Marcu 12
1 Isus a început pe urmă să le vorbească în pilde. ,,Un om a sădit o vie. A împrejmuit-o cu un gard, a săpat un teasc în ea, şi a zidit un turn; apoi a arendat-o unor vieri şi a plecat din ţară.
2 La vremea roadelor, a trimes la vieri un rob, ca să ia dela ei din roadele viei.
3 Vierii au pus mâna pe el, l-au bătut, şi l-au trimes înapoi cu mânile goale.
4 A trimes iarăş la ei un alt rob; ei l-au rănit la cap, şi l-au batjocorit.
5 A mai trimes un altul, pe care l-au omorât; apoi a trimes mulţi alţii, dintre cari, pe unii i-au bătut, iar pe alţii i-au omorât.
6 Mai avea un singur fiu prea iubit; la urmă, l-a trimes şi pe el la ei. ,Vor primi cu cinste pe fiul meu!` zicea el.
7 Dar vierii aceia au zis între ei: ,Iată moştenitorul; veniţi să-l omorâm, şi moştenirea va fi a noastră.`
8 Şi au pus mâna pe el, l-au omorât, şi i-au aruncat trupul afară din vie.
9 Acum, ce va face stăpânul viei? Va veni, va nimici pe vierii aceia, şi via o va da altora.
10 Oare n-aţi citit locul acesta din Scriptură: ,Piatra pe care au lepădat-o zidarii, a ajuns să fie pusă în capul unghiului;
11 Domnul a făcut acest lucru, şi este minunat în ochii noştri?``
12 Ei căutau să -L prindă, dar se temeau de norod. Pricepuseră că împotriva lor spusese Isus pilda aceasta. Şi L-au lăsat, şi au plecat.
13 Apoi au trimes la Isus pe unii din Farisei şi din Irodiani, ca să -L prindă cu vorba.
14 Aceştia au venit, şi I-au zis: ,,Învăţătorule, ştim că spui adevărul, şi nu-Ţi pasă de nimeni; căci nu cauţi la faţa oamenilor, şi înveţi pe oameni calea lui Dumnezeu în adevăr. Se cade să plătim bir Cezarului sau nu?
15 Să plătim sau să nu plătim?`` Isus le-a cunoscut făţărnicia, şi le-a răspuns: ,,Pentruce Mă ispitiţi? Aduceţi-Mi un ban (Greceşte: dinar.) ca să-l văd.``
16 I-au adus un ban; şi Isus i-a întrebat: ,,Chipul acesta şi slovele scrise pe el, ale cui sânt?`` ,,Ale Cezarului``, I-au răspuns ei.
17 Atunci Isus le-a zis: ,,Daţi dar Cezarului ce este al Cezarului, şi lui Dumnezeu ce este al lui Dumnezeu.`` Şi se mirau foarte mult de El.
18 Saducheii, cari zic că nu este înviere, au venit la Isus şi I-au pus următoarea întrebare:
19 ,,Învăţătorule, iată ce ne-a scris Moise: ,Dacă moare fratele cuiva, şi-i rămâne nevasta fără să aibă copii, fratele său să ia pe nevasta lui, şi să ridice urmaş fratelui său.`
20 Erau dar şapte fraţi. Cel dintâi s-a însurat, şi a murit fără să lase urmaş.
21 Al doilea a luat de nevastă pe văduvă, şi a murit fără să lase urmaş. Tot aşa şi al treilea.
22 Şi nici unul din cei şapte n-a lăsat urmaş. După ei toţi, a murit şi femeia.
23 La înviere, nevasta căruia dintre ei va fi ea? Căci toţi şapte au avut-o de nevastă.``
24 Drept răspuns, Isus le-a zis: ,,Oare nu vă rătăciţi voi, din pricină că nu pricepeţi nici Scripturile, nici puterea lui Dumnezeu?
25 Căci după ce vor învia din morţi, nici nu se vor însura, nici nu se vor mărita, ci vor fi ca îngerii în ceruri.
26 În ce priveşte învierea morţilor, oare n-aţi citit în cartea lui Moise, în locul unde se vorbeşte despre ,Rug`, ce i-a spus Dumnezeu, când a zis: ,Eu sânt Dumnezeul lui Avraam, Dumnezeul lui Isaac şi Dumnezeul lui Iacov?`
27 Dumnezeu nu este un Dumnezeu al celor morţi, ci al celor vii. Tare vă mai rătăciţi!``
28 Unul din cărturari, care-i auzise vorbind, fiindcă ştia că Isus răspunsese bine Saducheilor, a venit la El, şi L-a întrebat: ,,Care este cea dintâi dintre toate poruncile?``
29 Isus i-a răspuns: ,,Cea dintâi este aceasta: ,Ascultă Israele! Domnul, Dumnezeul nostru, este un singur Domn;`
30 şi: ,Să iubeşti pe Domnul, Dumnezeul tău, cu toată inima ta, cu tot sufletul tău, cu tot cugetul tău, şi cu toată puterea ta`; iată porunca dintâi.
31 Iar a doua este următoarea: ,Să iubeşti pe aproapele tău ca pe tine însuţi.` Nu este altă poruncă mai mare decât acestea.``
32 Cărturarul I-a zis: ,,Bine, Învăţătorule. Adevărat ai zis că Dumnezeu este unul singur, că nu este altul afară de El,
33 şi că a -L iubi cu toată inima, cu tot cugetul, cu tot sufletul, şi cu toată puterea, şi a iubi pe aproapele ca pe sine, este mai mult decât toate arderile de tot şi decât ,,toate jertfele.``
34 Isus a văzut că a răspuns cu pricepere, şi i-a zis: ,,Tu nu eşti departe de Împărăţia lui Dumnezeu.`` Şi nimeni nu îndrăznea să -I mai pună întrebări.
35 Pe când învăţa pe norod în Templu, Isus a zis: ,,Cum zic cărturarii că Hristosul este fiul lui David?
36 Însuş David, fiind însuflat de Duhul Sfânt, a zis: ,,Domnul a zis Domnului meu: ,Şezi la dreapta Mea, până voi pune pe vrăjmaşii Tăi supt picioarele Tale.`
37 Deci chiar David Îl numeşte Domn; atunci cum este El fiul lui?`` Şi gloata cea mare Îl asculta cu plăcere.
38 În învăţătura, pe care le-o dădea, Isus le zicea: ,,Păziţi-vă de cărturari, cărora le place să umble în haine lungi, şi să le facă lumea plecăciuni prin pieţe.
39 Ei umblă după scaunele dintâi în sinagogi, şi după locurile dintâi la ospeţe;
40 casele văduvelor le mănâncă, şi fac rugăciuni lungi de ochii lumii. O mai mare osândă va veni peste ei.``
41 Isus şedea jos în faţa vistieriei Templului, şi Se uita cum arunca norodul bani în vistierie. Mulţi, cari erau bogaţi, aruncau mult.
42 A venit şi o văduvă săracă, şi a aruncat doi bănuţi, cari fac un gologan.
43 Atunci Isus a chemat pe ucenicii Săi, şi le-a zis: ,,Adevărat vă spun că această văduvă săracă a dat mai mult decât toţi cei ce au aruncat în vistierie;
44 căci toţi ceilalţi au aruncat din prisosul lor, dar ea, din sărăcia ei, a aruncat tot ce avea, tot ce-i mai rămăsese ca să trăiască.``
{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":8205,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Crucifixion","title_en":"Crucifixion","content_ro":"<h3>CRUCIFIXION<\/h3>\n<p>Form of execution employed in the death of Jesus Christ. Two concepts related to crucifixion occur in Scripture: the “cross,” a pagan mode of capital punishment, and the “tree,” which was a Jewish form. Jesus’ crucifixion was the means by which he procured atonement for humanity. The term “cross” was also used figuratively by Jesus to portray the sacrifice required in discipleship, and it was used by the apostle Paul to symbolize the death of self in the process of transformation.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Historical Background<\/p>\n<p>• Christ’s Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>• The Theological Significance of Christ’s Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalBackground\">Historical Background<\/p>\n<h5>The Pagan Mode<\/h5>\n<p>Literally, the word “cross” in Greek referred to a pointed stake used for various purposes, including an instrument of execution. It could be an upright stake, used to impale a victim, or a vertical stake with a crossbeam either across the top (T) or across the middle (+), used to hang or crucify a criminal, with the added disgrace of public display. Evidently crucifixion was practiced first by the Medes and Persians and later by Alexander the Great (356–323 <span>BC<\/span>), the Carthaginians, and the Romans. Both Greeks and Romans restricted its use to slaves, considering it too barbaric for citizens. In the imperial era the Romans extended the use to foreigners, but even so it was used mainly for crimes against the state.<\/p>\n<p>Crucifixion was universally recognized as the most horrible type of execution. In the East, in fact, it was used only as a further sign of disgrace for prisoners already executed, usually by decapitation. In the West the condemned criminal was scourged (whipped), usually at the place of execution, and forced to carry the crossbeam to the spot where a stake had already been erected. A tablet stating the crime was often placed around the offender’s neck and was fastened to the cross after the execution. The prisoner was commonly tied or sometimes nailed to the crossbeam (with the nails through the wrists, since the bones in the hand could not take the weight). The beam was then raised and fixed to the upright pole. If the executioners wished a particularly slow, agonizing death, they might drive blocks or pins into the stake for a seat or a step to support the feet. Death came about either through loss of blood circulation followed by coronary failure or through the collapse of one’s lungs, causing suffocation. That could take days, so often the victim’s legs would be broken below the knees with a club, causing massive shock and eliminating any further possibility of easing the pressure on the bound or spiked wrists. Usually a body was left on the cross to rot, but in some instances was given to relatives or friends for burial.<\/p>\n<h5>The Jewish Mode<\/h5>\n<p>A different form of crucifixion is seen in the OT. King Saul’s body was decapitated and affixed to a wall by the Philistines (1 Sm 31:9-10). The Persian king Darius made impaling the penalty for altering his decree (Ezr 6:11). According to Deuteronomy 21:22-23, the Eastern form was employed by the Jews with the added proviso that the body must be removed from “the tree” before nightfall, because the victim was “accursed by God” (cf. Gal 3:13) and must not remain to “defile the land.” The Roman form of crucifixion was not employed by the Jews. The only exception was a mass crucifixion of 800 rebels by the Jewish ruler Alexander Janneus in 76 <span>BC<\/span>, reported by the Jewish historian Josephus as being universally condemned by the Jews. Some believe that Jewish courts did practice the Western method of crucifixion after the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ChristsCrucifixion\">Christ’s Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>The NT (quoted in this article from the <span>rsv<\/span>) has much to say about Christ’s crucifixion because it is the central theme of the Christian faith.<\/p>\n<h5>The Predictions<\/h5>\n<p>The Gospels record three predictions by Christ of his own crucifixion (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34 and parallel passages). In addition, John recorded three sayings about the Son of Man being “lifted up” (Jn 3:14; 8:28; 12:32-33), which parallel the synoptic predictions. Several themes are interwoven into those passages: (1) Christ’s passion (a term used for his suffering on the cross) was part of God’s redemptive purpose (Mk 8:31, “must”). (2) Both Jew and Roman were guilty of “delivering” and of “killing” Jesus. (3) His death would be followed by vindication via the resurrection. (4) His death itself, in a paradoxical way, was seen as a means of his entering into “glory” (seen in the symbolism John attached to “lifted up”). Other sayings that hint at Jesus’ fate are his comment about the murder of the prophets (Mt 23:29-30; Lk 13:33), his parables about the death of the prophets and the “son” (the marriage feast, Mt 22:1-14; the wicked tenants, Mk 12:1-10), and his teachings about the coming similar suffering of his disciples (Mt 10:24-28; Mk 8:34-35; Jn 15:18-25).<\/p>\n<h5>The Historical Event<\/h5>\n<p>The crucifixion of Jesus combined Roman and Jewish elements. Although the Gospel writers stressed Jewish guilt for their own polemical purposes, they were careful to distinguish between the leaders and the common people. It was the leaders who initiated Jesus’ arrest (Mk 14:43) and his trial by the Sanhedrin (vv 53-64). Though Pilate seemed to vacillate and in the end surrendered weakly to the crowds by “washing his hands” of any guilt (Mt 27:24), Rome was clearly implicated in the Crucifixion. Since the Sanhedrin did not have the power to inflict capital punishment, Pilate’s decision was necessary before crucifixion could occur. Further, Romans actually carried out the execution.<\/p>\n<p>At Jesus’ crucifixion Roman custom was observed in his scourging, his mock enthronement and stripping, the bearing of his own crossbeam, his being nailed to the cross, and the breaking of the two thieves’ legs. The elevated site fits the custom of displaying certain criminals publicly. So does the height of Jesus’ cross, probably seven to nine feet (2 to 3 meters). The presence of a tablet bearing the inscription “The King of the Jews” on the cross suggests that the crossbeam was fixed somewhere below the top of the stake. Jewish elements are seen in the wine mixed with myrrh (Mk 15:23), the vinegar on the hyssop reed (v 36), and the removal of the body before sunset and the beginning of the Sabbath (Jn 19:31).<\/p>\n<p>Although the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion is seldom challenged historically, the varying details in the four Gospels are sometimes regarded as later additions due to the influence of prophetic “fulfillment,” to Christian-Jewish polemics or to cultic considerations. However, one cannot conclude from the differences in the Gospel accounts that the details are not historical. Narrative selectivity on the part of the Gospel writers is in no sense evidence of fabrication.<\/p>\n<h5>The Emphasis in Each Gospel<\/h5>\n<p>The elements found in the individual passion narratives were selected by each writer to present a particular view of the crucifixion scene. It has been realized for some time that the Gospel writers were not only historians but also theologians, selecting scenes and portraying them to show the significance of the events for the Christian faith. Their selection is poignantly evident in the crucifixion narratives.<\/p>\n<p>Mark and Matthew both show the horror of the Messiah being put to death by human beings. The first half of Mark’s scene contrasts the taunts of the crowd with the true significance of Jesus’ death. The twofold “save yourself” (Mk 15:29-31) repeats Jesus’ words about rebuilding the temple in three days—prophetically pointing to the resurrection. The second half of Mark’s description stresses the horror of the scene, progressing from a darkness motif to the cry of abandonment to further taunts (vv 33-36).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of Matthew extends Mark’s imagery in certain important directions, adding that Jesus refused the stupefying drink (a drugged wine to alleviate pain) “when he tasted it” (Mt 27:34), as well as adding “yielded up his spirit” to the death scene (v 50). Matthew thus emphasizes that Jesus voluntarily faced his death fully conscious and in complete control of himself. Matthew’s irony and allusion also bring out the disparity between Jesus’ suffering and his vindication. Elements of vindication include the ripping of the temple veil (v 51) and the centurion’s testimony (v 54). In the remarkable supernatural scene of Matthew 27:52-53, Jesus’ death is followed immediately by an earthquake that opened tombs and revived “many bodies of the saints” who had died. For Matthew those events and others inaugurated the last days, the new age of salvation, when the power of death is broken and life is made available for all.<\/p>\n<p>The account in Luke’s Gospel is also quite remarkable. It has two major thrusts. First, Jesus is portrayed as the perfect example of the righteous martyr who forgives his enemies and by his attitude converts some of his opponents. The taunts of the rulers and soldiers are reversed when the crowd returns home “beating their breasts” (Lk 23:48) and the centurion cries, “Certainly this man was innocent!” (v 47). Second, in Luke the entire setting has an atmosphere of reverence and worship. Omitted are the wine and myrrh, the cry of abandonment, and the Elijah taunt. Other episodes are noted instead—in particular, the prayers of Jesus. In Luke alone are related (1) Jesus’ prayer that God forgive his executioners, placing it in contrast with the soldiers’ mockery; (2) the promise in answer to the prayer of the “believing” criminal; and (3) the commitment of Jesus’ spirit to the Father. Luke’s presentation makes the Crucifixion a kind of worshipful commemoration.<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospel of John also one finds a change of theological focus. It goes further than Luke in removing shocking details such as the darkness and the taunts. Calm pervades throughout. Stress is laid on Jesus’ sovereign control of his situation, as the Crucifixion virtually becomes a coronation procession. John alone states that the inscription on the cross was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek—the charge thus becomes a worldwide proclamation of Christ’s enthronement. The inscription, “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews,” continues Pilate’s dialogue on kingship beyond Jesus’ trial. John thus adds to Matthew’s emphasis: Jesus has not only become king but has been sovereign all along. The king is pictured as performing the priestly function and himself becoming the sacrifice. John alone mentions the hyssop (which had been used to sprinkle the blood of the lamb at the Passover, Ex 12:22) and Jesus’ cry, “It is finished” (Jn 19:29-30). Further, the piercing of Jesus’ side (vv 31-37), which shows the reality of his death, may also be seen symbolically, along with the “rivers of living water” (7:37-38), as typifying the outpouring of life in the new age.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, each Gospel pictures the meaning of Jesus’ death from a different vantage point. To combine their pictures gives new understanding of the significance of the cross. Rather than contradiction, one sees separate parts of a compelling whole.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTheologicalSignificanceofChristsCrucifixion\">The Theological Significance of Christ’s Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>The cross plays a dual role in Christian theology. Some theologians emphasize the significance of the historical crucifixion of Jesus Christ and what it accomplished for the believer. Others focus on the symbolism of the cross in each believer’s life.<\/p>\n<p>The death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth are the central events of Christian theology. The cross has meaning because of the significance of the person who was put to death on it and because of what his death accomplished. “The word of the cross” was central in the salvation proclamation of the early church. Above all, the event of the cross was God’s principal saving act in history; hence the cross, though a past event, has present significance. Christ crucified and risen is the core of the church’s message (Gal 3:1).<\/p>\n<p>The central passage is 1 Corinthians 1:17–2:5. There the “word of the cross” (1:18) is contrasted with “eloquent wisdom” (v 17). Sounding like foolishness, it is offensive to both Greek philosophy and Jewish legalism (cf. Gal 6:12-15), but that very “weakness” in human eyes opens the door for the “power of God” (1 Cor 1:18). The cross in the church’s <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kerygma<\/span> (proclamation) illustrates the pattern of God’s action: he forges out of the debilitated things of life both power and wisdom (vv 26-30). Because philosophical speculation replaces God’s message with human wisdom and thus empties the cross of its significance, Paul rejected “lofty words” and preached only the “crucified Christ.” The “Holy Spirit’s power” thus became evident in Paul’s “weakness” (2:1-5). The central core of the gospel is God’s demonstration of victory emerging from seeming defeat, of power arising out of infirmity.<\/p>\n<p>The cross as the basis of atonement is the principal emphasis in the Epistles (see Eph 2:16; Col 1:20; 2:14), whereas in the book of Acts the resurrection seems more central (see Acts 2:33-36; 3:19-26; 13:37-39). The reason for the different emphasis is found in the different purposes of those writings: the cross tends to be used in didactic (instructional) sections, the resurrection in apologetic (persuasive) or kerygmatic sections, when the basis for salvation is being presented. In actuality they were a single event in salvation history. Jesus “was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Rom 4:25).<\/p>\n<p>Paul expressed the significance of the cross in the words “redemption,” “propitiation,” and “justification.” The first two concepts have the “for us” theme traceable to the suffering servant (Is 53:10-12), whose death was for “the sin of many.” The idea of redemption in both Testaments is the payment of a price to “ransom” those held captive. That price, the NT explains, was paid on the cross, and humanity was thereby freed from sin (Mk 10:45; Ti 2:14; 1 Pt 1:18). The connection between Jesus’ death and the substitutionary preposition “instead of” is also seen in Galatians 3:13, which adds to the curse of Deuteronomy 21:23 the interpretation “for us” (cf. Rom 5:10-11, 18; 1 Cor 11:24; Eph 1:7; 2:13). Similarly, Paul’s concept of justification centers on the cross. It is “Christ crucified” who declares humanity righteous and makes freedom from sin possible (Rom 6:6; Gal 2:19-21). Human guilt was transferred to the cross and expiated there, opening up God’s forensic (legal) forgiveness of all who avail themselves of its power (1 Pt 1:18-21; 2:24; 3:18). Finally, the result is “reconciliation”—both vertically, between humans and God (Col 1:20), and horizontally, between previously opposed human forces (e.g., in Eph 2:13-16, between Jew and Gentile).<\/p>\n<p>Beyond the theological meaning of the literal cross on which Jesus Christ was put to death in Judea nearly 2,000 years ago is the symbolic significance of the cross for his followers today.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus made “bearing the cross” a condition of discipleship in five passages. There are two major variants: one, found in the material common to Matthew and Luke (Mt 10:38; Lk 14:27), is phrased negatively (“cannot be my disciple”); the other, which is found in all three synoptic Gospels (Mt 16:24; Mk 8:34; Luke 9:23), is phrased positively (“If anyone would come after me”). Two major motifs are found in the sayings. The major motif comes from the imagery of a condemned man carrying his cross to an execution site; a necessary part of discipleship is a daily (Lk 9:23) willingness to sacrifice all and to suffer for the sake of Christ. The central point is not death but disgrace; the disciple must be ready to become an outcast from society.<\/p>\n<p>Paul extended Christ’s metaphor to the death of self. He may have taken the idea from the early catechism, as seen in the baptismal creed of Romans 6:1-8, which identifies baptism as being “buried with him.” Paul interpreted the Christian’s identification with Christ’s death to mean that “our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin” (Rom 6:6). As further developed in 2 Corinthians 5:14-17, the believer participates in the death and resurrection of Christ, so that the old life has passed away and the new has come (5:17). The same view is found also in Galatians, which contrasts the mystical death of self to the legalistic system of the Judaizers. The believer is “crucified with Christ,” with the result that “it is no longer I who live” (Gal 2:20); “the flesh with its passions and desires” is “crucified” (5:24); and “far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (6:14). Believers must experience the cross before they can find the resurrection life.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Criminal Law and Punishment; Eli, Eli, Lema Sabachthani; Golgotha; Redeemer, Redemption; Seven Last Sayings of Jesus.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CRUCIFIXION<\/h3>\n<p>Form of execution employed in the death of Jesus Christ. Two concepts related to crucifixion occur in Scripture: the “cross,” a pagan mode of capital punishment, and the “tree,” which was a Jewish form. Jesus’ crucifixion was the means by which he procured atonement for humanity. The term “cross” was also used figuratively by Jesus to portray the sacrifice required in discipleship, and it was used by the apostle Paul to symbolize the death of self in the process of transformation.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Historical Background<\/p>\n<p>• Christ’s Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>• The Theological Significance of Christ’s Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalBackground\">Historical Background<\/p>\n<h5>The Pagan Mode<\/h5>\n<p>Literally, the word “cross” in Greek referred to a pointed stake used for various purposes, including an instrument of execution. It could be an upright stake, used to impale a victim, or a vertical stake with a crossbeam either across the top (T) or across the middle (+), used to hang or crucify a criminal, with the added disgrace of public display. Evidently crucifixion was practiced first by the Medes and Persians and later by Alexander the Great (356–323 <span>BC<\/span>), the Carthaginians, and the Romans. Both Greeks and Romans restricted its use to slaves, considering it too barbaric for citizens. In the imperial era the Romans extended the use to foreigners, but even so it was used mainly for crimes against the state.<\/p>\n<p>Crucifixion was universally recognized as the most horrible type of execution. In the East, in fact, it was used only as a further sign of disgrace for prisoners already executed, usually by decapitation. In the West the condemned criminal was scourged (whipped), usually at the place of execution, and forced to carry the crossbeam to the spot where a stake had already been erected. A tablet stating the crime was often placed around the offender’s neck and was fastened to the cross after the execution. The prisoner was commonly tied or sometimes nailed to the crossbeam (with the nails through the wrists, since the bones in the hand could not take the weight). The beam was then raised and fixed to the upright pole. If the executioners wished a particularly slow, agonizing death, they might drive blocks or pins into the stake for a seat or a step to support the feet. Death came about either through loss of blood circulation followed by coronary failure or through the collapse of one’s lungs, causing suffocation. That could take days, so often the victim’s legs would be broken below the knees with a club, causing massive shock and eliminating any further possibility of easing the pressure on the bound or spiked wrists. Usually a body was left on the cross to rot, but in some instances was given to relatives or friends for burial.<\/p>\n<h5>The Jewish Mode<\/h5>\n<p>A different form of crucifixion is seen in the OT. King Saul’s body was decapitated and affixed to a wall by the Philistines (1 Sm 31:9-10). The Persian king Darius made impaling the penalty for altering his decree (Ezr 6:11). According to Deuteronomy 21:22-23, the Eastern form was employed by the Jews with the added proviso that the body must be removed from “the tree” before nightfall, because the victim was “accursed by God” (cf. Gal 3:13) and must not remain to “defile the land.” The Roman form of crucifixion was not employed by the Jews. The only exception was a mass crucifixion of 800 rebels by the Jewish ruler Alexander Janneus in 76 <span>BC<\/span>, reported by the Jewish historian Josephus as being universally condemned by the Jews. Some believe that Jewish courts did practice the Western method of crucifixion after the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ChristsCrucifixion\">Christ’s Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>The NT (quoted in this article from the <span>rsv<\/span>) has much to say about Christ’s crucifixion because it is the central theme of the Christian faith.<\/p>\n<h5>The Predictions<\/h5>\n<p>The Gospels record three predictions by Christ of his own crucifixion (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34 and parallel passages). In addition, John recorded three sayings about the Son of Man being “lifted up” (Jn 3:14; 8:28; 12:32-33), which parallel the synoptic predictions. Several themes are interwoven into those passages: (1) Christ’s passion (a term used for his suffering on the cross) was part of God’s redemptive purpose (Mk 8:31, “must”). (2) Both Jew and Roman were guilty of “delivering” and of “killing” Jesus. (3) His death would be followed by vindication via the resurrection. (4) His death itself, in a paradoxical way, was seen as a means of his entering into “glory” (seen in the symbolism John attached to “lifted up”). Other sayings that hint at Jesus’ fate are his comment about the murder of the prophets (Mt 23:29-30; Lk 13:33), his parables about the death of the prophets and the “son” (the marriage feast, Mt 22:1-14; the wicked tenants, Mk 12:1-10), and his teachings about the coming similar suffering of his disciples (Mt 10:24-28; Mk 8:34-35; Jn 15:18-25).<\/p>\n<h5>The Historical Event<\/h5>\n<p>The crucifixion of Jesus combined Roman and Jewish elements. Although the Gospel writers stressed Jewish guilt for their own polemical purposes, they were careful to distinguish between the leaders and the common people. It was the leaders who initiated Jesus’ arrest (Mk 14:43) and his trial by the Sanhedrin (vv 53-64). Though Pilate seemed to vacillate and in the end surrendered weakly to the crowds by “washing his hands” of any guilt (Mt 27:24), Rome was clearly implicated in the Crucifixion. Since the Sanhedrin did not have the power to inflict capital punishment, Pilate’s decision was necessary before crucifixion could occur. Further, Romans actually carried out the execution.<\/p>\n<p>At Jesus’ crucifixion Roman custom was observed in his scourging, his mock enthronement and stripping, the bearing of his own crossbeam, his being nailed to the cross, and the breaking of the two thieves’ legs. The elevated site fits the custom of displaying certain criminals publicly. So does the height of Jesus’ cross, probably seven to nine feet (2 to 3 meters). The presence of a tablet bearing the inscription “The King of the Jews” on the cross suggests that the crossbeam was fixed somewhere below the top of the stake. Jewish elements are seen in the wine mixed with myrrh (Mk 15:23), the vinegar on the hyssop reed (v 36), and the removal of the body before sunset and the beginning of the Sabbath (Jn 19:31).<\/p>\n<p>Although the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion is seldom challenged historically, the varying details in the four Gospels are sometimes regarded as later additions due to the influence of prophetic “fulfillment,” to Christian-Jewish polemics or to cultic considerations. However, one cannot conclude from the differences in the Gospel accounts that the details are not historical. Narrative selectivity on the part of the Gospel writers is in no sense evidence of fabrication.<\/p>\n<h5>The Emphasis in Each Gospel<\/h5>\n<p>The elements found in the individual passion narratives were selected by each writer to present a particular view of the crucifixion scene. It has been realized for some time that the Gospel writers were not only historians but also theologians, selecting scenes and portraying them to show the significance of the events for the Christian faith. Their selection is poignantly evident in the crucifixion narratives.<\/p>\n<p>Mark and Matthew both show the horror of the Messiah being put to death by human beings. The first half of Mark’s scene contrasts the taunts of the crowd with the true significance of Jesus’ death. The twofold “save yourself” (Mk 15:29-31) repeats Jesus’ words about rebuilding the temple in three days—prophetically pointing to the resurrection. The second half of Mark’s description stresses the horror of the scene, progressing from a darkness motif to the cry of abandonment to further taunts (vv 33-36).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of Matthew extends Mark’s imagery in certain important directions, adding that Jesus refused the stupefying drink (a drugged wine to alleviate pain) “when he tasted it” (Mt 27:34), as well as adding “yielded up his spirit” to the death scene (v 50). Matthew thus emphasizes that Jesus voluntarily faced his death fully conscious and in complete control of himself. Matthew’s irony and allusion also bring out the disparity between Jesus’ suffering and his vindication. Elements of vindication include the ripping of the temple veil (v 51) and the centurion’s testimony (v 54). In the remarkable supernatural scene of Matthew 27:52-53, Jesus’ death is followed immediately by an earthquake that opened tombs and revived “many bodies of the saints” who had died. For Matthew those events and others inaugurated the last days, the new age of salvation, when the power of death is broken and life is made available for all.