curved head of which could be propped against the wall, screening the sapper from missiles while he worked beneath it.<\/p>\n<h5>Scaling the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A battle scene depicted on limestone in the tomb of Anta at Dashashe in Upper Egypt (24th century <span>BC<\/span>) provides the earliest known representation of siege activities. It shows the Egyptians raising a scaling ladder against the walls of a fortified city. By the time of Sargon, the thickness of walls was increased considerably, which permitted construction of much higher walls, more resistant to scaling. Such solid, massive walls also tended to blunt the effectiveness of a battering ram. Sargon, and especially his successor Ashurbanipal, responded by constructing longer scaling ladders, some of which could reach a height of from 25 to 30 feet (7.6 to 9.1 meters), judging from the number of rungs.<\/p>\n<h5>Penetration beneath the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A tunneling operation could be started beyond the range of any weapons at the disposal of the defenders. Once underground, the penetration unit was shielded from enemy fire. The tunneling could be accomplished under cover of night, so that the element of surprise could be exploited to the maximum. It was, however, a lengthy process requiring considerable technical skill. Moreover, if the operation was detected by the defenders before its completion, they could destroy the penetration unit as it emerged from the tunnel. Attempts to penetrate fortified cities by tunneling beneath the walls was a characteristic feature of warfare in Iron Age II. That is confirmed by reliefs, written documents, and archaeological excavation of sites dating to this period, where the remains of attack tunnels have been discovered.<\/p>\n<h5>Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Particularly when a walled city was situated on a high hill, an extended siege provided an alternate method of conquering it. By encircling the city and preventing aid or supplies from reaching its defenders, the attacking army could starve the inhabitants out. That procedure minimized the element of risk for the attacking army. Its success depended upon their capacity to prevent outside assistance from reaching the city and the defenders from leaving it. An army would generally resort to siege when a city’s fortifications were too powerful for direct penetration. The siege of Samaria by the Assyrians lasted for three years (2 Kgs 18:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>The peculiar conditions of siege produced the catapult, a major innovation of Greek artillery and a logical improvement on the bow and the sling. Designed originally as a strengthened bow mounted on a stand and used to fire arrows only, it was introduced around 400 <span>BC<\/span> by Demetrius I. He may have borrowed the idea from the Phoenicians at Carthage.<\/p>\n<p>In the course of time the instrument was improved. The perfect weapon, called the torsion catapult, derived its power from many tightly twisted strands of elastic material, frequently supplied by women’s hair, which could be tightened with a windlass and then released suddenly. Firing arrows, large stones, or fire-baskets with an effective range of 200 yards (182.9 meters), a catapult could clear a wall of its defenders while a battering ram breached it or a boarding party attacked from a mobile tower.<\/p>\n<p>For those in a besieged city, the critical problems were food and water supplies. The horror of famine is stressed in the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by the Syrian Ben-hadad in the days of the prophet Elisha. On that occasion women were reduced to eating their children (2 Kgs 6:26-29). A besieging army would do everything in its power to aggravate such conditions. In one of the siege reliefs of Ashurnasirpal II, a defender has lowered a bucket from the wall to draw water from a stream below; an Assyrian soldier is shown cutting the rope with his dagger.<\/p>\n<h5>Ruses and Stratagems<\/h5>\n<p>Various ruses and stratagems could draw the defenders out of a city or infiltrate troops into the city. If a small force could enter a city by a cunning stratagem, it could overpower the guards and open the city gates to an attacking army. A city’s fortifications were of little value once an enemy had entered the city. Moreover, penetrating a city’s defenses at any one point frequently caused the entire defense system to collapse. The story of the Trojan horse is probably the most celebrated account of a stratagem circumventing the defense of a strongly fortified ancient city.<\/p>\n<p>In the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by Ben-hadad, a sudden lifting of the Syrian siege led Joram, the king of Israel, to suspect a ruse. He refused to believe the report of four lepers that the Syrians had gone, leaving behind large food supplies (2 Kgs 7:12). That was the same kind of tactic that Joshua had employed at Ai (Jos 8:3-8).<\/p>\n<p>On other occasions, powerful armies sought to break down resistance by psychological warfare, as in the unsuccessful attempt by Sennacherib to capture Jerusalem in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18–19). The dialogue between the Assyrian general and Hezekiah’s delegates reveals that the Assyrian was trying to shake the confidence of the city’s defenders.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a type of ruse used to trap and destroy an enemy at a moment when he was least able to counter a sudden, unexpected blow. Its effectiveness depended almost entirely on the element of surprise. By taking advantage of good intelligence, knowledge of the terrain, and the cover of night, a small force could stage a devastating ambush against vastly superior numbers.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a standard method of combat during the period of the conquest of Canaan. The fall of Ai, for example, was due directly to the tactical success of an ambush (Jos 8:1-23). Under cover of night, Joshua was able to move a large force to a concealed position behind the city. He then led the remainder of the Israelite army to the edge of a valley north of the fortified city, giving the appearance of a planned assault on the city. The diversion, as calculated, drew the main force of Ai away from the city to engage Israel on the plain of Arabah. When the Israelites fell back, appearing to be badly beaten, the remaining defenders of the city were summoned to pursue Joshua’s fleeing army. With the city left undefended, the main Israelite strike force rose from its ambush position, poured into the city, and set it on fire. Too late, the men of Ai saw the smoke from their burning city and realized the stratagem. Joshua’s army turned to counterattack their pursuers, who found themselves trapped between two bodies of Israelite forces. Assaulted from both front and rear, the king of Ai’s army was annihilated, victim of an effectively laid ambush.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FortificationsandDefense\">Fortifications and Defense<\/p>\n<p>The earliest known fortifications in the world, dated by some to about 7000 <span>BC<\/span>, were discovered in 1954 at Jericho. They were impressive in conception and construction. The core of the defense system was a wall, part of which, bordering the western edge of the ancient city, was still standing to a height of 21 feet (6.4 meters). Further excavation uncovered a large moat that had been carved out of solid rock at the base of the wall, 27 feet (8.2 meters) wide and 9 feet (2.7 meters) deep. How that feat was accomplished when the only tools assumed to have been available were made of stone is a complete mystery. A third component of Jericho’s defense system was a huge stone circular tower 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, once evidently attached to the inner side of the western part of the wall. The exact purpose of the tower has not yet been determined, but Neolithic Jericho provides the earliest evidence of a fortified city supported by a wall, tower, and moat.<\/p>\n<p>By the middle Bronze period, there were four components in a standard defense system: a moat, an advance (outer) wall, the main (inner) wall, and a well-fortified gate structure. The moat, advance wall, and subsidiary fortifications protecting the steep slope and lower portion of the main wall were intended to prevent breaching by a battering ram.<\/p>\n<h5>City Walls<\/h5>\n<p>Erection of a simple wall could halt a hostile advance only temporarily, since walls could be scaled or breached. Walls therefore provided a firing platform so defenders could repel attacks. The wall system consisted of three principal components: the wall itself, constituting the barrier; an upper structure, which provided the firing platform and cover for the defenders; and a series of obstacles and traps erected in front of the wall to keep archers at a distance and to prevent operation of a battering ram.<\/p>\n<p>The battlement—a parapet built along the outer top edge of the wall—provided the defenders with a measure of security, freedom for mobility, and openings through which fire could be directed. From a distance the square notches looked like a row of teeth with gaps between them. The teeth, called merlons, provided a protective barrier against hostile missiles. The gaps, called embrasures or crenels, supplied openings through which the defenders could discharge their weapons. Special towers protruded from the outer face of the wall, spaced at a distance no greater than the double range of a bow. Such towers enabled the defenders to fire at troops who managed to reach the walls. One way of protecting the main wall was to construct an outer or advance wall that could be breached or climbed only under heavy fire from defending units on the battlements of the main wall. Another method was to dig a wide, deep moat around the base of the main wall. A moat kept the enemy from using a battering ram unless they could bridge the moat or fill it up at certain points, under concentrated fire from the defenders.<\/p>\n<p>Casemate fortifications, introduced in the middle Bronze period, were developed from double walls built of dressed stones. The space between the walls was divided into chambers, or casemates, used for storage or dwellings. The Hittite casemate system, introduced into Palestine at least as early as the time of Saul, was widely adopted in Syria and Palestine. A fine example has been discovered at Gibeah, where Saul’s citadel was located, dating to the end of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>. The overall thickness of the double walls, including the casemates, reaches 15 feet (4.6 meters). The same type of construction has been found in excavations of three Solomonic cities—Hazor, Gezer, and Megiddo (cf. 1 Kgs 9:15)—where the casemate walls have an overall thickness of 18 feet (5.5 meters).<\/p>\n<p>Although the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel were not noted for technical advancements in offensive warfare, a number of their kings worked at improving fortifications and means of defense. Uzziah was especially remembered for his accomplishments in defensive warfare. Along with other measures, “he produced machines mounted on the walls of Jerusalem, designed by brilliant men to shoot arrows and hurl stones from the towers and the corners of the wall” (2 Chr 26:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). Those “machines” were special protective structures built to facilitate the task of the archers and to permit huge stones to be dropped on the heads of assaulting troops.<\/p>\n<h5>Gate<\/h5>\n<p>It was inevitable that the gate would be the focus of action in any assault on a fortified city. City gates were therefore designed to expose an attacking army to the greatest risk while providing maximum security to the defenders. The road approaching a city on a hill would wind up the slope, climbing obliquely to the left or the right. Such roads were usually laid out to reach the gate from the right, so an attacker would have to expose the right side of his body to the defenders on the wall. Since he carried his shield in his left hand, that made him more vulnerable.<\/p>\n<p>To prevent the heavy wooden doors of the gate from being set on fire, they were usually plated with metal. A gate wide enough for chariots required double doors, making the line at the center where the two doors met the weakest point in the barrier. Double doors were therefore fitted with huge bolts and fortified with a heavy beam running across the back of both door panels and held in place by sockets set in the doorposts.<\/p>\n<p>Another component in the defense complex at a gate consisted of towers erected on either side of the gate and protruding from the outer face of the wall. Enemy soldiers trying to smash the doors with axes or set them on fire with torches were thus exposed to heavy flanking fire from defensive units on the towers. From a roof over the gate having a balcony, concentrated firepower could be poured down on attackers’ heads. The addition of such auxiliary structures transformed a gate into a small fortress.<\/p>\n<h5>Inner Citadel<\/h5>\n<p>A major weakness of a city’s walls and gate was the magnitude of the circumference. An average-size city might have a perimeter of half a mile (.8 kilometer); a larger city, a perimeter of over a mile (1.6 kilometers). Yet the entire wall had to be defended against breaching, scaling, or tunneling. An attacking army would use diversionary tactics to keep defenders dispersed along the entire perimeter but concentrate their primary assault at one point in the wall. Once the wall was breached, perimeter fortifications served no further defensive purpose. Therefore, internal walls were often added to subdivide a city into several sections, each capable of independent defense. Also, on the highest point of land within the city a citadel would be constructed as a self-contained defensive unit.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest examples of such fortifications, called migdols, are found in the late Bronze Age. They were originally small citadels built to guard important military targets such as sources of water, strategic routes, cultivated farmlands, or frontiers. A migdol of that type was discovered in Israel, not far from Ashdod, in 1960. It was square in plan, with rectangular bastions, and was two stories high, just like structures depicted in Egyptian reliefs from the same period. The same design was used to fortify temples inside of cities. Such fortified temples served as places of refuge and as a city’s final defense once its walls had been breached (cf. Jgs 9:45-51).<\/p>\n<p>In a later period an inner citadel could embrace a complex consisting of the fortified palace of the governor, dwellings of his chief ministers, and sometimes the temple. Such citadels resembled fortified cities, possessing a main wall, a gateway, an outer wall, and occasionally a moat. Being small in area and heavily fortified, citadels could be defended in a final effort by the governor and remaining inhabitants. Presumably Zimri could have held out against Omri’s army for an extended period in the citadel of Tirzah, had he not committed suicide by setting it on fire (1 Kgs 16:17-18).<\/p>\n<h5>Water Supply under Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Unless provision was made to keep a city’s inhabitants supplied with food and water during a protracted siege, no defense system could be effective. Several Judean kings made efforts to solve the food-storage problem. Rehoboam, for example, fortified a number of cities located on the western, eastern, and southern borders of his kingdom and made them centers for the storage of food, oil, and wine (2 Chr 11:5-11).<\/p>\n<p>Storage of food was easier than storage of water. Cisterns built to collect rainwater were a partial answer, but cisterns often ran dry, particularly in times of drought. Cities were sometimes built on the banks of a stream or river, using the stream as part of the city’s defense system. But for a city built on a hill, the source of water might be a spring located at the foot of the slope and outside the city walls. Sometimes the mouth of the spring could be blocked and its location concealed from the enemy while still allowing access by the inhabitants. At Megiddo a vertical shaft 100 feet (274.3 meters) deep was connected by a horizontal tunnel about 200 feet (548.6 meters) long to the water supply at the western end of the city, beyond the fortifications. The work was undertaken in the time of either Solomon or Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The most celebrated measures to guarantee a supply of fresh water in a time of siege were those taken by Hezekiah at Jerusalem. That engineering achievement is recalled in all the summaries of his reign, both in the Bible and in the “Praise of Famous Men” in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus (2 Kgs 20:20; 2 Chr 32:30; Ecclus 48:17). The prodigious feat commemorated in those references was the sealing of the spring of Gihon and the cutting of an 1,800-foot (548.6-meter) channel through solid rock in order to bring water into a reservoir in the city. How it was accomplished was reported by Hezekiah himself in the famous Siloam inscription. Two crews, working with hammers, wedges, and pickaxes, began at opposite ends. The crew that began at the spring was able to take advantage of the older tunnel (cf. Is 22:11). They turned due south, in the direction of the city. The other crew, starting from the reservoir, began in a northeasterly direction. They then turned southeast until they reached the north-south line followed by the crew tunneling from the spring, when they turned due north to meet them. The two crews almost passed each other, being about five feet (1.5 meters) apart, but a shout from one was heard through a crevice in the rock by the other. Both parties turned sharply right, and the tunnel was completed. Hezekiah’s precautionary step, taken before Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah, helps to explain why the Assyrians were unable to subdue Jerusalem by the siege tactics that had earlier subdued Samaria in the time of Sargon.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewMilitaryOrganization\">Hebrew Military Organization<\/p>\n<h5>Tribal Army<\/h5>\n<p>In their exodus from Egypt the Israelites were organized by tribes and divisions. That systematic arrangement for their trek through the wilderness provided a precedent for military organization. After the sojourn at Mt Sinai, the 12 tribes were divided into divisions or army corps, and certain grades in military rank began to appear. The “officers of the army” (Nm 31:14) had command over units of 1,000 or 100 men, which suggests that the tribal army was divided into decimal units. At a later period there is reference to units of 1,000 (the division), 100 (the company), 50 (the platoon), and 10 (the section). Except for the Levites, who were assigned as a tribe to the care of the tabernacle (Nm 2:33), men from 20 years of age who were physically able to fight were assigned to a unit in the tribal army. Certain individuals, however, were exempted from military service (cf. Dt 20:5-9; 24:5; Jgs 7:3).<\/p>\n<p>Until after the conquest of Canaan, the tribal army was essentially a militia recruited in an emergency. Internal organization of the militia was the responsibility of the tribe; each clan and family sent their quota of warriors when summoned to battle by tribal leaders. Because the clan formed the basic unit, recruits were under the command of their own leaders. David’s brothers, for example, served in a division composed of the fighting men from their clan under the command of a captain (1 Sm 17:18; 18:13). When the emergency passed, the militia was disbanded and the soldiers returned to their home districts.<\/p>\n<p>Because the land was divided among the tribes, no tribal or clan leader before Saul commanded the entire tribal confederation (cf. 1 Sm 11:1-11). In fact, tribal jealousies and rivalries threatened national solidarity and jeopardized united action even in a critical period. On some occasions, however, the severity of a crisis caused the armies of the various tribes to unite in common action. The multitribal armies were divided into companies of 1,000, 100, and 50, and still further into families under appointed officers. There is evidence of organization into units according to weaponry (1 Chr 12:24-38). Benjamin’s tribe specialized in the bow and sling. The tribes of Gad, Judah, and Naphtali were expert with the spear and shield.<\/p>\n<p>Provisioning the tribal army was the responsibility of each tribe (Jgs 20:9-10). One out of every ten soldiers was appointed to secure food for the others, either from wealthy landowners (cf. 1 Sm 25) or from the natural resources of the land. In that early stage of military organization, a soldier’s pay generally consisted only of supplies and a portion of the spoils of battle (cf. 30:21-25).<\/p>\n<h5>Professional Army<\/h5>\n<p>Not until the time of the united monarchy did Israel have a regular army. Transition from a people’s militia to a professional army took place under Saul, whose reign changed the tribal confederacy into a monarchy (1 Sm 13:2). Philistine harassment of Israel encouraged establishment of a strong standing army. The army, however, was not large; it consisted of 3,000 men organized in three formations of 1,000 each (1 Sm 13:2; 24:2). Pay for those career soldiers was sometimes in the form of a land grant (8:14) as well as a share of booty. In the organization of Saul’s army, Abner, Jonathan, and David were given particular responsibilities. Abner was named commander of the army (17:55) and was probably also given direct command of one of the divisions. David’s band of valorous men, “the thirty,” provided the leadership core for his own military organization when he became king.<\/p>\n<p>David continued the practice of maintaining a professional army. But he also developed a national militia of 12 regiments, each being called up for duty for one month of the year under professional officers (1 Chr 27:1-15). Each regiment, recruited across tribal lines, consisted of 24,000 soldiers. David’s innovation provided him with a large reserve force that could be mustered for war in times of emergency. The reserves, and presumably the professional army as well, were organized into units of 1,000, 100, 50, and 10. Joab, a specialist in siege warfare (2 Sm 20:15), commanded the professional army, and Amasa was over the citizens’ militia. David, however, remained commander-in-chief of the military organization.<\/p>\n<p>The Israelite group in King David’s professional army was an outgrowth of the small band of fighting men who had served with him during the period of conflict with Saul. That veteran group consisted of David’s family and clansmen, and others who felt themselves oppressed by the central authority under Saul (1 Sm 22:1-2). It ranged in size between 400 and 600 men (1 Sm 22:2; 23:13; 27:2). The presence of mercenaries in David’s army is clearly recorded. Uriah the Hittite and Ittai of Gath are conspicuous examples, along with many career soldiers of Philistine origin, such as the Cherethites and the Pelethites under Benaiah (2 Sm 8:18; 15:19-22; 23:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>The Davidic dynasty maintained a permanent mercenary army until 701 <span>BC<\/span>, after which it was considered too costly. The oppressive cost of maintaining a professional army, financed by burdensome taxes and forced labor, was in fact a major factor contributing to the disruption of the monarchy after Solomon’s death (cf. 1 Kgs 10:26-29; 12:4-19). After Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, the southern kingdom of Judah depended entirely on a citizens’ militia for its defense. It is commonly held that the northern kingdom of Israel did not employ a professional army, but it is evident that King Ahab used at least some mercenary soldiers in his defense against Ben-hadad of Syria (1 Kgs 20:15-20).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Armor and Weapons.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WARFARE<\/h3>\n<p>The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofWarfare\">Methods of Warfare<\/p>\n<h5>Standard Combat<\/h5>\n<p>Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium <span>BC<\/span> and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of firepower at decisive points. When the Assyrians coordinated their infantry, cavalry, and chariot corps into a powerful battle machine, smaller neighboring nations were more and more compelled to retreat behind their fortifications. They could not hope to engage the massive Assyrian army in standard combat in open terrain. No period is richer in illustrated monuments than Iron Age II; the Assyrian war reliefs present detailed illustrations of their conquests and the size of fortified cities. The few scenes depicting standard combat in open terrain show chariots charging from all directions and engaging the enemy at all stages of a battle. Other formations carry out mopping-up operations, finishing off pockets of enemy resistance remaining after the chariot charge.<\/p>\n<p>The factor of terrain was always very important. In standard combat on open terrain it became conventional to place the best troops on the right side of the line. A Greek commander, Epaminodas (d. 362 <span>BC<\/span>), introduced the variant of a slanting attack by a strengthened left wing, taking the Spartan army completely by surprise. Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander continued to surprise their enemies with variations on a plan of attack based on the phalanx.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Battle in Open Terrain: The Duel<\/h5>\n<p>During certain periods in the ancient Near East, the duel presented an alternative to standard combat. The duel was a contest between two champions who represented the contending forces. The two armies would agree in advance to abide by the outcome of the fight. The duel was meant to avoid the heavy casualties of full-scale warfare. The earliest detailed written account of this unique form of warfare occurs in the Tale of Sinuhe. A chamberlain in the royal court of the 12th dynasty, Sinuhe voluntarily went into exile and traveled to northern Palestine and Syria, where he lived among Semitic tribes. There he was challenged to a duel by a local champion, whom he defeated and whose goods he then plundered.<\/p>\n<p>Although the duel was common among other armies in subsequent periods, it was evidently unknown to Israel before the encounter between David and Goliath (1 Sm 17). The Philistine army had penetrated Judah as far as Socoh and were arrayed on one hill. Drawn up against them on an opposite hill was the army of Saul. The valley of Elah separated the two camps. The Israelites were challenged daily by the Philistine champion, Goliath, who proposed that the battle be decided through combat between two warriors. David accepted his proposal, but when he killed Goliath, the Philistines fled, unwilling to honor the terms of the prior agreement. The Israelite army then entered the contest, pursuing the Philistines and inflicting heavy casualties.<\/p>\n<h5>Assaults on Fortified Cities<\/h5>\n<p>Most cities in the ancient Near East were located at sites that could be defended against attack and that possessed economic advantages. An assault on a fortified city presented opposite problems for attacker and defender. The actions of one were a direct response to the actions of the other. Systems of defense were intended to thwart methods of attack, which in turn were designed to penetrate systems of defense.<\/p>\n<p>There were five possible ways of conquering a fortified city: penetration from above the fortifications; direct penetration through the fortifications; penetration from below the fortifications; siege; and penetration by ruse. On many occasions, a combination of two or more methods was necessary to breach the defensive network.<\/p>\n<p>The biblical narrative of the conquest of Shechem by Abimelech (Jgs 9) gives an account of an assault on a fortified city in the period of the judges (Iron Age I). When the people of Shechem and their allies rebelled against Abimelech, he retaliated by attacking the city, advancing his army of mercenaries by night and launching an assault from ambush positions at dawn (9:32-35). The men of Shechem engaged in open battle outside the city gates but were forced to retreat behind the security of the city walls. The next day Abimelech directed his assault against the city itself. Dividing his forces into three groups, he assumed direct command of one, which he committed to an attack on the city gates at the decisive moment of battle (vv 43-44). The gate was breached and the main walls seized, but the city’s surviving defenders fled to an inner citadel, the temple of Baal-berith.<\/p>\n<p>Many reliefs depict groups of soldiers defending an inner citadel after a city’s wall was breached. Archaeological excavations at Shechem confirm that its temple, like those in other Canaanite cities, was built in the form of a fortified tower, supported by stout bastions near the entrance. The tower of Shechem was thus strongly fortified and occupied only a small area, enabling its defenders to concentrate their firepower on Abimelech’s troops. Since it could not be taken by storm, Abimelech ordered his soldiers to use their battle-axes to cut brushwood, which was piled against the stronghold and set on fire (Jgs 9:48-49). All of the defenders within the tower died.<\/p>\n<p>An assault on an inner citadel was always a hazardous undertaking for an attacking army, as shown in the sequel to the capture of Shechem’s tower. Abimelech turned his attention next to the city of Thebez and followed the same plan of assault that had proved successful at Shechem. But as he was preparing to burn the door of the tower to which the defenders had fled, his skull was crushed by a piece of millstone dropped on him by a woman (Jgs 9:50-53). The incident was remembered and became proverbial for the danger of approaching too closely the walls of a fortified tower (2 Sm 11:19-21).<\/p>\n<h5>Communications and Intelligence<\/h5>\n<p>From the patriarchal period (middle Bronze period), we have detailed written information on the use of communications systems in wartime. The documents from Mari on the Euphrates provide evidence for a well-developed communications system based on signaling. Signals were flashed by torches or firebrands at night in accordance with a prearranged code. The system was widely used in Mesopotamia and elsewhere to call for immediate help when a city was under attack.<\/p>\n<p>In the late Bronze period horsemen were sometimes employed for isolated communication functions. Intelligence services played a role in planning and executing military operations. The importance of intelligence and the use of spies or scouts is stressed in the biblical accounts of the conquest of the land of Canaan. Before entering the land, Moses sent men on an espionage mission. He instructed them to gather information on the topography of the land, to observe the relative strength of its inhabitants, to determine whether the land was fertile, to survey the cities and see if they were fortified, and to report on the character of the land—whether it was capable of sustaining a large population (Nm 13:17-20).<\/p>\n<p>Tactical intelligence was very important. Joshua dispatched spies to Jericho and to Ai before beginning military operations against them (Jos 2:1; 7:2). The reports he received about the offensive spirit and strength of the Canaanites enabled him to formulate an attack plan. In the period of the judges the conquest of Bethel (Jgs 1:22-26) was due directly to intelligence gathered by a reconnaissance patrol. The tribes of Joseph sent out scouts to keep the city under observation. It was strongly fortified and seemed impregnable. The scouts captured a man who emerged from the city—presumably not through the main gate, which was shut tight, but through a concealed postern or tunnel. In exchange for his own life and the safety of his family, he disclosed the location of the passage leading beneath the walls. The city was penetrated through the tunnel and captured.<\/p>\n<h5>Attack and Penetration: The Breach<\/h5>\n<p>Direct penetration through the fortifications of an ancient city meant breaching the gate or the main walls by using hammers, axes, pikes, spears, swords, or a battering ram. Illustrated monuments and written documents indicate that early in the middle Bronze period fortified cities were being attacked with battering rams. The earliest known illustration of a ram appears in a siege scene in the wall paintings from Beni Hasan (20th century <span>BC<\/span>). The ram pictured is a relatively simple device, consisting of a hutlike structure with a slightly pointed roof, which could be moved near a fortress with the help of two parallel crossbars. The structure provided cover for two or three soldiers who operated by hand a very long pole with a sharp tip, presumably of metal.<\/p>\n<p>The Mari documents provide information for the period 200 years later. They mention the effectiveness of battering rams constructed largely of wood. Although very heavy, the siege weapon could be moved over long distances. One document speaks of the use of a wagon drawn by draft animals and of a boat to transport a battering ram to the site of a besieged city.<\/p>\n<p>Moving a battering ram into position always exposed the demolition unit to heavy fire from defenders on the walls above them. Its heaviness made it cumbersome to move. Moreover, the ground adjacent to the walls was usually rough, rocky, and steep. When the chosen point of penetration was a section of the wall, an assault force had to construct an earthen ramp, occasionally strengthened on the top surface and sides with wooden planks or stones. The ramp provided a track along which the battering ram could be moved from the foot of the slope to the outer wall. Once moved into operational position, the ram had to be braked to prevent it from rolling back. The building of such a ramp was evidently necessary in Joab’s campaign against the fortified city of Abel in Beth-maacah (2 Sm 20:15). The biblical account indicates that some sort of battering ram was in use in Israel under King David during the early monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest Assyrian reliefs show that protection of the penetration units was a major consideration. High, mobile assault towers constructed of wood operated in tandem with a battering ram. Such towers, moved into position near a breach operation and manned by archers, provided covering fire directed against the defenders on the wall. Siege towers neutralized the defenders’ advantage in firepower and drew fire away from the crew engaged in breaching the walls.<\/p>\n<p>The details of the Assyrian reliefs make it possible to visualize clearly the fate of Jerusalem, as announced to the prophet Ezekiel (Ez 4:1-3; 21:22). The gate was the focal point of attack because it was the weakest point in the wall. Moreover, the path leading up to the gate made construction of a special ramp unnecessary. In the demolition of a gate, swords were sometimes used to pry the doors loose and to tear down hinges. Wooden doors unprotected by metal were often set on fire.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram continued to be used as an engine for breaching walls in the Hellenistic-Roman period. In 63 <span>BC<\/span> the Roman commander Pompey brought up battering rams from Tyre against the defenders of Jerusalem, and with them penetrated the fortified wall that enclosed the temple. The siege machine shown on Trajan’s column had a beam with an iron head shaped like a ram. It was moved up to a wall in a frame protected by a wooden roof covered with clay or hides. A variation equipped for boring into a wall was used by Titus when besieging Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram was not the only device used to effect a breach in a wall. Troops trained as sappers would tear down a section of the wall by using sharp-headed levers (pikes, swords, spears) or even sledgehammers (cf. Ez 26:8-9). In Ashurnasirpal’s army such men were issued full-length coats of mail to cover their whole bodies. Under later Assyrian kings, they were protected by both round and rectangular shields, which they carried on their backs when engaged in demolition. Later, Ashurbanipal relied exclusively on such sappers for direct penetration of a fortified city. He designed for their protection a huge shield, the curved head of which could be propped against the wall, screening the sapper from missiles while he worked beneath it.<\/p>\n<h5>Scaling the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A battle scene depicted on limestone in the tomb of Anta at Dashashe in Upper Egypt (24th century <span>BC<\/span>) provides the earliest known representation of siege activities. It shows the Egyptians raising a scaling ladder against the walls of a fortified city. By the time of Sargon, the thickness of walls was increased considerably, which permitted construction of much higher walls, more resistant to scaling. Such solid, massive walls also tended to blunt the effectiveness of a battering ram. Sargon, and especially his successor Ashurbanipal, responded by constructing longer scaling ladders, some of which could reach a height of from 25 to 30 feet (7.6 to 9.1 meters), judging from the number of rungs.<\/p>\n<h5>Penetration beneath the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A tunneling operation could be started beyond the range of any weapons at the disposal of the defenders. Once underground, the penetration unit was shielded from enemy fire. The tunneling could be accomplished under cover of night, so that the element of surprise could be exploited to the maximum. It was, however, a lengthy process requiring considerable technical skill. Moreover, if the operation was detected by the defenders before its completion, they could destroy the penetration unit as it emerged from the tunnel. Attempts to penetrate fortified cities by tunneling beneath the walls was a characteristic feature of warfare in Iron Age II. That is confirmed by reliefs, written documents, and archaeological excavation of sites dating to this period, where the remains of attack tunnels have been discovered.