<\/p>\n<p>The account in Luke’s Gospel is also quite remarkable. It has two major thrusts. First, Jesus is portrayed as the perfect example of the righteous martyr who forgives his enemies and by his attitude converts some of his opponents. The taunts of the rulers and soldiers are reversed when the crowd returns home “beating their breasts” (Lk 23:48) and the centurion cries, “Certainly this man was innocent!” (v 47). Second, in Luke the entire setting has an atmosphere of reverence and worship. Omitted are the wine and myrrh, the cry of abandonment, and the Elijah taunt. Other episodes are noted instead—in particular, the prayers of Jesus. In Luke alone are related (1) Jesus’ prayer that God forgive his executioners, placing it in contrast with the soldiers’ mockery; (2) the promise in answer to the prayer of the “believing” criminal; and (3) the commitment of Jesus’ spirit to the Father. Luke’s presentation makes the Crucifixion a kind of worshipful commemoration.<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospel of John also one finds a change of theological focus. It goes further than Luke in removing shocking details such as the darkness and the taunts. Calm pervades throughout. Stress is laid on Jesus’ sovereign control of his situation, as the Crucifixion virtually becomes a coronation procession. John alone states that the inscription on the cross was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek—the charge thus becomes a worldwide proclamation of Christ’s enthronement. The inscription, “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews,” continues Pilate’s dialogue on kingship beyond Jesus’ trial. John thus adds to Matthew’s emphasis: Jesus has not only become king but has been sovereign all along. The king is pictured as performing the priestly function and himself becoming the sacrifice. John alone mentions the hyssop (which had been used to sprinkle the blood of the lamb at the Passover, Ex 12:22) and Jesus’ cry, “It is finished” (Jn 19:29-30). Further, the piercing of Jesus’ side (vv 31-37), which shows the reality of his death, may also be seen symbolically, along with the “rivers of living water” (7:37-38), as typifying the outpouring of life in the new age.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, each Gospel pictures the meaning of Jesus’ death from a different vantage point. To combine their pictures gives new understanding of the significance of the cross. Rather than contradiction, one sees separate parts of a compelling whole.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTheologicalSignificanceofChristsCrucifixion\">The Theological Significance of Christ’s Crucifixion<\/p>\n<p>The cross plays a dual role in Christian theology. Some theologians emphasize the significance of the historical crucifixion of Jesus Christ and what it accomplished for the believer. Others focus on the symbolism of the cross in each believer’s life.<\/p>\n<p>The death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth are the central events of Christian theology. The cross has meaning because of the significance of the person who was put to death on it and because of what his death accomplished. “The word of the cross” was central in the salvation proclamation of the early church. Above all, the event of the cross was God’s principal saving act in history; hence the cross, though a past event, has present significance. Christ crucified and risen is the core of the church’s message (Gal 3:1).<\/p>\n<p>The central passage is 1 Corinthians 1:17–2:5. There the “word of the cross” (1:18) is contrasted with “eloquent wisdom” (v 17). Sounding like foolishness, it is offensive to both Greek philosophy and Jewish legalism (cf. Gal 6:12-15), but that very “weakness” in human eyes opens the door for the “power of God” (1 Cor 1:18). The cross in the church’s <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kerygma<\/span> (proclamation) illustrates the pattern of God’s action: he forges out of the debilitated things of life both power and wisdom (vv 26-30). Because philosophical speculation replaces God’s message with human wisdom and thus empties the cross of its significance, Paul rejected “lofty words” and preached only the “crucified Christ.” The “Holy Spirit’s power” thus became evident in Paul’s “weakness” (2:1-5). The central core of the gospel is God’s demonstration of victory emerging from seeming defeat, of power arising out of infirmity.<\/p>\n<p>The cross as the basis of atonement is the principal emphasis in the Epistles (see Eph 2:16; Col 1:20; 2:14), whereas in the book of Acts the resurrection seems more central (see Acts 2:33-36; 3:19-26; 13:37-39). The reason for the different emphasis is found in the different purposes of those writings: the cross tends to be used in didactic (instructional) sections, the resurrection in apologetic (persuasive) or kerygmatic sections, when the basis for salvation is being presented. In actuality they were a single event in salvation history. Jesus “was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Rom 4:25).<\/p>\n<p>Paul expressed the significance of the cross in the words “redemption,” “propitiation,” and “justification.” The first two concepts have the “for us” theme traceable to the suffering servant (Is 53:10-12), whose death was for “the sin of many.” The idea of redemption in both Testaments is the payment of a price to “ransom” those held captive. That price, the NT explains, was paid on the cross, and humanity was thereby freed from sin (Mk 10:45; Ti 2:14; 1 Pt 1:18). The connection between Jesus’ death and the substitutionary preposition “instead of” is also seen in Galatians 3:13, which adds to the curse of Deuteronomy 21:23 the interpretation “for us” (cf. Rom 5:10-11, 18; 1 Cor 11:24; Eph 1:7; 2:13). Similarly, Paul’s concept of justification centers on the cross. It is “Christ crucified” who declares humanity righteous and makes freedom from sin possible (Rom 6:6; Gal 2:19-21). Human guilt was transferred to the cross and expiated there, opening up God’s forensic (legal) forgiveness of all who avail themselves of its power (1 Pt 1:18-21; 2:24; 3:18). Finally, the result is “reconciliation”—both vertically, between humans and God (Col 1:20), and horizontally, between previously opposed human forces (e.g., in Eph 2:13-16, between Jew and Gentile).<\/p>\n<p>Beyond the theological meaning of the literal cross on which Jesus Christ was put to death in Judea nearly 2,000 years ago is the symbolic significance of the cross for his followers today.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus made “bearing the cross” a condition of discipleship in five passages. There are two major variants: one, found in the material common to Matthew and Luke (Mt 10:38; Lk 14:27), is phrased negatively (“cannot be my disciple”); the other, which is found in all three synoptic Gospels (Mt 16:24; Mk 8:34; Luke 9:23), is phrased positively (“If anyone would come after me”). Two major motifs are found in the sayings. The major motif comes from the imagery of a condemned man carrying his cross to an execution site; a necessary part of discipleship is a daily (Lk 9:23) willingness to sacrifice all and to suffer for the sake of Christ. The central point is not death but disgrace; the disciple must be ready to become an outcast from society.<\/p>\n<p>Paul extended Christ’s metaphor to the death of self. He may have taken the idea from the early catechism, as seen in the baptismal creed of Romans 6:1-8, which identifies baptism as being “buried with him.” Paul interpreted the Christian’s identification with Christ’s death to mean that “our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin” (Rom 6:6). As further developed in 2 Corinthians 5:14-17, the believer participates in the death and resurrection of Christ, so that the old life has passed away and the new has come (5:17). The same view is found also in Galatians, which contrasts the mystical death of self to the legalistic system of the Judaizers. The believer is “crucified with Christ,” with the result that “it is no longer I who live” (Gal 2:20); “the flesh with its passions and desires” is “crucified” (5:24); and “far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (6:14). Believers must experience the cross before they can find the resurrection life.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Criminal Law and Punishment; Eli, Eli, Lema Sabachthani; Golgotha; Redeemer, Redemption; Seven Last Sayings of Jesus.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CRUCIFIXION Form of execution employed in the death of Jesus Christ. Two concepts related to crucifixion occur in Scripture: the “cross,” a pagan mode of capital punishment, and the “tree,” which was a Jewish form. Jesus’ crucifixion was the means by which he procured atonement for humanity. The term “cross” was also used figuratively by Jesus to portray the sacrifice required in discipleship, and it was used by the apostle Paul to symbolize the death of self in the process of transformation....","summary_en":"CRUCIFIXION Form of execution employed in the death of Jesus Christ. Two concepts related to crucifixion occur in Scripture: the “cross,” a pagan mode of capital punishment, and the “tree,” which was a Jewish form. Jesus’ crucifixion was the means by which he procured atonement for humanity. The term “cross” was also used figuratively by Jesus to portray the sacrifice required in discipleship, and it was used by the apostle Paul to symbolize the death of self in the process of transformation....","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24395,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of Mark","title_en":"Gospel of Mark","content_ro":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","summary_en":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38002,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Vineyard Vines","title_en":"Vineyard Vines","content_ro":"<h3>VINES, VINEYARD<\/h3>\n<p>Plants cultivated for the production of grapes, raisins, and wine. The grapevine is mentioned frequently in Scripture both in a literal and a figurative sense. Probably originating in the Ararat region (Gn 9:20), the vine was also cultivated in ancient Egypt, where tomb murals depict the wine-making process. The Canaanites provided wine for Abraham (14:18), and Moses described the vineyards in the Promised Land (Dt 6:11). Excellent grapes from the valleys and plains (Nm 13:20, 24; Jgs 14:5; 15:5) provided fruit and wine to enhance the bland diet of the Hebrews. Wine was traded extensively in the late monarchy (cf. Ez 27:18), as well as in the Greek and Roman periods. For the Hebrews, an ideal picture of life was a sedentary one in which a man could remain peacefully in one place, cultivating his plot of land, and sitting under his vine (1 Kgs 4:25).<\/p>\n\n<p>The typical vineyard was surrounded by a protective hedge or fence, and at harvesttime a watchtower was manned to guard the crop from thieves (Jb 24:18; Is 1:8; Mk 12:1). The vines were planted in rows within the enclosed area, and as the plants grew, the tendrils were trained along supports to raise the fruit-bearing branches off the ground (Ez 17:6). The vines were pruned and tended by vinedressers (Lv 25:3; Is 61:5; Jl 3:10; Jn 15:2). At harvesttime the mature fruit was picked and taken to the winepresses (Hos 9:2). A festive atmosphere accompanied the treading of the grapes (Is 16:10; Jer 25:30), and the fermenting juice was collected in new goatskin bags (Mt 9:17) or large pottery jars.<\/p>\n<p>People working in the grape harvest were exempted from military service, which attests to its importance. Taxes and debts were often discharged by payments of wine, and the law provided for the poor to glean in the vineyards as in the wheat fields (Lv 19:9-10). Nonproductive vines were used for producing charcoal (Ez 15:4; Jn 15:6).<\/p>\n<p>Christ frequently used the vineyard as a background for his parables (Mt 20:1-16; 21:28-43; Mk 12:1-11; Lk 13:6-9; 20:9-18). Wine-making methods were commonly known and understood, so that an allegory of placing new wine in old wineskins (Mt 9:17) was immediately familiar and significant. In a symbolic sense, Christ described himself as the true vine (Jn 15:1-11), and his blood became the sacramental wine of communion.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Agriculture; Plants (Vine).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>VINES, VINEYARD<\/h3>\n<p>Plants cultivated for the production of grapes, raisins, and wine. The grapevine is mentioned frequently in Scripture both in a literal and a figurative sense. Probably originating in the Ararat region (Gn 9:20), the vine was also cultivated in ancient Egypt, where tomb murals depict the wine-making process. The Canaanites provided wine for Abraham (14:18), and Moses described the vineyards in the Promised Land (Dt 6:11). Excellent grapes from the valleys and plains (Nm 13:20, 24; Jgs 14:5; 15:5) provided fruit and wine to enhance the bland diet of the Hebrews. Wine was traded extensively in the late monarchy (cf. Ez 27:18), as well as in the Greek and Roman periods. For the Hebrews, an ideal picture of life was a sedentary one in which a man could remain peacefully in one place, cultivating his plot of land, and sitting under his vine (1 Kgs 4:25).<\/p>\n\n<p>The typical vineyard was surrounded by a protective hedge or fence, and at harvesttime a watchtower was manned to guard the crop from thieves (Jb 24:18; Is 1:8; Mk 12:1). The vines were planted in rows within the enclosed area, and as the plants grew, the tendrils were trained along supports to raise the fruit-bearing branches off the ground (Ez 17:6). The vines were pruned and tended by vinedressers (Lv 25:3; Is 61:5; Jl 3:10; Jn 15:2). At harvesttime the mature fruit was picked and taken to the winepresses (Hos 9:2). A festive atmosphere accompanied the treading of the grapes (Is 16:10; Jer 25:30), and the fermenting juice was collected in new goatskin bags (Mt 9:17) or large pottery jars.<\/p>\n<p>People working in the grape harvest were exempted from military service, which attests to its importance. Taxes and debts were often discharged by payments of wine, and the law provided for the poor to glean in the vineyards as in the wheat fields (Lv 19:9-10). Nonproductive vines were used for producing charcoal (Ez 15:4; Jn 15:6).<\/p>\n<p>Christ frequently used the vineyard as a background for his parables (Mt 20:1-16; 21:28-43; Mk 12:1-11; Lk 13:6-9; 20:9-18). Wine-making methods were commonly known and understood, so that an allegory of placing new wine in old wineskins (Mt 9:17) was immediately familiar and significant. In a symbolic sense, Christ described himself as the true vine (Jn 15:1-11), and his blood became the sacramental wine of communion.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Agriculture; Plants (Vine).<\/p>","summary_ro":"VINES, VINEYARD Plants cultivated for the production of grapes, raisins, and wine. The grapevine is mentioned frequently in Scripture both in a literal and a figurative sense. Probably originating in the Ararat region (Gn 9:20), the vine was also cultivated in ancient Egypt, where tomb murals depict the wine-making process. The Canaanites provided wine for Abraham (14:18), and Moses described the vineyards in the Promised Land (Dt 6:11). Excellent grapes from the valleys and plains (Nm 13:20,...","summary_en":"VINES, VINEYARD Plants cultivated for the production of grapes, raisins, and wine. The grapevine is mentioned frequently in Scripture both in a literal and a figurative sense. Probably originating in the Ararat region (Gn 9:20), the vine was also cultivated in ancient Egypt, where tomb murals depict the wine-making process. The Canaanites provided wine for Abraham (14:18), and Moses described the vineyards in the Promised Land (Dt 6:11). Excellent grapes from the valleys and plains (Nm 13:20,...","source":"Articles\/V.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38215,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Watchtower","title_en":"Watchtower","content_ro":"<h3>WATCHTOWER<\/h3>\n<p>Platform from which farmers protected their land and livestock and from which soldiers guarded their cities. Watchtowers were built in the vineyards of Palestine. From the tower the watchman was assigned to oversee the vineyard, protecting it from wild animals and thieves (Is 5:2; Mt 21:33; Mk 12:1). Such structures are still used for similar purposes in Palestine and serve as the living quarters for the vineyard workers. Some watchtowers, like the tower of Eder (Gn 35:21), were constructed in wilderness areas. They provided a protected shelter for shepherds to watch their flocks and a fortified outpost for sentinels to guard a city and to safeguard its commerce from marauding bandits (2 Kgs 18:8; 2 Chr 20:24; Is 32:14).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WATCHTOWER<\/h3>\n<p>Platform from which farmers protected their land and livestock and from which soldiers guarded their cities. Watchtowers were built in the vineyards of Palestine. From the tower the watchman was assigned to oversee the vineyard, protecting it from wild animals and thieves (Is 5:2; Mt 21:33; Mk 12:1). Such structures are still used for similar purposes in Palestine and serve as the living quarters for the vineyard workers. Some watchtowers, like the tower of Eder (Gn 35:21), were constructed in wilderness areas. They provided a protected shelter for shepherds to watch their flocks and a fortified outpost for sentinels to guard a city and to safeguard its commerce from marauding bandits (2 Kgs 18:8; 2 Chr 20:24; Is 32:14).<\/p>","summary_ro":"WATCHTOWER Platform from which farmers protected their land and livestock and from which soldiers guarded their cities. Watchtowers were built in the vineyards of Palestine. From the tower the watchman was assigned to oversee the vineyard, protecting it from wild animals and thieves (Is 5:2; Mt 21:33; Mk 12:1). Such structures are still used for similar purposes in Palestine and serve as the living quarters for the vineyard workers. Some watchtowers, like the tower of Eder (Gn 35:21), were co...","summary_en":"WATCHTOWER Platform from which farmers protected their land and livestock and from which soldiers guarded their cities. Watchtowers were built in the vineyards of Palestine. From the tower the watchman was assigned to oversee the vineyard, protecting it from wild animals and thieves (Is 5:2; Mt 21:33; Mk 12:1). Such structures are still used for similar purposes in Palestine and serve as the living quarters for the vineyard workers. Some watchtowers, like the tower of Eder (Gn 35:21), were co...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55444,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:1","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:1-12<\/strong> The events of 11:27–12:44 all take place in the Temple (see 11:27; 13:1). This story (literally <em>parable<\/em>) is intimately tied to the previous question about Jesus’ authority (11:27-33) by the introductory words, <em>Then Jesus began teaching them<\/em>. This parable is an extended reply by Jesus to the religious leaders. • Jesus intended his audience to interpret this parable in light of Isa 5:1-7, a similar story of someone planting a vineyard, building a lookout tower, putting a fence around the vineyard, and digging a pit for a wine vat. A similar question is asked: <em>What do you suppose the owner of the vineyard will do?<\/em> (Mark 12:9; cp. Isa 5:4). Isaiah specifically identifies the vineyard as the people of Israel (Isa 5:7); Jesus’ hearers and Mark’s readers would similarly have understood the present story as an allegory about the Israelites. Other details in the story are also clearly meant to be interpreted allegorically: The tenants represent the leaders of Israel; the owner represents God; the servants represent the Old Testament prophets; the beloved son represents Jesus, the Son of God; the murder of the son represents Jesus’ crucifixion; and the giving of the vineyard to others represents the judgment coming upon Israel (Mark 11:15-17; 13:1-37). The interpretation would have been more clear to Mark’s readers than to Jesus’ original audience, but the religious leaders who were Jesus’ contemporaries understood it clearly enough that they sought to kill him (12:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:1-12<\/strong> The events of 11:27–12:44 all take place in the Temple (see 11:27; 13:1). This story (literally <em>parable<\/em>) is intimately tied to the previous question about Jesus’ authority (11:27-33) by the introductory words, <em>Then Jesus began teaching them<\/em>. This parable is an extended reply by Jesus to the religious leaders. • Jesus intended his audience to interpret this parable in light of Isa 5:1-7, a similar story of someone planting a vineyard, building a lookout tower, putting a fence around the vineyard, and digging a pit for a wine vat. A similar question is asked: <em>What do you suppose the owner of the vineyard will do?<\/em> (Mark 12:9; cp. Isa 5:4). Isaiah specifically identifies the vineyard as the people of Israel (Isa 5:7); Jesus’ hearers and Mark’s readers would similarly have understood the present story as an allegory about the Israelites. Other details in the story are also clearly meant to be interpreted allegorically: The tenants represent the leaders of Israel; the owner represents God; the servants represent the Old Testament prophets; the beloved son represents Jesus, the Son of God; the murder of the son represents Jesus’ crucifixion; and the giving of the vineyard to others represents the judgment coming upon Israel (Mark 11:15-17; 13:1-37). The interpretation would have been more clear to Mark’s readers than to Jesus’ original audience, but the religious leaders who were Jesus’ contemporaries understood it clearly enough that they sought to kill him (12:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:1-12 The events of 11:27–12:44 all take place in the Temple (see 11:27; 13:1). This story (literally parable) is intimately tied to the previous question about Jesus’ authority (11:27-33) by the introductory words, Then Jesus began teaching them. This parable is an extended reply by Jesus to the religious leaders. • Jesus intended his audience to interpret this parable in light of Isa 5:1-7, a similar story of someone planting a vineyard, building a lookout tower, putting a fence around th...","summary_en":"12:1-12 The events of 11:27–12:44 all take place in the Temple (see 11:27; 13:1). This story (literally parable) is intimately tied to the previous question about Jesus’ authority (11:27-33) by the introductory words, Then Jesus began teaching them. This parable is an extended reply by Jesus to the religious leaders. • Jesus intended his audience to interpret this parable in light of Isa 5:1-7, a similar story of someone planting a vineyard, building a lookout tower, putting a fence around th...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55445,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:1","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:1<\/strong> The antecedent to <em>them<\/em> is the religious leaders of 11:27 (also in 12:12). • The beginning description of the story comes from Isa 5:1-7. Jesus’ audience knew the book of Isaiah well and would have immediately recalled this allegory of the vineyard.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:1<\/strong> The antecedent to <em>them<\/em> is the religious leaders of 11:27 (also in 12:12). • The beginning description of the story comes from Isa 5:1-7. Jesus’ audience knew the book of Isaiah well and would have immediately recalled this allegory of the vineyard.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:1 The antecedent to them is the religious leaders of 11:27 (also in 12:12). • The beginning description of the story comes from Isa 5:1-7. Jesus’ audience knew the book of Isaiah well and would have immediately recalled this allegory of the vineyard.","summary_en":"12:1 The antecedent to them is the religious leaders of 11:27 (also in 12:12). • The beginning description of the story comes from Isa 5:1-7. Jesus’ audience knew the book of Isaiah well and would have immediately recalled this allegory of the vineyard.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83070,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:1","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:1-12<\/strong> The events of 11:27–12:44 all take place in the Temple (see 11:27; 13:1). This story (literally <em>parable<\/em>) is intimately tied to the previous question about Jesus’ authority (11:27-33) by the introductory words, <em>Then Jesus began teaching them<\/em>. This parable is an extended reply by Jesus to the religious leaders. • Jesus intended his audience to interpret this parable in light of Isa 5:1-7, a similar story of someone planting a vineyard, building a lookout tower, putting a fence around the vineyard, and digging a pit for a wine vat. A similar question is asked: <em>What do you suppose the owner of the vineyard will do?<\/em> (Mark 12:9; cp. Isa 5:4). Isaiah specifically identifies the vineyard as the people of Israel (Isa 5:7); Jesus’ hearers and Mark’s readers would similarly have understood the present story as an allegory about the Israelites. Other details in the story are also clearly meant to be interpreted allegorically: The tenants represent the leaders of Israel; the owner represents God; the servants represent the Old Testament prophets; the beloved son represents Jesus, the Son of God; the murder of the son represents Jesus’ crucifixion; and the giving of the vineyard to others represents the judgment coming upon Israel (Mark 11:15-17; 13:1-37). The interpretation would have been more clear to Mark’s readers than to Jesus’ original audience, but the religious leaders who were Jesus’ contemporaries understood it clearly enough that they sought to kill him (12:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:1-12<\/strong> The events of 11:27–12:44 all take place in the Temple (see 11:27; 13:1). This story (literally <em>parable<\/em>) is intimately tied to the previous question about Jesus’ authority (11:27-33) by the introductory words, <em>Then Jesus began teaching them<\/em>. This parable is an extended reply by Jesus to the religious leaders. • Jesus intended his audience to interpret this parable in light of Isa 5:1-7, a similar story of someone planting a vineyard, building a lookout tower, putting a fence around the vineyard, and digging a pit for a wine vat. A similar question is asked: <em>What do you suppose the owner of the vineyard will do?<\/em> (Mark 12:9; cp. Isa 5:4). Isaiah specifically identifies the vineyard as the people of Israel (Isa 5:7); Jesus’ hearers and Mark’s readers would similarly have understood the present story as an allegory about the Israelites. Other details in the story are also clearly meant to be interpreted allegorically: The tenants represent the leaders of Israel; the owner represents God; the servants represent the Old Testament prophets; the beloved son represents Jesus, the Son of God; the murder of the son represents Jesus’ crucifixion; and the giving of the vineyard to others represents the judgment coming upon Israel (Mark 11:15-17; 13:1-37). The interpretation would have been more clear to Mark’s readers than to Jesus’ original audience, but the religious leaders who were Jesus’ contemporaries understood it clearly enough that they sought to kill him (12:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:1-12 The events of 11:27–12:44 all take place in the Temple (see 11:27; 13:1). This story (literally parable) is intimately tied to the previous question about Jesus’ authority (11:27-33) by the introductory words, Then Jesus began teaching them. This parable is an extended reply by Jesus to the religious leaders. • Jesus intended his audience to interpret this parable in light of Isa 5:1-7, a similar story of someone planting a vineyard, building a lookout tower, putting a fence around th...","summary_en":"12:1-12 The events of 11:27–12:44 all take place in the Temple (see 11:27; 13:1). This story (literally parable) is intimately tied to the previous question about Jesus’ authority (11:27-33) by the introductory words, Then Jesus began teaching them. This parable is an extended reply by Jesus to the religious leaders. • Jesus intended his audience to interpret this parable in light of Isa 5:1-7, a similar story of someone planting a vineyard, building a lookout tower, putting a fence around th...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83071,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:1","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:1<\/strong> The antecedent to <em>them<\/em> is the religious leaders of 11:27 (also in 12:12). • The beginning description of the story comes from Isa 5:1-7. Jesus’ audience knew the book of Isaiah well and would have immediately recalled this allegory of the vineyard.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:1<\/strong> The antecedent to <em>them<\/em> is the religious leaders of 11:27 (also in 12:12). • The beginning description of the story comes from Isa 5:1-7. Jesus’ audience knew the book of Isaiah well and would have immediately recalled this allegory of the vineyard.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:1 The antecedent to them is the religious leaders of 11:27 (also in 12:12). • The beginning description of the story comes from Isa 5:1-7. Jesus’ audience knew the book of Isaiah well and would have immediately recalled this allegory of the vineyard.","summary_en":"12:1 The antecedent to them is the religious leaders of 11:27 (also in 12:12). • The beginning description of the story comes from Isa 5:1-7. Jesus’ audience knew the book of Isaiah well and would have immediately recalled this allegory of the vineyard.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110696,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:1","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:1-12<\/strong> The events of 11:27–12:44 all take place in the Temple (see 11:27; 13:1). This story (literally <em>parable<\/em>) is intimately tied to the previous question about Jesus’ authority (11:27-33) by the introductory words, <em>Then Jesus began teaching them<\/em>. This parable is an extended reply by Jesus to the religious leaders. • Jesus intended his audience to interpret this parable in light of Isa 5:1-7, a similar story of someone planting a vineyard, building a lookout tower, putting a fence around the vineyard, and digging a pit for a wine vat. A similar question is asked: <em>What do you suppose the owner of the vineyard will do?<\/em> (Mark 12:9; cp. Isa 5:4). Isaiah specifically identifies the vineyard as the people of Israel (Isa 5:7); Jesus’ hearers and Mark’s readers would similarly have understood the present story as an allegory about the Israelites. Other details in the story are also clearly meant to be interpreted allegorically: The tenants represent the leaders of Israel; the owner represents God; the servants represent the Old Testament prophets; the beloved son represents Jesus, the Son of God; the murder of the son represents Jesus’ crucifixion; and the giving of the vineyard to others represents the judgment coming upon Israel (Mark 11:15-17; 13:1-37). The interpretation would have been more clear to Mark’s readers than to Jesus’ original audience, but the religious leaders who were Jesus’ contemporaries understood it clearly enough that they sought to kill him (12:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:1-12<\/strong> The events of 11:27–12:44 all take place in the Temple (see 11:27; 13:1). This story (literally <em>parable<\/em>) is intimately tied to the previous question about Jesus’ authority (11:27-33) by the introductory words, <em>Then Jesus began teaching them<\/em>. This parable is an extended reply by Jesus to the religious leaders. • Jesus intended his audience to interpret this parable in light of Isa 5:1-7, a similar story of someone planting a vineyard, building a lookout tower, putting a fence around the vineyard, and digging a pit for a wine vat. A similar question is asked: <em>What do you suppose the owner of the vineyard will do?<\/em> (Mark 12:9; cp. Isa 5:4). Isaiah specifically identifies the vineyard as the people of Israel (Isa 5:7); Jesus’ hearers and Mark’s readers would similarly have understood the present story as an allegory about the Israelites. Other details in the story are also clearly meant to be interpreted allegorically: The tenants represent the leaders of Israel; the owner represents God; the servants represent the Old Testament prophets; the beloved son represents Jesus, the Son of God; the murder of the son represents Jesus’ crucifixion; and the giving of the vineyard to others represents the judgment coming upon Israel (Mark 11:15-17; 13:1-37). The interpretation would have been more clear to Mark’s readers than to Jesus’ original audience, but the religious leaders who were Jesus’ contemporaries understood it clearly enough that they sought to kill him (12:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:1-12 The events of 11:27–12:44 all take place in the Temple (see 11:27; 13:1). This story (literally parable) is intimately tied to the previous question about Jesus’ authority (11:27-33) by the introductory words, Then Jesus began teaching them. This parable is an extended reply by Jesus to the religious leaders. • Jesus intended his audience to interpret this parable in light of Isa 5:1-7, a similar story of someone planting a vineyard, building a lookout tower, putting a fence around th...","summary_en":"12:1-12 The events of 11:27–12:44 all take place in the Temple (see 11:27; 13:1). This story (literally parable) is intimately tied to the previous question about Jesus’ authority (11:27-33) by the introductory words, Then Jesus began teaching them. This parable is an extended reply by Jesus to the religious leaders. • Jesus intended his audience to interpret this parable in light of Isa 5:1-7, a similar story of someone planting a vineyard, building a lookout tower, putting a fence around th...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110697,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:1","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:1<\/strong> The antecedent to <em>them<\/em> is the religious leaders of 11:27 (also in 12:12). • The beginning description of the story comes from Isa 5:1-7. Jesus’ audience knew the book of Isaiah well and would have immediately recalled this allegory of the vineyard.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:1<\/strong> The antecedent to <em>them<\/em> is the religious leaders of 11:27 (also in 12:12). • The beginning description of the story comes from Isa 5:1-7. Jesus’ audience knew the book of Isaiah well and would have immediately recalled this allegory of the vineyard.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:1 The antecedent to them is the religious leaders of 11:27 (also in 12:12). • The beginning description of the story comes from Isa 5:1-7. Jesus’ audience knew the book of Isaiah well and would have immediately recalled this allegory of the vineyard.","summary_en":"12:1 The antecedent to them is the religious leaders of 11:27 (also in 12:12). • The beginning description of the story comes from Isa 5:1-7. Jesus’ audience knew the book of Isaiah well and would have immediately recalled this allegory of the vineyard.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138322,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:1","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:1-12<\/strong> The events of 11:27–12:44 all take place in the Temple (see 11:27; 13:1). This story (literally <em>parable<\/em>) is intimately tied to the previous question about Jesus’ authority (11:27-33) by the introductory words, <em>Then Jesus began teaching them<\/em>. This parable is an extended reply by Jesus to the religious leaders. • Jesus intended his audience to interpret this parable in light of Isa 5:1-7, a similar story of someone planting a vineyard, building a lookout tower, putting a fence around the vineyard, and digging a pit for a wine vat. A similar question is asked: <em>What do you suppose the owner of the vineyard will do?<\/em> (Mark 12:9; cp. Isa 5:4). Isaiah specifically identifies the vineyard as the people of Israel (Isa 5:7); Jesus’ hearers and Mark’s readers would similarly have understood the present story as an allegory about the Israelites. Other details in the story are also clearly meant to be interpreted allegorically: The tenants represent the leaders of Israel; the owner represents God; the servants represent the Old Testament prophets; the beloved son represents Jesus, the Son of God; the murder of the son represents Jesus’ crucifixion; and the giving of the vineyard to others represents the judgment coming upon Israel (Mark 11:15-17; 13:1-37). The interpretation would have been more clear to Mark’s readers than to Jesus’ original audience, but the religious leaders who were Jesus’ contemporaries understood it clearly enough that they sought to kill him (12:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:1-12<\/strong> The events of 11:27–12:44 all take place in the Temple (see 11:27; 13:1). This story (literally <em>parable<\/em>) is intimately tied to the previous question about Jesus’ authority (11:27-33) by the introductory words, <em>Then Jesus began teaching them<\/em>. This parable is an extended reply by Jesus to the religious leaders. • Jesus intended his audience to interpret this parable in light of Isa 5:1-7, a similar story of someone planting a vineyard, building a lookout tower, putting a fence around the vineyard, and digging a pit for a wine vat. A similar question is asked: <em>What do you suppose the owner of the vineyard will do?<\/em> (Mark 12:9; cp. Isa 5:4). Isaiah specifically identifies the vineyard as the people of Israel (Isa 5:7); Jesus’ hearers and Mark’s readers would similarly have understood the present story as an allegory about the Israelites. Other details in the story are also clearly meant to be interpreted allegorically: The tenants represent the leaders of Israel; the owner represents God; the servants represent the Old Testament prophets; the beloved son represents Jesus, the Son of God; the murder of the son represents Jesus’ crucifixion; and the giving of the vineyard to others represents the judgment coming upon Israel (Mark 11:15-17; 13:1-37). The interpretation would have been more clear to Mark’s readers than to Jesus’ original audience, but the religious leaders who were Jesus’ contemporaries understood it clearly enough that they sought to kill him (12:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:1-12 The events of 11:27–12:44 all take place in the Temple (see 11:27; 13:1). This story (literally parable) is intimately tied to the previous question about Jesus’ authority (11:27-33) by the introductory words, Then Jesus began teaching them. This parable is an extended reply by Jesus to the religious leaders. • Jesus intended his audience to interpret this parable in light of Isa 5:1-7, a similar story of someone planting a vineyard, building a lookout tower, putting a fence around th...","summary_en":"12:1-12 The events of 11:27–12:44 all take place in the Temple (see 11:27; 13:1). This story (literally parable) is intimately tied to the previous question about Jesus’ authority (11:27-33) by the introductory words, Then Jesus began teaching them. This parable is an extended reply by Jesus to the religious leaders. • Jesus intended his audience to interpret this parable in light of Isa 5:1-7, a similar story of someone planting a vineyard, building a lookout tower, putting a fence around th...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138323,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:1","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:1<\/strong> The antecedent to <em>them<\/em> is the religious leaders of 11:27 (also in 12:12). • The beginning description of the story comes from Isa 5:1-7. Jesus’ audience knew the book of Isaiah well and would have immediately recalled this allegory of the vineyard.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:1<\/strong> The antecedent to <em>them<\/em> is the religious leaders of 11:27 (also in 12:12). • The beginning description of the story comes from Isa 5:1-7. Jesus’ audience knew the book of Isaiah well and would have immediately recalled this allegory of the vineyard.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:1 The antecedent to them is the religious leaders of 11:27 (also in 12:12). • The beginning description of the story comes from Isa 5:1-7. Jesus’ audience knew the book of Isaiah well and would have immediately recalled this allegory of the vineyard.","summary_en":"12:1 The antecedent to them is the religious leaders of 11:27 (also in 12:12). • The beginning description of the story comes from Isa 5:1-7. Jesus’ audience knew the book of Isaiah well and would have immediately recalled this allegory of the vineyard.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65430,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Son of God","title_en":"The Son of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","summary_en":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93056,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Son of God","title_en":"The Son of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","summary_en":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":120682,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Son of God","title_en":"The Son of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","summary_en":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148308,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Son of God","title_en":"The Son of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","summary_en":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"2":[{"id":34447,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Servant","title_en":"Servant","content_ro":"<h3>SERVANT<\/h3>\n<p>A person under obligation to serve a master, who in turn would provide a measure of protection. Some servants were slaves under legal bondage; others were servants voluntarily. It is not always possible to distinguish among “servant,” “slave,” “bondman,” and “bondwoman.” Several words in both Hebrew and Greek have been translated “servant,” although newer translations sometimes prefer other words.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word for “lad,” “youth,” or “boy” often means servant (Ex 33:11; Nm 22:22; 2 Kgs 4:12). A word meaning “free-born servant” referred to the servants of the Lord, like the Levites (Ezr 8:17; Is 61:6; Ez 44:11) or priests (Ex 28:35; Jl 1:9; 2:17). Sometimes ministers of the king are called servants (1 Chr 27:1; Prv 29:12), as are angels who minister before the Lord (Pss 103:21; 104:4). The hired servant or hireling was also considered a free person (Ex 12:45; Jb 7:1; Mal 3:5).<\/p>\n<p>The most common Hebrew term, occurring nearly 800 times in the OT, denotes a slave held in bondage (Gn 9:25; 12:16; Ex 20:17; Dt 5:15; 15:17). Yet the same word is used for people of noble rank, such as ministers and advisers to the king (2 Kgs 22:12; 2 Chr 34:20; Neh 2:10) or a servant of God (Gn 24:14; Nm 12:7; Jos 1:7; 2 Kgs 21:8), in such expressions as “Moses [or also David, Isaiah, Israel, Job, etc.] my servant.” One of the noblest expressions is “the servant of Yahweh [the <span>Lord<\/span>]” (Dt 34:5; Jos 1:13; 8:31-33; Is 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13–53:12). The proper name Obadiah means “servant of Yahweh.”<\/p>\n<p>The NT variously defines servant as a hired servant or hireling (Mk 1:20; Lk 15:17-19; Jn 10:12-14), more widely as a slave (Mt 8:9; 10:24-25; 13:27-28; Mk 10:44; 12:2-4; Lk 7:2-3, 8-10; Jn 4:51; 8:34; 13:16; Eph 6:5; Col 1:7), and also as a domestic servant (Lk 16:13).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Slave, Slavery.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SERVANT<\/h3>\n<p>A person under obligation to serve a master, who in turn would provide a measure of protection. Some servants were slaves under legal bondage; others were servants voluntarily. It is not always possible to distinguish among “servant,” “slave,” “bondman,” and “bondwoman.” Several words in both Hebrew and Greek have been translated “servant,” although newer translations sometimes prefer other words.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word for “lad,” “youth,” or “boy” often means servant (Ex 33:11; Nm 22:22; 2 Kgs 4:12). A word meaning “free-born servant” referred to the servants of the Lord, like the Levites (Ezr 8:17; Is 61:6; Ez 44:11) or priests (Ex 28:35; Jl 1:9; 2:17). Sometimes ministers of the king are called servants (1 Chr 27:1; Prv 29:12), as are angels who minister before the Lord (Pss 103:21; 104:4). The hired servant or hireling was also considered a free person (Ex 12:45; Jb 7:1; Mal 3:5).<\/p>\n<p>The most common Hebrew term, occurring nearly 800 times in the OT, denotes a slave held in bondage (Gn 9:25; 12:16; Ex 20:17; Dt 5:15; 15:17). Yet the same word is used for people of noble rank, such as ministers and advisers to the king (2 Kgs 22:12; 2 Chr 34:20; Neh 2:10) or a servant of God (Gn 24:14; Nm 12:7; Jos 1:7; 2 Kgs 21:8), in such expressions as “Moses [or also David, Isaiah, Israel, Job, etc.] my servant.” One of the noblest expressions is “the servant of Yahweh [the <span>Lord<\/span>]” (Dt 34:5; Jos 1:13; 8:31-33; Is 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13–53:12). The proper name Obadiah means “servant of Yahweh.”<\/p>\n<p>The NT variously defines servant as a hired servant or hireling (Mk 1:20; Lk 15:17-19; Jn 10:12-14), more widely as a slave (Mt 8:9; 10:24-25; 13:27-28; Mk 10:44; 12:2-4; Lk 7:2-3, 8-10; Jn 4:51; 8:34; 13:16; Eph 6:5; Col 1:7), and also as a domestic servant (Lk 16:13).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Slave, Slavery.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SERVANT A person under obligation to serve a master, who in turn would provide a measure of protection. Some servants were slaves under legal bondage; others were servants voluntarily. It is not always possible to distinguish among “servant,” “slave,” “bondman,” and “bondwoman.” Several words in both Hebrew and Greek have been translated “servant,” although newer translations sometimes prefer other words. The Hebrew word for “lad,” “youth,” or “boy” often means servant (Ex 33:11; Nm 22:22; 2 ...","summary_en":"SERVANT A person under obligation to serve a master, who in turn would provide a measure of protection. Some servants were slaves under legal bondage; others were servants voluntarily. It is not always possible to distinguish among “servant,” “slave,” “bondman,” and “bondwoman.” Several words in both Hebrew and Greek have been translated “servant,” although newer translations sometimes prefer other words. The Hebrew word for “lad,” “youth,” or “boy” often means servant (Ex 33:11; Nm 22:22; 2 ...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55446,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:2","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:2-5<\/strong> <em>The time of the grape harvest<\/em> probably refers to the time, some four years after planting, when a new vineyard would produce its first harvest. The owner’s <em>share of the crop<\/em> would have been a quantity of grapes or wine, given in payment for the lease of the vineyard. • In the Old Testament, prophets are often referred to as <em>servants<\/em> (Jer 7:25-26; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6); they were repeatedly mistreated and killed by Israelite leaders (1 Kgs 18:13; 19:10, 14; 2 Chr 24:20-27; 36:15-16; Jer 26:20-23; Neh 9:26; see Matt 23:34, 37; 1 Thes 2:15).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:2-5<\/strong> <em>The time of the grape harvest<\/em> probably refers to the time, some four years after planting, when a new vineyard would produce its first harvest. The owner’s <em>share of the crop<\/em> would have been a quantity of grapes or wine, given in payment for the lease of the vineyard. • In the Old Testament, prophets are often referred to as <em>servants<\/em> (Jer 7:25-26; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6); they were repeatedly mistreated and killed by Israelite leaders (1 Kgs 18:13; 19:10, 14; 2 Chr 24:20-27; 36:15-16; Jer 26:20-23; Neh 9:26; see Matt 23:34, 37; 1 Thes 2:15).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:2-5 The time of the grape harvest probably refers to the time, some four years after planting, when a new vineyard would produce its first harvest. The owner’s share of the crop would have been a quantity of grapes or wine, given in payment for the lease of the vineyard. • In the Old Testament, prophets are often referred to as servants (Jer 7:25-26; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6); they were repeatedly mistreated and killed by Israelite leaders (1 Kgs 18:13; 19:10, 14; 2 Chr 24:20-27; 36:15-16; Jer 2...","summary_en":"12:2-5 The time of the grape harvest probably refers to the time, some four years after planting, when a new vineyard would produce its first harvest. The owner’s share of the crop would have been a quantity of grapes or wine, given in payment for the lease of the vineyard. • In the Old Testament, prophets are often referred to as servants (Jer 7:25-26; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6); they were repeatedly mistreated and killed by Israelite leaders (1 Kgs 18:13; 19:10, 14; 2 Chr 24:20-27; 36:15-16; Jer 2...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83072,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:2","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:2-5<\/strong> <em>The time of the grape harvest<\/em> probably refers to the time, some four years after planting, when a new vineyard would produce its first harvest. The owner’s <em>share of the crop<\/em> would have been a quantity of grapes or wine, given in payment for the lease of the vineyard. • In the Old Testament, prophets are often referred to as <em>servants<\/em> (Jer 7:25-26; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6); they were repeatedly mistreated and killed by Israelite leaders (1 Kgs 18:13; 19:10, 14; 2 Chr 24:20-27; 36:15-16; Jer 26:20-23; Neh 9:26; see Matt 23:34, 37; 1 Thes 2:15).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:2-5<\/strong> <em>The time of the grape harvest<\/em> probably refers to the time, some four years after planting, when a new vineyard would produce its first harvest. The owner’s <em>share of the crop<\/em> would have been a quantity of grapes or wine, given in payment for the lease of the vineyard. • In the Old Testament, prophets are often referred to as <em>servants<\/em> (Jer 7:25-26; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6); they were repeatedly mistreated and killed by Israelite leaders (1 Kgs 18:13; 19:10, 14; 2 Chr 24:20-27; 36:15-16; Jer 26:20-23; Neh 9:26; see Matt 23:34, 37; 1 Thes 2:15).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:2-5 The time of the grape harvest probably refers to the time, some four years after planting, when a new vineyard would produce its first harvest. The owner’s share of the crop would have been a quantity of grapes or wine, given in payment for the lease of the vineyard. • In the Old Testament, prophets are often referred to as servants (Jer 7:25-26; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6); they were repeatedly mistreated and killed by Israelite leaders (1 Kgs 18:13; 19:10, 14; 2 Chr 24:20-27; 36:15-16; Jer 2...","summary_en":"12:2-5 The time of the grape harvest probably refers to the time, some four years after planting, when a new vineyard would produce its first harvest. The owner’s share of the crop would have been a quantity of grapes or wine, given in payment for the lease of the vineyard. • In the Old Testament, prophets are often referred to as servants (Jer 7:25-26; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6); they were repeatedly mistreated and killed by Israelite leaders (1 Kgs 18:13; 19:10, 14; 2 Chr 24:20-27; 36:15-16; Jer 2...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110698,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:2","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:2-5<\/strong> <em>The time of the grape harvest<\/em> probably refers to the time, some four years after planting, when a new vineyard would produce its first harvest. The owner’s <em>share of the crop<\/em> would have been a quantity of grapes or wine, given in payment for the lease of the vineyard. • In the Old Testament, prophets are often referred to as <em>servants<\/em> (Jer 7:25-26; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6); they were repeatedly mistreated and killed by Israelite leaders (1 Kgs 18:13; 19:10, 14; 2 Chr 24:20-27; 36:15-16; Jer 26:20-23; Neh 9:26; see Matt 23:34, 37; 1 Thes 2:15).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:2-5<\/strong> <em>The time of the grape harvest<\/em> probably refers to the time, some four years after planting, when a new vineyard would produce its first harvest. The owner’s <em>share of the crop<\/em> would have been a quantity of grapes or wine, given in payment for the lease of the vineyard. • In the Old Testament, prophets are often referred to as <em>servants<\/em> (Jer 7:25-26; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6); they were repeatedly mistreated and killed by Israelite leaders (1 Kgs 18:13; 19:10, 14; 2 Chr 24:20-27; 36:15-16; Jer 26:20-23; Neh 9:26; see Matt 23:34, 37; 1 Thes 2:15).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:2-5 The time of the grape harvest probably refers to the time, some four years after planting, when a new vineyard would produce its first harvest. The owner’s share of the crop would have been a quantity of grapes or wine, given in payment for the lease of the vineyard. • In the Old Testament, prophets are often referred to as servants (Jer 7:25-26; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6); they were repeatedly mistreated and killed by Israelite leaders (1 Kgs 18:13; 19:10, 14; 2 Chr 24:20-27; 36:15-16; Jer 2...","summary_en":"12:2-5 The time of the grape harvest probably refers to the time, some four years after planting, when a new vineyard would produce its first harvest. The owner’s share of the crop would have been a quantity of grapes or wine, given in payment for the lease of the vineyard. • In the Old Testament, prophets are often referred to as servants (Jer 7:25-26; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6); they were repeatedly mistreated and killed by Israelite leaders (1 Kgs 18:13; 19:10, 14; 2 Chr 24:20-27; 36:15-16; Jer 2...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138324,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:2","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:2-5<\/strong> <em>The time of the grape harvest<\/em> probably refers to the time, some four years after planting, when a new vineyard would produce its first harvest. The owner’s <em>share of the crop<\/em> would have been a quantity of grapes or wine, given in payment for the lease of the vineyard. • In the Old Testament, prophets are often referred to as <em>servants<\/em> (Jer 7:25-26; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6); they were repeatedly mistreated and killed by Israelite leaders (1 Kgs 18:13; 19:10, 14; 2 Chr 24:20-27; 36:15-16; Jer 26:20-23; Neh 9:26; see Matt 23:34, 37; 1 Thes 2:15).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:2-5<\/strong> <em>The time of the grape harvest<\/em> probably refers to the time, some four years after planting, when a new vineyard would produce its first harvest. The owner’s <em>share of the crop<\/em> would have been a quantity of grapes or wine, given in payment for the lease of the vineyard. • In the Old Testament, prophets are often referred to as <em>servants<\/em> (Jer 7:25-26; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6); they were repeatedly mistreated and killed by Israelite leaders (1 Kgs 18:13; 19:10, 14; 2 Chr 24:20-27; 36:15-16; Jer 26:20-23; Neh 9:26; see Matt 23:34, 37; 1 Thes 2:15).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:2-5 The time of the grape harvest probably refers to the time, some four years after planting, when a new vineyard would produce its first harvest. The owner’s share of the crop would have been a quantity of grapes or wine, given in payment for the lease of the vineyard. • In the Old Testament, prophets are often referred to as servants (Jer 7:25-26; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6); they were repeatedly mistreated and killed by Israelite leaders (1 Kgs 18:13; 19:10, 14; 2 Chr 24:20-27; 36:15-16; Jer 2...","summary_en":"12:2-5 The time of the grape harvest probably refers to the time, some four years after planting, when a new vineyard would produce its first harvest. The owner’s share of the crop would have been a quantity of grapes or wine, given in payment for the lease of the vineyard. • In the Old Testament, prophets are often referred to as servants (Jer 7:25-26; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6); they were repeatedly mistreated and killed by Israelite leaders (1 Kgs 18:13; 19:10, 14; 2 Chr 24:20-27; 36:15-16; Jer 2...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"6":[{"id":14619,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel","title_en":"Gospel","content_ro":"<h3>GOSPEL<\/h3>\n<p>Word derived from the Anglo-Saxon <em>godspell<\/em> denoting “glad tidings” or “good news.”<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Gospel Message of Isaiah<\/p>\n<p>• The Gospel in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• The Good News of Christ’s Coming<\/p>\n<p>• The Gospel according to Jesus<\/p>\n<p>• The Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheGospelMessageofIsaiah\">The Gospel Message of Isaiah<\/p>\n<p>Of all the passages cited, those of Isaiah provide the most important background for the gospel in the NT. According to Isaiah’s gospel, it is God alone who saves, and there is no explanation for his saving action except in his own nature. Israel’s deliverance is undeserved; she is no more worthy of the divine love now than when she went into captivity. In whatever measure she has paid the just due for her past sins (Is 40:2), she remains a sinful people (42:25; 46:12-13; 48:1). It is only by God’s grace that she is saved (55:1-7). By God’s design, Israel’s salvation depends not upon her own righteousness but upon his (41:10; 45:24; 46:13; 51:5-6). There being no righteousness to reward, the Lord acts to <em>create<\/em> righteousness in Israel (45:8; 61:3, 10-11). Yet as these references indicate, salvation is not accomplished at the expense of justice. The penalty for Israel’s sins is to be paid in full. God’s mercy is not hereby called into question. On the contrary, it is precisely here that his mercy is most poignantly expressed, for the penalty is exacted not from his people but from the Servant appointed to stand in their place (53:4-12). Through the Servant’s work, many shall be justified (53:11). The coming of the Evangelist—the preacher of the good news—is predicted in Isaiah 61. He is called the anointed One (v 1) who proclaims the year of the Lord’s favor (v 2). God will be glorified through his preaching (v 3).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheGospelintheNewTestament\">The Gospel in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In only two places (Gal 3:8; Heb 4:2, 6) does the NT speak of the proclamation of the gospel prior to the Christian era. This is quite remarkable, given (1) the unmistakable presence of the gospel in the OT, (2) the extent of gospel terminology in the NT (in the Greek the noun appears 76 times; and the verb, 54), and (3) the fact that the NT presents Christ as the fulfillment of the OT and draws heavily on the OT to interpret his person and work. Not only is it remarkable; it is very significant. It indicates that the NT usage depends not only upon the <em>character<\/em> of the message (truth about salvation) but also upon <em>historical events.<\/em> Almost without exception, the NT restricts its application of gospel terminology to proclamations made during the time of fulfillment—the age in which the salvation promised in the OT is actually accomplished. The NT is preoccupied, not with promises of salvation, but with news of salvation. According to Mark 1:1-4, the gospel “begins” not in the OT but with John the Baptist, in whose work OT prophecy is fulfilled. In Romans 1:1-5 the gospel is represented as a blessing promised in the OT but not actually given until Jesus comes (see also Acts 13:32-33).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheGoodNewsofChristsComing\">The Good News of Christ’s Coming<\/p>\n<p>The promised birth of John the Baptist is good news (Lk 1:19), not only for his parents (vv 7, 24-25) but for all the people: John is sent to prepare them for Messiah’s coming (vv 14-17, 67-79). John’s own preaching is gospel (3:18) for the same reason. The Messiah would be coming to execute judgment, a process that involves both condemnation and salvation (vv 3-17). John’s message is gospel for sinners in that they are warned of impending doom and urged to repent before the ax falls (vv 7-9); it is gospel for the repentant in that they are promised forgiveness (v 3) and membership in Messiah’s community (v 17). The birth of the Savior himself is announced as good news bringing great joy (2:10-11).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheGospelaccordingtoJesus\">The Gospel according to Jesus<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the Kingdom of God<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus was authorized by God and anointed by the Spirit to proclaim the gospel (Mk 1:14; Lk 4:18). At the heart of his preaching stands the announcement “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mk 1:15). (For further references to this gospel, see Mt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13; Mk 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; Lk 4:43; 8:1; 16:16.) The message is good news for several reasons: (1) The kingdom is coming. The God whom Jesus proclaims is sovereign over all he has made. Yet paradoxically his rule is incomplete: his will is not done on earth as it is in heaven; wrong, not right, prevails. But these conditions are not final, according to Jesus. With the coming of the kingdom, God’s rule will be completed; wrong will be judged, righteousness established, and his people blessed. (2) The kingdom is <em>now<\/em> being inaugurated. “The time is fulfilled,” declares Jesus (Mk 1:15a). The time appointed for the fulfillment of the OT promises has arrived. (3) The consummation of the kingdom is therefore no longer a distant prospect; the full realization of God’s rule is “at hand” (Mk 1:15b). (4) God is establishing his rule for a saving purpose. This is implied in Jesus’ call to repentance (Mk 1:15c). It is especially clear in the passages to which we now turn.<\/p>\n<h5>The Salvation of the Poor<\/h5>\n<p>Invited to read the Scripture in the synagogue at Nazareth, Jesus turns to Isaiah 61: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord” (Lk 4:18-19, <span>rsv<\/span>). Having read the prophecy, Jesus announces its fulfillment in his own ministry (v 21). Included among those whom Jesus has come to free are the physically infirm, such as the blind (v 18) and the leprous (v 27) (cf. the references to healing miracles in vv 23, 33-41; the close connection between evangelizing and healing in Mt 4:23; 9:35; 11:5; Lk 7:21-22; 9:6; and the description in Mt 12:22-29; Lk 13:11-16, of the physically afflicted as captives of Satan now liberated by Jesus). Also included are the materially poor—people like the widow helped by Elijah during the famine (Lk 4:25-26). It is the literally poor and hungry whom Jesus pronounces “blessed” in Luke 6:20-21. Yet it is primarily “spiritual” poverty that is in view. Still applying Isaiah 61, Jesus speaks in Matthew 5:3 of the “poor in spirit.” These are people broken and grieved by misery and poverty, oppression and injustice, suffering and death, national apostasy and personal sin—people who in their extremity turn to God and longingly wait for him to bring forth justice, bestow his mercy, and establish his kingdom. It is to just such people that Jesus brings good news (Mt 5:3-10). God sent him to usher in the kingdom, to rescue the lost, to liberate the enslaved, to cure the afflicted, to bind up hearts that are broken, and to forgive the guilty (Mk 2:5, 10, 17; 10:45; Lk 4:18-21; 7:48-49; 15:1-32; 19:10).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gift of Grace<\/h5>\n<p>The coming of the kingdom is not the effect or the reward of human effort but God’s answer to the human predicament—the gift of his favor (Lk 12:32). Correspondingly, the explanation for the salvation of the poor lies nowhere but in God’s own character. As the prodigal himself recognized, he hardly deserved to be his father’s servant, much less his son. Nothing he did, not even his repentance, accounted for the father’s love (15:11-32). In the parable of Matthew 20:1-16, it is owing entirely to the goodness of the employer that the last workers to be hired receive a full day’s wages. The first debtor in the story of Matthew 18:23-35 earned nothing but the right to be sold into slavery; instead, the king canceled his enormous debt. The publican, who had nothing to offer God but a confession of sin and plea for mercy, went home justified (Lk 18:13-14). The same holds true for the more virtuous among the poor, such as the persons described in Matthew 5:7-10. Their virtue is real, not imagined. Yet in keeping God’s commands, they do not put him in their debt; they are simply doing their duty (Lk 17:7-10). Furthermore, even the most merciful need divine mercy (Mt 5:7). For even those most zealous to obey God’s law are unable to fulfill all its requirements (cf. 11:28-30). The first servant in Matthew 18:23-35 owes far more money than someone in such a situation could possibly pay—which serves to magnify the generosity of the king. Grace depends for its exercise upon the inability of its objects (Lk 14:12-14).