<\/p>\n<h5>Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Particularly when a walled city was situated on a high hill, an extended siege provided an alternate method of conquering it. By encircling the city and preventing aid or supplies from reaching its defenders, the attacking army could starve the inhabitants out. That procedure minimized the element of risk for the attacking army. Its success depended upon their capacity to prevent outside assistance from reaching the city and the defenders from leaving it. An army would generally resort to siege when a city’s fortifications were too powerful for direct penetration. The siege of Samaria by the Assyrians lasted for three years (2 Kgs 18:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>The peculiar conditions of siege produced the catapult, a major innovation of Greek artillery and a logical improvement on the bow and the sling. Designed originally as a strengthened bow mounted on a stand and used to fire arrows only, it was introduced around 400 <span>BC<\/span> by Demetrius I. He may have borrowed the idea from the Phoenicians at Carthage.<\/p>\n<p>In the course of time the instrument was improved. The perfect weapon, called the torsion catapult, derived its power from many tightly twisted strands of elastic material, frequently supplied by women’s hair, which could be tightened with a windlass and then released suddenly. Firing arrows, large stones, or fire-baskets with an effective range of 200 yards (182.9 meters), a catapult could clear a wall of its defenders while a battering ram breached it or a boarding party attacked from a mobile tower.<\/p>\n<p>For those in a besieged city, the critical problems were food and water supplies. The horror of famine is stressed in the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by the Syrian Ben-hadad in the days of the prophet Elisha. On that occasion women were reduced to eating their children (2 Kgs 6:26-29). A besieging army would do everything in its power to aggravate such conditions. In one of the siege reliefs of Ashurnasirpal II, a defender has lowered a bucket from the wall to draw water from a stream below; an Assyrian soldier is shown cutting the rope with his dagger.<\/p>\n<h5>Ruses and Stratagems<\/h5>\n<p>Various ruses and stratagems could draw the defenders out of a city or infiltrate troops into the city. If a small force could enter a city by a cunning stratagem, it could overpower the guards and open the city gates to an attacking army. A city’s fortifications were of little value once an enemy had entered the city. Moreover, penetrating a city’s defenses at any one point frequently caused the entire defense system to collapse. The story of the Trojan horse is probably the most celebrated account of a stratagem circumventing the defense of a strongly fortified ancient city.<\/p>\n<p>In the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by Ben-hadad, a sudden lifting of the Syrian siege led Joram, the king of Israel, to suspect a ruse. He refused to believe the report of four lepers that the Syrians had gone, leaving behind large food supplies (2 Kgs 7:12). That was the same kind of tactic that Joshua had employed at Ai (Jos 8:3-8).<\/p>\n<p>On other occasions, powerful armies sought to break down resistance by psychological warfare, as in the unsuccessful attempt by Sennacherib to capture Jerusalem in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18–19). The dialogue between the Assyrian general and Hezekiah’s delegates reveals that the Assyrian was trying to shake the confidence of the city’s defenders.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a type of ruse used to trap and destroy an enemy at a moment when he was least able to counter a sudden, unexpected blow. Its effectiveness depended almost entirely on the element of surprise. By taking advantage of good intelligence, knowledge of the terrain, and the cover of night, a small force could stage a devastating ambush against vastly superior numbers.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a standard method of combat during the period of the conquest of Canaan. The fall of Ai, for example, was due directly to the tactical success of an ambush (Jos 8:1-23). Under cover of night, Joshua was able to move a large force to a concealed position behind the city. He then led the remainder of the Israelite army to the edge of a valley north of the fortified city, giving the appearance of a planned assault on the city. The diversion, as calculated, drew the main force of Ai away from the city to engage Israel on the plain of Arabah. When the Israelites fell back, appearing to be badly beaten, the remaining defenders of the city were summoned to pursue Joshua’s fleeing army. With the city left undefended, the main Israelite strike force rose from its ambush position, poured into the city, and set it on fire. Too late, the men of Ai saw the smoke from their burning city and realized the stratagem. Joshua’s army turned to counterattack their pursuers, who found themselves trapped between two bodies of Israelite forces. Assaulted from both front and rear, the king of Ai’s army was annihilated, victim of an effectively laid ambush.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FortificationsandDefense\">Fortifications and Defense<\/p>\n<p>The earliest known fortifications in the world, dated by some to about 7000 <span>BC<\/span>, were discovered in 1954 at Jericho. They were impressive in conception and construction. The core of the defense system was a wall, part of which, bordering the western edge of the ancient city, was still standing to a height of 21 feet (6.4 meters). Further excavation uncovered a large moat that had been carved out of solid rock at the base of the wall, 27 feet (8.2 meters) wide and 9 feet (2.7 meters) deep. How that feat was accomplished when the only tools assumed to have been available were made of stone is a complete mystery. A third component of Jericho’s defense system was a huge stone circular tower 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, once evidently attached to the inner side of the western part of the wall. The exact purpose of the tower has not yet been determined, but Neolithic Jericho provides the earliest evidence of a fortified city supported by a wall, tower, and moat.<\/p>\n<p>By the middle Bronze period, there were four components in a standard defense system: a moat, an advance (outer) wall, the main (inner) wall, and a well-fortified gate structure. The moat, advance wall, and subsidiary fortifications protecting the steep slope and lower portion of the main wall were intended to prevent breaching by a battering ram.<\/p>\n<h5>City Walls<\/h5>\n<p>Erection of a simple wall could halt a hostile advance only temporarily, since walls could be scaled or breached. Walls therefore provided a firing platform so defenders could repel attacks. The wall system consisted of three principal components: the wall itself, constituting the barrier; an upper structure, which provided the firing platform and cover for the defenders; and a series of obstacles and traps erected in front of the wall to keep archers at a distance and to prevent operation of a battering ram.<\/p>\n<p>The battlement—a parapet built along the outer top edge of the wall—provided the defenders with a measure of security, freedom for mobility, and openings through which fire could be directed. From a distance the square notches looked like a row of teeth with gaps between them. The teeth, called merlons, provided a protective barrier against hostile missiles. The gaps, called embrasures or crenels, supplied openings through which the defenders could discharge their weapons. Special towers protruded from the outer face of the wall, spaced at a distance no greater than the double range of a bow. Such towers enabled the defenders to fire at troops who managed to reach the walls. One way of protecting the main wall was to construct an outer or advance wall that could be breached or climbed only under heavy fire from defending units on the battlements of the main wall. Another method was to dig a wide, deep moat around the base of the main wall. A moat kept the enemy from using a battering ram unless they could bridge the moat or fill it up at certain points, under concentrated fire from the defenders.<\/p>\n<p>Casemate fortifications, introduced in the middle Bronze period, were developed from double walls built of dressed stones. The space between the walls was divided into chambers, or casemates, used for storage or dwellings. The Hittite casemate system, introduced into Palestine at least as early as the time of Saul, was widely adopted in Syria and Palestine. A fine example has been discovered at Gibeah, where Saul’s citadel was located, dating to the end of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>. The overall thickness of the double walls, including the casemates, reaches 15 feet (4.6 meters). The same type of construction has been found in excavations of three Solomonic cities—Hazor, Gezer, and Megiddo (cf. 1 Kgs 9:15)—where the casemate walls have an overall thickness of 18 feet (5.5 meters).<\/p>\n<p>Although the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel were not noted for technical advancements in offensive warfare, a number of their kings worked at improving fortifications and means of defense. Uzziah was especially remembered for his accomplishments in defensive warfare. Along with other measures, “he produced machines mounted on the walls of Jerusalem, designed by brilliant men to shoot arrows and hurl stones from the towers and the corners of the wall” (2 Chr 26:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). Those “machines” were special protective structures built to facilitate the task of the archers and to permit huge stones to be dropped on the heads of assaulting troops.<\/p>\n<h5>Gate<\/h5>\n<p>It was inevitable that the gate would be the focus of action in any assault on a fortified city. City gates were therefore designed to expose an attacking army to the greatest risk while providing maximum security to the defenders. The road approaching a city on a hill would wind up the slope, climbing obliquely to the left or the right. Such roads were usually laid out to reach the gate from the right, so an attacker would have to expose the right side of his body to the defenders on the wall. Since he carried his shield in his left hand, that made him more vulnerable.<\/p>\n<p>To prevent the heavy wooden doors of the gate from being set on fire, they were usually plated with metal. A gate wide enough for chariots required double doors, making the line at the center where the two doors met the weakest point in the barrier. Double doors were therefore fitted with huge bolts and fortified with a heavy beam running across the back of both door panels and held in place by sockets set in the doorposts.<\/p>\n<p>Another component in the defense complex at a gate consisted of towers erected on either side of the gate and protruding from the outer face of the wall. Enemy soldiers trying to smash the doors with axes or set them on fire with torches were thus exposed to heavy flanking fire from defensive units on the towers. From a roof over the gate having a balcony, concentrated firepower could be poured down on attackers’ heads. The addition of such auxiliary structures transformed a gate into a small fortress.<\/p>\n<h5>Inner Citadel<\/h5>\n<p>A major weakness of a city’s walls and gate was the magnitude of the circumference. An average-size city might have a perimeter of half a mile (.8 kilometer); a larger city, a perimeter of over a mile (1.6 kilometers). Yet the entire wall had to be defended against breaching, scaling, or tunneling. An attacking army would use diversionary tactics to keep defenders dispersed along the entire perimeter but concentrate their primary assault at one point in the wall. Once the wall was breached, perimeter fortifications served no further defensive purpose. Therefore, internal walls were often added to subdivide a city into several sections, each capable of independent defense. Also, on the highest point of land within the city a citadel would be constructed as a self-contained defensive unit.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest examples of such fortifications, called migdols, are found in the late Bronze Age. They were originally small citadels built to guard important military targets such as sources of water, strategic routes, cultivated farmlands, or frontiers. A migdol of that type was discovered in Israel, not far from Ashdod, in 1960. It was square in plan, with rectangular bastions, and was two stories high, just like structures depicted in Egyptian reliefs from the same period. The same design was used to fortify temples inside of cities. Such fortified temples served as places of refuge and as a city’s final defense once its walls had been breached (cf. Jgs 9:45-51).<\/p>\n<p>In a later period an inner citadel could embrace a complex consisting of the fortified palace of the governor, dwellings of his chief ministers, and sometimes the temple. Such citadels resembled fortified cities, possessing a main wall, a gateway, an outer wall, and occasionally a moat. Being small in area and heavily fortified, citadels could be defended in a final effort by the governor and remaining inhabitants. Presumably Zimri could have held out against Omri’s army for an extended period in the citadel of Tirzah, had he not committed suicide by setting it on fire (1 Kgs 16:17-18).<\/p>\n<h5>Water Supply under Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Unless provision was made to keep a city’s inhabitants supplied with food and water during a protracted siege, no defense system could be effective. Several Judean kings made efforts to solve the food-storage problem. Rehoboam, for example, fortified a number of cities located on the western, eastern, and southern borders of his kingdom and made them centers for the storage of food, oil, and wine (2 Chr 11:5-11).<\/p>\n<p>Storage of food was easier than storage of water. Cisterns built to collect rainwater were a partial answer, but cisterns often ran dry, particularly in times of drought. Cities were sometimes built on the banks of a stream or river, using the stream as part of the city’s defense system. But for a city built on a hill, the source of water might be a spring located at the foot of the slope and outside the city walls. Sometimes the mouth of the spring could be blocked and its location concealed from the enemy while still allowing access by the inhabitants. At Megiddo a vertical shaft 100 feet (274.3 meters) deep was connected by a horizontal tunnel about 200 feet (548.6 meters) long to the water supply at the western end of the city, beyond the fortifications. The work was undertaken in the time of either Solomon or Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The most celebrated measures to guarantee a supply of fresh water in a time of siege were those taken by Hezekiah at Jerusalem. That engineering achievement is recalled in all the summaries of his reign, both in the Bible and in the “Praise of Famous Men” in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus (2 Kgs 20:20; 2 Chr 32:30; Ecclus 48:17). The prodigious feat commemorated in those references was the sealing of the spring of Gihon and the cutting of an 1,800-foot (548.6-meter) channel through solid rock in order to bring water into a reservoir in the city. How it was accomplished was reported by Hezekiah himself in the famous Siloam inscription. Two crews, working with hammers, wedges, and pickaxes, began at opposite ends. The crew that began at the spring was able to take advantage of the older tunnel (cf. Is 22:11). They turned due south, in the direction of the city. The other crew, starting from the reservoir, began in a northeasterly direction. They then turned southeast until they reached the north-south line followed by the crew tunneling from the spring, when they turned due north to meet them. The two crews almost passed each other, being about five feet (1.5 meters) apart, but a shout from one was heard through a crevice in the rock by the other. Both parties turned sharply right, and the tunnel was completed. Hezekiah’s precautionary step, taken before Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah, helps to explain why the Assyrians were unable to subdue Jerusalem by the siege tactics that had earlier subdued Samaria in the time of Sargon.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewMilitaryOrganization\">Hebrew Military Organization<\/p>\n<h5>Tribal Army<\/h5>\n<p>In their exodus from Egypt the Israelites were organized by tribes and divisions. That systematic arrangement for their trek through the wilderness provided a precedent for military organization. After the sojourn at Mt Sinai, the 12 tribes were divided into divisions or army corps, and certain grades in military rank began to appear. The “officers of the army” (Nm 31:14) had command over units of 1,000 or 100 men, which suggests that the tribal army was divided into decimal units. At a later period there is reference to units of 1,000 (the division), 100 (the company), 50 (the platoon), and 10 (the section). Except for the Levites, who were assigned as a tribe to the care of the tabernacle (Nm 2:33), men from 20 years of age who were physically able to fight were assigned to a unit in the tribal army. Certain individuals, however, were exempted from military service (cf. Dt 20:5-9; 24:5; Jgs 7:3).<\/p>\n<p>Until after the conquest of Canaan, the tribal army was essentially a militia recruited in an emergency. Internal organization of the militia was the responsibility of the tribe; each clan and family sent their quota of warriors when summoned to battle by tribal leaders. Because the clan formed the basic unit, recruits were under the command of their own leaders. David’s brothers, for example, served in a division composed of the fighting men from their clan under the command of a captain (1 Sm 17:18; 18:13). When the emergency passed, the militia was disbanded and the soldiers returned to their home districts.<\/p>\n<p>Because the land was divided among the tribes, no tribal or clan leader before Saul commanded the entire tribal confederation (cf. 1 Sm 11:1-11). In fact, tribal jealousies and rivalries threatened national solidarity and jeopardized united action even in a critical period. On some occasions, however, the severity of a crisis caused the armies of the various tribes to unite in common action. The multitribal armies were divided into companies of 1,000, 100, and 50, and still further into families under appointed officers. There is evidence of organization into units according to weaponry (1 Chr 12:24-38). Benjamin’s tribe specialized in the bow and sling. The tribes of Gad, Judah, and Naphtali were expert with the spear and shield.<\/p>\n<p>Provisioning the tribal army was the responsibility of each tribe (Jgs 20:9-10). One out of every ten soldiers was appointed to secure food for the others, either from wealthy landowners (cf. 1 Sm 25) or from the natural resources of the land. In that early stage of military organization, a soldier’s pay generally consisted only of supplies and a portion of the spoils of battle (cf. 30:21-25).<\/p>\n<h5>Professional Army<\/h5>\n<p>Not until the time of the united monarchy did Israel have a regular army. Transition from a people’s militia to a professional army took place under Saul, whose reign changed the tribal confederacy into a monarchy (1 Sm 13:2). Philistine harassment of Israel encouraged establishment of a strong standing army. The army, however, was not large; it consisted of 3,000 men organized in three formations of 1,000 each (1 Sm 13:2; 24:2). Pay for those career soldiers was sometimes in the form of a land grant (8:14) as well as a share of booty. In the organization of Saul’s army, Abner, Jonathan, and David were given particular responsibilities. Abner was named commander of the army (17:55) and was probably also given direct command of one of the divisions. David’s band of valorous men, “the thirty,” provided the leadership core for his own military organization when he became king.<\/p>\n<p>David continued the practice of maintaining a professional army. But he also developed a national militia of 12 regiments, each being called up for duty for one month of the year under professional officers (1 Chr 27:1-15). Each regiment, recruited across tribal lines, consisted of 24,000 soldiers. David’s innovation provided him with a large reserve force that could be mustered for war in times of emergency. The reserves, and presumably the professional army as well, were organized into units of 1,000, 100, 50, and 10. Joab, a specialist in siege warfare (2 Sm 20:15), commanded the professional army, and Amasa was over the citizens’ militia. David, however, remained commander-in-chief of the military organization.<\/p>\n<p>The Israelite group in King David’s professional army was an outgrowth of the small band of fighting men who had served with him during the period of conflict with Saul. That veteran group consisted of David’s family and clansmen, and others who felt themselves oppressed by the central authority under Saul (1 Sm 22:1-2). It ranged in size between 400 and 600 men (1 Sm 22:2; 23:13; 27:2). The presence of mercenaries in David’s army is clearly recorded. Uriah the Hittite and Ittai of Gath are conspicuous examples, along with many career soldiers of Philistine origin, such as the Cherethites and the Pelethites under Benaiah (2 Sm 8:18; 15:19-22; 23:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>The Davidic dynasty maintained a permanent mercenary army until 701 <span>BC<\/span>, after which it was considered too costly. The oppressive cost of maintaining a professional army, financed by burdensome taxes and forced labor, was in fact a major factor contributing to the disruption of the monarchy after Solomon’s death (cf. 1 Kgs 10:26-29; 12:4-19). After Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, the southern kingdom of Judah depended entirely on a citizens’ militia for its defense. It is commonly held that the northern kingdom of Israel did not employ a professional army, but it is evident that King Ahab used at least some mercenary soldiers in his defense against Ben-hadad of Syria (1 Kgs 20:15-20).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Armor and Weapons.<\/p>","summary_ro":"WARFARE The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense. Methods of Warfare Standard Combat Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium BC and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of ...","summary_en":"WARFARE The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense. Methods of Warfare Standard Combat Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium BC and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of ...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45958,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:9","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:9<\/strong> The <em>lots<\/em> may have been the Urim and Thummim on the priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:30; cp. Josh 14:2; 1 Sam 14:41; Ezra 2:63).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:9<\/strong> The <em>lots<\/em> may have been the Urim and Thummim on the priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:30; cp. Josh 14:2; 1 Sam 14:41; Ezra 2:63).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:9 The lots may have been the Urim and Thummim on the priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:30; cp. Josh 14:2; 1 Sam 14:41; Ezra 2:63).","summary_en":"20:9 The lots may have been the Urim and Thummim on the priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:30; cp. Josh 14:2; 1 Sam 14:41; Ezra 2:63).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73584,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:9","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:9<\/strong> The <em>lots<\/em> may have been the Urim and Thummim on the priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:30; cp. Josh 14:2; 1 Sam 14:41; Ezra 2:63).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:9<\/strong> The <em>lots<\/em> may have been the Urim and Thummim on the priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:30; cp. Josh 14:2; 1 Sam 14:41; Ezra 2:63).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:9 The lots may have been the Urim and Thummim on the priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:30; cp. Josh 14:2; 1 Sam 14:41; Ezra 2:63).","summary_en":"20:9 The lots may have been the Urim and Thummim on the priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:30; cp. Josh 14:2; 1 Sam 14:41; Ezra 2:63).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101210,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:9","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:9<\/strong> The <em>lots<\/em> may have been the Urim and Thummim on the priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:30; cp. Josh 14:2; 1 Sam 14:41; Ezra 2:63).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:9<\/strong> The <em>lots<\/em> may have been the Urim and Thummim on the priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:30; cp. Josh 14:2; 1 Sam 14:41; Ezra 2:63).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:9 The lots may have been the Urim and Thummim on the priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:30; cp. Josh 14:2; 1 Sam 14:41; Ezra 2:63).","summary_en":"20:9 The lots may have been the Urim and Thummim on the priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:30; cp. Josh 14:2; 1 Sam 14:41; Ezra 2:63).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128836,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:9","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:9<\/strong> The <em>lots<\/em> may have been the Urim and Thummim on the priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:30; cp. Josh 14:2; 1 Sam 14:41; Ezra 2:63).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:9<\/strong> The <em>lots<\/em> may have been the Urim and Thummim on the priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:30; cp. Josh 14:2; 1 Sam 14:41; Ezra 2:63).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:9 The lots may have been the Urim and Thummim on the priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:30; cp. Josh 14:2; 1 Sam 14:41; Ezra 2:63).","summary_en":"20:9 The lots may have been the Urim and Thummim on the priest’s breastplate (Exod 28:30; cp. Josh 14:2; 1 Sam 14:41; Ezra 2:63).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"12":[{"id":45959,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:12","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:12-13<\/strong> Israel recognized corporate responsibility. The leading citizens of <em>Gibeah<\/em> were guilty (20:5), and all of Gibeah became an accessory to their crimes by failing to discipline them. <em>The tribe of Benjamin<\/em>, in turn, had a responsibility to bring <em>Gibeah<\/em> to justice; failing that, they all shared the guilt. Had Israel not done something about Benjamin’s sin, the guilt would then have extended to the entire nation.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:12-13<\/strong> Israel recognized corporate responsibility. The leading citizens of <em>Gibeah<\/em> were guilty (20:5), and all of Gibeah became an accessory to their crimes by failing to discipline them. <em>The tribe of Benjamin<\/em>, in turn, had a responsibility to bring <em>Gibeah<\/em> to justice; failing that, they all shared the guilt. Had Israel not done something about Benjamin’s sin, the guilt would then have extended to the entire nation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:12-13 Israel recognized corporate responsibility. The leading citizens of Gibeah were guilty (20:5), and all of Gibeah became an accessory to their crimes by failing to discipline them. The tribe of Benjamin, in turn, had a responsibility to bring Gibeah to justice; failing that, they all shared the guilt. Had Israel not done something about Benjamin’s sin, the guilt would then have extended to the entire nation.","summary_en":"20:12-13 Israel recognized corporate responsibility. The leading citizens of Gibeah were guilty (20:5), and all of Gibeah became an accessory to their crimes by failing to discipline them. The tribe of Benjamin, in turn, had a responsibility to bring Gibeah to justice; failing that, they all shared the guilt. Had Israel not done something about Benjamin’s sin, the guilt would then have extended to the entire nation.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73585,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:12","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:12-13<\/strong> Israel recognized corporate responsibility. The leading citizens of <em>Gibeah<\/em> were guilty (20:5), and all of Gibeah became an accessory to their crimes by failing to discipline them. <em>The tribe of Benjamin<\/em>, in turn, had a responsibility to bring <em>Gibeah<\/em> to justice; failing that, they all shared the guilt. Had Israel not done something about Benjamin’s sin, the guilt would then have extended to the entire nation.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:12-13<\/strong> Israel recognized corporate responsibility. The leading citizens of <em>Gibeah<\/em> were guilty (20:5), and all of Gibeah became an accessory to their crimes by failing to discipline them. <em>The tribe of Benjamin<\/em>, in turn, had a responsibility to bring <em>Gibeah<\/em> to justice; failing that, they all shared the guilt. Had Israel not done something about Benjamin’s sin, the guilt would then have extended to the entire nation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:12-13 Israel recognized corporate responsibility. The leading citizens of Gibeah were guilty (20:5), and all of Gibeah became an accessory to their crimes by failing to discipline them. The tribe of Benjamin, in turn, had a responsibility to bring Gibeah to justice; failing that, they all shared the guilt. Had Israel not done something about Benjamin’s sin, the guilt would then have extended to the entire nation.","summary_en":"20:12-13 Israel recognized corporate responsibility. The leading citizens of Gibeah were guilty (20:5), and all of Gibeah became an accessory to their crimes by failing to discipline them. The tribe of Benjamin, in turn, had a responsibility to bring Gibeah to justice; failing that, they all shared the guilt. Had Israel not done something about Benjamin’s sin, the guilt would then have extended to the entire nation.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101211,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:12","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:12-13<\/strong> Israel recognized corporate responsibility. The leading citizens of <em>Gibeah<\/em> were guilty (20:5), and all of Gibeah became an accessory to their crimes by failing to discipline them. <em>The tribe of Benjamin<\/em>, in turn, had a responsibility to bring <em>Gibeah<\/em> to justice; failing that, they all shared the guilt. Had Israel not done something about Benjamin’s sin, the guilt would then have extended to the entire nation.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:12-13<\/strong> Israel recognized corporate responsibility. The leading citizens of <em>Gibeah<\/em> were guilty (20:5), and all of Gibeah became an accessory to their crimes by failing to discipline them. <em>The tribe of Benjamin<\/em>, in turn, had a responsibility to bring <em>Gibeah<\/em> to justice; failing that, they all shared the guilt. Had Israel not done something about Benjamin’s sin, the guilt would then have extended to the entire nation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:12-13 Israel recognized corporate responsibility. The leading citizens of Gibeah were guilty (20:5), and all of Gibeah became an accessory to their crimes by failing to discipline them. The tribe of Benjamin, in turn, had a responsibility to bring Gibeah to justice; failing that, they all shared the guilt. Had Israel not done something about Benjamin’s sin, the guilt would then have extended to the entire nation.","summary_en":"20:12-13 Israel recognized corporate responsibility. The leading citizens of Gibeah were guilty (20:5), and all of Gibeah became an accessory to their crimes by failing to discipline them. The tribe of Benjamin, in turn, had a responsibility to bring Gibeah to justice; failing that, they all shared the guilt. Had Israel not done something about Benjamin’s sin, the guilt would then have extended to the entire nation.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128837,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:12","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:12-13<\/strong> Israel recognized corporate responsibility. The leading citizens of <em>Gibeah<\/em> were guilty (20:5), and all of Gibeah became an accessory to their crimes by failing to discipline them. <em>The tribe of Benjamin<\/em>, in turn, had a responsibility to bring <em>Gibeah<\/em> to justice; failing that, they all shared the guilt. Had Israel not done something about Benjamin’s sin, the guilt would then have extended to the entire nation.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:12-13<\/strong> Israel recognized corporate responsibility. The leading citizens of <em>Gibeah<\/em> were guilty (20:5), and all of Gibeah became an accessory to their crimes by failing to discipline them. <em>The tribe of Benjamin<\/em>, in turn, had a responsibility to bring <em>Gibeah<\/em> to justice; failing that, they all shared the guilt. Had Israel not done something about Benjamin’s sin, the guilt would then have extended to the entire nation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:12-13 Israel recognized corporate responsibility. The leading citizens of Gibeah were guilty (20:5), and all of Gibeah became an accessory to their crimes by failing to discipline them. The tribe of Benjamin, in turn, had a responsibility to bring Gibeah to justice; failing that, they all shared the guilt. Had Israel not done something about Benjamin’s sin, the guilt would then have extended to the entire nation.","summary_en":"20:12-13 Israel recognized corporate responsibility. The leading citizens of Gibeah were guilty (20:5), and all of Gibeah became an accessory to their crimes by failing to discipline them. The tribe of Benjamin, in turn, had a responsibility to bring Gibeah to justice; failing that, they all shared the guilt. Had Israel not done something about Benjamin’s sin, the guilt would then have extended to the entire nation.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"13":[{"id":4182,"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":4311,"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":45960,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:13","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:13-17<\/strong> Benjamin’s response was consistent with its independent and warlike character (cp. Gen 49:27). The tribe had justifiable confidence in the warriors for which it was famous (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Chr 12:2). Though outnumbered almost three to one, they defeated the rest of Israel twice and inflicted heavy casualties (Judg 20:18-24).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:13-17<\/strong> Benjamin’s response was consistent with its independent and warlike character (cp. Gen 49:27). The tribe had justifiable confidence in the warriors for which it was famous (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Chr 12:2). Though outnumbered almost three to one, they defeated the rest of Israel twice and inflicted heavy casualties (Judg 20:18-24).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:13-17 Benjamin’s response was consistent with its independent and warlike character (cp. Gen 49:27). The tribe had justifiable confidence in the warriors for which it was famous (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Chr 12:2). Though outnumbered almost three to one, they defeated the rest of Israel twice and inflicted heavy casualties (Judg 20:18-24).","summary_en":"20:13-17 Benjamin’s response was consistent with its independent and warlike character (cp. Gen 49:27). The tribe had justifiable confidence in the warriors for which it was famous (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Chr 12:2). Though outnumbered almost three to one, they defeated the rest of Israel twice and inflicted heavy casualties (Judg 20:18-24).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73586,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:13","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:13-17<\/strong> Benjamin’s response was consistent with its independent and warlike character (cp. Gen 49:27). The tribe had justifiable confidence in the warriors for which it was famous (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Chr 12:2). Though outnumbered almost three to one, they defeated the rest of Israel twice and inflicted heavy casualties (Judg 20:18-24).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:13-17<\/strong> Benjamin’s response was consistent with its independent and warlike character (cp. Gen 49:27). The tribe had justifiable confidence in the warriors for which it was famous (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Chr 12:2). Though outnumbered almost three to one, they defeated the rest of Israel twice and inflicted heavy casualties (Judg 20:18-24).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:13-17 Benjamin’s response was consistent with its independent and warlike character (cp. Gen 49:27). The tribe had justifiable confidence in the warriors for which it was famous (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Chr 12:2). Though outnumbered almost three to one, they defeated the rest of Israel twice and inflicted heavy casualties (Judg 20:18-24).","summary_en":"20:13-17 Benjamin’s response was consistent with its independent and warlike character (cp. Gen 49:27). The tribe had justifiable confidence in the warriors for which it was famous (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Chr 12:2). Though outnumbered almost three to one, they defeated the rest of Israel twice and inflicted heavy casualties (Judg 20:18-24).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101212,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:13","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:13-17<\/strong> Benjamin’s response was consistent with its independent and warlike character (cp. Gen 49:27). The tribe had justifiable confidence in the warriors for which it was famous (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Chr 12:2). Though outnumbered almost three to one, they defeated the rest of Israel twice and inflicted heavy casualties (Judg 20:18-24).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:13-17<\/strong> Benjamin’s response was consistent with its independent and warlike character (cp. Gen 49:27). The tribe had justifiable confidence in the warriors for which it was famous (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Chr 12:2). Though outnumbered almost three to one, they defeated the rest of Israel twice and inflicted heavy casualties (Judg 20:18-24).