<\/p>\n<h5>The Call to Salvation<\/h5>\n<p>The Israelites are without exception a sinful people, all of them needing the salvation that Jesus brings (Mt 1:21; Lk 1:77). In demonstration of God’s grace, Jesus proclaimed his gospel to the entire nation (Mt 4:23; 9:35; 15:24; Lk 4:43; 9:6; 20:1). From the most respectable to the least, all are summoned to submit to God’s rule, all are invited to come and partake freely of the banquet he has spread (Lk 14:16-24). But the gift of salvation must be received if it is to be experienced (Mk 10:15). And while it is indeed a gift that costs nothing, it is also a priceless treasure for which a wise person will freely sacrifice everything else (Mt 13:44-46), a sacrifice exceeded only by the cost of rejecting the gospel (Mt 11:20-24; Mk 8:34-39; Lk 14:24, 33). “Repent and believe in the gospel,” Jesus commands (Mk 1:15). The self-righteous and the self-sufficient must be jolted out of their false sense of security and humbly recognize their need for God (Lk 6:24-26). Only then will Jesus’ message to the poor be seen as gospel. An announcement of liberation (4:18-19) is good news only to people who are enslaved and know they are. The command applies also to the destitute and the afflicted. Those among them who bemoan their lot must repent of their sins. But something further is needed for the response to be complete: a person cannot believe Jesus’ gospel without a commitment to the <em>Person<\/em> of Christ (Jn 3:16). Even those who are already “poor in spirit,” in the sense defined earlier, are not really “blessed” until they acknowledge the truth of Jesus’ claims (Mt 11:6) and commit themselves to a life of obedience on his terms (7:21-27). This prepares us for the next point.<\/p>\n<h5>Summary<\/h5>\n<p>Throughout Jesus’ earthly ministry, the theme of his gospel remains the dawning of God’s kingdom (Mt 4:23; 24:14; Lk 4:43; 16:16), a message that is preached almost exclusively to Jews (Mt 10:5-6; 15:24). Yet Jesus also provides glimpses into what the gospel was to become once his work on earth was accomplished: (1) In Mark 8:35 and 10:29 Jesus speaks of individuals who needed to make great sacrifices “for my sake and for the gospel.” While distinguished from each other, the person of Jesus and the gospel are here associated in the closest possible way. The time was approaching when the Proclaimer of the gospel would become the Proclaimed. (2) In Mark 13:10 and Matthew 24:14 (and the textually doubtful Mk 16:15) Jesus foretells the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom to the gentile nations. (3) In Mark 14, having interpreted a woman’s action (v 3) as an anointing of his body beforehand for burial (v 8), Jesus declares, “And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her” (v 9, <span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Mt 26:13). This statement strongly implies that both the person of Jesus and the event of his death will figure prominently in the message that is to be proclaimed; otherwise, it is strange that the gospel and this particular act should be so solemnly bound together. Thus, here in the text already is an indication of how crucial Jesus’ death is both for the provision of the salvation announced in his gospel (cf. Mk 14:22-24) and for the launching of the evangelistic mission to the Gentiles (Mt 20:28 is vital for explaining the shift from Mt 15:24 to 28:18-20).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheGospelafterJesusResurrection\">The Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection<\/p>\n<p>After the resurrection of Jesus, the gospel was proclaimed by his eyewitnesses. The contents of this gospel are recorded in the book of Acts and in Paul’s letters. Of the 43 instances of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">euangelizomai<\/span> (“evangelize”) beyond the Gospels, 15 occur in Acts and 21 in Paul’s writings; of the 64 instances of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">euangelion<\/span> (“gospel”), 2 occur in Acts and no fewer than 60 in Paul.<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel of Christ<\/h5>\n<p>Having risen from the dead, Jesus Christ again evangelizes (Eph 2:16-17), doing so now through his appointed representatives (Rom 15:16-18; 1 Cor 1:17; 9:12-18; Gal 4:13-14; Eph 4:11; 2 Tm 1:9-11). More than that, Christ has become the central theme of the gospel; the Proclaimer is now the Proclaimed. This is repeatedly affirmed in Acts (5:42; 8:4-5, 35; 11:20; 17:18) and in Paul’s writings (Rom 1:1-4; 10:8-17; 15:19-20; 2 Cor 4:4-6; 11:4; Gal 1:16; Eph 3:8; Phil 1:15-18; 2 Tm 2:8). The NT always speaks of <em>the gospel<\/em>—never the gospels—of Christ. A second gospel is as inconceivable and as unnecessary as a second Christ. This is the one gospel that God authorizes (e.g., Rom 1:1-17) and proclaims (e.g., 2 Thes 2:13-14). Galatians 2:7-9 speaks not of two gospels but of two mission fields. Paul (the apostle to the uncircumcised) and Peter (the apostle to the circumcised) are both entrusted with “the gospel of Christ” (Gal 1:7; cf. 1 Cor 15:1-11), the message that God has ordained for the salvation of Jews and Gentiles alike (Rom 1:16). The “different gospel” that Paul denounces in Galatians 1:6-9 and 2 Corinthians 11:4 is not another gospel about Jesus but a message about “another Jesus”—not the real one, but one who exists only in the minds and the messages of those who proclaim him. To preach the true Christ is to preach the true gospel, however questionable one’s motives (Phil 1:15-18, 27), and to respond rightly to the gospel is to turn to Christ (Acts 11:20-21; Rom 10:8-17; Gal 2:14-16).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel as a Witness to Saving Events<\/h5>\n<p>The gospel bears witness to every aspect of Christ’s saving work, from his birth (Rom 1:3; 2 Tm 2:8) and public ministry (Mk 1:1; Acts 10:36-38) to his second coming (Col 1:5, 23; cf. 3:1-4; 1 Thes 1:5-10) and the last judgment (Rom 2:16). But it is the death and the resurrection of Christ that are most crucial for the accomplishment of salvation, and that are therefore most prominent in the gospel’s witness. These are the events with which Mark’s proclamation climaxes (chs 15–16), and for which everything else prepares (8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; 12:6-8); special stress is placed upon Jesus’ death as the means of salvation from sin (10:45; 14:3-9, 22-24). In Paul’s gospel, too, the death and resurrection of Jesus are central (Rom 4:25; 1 Cor 15:1-4), with the cross occupying the very center (1 Cor 1:17–2:5). Had Christ not risen from the dead, Paul argues, the preaching of the cross would be a waste of time (1 Cor 15:14, 17; cf. Rom 6:3-11). However, now that Christ has risen, his death deserves special emphasis as the place where God provides atonement for sins (Rom 3:21-26; 5:6-11; 2 Cor 5:14-21; Eph 1:7). The gospel according to Acts proclaims Jesus’ death (Acts 8:25; 20:24, 28; cf. 10:36-43) and preeminently his resurrection, the event by which he conquered death and was exalted as Lord and coming Judge (10:36-43; 13:32-33; 17:18, 31). According to 1 Peter, the bearers of the gospel (1 Pt 1:12) concentrated, as had the OT prophets, on “the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory” (1:11; cf. 1:18-19; 2:21-24; 3:18-22).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel as a Power for Salvation<\/h5>\n<p>The gospel is much more than a report of past events and an exposition of doctrine. Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 1:17-18 and again in Romans 1:16 that the gospel is “the power of God”—not merely a witness to his power but an <em>expression<\/em> of his power. Thus, it cannot be fettered (2 Tm 2:8-9). “Our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power,” Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 1:5. His point is not that the gospel was accompanied by mighty works (though this happened; cf. Rom 15:18-19), but that the gospel itself is a mighty work. God makes it so through his Holy Spirit (Rom 15:18-19; 1 Cor 2:1-5; 1 Thes 1:6). Furthermore, God’s singular purpose in exercising his power is to change people’s lives, to liberate them from sin and death, and to reconcile them to himself—in short, to save them. The gospel has power to effect the salvation it announces and to impart the life it promises (e.g., Rom 1:16; 10:8-17; 1 Cor 1:17-18; 15:1-2; Eph 1:13; 2 Thes 2:13-14; 2 Tm 1:8-11; 1 Pt 1:23-25). If people are to experience salvation, they must hear and believe the gospel. It is precisely in and through this message that the saving power manifested in the person and work of Christ (especially in his death and resurrection) is conveyed to men and made effective in their lives. Similarly it is in association with the gospel, or as a direct result of the reception of the gospel, that the Holy Spirit is imparted to believers (Acts 10:36-44; 15:7-8; 2 Cor 11:4; Gal 3:1-2). In short, the gospel is the decisive place of encounter between the sinner and God the Savior.<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel of Grace<\/h5>\n<p>According to Peter’s testimony at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:7-11), an essential part of the gospel—for Gentiles and Jews alike—is salvation “through the grace of the Lord Jesus.” Toward the close of his missionary career, Paul states that his basic concern has been “to testify to the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24, <span>rsv<\/span>). This statement can be understood only in relation to Paul’s concept of the righteousness of God, particularly as set forth in Romans. Paul is here not merely expounding a divine attribute. Rather, he is dramatizing a divine activity—the manifestation of God’s righteousness now, “in the present time” (Rom 3:26), in the new age inaugurated by the coming of Jesus. The manifestation is twofold. Viewing the two aspects together, and doing so in the light of the gospel declared by Isaiah and by Jesus (both of whom strongly influenced Paul), respectively, will help us to understand why Paul speaks of “the gospel of the grace of God.”<\/p>\n<p>First, the gospel is a <em>witness<\/em> to God’s grace. In offering his Son as a sacrifice for sins (Rom 3:25a), God demonstrates his righteousness (vv 25b-26). That is, in the death of Jesus sins formerly “passed over” (v 25c) become the object of God’s wrath (cf. 1:18) and judgment. Yet in the very place where God deals justly and decisively with sins, he shows his grace to sinners. For the judgment against sin is focused not upon the sinners themselves but upon the One appointed to act on their behalf and to stand in their place (Rom 4:25; 5:6, 11; cf. 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13). On this basis, sinners are freely pardoned (Rom 3:24). “The grace of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 15:11) toward the sinful is also in evidence, for he willingly bears their iniquities and suffers the consequences of their wrongdoing (Gal 2:20; cf. 2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:6-8).<\/p>\n<p>Second, the gospel is a <em>channel<\/em> of God’s grace. “The righteousness of God is revealed” in the gospel, says Paul (Rom 1:17). By this he means, not that the gospel talks about the righteousness of God (though it does), but that God’s righteousness is actively at work in the gospel. This activity in turn explains how the gospel becomes “the power of God for salvation” (v 16). And just how does God demonstrate his righteousness at this stage? In short, by bestowing it as a free gift on sinful human beings. It remains the righteousness of God, but by God’s grace, it is a righteousness in which humans may share. Furthermore, partaking of God’s righteousness depends on being personally united with Jesus Christ. In Paul’s view the saved person is one who has been acquitted, justified, “declared righteous” by God the judge. The basis for the verdict is not that I in myself am righteous (God justifies the ungodly, Rom 4:5). Nor does God treat me as though I were righteous. According to Paul I am declared righteous because I really <em>am<\/em> righteous—not in myself but in Christ (1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9). This union is established through the revelation—and the free offer—of God’s righteousness in the gospel (Rom 1:16-17).<\/p>\n<h5>Responding to the Gospel<\/h5>\n<p>The gospel calls for a threefold response:<\/p>\n<p>1. <em>Believing.<\/em> The gospel, says Paul, is “the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith” (Rom 1:16). For Paul, faith is the abandonment of all reliance upon “works of law” for justification (3:28) and utter dependence upon the grace of God as demonstrated in the work of Christ, especially his death (v 25). Accordingly, the “different gospel” of Galatians 1:6 and 2 Corinthians 11:4 is spurious, for it preaches salvation by personal merit rather than (or together with) the work of Christ (cf. Gal 2:16). Ultimately faith rests upon God (Rom 4:24; 1 Thes 1:8-9) and upon Christ (Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20). Yet it is imperative that one believe the gospel also (Acts 8:12; 11:20-21; 15:7; Rom 1:16; 10:8-17; 1 Cor 1:17-24; Phil 1:27; Heb 4:2), for it is just by this means that God’s salvation is made known and mediated. Moreover, believing the gospel entails repentance (Acts 14:15; 20:21, 24; 1 Thes 1:5-10) and obedience (Rom 1:5; 15:16-18; Heb 4:6). Those who refuse to obey the gospel are imperiling their lives (2 Thes 1:5-10; 1 Pt 4:17).<\/p>\n<p>2. <em>Growing.<\/em> The Gospel is more than a message to be received—it is also a place in which to stand (1 Cor 15:1-2). It is sustainer of life as well as giver of life. One grows as a Christian not by turning from the gospel to other things (to turn away from the gospel is to abandon God and Christ, Gal 1:6), but by going ever more deeply into the gospel. In Romans 1:15 Paul expresses his eagerness to proclaim the gospel to the Christians in Rome. In the following chapters, anticipating his visit, he offers one of his most profound expositions of the gospel—one whose truth has never been fathomed and whose power has never been exhausted.<\/p>\n<p>3. <em>Hoping.<\/em> “The hope of the gospel” (Col 1:23) includes not only the return of Christ and the glory of heaven (Col 1:5; 3:1-4; 2 Thes 2:14-16) but the final judgment as well. For those who embrace the gospel, the last judgment holds no terrors, because the Judge is the very one who rescues them from the wrath to come (1 Thes 1:10). Those who are united to him need not dread condemnation now or at the end (Rom 8:1). Instead, the last judgment will mark their final vindication (1 Cor 4:5; Gal 5:5). Accordingly, this theme is not just a corollary but an integral part of the Good News (Rom 2:16). Those who have died since believing the gospel (1 Pt 4:6) may seem to have suffered a fate common to all people, or even the condemnation reserved for the lawless; in fact, their response to the gospel assures them of approval by the coming Lord (4:5-6; 5:4) and of a share in the imperishable inheritance of heaven (1:4).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GOSPEL<\/h3>\n<p>Word derived from the Anglo-Saxon <em>godspell<\/em> denoting “glad tidings” or “good news.”<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Gospel Message of Isaiah<\/p>\n<p>• The Gospel in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• The Good News of Christ’s Coming<\/p>\n<p>• The Gospel according to Jesus<\/p>\n<p>• The Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheGospelMessageofIsaiah\">The Gospel Message of Isaiah<\/p>\n<p>Of all the passages cited, those of Isaiah provide the most important background for the gospel in the NT. According to Isaiah’s gospel, it is God alone who saves, and there is no explanation for his saving action except in his own nature. Israel’s deliverance is undeserved; she is no more worthy of the divine love now than when she went into captivity. In whatever measure she has paid the just due for her past sins (Is 40:2), she remains a sinful people (42:25; 46:12-13; 48:1). It is only by God’s grace that she is saved (55:1-7). By God’s design, Israel’s salvation depends not upon her own righteousness but upon his (41:10; 45:24; 46:13; 51:5-6). There being no righteousness to reward, the Lord acts to <em>create<\/em> righteousness in Israel (45:8; 61:3, 10-11). Yet as these references indicate, salvation is not accomplished at the expense of justice. The penalty for Israel’s sins is to be paid in full. God’s mercy is not hereby called into question. On the contrary, it is precisely here that his mercy is most poignantly expressed, for the penalty is exacted not from his people but from the Servant appointed to stand in their place (53:4-12). Through the Servant’s work, many shall be justified (53:11). The coming of the Evangelist—the preacher of the good news—is predicted in Isaiah 61. He is called the anointed One (v 1) who proclaims the year of the Lord’s favor (v 2). God will be glorified through his preaching (v 3).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheGospelintheNewTestament\">The Gospel in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In only two places (Gal 3:8; Heb 4:2, 6) does the NT speak of the proclamation of the gospel prior to the Christian era. This is quite remarkable, given (1) the unmistakable presence of the gospel in the OT, (2) the extent of gospel terminology in the NT (in the Greek the noun appears 76 times; and the verb, 54), and (3) the fact that the NT presents Christ as the fulfillment of the OT and draws heavily on the OT to interpret his person and work. Not only is it remarkable; it is very significant. It indicates that the NT usage depends not only upon the <em>character<\/em> of the message (truth about salvation) but also upon <em>historical events.<\/em> Almost without exception, the NT restricts its application of gospel terminology to proclamations made during the time of fulfillment—the age in which the salvation promised in the OT is actually accomplished. The NT is preoccupied, not with promises of salvation, but with news of salvation. According to Mark 1:1-4, the gospel “begins” not in the OT but with John the Baptist, in whose work OT prophecy is fulfilled. In Romans 1:1-5 the gospel is represented as a blessing promised in the OT but not actually given until Jesus comes (see also Acts 13:32-33).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheGoodNewsofChristsComing\">The Good News of Christ’s Coming<\/p>\n<p>The promised birth of John the Baptist is good news (Lk 1:19), not only for his parents (vv 7, 24-25) but for all the people: John is sent to prepare them for Messiah’s coming (vv 14-17, 67-79). John’s own preaching is gospel (3:18) for the same reason. The Messiah would be coming to execute judgment, a process that involves both condemnation and salvation (vv 3-17). John’s message is gospel for sinners in that they are warned of impending doom and urged to repent before the ax falls (vv 7-9); it is gospel for the repentant in that they are promised forgiveness (v 3) and membership in Messiah’s community (v 17). The birth of the Savior himself is announced as good news bringing great joy (2:10-11).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheGospelaccordingtoJesus\">The Gospel according to Jesus<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the Kingdom of God<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus was authorized by God and anointed by the Spirit to proclaim the gospel (Mk 1:14; Lk 4:18). At the heart of his preaching stands the announcement “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mk 1:15). (For further references to this gospel, see Mt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13; Mk 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; Lk 4:43; 8:1; 16:16.) The message is good news for several reasons: (1) The kingdom is coming. The God whom Jesus proclaims is sovereign over all he has made. Yet paradoxically his rule is incomplete: his will is not done on earth as it is in heaven; wrong, not right, prevails. But these conditions are not final, according to Jesus. With the coming of the kingdom, God’s rule will be completed; wrong will be judged, righteousness established, and his people blessed. (2) The kingdom is <em>now<\/em> being inaugurated. “The time is fulfilled,” declares Jesus (Mk 1:15a). The time appointed for the fulfillment of the OT promises has arrived. (3) The consummation of the kingdom is therefore no longer a distant prospect; the full realization of God’s rule is “at hand” (Mk 1:15b). (4) God is establishing his rule for a saving purpose. This is implied in Jesus’ call to repentance (Mk 1:15c). It is especially clear in the passages to which we now turn.<\/p>\n<h5>The Salvation of the Poor<\/h5>\n<p>Invited to read the Scripture in the synagogue at Nazareth, Jesus turns to Isaiah 61: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord” (Lk 4:18-19, <span>rsv<\/span>). Having read the prophecy, Jesus announces its fulfillment in his own ministry (v 21). Included among those whom Jesus has come to free are the physically infirm, such as the blind (v 18) and the leprous (v 27) (cf. the references to healing miracles in vv 23, 33-41; the close connection between evangelizing and healing in Mt 4:23; 9:35; 11:5; Lk 7:21-22; 9:6; and the description in Mt 12:22-29; Lk 13:11-16, of the physically afflicted as captives of Satan now liberated by Jesus). Also included are the materially poor—people like the widow helped by Elijah during the famine (Lk 4:25-26). It is the literally poor and hungry whom Jesus pronounces “blessed” in Luke 6:20-21. Yet it is primarily “spiritual” poverty that is in view. Still applying Isaiah 61, Jesus speaks in Matthew 5:3 of the “poor in spirit.” These are people broken and grieved by misery and poverty, oppression and injustice, suffering and death, national apostasy and personal sin—people who in their extremity turn to God and longingly wait for him to bring forth justice, bestow his mercy, and establish his kingdom. It is to just such people that Jesus brings good news (Mt 5:3-10). God sent him to usher in the kingdom, to rescue the lost, to liberate the enslaved, to cure the afflicted, to bind up hearts that are broken, and to forgive the guilty (Mk 2:5, 10, 17; 10:45; Lk 4:18-21; 7:48-49; 15:1-32; 19:10).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gift of Grace<\/h5>\n<p>The coming of the kingdom is not the effect or the reward of human effort but God’s answer to the human predicament—the gift of his favor (Lk 12:32). Correspondingly, the explanation for the salvation of the poor lies nowhere but in God’s own character. As the prodigal himself recognized, he hardly deserved to be his father’s servant, much less his son. Nothing he did, not even his repentance, accounted for the father’s love (15:11-32). In the parable of Matthew 20:1-16, it is owing entirely to the goodness of the employer that the last workers to be hired receive a full day’s wages. The first debtor in the story of Matthew 18:23-35 earned nothing but the right to be sold into slavery; instead, the king canceled his enormous debt. The publican, who had nothing to offer God but a confession of sin and plea for mercy, went home justified (Lk 18:13-14). The same holds true for the more virtuous among the poor, such as the persons described in Matthew 5:7-10. Their virtue is real, not imagined. Yet in keeping God’s commands, they do not put him in their debt; they are simply doing their duty (Lk 17:7-10). Furthermore, even the most merciful need divine mercy (Mt 5:7). For even those most zealous to obey God’s law are unable to fulfill all its requirements (cf. 11:28-30). The first servant in Matthew 18:23-35 owes far more money than someone in such a situation could possibly pay—which serves to magnify the generosity of the king. Grace depends for its exercise upon the inability of its objects (Lk 14:12-14).<\/p>\n<h5>The Call to Salvation<\/h5>\n<p>The Israelites are without exception a sinful people, all of them needing the salvation that Jesus brings (Mt 1:21; Lk 1:77). In demonstration of God’s grace, Jesus proclaimed his gospel to the entire nation (Mt 4:23; 9:35; 15:24; Lk 4:43; 9:6; 20:1). From the most respectable to the least, all are summoned to submit to God’s rule, all are invited to come and partake freely of the banquet he has spread (Lk 14:16-24). But the gift of salvation must be received if it is to be experienced (Mk 10:15). And while it is indeed a gift that costs nothing, it is also a priceless treasure for which a wise person will freely sacrifice everything else (Mt 13:44-46), a sacrifice exceeded only by the cost of rejecting the gospel (Mt 11:20-24; Mk 8:34-39; Lk 14:24, 33). “Repent and believe in the gospel,” Jesus commands (Mk 1:15). The self-righteous and the self-sufficient must be jolted out of their false sense of security and humbly recognize their need for God (Lk 6:24-26). Only then will Jesus’ message to the poor be seen as gospel. An announcement of liberation (4:18-19) is good news only to people who are enslaved and know they are. The command applies also to the destitute and the afflicted. Those among them who bemoan their lot must repent of their sins. But something further is needed for the response to be complete: a person cannot believe Jesus’ gospel without a commitment to the <em>Person<\/em> of Christ (Jn 3:16). Even those who are already “poor in spirit,” in the sense defined earlier, are not really “blessed” until they acknowledge the truth of Jesus’ claims (Mt 11:6) and commit themselves to a life of obedience on his terms (7:21-27). This prepares us for the next point.<\/p>\n<h5>Summary<\/h5>\n<p>Throughout Jesus’ earthly ministry, the theme of his gospel remains the dawning of God’s kingdom (Mt 4:23; 24:14; Lk 4:43; 16:16), a message that is preached almost exclusively to Jews (Mt 10:5-6; 15:24). Yet Jesus also provides glimpses into what the gospel was to become once his work on earth was accomplished: (1) In Mark 8:35 and 10:29 Jesus speaks of individuals who needed to make great sacrifices “for my sake and for the gospel.” While distinguished from each other, the person of Jesus and the gospel are here associated in the closest possible way. The time was approaching when the Proclaimer of the gospel would become the Proclaimed. (2) In Mark 13:10 and Matthew 24:14 (and the textually doubtful Mk 16:15) Jesus foretells the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom to the gentile nations. (3) In Mark 14, having interpreted a woman’s action (v 3) as an anointing of his body beforehand for burial (v 8), Jesus declares, “And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her” (v 9, <span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Mt 26:13). This statement strongly implies that both the person of Jesus and the event of his death will figure prominently in the message that is to be proclaimed; otherwise, it is strange that the gospel and this particular act should be so solemnly bound together. Thus, here in the text already is an indication of how crucial Jesus’ death is both for the provision of the salvation announced in his gospel (cf. Mk 14:22-24) and for the launching of the evangelistic mission to the Gentiles (Mt 20:28 is vital for explaining the shift from Mt 15:24 to 28:18-20).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheGospelafterJesusResurrection\">The Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection<\/p>\n<p>After the resurrection of Jesus, the gospel was proclaimed by his eyewitnesses. The contents of this gospel are recorded in the book of Acts and in Paul’s letters. Of the 43 instances of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">euangelizomai<\/span> (“evangelize”) beyond the Gospels, 15 occur in Acts and 21 in Paul’s writings; of the 64 instances of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">euangelion<\/span> (“gospel”), 2 occur in Acts and no fewer than 60 in Paul.<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel of Christ<\/h5>\n<p>Having risen from the dead, Jesus Christ again evangelizes (Eph 2:16-17), doing so now through his appointed representatives (Rom 15:16-18; 1 Cor 1:17; 9:12-18; Gal 4:13-14; Eph 4:11; 2 Tm 1:9-11). More than that, Christ has become the central theme of the gospel; the Proclaimer is now the Proclaimed. This is repeatedly affirmed in Acts (5:42; 8:4-5, 35; 11:20; 17:18) and in Paul’s writings (Rom 1:1-4; 10:8-17; 15:19-20; 2 Cor 4:4-6; 11:4; Gal 1:16; Eph 3:8; Phil 1:15-18; 2 Tm 2:8). The NT always speaks of <em>the gospel<\/em>—never the gospels—of Christ. A second gospel is as inconceivable and as unnecessary as a second Christ. This is the one gospel that God authorizes (e.g., Rom 1:1-17) and proclaims (e.g., 2 Thes 2:13-14). Galatians 2:7-9 speaks not of two gospels but of two mission fields. Paul (the apostle to the uncircumcised) and Peter (the apostle to the circumcised) are both entrusted with “the gospel of Christ” (Gal 1:7; cf. 1 Cor 15:1-11), the message that God has ordained for the salvation of Jews and Gentiles alike (Rom 1:16). The “different gospel” that Paul denounces in Galatians 1:6-9 and 2 Corinthians 11:4 is not another gospel about Jesus but a message about “another Jesus”—not the real one, but one who exists only in the minds and the messages of those who proclaim him. To preach the true Christ is to preach the true gospel, however questionable one’s motives (Phil 1:15-18, 27), and to respond rightly to the gospel is to turn to Christ (Acts 11:20-21; Rom 10:8-17; Gal 2:14-16).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel as a Witness to Saving Events<\/h5>\n<p>The gospel bears witness to every aspect of Christ’s saving work, from his birth (Rom 1:3; 2 Tm 2:8) and public ministry (Mk 1:1; Acts 10:36-38) to his second coming (Col 1:5, 23; cf. 3:1-4; 1 Thes 1:5-10) and the last judgment (Rom 2:16). But it is the death and the resurrection of Christ that are most crucial for the accomplishment of salvation, and that are therefore most prominent in the gospel’s witness. These are the events with which Mark’s proclamation climaxes (chs 15–16), and for which everything else prepares (8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; 12:6-8); special stress is placed upon Jesus’ death as the means of salvation from sin (10:45; 14:3-9, 22-24). In Paul’s gospel, too, the death and resurrection of Jesus are central (Rom 4:25; 1 Cor 15:1-4), with the cross occupying the very center (1 Cor 1:17–2:5). Had Christ not risen from the dead, Paul argues, the preaching of the cross would be a waste of time (1 Cor 15:14, 17; cf. Rom 6:3-11). However, now that Christ has risen, his death deserves special emphasis as the place where God provides atonement for sins (Rom 3:21-26; 5:6-11; 2 Cor 5:14-21; Eph 1:7). The gospel according to Acts proclaims Jesus’ death (Acts 8:25; 20:24, 28; cf. 10:36-43) and preeminently his resurrection, the event by which he conquered death and was exalted as Lord and coming Judge (10:36-43; 13:32-33; 17:18, 31). According to 1 Peter, the bearers of the gospel (1 Pt 1:12) concentrated, as had the OT prophets, on “the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory” (1:11; cf. 1:18-19; 2:21-24; 3:18-22).<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel as a Power for Salvation<\/h5>\n<p>The gospel is much more than a report of past events and an exposition of doctrine. Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 1:17-18 and again in Romans 1:16 that the gospel is “the power of God”—not merely a witness to his power but an <em>expression<\/em> of his power. Thus, it cannot be fettered (2 Tm 2:8-9). “Our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power,” Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 1:5. His point is not that the gospel was accompanied by mighty works (though this happened; cf. Rom 15:18-19), but that the gospel itself is a mighty work. God makes it so through his Holy Spirit (Rom 15:18-19; 1 Cor 2:1-5; 1 Thes 1:6). Furthermore, God’s singular purpose in exercising his power is to change people’s lives, to liberate them from sin and death, and to reconcile them to himself—in short, to save them. The gospel has power to effect the salvation it announces and to impart the life it promises (e.g., Rom 1:16; 10:8-17; 1 Cor 1:17-18; 15:1-2; Eph 1:13; 2 Thes 2:13-14; 2 Tm 1:8-11; 1 Pt 1:23-25). If people are to experience salvation, they must hear and believe the gospel. It is precisely in and through this message that the saving power manifested in the person and work of Christ (especially in his death and resurrection) is conveyed to men and made effective in their lives. Similarly it is in association with the gospel, or as a direct result of the reception of the gospel, that the Holy Spirit is imparted to believers (Acts 10:36-44; 15:7-8; 2 Cor 11:4; Gal 3:1-2). In short, the gospel is the decisive place of encounter between the sinner and God the Savior.<\/p>\n<h5>The Gospel of Grace<\/h5>\n<p>According to Peter’s testimony at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:7-11), an essential part of the gospel—for Gentiles and Jews alike—is salvation “through the grace of the Lord Jesus.” Toward the close of his missionary career, Paul states that his basic concern has been “to testify to the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24, <span>rsv<\/span>). This statement can be understood only in relation to Paul’s concept of the righteousness of God, particularly as set forth in Romans. Paul is here not merely expounding a divine attribute. Rather, he is dramatizing a divine activity—the manifestation of God’s righteousness now, “in the present time” (Rom 3:26), in the new age inaugurated by the coming of Jesus. The manifestation is twofold. Viewing the two aspects together, and doing so in the light of the gospel declared by Isaiah and by Jesus (both of whom strongly influenced Paul), respectively, will help us to understand why Paul speaks of “the gospel of the grace of God.”<\/p>\n<p>First, the gospel is a <em>witness<\/em> to God’s grace. In offering his Son as a sacrifice for sins (Rom 3:25a), God demonstrates his righteousness (vv 25b-26). That is, in the death of Jesus sins formerly “passed over” (v 25c) become the object of God’s wrath (cf. 1:18) and judgment. Yet in the very place where God deals justly and decisively with sins, he shows his grace to sinners. For the judgment against sin is focused not upon the sinners themselves but upon the One appointed to act on their behalf and to stand in their place (Rom 4:25; 5:6, 11; cf. 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13). On this basis, sinners are freely pardoned (Rom 3:24). “The grace of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 15:11) toward the sinful is also in evidence, for he willingly bears their iniquities and suffers the consequences of their wrongdoing (Gal 2:20; cf. 2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:6-8).<\/p>\n<p>Second, the gospel is a <em>channel<\/em> of God’s grace. “The righteousness of God is revealed” in the gospel, says Paul (Rom 1:17). By this he means, not that the gospel talks about the righteousness of God (though it does), but that God’s righteousness is actively at work in the gospel. This activity in turn explains how the gospel becomes “the power of God for salvation” (v 16). And just how does God demonstrate his righteousness at this stage? In short, by bestowing it as a free gift on sinful human beings. It remains the righteousness of God, but by God’s grace, it is a righteousness in which humans may share. Furthermore, partaking of God’s righteousness depends on being personally united with Jesus Christ. In Paul’s view the saved person is one who has been acquitted, justified, “declared righteous” by God the judge. The basis for the verdict is not that I in myself am righteous (God justifies the ungodly, Rom 4:5). Nor does God treat me as though I were righteous. According to Paul I am declared righteous because I really <em>am<\/em> righteous—not in myself but in Christ (1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9). This union is established through the revelation—and the free offer—of God’s righteousness in the gospel (Rom 1:16-17).<\/p>\n<h5>Responding to the Gospel<\/h5>\n<p>The gospel calls for a threefold response:<\/p>\n<p>1. <em>Believing.<\/em> The gospel, says Paul, is “the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith” (Rom 1:16). For Paul, faith is the abandonment of all reliance upon “works of law” for justification (3:28) and utter dependence upon the grace of God as demonstrated in the work of Christ, especially his death (v 25). Accordingly, the “different gospel” of Galatians 1:6 and 2 Corinthians 11:4 is spurious, for it preaches salvation by personal merit rather than (or together with) the work of Christ (cf. Gal 2:16). Ultimately faith rests upon God (Rom 4:24; 1 Thes 1:8-9) and upon Christ (Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20). Yet it is imperative that one believe the gospel also (Acts 8:12; 11:20-21; 15:7; Rom 1:16; 10:8-17; 1 Cor 1:17-24; Phil 1:27; Heb 4:2), for it is just by this means that God’s salvation is made known and mediated. Moreover, believing the gospel entails repentance (Acts 14:15; 20:21, 24; 1 Thes 1:5-10) and obedience (Rom 1:5; 15:16-18; Heb 4:6). Those who refuse to obey the gospel are imperiling their lives (2 Thes 1:5-10; 1 Pt 4:17).<\/p>\n<p>2. <em>Growing.<\/em> The Gospel is more than a message to be received—it is also a place in which to stand (1 Cor 15:1-2). It is sustainer of life as well as giver of life. One grows as a Christian not by turning from the gospel to other things (to turn away from the gospel is to abandon God and Christ, Gal 1:6), but by going ever more deeply into the gospel. In Romans 1:15 Paul expresses his eagerness to proclaim the gospel to the Christians in Rome. In the following chapters, anticipating his visit, he offers one of his most profound expositions of the gospel—one whose truth has never been fathomed and whose power has never been exhausted.<\/p>\n<p>3. <em>Hoping.<\/em> “The hope of the gospel” (Col 1:23) includes not only the return of Christ and the glory of heaven (Col 1:5; 3:1-4; 2 Thes 2:14-16) but the final judgment as well. For those who embrace the gospel, the last judgment holds no terrors, because the Judge is the very one who rescues them from the wrath to come (1 Thes 1:10). Those who are united to him need not dread condemnation now or at the end (Rom 8:1). Instead, the last judgment will mark their final vindication (1 Cor 4:5; Gal 5:5). Accordingly, this theme is not just a corollary but an integral part of the Good News (Rom 2:16). Those who have died since believing the gospel (1 Pt 4:6) may seem to have suffered a fate common to all people, or even the condemnation reserved for the lawless; in fact, their response to the gospel assures them of approval by the coming Lord (4:5-6; 5:4) and of a share in the imperishable inheritance of heaven (1:4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"GOSPEL Word derived from the Anglo-Saxon godspell denoting “glad tidings” or “good news.” Preview • The Gospel Message of Isaiah • The Gospel in the New Testament • The Good News of Christ’s Coming • The Gospel according to Jesus • The Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection The Gospel Message of Isaiah Of all the passages cited, those of Isaiah provide the most important background for the gospel in the NT. According to Isaiah’s gospel, it is God alone who saves, and there is no explanation for his...","summary_en":"GOSPEL Word derived from the Anglo-Saxon godspell denoting “glad tidings” or “good news.” Preview • The Gospel Message of Isaiah • The Gospel in the New Testament • The Good News of Christ’s Coming • The Gospel according to Jesus • The Gospel after Jesus’ Resurrection The Gospel Message of Isaiah Of all the passages cited, those of Isaiah provide the most important background for the gospel in the NT. According to Isaiah’s gospel, it is God alone who saves, and there is no explanation for his...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55447,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:6","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:6<\/strong> Mark’s early readers would have immediately associated <em>his son whom he loved dearly<\/em> with Jesus (cp. 1:11; 9:7; see also 1:1; 3:11; 5:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:6<\/strong> Mark’s early readers would have immediately associated <em>his son whom he loved dearly<\/em> with Jesus (cp. 1:11; 9:7; see also 1:1; 3:11; 5:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:6 Mark’s early readers would have immediately associated his son whom he loved dearly with Jesus (cp. 1:11; 9:7; see also 1:1; 3:11; 5:7).","summary_en":"12:6 Mark’s early readers would have immediately associated his son whom he loved dearly with Jesus (cp. 1:11; 9:7; see also 1:1; 3:11; 5:7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83073,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:6","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:6<\/strong> Mark’s early readers would have immediately associated <em>his son whom he loved dearly<\/em> with Jesus (cp. 1:11; 9:7; see also 1:1; 3:11; 5:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:6<\/strong> Mark’s early readers would have immediately associated <em>his son whom he loved dearly<\/em> with Jesus (cp. 1:11; 9:7; see also 1:1; 3:11; 5:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:6 Mark’s early readers would have immediately associated his son whom he loved dearly with Jesus (cp. 1:11; 9:7; see also 1:1; 3:11; 5:7).","summary_en":"12:6 Mark’s early readers would have immediately associated his son whom he loved dearly with Jesus (cp. 1:11; 9:7; see also 1:1; 3:11; 5:7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110699,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:6","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:6<\/strong> Mark’s early readers would have immediately associated <em>his son whom he loved dearly<\/em> with Jesus (cp. 1:11; 9:7; see also 1:1; 3:11; 5:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:6<\/strong> Mark’s early readers would have immediately associated <em>his son whom he loved dearly<\/em> with Jesus (cp. 1:11; 9:7; see also 1:1; 3:11; 5:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:6 Mark’s early readers would have immediately associated his son whom he loved dearly with Jesus (cp. 1:11; 9:7; see also 1:1; 3:11; 5:7).","summary_en":"12:6 Mark’s early readers would have immediately associated his son whom he loved dearly with Jesus (cp. 1:11; 9:7; see also 1:1; 3:11; 5:7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138325,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:6","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:6<\/strong> Mark’s early readers would have immediately associated <em>his son whom he loved dearly<\/em> with Jesus (cp. 1:11; 9:7; see also 1:1; 3:11; 5:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:6<\/strong> Mark’s early readers would have immediately associated <em>his son whom he loved dearly<\/em> with Jesus (cp. 1:11; 9:7; see also 1:1; 3:11; 5:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:6 Mark’s early readers would have immediately associated his son whom he loved dearly with Jesus (cp. 1:11; 9:7; see also 1:1; 3:11; 5:7).","summary_en":"12:6 Mark’s early readers would have immediately associated his son whom he loved dearly with Jesus (cp. 1:11; 9:7; see also 1:1; 3:11; 5:7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"7":[{"id":16059,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Heir","title_en":"Heir","content_ro":"<h3>HEIR<\/h3>\n<p>One who inherits something or who is entitled to a future inheritance; the one who receives the property of a deceased person, particularly on the basis of law and usually by means of a will. In both the OT and NT, the Hebrew and the Greek words encompass these ideas.<\/p>\n<p>In Genesis 15, after God had reiterated his special promise to Abraham, Abraham wondered how the fulfillment of the promise might occur. At the time, only his steward, Eliezer of Damascus, was “the son of his house,” that is, the one of his large household who would inherit. There was no natural-born son of Abraham within the family (see Gn 15:3-4). Without a son in patriarchal times, a man’s chief steward could be his heir as a substitute. Later, after the birth of Ishmael (Abraham’s son by Hagar, Sarah’s maidservant) and of Isaac (his son by Sarah, his wife), trouble erupted between the women, and Sarah demanded that Abraham send Hagar and her son away, because Sarah did not want Ishmael to be an heir with her own son, Isaac (Gn 21:10).<\/p>\n<p>A wise woman, at Joab’s instigation, told David a story about herself and her two sons. She said that one son killed the other, and that her family now wanted to kill the remaining son for the murder. If this happened, she claimed, the heir of her deceased husband would be destroyed and the family would be left with no inheritance (2 Sm 14:7).<\/p>\n<p>Another biblical illustration of this normal use of the word “heir” is seen in a parable told by Jesus. The workers in the vineyard, who saw the son of their master coming, said among themselves, “This is the heir; come, let us kill him and have his inheritance” (Mt 21:33-43, <span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Mk 12:7; Lk 20:14).<\/p>\n<p>In a number of references in the NT, the word “heir” is used to refer to the believer in Christ, who has an inheritance coming because of being a child of God the Father and consequently a joint heir with Christ (Rom 8:16-17). The inheritance of salvation is variously referred to in different sections of the NT. In Hebrews 6:17, Christians are called “heirs of the promise.” This promise occurred when God said to Abraham, “I will certainly bless you richly, and I will multiply your descendants into countless millions” (Heb 6:14, <span>nlt<\/span>). In Hebrews 11:7, Noah is described as “an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith” (<span>rsv<\/span>). In James 2:5, the poor in the world who are rich in faith are said to be “heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him” (<span>rsv<\/span>). Paul writes that those who are justified by God’s grace are made heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Ti 3:7).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrews 1:2, the word “heir” is used with a singular reference to God’s Son, who is said to have been appointed “heir of all things” by his Father. Here is an instance where someone has been designated to receive an inheritance but will actually enter into full possession of it much later.<\/p>\n<p>In biblical times the right of primogeniture—that is, the right of the eldest son in the family to be the primary heir in the household—prevailed. In OT times, the firstborn son possessed the birthright, which included inheriting a double portion of his father’s possessions and headship of the family (Dt 21:15-17). The other sons shared the remainder equally. If there were no sons to inherit, the daughters became the heirs (Nm 27:8; 36:1-12), although there was a stipulation that the daughters could not marry outside their tribe. This was to preserve the tribal territory intact. If there were no daughters, then the dead man’s brothers inherited; if no brothers, then his uncles; and if no uncles, then the nearest relative (27:9-11). Because the matter of tribal possession was so important, it is easy to understand why there was such a concern for genealogical records among the Hebrew people.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Firstborn; Inheritance; Birthright.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEIR<\/h3>\n<p>One who inherits something or who is entitled to a future inheritance; the one who receives the property of a deceased person, particularly on the basis of law and usually by means of a will. In both the OT and NT, the Hebrew and the Greek words encompass these ideas.<\/p>\n<p>In Genesis 15, after God had reiterated his special promise to Abraham, Abraham wondered how the fulfillment of the promise might occur. At the time, only his steward, Eliezer of Damascus, was “the son of his house,” that is, the one of his large household who would inherit. There was no natural-born son of Abraham within the family (see Gn 15:3-4). Without a son in patriarchal times, a man’s chief steward could be his heir as a substitute. Later, after the birth of Ishmael (Abraham’s son by Hagar, Sarah’s maidservant) and of Isaac (his son by Sarah, his wife), trouble erupted between the women, and Sarah demanded that Abraham send Hagar and her son away, because Sarah did not want Ishmael to be an heir with her own son, Isaac (Gn 21:10).<\/p>\n<p>A wise woman, at Joab’s instigation, told David a story about herself and her two sons. She said that one son killed the other, and that her family now wanted to kill the remaining son for the murder. If this happened, she claimed, the heir of her deceased husband would be destroyed and the family would be left with no inheritance (2 Sm 14:7).<\/p>\n<p>Another biblical illustration of this normal use of the word “heir” is seen in a parable told by Jesus. The workers in the vineyard, who saw the son of their master coming, said among themselves, “This is the heir; come, let us kill him and have his inheritance” (Mt 21:33-43, <span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Mk 12:7; Lk 20:14).<\/p>\n<p>In a number of references in the NT, the word “heir” is used to refer to the believer in Christ, who has an inheritance coming because of being a child of God the Father and consequently a joint heir with Christ (Rom 8:16-17). The inheritance of salvation is variously referred to in different sections of the NT. In Hebrews 6:17, Christians are called “heirs of the promise.” This promise occurred when God said to Abraham, “I will certainly bless you richly, and I will multiply your descendants into countless millions” (Heb 6:14, <span>nlt<\/span>). In Hebrews 11:7, Noah is described as “an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith” (<span>rsv<\/span>). In James 2:5, the poor in the world who are rich in faith are said to be “heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him” (<span>rsv<\/span>). Paul writes that those who are justified by God’s grace are made heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Ti 3:7).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrews 1:2, the word “heir” is used with a singular reference to God’s Son, who is said to have been appointed “heir of all things” by his Father. Here is an instance where someone has been designated to receive an inheritance but will actually enter into full possession of it much later.<\/p>\n<p>In biblical times the right of primogeniture—that is, the right of the eldest son in the family to be the primary heir in the household—prevailed. In OT times, the firstborn son possessed the birthright, which included inheriting a double portion of his father’s possessions and headship of the family (Dt 21:15-17). The other sons shared the remainder equally. If there were no sons to inherit, the daughters became the heirs (Nm 27:8; 36:1-12), although there was a stipulation that the daughters could not marry outside their tribe. This was to preserve the tribal territory intact. If there were no daughters, then the dead man’s brothers inherited; if no brothers, then his uncles; and if no uncles, then the nearest relative (27:9-11). Because the matter of tribal possession was so important, it is easy to understand why there was such a concern for genealogical records among the Hebrew people.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Firstborn; Inheritance; Birthright.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEIR One who inherits something or who is entitled to a future inheritance; the one who receives the property of a deceased person, particularly on the basis of law and usually by means of a will. In both the OT and NT, the Hebrew and the Greek words encompass these ideas. In Genesis 15, after God had reiterated his special promise to Abraham, Abraham wondered how the fulfillment of the promise might occur. At the time, only his steward, Eliezer of Damascus, was “the son of his house,” that i...","summary_en":"HEIR One who inherits something or who is entitled to a future inheritance; the one who receives the property of a deceased person, particularly on the basis of law and usually by means of a will. In both the OT and NT, the Hebrew and the Greek words encompass these ideas. In Genesis 15, after God had reiterated his special promise to Abraham, Abraham wondered how the fulfillment of the promise might occur. At the time, only his steward, Eliezer of Damascus, was “the son of his house,” that i...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":17524,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Inheritance","title_en":"Inheritance","content_ro":"<h3>INHERITANCE<\/h3>\n<p>Legacy or bequest. Inheritance plays an unusually significant role in the Scriptures when it is used to convey theological truths. As we might expect, these theological applications reflect legal customs in force during OT and NT times.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LegalandHistoricalAspect\">Legal and Historical Aspect<\/p>\n<h5>The Patriarchs<\/h5>\n<p>We learn something of early-second-millennium <span>BC<\/span> practices from the patriarchal stories in Genesis. For example, the narrative indicates that the firstborn could normally expect to receive the birthright. Yet exceptions abound. Ishmael (Gn 16:15; 17:15-21), Esau (25:23), and Reuben (49:3-4) did not receive the birthright. Another item of special interest is Abraham’s suggestion that, in the absence of a son, his servant Eliezer might be regarded as the heir (15:2-5); scholars have found confirmation of this practice in Hurrian legal documents of the second millennium.<\/p>\n<h5>The Hebrew Nation<\/h5>\n<p>According to Deuteronomy 21:15-17, Hebrew firstborns were legally entitled to a double portion of the inheritance. Israelite law also made provision for widows through the practice of levirate marriage (Dt 25:5; see Gn 38:8; Ru 4:5).<\/p>\n<p>According to Numbers 27:1-11, the daughters of Zelophehad argued that they should receive the inheritance since their father had died without sons. Consequently, God decreed that if a man died without sons, the inheritance should be transferred to his daughter; if he had no daughter, to his brothers; if he had no brothers, to his nearest relatives. This particular incident also illustrates the importance of preserving tribal possessions: the daughters of Zelophehad were not allowed to marry outside the tribe of Manasseh, for this would mean transferral of the property to another tribe (Nm 36).<\/p>\n<p>How highly the Israelites valued their family’s inherited possessions may be gathered from Leviticus 25:25-28. If an individual sold his land for financial reasons, provision must be made for a relative to redeem it; if he had no near relative, he could still purchase it back at a later time, and even if he could not afford to do so, the land automatically reverted to him in the Year of Jubilee, when all debts were canceled (note also Lv 27:14-25).<\/p>\n<h5>In the New Testament<\/h5>\n<p>Apart from the reference to levirate marriage in Matthew 22:23-33 (Mk 12:18-27; Lk 20:27-40), the NT has little to say about principles of property transferral during Roman times.<\/p>\n<p>In the parable of the prodigal son, the younger son in the family requested his share of the inheritance (Lk 15:12). One should also note that the elder son, who with false piety looked down on his brother’s behavior, had not protested when his brother asked for the inheritance; on the contrary, the elder brother too, without complaining, received his share—presumably a double portion.<\/p>\n<p>In another significant passage (Gal 4:1-2) Paul, seeking to illustrate a theological point, refers to secular practices. An heir, he tells us, is subject to guardians and managers during his childhood, up to the time he actually inherits. The point Paul wants to establish is clear enough, but the illustration does not coincide with what we know of Roman law and unfortunately scholars have been unable to identify the precise social custom in view. It may be that Paul was making reference, in general rather than strict legal terms, to some practice with which he and the Galatians were familiar.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologicalAspect\">Theological Aspect<\/p>\n<h5>Canaan as Israel’s Inheritance<\/h5>\n<p>The conviction that God gave Palestine to the Israelites for their inheritance serves as a bridge between the historical and the theological data. The historical element lies in the obvious fact that the Promised Land, a physical entity, was certainly occupied by the Hebrews and distributed among their tribes. Theologically, however, the Scriptures speak of this occupation as a divine gift; in effect, even the method of distribution was based on the concept that the land belongs to God (Lv 25:23; see Ex 15:17; Jos 22:27; Ez 38:16; Jl 1:6).<\/p>\n<p>The theme goes back to Genesis 12:1-3. God, in choosing Abraham, instructed him to move to a new country and promised to make him a great and blessed nation (Heb 11:8). The significance of the land in this Abrahamic promise is made more explicit later, when we are told that God promised to give Canaan to Abraham’s descendants after four centuries of Egyptian bondage (Gn 15:12-21; see Acts 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>Since Canaan was occupied by wicked inhabitants, the land was to be taken by force; to inherit the land therefore really means <em>to take possession<\/em> of it. Israel must trust God, whose land it is, to give them the victory (Jos 1:1-9; 21:43-45; Jgs 7:2; Ps 44:1-3; Acts 13:19). Once they conquered the land, it was apportioned among the tribes according to their size (following the instructions in Nm 26:52-54). God further commanded the people to divide the land by lot (vv 55-56). Thus, from the initial promise to Abraham, to the actual apportionment of the land and even with reference to the future (Is 60:21; Ez 45:1-8; 47:13–48:29), the people were made fully aware that their inheritance lay in the hands of a sovereign Lord.<\/p>\n<h5>The Believer’s Inheritance<\/h5>\n<p>In the OT we find the concept of inheritance transferred from the purely physical to the spiritual. The tribe of Levi, which constituted the priestly clan, received no inheritance, because “the Lord is their inheritance” (Dt 18:1-2; see Nm 18:8-24). The Levites, in other words, received no land apportionment, but in their service to God they could begin to enjoy the fuller blessings to which the land inheritance pointed.<\/p>\n<p>That this truth could not be restricted to Levites is hinted at in Exodus 19:6, where the whole nation is called “a kingdom of priests” (see 1 Pt 2:9). Psalm 16 makes it clear that no one understood more clearly than David what those words entailed. Even if he were deprived of Israel’s physical inheritance, he had received by lot a more beautiful heritage, the Lord himself, in whose presence he found full joy and everlasting pleasures (Ps 16:5-6, 11; see also Pss 73:25-26; 142:5; Is 58:14; Lam 3:24).<\/p>\n<p>In later Judaism, during and after the intertestamental period, the figure was extended considerably. For example, the rabbis began to speak of the law as the inheritance of the faithful. Further, they might give the idea a negative turn, as when the wicked are said to inherit hell (cf. Jb 27:13). Neither of these figures is found in the NT.<\/p>\n<p>We also read in Jewish literature statements about inheriting the age to come, the kingdom, eternal life; these ideas occur frequently in the NT (Mt 19:29; 25:34; Lk 10:25; 18:18; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 15:50; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; Ti 3:7; Jas 2:5). Such an inheritance, however, belongs only to those who are sanctified by God’s word (Acts 20:32; 26:18; Col 1:12; note also Jn 17:17; Col 3:23-24). These future blessings do not exclude the physical (Mt 5:5; note Ps 37:11, 29; Is 60:21; Rom 4:13; 2 Pt 3:13), but they certainly exclude human frailty, for God’s inheritance is imperishable (1 Cor 15:50). In short, our heritage is nothing less than full salvation (Heb 1:14; 11:7), which God carefully guards for us in heaven (1 Pt 1:4).<\/p>\n<p>Doubtless, the most significant feature in the NT is its emphasis that, as a result of the work of Christ, his people begin even <em>now<\/em> to receive the promised inheritance. The Gospel of John frequently stresses the present reality of eternal life, as does the Letter to the Hebrews (cf. 6:12-17 with 9:15 and 11:13, 39-40).<\/p>\n<p>Paul treats this whole matter thoroughly in Galatians 3:7–4:7. In response to the Judaizers, who claim that the Abrahamic inheritance is restricted to those who become Jews through circumcision, Paul argues vigorously that Abraham’s true children are those who believe, whether Jew or Gentile (3:7; see Acts 26:16-18; Eph 3:6). They become heirs of God’s promise, for they receive the Spirit (Gal 3:14). The principle of inheritance is promise, not the Law (v 18). Those who believe are brought into union with Christ (vv 27-29); but then they are not merely Abraham’s children but God’s (v 26), for Christ is the Son of God and God has determined to send the Spirit of his Son to believers so that they too may call God <em>Father<\/em> (Gal 4:4-7; see also Rom 8:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>Indeed, Christ himself as the Son is the true heir (Mt 21:38; Mk 12:7; Lk 20:14); he has inherited a name above every name (Phil 2:9; Heb 1:4) and has been appointed heir of all things (Heb 1:2; see Ps 2:7-8; Mt 28:18). But by his grace, all who become his through faith are counted joint heirs with him (Rom 8:17).<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Inheritance<\/h5>\n<p>With a bold shift in the metaphor, the Scriptures speak of believers as God’s inheritance. In the beautiful “Song of Moses” the author speaks of God as the Israelites’ Father (Dt 32:6), who has taken special interest in their inheritance (v 8). Then we are told why God cares: “For the <span>Lord<\/span>’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance” (Dt 32:9, <span>niv<\/span>). This theme becomes very prominent throughout the OT (e.g., Dt 9:26-29; 1 Kgs 8:51-53; Pss 28:9; 33:12; 74:2; Is 19:25; Jer 10:16; Zec 2:12). Elsewhere, Israel is spoken of as God’s special possession (e.g., Ex 19:5; Dt 7:6).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians 1:14 “the redemption of the possession” refers to the final salvation of believers, who are God’s treasure. Further, “we have obtained an inheritance” (Eph 1:11) may well be translated, “we have been made an inheritance,” that is, been “chosen as God’s portion,” a view supported by verse 18. No more fundamental idea than this can be found in Scripture, and its essence is expressed by the words of the One who sits on the throne: “He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son” (Rv 21:7, <span>rsv<\/span>; see Lv 26:11-12; 2 Sm 7:14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adoption; Birthright; Firstborn; Heir.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>INHERITANCE<\/h3>\n<p>Legacy or bequest. Inheritance plays an unusually significant role in the Scriptures when it is used to convey theological truths. As we might expect, these theological applications reflect legal customs in force during OT and NT times.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LegalandHistoricalAspect\">Legal and Historical Aspect<\/p>\n<h5>The Patriarchs<\/h5>\n<p>We learn something of early-second-millennium <span>BC<\/span> practices from the patriarchal stories in Genesis. For example, the narrative indicates that the firstborn could normally expect to receive the birthright. Yet exceptions abound. Ishmael (Gn 16:15; 17:15-21), Esau (25:23), and Reuben (49:3-4) did not receive the birthright. Another item of special interest is Abraham’s suggestion that, in the absence of a son, his servant Eliezer might be regarded as the heir (15:2-5); scholars have found confirmation of this practice in Hurrian legal documents of the second millennium.<\/p>\n<h5>The Hebrew Nation<\/h5>\n<p>According to Deuteronomy 21:15-17, Hebrew firstborns were legally entitled to a double portion of the inheritance. Israelite law also made provision for widows through the practice of levirate marriage (Dt 25:5; see Gn 38:8; Ru 4:5).