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:13-17 Benjamin’s response was consistent with its independent and warlike character (cp. Gen 49:27). The tribe had justifiable confidence in the warriors for which it was famous (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Chr 12:2). Though outnumbered almost three to one, they defeated the rest of Israel twice and inflicted heavy casualties (Judg 20:18-24).","summary_en":"20:13-17 Benjamin’s response was consistent with its independent and warlike character (cp. Gen 49:27). The tribe had justifiable confidence in the warriors for which it was famous (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Chr 12:2). Though outnumbered almost three to one, they defeated the rest of Israel twice and inflicted heavy casualties (Judg 20:18-24).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128838,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:13","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:13-17<\/strong> Benjamin’s response was consistent with its independent and warlike character (cp. Gen 49:27). The tribe had justifiable confidence in the warriors for which it was famous (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Chr 12:2). Though outnumbered almost three to one, they defeated the rest of Israel twice and inflicted heavy casualties (Judg 20:18-24).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:13-17<\/strong> Benjamin’s response was consistent with its independent and warlike character (cp. Gen 49:27). The tribe had justifiable confidence in the warriors for which it was famous (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Chr 12:2). Though outnumbered almost three to one, they defeated the rest of Israel twice and inflicted heavy casualties (Judg 20:18-24).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:13-17 Benjamin’s response was consistent with its independent and warlike character (cp. Gen 49:27). The tribe had justifiable confidence in the warriors for which it was famous (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Chr 12:2). Though outnumbered almost three to one, they defeated the rest of Israel twice and inflicted heavy casualties (Judg 20:18-24).","summary_en":"20:13-17 Benjamin’s response was consistent with its independent and warlike character (cp. Gen 49:27). The tribe had justifiable confidence in the warriors for which it was famous (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Chr 12:2). Though outnumbered almost three to one, they defeated the rest of Israel twice and inflicted heavy casualties (Judg 20:18-24).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"16":[{"id":2731,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Armor and Weapons","title_en":"Armor and Weapons","content_ro":"<h3>ARMOR AND WEAPONS<\/h3>\n<p>The location of Palestine at the crossroads of three continents gave it a strategic importance in the ancient world quite out of proportion to its size. Surrounded by the great military powers (Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Hittites of Anatolia), that stretch of land was constantly the object of aggressive ambitions of other nations. The invention of different weapons, fortifications, and tactics exerted a profound reciprocal influence on other inventions. Tactical innovation by one side prompted new countertactics by the other.<\/p>\n<p>The three basic elements of the art of warfare are mobility, firepower, and security. Weapons alone seldom determined the issue of battle, particularly when both sides were evenly matched. The skill with which strategy and tactics were deployed, the spirit of the commander in directing his troops, and the precision with which the troops handled their weapons were decisive factors in many of the battles mentioned in the Bible.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AttackWeapons\">Attack Weapons<\/p>\n<p>The armory of a military commander in antiquity consisted of a variety of offensive weapons designed to engage the enemy at long, medium, and short range. The bow and the sling were the principal weapons developed for long-range firepower; the javelin and the spear for medium-range; the sword, the ax, and the mace for short-range.<\/p>\n<h5>Bow<\/h5>\n<p>Early bows were fashioned from one piece of seasoned wood. No single type of bow wood, however, could provide the lightness, toughness, and elasticity required. Gradually the idea was conceived of combining several natural materials—wood, sections of animal horn, animal tendons and sinews, and glue—in the construction of a bow to meet all the demands placed on it. The resulting composite bow became a weapon of supreme importance. Composite structure gave a bow lightness, strength, and elasticity. Use of a double-convex form gave increased range and power of penetration.<\/p>\n<p>The bowstring was made from bindweed, natural cord, hide, or the intestines of oxen or camels. The bow was strung by hand (2 Kgs 13:16), usually bending it with the foot, which required considerable strength (cf. 2 Sm 22:35; Jer 51:3). That may explain why archers were known as “bow treaders” or as “those who tread a bow.”<\/p>\n<p>The form of the arrowhead was a response to the enemy’s defense and armor. In the late Bronze period, for example, a battle arrowhead was generally of bronze and was thick in the middle, tapering to a spine. Its shape was dictated by the fact that the coats of mail in widespread use at the time could be penetrated only by a spined or ribbed arrowhead. The arrow shaft was usually made from reed, a material that combined strength with pliability.<\/p>\n<h5>Sling<\/h5>\n<p>Complementing the bow was the sling, devised originally by shepherds to drive off animals molesting their flocks (cf. 1 Sm 17:40). It gradually assumed importance as a weapon of war, its supreme advantage being simple construction. Not only did a sling require little technical skill to produce, but the stones used as projectiles were readily available on the ground. In the hands of a trained slinger a missile could be hurled as far as 600 feet (183 meters) in any terrain. The sling’s capacity for high-angled fire up a steep slope was particularly important in an assault on a fortified city. Its principal disadvantage was that strenuous training and experience were required to achieve accuracy in its operation (cf. Jgs 20:16).<\/p>\n<p>A sling was commonly made from two leather thongs to which were attached a pocket for holding the stone. With the thongs pulled taut the pocket became a bag. The slinger held his arms above his head, the bag in his left hand and the ends of the taut thongs in his right hand. After swinging the sling several times around his head with great force to give it momentum, he suddenly released the end of one of the thongs to discharge the missile. Lead pellets as well as smooth stones were used as projectiles. They were carried in a bag or were piled conveniently at the slinger’s feet.<\/p>\n<p>The importance of the sling as a long-range weapon is evident in the familiar account of David’s encounter with the Philistine champion, Goliath of Gath (1 Sm 17:40-51). At that time the Philistines possessed many advanced types of weapons, but the bow and sling were not among them. They depended on medium-range weapons like the javelin and short-range weapons like the sword (cf. 1 Sm 17:4-7, 45, 51). The sling gave David an advantage in range that was decisive against Goliath’s superior weapons and armor (1 Sm 17:48-49).<\/p>\n<h5>Javelin and Spear<\/h5>\n<p>Two weapons employed for medium-distance warfare were similar in appearance but different in length and operation. The javelin, generally lighter and shorter than the spear, was designed for throwing. It was like a large arrow that was hurled by the hand. Sumerian charioteers of the third millennium <span>BC<\/span> were armed with several javelins, carried like arrows in a quiver attached to the body of the chariot. Javelin heads were designed for penetration and altered in shape and material as enemy armor became more effective. A head fashioned with sharp hooks or barbs was difficult and painful to extract from a wound.<\/p>\n<p>The spear was similar in appearance to the javelin but was larger, heavier, and designed primarily as a thrusting weapon (cf. Nm 25:7-8). The oldest military monuments known indicate that the spear was already well developed. On the Egyptian hunter’s slate palette and on the black granite stele from Warka (c. 3000 <span>BC<\/span>), the warrior’s personal weapon is a long staff tipped with a leaf-shaped blade with a sharp spine. Throughout the third millennium <span>BC<\/span>, the spear was standard equipment for heavy-armed infantry and the most effective weapon for both chariot and infantry charges. Excavations have shown that the spear was the common weapon of the seminomadic tribes who began pouring into Palestine from the north in the middle Bronze Age.<\/p>\n<p>Another characteristic of spears in that early period was a metal tip attached to the butt of the shaft, enabling a spear to be stuck upright in the ground when not in use. That feature persisted into later periods and is mentioned specifically in reference to Saul’s spear, which was stuck in the ground by his head while he slept (1 Sm 26:7). Occasionally the metal tip functioned as a thrusting weapon in its own right, as is evident in the account of the slaying of Asahel (2 Sm 2:23).<\/p>\n<h5>Sword<\/h5>\n<p>One of the earliest objects made of iron was the sword. Swords were designed for either stabbing or striking. The stabbing sword developed as a long straight blade, tapered toward the point for piercing the body. Its tapered edges were sharpened so that it could also serve as a cutting instrument. The striking sword, on the other hand, had only one sharp edge, with the thickest part of the blade not along the center but along its blunt edge. Such a sword was often curved, sometimes to a degree that gave it the appearance of a sickle, but with the outer, convex edge sharpened as the cutting blade. The earliest type of sickle sword appeared in the second half of the third millennium <span>BC<\/span>. Both the hilt, or handle, and the blade were fashioned from a single bar of metal. In the middle Bronze Age the curved striking sword functioned essentially as an ax, with a comparatively long hilt and short blade.<\/p>\n<p>That type of sword completely disappeared in the late Bronze Age because it proved ineffective against the widespread use of the helmet and armor. In its place appeared a new design with the curved blade equal in length to the hilt and sometimes longer. It provided a cutting weapon in chariot fighting and against an enemy who possessed no armor. Widespread use of such long-bladed swords at that time explains the phrase repeatedly used in the Bible to describe Joshua’s conquests of the Canaanites: Joshua smote them with the edge of the sword (e.g., Jos 8:24; 10:28-39). That expression would be inappropriate for the action of a short, straight, narrow sword designed as a thrusting weapon. A fine specimen of curved sword was found at Gezer in Palestine in the tomb of a nobleman, dating to the first half of the 14th century <span>BC<\/span>. The same type of blade is also depicted on a late 13th century <span>BC<\/span> ivory carving from Megiddo.<\/p>\n<p>During those centuries advances made in the technology of forging iron were reflected in the development of the straight sword as well. The Sea Peoples, among whom were the Philistines, specialized in short-range arms. As early as the 13th century <span>BC<\/span> they began to make the straight blade more effective than the curved sickle-type sword.<\/p>\n<p>By the time of Saul, the Philistines had used their technology to establish themselves as city dwellers and the dominant military presence in the land. Their military superiority was based on the chariot and on an infantry equipped with personal armaments of high quality. They carefully retained the forging of hard metal under their own supervision and kept the Israelites from developing forges of their own (cf. 1 Sm 13:19-22). Not until that situation was altered could the balance of power pass from the Philistines to Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>Mace and Ax<\/h5>\n<p>The mace and the ax, developed as alternatives to the sword before hard metal could be forged, were designed for hand-to-hand fighting. They consisted of a comparatively short wooden handle, one end of which was fitted with a lethal head made of stone or metal. The weapons were swung like a hammer to deliver a striking blow. The critical detail was the secure fastening of the head to the handle to prevent its flying off when swung or breaking off when struck. The handle of both the mace and the ax was widened at the point of the grip, tapering toward the head, to prevent the weapon from slipping from the hand when swung. Such weapons were carried in the hand or attached to the wrist with a loop. The mace was designed to batter and smash, the ax to pierce and cut.<\/p>\n<p>The mace was a very primitive weapon. The hieroglyphic sign for the infinitive <em>to fight<\/em> represents hands holding a mace and a medium-size shield. During the Chalcolithic and the first half of the early Bronze periods (3500–2500 <span>BC<\/span>), the mace was the primary weapon for personal combat. Because the helmet had not yet made its appearance, the striking power of the mace was devastating. Long after the mace had become obsolete as a personal weapon, it continued to serve as a symbol of sovereign authority for the king or deity (cf. Ps 2:9).<\/p>\n<p>Complex technical problems taxed the ingenuity of armorers in the production of the ax. The blade had to be fixed securely to the handle. The cutting ax had a short blade and a wide edge. It was an effective weapon against an enemy unprotected by armor. It was also used for tearing down the wall of a besieged city, as in the wall painting at Saqqarah (23d century <span>BC<\/span>). But against armor the cutting ax was ineffective. Deeper power of penetration was achieved with the piercing ax, which had a long, narrow blade ending in a short, sharp edge.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DefensiveProtection\">Defensive Protection<\/p>\n<p>Without provision for personal protection of the individual soldier on the battlefield, the mobility and firepower of an army could be seriously compromised.<\/p>\n<h5>Shield<\/h5>\n<p>Designed to provide a barrier between the body of a soldier and the weapon of his foe, the shield was one of the oldest means of security devised. In the time of the judges and the early Israelite kings, persons of rank were frequently protected by a very large shield. It was carried by a special shield bearer who remained constantly at the unprotected right side of the warrior to whom he was assigned as a bodyguard (cf. Jgs 9:54; 1 Sm 14:1; 17:7; 2 Sm 18:15). The right side of an armed combatant was unprotected because he carried his weapons in his right hand and his shield in his left. The shield bearer therefore had to stand by his master’s vulnerable right side to protect him (1 Sm 17:41; cf. Ps 16:8). In that period the shield was ordinarily anointed as part of the consecration of an Israelite warrior and his weapons for battle (cf. 2 Sm 1:21).<\/p>\n<h5>Armor<\/h5>\n<p>Personal armor protected the body of a combatant from injury while freeing his hands to use his weapons. The earliest type of body armor formed a substitute for the long shield. It consisted of a full-length tunic made from leather or some tough fiber. It was relatively simple to produce, was light enough to permit full mobility, and offered a measure of protection to the chest, abdomen, back, thighs, and legs. So equipped, a soldier required only a short shield to protect his arms and face.<\/p>\n<p>The late Bronze period saw the development of the coat of mail. It consisted of hundreds of small pieces of overlapping metal joined together like fish scales and sewed to the surface of a cloth or leather tunic. Written documents from Nuzi state that from 400 to 600 large scales and several hundred smaller scales went into the production of a single coat. Smaller scales and narrower rows were used where greater flexibility was needed, as at the throat and neck. The resulting garment was relatively flexible, affording freedom of movement, while the hard metal scales gave far greater personal protection than leather or fiber could provide.<\/p>\n<h5>Helmet<\/h5>\n<p>Since the greatest point of vulnerability for a soldier in combat was his head, concern for some form of protective helmet can be traced as far back as the end of the fourth millennium <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Bronze helmets were worn both by Goliath and by Saul (1 Sm 17:5, 38). Although the helmet was standard equipment for the heavily armed infantry of foreign armies for centuries, it does not seem to have been a common possession of soldiers in the Israelite army during the period of the united monarchy. Among military reforms introduced by King Uzziah in the ninth century <span>BC<\/span> was provision of helmets for the army of the southern kingdom of Judah (2 Chr 26:14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Warfare.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ARMOR AND WEAPONS<\/h3>\n<p>The location of Palestine at the crossroads of three continents gave it a strategic importance in the ancient world quite out of proportion to its size. Surrounded by the great military powers (Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Hittites of Anatolia), that stretch of land was constantly the object of aggressive ambitions of other nations. The invention of different weapons, fortifications, and tactics exerted a profound reciprocal influence on other inventions. Tactical innovation by one side prompted new countertactics by the other.<\/p>\n<p>The three basic elements of the art of warfare are mobility, firepower, and security. Weapons alone seldom determined the issue of battle, particularly when both sides were evenly matched. The skill with which strategy and tactics were deployed, the spirit of the commander in directing his troops, and the precision with which the troops handled their weapons were decisive factors in many of the battles mentioned in the Bible.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AttackWeapons\">Attack Weapons<\/p>\n<p>The armory of a military commander in antiquity consisted of a variety of offensive weapons designed to engage the enemy at long, medium, and short range. The bow and the sling were the principal weapons developed for long-range firepower; the javelin and the spear for medium-range; the sword, the ax, and the mace for short-range.<\/p>\n<h5>Bow<\/h5>\n<p>Early bows were fashioned from one piece of seasoned wood. No single type of bow wood, however, could provide the lightness, toughness, and elasticity required. Gradually the idea was conceived of combining several natural materials—wood, sections of animal horn, animal tendons and sinews, and glue—in the construction of a bow to meet all the demands placed on it. The resulting composite bow became a weapon of supreme importance. Composite structure gave a bow lightness, strength, and elasticity. Use of a double-convex form gave increased range and power of penetration.<\/p>\n<p>The bowstring was made from bindweed, natural cord, hide, or the intestines of oxen or camels. The bow was strung by hand (2 Kgs 13:16), usually bending it with the foot, which required considerable strength (cf. 2 Sm 22:35; Jer 51:3). That may explain why archers were known as “bow treaders” or as “those who tread a bow.”<\/p>\n<p>The form of the arrowhead was a response to the enemy’s defense and armor. In the late Bronze period, for example, a battle arrowhead was generally of bronze and was thick in the middle, tapering to a spine. Its shape was dictated by the fact that the coats of mail in widespread use at the time could be penetrated only by a spined or ribbed arrowhead. The arrow shaft was usually made from reed, a material that combined strength with pliability.<\/p>\n<h5>Sling<\/h5>\n<p>Complementing the bow was the sling, devised originally by shepherds to drive off animals molesting their flocks (cf. 1 Sm 17:40). It gradually assumed importance as a weapon of war, its supreme advantage being simple construction. Not only did a sling require little technical skill to produce, but the stones used as projectiles were readily available on the ground. In the hands of a trained slinger a missile could be hurled as far as 600 feet (183 meters) in any terrain. The sling’s capacity for high-angled fire up a steep slope was particularly important in an assault on a fortified city. Its principal disadvantage was that strenuous training and experience were required to achieve accuracy in its operation (cf. Jgs 20:16).<\/p>\n<p>A sling was commonly made from two leather thongs to which were attached a pocket for holding the stone. With the thongs pulled taut the pocket became a bag. The slinger held his arms above his head, the bag in his left hand and the ends of the taut thongs in his right hand. After swinging the sling several times around his head with great force to give it momentum, he suddenly released the end of one of the thongs to discharge the missile. Lead pellets as well as smooth stones were used as projectiles. They were carried in a bag or were piled conveniently at the slinger’s feet.<\/p>\n<p>The importance of the sling as a long-range weapon is evident in the familiar account of David’s encounter with the Philistine champion, Goliath of Gath (1 Sm 17:40-51). At that time the Philistines possessed many advanced types of weapons, but the bow and sling were not among them. They depended on medium-range weapons like the javelin and short-range weapons like the sword (cf. 1 Sm 17:4-7, 45, 51). The sling gave David an advantage in range that was decisive against Goliath’s superior weapons and armor (1 Sm 17:48-49).<\/p>\n<h5>Javelin and Spear<\/h5>\n<p>Two weapons employed for medium-distance warfare were similar in appearance but different in length and operation. The javelin, generally lighter and shorter than the spear, was designed for throwing. It was like a large arrow that was hurled by the hand. Sumerian charioteers of the third millennium <span>BC<\/span> were armed with several javelins, carried like arrows in a quiver attached to the body of the chariot. Javelin heads were designed for penetration and altered in shape and material as enemy armor became more effective. A head fashioned with sharp hooks or barbs was difficult and painful to extract from a wound.<\/p>\n<p>The spear was similar in appearance to the javelin but was larger, heavier, and designed primarily as a thrusting weapon (cf. Nm 25:7-8). The oldest military monuments known indicate that the spear was already well developed. On the Egyptian hunter’s slate palette and on the black granite stele from Warka (c. 3000 <span>BC<\/span>), the warrior’s personal weapon is a long staff tipped with a leaf-shaped blade with a sharp spine. Throughout the third millennium <span>BC<\/span>, the spear was standard equipment for heavy-armed infantry and the most effective weapon for both chariot and infantry charges. Excavations have shown that the spear was the common weapon of the seminomadic tribes who began pouring into Palestine from the north in the middle Bronze Age.<\/p>\n<p>Another characteristic of spears in that early period was a metal tip attached to the butt of the shaft, enabling a spear to be stuck upright in the ground when not in use. That feature persisted into later periods and is mentioned specifically in reference to Saul’s spear, which was stuck in the ground by his head while he slept (1 Sm 26:7). Occasionally the metal tip functioned as a thrusting weapon in its own right, as is evident in the account of the slaying of Asahel (2 Sm 2:23).<\/p>\n<h5>Sword<\/h5>\n<p>One of the earliest objects made of iron was the sword. Swords were designed for either stabbing or striking. The stabbing sword developed as a long straight blade, tapered toward the point for piercing the body. Its tapered edges were sharpened so that it could also serve as a cutting instrument. The striking sword, on the other hand, had only one sharp edge, with the thickest part of the blade not along the center but along its blunt edge. Such a sword was often curved, sometimes to a degree that gave it the appearance of a sickle, but with the outer, convex edge sharpened as the cutting blade. The earliest type of sickle sword appeared in the second half of the third millennium <span>BC<\/span>. Both the hilt, or handle, and the blade were fashioned from a single bar of metal. In the middle Bronze Age the curved striking sword functioned essentially as an ax, with a comparatively long hilt and short blade.<\/p>\n<p>That type of sword completely disappeared in the late Bronze Age because it proved ineffective against the widespread use of the helmet and armor. In its place appeared a new design with the curved blade equal in length to the hilt and sometimes longer. It provided a cutting weapon in chariot fighting and against an enemy who possessed no armor. Widespread use of such long-bladed swords at that time explains the phrase repeatedly used in the Bible to describe Joshua’s conquests of the Canaanites: Joshua smote them with the edge of the sword (e.g., Jos 8:24; 10:28-39). That expression would be inappropriate for the action of a short, straight, narrow sword designed as a thrusting weapon. A fine specimen of curved sword was found at Gezer in Palestine in the tomb of a nobleman, dating to the first half of the 14th century <span>BC<\/span>. The same type of blade is also depicted on a late 13th century <span>BC<\/span> ivory carving from Megiddo.<\/p>\n<p>During those centuries advances made in the technology of forging iron were reflected in the development of the straight sword as well. The Sea Peoples, among whom were the Philistines, specialized in short-range arms. As early as the 13th century <span>BC<\/span> they began to make the straight blade more effective than the curved sickle-type sword.<\/p>\n<p>By the time of Saul, the Philistines had used their technology to establish themselves as city dwellers and the dominant military presence in the land. Their military superiority was based on the chariot and on an infantry equipped with personal armaments of high quality. They carefully retained the forging of hard metal under their own supervision and kept the Israelites from developing forges of their own (cf. 1 Sm 13:19-22). Not until that situation was altered could the balance of power pass from the Philistines to Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>Mace and Ax<\/h5>\n<p>The mace and the ax, developed as alternatives to the sword before hard metal could be forged, were designed for hand-to-hand fighting. They consisted of a comparatively short wooden handle, one end of which was fitted with a lethal head made of stone or metal. The weapons were swung like a hammer to deliver a striking blow. The critical detail was the secure fastening of the head to the handle to prevent its flying off when swung or breaking off when struck. The handle of both the mace and the ax was widened at the point of the grip, tapering toward the head, to prevent the weapon from slipping from the hand when swung. Such weapons were carried in the hand or attached to the wrist with a loop. The mace was designed to batter and smash, the ax to pierce and cut.<\/p>\n<p>The mace was a very primitive weapon. The hieroglyphic sign for the infinitive <em>to fight<\/em> represents hands holding a mace and a medium-size shield. During the Chalcolithic and the first half of the early Bronze periods (3500–2500 <span>BC<\/span>), the mace was the primary weapon for personal combat. Because the helmet had not yet made its appearance, the striking power of the mace was devastating. Long after the mace had become obsolete as a personal weapon, it continued to serve as a symbol of sovereign authority for the king or deity (cf. Ps 2:9).<\/p>\n<p>Complex technical problems taxed the ingenuity of armorers in the production of the ax. The blade had to be fixed securely to the handle. The cutting ax had a short blade and a wide edge. It was an effective weapon against an enemy unprotected by armor. It was also used for tearing down the wall of a besieged city, as in the wall painting at Saqqarah (23d century <span>BC<\/span>). But against armor the cutting ax was ineffective. Deeper power of penetration was achieved with the piercing ax, which had a long, narrow blade ending in a short, sharp edge.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DefensiveProtection\">Defensive Protection<\/p>\n<p>Without provision for personal protection of the individual soldier on the battlefield, the mobility and firepower of an army could be seriously compromised.<\/p>\n<h5>Shield<\/h5>\n<p>Designed to provide a barrier between the body of a soldier and the weapon of his foe, the shield was one of the oldest means of security devised. In the time of the judges and the early Israelite kings, persons of rank were frequently protected by a very large shield. It was carried by a special shield bearer who remained constantly at the unprotected right side of the warrior to whom he was assigned as a bodyguard (cf. Jgs 9:54; 1 Sm 14:1; 17:7; 2 Sm 18:15). The right side of an armed combatant was unprotected because he carried his weapons in his right hand and his shield in his left. The shield bearer therefore had to stand by his master’s vulnerable right side to protect him (1 Sm 17:41; cf. Ps 16:8). In that period the shield was ordinarily anointed as part of the consecration of an Israelite warrior and his weapons for battle (cf. 2 Sm 1:21).<\/p>\n<h5>Armor<\/h5>\n<p>Personal armor protected the body of a combatant from injury while freeing his hands to use his weapons. The earliest type of body armor formed a substitute for the long shield. It consisted of a full-length tunic made from leather or some tough fiber. It was relatively simple to produce, was light enough to permit full mobility, and offered a measure of protection to the chest, abdomen, back, thighs, and legs. So equipped, a soldier required only a short shield to protect his arms and face.<\/p>\n<p>The late Bronze period saw the development of the coat of mail. It consisted of hundreds of small pieces of overlapping metal joined together like fish scales and sewed to the surface of a cloth or leather tunic. Written documents from Nuzi state that from 400 to 600 large scales and several hundred smaller scales went into the production of a single coat. Smaller scales and narrower rows were used where greater flexibility was needed, as at the throat and neck. The resulting garment was relatively flexible, affording freedom of movement, while the hard metal scales gave far greater personal protection than leather or fiber could provide.<\/p>\n<h5>Helmet<\/h5>\n<p>Since the greatest point of vulnerability for a soldier in combat was his head, concern for some form of protective helmet can be traced as far back as the end of the fourth millennium <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Bronze helmets were worn both by Goliath and by Saul (1 Sm 17:5, 38). Although the helmet was standard equipment for the heavily armed infantry of foreign armies for centuries, it does not seem to have been a common possession of soldiers in the Israelite army during the period of the united monarchy. Among military reforms introduced by King Uzziah in the ninth century <span>BC<\/span> was provision of helmets for the army of the southern kingdom of Judah (2 Chr 26:14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Warfare.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ARMOR AND WEAPONS The location of Palestine at the crossroads of three continents gave it a strategic importance in the ancient world quite out of proportion to its size. Surrounded by the great military powers (Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Hittites of Anatolia), that stretch of land was constantly the object of aggressive ambitions of other nations. The invention of different weapons, fortifications, and tactics exerted a profound reciprocal influence on other inventions. Tactical innovation by o...","summary_en":"ARMOR AND WEAPONS The location of Palestine at the crossroads of three continents gave it a strategic importance in the ancient world quite out of proportion to its size. Surrounded by the great military powers (Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Hittites of Anatolia), that stretch of land was constantly the object of aggressive ambitions of other nations. The invention of different weapons, fortifications, and tactics exerted a profound reciprocal influence on other inventions. Tactical innovation by o...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45961,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:16","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:16","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:16<\/strong> <em>left-handed:<\/em> See study note on 3:15. • The <em>sling<\/em> was of the same type as the one David used to kill Goliath (1 Sam 17:40-51). The slinger buried a stone in a small pouch attached to a leather thong, then swung it around his head to gain momentum before releasing one end of the thong to shoot the missile. A slinger had the advantage of distance over a swordsman.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:16<\/strong> <em>left-handed:<\/em> See study note on 3:15. • The <em>sling<\/em> was of the same type as the one David used to kill Goliath (1 Sam 17:40-51). The slinger buried a stone in a small pouch attached to a leather thong, then swung it around his head to gain momentum before releasing one end of the thong to shoot the missile. A slinger had the advantage of distance over a swordsman.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:16 left-handed: See study note on 3:15. • The sling was of the same type as the one David used to kill Goliath (1 Sam 17:40-51). The slinger buried a stone in a small pouch attached to a leather thong, then swung it around his head to gain momentum before releasing one end of the thong to shoot the missile. A slinger had the advantage of distance over a swordsman.","summary_en":"20:16 left-handed: See study note on 3:15. • The sling was of the same type as the one David used to kill Goliath (1 Sam 17:40-51). The slinger buried a stone in a small pouch attached to a leather thong, then swung it around his head to gain momentum before releasing one end of the thong to shoot the missile. A slinger had the advantage of distance over a swordsman.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73587,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:16","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:16","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:16<\/strong> <em>left-handed:<\/em> See study note on 3:15. • The <em>sling<\/em> was of the same type as the one David used to kill Goliath (1 Sam 17:40-51). The slinger buried a stone in a small pouch attached to a leather thong, then swung it around his head to gain momentum before releasing one end of the thong to shoot the missile. A slinger had the advantage of distance over a swordsman.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:16<\/strong> <em>left-handed:<\/em> See study note on 3:15. • The <em>sling<\/em> was of the same type as the one David used to kill Goliath (1 Sam 17:40-51). The slinger buried a stone in a small pouch attached to a leather thong, then swung it around his head to gain momentum before releasing one end of the thong to shoot the missile. A slinger had the advantage of distance over a swordsman.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:16 left-handed: See study note on 3:15. • The sling was of the same type as the one David used to kill Goliath (1 Sam 17:40-51). The slinger buried a stone in a small pouch attached to a leather thong, then swung it around his head to gain momentum before releasing one end of the thong to shoot the missile. A slinger had the advantage of distance over a swordsman.","summary_en":"20:16 left-handed: See study note on 3:15. • The sling was of the same type as the one David used to kill Goliath (1 Sam 17:40-51). The slinger buried a stone in a small pouch attached to a leather thong, then swung it around his head to gain momentum before releasing one end of the thong to shoot the missile. A slinger had the advantage of distance over a swordsman.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101213,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:16","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:16","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:16<\/strong> <em>left-handed:<\/em> See study note on 3:15. • The <em>sling<\/em> was of the same type as the one David used to kill Goliath (1 Sam 17:40-51). The slinger buried a stone in a small pouch attached to a leather thong, then swung it around his head to gain momentum before releasing one end of the thong to shoot the missile. A slinger had the advantage of distance over a swordsman.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:16<\/strong> <em>left-handed:<\/em> See study note on 3:15. • The <em>sling<\/em> was of the same type as the one David used to kill Goliath (1 Sam 17:40-51). The slinger buried a stone in a small pouch attached to a leather thong, then swung it around his head to gain momentum before releasing one end of the thong to shoot the missile. A slinger had the advantage of distance over a swordsman.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:16 left-handed: See study note on 3:15. • The sling was of the same type as the one David used to kill Goliath (1 Sam 17:40-51). The slinger buried a stone in a small pouch attached to a leather thong, then swung it around his head to gain momentum before releasing one end of the thong to shoot the missile. A slinger had the advantage of distance over a swordsman.","summary_en":"20:16 left-handed: See study note on 3:15. • The sling was of the same type as the one David used to kill Goliath (1 Sam 17:40-51). The slinger buried a stone in a small pouch attached to a leather thong, then swung it around his head to gain momentum before releasing one end of the thong to shoot the missile. A slinger had the advantage of distance over a swordsman.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128839,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:16","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:16","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:16<\/strong> <em>left-handed:<\/em> See study note on 3:15. • The <em>sling<\/em> was of the same type as the one David used to kill Goliath (1 Sam 17:40-51). The slinger buried a stone in a small pouch attached to a leather thong, then swung it around his head to gain momentum before releasing one end of the thong to shoot the missile. A slinger had the advantage of distance over a swordsman.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:16<\/strong> <em>left-handed:<\/em> See study note on 3:15. • The <em>sling<\/em> was of the same type as the one David used to kill Goliath (1 Sam 17:40-51). The slinger buried a stone in a small pouch attached to a leather thong, then swung it around his head to gain momentum before releasing one end of the thong to shoot the missile. A slinger had the advantage of distance over a swordsman.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:16 left-handed: See study note on 3:15. • The sling was of the same type as the one David used to kill Goliath (1 Sam 17:40-51). The slinger buried a stone in a small pouch attached to a leather thong, then swung it around his head to gain momentum before releasing one end of the thong to shoot the missile. A slinger had the advantage of distance over a swordsman.","summary_en":"20:16 left-handed: See study note on 3:15. • The sling was of the same type as the one David used to kill Goliath (1 Sam 17:40-51). The slinger buried a stone in a small pouch attached to a leather thong, then swung it around his head to gain momentum before releasing one end of the thong to shoot the missile. A slinger had the advantage of distance over a swordsman.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"18":[{"id":4447,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Bethelite* Bethel (Place)","title_en":"Bethelite*, Bethel (Place)","content_ro":"<h3>BETHEL (P<span>lace<\/span>), BETHELITE*<\/h3>\n<li>1. Important OT city located about 11 miles (17.7 kilometers) north of Jerusalem on the north-south ridge road at the tribal borders of Benjamin and Ephraim (Jos 16:1-2; 18:13). Hiel, a resident of the city, is referred to as a Bethelite in 1 Kings 16:34 (<span>kjv<\/span>). As a trading center, Bethel attracted merchandise both from the Mediterranean coast and from Transjordan via Jericho. Although the site was located in dry hill country, several springs supplied ample water for its inhabitants (the oldest artifact recovered from the site is a water jar dating from about 3500 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/li>\n<p>The name of Bethel, meaning “house of El (god),” may have been used as early as the fourth millennium <span>BC<\/span> by Canaanites in the area. Archaeological excavations at Chalcolithic levels (i.e., between the Stone Age and the Bronze Age) indicate that pagan worship of the Canaanite deity El took place on top of the hill at that early period. The patriarch Jacob named the place Bethel, or gave the old name new significance, after having a dream from God there (Gn 28:10-22). The site was said to be known as Bethel to the patriarch Abraham (12:8); that designation, however, could be a scribal updating of a more ancient local name, since Bethel had earlier been known as Luz (28:19). Possibly the sanctuary was known as Bethel, the nearby settlement as Luz. No doubt the name Bethel was firmly established by the beginning of the intermediate Bronze Age (c. 2200 <span>BC<\/span>) and remained throughout its history. An OT passage mentioning both names records that a man from Luz founded another city of that name in Hittite territory (Jgs 1:26).<\/p>\n<p>Although Bethel was assigned to Benjamin’s tribe, Ephraim’s tribe actually captured Bethel from its Canaanite fortress in their own territory (Jgs 1:22-26; 1 Chr 7:28). Under the judges, the ark of the covenant was located at Bethel, where the normal functions of Israelite worship were carried out; the ark was superintended by the high priest Phinehas, son of Eleazar (Jgs 20:18-28; 21:2-4). There is no archaeological evidence of Philistine occupation of Bethel in the time of the judges; in the days of King Saul it was bypassed when other Israelite centers were being attacked (cf. 1 Sm 12–14). Archaeological discoveries indicate that Bethel flourished in the early reign of Saul but declined when he made Gibeah his capital city.<\/p>\n<p>When Israel and Judah became separate entities in the time of Jeroboam I (930–909 <span>BC<\/span>), Bethel returned to prominence as the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel, thus becoming the counterpart of Judah’s capital, Jerusalem. Bethel was one of two northern cities where golden calves were worshiped (1 Kgs 12:28-33); the sanctuary area for that cultic practice has not been discovered. The city was the home of an elderly prophet (13:11) who may have been connected with the prophetic colony existing there in the time of Elijah and Elisha (2 Kgs 2:2-3). During the reign of Judah’s King Abijah (913–910 <span>BC<\/span>), Bethel fell under Judah’s control (2 Chr 13:19) but later was returned to Israel. The prophet Amos went to Bethel to deliver scathing denunciations about contemporary social and religious life in Israel, for which the priest Amaziah had him expelled (Am 7:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>There is no archaeological evidence that Bethel was destroyed during the Assyrian conquest of Israel (722 <span>BC<\/span>). In fact, one of its deported priests was returned to Bethel to instruct Mesopotamian colonists in the ways of the Lord (2 Kgs 17:28). Under Judah’s King Josiah, the pagan shrine was demolished (23:15-20), but no damage was done to the city itself. Under either Nabonidus (555–539 <span>BC<\/span>) or Darius I (521–486 <span>BC<\/span>), however, the city was burned, so that by Ezra’s time Bethel had reverted to a small village settlement (Ezr 2:28).<\/p>\n<li>2. Alternate name for Bethuel, a town in Judah’s territory, in 1 Samuel 30:27. <em>See<\/em> Bethuel, Bethul (Place).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>BETHEL (P<span>lace<\/span>), BETHELITE*<\/h3>\n<li>1. Important OT city located about 11 miles (17.7 kilometers) north of Jerusalem on the north-south ridge road at the tribal borders of Benjamin and Ephraim (Jos 16:1-2; 18:13). Hiel, a resident of the city, is referred to as a Bethelite in 1 Kings 16:34 (<span>kjv<\/span>). As a trading center, Bethel attracted merchandise both from the Mediterranean coast and from Transjordan via Jericho. Although the site was located in dry hill country, several springs supplied ample water for its inhabitants (the oldest artifact recovered from the site is a water jar dating from about 3500 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/li>\n<p>The name of Bethel, meaning “house of El (god),” may have been used as early as the fourth millennium <span>BC<\/span> by Canaanites in the area. Archaeological excavations at Chalcolithic levels (i.e., between the Stone Age and the Bronze Age) indicate that pagan worship of the Canaanite deity El took place on top of the hill at that early period. The patriarch Jacob named the place Bethel, or gave the old name new significance, after having a dream from God there (Gn 28:10-22). The site was said to be known as Bethel to the patriarch Abraham (12:8); that designation, however, could be a scribal updating of a more ancient local name, since Bethel had earlier been known as Luz (28:19). Possibly the sanctuary was known as Bethel, the nearby settlement as Luz. No doubt the name Bethel was firmly established by the beginning of the intermediate Bronze Age (c. 2200 <span>BC<\/span>) and remained throughout its history. An OT passage mentioning both names records that a man from Luz founded another city of that name in Hittite territory (Jgs 1:26).<\/p>\n<p>Although Bethel was assigned to Benjamin’s tribe, Ephraim’s tribe actually captured Bethel from its Canaanite fortress in their own territory (Jgs 1:22-26; 1 Chr 7:28). Under the judges, the ark of the covenant was located at Bethel, where the normal functions of Israelite worship were carried out; the ark was superintended by the high priest Phinehas, son of Eleazar (Jgs 20:18-28; 21:2-4). There is no archaeological evidence of Philistine occupation of Bethel in the time of the judges; in the days of King Saul it was bypassed when other Israelite centers were being attacked (cf. 1 Sm 12–14). Archaeological discoveries indicate that Bethel flourished in the early reign of Saul but declined when he made Gibeah his capital city.<\/p>\n<p>When Israel and Judah became separate entities in the time of Jeroboam I (930–909 <span>BC<\/span>), Bethel returned to prominence as the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel, thus becoming the counterpart of Judah’s capital, Jerusalem. Bethel was one of two northern cities where golden calves were worshiped (1 Kgs 12:28-33); the sanctuary area for that cultic practice has not been discovered. The city was the home of an elderly prophet (13:11) who may have been connected with the prophetic colony existing there in the time of Elijah and Elisha (2 Kgs 2:2-3). During the reign of Judah’s King Abijah (913–910 <span>BC<\/span>), Bethel fell under Judah’s control (2 Chr 13:19) but later was returned to Israel. The prophet Amos went to Bethel to deliver scathing denunciations about contemporary social and religious life in Israel, for which the priest Amaziah had him expelled (Am 7:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>There is no archaeological evidence that Bethel was destroyed during the Assyrian conquest of Israel (722 <span>BC<\/span>). In fact, one of its deported priests was returned to Bethel to instruct Mesopotamian colonists in the ways of the Lord (2 Kgs 17:28). Under Judah’s King Josiah, the pagan shrine was demolished (23:15-20), but no damage was done to the city itself. Under either Nabonidus (555–539 <span>BC<\/span>) or Darius I (521–486 <span>BC<\/span>), however, the city was burned, so that by Ezra’s time Bethel had reverted to a small village settlement (Ezr 2:28).<\/p>\n<li>2. Alternate name for Bethuel, a town in Judah’s territory, in 1 Samuel 30:27. <em>See<\/em> Bethuel, Bethul (Place).<\/li>","summary_ro":"BETHEL (Place), BETHELITE* 1. Important OT city located about 11 miles (17.7 kilometers) north of Jerusalem on the north-south ridge road at the tribal borders of Benjamin and Ephraim (Jos 16:1-2; 18:13). Hiel, a resident of the city, is referred to as a Bethelite in 1 Kings 16:34 (kjv). As a trading center, Bethel attracted merchandise both from the Mediterranean coast and from Transjordan via Jericho. Although the site was located in dry hill country, several springs supplied ample water fo...","summary_en":"BETHEL (Place), BETHELITE* 1. Important OT city located about 11 miles (17.7 kilometers) north of Jerusalem on the north-south ridge road at the tribal borders of Benjamin and Ephraim (Jos 16:1-2; 18:13). Hiel, a resident of the city, is referred to as a Bethelite in 1 Kings 16:34 (kjv). As a trading center, Bethel attracted merchandise both from the Mediterranean coast and from Transjordan via Jericho. Although the site was located in dry hill country, several springs supplied ample water fo...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45962,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:18","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:18<\/strong> To <em>go first<\/em> means to lead, not necessarily to precede (Gen 49:10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:18<\/strong> To <em>go first<\/em> means to lead, not necessarily to precede (Gen 49:10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:18 To go first means to lead, not necessarily to precede (Gen 49:10).","summary_en":"20:18 To go first means to lead, not necessarily to precede (Gen 49:10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73588,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:18","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:18<\/strong> To <em>go first<\/em> means to lead, not necessarily to precede (Gen 49:10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:18<\/strong> To <em>go first<\/em> means to lead, not necessarily to precede (Gen 49:10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:18 To go first means to lead, not necessarily to precede (Gen 49:10).","summary_en":"20:18 To go first means to lead, not necessarily to precede (Gen 49:10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101214,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:18","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:18<\/strong> To <em>go first<\/em> means to lead, not necessarily to precede (Gen 49:10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:18<\/strong> To <em>go first<\/em> means to lead, not necessarily to precede (Gen 49:10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:18 To go first means to lead, not necessarily to precede (Gen 49:10).","summary_en":"20:18 To go first means to lead, not necessarily to precede (Gen 49:10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128840,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:18","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:18<\/strong> To <em>go first<\/em> means to lead, not necessarily to precede (Gen 49:10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:18<\/strong> To <em>go first<\/em> means to lead, not necessarily to precede (Gen 49:10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:18 To go first means to lead, not necessarily to precede (Gen 49:10).","summary_en":"20:18 To go first means to lead, not necessarily to precede (Gen 49:10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"19":[{"id":45963,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:19","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:19-21<\/strong> The three battles took place around the guilty city. Despite superior numbers and having asked the Lord for guidance, the Israelite troops facing the defenders behind their walls were soundly beaten back the first day.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:19-21<\/strong> The three battles took place around the guilty city. Despite superior numbers and having asked the Lord for guidance, the Israelite troops facing the defenders behind their walls were soundly beaten back the first day.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:19-21 The three battles took place around the guilty city. Despite superior numbers and having asked the Lord for guidance, the Israelite troops facing the defenders behind their walls were soundly beaten back the first day.","summary_en":"20:19-21 The three battles took place around the guilty city. Despite superior numbers and having asked the Lord for guidance, the Israelite troops facing the defenders behind their walls were soundly beaten back the first day.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73589,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:19","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:19-21<\/strong> The three battles took place around the guilty city. Despite superior numbers and having asked the Lord for guidance, the Israelite troops facing the defenders behind their walls were soundly beaten back the first day.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:19-21<\/strong> The three battles took place around the guilty city. Despite superior numbers and having asked the Lord for guidance, the Israelite troops facing the defenders behind their walls were soundly beaten back the first day.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:19-21 The three battles took place around the guilty city. Despite superior numbers and having asked the Lord for guidance, the Israelite troops facing the defenders behind their walls were soundly beaten back the first day.","summary_en":"20:19-21 The three battles took place around the guilty city. Despite superior numbers and having asked the Lord for guidance, the Israelite troops facing the defenders behind their walls were soundly beaten back the first day.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101215,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:19","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:19-21<\/strong> The three battles took place around the guilty city. Despite superior numbers and having asked the Lord for guidance, the Israelite troops facing the defenders behind their walls were soundly beaten back the first day.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:19-21<\/strong> The three battles took place around the guilty city. Despite superior numbers and having asked the Lord for guidance, the Israelite troops facing the defenders behind their walls were soundly beaten back the first day.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:19-21 The three battles took place around the guilty city. Despite superior numbers and having asked the Lord for guidance, the Israelite troops facing the defenders behind their walls were soundly beaten back the first day.","summary_en":"20:19-21 The three battles took place around the guilty city. Despite superior numbers and having asked the Lord for guidance, the Israelite troops facing the defenders behind their walls were soundly beaten back the first day.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128841,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:19","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:19-21<\/strong> The three battles took place around the guilty city. Despite superior numbers and having asked the Lord for guidance, the Israelite troops facing the defenders behind their walls were soundly beaten back the first day.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:19-21<\/strong> The three battles took place around the guilty city. Despite superior numbers and having asked the Lord for guidance, the Israelite troops facing the defenders behind their walls were soundly beaten back the first day.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:19-21 The three battles took place around the guilty city. Despite superior numbers and having asked the Lord for guidance, the Israelite troops facing the defenders behind their walls were soundly beaten back the first day.","summary_en":"20:19-21 The three battles took place around the guilty city. Despite superior numbers and having asked the Lord for guidance, the Israelite troops facing the defenders behind their walls were soundly beaten back the first day.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"20":[{"id":21355,"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}],"22":[{"id":45964,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:22","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:22-23<\/strong> Following a time of weeping and probably confession (cp. Josh 7) the Israelite troops received divine guidance and regained confidence.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:22-23<\/strong> Following a time of weeping and probably confession (cp. Josh 7) the Israelite troops received divine guidance and regained confidence.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:22-23 Following a time of weeping and probably confession (cp. Josh 7) the Israelite troops received divine guidance and regained confidence.","summary_en":"20:22-23 Following a time of weeping and probably confession (cp. Josh 7) the Israelite troops received divine guidance and regained confidence.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73590,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:22","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:22-23<\/strong> Following a time of weeping and probably confession (cp. Josh 7) the Israelite troops received divine guidance and regained confidence.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:22-23<\/strong> Following a time of weeping and probably confession (cp. Josh 7) the Israelite troops received divine guidance and regained confidence.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:22-23 Following a time of weeping and probably confession (cp. Josh 7) the Israelite troops received divine guidance and regained confidence.","summary_en":"20:22-23 Following a time of weeping and probably confession (cp. Josh 7) the Israelite troops received divine guidance and regained confidence.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101216,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:22","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:22-23<\/strong> Following a time of weeping and probably confession (cp. Josh 7) the Israelite troops received divine guidance and regained confidence.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:22-23<\/strong> Following a time of weeping and probably confession (cp. Josh 7) the Israelite troops received divine guidance and regained confidence.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:22-23 Following a time of weeping and probably confession (cp. Josh 7) the Israelite troops received divine guidance and regained confidence.","summary_en":"20:22-23 Following a time of weeping and probably confession (cp. Josh 7) the Israelite troops received divine guidance and regained confidence.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128842,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:22","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:22-23<\/strong> Following a time of weeping and probably confession (cp. Josh 7) the Israelite troops received divine guidance and regained confidence.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:22-23<\/strong> Following a time of weeping and probably confession (cp. Josh 7) the Israelite troops received divine guidance and regained confidence.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:22-23 Following a time of weeping and probably confession (cp. Josh 7) the Israelite troops received divine guidance and regained confidence.","summary_en":"20:22-23 Following a time of weeping and probably confession (cp. Josh 7) the Israelite troops received divine guidance and regained confidence.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"23":[{"id":32125,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Psalms","title_en":"Book of Psalms","content_ro":"<h3>PSALMS, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Poems sung to musical accompaniment, originally the harp. The alternative title, the Psalter, refers to a collection of songs sung to harp accompaniment. The English title, therefore, broadly defines the form employed, whereas the Hebrew title of the book, “Praises,” or “Book of Praises,” suggests the content.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Authors<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Canonicity<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Authors\">Authors<\/p>\n<h5>The Evidence of the Titles<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew Bible credits David with 73 psalms, compared with 84 in the Septuagint and 85 in the Latin Vulgate. Korah and Asaph, the leaders of the Levitical singing groups, are connected with 11 and 12 psalms, respectively (although Ps 43 is almost certainly to be attributed to Korah also). Two psalms are ascribed to Solomon (Pss 72; 127), one to Moses (Ps 90), and one to Ethan (Ps 89), while Heman shares the credit for one psalm with the sons of Korah (Ps 88). The remainder are sometimes called “orphan psalms” because of their anonymity.<\/p>\n<p>The preposition “of” found in the titles (for example, “A Psalm of David”) usually indicates authorship. But in the case of groups, such as the sons of Asaph or Korah, it may simply indicate that the psalms were included in their repertoire. Less plausible is the idea that it may also be rendered “for the use of.” For example, some of the “Psalms of David” might be “for the use of” the Davidic king on some occasion.<\/p>\n<h5>Historical Allusions in the Titles<\/h5>\n<p>Many of the titles refer to specific events in the life of David (e.g., Pss 3; 7; 18; 30; 34; 51). There is evidence that the titles were added at an early date. When the psalms were translated into Greek, there appears to have been some difficulty in translating the titles, possibly because of their antiquity. If the historical references were added at a late date, there is no reason why plausible backgrounds could not have been supplied for all the Davidic psalms, instead of only a few. Moreover, the apparent disparity between the title and the actual content of some psalms (e.g., Ps 30) indicates that the titles were supplied by those who knew about a connection unknown to a later editor. Admittedly, there are minor discrepancies between the titles and the references in the historical books. For example, in Psalm 34 David acts the madman before Abimelech, whereas in 1 Samuel it is before Achish. But probably Abimelech was the general name (like Pharaoh for the kings of Egypt) for all the Philistine kings (e.g., Gn 21:32; 26:26).<\/p>\n<p>Evidence of authorship and historical background in the titles, therefore, may be taken as a reasonably reliable guide. But the internal difficulties, together with the freedom exercised by successive translators into Greek, Syriac, and Latin, indicates that they were not regarded as inspired.<\/p>\n<h5>The Case for Davidic Authorship<\/h5>\n<p>Five points can be offered to support David’s authorship of several psalms:<\/p>\n<p>1. The authenticity of David’s lament over Saul and Jonathan (2 Sm 1:19-27) is generally accepted. This indicates a deeply poetic spirit and a generous temperament that prepares us to accept those psalms ascribed to David that evidence similar characteristics. “The last words of David” is another Davidic poem in the historical books (2 Sm 23:1-7).<\/p>\n<li>2. David had a reputation as a skillful musician at Saul’s court (1 Sm 16:16-18). Amos comments on his inventiveness as a musician (Am 6:5), while the Chronicler repeatedly stresses his contribution to the musical aspect of temple worship (e.g., 1 Chr 6:31; 16:7; Ezr 3:10). The Jewish historian Josephus said that David composed songs and hymns to God in varied meters. The probability is that David, as well as amassing materials and preparing the plans for Solomon’s temple, also gave attention to the temple worship. This is his place in Jewish tradition.<\/li>\n<li>3. The early monarchy, with a freshly secured independence, national prestige, and a new prosperity, would most likely be a time of artistic creativity. David was at the heart of this movement.<\/li>\n<li>4. There is a close correspondence between David’s life as described in the historical books and certain psalms, for example, his sin concerning Bathsheba and Uriah (2 Sm 11:2–12:25) and Psalm 51, as witnessed in the title. David’s lapses and genuine repentance, as well as the varied aspects of his career—shepherd, fugitive, warrior, and so on—find expression in many of the psalms attributed to him. The correspondence between the David of the psalms and the David of the historical books is close, especially in the display of strong faith in God.<\/li>\n<li>5. Although some scholars believe that when “David” is mentioned in the NT, it is simply a reference to the book of Psalms and not an ascription of authorship, a straightforward interpretation of the NT text strengthens the case for Davidic authorship. David is specifically named as the author of various psalms in Matthew 22:41-45; Acts 1:16; 2:25, 34; Romans 4:6; 11:9.<\/li>\n<p>In conclusion, there is strong support for the view that the substantial nucleus of the Psalter is Davidic. Moreover, it is probable that some of the anonymous psalms were the work of the “sweet psalmist of Israel” (2 Sm 23:1). Hebrews 4:7 refers one of these, Psalm 95, to David (see also Acts 4:25 and Ps 2).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Once David’s authorship of several psalms is established, then it must follow that these psalms are dated during David’s life. Thus, most of the psalms formed the hymnbook of Israel in the period of the monarchy. Other psalms were written later. For example, Psalm 137 is clearly exilic, and Psalms 107:2-3 and 126:1 allude to the return from captivity. Psalms 44 and 79 are probably, but not conclusively, postexilic.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Psalms was probably the product of a considerable period of growth. The incidence of Davidic psalms in the first section indicates that it was completed early, possibly toward the end of David’s reign. The remainder of the process of compilation is difficult to reconstruct, but the fact that the titles, with their allusions to authors, events, and musical directions, become less frequent in the two final collections (Pss 90–150) lends support to the probability that the collections were combined chronologically in the sequence in which they are found today. Ezra is traditionally credited with the final grouping and editing of the psalms, a hypothesis that appears reasonable in light of his vital contribution to the systematic reshaping of the national religious life. In any case, the process was completed before the translation of the Psalter into Greek (the Septuagint) at the end of the third century <span>BC<\/span>, since the traditional order is found there. General, but not complete, support comes also from the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls. At some point minor dislocations occurred. Psalms 9 and 10 may have originally formed one psalm (as in the Septuagint), and there is a strong case for combining Psalms 42 and 43.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>As the book of Psalms lies before us, its connection with temple worship is apparent. Fifty-five psalms are addressed to the choirmaster, and as we have noted, 23 or 24 are linked with the two main guilds of Levitical singers, Asaph and Korah. The musical instruments, such as stringed instruments (Ps 55 title) and flutes (Ps 5 title) are noted. Probably other terms concern musical directions: <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Selah<\/span><em>,<\/em> which occurs 71 times, may indicate a pause or crescendo; <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Higgaion<\/span> (Ps 9:16) may recommend a meditative attitude. Seemingly obscure references like “The Hind of the Dawn” (Ps 22 title), “Lilies” (Pss 45 title; 80 title) and “The Dove on Far-off Terebinths” (Ps 56 title) may indicate the tunes to which the psalms were to be sung. The precise meaning of other terms, such as <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shiggaion<\/span> (Ps 7 title) or <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Alamoth<\/span> (conjecturally a choir of ladies, Ps 46 title), may also be in the realm of musical directions.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The Psalter, possibly in conscious imitation of the five books of Moses in the Law, is divided into five sections (Pss 1–41; 42–72; 73–89; 90–106; 107–150), separated by four doxologies (41:13; 72:18-19; 89:52; 106:48). While the editorial comment in Psalm 72:20 notes that the psalms of David were ended, Davidic psalms are found later in the book (Pss 86; 101; 103), suggesting that at least some of these sections circulated independently until their inclusion in the final collection. Such independence is further indicated by the duplications in the various sections (e.g., Pss 14 and 53; 40:13-17 and 70) and by the use of different names for God, who is usually referred to as “Lord” in the first collection and as “God” in the second.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Canonicity\">Canonicity<\/p>\n<p>In the various recensions of the third section of the Hebrew canon, the Writings or Holy Books, the book of Psalms is almost invariably placed first. It was clearly regarded as the most important book in this section, and in Luke 24:44, “Psalms” is synonymous with “Writings” as its title. While the canonicity of all the contents of the Writings was not finalized until the end of the first century <span>AD<\/span>, it is likely that the book of Psalms was accepted as inspired long before this, probably by 300 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>It must not be inferred that all the psalms had their origin in the cultic life of the community, but the sanctuary was the focal point of Israel’s worship for the greater part of the OT period. Prayer was possible elsewhere, but whenever practicable, it was customary for the worshiper to present his petitions at the main sanctuary. And thanksgiving in ancient Israel was almost invariably connected with a thank offering, vow offering, or freewill offering. The psalms could have been composed by individuals, like David, who had the requisite technical ability. And it must be appreciated that poetry, an unfamiliar medium to most Western civilizations, was the natural way for the ancient Easterner to express his emotions. Or the individual could have engaged a member of the Levitical guilds of musicians to frame either his supplication or his thanksgiving. Gradually, a comprehensive collection of psalms would be available for the use of individuals, the congregation, and even the entire nation in any conceivable situation. Once finalized, this collection served not only the subsequent needs of Israel but the devotional requirements of successive generations of Christians as well. Whatever the origin of an individual psalm, each has finally been incorporated in a cultic setting, and it may be assumed that the best of Israel’s psalmody has thus been preserved.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheology\">Purpose and Theology<\/p>\n<h5>The Doctrine of God<\/h5>\n<p>In both adversity and prosperity, the psalmists indicate a strong faith in God and a clear conception of his attributes. Understandably, anthropomorphisms (ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things) abound, with references to God’s voice, words, ears, eyes, face, or hands and fingers. No exception needs to be taken to this. Anthropomorphisms of this kind are, in fact, widely used by present-day Christians. Their great value is that they make God real to the worshiper. How else could humans describe God, except in terms of their own understanding?<\/p>\n<p>The monotheism of the psalms emerges clearly in Psalms 115:3-8; 135:15-18; 139. God is viewed as the Creator (Pss 8:3; 89:11; 95:3-5), with references to the creation mythology of surrounding nations (e.g., Ps 89:10) serving merely as illustrations of his almighty creative power. He is proclaimed as the Lord of history (Pss 44, 78, 80, 81, 105, 106) and as the sovereign controller of nature (Pss 18:7; 19:1-6; 65:8-13; 105:26-42; 135:5-7). The psalmists never tired of celebrating God’s absolute greatness.<\/p>\n<h5>The Human Perspective<\/h5>\n<p>The Psalter is a God-centered book, but humanity has a worthy place, in spite of the vast gulf between them and their Creator (Pss 8:3-4; 145:3-4) and the limitations of their earthly life (Ps 90:9-10). By the will of God, humans occupy a responsible, mediating position between God and all other created beings (Ps 8:5-8). The relationship with a righteous God is endangered by sin (Ps 106), but God is gracious and long-suffering (Ps 103), faithful and forgiving (Ps 130). While references to the sacrificial system are not lacking (Pss 20:3; 50:8-9), the emphasis is upon a personal piety that demands obedience and a surrendered heart (Ps 40:6-8). Psalm 51 indicates a depth of sin with which the sacrificial system was totally inadequate to cope; the psalmist could only cast himself, in total penitence, upon God’s mercy. Man’s moral obligations (Pss 15; 24:3-5) and loyalty to the law (Pss 19:7-11; 119) are fully accepted. Throughout, there is the revelation of a strong personal relationship that encourages prayer and praise and invites trust.<\/p>\n<h5>The Afterlife<\/h5>\n<p>The Psalms maintain the traditional Hebrew view of Sheol as the abode of the departed, without distinction between the good and evil, where all but mere existence has perished. The chief complaint of the devout man was that, in Sheol, all meaningful relationship with God ceased (Pss 6:5; 88:10-12). However, it was recognized that, since God was almighty, even Sheol was not exempt from his reach (Ps 139:8). Added to this was the preciousness and strength of fellowship with God, which could not be terminated even by death. Psalms 16:9-11, 49:15, and 73:23-26 well illustrate this insight. The Psalter, therefore, witnesses to an important transitional phase in Israel’s belief.<\/p>\n<h5>Universal Recognition of God<\/h5>\n<p>Passages like Psalms 9:11; 47:1-2, 7-9; 66:8; 67; and 117:1 call upon all nations to acknowledge and praise God and show an awareness of his sovereignty over all nations. But this universalism does not appear to involve any desire to convert the heathen nations and, indeed, it is balanced by strong particularistic elements. God’s covenant relationship with his people and his mighty deeds on their behalf are the chief items for which the praise of all nations is summoned (Pss 47:3-4; 66:8-9; 126:2). As elsewhere in the OT, the role of Israel is passive; her continued existence witnesses to God’s faithfulness and brings glory to him.<\/p>\n<h5>Lasting Value<\/h5>\n<p>Whatever the emotion of the psalmists, be it bitter complaint, anguished lament, or joyous exultation, all the psalms reflect one or other of the many aspects of communion with God. The reader may look “into the heart of all the saints” (so said Luther) as they faced life’s experiences in the awareness of a God who was all-seeing, all-knowing, and all-powerful. The strength of that personal relationship with God that typified OT worship at its best is exemplified here, and the many echoes of the psalms elsewhere in Israel’s literature show the powerful influence of these testimonies on the faithful. The fact that, almost invariably, little specific detail is given of the psalmists’ actual conditions has made it easier for the Psalter to become the universal hymnbook and devotional treasury of God’s people, in both public and private worship, until and including the present day. Modern life, materially, is vastly different from that of ancient Israel, but God remains unchanged and so do the basic needs of the human heart. The Holy Spirit, therefore, can still use this spiritual treasury as a means of revelation and communication between God and man. Few books in the Bible have exercised so profound an influence or been so widely used.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Introduction<\/h5>\n<p>It is more helpful to describe the psalms in categories than to explain them one by one in canonical order. The psalms can be categorized as follows:<\/p>\n<p>Psalms of praise<\/p>\n<p>Royal, messianic psalms<\/p>\n<p>Passion psalms<\/p>\n<p>Psalms about Zion<\/p>\n<p>Laments<\/p>\n<p>Imprecatory psalms<\/p>\n<p>Penitential psalms<\/p>\n<p>Wisdom psalms and historical psalms<\/p>\n<p>Psalms of trust<\/p>\n<h5>Psalms of Praise<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew title, “Praises,” defines accurately a large part of the contents of the book. Each of the first four sections concludes with a doxology, while the fifth section concludes with five psalms, each of which begins and ends with one or two “Hallelujahs.” The last of these, Psalm 150, sounds the call to total praise. God is to be praised for his being, for his great acts in creation, nature, and history on both the individual and the communal level.