<\/p>\n<p>According to Numbers 27:1-11, the daughters of Zelophehad argued that they should receive the inheritance since their father had died without sons. Consequently, God decreed that if a man died without sons, the inheritance should be transferred to his daughter; if he had no daughter, to his brothers; if he had no brothers, to his nearest relatives. This particular incident also illustrates the importance of preserving tribal possessions: the daughters of Zelophehad were not allowed to marry outside the tribe of Manasseh, for this would mean transferral of the property to another tribe (Nm 36).<\/p>\n<p>How highly the Israelites valued their family’s inherited possessions may be gathered from Leviticus 25:25-28. If an individual sold his land for financial reasons, provision must be made for a relative to redeem it; if he had no near relative, he could still purchase it back at a later time, and even if he could not afford to do so, the land automatically reverted to him in the Year of Jubilee, when all debts were canceled (note also Lv 27:14-25).<\/p>\n<h5>In the New Testament<\/h5>\n<p>Apart from the reference to levirate marriage in Matthew 22:23-33 (Mk 12:18-27; Lk 20:27-40), the NT has little to say about principles of property transferral during Roman times.<\/p>\n<p>In the parable of the prodigal son, the younger son in the family requested his share of the inheritance (Lk 15:12). One should also note that the elder son, who with false piety looked down on his brother’s behavior, had not protested when his brother asked for the inheritance; on the contrary, the elder brother too, without complaining, received his share—presumably a double portion.<\/p>\n<p>In another significant passage (Gal 4:1-2) Paul, seeking to illustrate a theological point, refers to secular practices. An heir, he tells us, is subject to guardians and managers during his childhood, up to the time he actually inherits. The point Paul wants to establish is clear enough, but the illustration does not coincide with what we know of Roman law and unfortunately scholars have been unable to identify the precise social custom in view. It may be that Paul was making reference, in general rather than strict legal terms, to some practice with which he and the Galatians were familiar.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologicalAspect\">Theological Aspect<\/p>\n<h5>Canaan as Israel’s Inheritance<\/h5>\n<p>The conviction that God gave Palestine to the Israelites for their inheritance serves as a bridge between the historical and the theological data. The historical element lies in the obvious fact that the Promised Land, a physical entity, was certainly occupied by the Hebrews and distributed among their tribes. Theologically, however, the Scriptures speak of this occupation as a divine gift; in effect, even the method of distribution was based on the concept that the land belongs to God (Lv 25:23; see Ex 15:17; Jos 22:27; Ez 38:16; Jl 1:6).<\/p>\n<p>The theme goes back to Genesis 12:1-3. God, in choosing Abraham, instructed him to move to a new country and promised to make him a great and blessed nation (Heb 11:8). The significance of the land in this Abrahamic promise is made more explicit later, when we are told that God promised to give Canaan to Abraham’s descendants after four centuries of Egyptian bondage (Gn 15:12-21; see Acts 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>Since Canaan was occupied by wicked inhabitants, the land was to be taken by force; to inherit the land therefore really means <em>to take possession<\/em> of it. Israel must trust God, whose land it is, to give them the victory (Jos 1:1-9; 21:43-45; Jgs 7:2; Ps 44:1-3; Acts 13:19). Once they conquered the land, it was apportioned among the tribes according to their size (following the instructions in Nm 26:52-54). God further commanded the people to divide the land by lot (vv 55-56). Thus, from the initial promise to Abraham, to the actual apportionment of the land and even with reference to the future (Is 60:21; Ez 45:1-8; 47:13–48:29), the people were made fully aware that their inheritance lay in the hands of a sovereign Lord.<\/p>\n<h5>The Believer’s Inheritance<\/h5>\n<p>In the OT we find the concept of inheritance transferred from the purely physical to the spiritual. The tribe of Levi, which constituted the priestly clan, received no inheritance, because “the Lord is their inheritance” (Dt 18:1-2; see Nm 18:8-24). The Levites, in other words, received no land apportionment, but in their service to God they could begin to enjoy the fuller blessings to which the land inheritance pointed.<\/p>\n<p>That this truth could not be restricted to Levites is hinted at in Exodus 19:6, where the whole nation is called “a kingdom of priests” (see 1 Pt 2:9). Psalm 16 makes it clear that no one understood more clearly than David what those words entailed. Even if he were deprived of Israel’s physical inheritance, he had received by lot a more beautiful heritage, the Lord himself, in whose presence he found full joy and everlasting pleasures (Ps 16:5-6, 11; see also Pss 73:25-26; 142:5; Is 58:14; Lam 3:24).<\/p>\n<p>In later Judaism, during and after the intertestamental period, the figure was extended considerably. For example, the rabbis began to speak of the law as the inheritance of the faithful. Further, they might give the idea a negative turn, as when the wicked are said to inherit hell (cf. Jb 27:13). Neither of these figures is found in the NT.<\/p>\n<p>We also read in Jewish literature statements about inheriting the age to come, the kingdom, eternal life; these ideas occur frequently in the NT (Mt 19:29; 25:34; Lk 10:25; 18:18; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 15:50; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; Ti 3:7; Jas 2:5). Such an inheritance, however, belongs only to those who are sanctified by God’s word (Acts 20:32; 26:18; Col 1:12; note also Jn 17:17; Col 3:23-24). These future blessings do not exclude the physical (Mt 5:5; note Ps 37:11, 29; Is 60:21; Rom 4:13; 2 Pt 3:13), but they certainly exclude human frailty, for God’s inheritance is imperishable (1 Cor 15:50). In short, our heritage is nothing less than full salvation (Heb 1:14; 11:7), which God carefully guards for us in heaven (1 Pt 1:4).<\/p>\n<p>Doubtless, the most significant feature in the NT is its emphasis that, as a result of the work of Christ, his people begin even <em>now<\/em> to receive the promised inheritance. The Gospel of John frequently stresses the present reality of eternal life, as does the Letter to the Hebrews (cf. 6:12-17 with 9:15 and 11:13, 39-40).<\/p>\n<p>Paul treats this whole matter thoroughly in Galatians 3:7–4:7. In response to the Judaizers, who claim that the Abrahamic inheritance is restricted to those who become Jews through circumcision, Paul argues vigorously that Abraham’s true children are those who believe, whether Jew or Gentile (3:7; see Acts 26:16-18; Eph 3:6). They become heirs of God’s promise, for they receive the Spirit (Gal 3:14). The principle of inheritance is promise, not the Law (v 18). Those who believe are brought into union with Christ (vv 27-29); but then they are not merely Abraham’s children but God’s (v 26), for Christ is the Son of God and God has determined to send the Spirit of his Son to believers so that they too may call God <em>Father<\/em> (Gal 4:4-7; see also Rom 8:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>Indeed, Christ himself as the Son is the true heir (Mt 21:38; Mk 12:7; Lk 20:14); he has inherited a name above every name (Phil 2:9; Heb 1:4) and has been appointed heir of all things (Heb 1:2; see Ps 2:7-8; Mt 28:18). But by his grace, all who become his through faith are counted joint heirs with him (Rom 8:17).<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Inheritance<\/h5>\n<p>With a bold shift in the metaphor, the Scriptures speak of believers as God’s inheritance. In the beautiful “Song of Moses” the author speaks of God as the Israelites’ Father (Dt 32:6), who has taken special interest in their inheritance (v 8). Then we are told why God cares: “For the <span>Lord<\/span>’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance” (Dt 32:9, <span>niv<\/span>). This theme becomes very prominent throughout the OT (e.g., Dt 9:26-29; 1 Kgs 8:51-53; Pss 28:9; 33:12; 74:2; Is 19:25; Jer 10:16; Zec 2:12). Elsewhere, Israel is spoken of as God’s special possession (e.g., Ex 19:5; Dt 7:6).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians 1:14 “the redemption of the possession” refers to the final salvation of believers, who are God’s treasure. Further, “we have obtained an inheritance” (Eph 1:11) may well be translated, “we have been made an inheritance,” that is, been “chosen as God’s portion,” a view supported by verse 18. No more fundamental idea than this can be found in Scripture, and its essence is expressed by the words of the One who sits on the throne: “He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son” (Rv 21:7, <span>rsv<\/span>; see Lv 26:11-12; 2 Sm 7:14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adoption; Birthright; Firstborn; Heir.<\/p>","summary_ro":"INHERITANCE Legacy or bequest. Inheritance plays an unusually significant role in the Scriptures when it is used to convey theological truths. As we might expect, these theological applications reflect legal customs in force during OT and NT times. Legal and Historical Aspect The Patriarchs We learn something of early-second-millennium BC practices from the patriarchal stories in Genesis. For example, the narrative indicates that the firstborn could normally expect to receive the birthright. ...","summary_en":"INHERITANCE Legacy or bequest. Inheritance plays an unusually significant role in the Scriptures when it is used to convey theological truths. As we might expect, these theological applications reflect legal customs in force during OT and NT times. Legal and Historical Aspect The Patriarchs We learn something of early-second-millennium BC practices from the patriarchal stories in Genesis. For example, the narrative indicates that the firstborn could normally expect to receive the birthright. ...","source":"Articles\/I.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55448,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:7","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:7<\/strong> The reasoning of the tenants is unclear to us, although it was apparently clear to the original hearers, requiring no further explanation (cp. Matt 21:38; Luke 20:14). Perhaps with the son’s coming, they assumed that the father had died and that the murder of the son would leave the vineyard without a living claimant. Then ownership would fall to those who had been working the vineyard for years.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:7<\/strong> The reasoning of the tenants is unclear to us, although it was apparently clear to the original hearers, requiring no further explanation (cp. Matt 21:38; Luke 20:14). Perhaps with the son’s coming, they assumed that the father had died and that the murder of the son would leave the vineyard without a living claimant. Then ownership would fall to those who had been working the vineyard for years.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:7 The reasoning of the tenants is unclear to us, although it was apparently clear to the original hearers, requiring no further explanation (cp. Matt 21:38; Luke 20:14). Perhaps with the son’s coming, they assumed that the father had died and that the murder of the son would leave the vineyard without a living claimant. Then ownership would fall to those who had been working the vineyard for years.","summary_en":"12:7 The reasoning of the tenants is unclear to us, although it was apparently clear to the original hearers, requiring no further explanation (cp. Matt 21:38; Luke 20:14). Perhaps with the son’s coming, they assumed that the father had died and that the murder of the son would leave the vineyard without a living claimant. Then ownership would fall to those who had been working the vineyard for years.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83074,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:7","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:7<\/strong> The reasoning of the tenants is unclear to us, although it was apparently clear to the original hearers, requiring no further explanation (cp. Matt 21:38; Luke 20:14). Perhaps with the son’s coming, they assumed that the father had died and that the murder of the son would leave the vineyard without a living claimant. Then ownership would fall to those who had been working the vineyard for years.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:7<\/strong> The reasoning of the tenants is unclear to us, although it was apparently clear to the original hearers, requiring no further explanation (cp. Matt 21:38; Luke 20:14). Perhaps with the son’s coming, they assumed that the father had died and that the murder of the son would leave the vineyard without a living claimant. Then ownership would fall to those who had been working the vineyard for years.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:7 The reasoning of the tenants is unclear to us, although it was apparently clear to the original hearers, requiring no further explanation (cp. Matt 21:38; Luke 20:14). Perhaps with the son’s coming, they assumed that the father had died and that the murder of the son would leave the vineyard without a living claimant. Then ownership would fall to those who had been working the vineyard for years.","summary_en":"12:7 The reasoning of the tenants is unclear to us, although it was apparently clear to the original hearers, requiring no further explanation (cp. Matt 21:38; Luke 20:14). Perhaps with the son’s coming, they assumed that the father had died and that the murder of the son would leave the vineyard without a living claimant. Then ownership would fall to those who had been working the vineyard for years.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110700,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:7","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:7<\/strong> The reasoning of the tenants is unclear to us, although it was apparently clear to the original hearers, requiring no further explanation (cp. Matt 21:38; Luke 20:14). Perhaps with the son’s coming, they assumed that the father had died and that the murder of the son would leave the vineyard without a living claimant. Then ownership would fall to those who had been working the vineyard for years.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:7<\/strong> The reasoning of the tenants is unclear to us, although it was apparently clear to the original hearers, requiring no further explanation (cp. Matt 21:38; Luke 20:14). Perhaps with the son’s coming, they assumed that the father had died and that the murder of the son would leave the vineyard without a living claimant. Then ownership would fall to those who had been working the vineyard for years.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:7 The reasoning of the tenants is unclear to us, although it was apparently clear to the original hearers, requiring no further explanation (cp. Matt 21:38; Luke 20:14). Perhaps with the son’s coming, they assumed that the father had died and that the murder of the son would leave the vineyard without a living claimant. Then ownership would fall to those who had been working the vineyard for years.","summary_en":"12:7 The reasoning of the tenants is unclear to us, although it was apparently clear to the original hearers, requiring no further explanation (cp. Matt 21:38; Luke 20:14). Perhaps with the son’s coming, they assumed that the father had died and that the murder of the son would leave the vineyard without a living claimant. Then ownership would fall to those who had been working the vineyard for years.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138326,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:7","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:7<\/strong> The reasoning of the tenants is unclear to us, although it was apparently clear to the original hearers, requiring no further explanation (cp. Matt 21:38; Luke 20:14). Perhaps with the son’s coming, they assumed that the father had died and that the murder of the son would leave the vineyard without a living claimant. Then ownership would fall to those who had been working the vineyard for years.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:7<\/strong> The reasoning of the tenants is unclear to us, although it was apparently clear to the original hearers, requiring no further explanation (cp. Matt 21:38; Luke 20:14). Perhaps with the son’s coming, they assumed that the father had died and that the murder of the son would leave the vineyard without a living claimant. Then ownership would fall to those who had been working the vineyard for years.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:7 The reasoning of the tenants is unclear to us, although it was apparently clear to the original hearers, requiring no further explanation (cp. Matt 21:38; Luke 20:14). Perhaps with the son’s coming, they assumed that the father had died and that the murder of the son would leave the vineyard without a living claimant. Then ownership would fall to those who had been working the vineyard for years.","summary_en":"12:7 The reasoning of the tenants is unclear to us, although it was apparently clear to the original hearers, requiring no further explanation (cp. Matt 21:38; Luke 20:14). Perhaps with the son’s coming, they assumed that the father had died and that the murder of the son would leave the vineyard without a living claimant. Then ownership would fall to those who had been working the vineyard for years.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"8":[{"id":55449,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:8","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:8<\/strong> <em>threw his body out of the vineyard:<\/em> The tenants’ disgraceful treatment of the son is heightened by their not even burying his body. Cp. Heb 13:12-13.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:8<\/strong> <em>threw his body out of the vineyard:<\/em> The tenants’ disgraceful treatment of the son is heightened by their not even burying his body. Cp. Heb 13:12-13.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:8 threw his body out of the vineyard: The tenants’ disgraceful treatment of the son is heightened by their not even burying his body. Cp. Heb 13:12-13.","summary_en":"12:8 threw his body out of the vineyard: The tenants’ disgraceful treatment of the son is heightened by their not even burying his body. Cp. Heb 13:12-13.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83075,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:8","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:8<\/strong> <em>threw his body out of the vineyard:<\/em> The tenants’ disgraceful treatment of the son is heightened by their not even burying his body. Cp. Heb 13:12-13.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:8<\/strong> <em>threw his body out of the vineyard:<\/em> The tenants’ disgraceful treatment of the son is heightened by their not even burying his body. Cp. Heb 13:12-13.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:8 threw his body out of the vineyard: The tenants’ disgraceful treatment of the son is heightened by their not even burying his body. Cp. Heb 13:12-13.","summary_en":"12:8 threw his body out of the vineyard: The tenants’ disgraceful treatment of the son is heightened by their not even burying his body. Cp. Heb 13:12-13.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110701,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:8","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:8<\/strong> <em>threw his body out of the vineyard:<\/em> The tenants’ disgraceful treatment of the son is heightened by their not even burying his body. Cp. Heb 13:12-13.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:8<\/strong> <em>threw his body out of the vineyard:<\/em> The tenants’ disgraceful treatment of the son is heightened by their not even burying his body. Cp. Heb 13:12-13.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:8 threw his body out of the vineyard: The tenants’ disgraceful treatment of the son is heightened by their not even burying his body. Cp. Heb 13:12-13.","summary_en":"12:8 threw his body out of the vineyard: The tenants’ disgraceful treatment of the son is heightened by their not even burying his body. Cp. Heb 13:12-13.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138327,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:8","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:8<\/strong> <em>threw his body out of the vineyard:<\/em> The tenants’ disgraceful treatment of the son is heightened by their not even burying his body. Cp. Heb 13:12-13.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:8<\/strong> <em>threw his body out of the vineyard:<\/em> The tenants’ disgraceful treatment of the son is heightened by their not even burying his body. Cp. Heb 13:12-13.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:8 threw his body out of the vineyard: The tenants’ disgraceful treatment of the son is heightened by their not even burying his body. Cp. Heb 13:12-13.","summary_en":"12:8 threw his body out of the vineyard: The tenants’ disgraceful treatment of the son is heightened by their not even burying his body. Cp. Heb 13:12-13.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"9":[{"id":55450,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:9","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:9<\/strong> The parable concludes with two rhetorical questions (cp. 3:23, 33; 4:13; 7:18; 8:12). The first corresponds to what the “<span>Lord<\/span> of Heaven’s Armies” says in the parable of the vineyard (Isa 5:5-7). Although some interpret Jesus’ answer as meaning that God would replace the evil Jewish leaders (Mark 11:27; 12:12) with more faithful ones, Mark’s readers likely would have understood the <em>others<\/em> to whom the vineyard would be given as the Gentile church (cp. Matt 21:43; Rom 9:25-33; 11:13-24). Thus, Jesus’ parable connects with the coming destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 11:15-19; 13:1-37; 14:58; 15:29).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:9<\/strong> The parable concludes with two rhetorical questions (cp. 3:23, 33; 4:13; 7:18; 8:12). The first corresponds to what the “<span>Lord<\/span> of Heaven’s Armies” says in the parable of the vineyard (Isa 5:5-7). Although some interpret Jesus’ answer as meaning that God would replace the evil Jewish leaders (Mark 11:27; 12:12) with more faithful ones, Mark’s readers likely would have understood the <em>others<\/em> to whom the vineyard would be given as the Gentile church (cp. Matt 21:43; Rom 9:25-33; 11:13-24). Thus, Jesus’ parable connects with the coming destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 11:15-19; 13:1-37; 14:58; 15:29).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:9 The parable concludes with two rhetorical questions (cp. 3:23, 33; 4:13; 7:18; 8:12). The first corresponds to what the “Lord of Heaven’s Armies” says in the parable of the vineyard (Isa 5:5-7). Although some interpret Jesus’ answer as meaning that God would replace the evil Jewish leaders (Mark 11:27; 12:12) with more faithful ones, Mark’s readers likely would have understood the others to whom the vineyard would be given as the Gentile church (cp. Matt 21:43; Rom 9:25-33; 11:13-24). Th...","summary_en":"12:9 The parable concludes with two rhetorical questions (cp. 3:23, 33; 4:13; 7:18; 8:12). The first corresponds to what the “Lord of Heaven’s Armies” says in the parable of the vineyard (Isa 5:5-7). Although some interpret Jesus’ answer as meaning that God would replace the evil Jewish leaders (Mark 11:27; 12:12) with more faithful ones, Mark’s readers likely would have understood the others to whom the vineyard would be given as the Gentile church (cp. Matt 21:43; Rom 9:25-33; 11:13-24). Th...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83076,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:9","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:9<\/strong> The parable concludes with two rhetorical questions (cp. 3:23, 33; 4:13; 7:18; 8:12). The first corresponds to what the “<span>Lord<\/span> of Heaven’s Armies” says in the parable of the vineyard (Isa 5:5-7). Although some interpret Jesus’ answer as meaning that God would replace the evil Jewish leaders (Mark 11:27; 12:12) with more faithful ones, Mark’s readers likely would have understood the <em>others<\/em> to whom the vineyard would be given as the Gentile church (cp. Matt 21:43; Rom 9:25-33; 11:13-24). Thus, Jesus’ parable connects with the coming destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 11:15-19; 13:1-37; 14:58; 15:29).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:9<\/strong> The parable concludes with two rhetorical questions (cp. 3:23, 33; 4:13; 7:18; 8:12). The first corresponds to what the “<span>Lord<\/span> of Heaven’s Armies” says in the parable of the vineyard (Isa 5:5-7). Although some interpret Jesus’ answer as meaning that God would replace the evil Jewish leaders (Mark 11:27; 12:12) with more faithful ones, Mark’s readers likely would have understood the <em>others<\/em> to whom the vineyard would be given as the Gentile church (cp. Matt 21:43; Rom 9:25-33; 11:13-24). Thus, Jesus’ parable connects with the coming destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 11:15-19; 13:1-37; 14:58; 15:29).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:9 The parable concludes with two rhetorical questions (cp. 3:23, 33; 4:13; 7:18; 8:12). The first corresponds to what the “Lord of Heaven’s Armies” says in the parable of the vineyard (Isa 5:5-7). Although some interpret Jesus’ answer as meaning that God would replace the evil Jewish leaders (Mark 11:27; 12:12) with more faithful ones, Mark’s readers likely would have understood the others to whom the vineyard would be given as the Gentile church (cp. Matt 21:43; Rom 9:25-33; 11:13-24). Th...","summary_en":"12:9 The parable concludes with two rhetorical questions (cp. 3:23, 33; 4:13; 7:18; 8:12). The first corresponds to what the “Lord of Heaven’s Armies” says in the parable of the vineyard (Isa 5:5-7). Although some interpret Jesus’ answer as meaning that God would replace the evil Jewish leaders (Mark 11:27; 12:12) with more faithful ones, Mark’s readers likely would have understood the others to whom the vineyard would be given as the Gentile church (cp. Matt 21:43; Rom 9:25-33; 11:13-24). Th...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110702,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:9","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:9<\/strong> The parable concludes with two rhetorical questions (cp. 3:23, 33; 4:13; 7:18; 8:12). The first corresponds to what the “<span>Lord<\/span> of Heaven’s Armies” says in the parable of the vineyard (Isa 5:5-7). Although some interpret Jesus’ answer as meaning that God would replace the evil Jewish leaders (Mark 11:27; 12:12) with more faithful ones, Mark’s readers likely would have understood the <em>others<\/em> to whom the vineyard would be given as the Gentile church (cp. Matt 21:43; Rom 9:25-33; 11:13-24). Thus, Jesus’ parable connects with the coming destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 11:15-19; 13:1-37; 14:58; 15:29).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:9<\/strong> The parable concludes with two rhetorical questions (cp. 3:23, 33; 4:13; 7:18; 8:12). The first corresponds to what the “<span>Lord<\/span> of Heaven’s Armies” says in the parable of the vineyard (Isa 5:5-7). Although some interpret Jesus’ answer as meaning that God would replace the evil Jewish leaders (Mark 11:27; 12:12) with more faithful ones, Mark’s readers likely would have understood the <em>others<\/em> to whom the vineyard would be given as the Gentile church (cp. Matt 21:43; Rom 9:25-33; 11:13-24). Thus, Jesus’ parable connects with the coming destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 11:15-19; 13:1-37; 14:58; 15:29).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:9 The parable concludes with two rhetorical questions (cp. 3:23, 33; 4:13; 7:18; 8:12). The first corresponds to what the “Lord of Heaven’s Armies” says in the parable of the vineyard (Isa 5:5-7). Although some interpret Jesus’ answer as meaning that God would replace the evil Jewish leaders (Mark 11:27; 12:12) with more faithful ones, Mark’s readers likely would have understood the others to whom the vineyard would be given as the Gentile church (cp. Matt 21:43; Rom 9:25-33; 11:13-24). Th...","summary_en":"12:9 The parable concludes with two rhetorical questions (cp. 3:23, 33; 4:13; 7:18; 8:12). The first corresponds to what the “Lord of Heaven’s Armies” says in the parable of the vineyard (Isa 5:5-7). Although some interpret Jesus’ answer as meaning that God would replace the evil Jewish leaders (Mark 11:27; 12:12) with more faithful ones, Mark’s readers likely would have understood the others to whom the vineyard would be given as the Gentile church (cp. Matt 21:43; Rom 9:25-33; 11:13-24). Th...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138328,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:9","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:9<\/strong> The parable concludes with two rhetorical questions (cp. 3:23, 33; 4:13; 7:18; 8:12). The first corresponds to what the “<span>Lord<\/span> of Heaven’s Armies” says in the parable of the vineyard (Isa 5:5-7). Although some interpret Jesus’ answer as meaning that God would replace the evil Jewish leaders (Mark 11:27; 12:12) with more faithful ones, Mark’s readers likely would have understood the <em>others<\/em> to whom the vineyard would be given as the Gentile church (cp. Matt 21:43; Rom 9:25-33; 11:13-24). Thus, Jesus’ parable connects with the coming destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 11:15-19; 13:1-37; 14:58; 15:29).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:9<\/strong> The parable concludes with two rhetorical questions (cp. 3:23, 33; 4:13; 7:18; 8:12). The first corresponds to what the “<span>Lord<\/span> of Heaven’s Armies” says in the parable of the vineyard (Isa 5:5-7). Although some interpret Jesus’ answer as meaning that God would replace the evil Jewish leaders (Mark 11:27; 12:12) with more faithful ones, Mark’s readers likely would have understood the <em>others<\/em> to whom the vineyard would be given as the Gentile church (cp. Matt 21:43; Rom 9:25-33; 11:13-24). Thus, Jesus’ parable connects with the coming destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 11:15-19; 13:1-37; 14:58; 15:29).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:9 The parable concludes with two rhetorical questions (cp. 3:23, 33; 4:13; 7:18; 8:12). The first corresponds to what the “Lord of Heaven’s Armies” says in the parable of the vineyard (Isa 5:5-7). Although some interpret Jesus’ answer as meaning that God would replace the evil Jewish leaders (Mark 11:27; 12:12) with more faithful ones, Mark’s readers likely would have understood the others to whom the vineyard would be given as the Gentile church (cp. Matt 21:43; Rom 9:25-33; 11:13-24). Th...","summary_en":"12:9 The parable concludes with two rhetorical questions (cp. 3:23, 33; 4:13; 7:18; 8:12). The first corresponds to what the “Lord of Heaven’s Armies” says in the parable of the vineyard (Isa 5:5-7). Although some interpret Jesus’ answer as meaning that God would replace the evil Jewish leaders (Mark 11:27; 12:12) with more faithful ones, Mark’s readers likely would have understood the others to whom the vineyard would be given as the Gentile church (cp. Matt 21:43; Rom 9:25-33; 11:13-24). Th...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"10":[{"id":7756,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Cornerstone","title_en":"Cornerstone","content_ro":"<h3>CORNERSTONE<\/h3>\n<p>Term used in the NT to describe the exalted position of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus used this term to speak of himself in the parable of the wicked tenants (Mt 21:42; Mk 12:10; Lk 20:17). The setting for this parable was his final ministry in Jerusalem after he had cleansed the temple. The Jewish leaders had questioned him about his actions, and part of his reply was this parable, which symbolically addressed the situation between Jesus and the leaders. The Jewish leaders were represented in the parable as the tenants who were caring for the vineyard, which symbolized God’s people. Those tenants wickedly refused to honor the owner, who represented God, ultimately putting his son to death. The parable speaks of the coming death of Jesus in symbolic terms, and Jesus concluded it by referring the Jewish leaders back to their own Scriptures, specifically Psalm 118:22-23 (cf. Is 28:16), which he understood as speaking of his rejection and exaltation. The Jewish leaders rejected Jesus, but God would exalt him as the cornerstone.