<\/p>\n<p>1. Individual praise. In comparison with the number of individual laments, there are relatively few psalms in this category. Those normally included are Psalms 9, 18, 32, 34, 116, and 138. This may, in part, be due to the universal tendency to complain rather than to express thanks. But a number of the laments do, in fact, include the note of thanksgiving for the anticipated deliverance, and the normal round of congregational thanksgiving would allow the individual to express his personal praise. However, it was customary in temple worship to give a verbal act of thanksgiving before the whole assembly whenever a vow offering or a thank offering was made. Such public testimony, and the communal meal associated with this type of sacrifice, is indicated in Psalms 22:22-26; 66:13-20; 116:17-19. The inclusion of such opportunities for personal praise and testimony must have added warmth and significance to worship. Each act of deliverance and every experience of God’s mercy became part of salvation history, which was a cumulative, ongoing concept, not simply a recital of God’s deeds in earlier centuries.<\/p>\n<li>2. General communal praise. This is sometimes entitled “hymns” or “descriptive praise,” its main feature being linked to a particular act of deliverance. God is usually referred to in the third person, not directly. Psalm 103 may be taken as representative of this group. It begins and ends with individual references (vv 1-5, 22b), but the central section (esp. vv 6-14) shows that the psalmist was part of a worshiping community. There is first of all the imperative call to praise God for the full range of his mercy to each individual, including physical and spiritual deliverance and his sustaining and satisfying grace. Then the focus changes to his great works in history (vv 6-7). This forms a natural basis for the recital of those gracious qualities revealed so consistently during the course of the national history, especially his tender, fatherly care (vv 8-14). The frailty of humanity contrasts with God’s constancy (vv 15-18), and his rule, being universal and absolute (v 19), merits the praise of all things, living and inanimate, in heaven and on earth (vv 19-22). There is, however, a great number of possible variations in the way in which God is celebrated, as Psalms 113 and 136, which come within this class, illustrate.<\/li>\n<li>3. Specific communal praise. Occasionally termed “declarative praise,” this type of psalm connects with a particular outstanding evidence of God’s mercy and would most naturally follow soon after the event itself. Deliverance from an enemy provides the occasion for most of the psalms in this category (e.g., Pss 124, 129). Psalm 66:8-12, now the nucleus of an expanded recital of God’s goodness, was possibly once complete in itself. Psalms 46–48 may form a trilogy connected with the remarkable deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib’s Assyrians in 701 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 18:17–19:37). Psalm 67 was probably composed in gratitude for a particular harvest. It is easy to see how psalms of this type could, in the process of time, acquire a more general usage.<\/li>\n<li>4. Praise for the God of nature. The first part of Psalm 19 pictures the praise of God sounding from the heavens; Psalm 29 celebrates him as the God of the thunderstorm, which, sweeping in from the Mediterranean near Lebanon, pursues its awe-inspiring path southward into the wilderness of Kadesh, with the result that “in his temple” (the created world?) all are praising, “Glory, glory to the <span>Lord<\/span>” (v 9). His sovereignty and self-sufficiency in this world are celebrated in Psalm 50:10-12; he is the God of growth and harvest (Ps 65:9-13); in Psalm 104, often called the “Hymn of Creation,” he sustains and supplies everything on the earth and in the seas and is the absolute Lord of all life (vv 29-30). There is no confusion between God and his creation; even the seemingly permanent heaven and earth will perish, but “you go on forever” (Ps 102:25-27). Nature’s role is to proclaim the glory of God (Ps 19:1) and to praise him (Ps 148). People see themselves as insignificant when set against those forces of nature, which are themselves dwarfed by God—hence, the awareness of the immeasurable gulf between God and people that God has bridged by his grace (Ps 8).<\/li>\n<li>5. Praise for God’s kingship. A relatively small group of psalms (Pss 47, 93, 96–99) celebrate the kingship of God in a way that goes beyond the ascription of praise noted in the foregoing groups. They are marked by acclamation, by both shouting and clapping when God “ascends.” Presumably, the reference is to his throne (Ps 47:1-5; cf. 99:1-2). “The <span>Lord<\/span> reigns” (Pss 93:1; 97:1; 99:1) is the frequent cry, and the nature of his reign is extolled (Ps 99:4-5).<\/li>\n<h5>Royal, Messianic Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>Psalms 2, 18, 20, 21, 45, 61, 72, 89, 101, 110, 132, and 144 are usually included as the royal psalms. They do not form a literary category, since psalms of various types are included, but they all have some reference to the king, the nature of his rule, and his relationship to God. Since the Davidic monarchy was terminated in 586 <span>BC<\/span>, these psalms, almost certainly, were composed before that date. The language in these psalms often shows the king as being God’s vice-regent. For example, Psalm 45, a royal marriage psalm, contains the assertion “Your throne, O God, endures for ever and ever” (45:6). But this is best understood in terms of the throne being regarded as the Lord’s, occupied by the king as his representative. Similarly, the wording in Psalm 110:1, “Sit at my right hand,” indicates the privileges and prerogatives that the king enjoys as God’s vice-regent. The balance of the OT evidence concerning the king shows that the monarchy in Israel was qualified by the nature of God’s covenantal relationship with his people; the king did not enjoy the absolutism claimed by most of the rulers of surrounding kingdoms.<\/p>\n<p>Most of the royal psalms can also be called messianic psalms. They were interpreted as such in the early Christian church, as witnessed in Jesus Christ’s general statement that the psalmists wrote of him (Lk 24:44) and by particular NT quotations. The main psalms concerned, and the NT references, are the following:<\/p>\n<p>1. Psalm 2 (Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5), while linked with the Davidic king, nevertheless speaks of a universal vindication and rule, which far transcended even David’s rule. Further, the picture of the Davidic king, anointed to rule on the earth as the representative of God, who is enthroned in heaven, strongly suggests Christ’s mediating, incarnate ministry.<\/p>\n<li>2. Psalm 45 (Heb 1:8-9), a marriage psalm for one of the Davidic kings, possibly Solomon, speaks not only of love and marriage but also a permanence and quality of rule. In the most obvious translation of verse 6, the writer addresses God, “Your divine throne endures for ever and ever.” The writer to the Hebrews clearly accepted this interpretation (Heb 1:8-9) and used it in contrast to the exalted status of even the angels, reinforcing it with two other quotations from the psalms that originally applied to God (Ps 97:7; 102:25-27; cf. Heb 1:6, 10-12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Psalm 110 is the most frequently quoted messianic psalm (Mt 22:43-45; Acts 2:34-35; Heb 1:13; 5:5-10; 6:20; 7:21). The language, speaking of the privileges, universal victory and continuing priesthood of David and his successors, would be considered hyperbolic and possibly misleading except for its fulfillment in “great David’s greater Son.” In contrast to the angels, who are privileged to stand in God’s presence (Lk 1:19), Christ the Son sits in the place of power and authority (Heb 1:13).<\/li>\n<p>Other psalms that could also be designated messianic but are not specifically included among the royal psalms are Psalm 8 (1 Cor 15:27); Psalm 40 (Heb 10:5-10); Psalm 72, with its idealized picture of the nature, consequences, and extent of the rule of God’s representative; Psalm 118:22-23; and Psalm 132 (Acts 2:30).<\/p>\n\n<h5>Passion Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>The four psalms in this group (Pss 16; 22; 40; 69; some scholars would also include Pss 102; 109) may also be regarded as messianic. They connect with that line of OT prophecy that interprets the Messiah’s ministry in terms of the Suffering Servant who features prominently in Isaiah (e.g., Is 42:1-9; 52:13–53:12). Of these four, Psalm 22 is the most remarkable. Jesus recited part of it when he was on the cross (Ps 22:1; cf. Mt 27:46), and other connections with the crucifixion scene are noteworthy (e.g., Ps 22:6-8, 14-18). Some further considerations are even more significant: there is no suggestion of any awareness of sin; the suffering of the psalmist appears completely unjustified; there is no imprecatory element, even in the face of bitter persecution. This connects with the sinless Christ (2 Cor 5:21), who could even pray for his executioners (Lk 23:34). Psalm 16:10 anticipates the triumph of the incorruptible Christ over the grave (cf. Acts 2:24-31). Psalm 40:6-8 foreshadows the Incarnation and self-giving redemptive work of Christ (Heb 10:5-10). Psalm 69 refers to the isolation resulting from a commitment to God’s cause (Ps 69:8-9) and anticipates the part played by Judas in what was fundamentally God’s work in Christ (Ps 69:25-26; cf. Ps 109:8; Is 53:10; Acts 1:20).<\/p>\n<h5>Psalms about Zion<\/h5>\n<p>This group could have been classified as a subsection of communal praise, but due to the close historical connection between God’s choice of the house of David and Jerusalem (Pss 78:68-72; 132:11-13), and their subsequent interrelated fortunes, we consider them at this point. There was a biting satire in the request of the Babylonians to the refugees of a shattered city to “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!” (Ps 137:3, <span>niv<\/span>), but it witnesses to the existence of such a collection. Praise of Zion was, in fact, almost synonymous with the praise of the Lord who dwelt there. Jerusalem’s continued survival, in spite of its difficulties, was ample demonstration of God’s enduring greatness (Ps 48:11-14) and peculiar affection for the city that housed his temple (Ps 87:1-3). Psalms 48, 76, 84, 87 and 122 are the main psalms in this category, but the theme itself appears widely throughout the psalms (e.g., 102:16; 125:1; 126:1-3; 133:3; 147:2). The basis of the NT concept of a heavenly Jerusalem, the spiritual home of the regenerate of all nations, finds its origin in this concept, especially in Psalm 87.<\/p>\n<h5>Laments<\/h5>\n<p>These are associated with specific occasions of distress and are of two types:<\/p>\n<p>1. National. The prophetic and historical books give several examples of the kind of occasion, such as drought, locust infestation, or enemy attack, that could prompt national laments, and also the inward and outward attitudes that accompanied them (e.g., Jgs 20:23, 26; Jer 14:1-12; 36:9; Jl 1:13-14; 2:12-17; Jon 3:5). There is a regular structure in the psalms of this class: the distressing situation is first described; God is petitioned to come to the aid of his people, often with the reminder of his past mercies for Israel; finally, there is often an expression of confidence that God would heed their cry. Israel’s adversaries are clearly in mind in Psalms 14, 44, 60, 74, 80, and 83, while Psalms 58, 106, and 125 reflect situations less critical.<\/p>\n<li>2. Individual. There are so many of this type (approximately 50) that it is frequently described as the backbone of the Psalter. Their most obvious features are the sharpness of complaint and the bitterness of attack upon those responsible. As in the national laments, there is often complaint against God, especially for his lack of attention or his tardiness in intervening. The basic components of this type are almost identical to the national laments, except that they often conclude with the avowal to praise God in anticipation of deliverance (e.g., Ps 13:5-6). Frequently, the lament is accompanied by thanksgiving for the deliverance sought and experienced, as illustrated in the two sections of Psalms 22:1-21 and 28:1-9.<\/li>\n<h5>Imprecatory Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>Approximately 20 psalms contain passionate pleas for the overthrow of the wicked, in language that is often shocking. Any instant condemnation of this attitude must, however, be tempered by certain relevant considerations:<\/p>\n<p>The cry for vengeance was not purely personal; it was firmly believed that God’s honor was at stake (e.g., Ps 109:21). In an age where there was a less developed view of an afterlife, it was axiomatic that rewards and punishments resulting from obedience or disobedience to God, must be observable within this lifetime. Whenever this was not apparent, it would seem that no righteous God existed, and the name of God was dishonored (e.g., Ps 74:10). This burning desire for the eradication of evil and evil men sprang from a consciousness of a moral God and virtually demanded the triumph of truth.<\/p>\n<p>The poetic language is also prone to hyperbole—a feature not confined to the psalms (e.g., Neh 4:4-5; Jer 20:14-18; Am 7:17). Such language is startling; indeed, part of its function was probably to startle—to express and promote a sense of outrage.<\/p>\n<p>In the pre-Christian period, therefore, such outbursts were not completely unjustifiable. But in the light of the fuller revelation in the NT, such an attitude cannot be condoned. The Christian is to love as Christ loved (Jn 13:34), to pray for his enemies and to forgive them (Mt 5:38-48; Col 3:13). The theme of judgment continues into the NT and is indeed heightened there, since Christ’s coming has left people without excuse to live in sin (Jn 16:8-11), but there can be no place for purely private vengeance.<\/p>\n<h5>Penitential Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>Psalms 32, 38, 51, and 130 are the clearest examples of penitential psalms, although traditionally the church has also included Psalms 6, 102, 143, where there is no explicit confession of sin. In an age when adversity in its various forms was seen as God’s judgment for wrongdoing, the admission of distress was tantamount to a confession of guilt. In the four main examples there is an intensity of feeling and a deep sense of the enormity of sin in God’s sight, although, as elsewhere, there is no indication of specific sin, even in Psalm 51, which is surely to be connected with David’s sin against Bathsheba (2 Sm 11–12). Significantly, David bypasses the sacrificial system, which was totally inefficacious in his case, casting himself entirely on the mercy of God (Ps 51:1, 16). The burden of unconfessed sin is clearly revealed in Psalm 32, and sin’s searing and corrupting effect in Psalm 38.<\/p>\n<h5>Wisdom Psalms and Historical Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>While it is accepted that prophets, priests, and wise men all functioned at the major sanctuaries, some overlap in their modes of expression is to be expected. Proverbial forms are not infrequently found in the psalms (Pss 37:5, 8, 16, 21-22; 111:10; 127:1-5). Psalm 1, probably an introduction to the whole Psalter, contrasts the diverging paths of the righteous and ungodly (cf. Ps 112), while Psalms 127 and 128 concentrate on the blessings given to the godly. Psalm 133 is written in praise of unity. The problem of explaining the sufferings of a righteous person and the apparent prosperity of evil people, dealt with in the Wisdom Literature in the book of Job and in the prophets also (e.g., Jer 12:1-4), is taken up in Psalms 37, 49, and 73.<\/p>\n<p>The historical psalms should be included in this category, since they underscore the lessons arising from the favored nation’s often bitter experience. It is apparent that Israel delighted in the recital of salvation history. The main psalms, and the periods covered are Psalm 78, from the exodus to the establishment of the Davidic monarchy (note the declared intention to teach in vv 1-4); Psalm 105, from Abraham to the conquest of Canaan; Psalm 106, from Egypt to the judges; and Psalm 136, from the Creation to the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<h5>Psalms of Trust<\/h5>\n<p>While some of these may also be classified as laments, the dominant feature of this group is the serene trust in God revealed, which makes them particularly suitable for devotional use. Many of these psalms begin with an affirmation of gratitude to and affection for God. Psalms 23 and 27 are the outstanding examples of this type, which could also include Psalms 11, 16, 62, 116, 131, and 138.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>The difficulties in any precise categorization of psalms are obvious; many do not neatly fall into one group—hence, the occasional overlap. What is clearly evident is a pulsating, vital devotional life that has found its clearest expression in the book of Psalms. To say that it expresses the worship and devotion of the ordinary person is a simplification; kings and priests, wise men and prophets all contributed to this remarkable collection. Yet there remains the truth that, in God’s sight, all people, regardless of human achievement or privilege, are “ordinary,” for all are sinners in need of God’s grace and goodness. So the worshiping community of ancient Israel, and the saints of every succeeding generation, in the vastness of their diversity, have found the expression of their own hearts’ condition, desires, and devotion in this unique treasury—the Psalms.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David; Messiah; Music; Poetry, Biblical; Singers in the Temple; Tabernacle; Temple; Wisdom; Wisdom Literature.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PSALMS, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Poems sung to musical accompaniment, originally the harp. The alternative title, the Psalter, refers to a collection of songs sung to harp accompaniment. The English title, therefore, broadly defines the form employed, whereas the Hebrew title of the book, “Praises,” or “Book of Praises,” suggests the content.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Authors<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Canonicity<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Authors\">Authors<\/p>\n<h5>The Evidence of the Titles<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew Bible credits David with 73 psalms, compared with 84 in the Septuagint and 85 in the Latin Vulgate. Korah and Asaph, the leaders of the Levitical singing groups, are connected with 11 and 12 psalms, respectively (although Ps 43 is almost certainly to be attributed to Korah also). Two psalms are ascribed to Solomon (Pss 72; 127), one to Moses (Ps 90), and one to Ethan (Ps 89), while Heman shares the credit for one psalm with the sons of Korah (Ps 88). The remainder are sometimes called “orphan psalms” because of their anonymity.<\/p>\n<p>The preposition “of” found in the titles (for example, “A Psalm of David”) usually indicates authorship. But in the case of groups, such as the sons of Asaph or Korah, it may simply indicate that the psalms were included in their repertoire. Less plausible is the idea that it may also be rendered “for the use of.” For example, some of the “Psalms of David” might be “for the use of” the Davidic king on some occasion.<\/p>\n<h5>Historical Allusions in the Titles<\/h5>\n<p>Many of the titles refer to specific events in the life of David (e.g., Pss 3; 7; 18; 30; 34; 51). There is evidence that the titles were added at an early date. When the psalms were translated into Greek, there appears to have been some difficulty in translating the titles, possibly because of their antiquity. If the historical references were added at a late date, there is no reason why plausible backgrounds could not have been supplied for all the Davidic psalms, instead of only a few. Moreover, the apparent disparity between the title and the actual content of some psalms (e.g., Ps 30) indicates that the titles were supplied by those who knew about a connection unknown to a later editor. Admittedly, there are minor discrepancies between the titles and the references in the historical books. For example, in Psalm 34 David acts the madman before Abimelech, whereas in 1 Samuel it is before Achish. But probably Abimelech was the general name (like Pharaoh for the kings of Egypt) for all the Philistine kings (e.g., Gn 21:32; 26:26).<\/p>\n<p>Evidence of authorship and historical background in the titles, therefore, may be taken as a reasonably reliable guide. But the internal difficulties, together with the freedom exercised by successive translators into Greek, Syriac, and Latin, indicates that they were not regarded as inspired.<\/p>\n<h5>The Case for Davidic Authorship<\/h5>\n<p>Five points can be offered to support David’s authorship of several psalms:<\/p>\n<p>1. The authenticity of David’s lament over Saul and Jonathan (2 Sm 1:19-27) is generally accepted. This indicates a deeply poetic spirit and a generous temperament that prepares us to accept those psalms ascribed to David that evidence similar characteristics. “The last words of David” is another Davidic poem in the historical books (2 Sm 23:1-7).<\/p>\n<li>2. David had a reputation as a skillful musician at Saul’s court (1 Sm 16:16-18). Amos comments on his inventiveness as a musician (Am 6:5), while the Chronicler repeatedly stresses his contribution to the musical aspect of temple worship (e.g., 1 Chr 6:31; 16:7; Ezr 3:10). The Jewish historian Josephus said that David composed songs and hymns to God in varied meters. The probability is that David, as well as amassing materials and preparing the plans for Solomon’s temple, also gave attention to the temple worship. This is his place in Jewish tradition.<\/li>\n<li>3. The early monarchy, with a freshly secured independence, national prestige, and a new prosperity, would most likely be a time of artistic creativity. David was at the heart of this movement.<\/li>\n<li>4. There is a close correspondence between David’s life as described in the historical books and certain psalms, for example, his sin concerning Bathsheba and Uriah (2 Sm 11:2–12:25) and Psalm 51, as witnessed in the title. David’s lapses and genuine repentance, as well as the varied aspects of his career—shepherd, fugitive, warrior, and so on—find expression in many of the psalms attributed to him. The correspondence between the David of the psalms and the David of the historical books is close, especially in the display of strong faith in God.<\/li>\n<li>5. Although some scholars believe that when “David” is mentioned in the NT, it is simply a reference to the book of Psalms and not an ascription of authorship, a straightforward interpretation of the NT text strengthens the case for Davidic authorship. David is specifically named as the author of various psalms in Matthew 22:41-45; Acts 1:16; 2:25, 34; Romans 4:6; 11:9.<\/li>\n<p>In conclusion, there is strong support for the view that the substantial nucleus of the Psalter is Davidic. Moreover, it is probable that some of the anonymous psalms were the work of the “sweet psalmist of Israel” (2 Sm 23:1). Hebrews 4:7 refers one of these, Psalm 95, to David (see also Acts 4:25 and Ps 2).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Once David’s authorship of several psalms is established, then it must follow that these psalms are dated during David’s life. Thus, most of the psalms formed the hymnbook of Israel in the period of the monarchy. Other psalms were written later. For example, Psalm 137 is clearly exilic, and Psalms 107:2-3 and 126:1 allude to the return from captivity. Psalms 44 and 79 are probably, but not conclusively, postexilic.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Psalms was probably the product of a considerable period of growth. The incidence of Davidic psalms in the first section indicates that it was completed early, possibly toward the end of David’s reign. The remainder of the process of compilation is difficult to reconstruct, but the fact that the titles, with their allusions to authors, events, and musical directions, become less frequent in the two final collections (Pss 90–150) lends support to the probability that the collections were combined chronologically in the sequence in which they are found today. Ezra is traditionally credited with the final grouping and editing of the psalms, a hypothesis that appears reasonable in light of his vital contribution to the systematic reshaping of the national religious life. In any case, the process was completed before the translation of the Psalter into Greek (the Septuagint) at the end of the third century <span>BC<\/span>, since the traditional order is found there. General, but not complete, support comes also from the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls. At some point minor dislocations occurred. Psalms 9 and 10 may have originally formed one psalm (as in the Septuagint), and there is a strong case for combining Psalms 42 and 43.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>As the book of Psalms lies before us, its connection with temple worship is apparent. Fifty-five psalms are addressed to the choirmaster, and as we have noted, 23 or 24 are linked with the two main guilds of Levitical singers, Asaph and Korah. The musical instruments, such as stringed instruments (Ps 55 title) and flutes (Ps 5 title) are noted. Probably other terms concern musical directions: <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Selah<\/span><em>,<\/em> which occurs 71 times, may indicate a pause or crescendo; <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Higgaion<\/span> (Ps 9:16) may recommend a meditative attitude. Seemingly obscure references like “The Hind of the Dawn” (Ps 22 title), “Lilies” (Pss 45 title; 80 title) and “The Dove on Far-off Terebinths” (Ps 56 title) may indicate the tunes to which the psalms were to be sung. The precise meaning of other terms, such as <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shiggaion<\/span> (Ps 7 title) or <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Alamoth<\/span> (conjecturally a choir of ladies, Ps 46 title), may also be in the realm of musical directions.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The Psalter, possibly in conscious imitation of the five books of Moses in the Law, is divided into five sections (Pss 1–41; 42–72; 73–89; 90–106; 107–150), separated by four doxologies (41:13; 72:18-19; 89:52; 106:48). While the editorial comment in Psalm 72:20 notes that the psalms of David were ended, Davidic psalms are found later in the book (Pss 86; 101; 103), suggesting that at least some of these sections circulated independently until their inclusion in the final collection. Such independence is further indicated by the duplications in the various sections (e.g., Pss 14 and 53; 40:13-17 and 70) and by the use of different names for God, who is usually referred to as “Lord” in the first collection and as “God” in the second.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Canonicity\">Canonicity<\/p>\n<p>In the various recensions of the third section of the Hebrew canon, the Writings or Holy Books, the book of Psalms is almost invariably placed first. It was clearly regarded as the most important book in this section, and in Luke 24:44, “Psalms” is synonymous with “Writings” as its title. While the canonicity of all the contents of the Writings was not finalized until the end of the first century <span>AD<\/span>, it is likely that the book of Psalms was accepted as inspired long before this, probably by 300 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>It must not be inferred that all the psalms had their origin in the cultic life of the community, but the sanctuary was the focal point of Israel’s worship for the greater part of the OT period. Prayer was possible elsewhere, but whenever practicable, it was customary for the worshiper to present his petitions at the main sanctuary. And thanksgiving in ancient Israel was almost invariably connected with a thank offering, vow offering, or freewill offering. The psalms could have been composed by individuals, like David, who had the requisite technical ability. And it must be appreciated that poetry, an unfamiliar medium to most Western civilizations, was the natural way for the ancient Easterner to express his emotions. Or the individual could have engaged a member of the Levitical guilds of musicians to frame either his supplication or his thanksgiving. Gradually, a comprehensive collection of psalms would be available for the use of individuals, the congregation, and even the entire nation in any conceivable situation. Once finalized, this collection served not only the subsequent needs of Israel but the devotional requirements of successive generations of Christians as well. Whatever the origin of an individual psalm, each has finally been incorporated in a cultic setting, and it may be assumed that the best of Israel’s psalmody has thus been preserved.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheology\">Purpose and Theology<\/p>\n<h5>The Doctrine of God<\/h5>\n<p>In both adversity and prosperity, the psalmists indicate a strong faith in God and a clear conception of his attributes. Understandably, anthropomorphisms (ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things) abound, with references to God’s voice, words, ears, eyes, face, or hands and fingers. No exception needs to be taken to this. Anthropomorphisms of this kind are, in fact, widely used by present-day Christians. Their great value is that they make God real to the worshiper. How else could humans describe God, except in terms of their own understanding?<\/p>\n<p>The monotheism of the psalms emerges clearly in Psalms 115:3-8; 135:15-18; 139. God is viewed as the Creator (Pss 8:3; 89:11; 95:3-5), with references to the creation mythology of surrounding nations (e.g., Ps 89:10) serving merely as illustrations of his almighty creative power. He is proclaimed as the Lord of history (Pss 44, 78, 80, 81, 105, 106) and as the sovereign controller of nature (Pss 18:7; 19:1-6; 65:8-13; 105:26-42; 135:5-7). The psalmists never tired of celebrating God’s absolute greatness.<\/p>\n<h5>The Human Perspective<\/h5>\n<p>The Psalter is a God-centered book, but humanity has a worthy place, in spite of the vast gulf between them and their Creator (Pss 8:3-4; 145:3-4) and the limitations of their earthly life (Ps 90:9-10). By the will of God, humans occupy a responsible, mediating position between God and all other created beings (Ps 8:5-8). The relationship with a righteous God is endangered by sin (Ps 106), but God is gracious and long-suffering (Ps 103), faithful and forgiving (Ps 130). While references to the sacrificial system are not lacking (Pss 20:3; 50:8-9), the emphasis is upon a personal piety that demands obedience and a surrendered heart (Ps 40:6-8). Psalm 51 indicates a depth of sin with which the sacrificial system was totally inadequate to cope; the psalmist could only cast himself, in total penitence, upon God’s mercy. Man’s moral obligations (Pss 15; 24:3-5) and loyalty to the law (Pss 19:7-11; 119) are fully accepted. Throughout, there is the revelation of a strong personal relationship that encourages prayer and praise and invites trust.<\/p>\n<h5>The Afterlife<\/h5>\n<p>The Psalms maintain the traditional Hebrew view of Sheol as the abode of the departed, without distinction between the good and evil, where all but mere existence has perished. The chief complaint of the devout man was that, in Sheol, all meaningful relationship with God ceased (Pss 6:5; 88:10-12). However, it was recognized that, since God was almighty, even Sheol was not exempt from his reach (Ps 139:8). Added to this was the preciousness and strength of fellowship with God, which could not be terminated even by death. Psalms 16:9-11, 49:15, and 73:23-26 well illustrate this insight. The Psalter, therefore, witnesses to an important transitional phase in Israel’s belief.<\/p>\n<h5>Universal Recognition of God<\/h5>\n<p>Passages like Psalms 9:11; 47:1-2, 7-9; 66:8; 67; and 117:1 call upon all nations to acknowledge and praise God and show an awareness of his sovereignty over all nations. But this universalism does not appear to involve any desire to convert the heathen nations and, indeed, it is balanced by strong particularistic elements. God’s covenant relationship with his people and his mighty deeds on their behalf are the chief items for which the praise of all nations is summoned (Pss 47:3-4; 66:8-9; 126:2). As elsewhere in the OT, the role of Israel is passive; her continued existence witnesses to God’s faithfulness and brings glory to him.<\/p>\n<h5>Lasting Value<\/h5>\n<p>Whatever the emotion of the psalmists, be it bitter complaint, anguished lament, or joyous exultation, all the psalms reflect one or other of the many aspects of communion with God. The reader may look “into the heart of all the saints” (so said Luther) as they faced life’s experiences in the awareness of a God who was all-seeing, all-knowing, and all-powerful. The strength of that personal relationship with God that typified OT worship at its best is exemplified here, and the many echoes of the psalms elsewhere in Israel’s literature show the powerful influence of these testimonies on the faithful. The fact that, almost invariably, little specific detail is given of the psalmists’ actual conditions has made it easier for the Psalter to become the universal hymnbook and devotional treasury of God’s people, in both public and private worship, until and including the present day. Modern life, materially, is vastly different from that of ancient Israel, but God remains unchanged and so do the basic needs of the human heart. The Holy Spirit, therefore, can still use this spiritual treasury as a means of revelation and communication between God and man. Few books in the Bible have exercised so profound an influence or been so widely used.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Introduction<\/h5>\n<p>It is more helpful to describe the psalms in categories than to explain them one by one in canonical order. The psalms can be categorized as follows:<\/p>\n<p>Psalms of praise<\/p>\n<p>Royal, messianic psalms<\/p>\n<p>Passion psalms<\/p>\n<p>Psalms about Zion<\/p>\n<p>Laments<\/p>\n<p>Imprecatory psalms<\/p>\n<p>Penitential psalms<\/p>\n<p>Wisdom psalms and historical psalms<\/p>\n<p>Psalms of trust<\/p>\n<h5>Psalms of Praise<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew title, “Praises,” defines accurately a large part of the contents of the book. Each of the first four sections concludes with a doxology, while the fifth section concludes with five psalms, each of which begins and ends with one or two “Hallelujahs.” The last of these, Psalm 150, sounds the call to total praise. God is to be praised for his being, for his great acts in creation, nature, and history on both the individual and the communal level.<\/p>\n<p>1. Individual praise. In comparison with the number of individual laments, there are relatively few psalms in this category. Those normally included are Psalms 9, 18, 32, 34, 116, and 138. This may, in part, be due to the universal tendency to complain rather than to express thanks. But a number of the laments do, in fact, include the note of thanksgiving for the anticipated deliverance, and the normal round of congregational thanksgiving would allow the individual to express his personal praise. However, it was customary in temple worship to give a verbal act of thanksgiving before the whole assembly whenever a vow offering or a thank offering was made. Such public testimony, and the communal meal associated with this type of sacrifice, is indicated in Psalms 22:22-26; 66:13-20; 116:17-19. The inclusion of such opportunities for personal praise and testimony must have added warmth and significance to worship. Each act of deliverance and every experience of God’s mercy became part of salvation history, which was a cumulative, ongoing concept, not simply a recital of God’s deeds in earlier centuries.<\/p>\n<li>2. General communal praise. This is sometimes entitled “hymns” or “descriptive praise,” its main feature being linked to a particular act of deliverance. God is usually referred to in the third person, not directly. Psalm 103 may be taken as representative of this group. It begins and ends with individual references (vv 1-5, 22b), but the central section (esp. vv 6-14) shows that the psalmist was part of a worshiping community. There is first of all the imperative call to praise God for the full range of his mercy to each individual, including physical and spiritual deliverance and his sustaining and satisfying grace. Then the focus changes to his great works in history (vv 6-7). This forms a natural basis for the recital of those gracious qualities revealed so consistently during the course of the national history, especially his tender, fatherly care (vv 8-14). The frailty of humanity contrasts with God’s constancy (vv 15-18), and his rule, being universal and absolute (v 19), merits the praise of all things, living and inanimate, in heaven and on earth (vv 19-22). There is, however, a great number of possible variations in the way in which God is celebrated, as Psalms 113 and 136, which come within this class, illustrate.<\/li>\n<li>3. Specific communal praise. Occasionally termed “declarative praise,” this type of psalm connects with a particular outstanding evidence of God’s mercy and would most naturally follow soon after the event itself. Deliverance from an enemy provides the occasion for most of the psalms in this category (e.g., Pss 124, 129). Psalm 66:8-12, now the nucleus of an expanded recital of God’s goodness, was possibly once complete in itself. Psalms 46–48 may form a trilogy connected with the remarkable deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib’s Assyrians in 701 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 18:17–19:37). Psalm 67 was probably composed in gratitude for a particular harvest. It is easy to see how psalms of this type could, in the process of time, acquire a more general usage.<\/li>\n<li>4. Praise for the God of nature. The first part of Psalm 19 pictures the praise of God sounding from the heavens; Psalm 29 celebrates him as the God of the thunderstorm, which, sweeping in from the Mediterranean near Lebanon, pursues its awe-inspiring path southward into the wilderness of Kadesh, with the result that “in his temple” (the created world?) all are praising, “Glory, glory to the <span>Lord<\/span>” (v 9). His sovereignty and self-sufficiency in this world are celebrated in Psalm 50:10-12; he is the God of growth and harvest (Ps 65:9-13); in Psalm 104, often called the “Hymn of Creation,” he sustains and supplies everything on the earth and in the seas and is the absolute Lord of all life (vv 29-30). There is no confusion between God and his creation; even the seemingly permanent heaven and earth will perish, but “you go on forever” (Ps 102:25-27). Nature’s role is to proclaim the glory of God (Ps 19:1) and to praise him (Ps 148). People see themselves as insignificant when set against those forces of nature, which are themselves dwarfed by God—hence, the awareness of the immeasurable gulf between God and people that God has bridged by his grace (Ps 8).<\/li>\n<li>5. Praise for God’s kingship. A relatively small group of psalms (Pss 47, 93, 96–99) celebrate the kingship of God in a way that goes beyond the ascription of praise noted in the foregoing groups. They are marked by acclamation, by both shouting and clapping when God “ascends.” Presumably, the reference is to his throne (Ps 47:1-5; cf. 99:1-2). “The <span>Lord<\/span> reigns” (Pss 93:1; 97:1; 99:1) is the frequent cry, and the nature of his reign is extolled (Ps 99:4-5).<\/li>\n<h5>Royal, Messianic Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>Psalms 2, 18, 20, 21, 45, 61, 72, 89, 101, 110, 132, and 144 are usually included as the royal psalms. They do not form a literary category, since psalms of various types are included, but they all have some reference to the king, the nature of his rule, and his relationship to God. Since the Davidic monarchy was terminated in 586 <span>BC<\/span>, these psalms, almost certainly, were composed before that date. The language in these psalms often shows the king as being God’s vice-regent. For example, Psalm 45, a royal marriage psalm, contains the assertion “Your throne, O God, endures for ever and ever” (45:6). But this is best understood in terms of the throne being regarded as the Lord’s, occupied by the king as his representative. Similarly, the wording in Psalm 110:1, “Sit at my right hand,” indicates the privileges and prerogatives that the king enjoys as God’s vice-regent. The balance of the OT evidence concerning the king shows that the monarchy in Israel was qualified by the nature of God’s covenantal relationship with his people; the king did not enjoy the absolutism claimed by most of the rulers of surrounding kingdoms.<\/p>\n<p>Most of the royal psalms can also be called messianic psalms. They were interpreted as such in the early Christian church, as witnessed in Jesus Christ’s general statement that the psalmists wrote of him (Lk 24:44) and by particular NT quotations. The main psalms concerned, and the NT references, are the following:<\/p>\n<p>1. Psalm 2 (Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5), while linked with the Davidic king, nevertheless speaks of a universal vindication and rule, which far transcended even David’s rule. Further, the picture of the Davidic king, anointed to rule on the earth as the representative of God, who is enthroned in heaven, strongly suggests Christ’s mediating, incarnate ministry.<\/p>\n<li>2. Psalm 45 (Heb 1:8-9), a marriage psalm for one of the Davidic kings, possibly Solomon, speaks not only of love and marriage but also a permanence and quality of rule. In the most obvious translation of verse 6, the writer addresses God, “Your divine throne endures for ever and ever.” The writer to the Hebrews clearly accepted this interpretation (Heb 1:8-9) and used it in contrast to the exalted status of even the angels, reinforcing it with two other quotations from the psalms that originally applied to God (Ps 97:7; 102:25-27; cf. Heb 1:6, 10-12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Psalm 110 is the most frequently quoted messianic psalm (Mt 22:43-45; Acts 2:34-35; Heb 1:13; 5:5-10; 6:20; 7:21). The language, speaking of the privileges, universal victory and continuing priesthood of David and his successors, would be considered hyperbolic and possibly misleading except for its fulfillment in “great David’s greater Son.” In contrast to the angels, who are privileged to stand in God’s presence (Lk 1:19), Christ the Son sits in the place of power and authority (Heb 1:13).<\/li>\n<p>Other psalms that could also be designated messianic but are not specifically included among the royal psalms are Psalm 8 (1 Cor 15:27); Psalm 40 (Heb 10:5-10); Psalm 72, with its idealized picture of the nature, consequences, and extent of the rule of God’s representative; Psalm 118:22-23; and Psalm 132 (Acts 2:30).<\/p>\n\n<h5>Passion Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>The four psalms in this group (Pss 16; 22; 40; 69; some scholars would also include Pss 102; 109) may also be regarded as messianic. They connect with that line of OT prophecy that interprets the Messiah’s ministry in terms of the Suffering Servant who features prominently in Isaiah (e.g., Is 42:1-9; 52:13–53:12). Of these four, Psalm 22 is the most remarkable. Jesus recited part of it when he was on the cross (Ps 22:1; cf. Mt 27:46), and other connections with the crucifixion scene are noteworthy (e.g., Ps 22:6-8, 14-18). Some further considerations are even more significant: there is no suggestion of any awareness of sin; the suffering of the psalmist appears completely unjustified; there is no imprecatory element, even in the face of bitter persecution. This connects with the sinless Christ (2 Cor 5:21), who could even pray for his executioners (Lk 23:34). Psalm 16:10 anticipates the triumph of the incorruptible Christ over the grave (cf. Acts 2:24-31). Psalm 40:6-8 foreshadows the Incarnation and self-giving redemptive work of Christ (Heb 10:5-10). Psalm 69 refers to the isolation resulting from a commitment to God’s cause (Ps 69:8-9) and anticipates the part played by Judas in what was fundamentally God’s work in Christ (Ps 69:25-26; cf. Ps 109:8; Is 53:10; Acts 1:20).<\/p>\n<h5>Psalms about Zion<\/h5>\n<p>This group could have been classified as a subsection of communal praise, but due to the close historical connection between God’s choice of the house of David and Jerusalem (Pss 78:68-72; 132:11-13), and their subsequent interrelated fortunes, we consider them at this point. There was a biting satire in the request of the Babylonians to the refugees of a shattered city to “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!” (Ps 137:3, <span>niv<\/span>), but it witnesses to the existence of such a collection. Praise of Zion was, in fact, almost synonymous with the praise of the Lord who dwelt there. Jerusalem’s continued survival, in spite of its difficulties, was ample demonstration of God’s enduring greatness (Ps 48:11-14) and peculiar affection for the city that housed his temple (Ps 87:1-3). Psalms 48, 76, 84, 87 and 122 are the main psalms in this category, but the theme itself appears widely throughout the psalms (e.g., 102:16; 125:1; 126:1-3; 133:3; 147:2). The basis of the NT concept of a heavenly Jerusalem, the spiritual home of the regenerate of all nations, finds its origin in this concept, especially in Psalm 87.<\/p>\n<h5>Laments<\/h5>\n<p>These are associated with specific occasions of distress and are of two types:<\/p>\n<p>1. National. The prophetic and historical books give several examples of the kind of occasion, such as drought, locust infestation, or enemy attack, that could prompt national laments, and also the inward and outward attitudes that accompanied them (e.g., Jgs 20:23, 26; Jer 14:1-12; 36:9; Jl 1:13-14; 2:12-17; Jon 3:5). There is a regular structure in the psalms of this class: the distressing situation is first described; God is petitioned to come to the aid of his people, often with the reminder of his past mercies for Israel; finally, there is often an expression of confidence that God would heed their cry. Israel’s adversaries are clearly in mind in Psalms 14, 44, 60, 74, 80, and 83, while Psalms 58, 106, and 125 reflect situations less critical.<\/p>\n<li>2. Individual. There are so many of this type (approximately 50) that it is frequently described as the backbone of the Psalter. Their most obvious features are the sharpness of complaint and the bitterness of attack upon those responsible. As in the national laments, there is often complaint against God, especially for his lack of attention or his tardiness in intervening. The basic components of this type are almost identical to the national laments, except that they often conclude with the avowal to praise God in anticipation of deliverance (e.g., Ps 13:5-6). Frequently, the lament is accompanied by thanksgiving for the deliverance sought and experienced, as illustrated in the two sections of Psalms 22:1-21 and 28:1-9.<\/li>\n<h5>Imprecatory Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>Approximately 20 psalms contain passionate pleas for the overthrow of the wicked, in language that is often shocking. Any instant condemnation of this attitude must, however, be tempered by certain relevant considerations:<\/p>\n<p>The cry for vengeance was not purely personal; it was firmly believed that God’s honor was at stake (e.g., Ps 109:21). In an age where there was a less developed view of an afterlife, it was axiomatic that rewards and punishments resulting from obedience or disobedience to God, must be observable within this lifetime. Whenever this was not apparent, it would seem that no righteous God existed, and the name of God was dishonored (e.g., Ps 74:10). This burning desire for the eradication of evil and evil men sprang from a consciousness of a moral God and virtually demanded the triumph of truth.<\/p>\n<p>The poetic language is also prone to hyperbole—a feature not confined to the psalms (e.g., Neh 4:4-5; Jer 20:14-18; Am 7:17). Such language is startling; indeed, part of its function was probably to startle—to express and promote a sense of outrage.<\/p>\n<p>In the pre-Christian period, therefore, such outbursts were not completely unjustifiable. But in the light of the fuller revelation in the NT, such an attitude cannot be condoned. The Christian is to love as Christ loved (Jn 13:34), to pray for his enemies and to forgive them (Mt 5:38-48; Col 3:13). The theme of judgment continues into the NT and is indeed heightened there, since Christ’s coming has left people without excuse to live in sin (Jn 16:8-11), but there can be no place for purely private vengeance.<\/p>\n<h5>Penitential Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>Psalms 32, 38, 51, and 130 are the clearest examples of penitential psalms, although traditionally the church has also included Psalms 6, 102, 143, where there is no explicit confession of sin. In an age when adversity in its various forms was seen as God’s judgment for wrongdoing, the admission of distress was tantamount to a confession of guilt. In the four main examples there is an intensity of feeling and a deep sense of the enormity of sin in God’s sight, although, as elsewhere, there is no indication of specific sin, even in Psalm 51, which is surely to be connected with David’s sin against Bathsheba (2 Sm 11–12). Significantly, David bypasses the sacrificial system, which was totally inefficacious in his case, casting himself entirely on the mercy of God (Ps 51:1, 16). The burden of unconfessed sin is clearly revealed in Psalm 32, and sin’s searing and corrupting effect in Psalm 38.<\/p>\n<h5>Wisdom Psalms and Historical Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>While it is accepted that prophets, priests, and wise men all functioned at the major sanctuaries, some overlap in their modes of expression is to be expected. Proverbial forms are not infrequently found in the psalms (Pss 37:5, 8, 16, 21-22; 111:10; 127:1-5). Psalm 1, probably an introduction to the whole Psalter, contrasts the diverging paths of the righteous and ungodly (cf. Ps 112), while Psalms 127 and 128 concentrate on the blessings given to the godly. Psalm 133 is written in praise of unity. The problem of explaining the sufferings of a righteous person and the apparent prosperity of evil people, dealt with in the Wisdom Literature in the book of Job and in the prophets also (e.g., Jer 12:1-4), is taken up in Psalms 37, 49, and 73.<\/p>\n<p>The historical psalms should be included in this category, since they underscore the lessons arising from the favored nation’s often bitter experience. It is apparent that Israel delighted in the recital of salvation history. The main psalms, and the periods covered are Psalm 78, from the exodus to the establishment of the Davidic monarchy (note the declared intention to teach in vv 1-4); Psalm 105, from Abraham to the conquest of Canaan; Psalm 106, from Egypt to the judges; and Psalm 136, from the Creation to the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<h5>Psalms of Trust<\/h5>\n<p>While some of these may also be classified as laments, the dominant feature of this group is the serene trust in God revealed, which makes them particularly suitable for devotional use. Many of these psalms begin with an affirmation of gratitude to and affection for God. Psalms 23 and 27 are the outstanding examples of this type, which could also include Psalms 11, 16, 62, 116, 131, and 138.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>The difficulties in any precise categorization of psalms are obvious; many do not neatly fall into one group—hence, the occasional overlap. What is clearly evident is a pulsating, vital devotional life that has found its clearest expression in the book of Psalms. To say that it expresses the worship and devotion of the ordinary person is a simplification; kings and priests, wise men and prophets all contributed to this remarkable collection. Yet there remains the truth that, in God’s sight, all people, regardless of human achievement or privilege, are “ordinary,” for all are sinners in need of God’s grace and goodness. So the worshiping community of ancient Israel, and the saints of every succeeding generation, in the vastness of their diversity, have found the expression of their own hearts’ condition, desires, and devotion in this unique treasury—the Psalms.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David; Messiah; Music; Poetry, Biblical; Singers in the Temple; Tabernacle; Temple; Wisdom; Wisdom Literature.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PSALMS, Book of Poems sung to musical accompaniment, originally the harp. The alternative title, the Psalter, refers to a collection of songs sung to harp accompaniment. The English title, therefore, broadly defines the form employed, whereas the Hebrew title of the book, “Praises,” or “Book of Praises,” suggests the content. Preview • Authors • Date • Background • Structure • Canonicity • Purpose and Theology • Content Authors The Evidence of the Titles The Hebrew Bible credits David with 73...","summary_en":"PSALMS, Book of Poems sung to musical accompaniment, originally the harp. The alternative title, the Psalter, refers to a collection of songs sung to harp accompaniment. The English title, therefore, broadly defines the form employed, whereas the Hebrew title of the book, “Praises,” or “Book of Praises,” suggests the content. Preview • Authors • Date • Background • Structure • Canonicity • Purpose and Theology • Content Authors The Evidence of the Titles The Hebrew Bible credits David with 73...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"24":[{"id":45965,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:24","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:24","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:24-25<\/strong> A second debacle shook the confidence of the Israelites (20:26-28).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:24-25<\/strong> A second debacle shook the confidence of the Israelites (20:26-28).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:24-25 A second debacle shook the confidence of the Israelites (20:26-28).","summary_en":"20:24-25 A second debacle shook the confidence of the Israelites (20:26-28).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73591,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:24","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:24","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:24-25<\/strong> A second debacle shook the confidence of the Israelites (20:26-28).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:24-25<\/strong> A second debacle shook the confidence of the Israelites (20:26-28).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:24-25 A second debacle shook the confidence of the Israelites (20:26-28).","summary_en":"20:24-25 A second debacle shook the confidence of the Israelites (20:26-28).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101217,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:24","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:24","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:24-25<\/strong> A second debacle shook the confidence of the Israelites (20:26-28).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:24-25<\/strong> A second debacle shook the confidence of the Israelites (20:26-28).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:24-25 A second debacle shook the confidence of the Israelites (20:26-28).","summary_en":"20:24-25 A second debacle shook the confidence of the Israelites (20:26-28).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128843,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:24","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:24","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:24-25<\/strong> A second debacle shook the confidence of the Israelites (20:26-28).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:24-25<\/strong> A second debacle shook the confidence of the Israelites (20:26-28).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:24-25 A second debacle shook the confidence of the Israelites (20:26-28).","summary_en":"20:24-25 A second debacle shook the confidence of the Israelites (20:26-28).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"26":[{"id":12041,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Fasting Fast","title_en":"Fasting Fast","content_ro":"<h3>FAST, FASTING<\/h3>\n<p>Eating sparingly or abstaining from food altogether, either from necessity or desire. In medical terms, fasting is the detoxification of the body through the restriction of food.<\/p>\n<p>Spiritual fasting entails setting aside activities as well as reducing the intake of food and replacing these activities with the exercise of prayer and preoccupation with spiritual concerns. The NT word that is translated “fasting” literally means one who has not eaten, one who is empty.<\/p>\n<p>Three types of fast are generally recognized: <em>normal,<\/em> in which there is no intake of food for a prescribed period of time, though there may be an intake of liquids; <em>partial,<\/em> in which the diet is limited, though some food is allowed; and <em>absolute,<\/em> in which there is a total abstinence from food and liquids in all forms.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the fast was regarded as an act of self-renunciation designed to mollify God’s wrath and move him to act in gracious disposition. In times of emergency, the people fasted to persuade God to spare them from impending calamity (Jgs 20:26; 1 Sm 7:6; 1 Kgs 21:9; 2 Chr 20:3; Jer 36:6, 9). Individuals fasted in the hope that God would liberate them from trouble (2 Sm 12:16-20; 1 Kgs 21:27; Pss 35:13; 69:10). Fasting was accompanied by prayer (Ezr 8:21; Neh 1:4; Jer 14:12).<\/p>\n<p>Regular fasts were usually for one day, morning to evening, with food permitted at night (Jgs 20:26; 1 Sm 14:24; 2 Sm 1:12), although there are reports of longer fasts, such as Mordecai’s call for a three-day fast (night and day specified—Est 4:16) and the seven-day fast at Saul’s death (1 Sm 31:13; 2 Sm 3:35). Among special fasts were Moses’ 40 days on Mt Sinai (Ex 34:28) and Daniel’s three-week fast prior to receiving visions (Dn 9:3; 10:3, 12).<\/p>\n<p>In general, in the OT, fasting was abused. Instead of a sincere act of self-renunciation and submission to God, fasting became externalized as an empty ritual in which a pretense of piety was presented as a public image. Hence, the prophets cry out against the callousness of such hypocrisy. Jeremiah records the Lord as saying, “Though they fast, I will not hear their cry” (Jer 14:12, <span>rsv<\/span>; see Is 58:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>The setting for the NT understanding of fasting lies in the development of the rabbinic tradition that grew out of the period between the Testaments, during which fasting became the distinguishing mark of the pious Jew, even though it was largely still ritualistic. Vows were confirmed by fasting (Tb 7:12), remorse and penitence were accompanied by fasting (2 Esd 10:4), and prayer was supported by fasting (1 Macc 3:47). Special fast days were observed, some voluntarily imposed (2 Macc 13:12; 2 Esd 5:13).<\/p>\n<p>This developed into a rabbinic tradition in which fasting was viewed as meritorious and therefore became the primary act of demonstrating piety. It was, however, a false piety consisting mostly in the externals of fastidious observance of fast days, both public and private. With the exception of ascetic groups such as the disciples of John the Baptist, the prevailing mood of fasting when Jesus appeared on the scene was one of mournful sadness, an obligatory necessity, a self-imposed requirement to produce the discipline of self-denial.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ understanding of fasting is significant in that it represents a shift in the role of fasting. His initial attitude undoubtedly reflected the fact that he grew up participating in the regular fasts and therefore shared the prevailing teachings of his day. Yet his mature teaching about fasting breaks with the rabbinic tradition. Two accounts relating to Jesus and fasting are important: his fast as a part of his temptation in the wilderness (Mt 4:2; Lk 4:2), and his teaching about fasting in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 6:16-18).<\/p>\n<p>His temptation was born out of the context of struggle. Immediately after his baptism, he was cast out into the wilderness by the Spirit to face the temptation of Satan. In the midst of his temptation, he fasted and prayed, thereby showing his dependence upon God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ words about fasting in the Sermon on the Mount constitute a radically different approach to voluntary fasting. In condemning the type of fasting that seeks favor with men by an ostentatious display of outward piety, Jesus taught instead a robust faith that sought genuineness of relation to God through a pure heart. Jesus does not condemn fasting as such, nor does he forbid it. He does, however, give it a new meaning. Fasting is service to God.<\/p>\n<p>This new understanding of fasting is set within the context of the dawning of the time of salvation. The Bridegroom is here. It is a time of joy, not of sorrow. Consequently, the prevailing mood of fasting as mournful stress and pretended piety is inconsistent with the mood of the new age that has begun.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ teachings may be summarized: Fasting is transcended by the beginning of the eschatological times. The rule of the Messiah has broken the power of the evil age. Fasting would appear to be no longer consistent with the spirit of thanksgiving and joy that marks the framework of the new age, since the Christian life is not to be dominated by tragedy but by joy and happiness. Yet the kingdom is not fully realized. There is a place for fasting, properly understood. Fasting must be done within the context of the joyful thanksgiving of the new life in Christ. The context of fasting is prayer. It should conform to the same conditions as prayer: unostentatious quietness before God, arising out of gratitude, expressing thanksgiving, grounded in faith, as a means of spiritual growth.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Prayer.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FAST, FASTING<\/h3>\n<p>Eating sparingly or abstaining from food altogether, either from necessity or desire. In medical terms, fasting is the detoxification of the body through the restriction of food.<\/p>\n<p>Spiritual fasting entails setting aside activities as well as reducing the intake of food and replacing these activities with the exercise of prayer and preoccupation with spiritual concerns. The NT word that is translated “fasting” literally means one who has not eaten, one who is empty.<\/p>\n<p>Three types of fast are generally recognized: <em>normal,<\/em> in which there is no intake of food for a prescribed period of time, though there may be an intake of liquids; <em>partial,<\/em> in which the diet is limited, though some food is allowed; and <em>absolute,<\/em> in which there is a total abstinence from food and liquids in all forms.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the fast was regarded as an act of self-renunciation designed to mollify God’s wrath and move him to act in gracious disposition. In times of emergency, the people fasted to persuade God to spare them from impending calamity (Jgs 20:26; 1 Sm 7:6; 1 Kgs 21:9; 2 Chr 20:3; Jer 36:6, 9). Individuals fasted in the hope that God would liberate them from trouble (2 Sm 12:16-20; 1 Kgs 21:27; Pss 35:13; 69:10). Fasting was accompanied by prayer (Ezr 8:21; Neh 1:4; Jer 14:12).<\/p>\n<p>Regular fasts were usually for one day, morning to evening, with food permitted at night (Jgs 20:26; 1 Sm 14:24; 2 Sm 1:12), although there are reports of longer fasts, such as Mordecai’s call for a three-day fast (night and day specified—Est 4:16) and the seven-day fast at Saul’s death (1 Sm 31:13; 2 Sm 3:35). Among special fasts were Moses’ 40 days on Mt Sinai (Ex 34:28) and Daniel’s three-week fast prior to receiving visions (Dn 9:3; 10:3, 12).<\/p>\n<p>In general, in the OT, fasting was abused. Instead of a sincere act of self-renunciation and submission to God, fasting became externalized as an empty ritual in which a pretense of piety was presented as a public image. Hence, the prophets cry out against the callousness of such hypocrisy. Jeremiah records the Lord as saying, “Though they fast, I will not hear their cry” (Jer 14:12, <span>rsv<\/span>; see Is 58:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>The setting for the NT understanding of fasting lies in the development of the rabbinic tradition that grew out of the period between the Testaments, during which fasting became the distinguishing mark of the pious Jew, even though it was largely still ritualistic. Vows were confirmed by fasting (Tb 7:12), remorse and penitence were accompanied by fasting (2 Esd 10:4), and prayer was supported by fasting (1 Macc 3:47). Special fast days were observed, some voluntarily imposed (2 Macc 13:12; 2 Esd 5:13).<\/p>\n<p>This developed into a rabbinic tradition in which fasting was viewed as meritorious and therefore became the primary act of demonstrating piety. It was, however, a false piety consisting mostly in the externals of fastidious observance of fast days, both public and private. With the exception of ascetic groups such as the disciples of John the Baptist, the prevailing mood of fasting when Jesus appeared on the scene was one of mournful sadness, an obligatory necessity, a self-imposed requirement to produce the discipline of self-denial.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ understanding of fasting is significant in that it represents a shift in the role of fasting. His initial attitude undoubtedly reflected the fact that he grew up participating in the regular fasts and therefore shared the prevailing teachings of his day. Yet his mature teaching about fasting breaks with the rabbinic tradition. Two accounts relating to Jesus and fasting are important: his fast as a part of his temptation in the wilderness (Mt 4:2; Lk 4:2), and his teaching about fasting in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 6:16-18).<\/p>\n<p>His temptation was born out of the context of struggle. Immediately after his baptism, he was cast out into the wilderness by the Spirit to face the temptation of Satan. In the midst of his temptation, he fasted and prayed, thereby showing his dependence upon God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ words about fasting in the Sermon on the Mount constitute a radically different approach to voluntary fasting. In condemning the type of fasting that seeks favor with men by an ostentatious display of outward piety, Jesus taught instead a robust faith that sought genuineness of relation to God through a pure heart. Jesus does not condemn fasting as such, nor does he forbid it. He does, however, give it a new meaning. Fasting is service to God.<\/p>\n<p>This new understanding of fasting is set within the context of the dawning of the time of salvation. The Bridegroom is here. It is a time of joy, not of sorrow. Consequently, the prevailing mood of fasting as mournful stress and pretended piety is inconsistent with the mood of the new age that has begun.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ teachings may be summarized: Fasting is transcended by the beginning of the eschatological times. The rule of the Messiah has broken the power of the evil age. Fasting would appear to be no longer consistent with the spirit of thanksgiving and joy that marks the framework of the new age, since the Christian life is not to be dominated by tragedy but by joy and happiness. Yet the kingdom is not fully realized. There is a place for fasting, properly understood. Fasting must be done within the context of the joyful thanksgiving of the new life in Christ. The context of fasting is prayer. It should conform to the same conditions as prayer: unostentatious quietness before God, arising out of gratitude, expressing thanksgiving, grounded in faith, as a means of spiritual growth.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Prayer.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FAST, FASTING Eating sparingly or abstaining from food altogether, either from necessity or desire. In medical terms, fasting is the detoxification of the body through the restriction of food. Spiritual fasting entails setting aside activities as well as reducing the intake of food and replacing these activities with the exercise of prayer and preoccupation with spiritual concerns. The NT word that is translated “fasting” literally means one who has not eaten, one who is empty. Three types of...","summary_en":"FAST, FASTING Eating sparingly or abstaining from food altogether, either from necessity or desire. In medical terms, fasting is the detoxification of the body through the restriction of food. Spiritual fasting entails setting aside activities as well as reducing the intake of food and replacing these activities with the exercise of prayer and preoccupation with spiritual concerns. The NT word that is translated “fasting” literally means one who has not eaten, one who is empty. Three types of...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45966,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:26","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:26","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:26-28<\/strong> The pressure was building to admit defeat and go home. The activities <em>in the presence of the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> increased in intensity as the Israelites sought the Lord’s direction.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:26-28<\/strong> The pressure was building to admit defeat and go home. The activities <em>in the presence of the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> increased in intensity as the Israelites sought the Lord’s direction.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:26-28 The pressure was building to admit defeat and go home. The activities in the presence of the Lord increased in intensity as the Israelites sought the Lord’s direction.","summary_en":"20:26-28 The pressure was building to admit defeat and go home. The activities in the presence of the Lord increased in intensity as the Israelites sought the Lord’s direction.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73592,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:26","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:26","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:26-28<\/strong> The pressure was building to admit defeat and go home. The activities <em>in the presence of the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> increased in intensity as the Israelites sought the Lord’s direction.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:26-28<\/strong> The pressure was building to admit defeat and go home. The activities <em>in the presence of the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> increased in intensity as the Israelites sought the Lord’s direction.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:26-28 The pressure was building to admit defeat and go home. The activities in the presence of the Lord increased in intensity as the Israelites sought the Lord’s direction.","summary_en":"20:26-28 The pressure was building to admit defeat and go home. The activities in the presence of the Lord increased in intensity as the Israelites sought the Lord’s direction.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101218,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:26","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:26","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:26-28<\/strong> The pressure was building to admit defeat and go home. The activities <em>in the presence of the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> increased in intensity as the Israelites sought the Lord’s direction.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:26-28<\/strong> The pressure was building to admit defeat and go home. The activities <em>in the presence of the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> increased in intensity as the Israelites sought the Lord’s direction.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:26-28 The pressure was building to admit defeat and go home. The activities in the presence of the Lord increased in intensity as the Israelites sought the Lord’s direction.","summary_en":"20:26-28 The pressure was building to admit defeat and go home. The activities in the presence of the Lord increased in intensity as the Israelites sought the Lord’s direction.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128844,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:26","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:26","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:26-28<\/strong> The pressure was building to admit defeat and go home. The activities <em>in the presence of the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> increased in intensity as the Israelites sought the Lord’s direction.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:26-28<\/strong> The pressure was building to admit defeat and go home. The activities <em>in the presence of the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> increased in intensity as the Israelites sought the Lord’s direction.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:26-28 The pressure was building to admit defeat and go home. The activities in the presence of the Lord increased in intensity as the Israelites sought the Lord’s direction.","summary_en":"20:26-28 The pressure was building to admit defeat and go home. The activities in the presence of the Lord increased in intensity as the Israelites sought the Lord’s direction.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":61142,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Ark of the Covenant","title_en":"The Ark of the Covenant","content_ro":"<h3>The Ark of the Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>The Ark of the Covenant was a wooden chest overlaid with gold, and it was placed within the Most Holy Place in the sanctuary. The Ark reminded Israel of God’s covenant with them; its contents included the tablets of the covenant (the Ten Commandments). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest would sprinkle blood on the Ark’s cover in order to purify the people (Lev 16:2-17).<\/p>\n<p>During Israel’s wilderness wanderings, the glory of God would appear over the Ark, and God would meet with his people there (see Exod 25:22). Throughout Israel’s history, the Ark served as a sign of God’s presence. It was carried before the people as they traveled (Num 10:33-36), and when it was brought to the Jordan River, the water stopped up so the Israelites could pass through on dry ground (Josh 3:4-6). The Ark was carried around Jericho before that city was invaded and was present during the siege of the Ammonite city of Rabbah during David’s time (2 Sam 11:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines equated the Ark with Israel’s God (1 Sam 4:6-8). This is understandable because the Philistines brought images of their own gods into battle (2 Sam 5:21). The Israelites were not to use images of the divine, so they viewed the Ark as the Lord’s footstool and temporary residence rather than his image (see 1 Chr 28:2). However, the Israelites developed an idolatrous, pagan point of view. They treated the sacred symbol as a fetish and tried to manipulate God’s presence for their own benefit. They reasoned, “If the Ark is with us, then God’s presence and favor in battle will also be with us” (see 1 Sam 4:3). As their defeat that day showed (4:1-11), God cannot be manipulated—he is the ruler of his people, and he must be obeyed and trusted (cp. Josh 5:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Eventually, King David moved the Ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-17). When Solomon built the Temple, the Ark was placed in the Most Holy Place, and it continued to play a central role in Israelite worship (1 Kgs 8:1-11). After the early monarchical period, the Ark is not mentioned again. Presumably, it was destroyed by the Babylonians along with the Temple in 586 <span>BC<\/span>, though an apocryphal tradition claimed that the prophet Jeremiah had hidden the Ark at the time of the Exile (2 Macc 2:4-8). Regardless, the arrival of God’s presence through Jesus Christ and the all-sufficient nature of his sacrifice rendered the Ark unnecessary (see Heb 9:1–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:10-22; 40:20-21; Lev 16:2; Num 10:33-36; Deut 31:25-26; Josh 3:4-6; 6:6-13; Judg 20:26-28; 1 Sam 4:3-11; 5:1–7:2; 2 Sam 6:1-17; Jer 3:16-18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Ark of the Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>The Ark of the Covenant was a wooden chest overlaid with gold, and it was placed within the Most Holy Place in the sanctuary. The Ark reminded Israel of God’s covenant with them; its contents included the tablets of the covenant (the Ten Commandments). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest would sprinkle blood on the Ark’s cover in order to purify the people (Lev 16:2-17).