<\/p>\n<p>Second, the term is used in Acts 4:11, which describes Peter’s defense before the Jewish rulers in Jerusalem. Peter explained to them the healing of the lame beggar by the temple gate, stressing that the healing took place by the name of Jesus Christ, the Nazarene whom they had crucified but whom God had raised from the dead (v 10). He then quotes Psalm 118:22 to confirm the events as being according to Scripture. It seems clear that Peter intended the rejection of the stone to refer to Jesus’ death and the placing of the stone as the cornerstone to refer to Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation. Thus, “cornerstone” designates Jesus in his exalted position with the Father.<\/p>\n<p>The term is also used in 1 Peter 2:6-7. In verse 4 Peter combines the idea of the rejection of the stone in Psalm 118:22 with the idea of the chosen and precious stone in Isaiah 28:16, adding the idea of living from his own experience of Jesus’ resurrection. Peter is encouraging his readers to come to Jesus, that they may be built up as a spiritual house to God. This imagery is used to bring out the exalted nature of Jesus. In verse 6 Peter quotes Isaiah 28:16, which speaks of the chosen and precious cornerstone, and related this to believers. In verses 7-8 he quotes Psalm 118:22, referring to the rejection of the stone, and Isaiah 8:14, which speaks of a stone of stumbling, and relates these to unbelievers. Peter’s purpose is to set before his readers the exalted position of Jesus and to encourage them to remember him to whom they were called.<\/p>\n<p>It is evident that the OT concept of cornerstone is applied to Jesus to emphasize his exalted position with the Father and so to encourage the believer. In Ephesians 2:20 brief reference is also made to Christ Jesus as the cornerstone upon which the church is built.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CORNERSTONE<\/h3>\n<p>Term used in the NT to describe the exalted position of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus used this term to speak of himself in the parable of the wicked tenants (Mt 21:42; Mk 12:10; Lk 20:17). The setting for this parable was his final ministry in Jerusalem after he had cleansed the temple. The Jewish leaders had questioned him about his actions, and part of his reply was this parable, which symbolically addressed the situation between Jesus and the leaders. The Jewish leaders were represented in the parable as the tenants who were caring for the vineyard, which symbolized God’s people. Those tenants wickedly refused to honor the owner, who represented God, ultimately putting his son to death. The parable speaks of the coming death of Jesus in symbolic terms, and Jesus concluded it by referring the Jewish leaders back to their own Scriptures, specifically Psalm 118:22-23 (cf. Is 28:16), which he understood as speaking of his rejection and exaltation. The Jewish leaders rejected Jesus, but God would exalt him as the cornerstone.<\/p>\n<p>Second, the term is used in Acts 4:11, which describes Peter’s defense before the Jewish rulers in Jerusalem. Peter explained to them the healing of the lame beggar by the temple gate, stressing that the healing took place by the name of Jesus Christ, the Nazarene whom they had crucified but whom God had raised from the dead (v 10). He then quotes Psalm 118:22 to confirm the events as being according to Scripture. It seems clear that Peter intended the rejection of the stone to refer to Jesus’ death and the placing of the stone as the cornerstone to refer to Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation. Thus, “cornerstone” designates Jesus in his exalted position with the Father.<\/p>\n<p>The term is also used in 1 Peter 2:6-7. In verse 4 Peter combines the idea of the rejection of the stone in Psalm 118:22 with the idea of the chosen and precious stone in Isaiah 28:16, adding the idea of living from his own experience of Jesus’ resurrection. Peter is encouraging his readers to come to Jesus, that they may be built up as a spiritual house to God. This imagery is used to bring out the exalted nature of Jesus. In verse 6 Peter quotes Isaiah 28:16, which speaks of the chosen and precious cornerstone, and related this to believers. In verses 7-8 he quotes Psalm 118:22, referring to the rejection of the stone, and Isaiah 8:14, which speaks of a stone of stumbling, and relates these to unbelievers. Peter’s purpose is to set before his readers the exalted position of Jesus and to encourage them to remember him to whom they were called.<\/p>\n<p>It is evident that the OT concept of cornerstone is applied to Jesus to emphasize his exalted position with the Father and so to encourage the believer. In Ephesians 2:20 brief reference is also made to Christ Jesus as the cornerstone upon which the church is built.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CORNERSTONE Term used in the NT to describe the exalted position of Jesus. Jesus used this term to speak of himself in the parable of the wicked tenants (Mt 21:42; Mk 12:10; Lk 20:17). The setting for this parable was his final ministry in Jerusalem after he had cleansed the temple. The Jewish leaders had questioned him about his actions, and part of his reply was this parable, which symbolically addressed the situation between Jesus and the leaders. The Jewish leaders were represented in the...","summary_en":"CORNERSTONE Term used in the NT to describe the exalted position of Jesus. Jesus used this term to speak of himself in the parable of the wicked tenants (Mt 21:42; Mk 12:10; Lk 20:17). The setting for this parable was his final ministry in Jerusalem after he had cleansed the temple. The Jewish leaders had questioned him about his actions, and part of his reply was this parable, which symbolically addressed the situation between Jesus and the leaders. The Jewish leaders were represented in the...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":39768,"type":"chart","type_label":"Diagramă","type_icon":"📊","type_color":"#3b82f6","title_ro":"Similarities between Peter’s Words in 1 Peter and Jesus’ Words in the Gospels","title_en":"Similarities between Peter’s Words in 1 Peter and Jesus’ Words in the Gospels","content_ro":"<h3>Similarities between Peter’s Words in 1 Peter and Jesus’ Words in the Gospels<\/h3>\n<table>\n <tr>\n <td><p><strong>1 Peter Reference<\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n <td><p><strong>Gospel Reference<\/strong><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>1:3, 23<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Jn 3:3, 7<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>1:4<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Lk 12:33<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>1:8<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Jn 20:29<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>1:10-12<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Lk 24:25-27<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>1:13<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Lk 12:35<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>1:22; 4:8<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Jn 13:34; 15:12<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2:4, 7<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Mk 12:10; Mt 21:42<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2:12<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Mt 5:16<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2:19-20<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Lk 6:32-35<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2:25<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Jn 10:11, 14<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>3:9<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Lk 6:27-28<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>4:13<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Mt 5:12<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>5:3<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Lk 22:24-27<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>5:5-6<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Lk 14:11; 18:14<\/p><\/td><\/tr><\/table>","content_en":"<h3>Similarities between Peter’s Words in 1 Peter and Jesus’ Words in the Gospels<\/h3>\n<table>\n <tr>\n <td><p><strong>1 Peter Reference<\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n <td><p><strong>Gospel Reference<\/strong><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>1:3, 23<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Jn 3:3, 7<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>1:4<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Lk 12:33<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>1:8<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Jn 20:29<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>1:10-12<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Lk 24:25-27<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>1:13<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Lk 12:35<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>1:22; 4:8<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Jn 13:34; 15:12<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2:4, 7<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Mk 12:10; Mt 21:42<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2:12<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Mt 5:16<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2:19-20<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Lk 6:32-35<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>2:25<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Jn 10:11, 14<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>3:9<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Lk 6:27-28<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>4:13<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Mt 5:12<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>5:3<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Lk 22:24-27<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>5:5-6<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Lk 14:11; 18:14<\/p><\/td><\/tr><\/table>","summary_ro":"Similarities between Peter’s Words in 1 Peter and Jesus’ Words in the Gospels 1 Peter Reference Gospel Reference 1:3, 23 Jn 3:3, 7 1:4 Lk 12:33 1:8 Jn 20:29 1:10-12 Lk 24:25-27 1:13 Lk 12:35 1:22; 4:8 Jn 13:34; 15:12 2:4, 7 Mk 12:10; Mt 21:42 2:12 Mt 5:16 2:19-20 Lk 6:32-35 2:25 Jn 10:11, 14 3:9 Lk 6:27-28 4:13 Mt 5:12 5:3 Lk 22:24-27 5:5-6 Lk 14:11; 18:14","summary_en":"Similarities between Peter’s Words in 1 Peter and Jesus’ Words in the Gospels 1 Peter Reference Gospel Reference 1:3, 23 Jn 3:3, 7 1:4 Lk 12:33 1:8 Jn 20:29 1:10-12 Lk 24:25-27 1:13 Lk 12:35 1:22; 4:8 Jn 13:34; 15:12 2:4, 7 Mk 12:10; Mt 21:42 2:12 Mt 5:16 2:19-20 Lk 6:32-35 2:25 Jn 10:11, 14 3:9 Lk 6:27-28 4:13 Mt 5:12 5:3 Lk 22:24-27 5:5-6 Lk 14:11; 18:14","source":"Charts\/Charts.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55451,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:10","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:10-11<\/strong> In his second rhetorical question, Jesus used a quotation from Ps 118:22-23. The rejected <em>stone<\/em> (the Son) had <em>become the cornerstone<\/em> of God’s Kingdom (cp. Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 6-7). The phrase is traditionally understood as the buried cornerstone that is part of the foundation, but it could be the capstone at the top of a building that marks its completion. Whichever stone is meant, it was the most important one. Despite the evil intention of <em>the builders<\/em>—the religious leaders—all they did was in accordance with God’s will (Acts 4:28), which was <em>wonderful to see<\/em>. Those who put Jesus to death were God’s instruments in his plan for the Son of Man to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:10-11<\/strong> In his second rhetorical question, Jesus used a quotation from Ps 118:22-23. The rejected <em>stone<\/em> (the Son) had <em>become the cornerstone<\/em> of God’s Kingdom (cp. Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 6-7). The phrase is traditionally understood as the buried cornerstone that is part of the foundation, but it could be the capstone at the top of a building that marks its completion. Whichever stone is meant, it was the most important one. Despite the evil intention of <em>the builders<\/em>—the religious leaders—all they did was in accordance with God’s will (Acts 4:28), which was <em>wonderful to see<\/em>. Those who put Jesus to death were God’s instruments in his plan for the Son of Man to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:10-11 In his second rhetorical question, Jesus used a quotation from Ps 118:22-23. The rejected stone (the Son) had become the cornerstone of God’s Kingdom (cp. Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 6-7). The phrase is traditionally understood as the buried cornerstone that is part of the foundation, but it could be the capstone at the top of a building that marks its completion. Whichever stone is meant, it was the most important one. Despite the evil intention of the builders—the religious leaders—all t...","summary_en":"12:10-11 In his second rhetorical question, Jesus used a quotation from Ps 118:22-23. The rejected stone (the Son) had become the cornerstone of God’s Kingdom (cp. Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 6-7). The phrase is traditionally understood as the buried cornerstone that is part of the foundation, but it could be the capstone at the top of a building that marks its completion. Whichever stone is meant, it was the most important one. Despite the evil intention of the builders—the religious leaders—all t...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83077,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:10","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:10-11<\/strong> In his second rhetorical question, Jesus used a quotation from Ps 118:22-23. The rejected <em>stone<\/em> (the Son) had <em>become the cornerstone<\/em> of God’s Kingdom (cp. Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 6-7). The phrase is traditionally understood as the buried cornerstone that is part of the foundation, but it could be the capstone at the top of a building that marks its completion. Whichever stone is meant, it was the most important one. Despite the evil intention of <em>the builders<\/em>—the religious leaders—all they did was in accordance with God’s will (Acts 4:28), which was <em>wonderful to see<\/em>. Those who put Jesus to death were God’s instruments in his plan for the Son of Man to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:10-11<\/strong> In his second rhetorical question, Jesus used a quotation from Ps 118:22-23. The rejected <em>stone<\/em> (the Son) had <em>become the cornerstone<\/em> of God’s Kingdom (cp. Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 6-7). The phrase is traditionally understood as the buried cornerstone that is part of the foundation, but it could be the capstone at the top of a building that marks its completion. Whichever stone is meant, it was the most important one. Despite the evil intention of <em>the builders<\/em>—the religious leaders—all they did was in accordance with God’s will (Acts 4:28), which was <em>wonderful to see<\/em>. Those who put Jesus to death were God’s instruments in his plan for the Son of Man to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:10-11 In his second rhetorical question, Jesus used a quotation from Ps 118:22-23. The rejected stone (the Son) had become the cornerstone of God’s Kingdom (cp. Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 6-7). The phrase is traditionally understood as the buried cornerstone that is part of the foundation, but it could be the capstone at the top of a building that marks its completion. Whichever stone is meant, it was the most important one. Despite the evil intention of the builders—the religious leaders—all t...","summary_en":"12:10-11 In his second rhetorical question, Jesus used a quotation from Ps 118:22-23. The rejected stone (the Son) had become the cornerstone of God’s Kingdom (cp. Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 6-7). The phrase is traditionally understood as the buried cornerstone that is part of the foundation, but it could be the capstone at the top of a building that marks its completion. Whichever stone is meant, it was the most important one. Despite the evil intention of the builders—the religious leaders—all t...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110703,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:10","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:10-11<\/strong> In his second rhetorical question, Jesus used a quotation from Ps 118:22-23. The rejected <em>stone<\/em> (the Son) had <em>become the cornerstone<\/em> of God’s Kingdom (cp. Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 6-7). The phrase is traditionally understood as the buried cornerstone that is part of the foundation, but it could be the capstone at the top of a building that marks its completion. Whichever stone is meant, it was the most important one. Despite the evil intention of <em>the builders<\/em>—the religious leaders—all they did was in accordance with God’s will (Acts 4:28), which was <em>wonderful to see<\/em>. Those who put Jesus to death were God’s instruments in his plan for the Son of Man to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:10-11<\/strong> In his second rhetorical question, Jesus used a quotation from Ps 118:22-23. The rejected <em>stone<\/em> (the Son) had <em>become the cornerstone<\/em> of God’s Kingdom (cp. Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 6-7). The phrase is traditionally understood as the buried cornerstone that is part of the foundation, but it could be the capstone at the top of a building that marks its completion. Whichever stone is meant, it was the most important one. Despite the evil intention of <em>the builders<\/em>—the religious leaders—all they did was in accordance with God’s will (Acts 4:28), which was <em>wonderful to see<\/em>. Those who put Jesus to death were God’s instruments in his plan for the Son of Man to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:10-11 In his second rhetorical question, Jesus used a quotation from Ps 118:22-23. The rejected stone (the Son) had become the cornerstone of God’s Kingdom (cp. Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 6-7). The phrase is traditionally understood as the buried cornerstone that is part of the foundation, but it could be the capstone at the top of a building that marks its completion. Whichever stone is meant, it was the most important one. Despite the evil intention of the builders—the religious leaders—all t...","summary_en":"12:10-11 In his second rhetorical question, Jesus used a quotation from Ps 118:22-23. The rejected stone (the Son) had become the cornerstone of God’s Kingdom (cp. Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 6-7). The phrase is traditionally understood as the buried cornerstone that is part of the foundation, but it could be the capstone at the top of a building that marks its completion. Whichever stone is meant, it was the most important one. Despite the evil intention of the builders—the religious leaders—all t...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138329,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:10","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:10-11<\/strong> In his second rhetorical question, Jesus used a quotation from Ps 118:22-23. The rejected <em>stone<\/em> (the Son) had <em>become the cornerstone<\/em> of God’s Kingdom (cp. Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 6-7). The phrase is traditionally understood as the buried cornerstone that is part of the foundation, but it could be the capstone at the top of a building that marks its completion. Whichever stone is meant, it was the most important one. Despite the evil intention of <em>the builders<\/em>—the religious leaders—all they did was in accordance with God’s will (Acts 4:28), which was <em>wonderful to see<\/em>. Those who put Jesus to death were God’s instruments in his plan for the Son of Man to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:10-11<\/strong> In his second rhetorical question, Jesus used a quotation from Ps 118:22-23. The rejected <em>stone<\/em> (the Son) had <em>become the cornerstone<\/em> of God’s Kingdom (cp. Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 6-7). The phrase is traditionally understood as the buried cornerstone that is part of the foundation, but it could be the capstone at the top of a building that marks its completion. Whichever stone is meant, it was the most important one. Despite the evil intention of <em>the builders<\/em>—the religious leaders—all they did was in accordance with God’s will (Acts 4:28), which was <em>wonderful to see<\/em>. Those who put Jesus to death were God’s instruments in his plan for the Son of Man to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:10-11 In his second rhetorical question, Jesus used a quotation from Ps 118:22-23. The rejected stone (the Son) had become the cornerstone of God’s Kingdom (cp. Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 6-7). The phrase is traditionally understood as the buried cornerstone that is part of the foundation, but it could be the capstone at the top of a building that marks its completion. Whichever stone is meant, it was the most important one. Despite the evil intention of the builders—the religious leaders—all t...","summary_en":"12:10-11 In his second rhetorical question, Jesus used a quotation from Ps 118:22-23. The rejected stone (the Son) had become the cornerstone of God’s Kingdom (cp. Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 6-7). The phrase is traditionally understood as the buried cornerstone that is part of the foundation, but it could be the capstone at the top of a building that marks its completion. Whichever stone is meant, it was the most important one. Despite the evil intention of the builders—the religious leaders—all t...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"12":[{"id":55452,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:12","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:12<\/strong> <em>The religious leaders:<\/em> For the second time, the presence of <em>the crowd<\/em> thwarted their evil intentions (see 11:31-32; 14:1-2).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:12<\/strong> <em>The religious leaders:<\/em> For the second time, the presence of <em>the crowd<\/em> thwarted their evil intentions (see 11:31-32; 14:1-2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:12 The religious leaders: For the second time, the presence of the crowd thwarted their evil intentions (see 11:31-32; 14:1-2).","summary_en":"12:12 The religious leaders: For the second time, the presence of the crowd thwarted their evil intentions (see 11:31-32; 14:1-2).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83078,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:12","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:12<\/strong> <em>The religious leaders:<\/em> For the second time, the presence of <em>the crowd<\/em> thwarted their evil intentions (see 11:31-32; 14:1-2).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:12<\/strong> <em>The religious leaders:<\/em> For the second time, the presence of <em>the crowd<\/em> thwarted their evil intentions (see 11:31-32; 14:1-2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:12 The religious leaders: For the second time, the presence of the crowd thwarted their evil intentions (see 11:31-32; 14:1-2).","summary_en":"12:12 The religious leaders: For the second time, the presence of the crowd thwarted their evil intentions (see 11:31-32; 14:1-2).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110704,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:12","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:12<\/strong> <em>The religious leaders:<\/em> For the second time, the presence of <em>the crowd<\/em> thwarted their evil intentions (see 11:31-32; 14:1-2).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:12<\/strong> <em>The religious leaders:<\/em> For the second time, the presence of <em>the crowd<\/em> thwarted their evil intentions (see 11:31-32; 14:1-2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:12 The religious leaders: For the second time, the presence of the crowd thwarted their evil intentions (see 11:31-32; 14:1-2).","summary_en":"12:12 The religious leaders: For the second time, the presence of the crowd thwarted their evil intentions (see 11:31-32; 14:1-2).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138330,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:12","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:12<\/strong> <em>The religious leaders:<\/em> For the second time, the presence of <em>the crowd<\/em> thwarted their evil intentions (see 11:31-32; 14:1-2).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:12<\/strong> <em>The religious leaders:<\/em> For the second time, the presence of <em>the crowd<\/em> thwarted their evil intentions (see 11:31-32; 14:1-2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:12 The religious leaders: For the second time, the presence of the crowd thwarted their evil intentions (see 11:31-32; 14:1-2).","summary_en":"12:12 The religious leaders: For the second time, the presence of the crowd thwarted their evil intentions (see 11:31-32; 14:1-2).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"13":[{"id":42054,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Pharisees","title_en":"The Pharisees","content_ro":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","summary_en":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69680,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Pharisees","title_en":"The Pharisees","content_ro":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","summary_en":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97306,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Pharisees","title_en":"The Pharisees","content_ro":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","summary_en":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124932,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Pharisees","title_en":"The Pharisees","content_ro":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Pharisees<\/h3>\n<p>The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the <em>hasidim<\/em> (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obedient Jews. They taught strict adherence to the law, not only the written law of Moses (<em>torah<\/em>), but also the oral traditions which they claimed Moses had passed down to them. Their goal was to defend the written law against any possible infringement. They were God-fearing and law-abiding people. They were known for passing their interpretations from generation to generation by word of mouth, establishing an oral tradition concerning legal matters. They made the law applicable by extracting from it specific guidelines for many possible situations. They argued that if the law were obeyed by all, the nation would be purged of sin and God would establish his Kingdom over all the nations. This gave their concern for obedience a goal in the future. The traditions of the Pharisees developed into the rabbinic writings known as the <em>Mishnah<\/em> and the <em>Talmud<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Although the Pharisees were small in number, their influence on Israel was widespread (see Matt 15:12-14; see also Josephus, <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.5). The primary influence of the Pharisees was in the local synagogue communities, while the Sadducees were more influential in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem and in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council.<\/p>\n<p>Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees had a strong belief in the resurrection of the dead (see Acts 23:6-8). After the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Pharisees provided leadership and direction for the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus often came into conflict with the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of elevating human rules over God’s righteous standards. Jesus opposed the Pharisees because they were leading people away from God’s plan for redemption. They were the theological shepherds of Israel, but Jesus castigated them as hypocrites for their perversions of doctrine and practice (see Matt 23). And the Pharisees were antagonistic toward Jesus, rejecting both him and his work, largely because of his shocking disregard of their traditions (see e.g., Matt 15:1-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 5:20; 9:10-14, 34; 12:1-14, 22-24, 38-40; 15:1-14; 16:1-12; 19:3; 21:45; 22:15, 34; 23:1-7, 13-31; 27:62-64; Mark 2:23-25; 3:1-6; 7:1-13; 8:11-12; 12:13-17; Luke 5:17-21, 29-32; 6:6-11; 7:28-30, 36-49; 11:37-54; 12:1-3; 13:31; 14:1-6; 15:1-2; 16:13-15; 17:20-21; 18:9-14; 19:38-40; John 1:24-25; 3:1; 7:31-32, 45-52; 8:3-10, 13; 9:13-34, 40; 11:46-57; 12:17-19, 42; 18:3; Acts 5:27-40; 15:5; 23:6-10; 26:4-5; Phil 3:5-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","summary_en":"The Pharisees The Pharisees were one of three major Jewish sects, along with the Sadducees and the Essenes. The Pharisees comprised a non-political lay movement within Judaism. They arose from the hasidim (pious ones), who opposed the syncretizing (combining together) of Greek culture and religion with Judaism in the second century BC. The Pharisees attempted, by rigorous examination of the details of the Old Testament law, to make the law accessible and practical to people seeking to be obed...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16294,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Herodians*","title_en":"Herodians*","content_ro":"<h3>HERODIANS*<\/h3>\n<p>Jewish party mentioned three times in the Gospels in connection with two incidents (one in Galilee and one in Jerusalem) and associated with the Pharisees in their opposition to Christ. In Mark 3:6, after the healing of the man with the withered hand, the Pharisees went out and took counsel with the Herodians, plotting to destroy Jesus. In Matthew 22:16 and Mark 12:13, the Pharisees and Herodians allied against Christ to entrap him with their question as to the lawfulness of paying taxes to Caesar. The Herodians are never mentioned in either Luke or John.<\/p>\n<p>The real problem comes in Mark 8:15, where it speaks of the “leaven of Herod.” Another reading is the “leaven of the Herodians.” However, the parallel passage in Matthew 16:6 speaks of the “leaven of the Sadducees.” Are the Sadducees and the Herodians the same?<\/p>\n<p>Matthew tends to label the religious leaders as Jesus’ opponents, whereas Mark emphasizes that Jesus’ opponents were both religious and political. What then is the significance of Matthew’s use of “the leaven of the Sadducees” in place of Mark’s “leaven of Herod” or “leaven of the Herodians”? Some have speculated that the Herodians were a political party composed principally of Sadducees. Some have identified them with the Sadducees, and others with the Boethusians, whose name more often than not was used interchangeably with that of the Sadducees. The Boethusians and the Sadducees were indistinguishable theologically, but the Sadducees were loyal to the Hasmonean dynasty, whereas the Boethusians were attached to the Herodian house and consequently were called the Herodians. Thus the Herodians had political affiliations with the Herodian house and religious affiliations with the Sadducees. Along with the Sadducees, the Herodians were men of influence—the aristocrats of Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, during Jesus’ time the political differences between the Herodians and the Sadducees were not as distinct because of the marriage of the Herodian Herod Antipas to the Hasmonean Herodias. The Herodians and the Sadducees would have been on the same side politically against the Pharisees, the former being pro-government, while the Pharisees were both anti-Hasmonean and anti-Herodian. Congruent with this, Matthew 16:12 and Mark 8:15 represent the Pharisees and the Sadducees\/Herodians as contrary parties opposing Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>In summary, the Herodians were also known as the Boethusians. Theologically they were in agreement with the Sadducees, but politically they were more pro-Herodian than the Sadducees. While the Pharisees looked for a cataclysmic messianic kingdom to remove the present Herodian rule, the Herodians worked to keep Herod’s dynasty in power.