<\/p>\n<p>During Israel’s wilderness wanderings, the glory of God would appear over the Ark, and God would meet with his people there (see Exod 25:22). Throughout Israel’s history, the Ark served as a sign of God’s presence. It was carried before the people as they traveled (Num 10:33-36), and when it was brought to the Jordan River, the water stopped up so the Israelites could pass through on dry ground (Josh 3:4-6). The Ark was carried around Jericho before that city was invaded and was present during the siege of the Ammonite city of Rabbah during David’s time (2 Sam 11:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines equated the Ark with Israel’s God (1 Sam 4:6-8). This is understandable because the Philistines brought images of their own gods into battle (2 Sam 5:21). The Israelites were not to use images of the divine, so they viewed the Ark as the Lord’s footstool and temporary residence rather than his image (see 1 Chr 28:2). However, the Israelites developed an idolatrous, pagan point of view. They treated the sacred symbol as a fetish and tried to manipulate God’s presence for their own benefit. They reasoned, “If the Ark is with us, then God’s presence and favor in battle will also be with us” (see 1 Sam 4:3). As their defeat that day showed (4:1-11), God cannot be manipulated—he is the ruler of his people, and he must be obeyed and trusted (cp. Josh 5:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Eventually, King David moved the Ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-17). When Solomon built the Temple, the Ark was placed in the Most Holy Place, and it continued to play a central role in Israelite worship (1 Kgs 8:1-11). After the early monarchical period, the Ark is not mentioned again. Presumably, it was destroyed by the Babylonians along with the Temple in 586 <span>BC<\/span>, though an apocryphal tradition claimed that the prophet Jeremiah had hidden the Ark at the time of the Exile (2 Macc 2:4-8). Regardless, the arrival of God’s presence through Jesus Christ and the all-sufficient nature of his sacrifice rendered the Ark unnecessary (see Heb 9:1–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:10-22; 40:20-21; Lev 16:2; Num 10:33-36; Deut 31:25-26; Josh 3:4-6; 6:6-13; Judg 20:26-28; 1 Sam 4:3-11; 5:1–7:2; 2 Sam 6:1-17; Jer 3:16-18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Ark of the Covenant The Ark of the Covenant was a wooden chest overlaid with gold, and it was placed within the Most Holy Place in the sanctuary. The Ark reminded Israel of God’s covenant with them; its contents included the tablets of the covenant (the Ten Commandments). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest would sprinkle blood on the Ark’s cover in order to purify the people (Lev 16:2-17). During Israel’s wilderness wanderings, the glory of God would appear over the Ark, and God wou...","summary_en":"The Ark of the Covenant The Ark of the Covenant was a wooden chest overlaid with gold, and it was placed within the Most Holy Place in the sanctuary. The Ark reminded Israel of God’s covenant with them; its contents included the tablets of the covenant (the Ten Commandments). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest would sprinkle blood on the Ark’s cover in order to purify the people (Lev 16:2-17). During Israel’s wilderness wanderings, the glory of God would appear over the Ark, and God wou...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":88768,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Ark of the Covenant","title_en":"The Ark of the Covenant","content_ro":"<h3>The Ark of the Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>The Ark of the Covenant was a wooden chest overlaid with gold, and it was placed within the Most Holy Place in the sanctuary. The Ark reminded Israel of God’s covenant with them; its contents included the tablets of the covenant (the Ten Commandments). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest would sprinkle blood on the Ark’s cover in order to purify the people (Lev 16:2-17).<\/p>\n<p>During Israel’s wilderness wanderings, the glory of God would appear over the Ark, and God would meet with his people there (see Exod 25:22). Throughout Israel’s history, the Ark served as a sign of God’s presence. It was carried before the people as they traveled (Num 10:33-36), and when it was brought to the Jordan River, the water stopped up so the Israelites could pass through on dry ground (Josh 3:4-6). The Ark was carried around Jericho before that city was invaded and was present during the siege of the Ammonite city of Rabbah during David’s time (2 Sam 11:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines equated the Ark with Israel’s God (1 Sam 4:6-8). This is understandable because the Philistines brought images of their own gods into battle (2 Sam 5:21). The Israelites were not to use images of the divine, so they viewed the Ark as the Lord’s footstool and temporary residence rather than his image (see 1 Chr 28:2). However, the Israelites developed an idolatrous, pagan point of view. They treated the sacred symbol as a fetish and tried to manipulate God’s presence for their own benefit. They reasoned, “If the Ark is with us, then God’s presence and favor in battle will also be with us” (see 1 Sam 4:3). As their defeat that day showed (4:1-11), God cannot be manipulated—he is the ruler of his people, and he must be obeyed and trusted (cp. Josh 5:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Eventually, King David moved the Ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-17). When Solomon built the Temple, the Ark was placed in the Most Holy Place, and it continued to play a central role in Israelite worship (1 Kgs 8:1-11). After the early monarchical period, the Ark is not mentioned again. Presumably, it was destroyed by the Babylonians along with the Temple in 586 <span>BC<\/span>, though an apocryphal tradition claimed that the prophet Jeremiah had hidden the Ark at the time of the Exile (2 Macc 2:4-8). Regardless, the arrival of God’s presence through Jesus Christ and the all-sufficient nature of his sacrifice rendered the Ark unnecessary (see Heb 9:1–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:10-22; 40:20-21; Lev 16:2; Num 10:33-36; Deut 31:25-26; Josh 3:4-6; 6:6-13; Judg 20:26-28; 1 Sam 4:3-11; 5:1–7:2; 2 Sam 6:1-17; Jer 3:16-18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Ark of the Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>The Ark of the Covenant was a wooden chest overlaid with gold, and it was placed within the Most Holy Place in the sanctuary. The Ark reminded Israel of God’s covenant with them; its contents included the tablets of the covenant (the Ten Commandments). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest would sprinkle blood on the Ark’s cover in order to purify the people (Lev 16:2-17).<\/p>\n<p>During Israel’s wilderness wanderings, the glory of God would appear over the Ark, and God would meet with his people there (see Exod 25:22). Throughout Israel’s history, the Ark served as a sign of God’s presence. It was carried before the people as they traveled (Num 10:33-36), and when it was brought to the Jordan River, the water stopped up so the Israelites could pass through on dry ground (Josh 3:4-6). The Ark was carried around Jericho before that city was invaded and was present during the siege of the Ammonite city of Rabbah during David’s time (2 Sam 11:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines equated the Ark with Israel’s God (1 Sam 4:6-8). This is understandable because the Philistines brought images of their own gods into battle (2 Sam 5:21). The Israelites were not to use images of the divine, so they viewed the Ark as the Lord’s footstool and temporary residence rather than his image (see 1 Chr 28:2). However, the Israelites developed an idolatrous, pagan point of view. They treated the sacred symbol as a fetish and tried to manipulate God’s presence for their own benefit. They reasoned, “If the Ark is with us, then God’s presence and favor in battle will also be with us” (see 1 Sam 4:3). As their defeat that day showed (4:1-11), God cannot be manipulated—he is the ruler of his people, and he must be obeyed and trusted (cp. Josh 5:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Eventually, King David moved the Ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-17). When Solomon built the Temple, the Ark was placed in the Most Holy Place, and it continued to play a central role in Israelite worship (1 Kgs 8:1-11). After the early monarchical period, the Ark is not mentioned again. Presumably, it was destroyed by the Babylonians along with the Temple in 586 <span>BC<\/span>, though an apocryphal tradition claimed that the prophet Jeremiah had hidden the Ark at the time of the Exile (2 Macc 2:4-8). Regardless, the arrival of God’s presence through Jesus Christ and the all-sufficient nature of his sacrifice rendered the Ark unnecessary (see Heb 9:1–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:10-22; 40:20-21; Lev 16:2; Num 10:33-36; Deut 31:25-26; Josh 3:4-6; 6:6-13; Judg 20:26-28; 1 Sam 4:3-11; 5:1–7:2; 2 Sam 6:1-17; Jer 3:16-18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Ark of the Covenant The Ark of the Covenant was a wooden chest overlaid with gold, and it was placed within the Most Holy Place in the sanctuary. The Ark reminded Israel of God’s covenant with them; its contents included the tablets of the covenant (the Ten Commandments). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest would sprinkle blood on the Ark’s cover in order to purify the people (Lev 16:2-17). During Israel’s wilderness wanderings, the glory of God would appear over the Ark, and God wou...","summary_en":"The Ark of the Covenant The Ark of the Covenant was a wooden chest overlaid with gold, and it was placed within the Most Holy Place in the sanctuary. The Ark reminded Israel of God’s covenant with them; its contents included the tablets of the covenant (the Ten Commandments). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest would sprinkle blood on the Ark’s cover in order to purify the people (Lev 16:2-17). During Israel’s wilderness wanderings, the glory of God would appear over the Ark, and God wou...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":116394,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Ark of the Covenant","title_en":"The Ark of the Covenant","content_ro":"<h3>The Ark of the Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>The Ark of the Covenant was a wooden chest overlaid with gold, and it was placed within the Most Holy Place in the sanctuary. The Ark reminded Israel of God’s covenant with them; its contents included the tablets of the covenant (the Ten Commandments). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest would sprinkle blood on the Ark’s cover in order to purify the people (Lev 16:2-17).<\/p>\n<p>During Israel’s wilderness wanderings, the glory of God would appear over the Ark, and God would meet with his people there (see Exod 25:22). Throughout Israel’s history, the Ark served as a sign of God’s presence. It was carried before the people as they traveled (Num 10:33-36), and when it was brought to the Jordan River, the water stopped up so the Israelites could pass through on dry ground (Josh 3:4-6). The Ark was carried around Jericho before that city was invaded and was present during the siege of the Ammonite city of Rabbah during David’s time (2 Sam 11:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines equated the Ark with Israel’s God (1 Sam 4:6-8). This is understandable because the Philistines brought images of their own gods into battle (2 Sam 5:21). The Israelites were not to use images of the divine, so they viewed the Ark as the Lord’s footstool and temporary residence rather than his image (see 1 Chr 28:2). However, the Israelites developed an idolatrous, pagan point of view. They treated the sacred symbol as a fetish and tried to manipulate God’s presence for their own benefit. They reasoned, “If the Ark is with us, then God’s presence and favor in battle will also be with us” (see 1 Sam 4:3). As their defeat that day showed (4:1-11), God cannot be manipulated—he is the ruler of his people, and he must be obeyed and trusted (cp. Josh 5:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Eventually, King David moved the Ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-17). When Solomon built the Temple, the Ark was placed in the Most Holy Place, and it continued to play a central role in Israelite worship (1 Kgs 8:1-11). After the early monarchical period, the Ark is not mentioned again. Presumably, it was destroyed by the Babylonians along with the Temple in 586 <span>BC<\/span>, though an apocryphal tradition claimed that the prophet Jeremiah had hidden the Ark at the time of the Exile (2 Macc 2:4-8). Regardless, the arrival of God’s presence through Jesus Christ and the all-sufficient nature of his sacrifice rendered the Ark unnecessary (see Heb 9:1–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:10-22; 40:20-21; Lev 16:2; Num 10:33-36; Deut 31:25-26; Josh 3:4-6; 6:6-13; Judg 20:26-28; 1 Sam 4:3-11; 5:1–7:2; 2 Sam 6:1-17; Jer 3:16-18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Ark of the Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>The Ark of the Covenant was a wooden chest overlaid with gold, and it was placed within the Most Holy Place in the sanctuary. The Ark reminded Israel of God’s covenant with them; its contents included the tablets of the covenant (the Ten Commandments). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest would sprinkle blood on the Ark’s cover in order to purify the people (Lev 16:2-17).<\/p>\n<p>During Israel’s wilderness wanderings, the glory of God would appear over the Ark, and God would meet with his people there (see Exod 25:22). Throughout Israel’s history, the Ark served as a sign of God’s presence. It was carried before the people as they traveled (Num 10:33-36), and when it was brought to the Jordan River, the water stopped up so the Israelites could pass through on dry ground (Josh 3:4-6). The Ark was carried around Jericho before that city was invaded and was present during the siege of the Ammonite city of Rabbah during David’s time (2 Sam 11:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines equated the Ark with Israel’s God (1 Sam 4:6-8). This is understandable because the Philistines brought images of their own gods into battle (2 Sam 5:21). The Israelites were not to use images of the divine, so they viewed the Ark as the Lord’s footstool and temporary residence rather than his image (see 1 Chr 28:2). However, the Israelites developed an idolatrous, pagan point of view. They treated the sacred symbol as a fetish and tried to manipulate God’s presence for their own benefit. They reasoned, “If the Ark is with us, then God’s presence and favor in battle will also be with us” (see 1 Sam 4:3). As their defeat that day showed (4:1-11), God cannot be manipulated—he is the ruler of his people, and he must be obeyed and trusted (cp. Josh 5:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Eventually, King David moved the Ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-17). When Solomon built the Temple, the Ark was placed in the Most Holy Place, and it continued to play a central role in Israelite worship (1 Kgs 8:1-11). After the early monarchical period, the Ark is not mentioned again. Presumably, it was destroyed by the Babylonians along with the Temple in 586 <span>BC<\/span>, though an apocryphal tradition claimed that the prophet Jeremiah had hidden the Ark at the time of the Exile (2 Macc 2:4-8). Regardless, the arrival of God’s presence through Jesus Christ and the all-sufficient nature of his sacrifice rendered the Ark unnecessary (see Heb 9:1–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:10-22; 40:20-21; Lev 16:2; Num 10:33-36; Deut 31:25-26; Josh 3:4-6; 6:6-13; Judg 20:26-28; 1 Sam 4:3-11; 5:1–7:2; 2 Sam 6:1-17; Jer 3:16-18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Ark of the Covenant The Ark of the Covenant was a wooden chest overlaid with gold, and it was placed within the Most Holy Place in the sanctuary. The Ark reminded Israel of God’s covenant with them; its contents included the tablets of the covenant (the Ten Commandments). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest would sprinkle blood on the Ark’s cover in order to purify the people (Lev 16:2-17). During Israel’s wilderness wanderings, the glory of God would appear over the Ark, and God wou...","summary_en":"The Ark of the Covenant The Ark of the Covenant was a wooden chest overlaid with gold, and it was placed within the Most Holy Place in the sanctuary. The Ark reminded Israel of God’s covenant with them; its contents included the tablets of the covenant (the Ten Commandments). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest would sprinkle blood on the Ark’s cover in order to purify the people (Lev 16:2-17). During Israel’s wilderness wanderings, the glory of God would appear over the Ark, and God wou...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":144020,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Ark of the Covenant","title_en":"The Ark of the Covenant","content_ro":"<h3>The Ark of the Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>The Ark of the Covenant was a wooden chest overlaid with gold, and it was placed within the Most Holy Place in the sanctuary. The Ark reminded Israel of God’s covenant with them; its contents included the tablets of the covenant (the Ten Commandments). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest would sprinkle blood on the Ark’s cover in order to purify the people (Lev 16:2-17).<\/p>\n<p>During Israel’s wilderness wanderings, the glory of God would appear over the Ark, and God would meet with his people there (see Exod 25:22). Throughout Israel’s history, the Ark served as a sign of God’s presence. It was carried before the people as they traveled (Num 10:33-36), and when it was brought to the Jordan River, the water stopped up so the Israelites could pass through on dry ground (Josh 3:4-6). The Ark was carried around Jericho before that city was invaded and was present during the siege of the Ammonite city of Rabbah during David’s time (2 Sam 11:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines equated the Ark with Israel’s God (1 Sam 4:6-8). This is understandable because the Philistines brought images of their own gods into battle (2 Sam 5:21). The Israelites were not to use images of the divine, so they viewed the Ark as the Lord’s footstool and temporary residence rather than his image (see 1 Chr 28:2). However, the Israelites developed an idolatrous, pagan point of view. They treated the sacred symbol as a fetish and tried to manipulate God’s presence for their own benefit. They reasoned, “If the Ark is with us, then God’s presence and favor in battle will also be with us” (see 1 Sam 4:3). As their defeat that day showed (4:1-11), God cannot be manipulated—he is the ruler of his people, and he must be obeyed and trusted (cp. Josh 5:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Eventually, King David moved the Ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-17). When Solomon built the Temple, the Ark was placed in the Most Holy Place, and it continued to play a central role in Israelite worship (1 Kgs 8:1-11). After the early monarchical period, the Ark is not mentioned again. Presumably, it was destroyed by the Babylonians along with the Temple in 586 <span>BC<\/span>, though an apocryphal tradition claimed that the prophet Jeremiah had hidden the Ark at the time of the Exile (2 Macc 2:4-8). Regardless, the arrival of God’s presence through Jesus Christ and the all-sufficient nature of his sacrifice rendered the Ark unnecessary (see Heb 9:1–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:10-22; 40:20-21; Lev 16:2; Num 10:33-36; Deut 31:25-26; Josh 3:4-6; 6:6-13; Judg 20:26-28; 1 Sam 4:3-11; 5:1–7:2; 2 Sam 6:1-17; Jer 3:16-18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Ark of the Covenant<\/h3>\n<p>The Ark of the Covenant was a wooden chest overlaid with gold, and it was placed within the Most Holy Place in the sanctuary. The Ark reminded Israel of God’s covenant with them; its contents included the tablets of the covenant (the Ten Commandments). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest would sprinkle blood on the Ark’s cover in order to purify the people (Lev 16:2-17).<\/p>\n<p>During Israel’s wilderness wanderings, the glory of God would appear over the Ark, and God would meet with his people there (see Exod 25:22). Throughout Israel’s history, the Ark served as a sign of God’s presence. It was carried before the people as they traveled (Num 10:33-36), and when it was brought to the Jordan River, the water stopped up so the Israelites could pass through on dry ground (Josh 3:4-6). The Ark was carried around Jericho before that city was invaded and was present during the siege of the Ammonite city of Rabbah during David’s time (2 Sam 11:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines equated the Ark with Israel’s God (1 Sam 4:6-8). This is understandable because the Philistines brought images of their own gods into battle (2 Sam 5:21). The Israelites were not to use images of the divine, so they viewed the Ark as the Lord’s footstool and temporary residence rather than his image (see 1 Chr 28:2). However, the Israelites developed an idolatrous, pagan point of view. They treated the sacred symbol as a fetish and tried to manipulate God’s presence for their own benefit. They reasoned, “If the Ark is with us, then God’s presence and favor in battle will also be with us” (see 1 Sam 4:3). As their defeat that day showed (4:1-11), God cannot be manipulated—he is the ruler of his people, and he must be obeyed and trusted (cp. Josh 5:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Eventually, King David moved the Ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-17). When Solomon built the Temple, the Ark was placed in the Most Holy Place, and it continued to play a central role in Israelite worship (1 Kgs 8:1-11). After the early monarchical period, the Ark is not mentioned again. Presumably, it was destroyed by the Babylonians along with the Temple in 586 <span>BC<\/span>, though an apocryphal tradition claimed that the prophet Jeremiah had hidden the Ark at the time of the Exile (2 Macc 2:4-8). Regardless, the arrival of God’s presence through Jesus Christ and the all-sufficient nature of his sacrifice rendered the Ark unnecessary (see Heb 9:1–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:10-22; 40:20-21; Lev 16:2; Num 10:33-36; Deut 31:25-26; Josh 3:4-6; 6:6-13; Judg 20:26-28; 1 Sam 4:3-11; 5:1–7:2; 2 Sam 6:1-17; Jer 3:16-18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Ark of the Covenant The Ark of the Covenant was a wooden chest overlaid with gold, and it was placed within the Most Holy Place in the sanctuary. The Ark reminded Israel of God’s covenant with them; its contents included the tablets of the covenant (the Ten Commandments). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest would sprinkle blood on the Ark’s cover in order to purify the people (Lev 16:2-17). During Israel’s wilderness wanderings, the glory of God would appear over the Ark, and God wou...","summary_en":"The Ark of the Covenant The Ark of the Covenant was a wooden chest overlaid with gold, and it was placed within the Most Holy Place in the sanctuary. The Ark reminded Israel of God’s covenant with them; its contents included the tablets of the covenant (the Ten Commandments). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest would sprinkle blood on the Ark’s cover in order to purify the people (Lev 16:2-17). During Israel’s wilderness wanderings, the glory of God would appear over the Ark, and God wou...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"27":[{"id":2702,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ark of the Covenant","title_en":"Ark of the Covenant","content_ro":"<h3>ARK OF THE COVENANT<\/h3>\n<p>Most important piece of furniture in the wilderness tabernacle (tent-sanctuary) that God instructed Moses to build (Ex 25:10-22). The Hebrew word for ark can also mean “chest” (2 Kgs 12:9-10) or “coffin” (Gn 50:26), but it is not the same word used for Noah’s ark. The ark that Moses had Bezalel make was an oblong chest made of acacia wood (Ex 31:1-5; 37:1-9). The chest measured approximately 45 by 27 by 27 inches (114 by 69 by 69 centimeters), and was overlaid inside and out with gold. It was fitted with two pairs of rings through which poles were slid to make it portable. The ark would also serve as container for the two tablets of the covenant that would be given to Moses (Ex 25:16). Since the tablets were also called the “testimony,” the ark was sometimes called the “ark of the testimony.” Also in the ark were placed a pot of manna, the miraculous food provided by God (Ex 16:33), and Aaron’s rod that had budded (Nm 17:10; Heb 9:4).<\/p>\n<p>The lid of the ark was called the “mercy seat” or “place of mercy” (Ex 25:17). It was a slab of gold fitting over the top of the ark and having an importance of its own. Once a year the high priest was to make atonement for the people of Israel by sprinkling the mercy seat with the blood of bulls and goats (Lv 16:2-16). In fact, the English expression “mercy seat” is related to the Hebrew word for “atone.” The lid was called a “seat” because the Lord was considered as enthroned between two cherubim (winged creatures) positioned opposite each other (Ps 99:1). The Lord spoke to Moses from between the cherubim (Nm 7:89).<\/p>\n<p>The ark was sometimes referred to simply as the ark (Ex 37:1; Nm 3:31), at other times as the “ark of the covenant” (Nm 4:5; Jos 4:16). The Israelites were thus reminded that the ark’s holiness was not magical but derived from the holy law of God contained inside it. That name also confronted the Israelites with their need to follow the commands God had given in his “covenant.”<\/p>\n<p>Those commands were given by the God of the covenant (or promise) who had rescued Israel from slavery in Egypt and who had promised to be the ever-present God of his people (Ex 6:6-7). Hence the ark was most widely known as the “ark of the covenant.” Sometimes that name was expanded to “the Ark of the <span>Lord<\/span>’s covenant” (1 Chr 28:18, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>At times the ark was called “the Ark of God.” It was a visible sign that the invisible God was dwelling in Israel’s midst. It had a devastating and often deadly “holiness.” The people of Beth-shemesh were severely punished after they had treated the ark without proper reverence (1 Sm 6:19). A man named Uzzah was killed by the Lord when he touched it with his hand to keep it from tumbling to the ground from a cart (2 Sm 6:6-9). The ark was dangerous to touch because it was the very symbol of God’s presence. For this reason God commanded that the ark be placed in the Holy of Holies, separated from the rest of the tabernacle (and later the temple) by a heavy veil (Ex 26:31-33; Heb 9:3-5); no sinful man could look upon the glory of God above the ark and live (Lv 16:2).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"History\">History<\/p>\n<p>When the Israelites journeyed from Mt Sinai to Canaan, the ark accompanied them in their trek through the desert. It was to be a constant reminder of the holy presence of their God. The ark was spoken of in the accounts of that journey almost as though it were endowed with personal features (Nm 10:33-36). Although the wrapping and carrying of the sacred objects were carefully detailed (Nm 4), God’s relationship with the ark was so close that the ark seemed to be “alive.”<\/p>\n<p>The ark clearly played a benevolent role during the desert journey. A group of Israelites rebelled and tried to invade Canaan on their own, although neither the ark nor Moses went with them (Nm 14:44). The result was defeat at the hands of their enemies (Nm 14:45). The ark played an important role in the crossing of the Jordan (Jos 3:13-17; 4:9-10), the conquest of Jericho (Jos 6:6-11), and the life of the Israelites in their new land (Jos 8:33; Jgs 20:27). There is no hint of superstitious or magical use of the ark; it was not a fetish, talisman, or charm. Yet it had solemn significance as the container of God’s “testimony” and as the pledge of his presence.<\/p>\n<p>A sharp contrast to the role of the ark in Joshua’s day is found in later times. In the days of Eli and his sons, that is, at the end of the period of the judges, religious life in Israel was at a low ebb. The ark was still venerated but looked upon as a fetish to ensure success or victory automatically. When losing a battle with the Philistines, the Israelites rushed the sacred chest to the battlefield, thereby hoping to gain a victory (1 Sm 4:1-10). But the Lord did not tolerate such flagrant misuse of the ark. He allowed it to be captured by the uncircumcised Philistines (1 Sm 4:11) and inflicted defeat on Israel and death on the house of the high priest Eli (1 Sm 4:13-22).<\/p>\n<p>At the same time, God vindicated the honor of the ark when it was offered to Dagon, the god of the Philistines. The account of the efforts of the pagan Philistines to get rid of the ark is humorous (1 Sm 5–6). The biblical writer dramatically illustrated that the holy ark could neither be treated superstitiously by God’s people nor mocked by his enemies.<\/p>\n<p>Samuel, a great reformer and prophet, made no attempt to restore the ark to a place of prominence after it was returned to Israel. He allowed it to remain in Kiriath-jearim (1 Sm 6:21; 7:2). Samuel first had to bring Israel back to obedience to God’s covenant before the ark of the covenant could be of any use. David, described as a king after God’s own heart and chosen to replace the disobedient Saul, exerted efforts to bring the ark back to a prominent place (2 Sm 6:1-17). It may have been to David’s political advantage to add prestige to his newly established capital, Jerusalem, formerly the Canaanite stronghold of Jebus. But Psalm 132 describes David’s concern for the honor of God and for the ark. In a moment of great religious joy and enthusiasm he addressed God directly: “Arise, O <span>Lord<\/span>, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might” (v 8, <span>rsv<\/span>). To restless David, the ark had also been “restless” as long as Israel had not yet obtained its “rest,” that is, as long as Canaan had not been completely conquered. Some measure of peace had already come during Joshua’s time (Jos 21:43-45), but much remained to be done. By conquering Jebus, David virtually completed the conquest of the Promised Land. Finally the land had rest and the Lord could then “dwell” in his temple, the suitable resting place for the ark. Nevertheless, David’s desire to build a temple for the ark was not granted (2 Sm 7:1-17). He was told that his son Solomon would build a home for the ark and for the Lord. Solomon erected a magnificent temple with a place for the ark in the most holy part, behind the curtains (1 Kgs 8:1-11).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ARK OF THE COVENANT<\/h3>\n<p>Most important piece of furniture in the wilderness tabernacle (tent-sanctuary) that God instructed Moses to build (Ex 25:10-22). The Hebrew word for ark can also mean “chest” (2 Kgs 12:9-10) or “coffin” (Gn 50:26), but it is not the same word used for Noah’s ark. The ark that Moses had Bezalel make was an oblong chest made of acacia wood (Ex 31:1-5; 37:1-9). The chest measured approximately 45 by 27 by 27 inches (114 by 69 by 69 centimeters), and was overlaid inside and out with gold. It was fitted with two pairs of rings through which poles were slid to make it portable. The ark would also serve as container for the two tablets of the covenant that would be given to Moses (Ex 25:16). Since the tablets were also called the “testimony,” the ark was sometimes called the “ark of the testimony.” Also in the ark were placed a pot of manna, the miraculous food provided by God (Ex 16:33), and Aaron’s rod that had budded (Nm 17:10; Heb 9:4).<\/p>\n<p>The lid of the ark was called the “mercy seat” or “place of mercy” (Ex 25:17). It was a slab of gold fitting over the top of the ark and having an importance of its own. Once a year the high priest was to make atonement for the people of Israel by sprinkling the mercy seat with the blood of bulls and goats (Lv 16:2-16). In fact, the English expression “mercy seat” is related to the Hebrew word for “atone.” The lid was called a “seat” because the Lord was considered as enthroned between two cherubim (winged creatures) positioned opposite each other (Ps 99:1). The Lord spoke to Moses from between the cherubim (Nm 7:89).<\/p>\n<p>The ark was sometimes referred to simply as the ark (Ex 37:1; Nm 3:31), at other times as the “ark of the covenant” (Nm 4:5; Jos 4:16). The Israelites were thus reminded that the ark’s holiness was not magical but derived from the holy law of God contained inside it. That name also confronted the Israelites with their need to follow the commands God had given in his “covenant.”<\/p>\n<p>Those commands were given by the God of the covenant (or promise) who had rescued Israel from slavery in Egypt and who had promised to be the ever-present God of his people (Ex 6:6-7). Hence the ark was most widely known as the “ark of the covenant.” Sometimes that name was expanded to “the Ark of the <span>Lord<\/span>’s covenant” (1 Chr 28:18, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>At times the ark was called “the Ark of God.” It was a visible sign that the invisible God was dwelling in Israel’s midst. It had a devastating and often deadly “holiness.” The people of Beth-shemesh were severely punished after they had treated the ark without proper reverence (1 Sm 6:19). A man named Uzzah was killed by the Lord when he touched it with his hand to keep it from tumbling to the ground from a cart (2 Sm 6:6-9). The ark was dangerous to touch because it was the very symbol of God’s presence. For this reason God commanded that the ark be placed in the Holy of Holies, separated from the rest of the tabernacle (and later the temple) by a heavy veil (Ex 26:31-33; Heb 9:3-5); no sinful man could look upon the glory of God above the ark and live (Lv 16:2).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"History\">History<\/p>\n<p>When the Israelites journeyed from Mt Sinai to Canaan, the ark accompanied them in their trek through the desert. It was to be a constant reminder of the holy presence of their God. The ark was spoken of in the accounts of that journey almost as though it were endowed with personal features (Nm 10:33-36). Although the wrapping and carrying of the sacred objects were carefully detailed (Nm 4), God’s relationship with the ark was so close that the ark seemed to be “alive.”<\/p>\n<p>The ark clearly played a benevolent role during the desert journey. A group of Israelites rebelled and tried to invade Canaan on their own, although neither the ark nor Moses went with them (Nm 14:44). The result was defeat at the hands of their enemies (Nm 14:45). The ark played an important role in the crossing of the Jordan (Jos 3:13-17; 4:9-10), the conquest of Jericho (Jos 6:6-11), and the life of the Israelites in their new land (Jos 8:33; Jgs 20:27). There is no hint of superstitious or magical use of the ark; it was not a fetish, talisman, or charm. Yet it had solemn significance as the container of God’s “testimony” and as the pledge of his presence.<\/p>\n<p>A sharp contrast to the role of the ark in Joshua’s day is found in later times. In the days of Eli and his sons, that is, at the end of the period of the judges, religious life in Israel was at a low ebb. The ark was still venerated but looked upon as a fetish to ensure success or victory automatically. When losing a battle with the Philistines, the Israelites rushed the sacred chest to the battlefield, thereby hoping to gain a victory (1 Sm 4:1-10). But the Lord did not tolerate such flagrant misuse of the ark. He allowed it to be captured by the uncircumcised Philistines (1 Sm 4:11) and inflicted defeat on Israel and death on the house of the high priest Eli (1 Sm 4:13-22).<\/p>\n<p>At the same time, God vindicated the honor of the ark when it was offered to Dagon, the god of the Philistines. The account of the efforts of the pagan Philistines to get rid of the ark is humorous (1 Sm 5–6). The biblical writer dramatically illustrated that the holy ark could neither be treated superstitiously by God’s people nor mocked by his enemies.<\/p>\n<p>Samuel, a great reformer and prophet, made no attempt to restore the ark to a place of prominence after it was returned to Israel. He allowed it to remain in Kiriath-jearim (1 Sm 6:21; 7:2). Samuel first had to bring Israel back to obedience to God’s covenant before the ark of the covenant could be of any use. David, described as a king after God’s own heart and chosen to replace the disobedient Saul, exerted efforts to bring the ark back to a prominent place (2 Sm 6:1-17). It may have been to David’s political advantage to add prestige to his newly established capital, Jerusalem, formerly the Canaanite stronghold of Jebus. But Psalm 132 describes David’s concern for the honor of God and for the ark. In a moment of great religious joy and enthusiasm he addressed God directly: “Arise, O <span>Lord<\/span>, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might” (v 8, <span>rsv<\/span>). To restless David, the ark had also been “restless” as long as Israel had not yet obtained its “rest,” that is, as long as Canaan had not been completely conquered. Some measure of peace had already come during Joshua’s time (Jos 21:43-45), but much remained to be done. By conquering Jebus, David virtually completed the conquest of the Promised Land. Finally the land had rest and the Lord could then “dwell” in his temple, the suitable resting place for the ark. Nevertheless, David’s desire to build a temple for the ark was not granted (2 Sm 7:1-17). He was told that his son Solomon would build a home for the ark and for the Lord. Solomon erected a magnificent temple with a place for the ark in the most holy part, behind the curtains (1 Kgs 8:1-11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"ARK OF THE COVENANT Most important piece of furniture in the wilderness tabernacle (tent-sanctuary) that God instructed Moses to build (Ex 25:10-22). The Hebrew word for ark can also mean “chest” (2 Kgs 12:9-10) or “coffin” (Gn 50:26), but it is not the same word used for Noah’s ark. The ark that Moses had Bezalel make was an oblong chest made of acacia wood (Ex 31:1-5; 37:1-9). The chest measured approximately 45 by 27 by 27 inches (114 by 69 by 69 centimeters), and was overlaid inside and o...","summary_en":"ARK OF THE COVENANT Most important piece of furniture in the wilderness tabernacle (tent-sanctuary) that God instructed Moses to build (Ex 25:10-22). The Hebrew word for ark can also mean “chest” (2 Kgs 12:9-10) or “coffin” (Gn 50:26), but it is not the same word used for Noah’s ark. The ark that Moses had Bezalel make was an oblong chest made of acacia wood (Ex 31:1-5; 37:1-9). The chest measured approximately 45 by 27 by 27 inches (114 by 69 by 69 centimeters), and was overlaid inside and o...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"28":[{"id":30331,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Phinehas","title_en":"Phinehas","content_ro":"<h3>PHINEHAS<\/h3>\n<li>1. Eleazer’s son, grandson of Aaron (Ex 6:25), and Abishua’s father (1 Chr 6:4, 50). During the high priesthood of Eleazer, Phinehas had charge over the gatekeepers of the tabernacle (9:20), as did Eleazer his father, when Aaron served as chief priest (cf. Nm 3:32). Phinehas, grieved by Israel’s sin with Baal of Peor at Shittim, killed an Israelite man and a Midianite woman for their licentious behavior (25:7). Following this act, the Lord turned away his anger toward Israel and made a covenant of peace with Phinehas, which was a covenant of a perpetual priesthood for him and his descendants (vv 11-13); his deed was reckoned to him as righteousness from generation to generation forever (Ps 106:30). Except for the brief interval when Eli acted as high priest (cf. 1 Sm 1–3; 14:3), Phinehas and his posterity officiated at the high priestly position until the destruction of the Jerusalem temple by the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/li>\n<p>Following the Baal of Peor incident, Phinehas joined Israel in defeating the Midianites in war (Nm 31:6). After Israel took possession of the land of Canaan, Phinehas was given the town of Gibeah in the hill country of Ephraim for an inheritance (Jos 24:33). He was sent with a small delegation of Israelite leaders to question the building of an altar on the west bank of the Jordan River by the tribes of Israel living east of the Jordan (Jos 22:13, 30-32). Later, at Bethel, Phinehas promised Israel victory over Benjamin’s tribe in battle (Jgs 20:28). His descendants Ezra the scribe (Ezr 7:5) and Gershom (8:2) returned with their families to Jerusalem following the exile.<\/p>\n<li>2. One of Eli’s two sons, who served as a priest at Shiloh (1 Sm 1:3). According to 1 Samuel, Phinehas was a despicable priest, who, along with Hophni his brother, profaned the offered sacrifices (2:12-17) and the sanctuary (v 22), and scorned Eli (v 25). His death was foretold to his father by a man of God (v 34). In a subsequent war with the Philistines, Phinehas was killed on the same day his wife bore him a son, named Ichabod (4:11, 17-19; 14:3).<\/li>\n<li>3. Eleazer’s father. Eleazer helped Meremoth and the Levites, Jozabad and Noadiah, take inventory of the temple’s precious metals and vessels during the postexilic era (Ezr 8:33).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>PHINEHAS<\/h3>\n<li>1. Eleazer’s son, grandson of Aaron (Ex 6:25), and Abishua’s father (1 Chr 6:4, 50). During the high priesthood of Eleazer, Phinehas had charge over the gatekeepers of the tabernacle (9:20), as did Eleazer his father, when Aaron served as chief priest (cf. Nm 3:32). Phinehas, grieved by Israel’s sin with Baal of Peor at Shittim, killed an Israelite man and a Midianite woman for their licentious behavior (25:7). Following this act, the Lord turned away his anger toward Israel and made a covenant of peace with Phinehas, which was a covenant of a perpetual priesthood for him and his descendants (vv 11-13); his deed was reckoned to him as righteousness from generation to generation forever (Ps 106:30). Except for the brief interval when Eli acted as high priest (cf. 1 Sm 1–3; 14:3), Phinehas and his posterity officiated at the high priestly position until the destruction of the Jerusalem temple by the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/li>\n<p>Following the Baal of Peor incident, Phinehas joined Israel in defeating the Midianites in war (Nm 31:6). After Israel took possession of the land of Canaan, Phinehas was given the town of Gibeah in the hill country of Ephraim for an inheritance (Jos 24:33). He was sent with a small delegation of Israelite leaders to question the building of an altar on the west bank of the Jordan River by the tribes of Israel living east of the Jordan (Jos 22:13, 30-32). Later, at Bethel, Phinehas promised Israel victory over Benjamin’s tribe in battle (Jgs 20:28). His descendants Ezra the scribe (Ezr 7:5) and Gershom (8:2) returned with their families to Jerusalem following the exile.<\/p>\n<li>2. One of Eli’s two sons, who served as a priest at Shiloh (1 Sm 1:3). According to 1 Samuel, Phinehas was a despicable priest, who, along with Hophni his brother, profaned the offered sacrifices (2:12-17) and the sanctuary (v 22), and scorned Eli (v 25). His death was foretold to his father by a man of God (v 34). In a subsequent war with the Philistines, Phinehas was killed on the same day his wife bore him a son, named Ichabod (4:11, 17-19; 14:3).<\/li>\n<li>3. Eleazer’s father. Eleazer helped Meremoth and the Levites, Jozabad and Noadiah, take inventory of the temple’s precious metals and vessels during the postexilic era (Ezr 8:33).<\/li>","summary_ro":"PHINEHAS 1. Eleazer’s son, grandson of Aaron (Ex 6:25), and Abishua’s father (1 Chr 6:4, 50). During the high priesthood of Eleazer, Phinehas had charge over the gatekeepers of the tabernacle (9:20), as did Eleazer his father, when Aaron served as chief priest (cf. Nm 3:32). Phinehas, grieved by Israel’s sin with Baal of Peor at Shittim, killed an Israelite man and a Midianite woman for their licentious behavior (25:7). Following this act, the Lord turned away his anger toward Israel and made...","summary_en":"PHINEHAS 1. Eleazer’s son, grandson of Aaron (Ex 6:25), and Abishua’s father (1 Chr 6:4, 50). During the high priesthood of Eleazer, Phinehas had charge over the gatekeepers of the tabernacle (9:20), as did Eleazer his father, when Aaron served as chief priest (cf. Nm 3:32). Phinehas, grieved by Israel’s sin with Baal of Peor at Shittim, killed an Israelite man and a Midianite woman for their licentious behavior (25:7). Following this act, the Lord turned away his anger toward Israel and made...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"29":[{"id":45967,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:29","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:29","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:29-44<\/strong> The third day’s battle followed the same strategies of deception and ambush that were used to conquer Ai (Josh 8:1-29).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:29-44<\/strong> The third day’s battle followed the same strategies of deception and ambush that were used to conquer Ai (Josh 8:1-29).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:29-44 The third day’s battle followed the same strategies of deception and ambush that were used to conquer Ai (Josh 8:1-29).","summary_en":"20:29-44 The third day’s battle followed the same strategies of deception and ambush that were used to conquer Ai (Josh 8:1-29).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73593,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:29","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:29","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:29-44<\/strong> The third day’s battle followed the same strategies of deception and ambush that were used to conquer Ai (Josh 8:1-29).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:29-44<\/strong> The third day’s battle followed the same strategies of deception and ambush that were used to conquer Ai (Josh 8:1-29).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:29-44 The third day’s battle followed the same strategies of deception and ambush that were used to conquer Ai (Josh 8:1-29).","summary_en":"20:29-44 The third day’s battle followed the same strategies of deception and ambush that were used to conquer Ai (Josh 8:1-29).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101219,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:29","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:29","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:29-44<\/strong> The third day’s battle followed the same strategies of deception and ambush that were used to conquer Ai (Josh 8:1-29).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:29-44<\/strong> The third day’s battle followed the same strategies of deception and ambush that were used to conquer Ai (Josh 8:1-29).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:29-44 The third day’s battle followed the same strategies of deception and ambush that were used to conquer Ai (Josh 8:1-29).","summary_en":"20:29-44 The third day’s battle followed the same strategies of deception and ambush that were used to conquer Ai (Josh 8:1-29).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128845,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:29","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:29","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:29-44<\/strong> The third day’s battle followed the same strategies of deception and ambush that were used to conquer Ai (Josh 8:1-29).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:29-44<\/strong> The third day’s battle followed the same strategies of deception and ambush that were used to conquer Ai (Josh 8:1-29).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:29-44 The third day’s battle followed the same strategies of deception and ambush that were used to conquer Ai (Josh 8:1-29).","summary_en":"20:29-44 The third day’s battle followed the same strategies of deception and ambush that were used to conquer Ai (Josh 8:1-29).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"33":[{"id":3414,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Baal-Tamar","title_en":"Baal-Tamar","content_ro":"<h3>BAAL-TAMAR<\/h3>\n<p>Place between Gibeah and Bethel in Benjamin’s territory, north of Jerusalem. There the 11 other Israelite tribes rallied their forces in a final victorious battle against the tribe of Benjamin over crimes committed in the city of Gibeah (Jgs 20:33).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BAAL-TAMAR<\/h3>\n<p>Place between Gibeah and Bethel in Benjamin’s territory, north of Jerusalem. There the 11 other Israelite tribes rallied their forces in a final victorious battle against the tribe of Benjamin over crimes committed in the city of Gibeah (Jgs 20:33).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BAAL-TAMAR Place between Gibeah and Bethel in Benjamin’s territory, north of Jerusalem. There the 11 other Israelite tribes rallied their forces in a final victorious battle against the tribe of Benjamin over crimes committed in the city of Gibeah (Jgs 20:33).","summary_en":"BAAL-TAMAR Place between Gibeah and Bethel in Benjamin’s territory, north of Jerusalem. There the 11 other Israelite tribes rallied their forces in a final victorious battle against the tribe of Benjamin over crimes committed in the city of Gibeah (Jgs 20:33).","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45968,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:33","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:33","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:33<\/strong> <em>Baal-tamar<\/em> is an unidentified town.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:33<\/strong> <em>Baal-tamar<\/em> is an unidentified town.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:33 Baal-tamar is an unidentified town.","summary_en":"20:33 Baal-tamar is an unidentified town.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73594,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:33","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:33","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:33<\/strong> <em>Baal-tamar<\/em> is an unidentified town.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:33<\/strong> <em>Baal-tamar<\/em> is an unidentified town.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:33 Baal-tamar is an unidentified town.","summary_en":"20:33 Baal-tamar is an unidentified town.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101220,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:33","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:33","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:33<\/strong> <em>Baal-tamar<\/em> is an unidentified town.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:33<\/strong> <em>Baal-tamar<\/em> is an unidentified town.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:33 Baal-tamar is an unidentified town.","summary_en":"20:33 Baal-tamar is an unidentified town.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128846,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:33","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:33","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:33<\/strong> <em>Baal-tamar<\/em> is an unidentified town.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:33<\/strong> <em>Baal-tamar<\/em> is an unidentified town.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:33 Baal-tamar is an unidentified town.","summary_en":"20:33 Baal-tamar is an unidentified town.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"36":[{"id":45969,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:36","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:36","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:36-48<\/strong> This section gives a second account of the battle.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:36-48<\/strong> This section gives a second account of the battle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:36-48 This section gives a second account of the battle.","summary_en":"20:36-48 This section gives a second account of the battle.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73595,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:36","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:36","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:36-48<\/strong> This section gives a second account of the battle.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:36-48<\/strong> This section gives a second account of the battle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:36-48 This section gives a second account of the battle.","summary_en":"20:36-48 This section gives a second account of the battle.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101221,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:36","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:36","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:36-48<\/strong> This section gives a second account of the battle.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:36-48<\/strong> This section gives a second account of the battle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:36-48 This section gives a second account of the battle.","summary_en":"20:36-48 This section gives a second account of the battle.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128847,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:36","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:36","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:36-48<\/strong> This section gives a second account of the battle.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:36-48<\/strong> This section gives a second account of the battle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:36-48 This section gives a second account of the battle.","summary_en":"20:36-48 This section gives a second account of the battle.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"43":[{"id":27657,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Nohah* (Place)","title_en":"Nohah* (Place)","content_ro":"<h3>NOHAH* (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Place west of Gibeah in Benjamin’s territory (Jgs 20:43, <span>rsv<\/span>). Other translations consider Nohah (meaning “quiet”) an adverb and translate it accordingly, “with ease” (<span>kjv<\/span>), because no town by that name is known.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NOHAH* (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Place west of Gibeah in Benjamin’s territory (Jgs 20:43, <span>rsv<\/span>). Other translations consider Nohah (meaning “quiet”) an adverb and translate it accordingly, “with ease” (<span>kjv<\/span>), because no town by that name is known.<\/p>","summary_ro":"NOHAH* (Place) Place west of Gibeah in Benjamin’s territory (Jgs 20:43, rsv). Other translations consider Nohah (meaning “quiet”) an adverb and translate it accordingly, “with ease” (kjv), because no town by that name is known.","summary_en":"NOHAH* (Place) Place west of Gibeah in Benjamin’s territory (Jgs 20:43, rsv). Other translations consider Nohah (meaning “quiet”) an adverb and translate it accordingly, “with ease” (kjv), because no town by that name is known.","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45970,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:43","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:43","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:43<\/strong> <em>finally overtaking them east of Gibeah:<\/em> The geography is complicated, with a further problem of possible confusion between <em>Gibeah<\/em> and nearby <em>Geba<\/em> (1 Sam 13:3–14:5; see also 1 Kgs 15:22).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:43<\/strong> <em>finally overtaking them east of Gibeah:<\/em> The geography is complicated, with a further problem of possible confusion between <em>Gibeah<\/em> and nearby <em>Geba<\/em> (1 Sam 13:3–14:5; see also 1 Kgs 15:22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:43 finally overtaking them east of Gibeah: The geography is complicated, with a further problem of possible confusion between Gibeah and nearby Geba (1 Sam 13:3–14:5; see also 1 Kgs 15:22).","summary_en":"20:43 finally overtaking them east of Gibeah: The geography is complicated, with a further problem of possible confusion between Gibeah and nearby Geba (1 Sam 13:3–14:5; see also 1 Kgs 15:22).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73596,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:43","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:43","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:43<\/strong> <em>finally overtaking them east of Gibeah:<\/em> The geography is complicated, with a further problem of possible confusion between <em>Gibeah<\/em> and nearby <em>Geba<\/em> (1 Sam 13:3–14:5; see also 1 Kgs 15:22).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:43<\/strong> <em>finally overtaking them east of Gibeah:<\/em> The geography is complicated, with a further problem of possible confusion between <em>Gibeah<\/em> and nearby <em>Geba<\/em> (1 Sam 13:3–14:5; see also 1 Kgs 15:22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:43 finally overtaking them east of Gibeah: The geography is complicated, with a further problem of possible confusion between Gibeah and nearby Geba (1 Sam 13:3–14:5; see also 1 Kgs 15:22).","summary_en":"20:43 finally overtaking them east of Gibeah: The geography is complicated, with a further problem of possible confusion between Gibeah and nearby Geba (1 Sam 13:3–14:5; see also 1 Kgs 15:22).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101222,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:43","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:43","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:43<\/strong> <em>finally overtaking them east of Gibeah:<\/em> The geography is complicated, with a further problem of possible confusion between <em>Gibeah<\/em> and nearby <em>Geba<\/em> (1 Sam 13:3–14:5; see also 1 Kgs 15:22).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:43<\/strong> <em>finally overtaking them east of Gibeah:<\/em> The geography is complicated, with a further problem of possible confusion between <em>Gibeah<\/em> and nearby <em>Geba<\/em> (1 Sam 13:3–14:5; see also 1 Kgs 15:22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:43 finally overtaking them east of Gibeah: The geography is complicated, with a further problem of possible confusion between Gibeah and nearby Geba (1 Sam 13:3–14:5; see also 1 Kgs 15:22).","summary_en":"20:43 finally overtaking them east of Gibeah: The geography is complicated, with a further problem of possible confusion between Gibeah and nearby Geba (1 Sam 13:3–14:5; see also 1 Kgs 15:22).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128848,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:43","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:43","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:43<\/strong> <em>finally overtaking them east of Gibeah:<\/em> The geography is complicated, with a further problem of possible confusion between <em>Gibeah<\/em> and nearby <em>Geba<\/em> (1 Sam 13:3–14:5; see also 1 Kgs 15:22).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:43<\/strong> <em>finally overtaking them east of Gibeah:<\/em> The geography is complicated, with a further problem of possible confusion between <em>Gibeah<\/em> and nearby <em>Geba<\/em> (1 Sam 13:3–14:5; see also 1 Kgs 15:22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:43 finally overtaking them east of Gibeah: The geography is complicated, with a further problem of possible confusion between Gibeah and nearby Geba (1 Sam 13:3–14:5; see also 1 Kgs 15:22).","summary_en":"20:43 finally overtaking them east of Gibeah: The geography is complicated, with a further problem of possible confusion between Gibeah and nearby Geba (1 Sam 13:3–14:5; see also 1 Kgs 15:22).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"45":[{"id":13827,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gidom","title_en":"Gidom","content_ro":"<h3>GIDOM<\/h3>\n<p>Place to which the Benjamite army was driven during a civil war between Benjamin and the rest of Israel (Jgs 20:45).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GIDOM<\/h3>\n<p>Place to which the Benjamite army was driven during a civil war between Benjamin and the rest of Israel (Jgs 20:45).<\/p>","summary_ro":"GIDOM Place to which the Benjamite army was driven during a civil war between Benjamin and the rest of Israel (Jgs 20:45).","summary_en":"GIDOM Place to which the Benjamite army was driven during a civil war between Benjamin and the rest of Israel (Jgs 20:45).","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13955,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gleaning Glean","title_en":"Gleaning Glean","content_ro":"<h3>GLEAN, GLEANING<\/h3>\n<p>Practice of allowing the poor to follow reapers in a field to pick up missed spears of grain (cf. Lv 19:9; 23:22; Dt 24:19; Ru 2:2-23). Vineyards, as well as fields of grain, were to be available for gleaning (Lv 19:10; Dt 24:20-21). Olive trees, however, were not to be gone over a second time (cf. Jgs 8:2; Is 17:6; 24:13; Jer 6:9; Mi 7:1). The word “gleaned” is also used to describe the killing of men who fled from a battle (Jgs 20:45, <span>kjv<\/span>).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GLEAN, GLEANING<\/h3>\n<p>Practice of allowing the poor to follow reapers in a field to pick up missed spears of grain (cf. Lv 19:9; 23:22; Dt 24:19; Ru 2:2-23). Vineyards, as well as fields of grain, were to be available for gleaning (Lv 19:10; Dt 24:20-21). Olive trees, however, were not to be gone over a second time (cf. Jgs 8:2; Is 17:6; 24:13; Jer 6:9; Mi 7:1). The word “gleaned” is also used to describe the killing of men who fled from a battle (Jgs 20:45, <span>kjv<\/span>).<\/p>","summary_ro":"GLEAN, GLEANING Practice of allowing the poor to follow reapers in a field to pick up missed spears of grain (cf. Lv 19:9; 23:22; Dt 24:19; Ru 2:2-23). Vineyards, as well as fields of grain, were to be available for gleaning (Lv 19:10; Dt 24:20-21). Olive trees, however, were not to be gone over a second time (cf. Jgs 8:2; Is 17:6; 24:13; Jer 6:9; Mi 7:1). The word “gleaned” is also used to describe the killing of men who fled from a battle (Jgs 20:45, kjv).","summary_en":"GLEAN, GLEANING Practice of allowing the poor to follow reapers in a field to pick up missed spears of grain (cf. Lv 19:9; 23:22; Dt 24:19; Ru 2:2-23). Vineyards, as well as fields of grain, were to be available for gleaning (Lv 19:10; Dt 24:20-21). Olive trees, however, were not to be gone over a second time (cf. Jgs 8:2; Is 17:6; 24:13; Jer 6:9; Mi 7:1). The word “gleaned” is also used to describe the killing of men who fled from a battle (Jgs 20:45, kjv).","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15383,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Harmon*","title_en":"Harmon*","content_ro":"<h3>HARMON*<\/h3>\n<p>Place mentioned by the prophet Amos to which the inhabitants of Bashan would be exiled (Am 4:3, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). Harmon occurs only once in the Bible, and there is no known place with such a name. There are problems with the text and numerous emendations have been proposed. Some Hebrew manuscripts render it as a common noun, meaning “palace” (<span>kjv<\/span>), rather than a proper name. The Septuagint renders it “the mountain of Rimmon,” perhaps referring to a hill east of Rimmon (see Jgs 20:45-47; cf. Jos 15:32; 19:13).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HARMON*<\/h3>\n<p>Place mentioned by the prophet Amos to which the inhabitants of Bashan would be exiled (Am 4:3, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). Harmon occurs only once in the Bible, and there is no known place with such a name. There are problems with the text and numerous emendations have been proposed. Some Hebrew manuscripts render it as a common noun, meaning “palace” (<span>kjv<\/span>), rather than a proper name. The Septuagint renders it “the mountain of Rimmon,” perhaps referring to a hill east of Rimmon (see Jgs 20:45-47; cf. Jos 15:32; 19:13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"HARMON* Place mentioned by the prophet Amos to which the inhabitants of Bashan would be exiled (Am 4:3, nlt mg). Harmon occurs only once in the Bible, and there is no known place with such a name. There are problems with the text and numerous emendations have been proposed. Some Hebrew manuscripts render it as a common noun, meaning “palace” (kjv), rather than a proper name. The Septuagint renders it “the mountain of Rimmon,” perhaps referring to a hill east of Rimmon (see Jgs 20:45-47; cf. J...","summary_en":"HARMON* Place mentioned by the prophet Amos to which the inhabitants of Bashan would be exiled (Am 4:3, nlt mg). Harmon occurs only once in the Bible, and there is no known place with such a name. There are problems with the text and numerous emendations have been proposed. Some Hebrew manuscripts render it as a common noun, meaning “palace” (kjv), rather than a proper name. The Septuagint renders it “the mountain of Rimmon,” perhaps referring to a hill east of Rimmon (see Jgs 20:45-47; cf. J...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33178,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Rimmon (Place)","title_en":"Rimmon (Place)","content_ro":"<h3>RIMMON (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Alternate name for En-rimmon, a town in southern Judah, in Joshua 15:32 and 1 Chronicles 4:32. <em>See<\/em> En-rimmon.<\/li>\n<li>2. Town in the territory allotted to Zebulun’s tribe for an inheritance (Jos 19:13); alternately called Dimnah in Joshua 21:35.<\/li>\n<li>3. Large cave about 12 miles (19.3 kilometers) north of Jerusalem and 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) south of biblical Ephraim (modern Taiyiba), also called the Rock of Rimmon. Six hundred refugees from the city of Gibeah found shelter in the cave for four months (Jgs 20:45-47; 21:13).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>RIMMON (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Alternate name for En-rimmon, a town in southern Judah, in Joshua 15:32 and 1 Chronicles 4:32. <em>See<\/em> En-rimmon.<\/li>\n<li>2. Town in the territory allotted to Zebulun’s tribe for an inheritance (Jos 19:13); alternately called Dimnah in Joshua 21:35.<\/li>\n<li>3. Large cave about 12 miles (19.3 kilometers) north of Jerusalem and 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) south of biblical Ephraim (modern Taiyiba), also called the Rock of Rimmon. Six hundred refugees from the city of Gibeah found shelter in the cave for four months (Jgs 20:45-47; 21:13).<\/li>","summary_ro":"RIMMON (Place) 1. Alternate name for En-rimmon, a town in southern Judah, in Joshua 15:32 and 1 Chronicles 4:32. See En-rimmon. 2. Town in the territory allotted to Zebulun’s tribe for an inheritance (Jos 19:13); alternately called Dimnah in Joshua 21:35. 3. Large cave about 12 miles (19.3 kilometers) north of Jerusalem and 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) south of biblical Ephraim (modern Taiyiba), also called the Rock of Rimmon. Six hundred refugees from the city of Gibeah found shelter in the cave...","summary_en":"RIMMON (Place) 1. Alternate name for En-rimmon, a town in southern Judah, in Joshua 15:32 and 1 Chronicles 4:32. See En-rimmon. 2. Town in the territory allotted to Zebulun’s tribe for an inheritance (Jos 19:13); alternately called Dimnah in Joshua 21:35. 3. Large cave about 12 miles (19.3 kilometers) north of Jerusalem and 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) south of biblical Ephraim (modern Taiyiba), also called the Rock of Rimmon. Six hundred refugees from the city of Gibeah found shelter in the cave...","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33180,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Rock of Rimmon","title_en":"Rock of Rimmon","content_ro":"<h3>RIMMON, Rock of<\/h3>\n<p>Large cave north of Jerusalem (Jgs 20:45-47; 21:13). <em>See<\/em> Rimmon (Place) #3.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>RIMMON, Rock of<\/h3>\n<p>Large cave north of Jerusalem (Jgs 20:45-47; 21:13). <em>See<\/em> Rimmon (Place) #3.<\/p>","summary_ro":"RIMMON, Rock of Large cave north of Jerusalem (Jgs 20:45-47; 21:13). See Rimmon (Place) #3.","summary_en":"RIMMON, Rock of Large cave north of Jerusalem (Jgs 20:45-47; 21:13). See Rimmon (Place) #3.","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"47":[{"id":45971,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:47","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:47","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:47<\/strong> <em>the rock of Rimmon:<\/em> “Rimmon” was a Benjamite personal name (2 Sam 4:2), and the place was about four miles east of Bethel. It was a stronghold, probably a cliff dwelling that protected fugitives by its inaccessibility.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:47<\/strong> <em>the rock of Rimmon:<\/em> “Rimmon” was a Benjamite personal name (2 Sam 4:2), and the place was about four miles east of Bethel. It was a stronghold, probably a cliff dwelling that protected fugitives by its inaccessibility.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:47 the rock of Rimmon: “Rimmon” was a Benjamite personal name (2 Sam 4:2), and the place was about four miles east of Bethel. It was a stronghold, probably a cliff dwelling that protected fugitives by its inaccessibility.","summary_en":"20:47 the rock of Rimmon: “Rimmon” was a Benjamite personal name (2 Sam 4:2), and the place was about four miles east of Bethel. It was a stronghold, probably a cliff dwelling that protected fugitives by its inaccessibility.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73597,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:47","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:47","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:47<\/strong> <em>the rock of Rimmon:<\/em> “Rimmon” was a Benjamite personal name (2 Sam 4:2), and the place was about four miles east of Bethel. It was a stronghold, probably a cliff dwelling that protected fugitives by its inaccessibility.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:47<\/strong> <em>the rock of Rimmon:<\/em> “Rimmon” was a Benjamite personal name (2 Sam 4:2), and the place was about four miles east of Bethel. It was a stronghold, probably a cliff dwelling that protected fugitives by its inaccessibility.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:47 the rock of Rimmon: “Rimmon” was a Benjamite personal name (2 Sam 4:2), and the place was about four miles east of Bethel. It was a stronghold, probably a cliff dwelling that protected fugitives by its inaccessibility.","summary_en":"20:47 the rock of Rimmon: “Rimmon” was a Benjamite personal name (2 Sam 4:2), and the place was about four miles east of Bethel. It was a stronghold, probably a cliff dwelling that protected fugitives by its inaccessibility.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101223,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:47","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:47","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:47<\/strong> <em>the rock of Rimmon:<\/em> “Rimmon” was a Benjamite personal name (2 Sam 4:2), and the place was about four miles east of Bethel. It was a stronghold, probably a cliff dwelling that protected fugitives by its inaccessibility.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:47<\/strong> <em>the rock of Rimmon:<\/em> “Rimmon” was a Benjamite personal name (2 Sam 4:2), and the place was about four miles east of Bethel. It was a stronghold, probably a cliff dwelling that protected fugitives by its inaccessibility.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:47 the rock of Rimmon: “Rimmon” was a Benjamite personal name (2 Sam 4:2), and the place was about four miles east of Bethel. It was a stronghold, probably a cliff dwelling that protected fugitives by its inaccessibility.","summary_en":"20:47 the rock of Rimmon: “Rimmon” was a Benjamite personal name (2 Sam 4:2), and the place was about four miles east of Bethel. It was a stronghold, probably a cliff dwelling that protected fugitives by its inaccessibility.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128849,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 20:47","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 20:47","content_ro":"<p><strong>20:47<\/strong> <em>the rock of Rimmon:<\/em> “Rimmon” was a Benjamite personal name (2 Sam 4:2), and the place was about four miles east of Bethel. It was a stronghold, probably a cliff dwelling that protected fugitives by its inaccessibility.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>20:47<\/strong> <em>the rock of Rimmon:<\/em> “Rimmon” was a Benjamite personal name (2 Sam 4:2), and the place was about four miles east of Bethel. It was a stronghold, probably a cliff dwelling that protected fugitives by its inaccessibility.<\/p>","summary_ro":"20:47 the rock of Rimmon: “Rimmon” was a Benjamite personal name (2 Sam 4:2), and the place was about four miles east of Bethel. It was a stronghold, probably a cliff dwelling that protected fugitives by its inaccessibility.","summary_en":"20:47 the rock of Rimmon: “Rimmon” was a Benjamite personal name (2 Sam 4:2), and the place was about four miles east of Bethel. It was a stronghold, probably a cliff dwelling that protected fugitives by its inaccessibility.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"48":[{"id":4025,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Beast","title_en":"Beast","content_ro":"<h3>BEAST<\/h3>\n<p>Animal in both the OT and NT, having in some cases a figurative significance. The word has a variety of meanings in the OT. Some of the diversity is due to inconsistent translations of several Hebrew words that can signify “living creature” as well as “beast,” but which have sometimes been translated only as “beast.” In the OT, therefore, beast can refer to the following:<\/p>\n<p>1. In general, any animal (e.g., Gn 1:24; Ps 36:6), but often distinguished from fish, birds, and insects (e.g., Gn 6:7; Lv 11:2; Dt 4:17; Jb 12:7; 35:11; Zep 1:3).<\/p>\n<li>2. A domesticated animal (e.g., Ex 19:13; 22:10; Nm 3:13; 31:47; Jgs 20:48; Prv 12:10; Jer 21:6; Zec 8:10).<\/li>\n<li>3. A wild and sometimes carnivorous animal (e.g., Gn 37:20; Ex 23:11; Dt 28:26; 1 Sm 17:44; Ez 14:15).<\/li>\n<li>4. The figurative usage of the word “beast” is most apparent in the books of Daniel and Revelation. In Daniel (especially Dn 7) the beast is a symbol of a world ruler who persecutes and oppresses the people of God. In Revelation the apostle John took over that concept with its vivid imagery to speak of the final persecution of God’s people at the end of history. John’s beast in its apostasy closely resembles the “antichrist” of his earlier epistles (1 Jn 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 Jn 1:7) and Paul’s “man of lawlessness” (2 Thes 2:3). Many Bible commentators regard the three as designating the same individual. <em>See<\/em> Antichrist; Armageddon; Mark of the Beast; Revelation, Book of.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>BEAST<\/h3>\n<p>Animal in both the OT and NT, having in some cases a figurative significance. The word has a variety of meanings in the OT. Some of the diversity is due to inconsistent translations of several Hebrew words that can signify “living creature” as well as “beast,” but which have sometimes been translated only as “beast.” In the OT, therefore, beast can refer to the following:<\/p>\n<p>1. In general, any animal (e.g., Gn 1:24; Ps 36:6), but often distinguished from fish, birds, and insects (e.g., Gn 6:7; Lv 11:2; Dt 4:17; Jb 12:7; 35:11; Zep 1:3).<\/p>\n<li>2. A domesticated animal (e.g., Ex 19:13; 22:10; Nm 3:13; 31:47; Jgs 20:48; Prv 12:10; Jer 21:6; Zec 8:10).<\/li>\n<li>3. A wild and sometimes carnivorous animal (e.g., Gn 37:20; Ex 23:11; Dt 28:26; 1 Sm 17:44; Ez 14:15).<\/li>\n<li>4. The figurative usage of the word “beast” is most apparent in the books of Daniel and Revelation. In Daniel (especially Dn 7) the beast is a symbol of a world ruler who persecutes and oppresses the people of God. In Revelation the apostle John took over that concept with its vivid imagery to speak of the final persecution of God’s people at the end of history. John’s beast in its apostasy closely resembles the “antichrist” of his earlier epistles (1 Jn 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 Jn 1:7) and Paul’s “man of lawlessness” (2 Thes 2:3). Many Bible commentators regard the three as designating the same individual. <em>See<\/em> Antichrist; Armageddon; Mark of the Beast; Revelation, Book of.<\/li>","summary_ro":"BEAST Animal in both the OT and NT, having in some cases a figurative significance. The word has a variety of meanings in the OT. Some of the diversity is due to inconsistent translations of several Hebrew words that can signify “living creature” as well as “beast,” but which have sometimes been translated only as “beast.” In the OT, therefore, beast can refer to the following: 1. In general, any animal (e.g., Gn 1:24; Ps 36:6), but often distinguished from fish, birds, and insects (e.g., Gn ...","summary_en":"BEAST Animal in both the OT and NT, having in some cases a figurative significance. The word has a variety of meanings in the OT. Some of the diversity is due to inconsistent translations of several Hebrew words that can signify “living creature” as well as “beast,” but which have sometimes been translated only as “beast.” In the OT, therefore, beast can refer to the following: 1. In general, any animal (e.g., Gn 1:24; Ps 36:6), but often distinguished from fish, birds, and insects (e.g., Gn ...","source":"Articles\/B.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 20
— 48 versete
Judecătorii 20
📘 Info carte
Se încarcă...
📖 Resurse