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Herod, Herodian Family.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HERODIANS*<\/h3>\n<p>Jewish party mentioned three times in the Gospels in connection with two incidents (one in Galilee and one in Jerusalem) and associated with the Pharisees in their opposition to Christ. In Mark 3:6, after the healing of the man with the withered hand, the Pharisees went out and took counsel with the Herodians, plotting to destroy Jesus. In Matthew 22:16 and Mark 12:13, the Pharisees and Herodians allied against Christ to entrap him with their question as to the lawfulness of paying taxes to Caesar. The Herodians are never mentioned in either Luke or John.<\/p>\n<p>The real problem comes in Mark 8:15, where it speaks of the “leaven of Herod.” Another reading is the “leaven of the Herodians.” However, the parallel passage in Matthew 16:6 speaks of the “leaven of the Sadducees.” Are the Sadducees and the Herodians the same?<\/p>\n<p>Matthew tends to label the religious leaders as Jesus’ opponents, whereas Mark emphasizes that Jesus’ opponents were both religious and political. What then is the significance of Matthew’s use of “the leaven of the Sadducees” in place of Mark’s “leaven of Herod” or “leaven of the Herodians”? Some have speculated that the Herodians were a political party composed principally of Sadducees. Some have identified them with the Sadducees, and others with the Boethusians, whose name more often than not was used interchangeably with that of the Sadducees. The Boethusians and the Sadducees were indistinguishable theologically, but the Sadducees were loyal to the Hasmonean dynasty, whereas the Boethusians were attached to the Herodian house and consequently were called the Herodians. Thus the Herodians had political affiliations with the Herodian house and religious affiliations with the Sadducees. Along with the Sadducees, the Herodians were men of influence—the aristocrats of Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, during Jesus’ time the political differences between the Herodians and the Sadducees were not as distinct because of the marriage of the Herodian Herod Antipas to the Hasmonean Herodias. The Herodians and the Sadducees would have been on the same side politically against the Pharisees, the former being pro-government, while the Pharisees were both anti-Hasmonean and anti-Herodian. Congruent with this, Matthew 16:12 and Mark 8:15 represent the Pharisees and the Sadducees\/Herodians as contrary parties opposing Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>In summary, the Herodians were also known as the Boethusians. Theologically they were in agreement with the Sadducees, but politically they were more pro-Herodian than the Sadducees. While the Pharisees looked for a cataclysmic messianic kingdom to remove the present Herodian rule, the Herodians worked to keep Herod’s dynasty in power.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Herod, Herodian Family.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HERODIANS* Jewish party mentioned three times in the Gospels in connection with two incidents (one in Galilee and one in Jerusalem) and associated with the Pharisees in their opposition to Christ. In Mark 3:6, after the healing of the man with the withered hand, the Pharisees went out and took counsel with the Herodians, plotting to destroy Jesus. In Matthew 22:16 and Mark 12:13, the Pharisees and Herodians allied against Christ to entrap him with their question as to the lawfulness of paying...","summary_en":"HERODIANS* Jewish party mentioned three times in the Gospels in connection with two incidents (one in Galilee and one in Jerusalem) and associated with the Pharisees in their opposition to Christ. In Mark 3:6, after the healing of the man with the withered hand, the Pharisees went out and took counsel with the Herodians, plotting to destroy Jesus. In Matthew 22:16 and Mark 12:13, the Pharisees and Herodians allied against Christ to entrap him with their question as to the lawfulness of paying...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24396,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of Mark","title_en":"Gospel of Mark","content_ro":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","summary_en":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":40046,"type":"textbox","type_label":"Notă explicativă","type_icon":"💡","type_color":"#8b5cf6","title_ro":"Emperor Worship","title_en":"Emperor Worship","content_ro":"<h3>Emperor Worship<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>Emperor worship had its origins in the Near Eastern practice of considering the king divine. The Egyptian pharaoh was considered a descendant of the sun god Ra (Re), and Mesopotamian legends speak of kingship “descending from heaven.” Alexander the Great and other Greek heroes were worshiped after their deaths. The idea of a ruler’s divinity was encouraged by the central place of the king in pagan cults. Israel was directly affected by such worship during the Babylonian exile (see Dn 3).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Such a background set the pattern for the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who believed himself to be an incarnation of the Greek god Zeus. He desecrated the temple in Jerusalem by setting up an altar to Zeus in it (167 <span>BC<\/span>). That event, which the Jews never forgot, triggered the Maccabean war for the liberation of Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>Roman generals and emperors likewise assumed godhood as soon as they penetrated Asia Minor, especially after Augustus Caesar came to full power (27 <span>BC<\/span>). Augustus saw his reign as the inauguration of a new age of peace for Rome and the world. Although the Romans acclaimed him as “savior,” he claimed for himself only the high priesthood. In the eastern provinces coins were minted with a double temple for Rome and Augustus. In Antioch coins depicted Augustus as the incarnate Zeus or “worship-worthy Son of God,” and altars were erected in his honor. Augustus encouraged the cult as a unifying element in his diverse empire and as a type of patriotism. After his death, temples were built in his honor and the symbols of divinity were transferred to succeeding emperors. For decades all new temples were for the imperial cult. (In Mk 12:13-17 and parallel passages about paying taxes, the coin was probably inscribed “Tiberius Caesar . . . Son of the Divine Augustus.”)<\/p>\n<p>Gaius Caesar, nicknamed Caligula (<span>AD<\/span> 37–41), was the first emperor to be worshiped in Rome during his own lifetime. On hearing of a dispute between Jews and Gentiles over worshiping him in Jamnia, he ordered a statue of himself to be placed in the temple in Jerusalem. His plan, which would surely have caused a general revolt, was averted only by the intercession of Herod Agrippa I. Under the succeeding emperors, Claudius (<span>AD<\/span> 41–54) and Nero (<span>AD<\/span> 54–68), the cult reached ridiculous extremes. Later emperors varied in how seriously they took the imperial cult, but it remained a test of loyalty to the empire, similar to loyalty oaths or pledging allegiance to the flag. For the sake of the empire’s unity, other religions had to accommodate emperor worship one way or another.<\/p>\n<p>Emperor worship naturally caused problems for Christians, since the titles given to the emperor (“lord,” “prince of peace,” “son of god,” “savior”) were the same as those used for Christ. The confession “Jesus is Lord” (Rom 10:9) was bound to conflict with the claim “Caesar is lord.” Christians who would not sacrifice to the emperor were charged with treason. The conflict between emperor worship and Christianity remained a focal point for the persecution of the church until the time of Constantine (<span>AD<\/span> 306–37).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Emperor Worship<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>Emperor worship had its origins in the Near Eastern practice of considering the king divine. The Egyptian pharaoh was considered a descendant of the sun god Ra (Re), and Mesopotamian legends speak of kingship “descending from heaven.” Alexander the Great and other Greek heroes were worshiped after their deaths. The idea of a ruler’s divinity was encouraged by the central place of the king in pagan cults. Israel was directly affected by such worship during the Babylonian exile (see Dn 3).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Such a background set the pattern for the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who believed himself to be an incarnation of the Greek god Zeus. He desecrated the temple in Jerusalem by setting up an altar to Zeus in it (167 <span>BC<\/span>). That event, which the Jews never forgot, triggered the Maccabean war for the liberation of Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>Roman generals and emperors likewise assumed godhood as soon as they penetrated Asia Minor, especially after Augustus Caesar came to full power (27 <span>BC<\/span>). Augustus saw his reign as the inauguration of a new age of peace for Rome and the world. Although the Romans acclaimed him as “savior,” he claimed for himself only the high priesthood. In the eastern provinces coins were minted with a double temple for Rome and Augustus. In Antioch coins depicted Augustus as the incarnate Zeus or “worship-worthy Son of God,” and altars were erected in his honor. Augustus encouraged the cult as a unifying element in his diverse empire and as a type of patriotism. After his death, temples were built in his honor and the symbols of divinity were transferred to succeeding emperors. For decades all new temples were for the imperial cult. (In Mk 12:13-17 and parallel passages about paying taxes, the coin was probably inscribed “Tiberius Caesar . . . Son of the Divine Augustus.”)<\/p>\n<p>Gaius Caesar, nicknamed Caligula (<span>AD<\/span> 37–41), was the first emperor to be worshiped in Rome during his own lifetime. On hearing of a dispute between Jews and Gentiles over worshiping him in Jamnia, he ordered a statue of himself to be placed in the temple in Jerusalem. His plan, which would surely have caused a general revolt, was averted only by the intercession of Herod Agrippa I. Under the succeeding emperors, Claudius (<span>AD<\/span> 41–54) and Nero (<span>AD<\/span> 54–68), the cult reached ridiculous extremes. Later emperors varied in how seriously they took the imperial cult, but it remained a test of loyalty to the empire, similar to loyalty oaths or pledging allegiance to the flag. For the sake of the empire’s unity, other religions had to accommodate emperor worship one way or another.<\/p>\n<p>Emperor worship naturally caused problems for Christians, since the titles given to the emperor (“lord,” “prince of peace,” “son of god,” “savior”) were the same as those used for Christ. The confession “Jesus is Lord” (Rom 10:9) was bound to conflict with the claim “Caesar is lord.” Christians who would not sacrifice to the emperor were charged with treason. The conflict between emperor worship and Christianity remained a focal point for the persecution of the church until the time of Constantine (<span>AD<\/span> 306–37).<\/p>","summary_ro":"Emperor Worship Emperor worship had its origins in the Near Eastern practice of considering the king divine. The Egyptian pharaoh was considered a descendant of the sun god Ra (Re), and Mesopotamian legends speak of kingship “descending from heaven.” Alexander the Great and other Greek heroes were worshiped after their deaths. The idea of a ruler’s divinity was encouraged by the central place of the king in pagan cults. Israel was directly affected by such worship during the Babylonian exile ...","summary_en":"Emperor Worship Emperor worship had its origins in the Near Eastern practice of considering the king divine. The Egyptian pharaoh was considered a descendant of the sun god Ra (Re), and Mesopotamian legends speak of kingship “descending from heaven.” Alexander the Great and other Greek heroes were worshiped after their deaths. The idea of a ruler’s divinity was encouraged by the central place of the king in pagan cults. Israel was directly affected by such worship during the Babylonian exile ...","source":"Textboxes\/Textboxes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55453,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:13","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:13-17<\/strong> Having failed in questioning Jesus’ authority, Jesus’ enemies tried to alienate his audience. Readers are aware from the beginning that the flattery of the <em>Pharisees and supporters of Herod<\/em> (see 3:6) was insincere; they wanted only to <em>trap Jesus into saying something for which he could be arrested<\/em>. The question <em>is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?<\/em> had been carefully thought out by Jesus’ opponents. It presented Jesus with a dilemma. To say yes would alienate the people, for they despised the Romans and hated paying them taxes. To say no would make him a revolutionary and force an immediate confrontation with the Roman authorities, resulting in his arrest.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:13-17<\/strong> Having failed in questioning Jesus’ authority, Jesus’ enemies tried to alienate his audience. Readers are aware from the beginning that the flattery of the <em>Pharisees and supporters of Herod<\/em> (see 3:6) was insincere; they wanted only to <em>trap Jesus into saying something for which he could be arrested<\/em>. The question <em>is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?<\/em> had been carefully thought out by Jesus’ opponents. It presented Jesus with a dilemma. To say yes would alienate the people, for they despised the Romans and hated paying them taxes. To say no would make him a revolutionary and force an immediate confrontation with the Roman authorities, resulting in his arrest.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:13-17 Having failed in questioning Jesus’ authority, Jesus’ enemies tried to alienate his audience. Readers are aware from the beginning that the flattery of the Pharisees and supporters of Herod (see 3:6) was insincere; they wanted only to trap Jesus into saying something for which he could be arrested. The question is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? had been carefully thought out by Jesus’ opponents. It presented Jesus with a dilemma. To say yes would alienate the people, for the...","summary_en":"12:13-17 Having failed in questioning Jesus’ authority, Jesus’ enemies tried to alienate his audience. Readers are aware from the beginning that the flattery of the Pharisees and supporters of Herod (see 3:6) was insincere; they wanted only to trap Jesus into saying something for which he could be arrested. The question is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? had been carefully thought out by Jesus’ opponents. It presented Jesus with a dilemma. To say yes would alienate the people, for the...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83079,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:13","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:13-17<\/strong> Having failed in questioning Jesus’ authority, Jesus’ enemies tried to alienate his audience. Readers are aware from the beginning that the flattery of the <em>Pharisees and supporters of Herod<\/em> (see 3:6) was insincere; they wanted only to <em>trap Jesus into saying something for which he could be arrested<\/em>. The question <em>is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?<\/em> had been carefully thought out by Jesus’ opponents. It presented Jesus with a dilemma. To say yes would alienate the people, for they despised the Romans and hated paying them taxes. To say no would make him a revolutionary and force an immediate confrontation with the Roman authorities, resulting in his arrest.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:13-17<\/strong> Having failed in questioning Jesus’ authority, Jesus’ enemies tried to alienate his audience. Readers are aware from the beginning that the flattery of the <em>Pharisees and supporters of Herod<\/em> (see 3:6) was insincere; they wanted only to <em>trap Jesus into saying something for which he could be arrested<\/em>. The question <em>is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?<\/em> had been carefully thought out by Jesus’ opponents. It presented Jesus with a dilemma. To say yes would alienate the people, for they despised the Romans and hated paying them taxes. To say no would make him a revolutionary and force an immediate confrontation with the Roman authorities, resulting in his arrest.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:13-17 Having failed in questioning Jesus’ authority, Jesus’ enemies tried to alienate his audience. Readers are aware from the beginning that the flattery of the Pharisees and supporters of Herod (see 3:6) was insincere; they wanted only to trap Jesus into saying something for which he could be arrested. The question is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? had been carefully thought out by Jesus’ opponents. It presented Jesus with a dilemma. To say yes would alienate the people, for the...","summary_en":"12:13-17 Having failed in questioning Jesus’ authority, Jesus’ enemies tried to alienate his audience. Readers are aware from the beginning that the flattery of the Pharisees and supporters of Herod (see 3:6) was insincere; they wanted only to trap Jesus into saying something for which he could be arrested. The question is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? had been carefully thought out by Jesus’ opponents. It presented Jesus with a dilemma. To say yes would alienate the people, for the...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110705,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:13","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:13-17<\/strong> Having failed in questioning Jesus’ authority, Jesus’ enemies tried to alienate his audience. Readers are aware from the beginning that the flattery of the <em>Pharisees and supporters of Herod<\/em> (see 3:6) was insincere; they wanted only to <em>trap Jesus into saying something for which he could be arrested<\/em>. The question <em>is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?<\/em> had been carefully thought out by Jesus’ opponents. It presented Jesus with a dilemma. To say yes would alienate the people, for they despised the Romans and hated paying them taxes. To say no would make him a revolutionary and force an immediate confrontation with the Roman authorities, resulting in his arrest.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:13-17<\/strong> Having failed in questioning Jesus’ authority, Jesus’ enemies tried to alienate his audience. Readers are aware from the beginning that the flattery of the <em>Pharisees and supporters of Herod<\/em> (see 3:6) was insincere; they wanted only to <em>trap Jesus into saying something for which he could be arrested<\/em>. The question <em>is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?<\/em> had been carefully thought out by Jesus’ opponents. It presented Jesus with a dilemma. To say yes would alienate the people, for they despised the Romans and hated paying them taxes. To say no would make him a revolutionary and force an immediate confrontation with the Roman authorities, resulting in his arrest.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:13-17 Having failed in questioning Jesus’ authority, Jesus’ enemies tried to alienate his audience. Readers are aware from the beginning that the flattery of the Pharisees and supporters of Herod (see 3:6) was insincere; they wanted only to trap Jesus into saying something for which he could be arrested. The question is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? had been carefully thought out by Jesus’ opponents. It presented Jesus with a dilemma. To say yes would alienate the people, for the...","summary_en":"12:13-17 Having failed in questioning Jesus’ authority, Jesus’ enemies tried to alienate his audience. Readers are aware from the beginning that the flattery of the Pharisees and supporters of Herod (see 3:6) was insincere; they wanted only to trap Jesus into saying something for which he could be arrested. The question is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? had been carefully thought out by Jesus’ opponents. It presented Jesus with a dilemma. To say yes would alienate the people, for the...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138331,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:13","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:13-17<\/strong> Having failed in questioning Jesus’ authority, Jesus’ enemies tried to alienate his audience. Readers are aware from the beginning that the flattery of the <em>Pharisees and supporters of Herod<\/em> (see 3:6) was insincere; they wanted only to <em>trap Jesus into saying something for which he could be arrested<\/em>. The question <em>is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?<\/em> had been carefully thought out by Jesus’ opponents. It presented Jesus with a dilemma. To say yes would alienate the people, for they despised the Romans and hated paying them taxes. To say no would make him a revolutionary and force an immediate confrontation with the Roman authorities, resulting in his arrest.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:13-17<\/strong> Having failed in questioning Jesus’ authority, Jesus’ enemies tried to alienate his audience. Readers are aware from the beginning that the flattery of the <em>Pharisees and supporters of Herod<\/em> (see 3:6) was insincere; they wanted only to <em>trap Jesus into saying something for which he could be arrested<\/em>. The question <em>is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?<\/em> had been carefully thought out by Jesus’ opponents. It presented Jesus with a dilemma. To say yes would alienate the people, for they despised the Romans and hated paying them taxes. To say no would make him a revolutionary and force an immediate confrontation with the Roman authorities, resulting in his arrest.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:13-17 Having failed in questioning Jesus’ authority, Jesus’ enemies tried to alienate his audience. Readers are aware from the beginning that the flattery of the Pharisees and supporters of Herod (see 3:6) was insincere; they wanted only to trap Jesus into saying something for which he could be arrested. The question is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? had been carefully thought out by Jesus’ opponents. It presented Jesus with a dilemma. To say yes would alienate the people, for the...","summary_en":"12:13-17 Having failed in questioning Jesus’ authority, Jesus’ enemies tried to alienate his audience. Readers are aware from the beginning that the flattery of the Pharisees and supporters of Herod (see 3:6) was insincere; they wanted only to trap Jesus into saying something for which he could be arrested. The question is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? had been carefully thought out by Jesus’ opponents. It presented Jesus with a dilemma. To say yes would alienate the people, for the...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"14":[{"id":36825,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Taxation Tax","title_en":"Taxation Tax","content_ro":"<h3>TAX, TAXATION<\/h3>\n<p>Amount of money or goods that was extracted by the powerful nations from those whom they subjected. It commonly consisted of gold, silver, animals, produce, or forced labor. Taxes were also levied on the people both by their ruler and by the priesthood to pay for the maintenance of the temple. The term “tribute” is first used in the <span>kjv<\/span> in Genesis 49:15 (<span>nlt<\/span> “forced labor”). In Numbers 31:28 the spoils of battle were divided up to include a tribute or levy for the priesthood. For the Hebrews the temple tribute was originally a voluntary offering to the Lord (Dt 16:10) but later became a prescribed tax (Mt 17:24).<\/p>\n<p>Even in 2500 <span>BC<\/span> in the city of Lagash, taxes were imposed on most facets of life, from the means of earning a livelihood, to marriage, divorce, and death. Like many ancient peoples, the Sumerians believed that the land belonged to the god and his representative the king, and that therefore a rent or levy was payable to the owner.<\/p>\n<p>In Egypt, Joseph exacted a burdensome 20-percent tax in grain during the seven years of plenty, which alleviated the food shortages during the subsequent seven years of famine (Gn 41:25–42:5). The tax on the crops was facilitated because in Egypt the ownership of the land was vested in the ruler.<\/p>\n<p>Warrior kings, such as David, were able to maintain a healthy treasury without taxing their own people. The Canaanites and neighboring conquered peoples contributed great wealth to the treasury (2 Sm 8:6-14; 1 Chr 27:25-31), one list of which included silver, gold, bronze, 1,700 horsemen, and 20,000 foot soldiers. Forced labor was often required by David and his successors of aliens who remained within the boundaries of the Israelite kingdom (Jos 16:10; 17:13; Jgs 1:28).<\/p>\n<p>Israel was probably first taxed during Solomon’s reign. In this more stable period, income came from tribute but not from booty. To maintain the grandeur of the court and the extensive building program, Solomon divided Israel into 12 areas, each under an officer, each of whom provided food and support for the king and his household for one month per year (1 Kgs 4:7). Solomon also derived considerable income from levying custom duties on trading caravans that passed regularly through his kingdom. In addition to all of this, both foreigners and native Israelites were subject to forced labor for major building projects, especially for the temple (1 Kgs 5:13; 9:20-21; 2 Chr 8:7-8). Handles from ten-gallon (37.9-liter) jars have been excavated, bearing a Hebrew stamp “to the king,” indicating that they formed part of a levy (2 Chr 2:10).<\/p>\n<p>Jehoshaphat was equally successful in taxing the people at home (2 Chr 17:5) and maintaining the tribute from abroad, including silver and gold from the Philistines and 7,700 rams and 7,700 he-goats from the Arabs (2 Chr 17:11-12). As the power of the surrounding empires increased, Judah found itself forced to pay tribute. Sennacherib, king of Assyria, required 300 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold, which necessitated the removal of the gold from the temple doors (2 Kgs 18:14-16). Approximately a century later, Pharaoh Neco required 100 talents of silver and a talent of gold from Judah (23:33), and shortly thereafter Nebuchadnezzar removed all the treasure from the temple and the royal palace, together with 10,000 captives, all the craftsmen, and 1,000 smiths, leaving few in Jerusalem except the poor (24:13-16).<\/p>\n<p>A definite, regular, organized tax system was instituted by the Persians, whose satraps, ruling each province, were required to make payment of fixed sums into the royal treasury (Est 10:1). Tax exemption was introduced by Artaxerxes I, who stated that levies should not be collected from priests, Levites, or any others occupied in any way with the service of the temple (Ezr 7:24). An additional tax was required for the maintenance of the governor’s household; it consisted of food, wine, and 40 shekels of silver (Neh 5:14-15). As governor, Nehemiah did not claim this allowance of food because he considered the taxes already burdensome, causing the mortgaging of fields, vineyards, and houses “for the king’s tax.” Simultaneously, a levy was imposed upon the Jews for the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem (4:6). Darius was politically astute enough to encourage the rebuilding of the temple and to allow the Jews to use some of the royal tax money for this purpose (Ezr 6:7-10).<\/p>\n<p>Under the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, and subsequently the Romans, there was a change in the collection of taxes, whereby the office of tax collector was sold to the highest bidder, who in turn extracted the maximum payment from the people and built up his own wealth from the surplus generated. At times, the Jews were paying tithes for the maintenance of the temple, in addition to taxes of as much as one-third of the grain and half of the fruit grown. Excise, sales, and poll taxes were also collected.<\/p>\n<p>After the extortionate level of tax imposed by Pompey, Julius Caesar reduced the amount paid by the Jews and exempted them from all payment in the sabbatical year. The provinces were considered booty by the Romans and were plundered physically by the army and financially by the tax collectors. In imperial times there was greater regulation of the tax system. An income tax was imposed on produce from the field and from artisans and tradesmen, as well as a poll tax, port duties, sales taxes, an auction tax, and an estate duty.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the taxes paid to foreign powers, all Jews worldwide who were 20 years of age and older (Ex 30:11-16) were assessed a half-shekel per person annually as a tax to support the temple in Jerusalem (Mt 17:24), a tax that continued to be levied even after the destruction of the temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70. Jesus was questioned on the validity of this tax (v 25) as well as the lawfulness of payment of taxes to Rome (Mt 22:17; Mk 12:14-15; Lk 20:22). Despite Jesus’ famous reply—“render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s” (Mt 22:21; Mk 12:17; Lk 20:25)—he was still accused before Pilate of forbidding the Jews to give taxes to Caesar (Lk 23:2). The early church also reinforced the legality of taxation as a legitimate responsibility required of all people (Rom 13:5-7).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Money; Banker, Banking; Tax Collector.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TAX, TAXATION<\/h3>\n<p>Amount of money or goods that was extracted by the powerful nations from those whom they subjected. It commonly consisted of gold, silver, animals, produce, or forced labor. Taxes were also levied on the people both by their ruler and by the priesthood to pay for the maintenance of the temple. The term “tribute” is first used in the <span>kjv<\/span> in Genesis 49:15 (<span>nlt<\/span> “forced labor”). In Numbers 31:28 the spoils of battle were divided up to include a tribute or levy for the priesthood. For the Hebrews the temple tribute was originally a voluntary offering to the Lord (Dt 16:10) but later became a prescribed tax (Mt 17:24).<\/p>\n<p>Even in 2500 <span>BC<\/span> in the city of Lagash, taxes were imposed on most facets of life, from the means of earning a livelihood, to marriage, divorce, and death. Like many ancient peoples, the Sumerians believed that the land belonged to the god and his representative the king, and that therefore a rent or levy was payable to the owner.<\/p>\n<p>In Egypt, Joseph exacted a burdensome 20-percent tax in grain during the seven years of plenty, which alleviated the food shortages during the subsequent seven years of famine (Gn 41:25–42:5). The tax on the crops was facilitated because in Egypt the ownership of the land was vested in the ruler.<\/p>\n<p>Warrior kings, such as David, were able to maintain a healthy treasury without taxing their own people. The Canaanites and neighboring conquered peoples contributed great wealth to the treasury (2 Sm 8:6-14; 1 Chr 27:25-31), one list of which included silver, gold, bronze, 1,700 horsemen, and 20,000 foot soldiers. Forced labor was often required by David and his successors of aliens who remained within the boundaries of the Israelite kingdom (Jos 16:10; 17:13; Jgs 1:28).<\/p>\n<p>Israel was probably first taxed during Solomon’s reign. In this more stable period, income came from tribute but not from booty. To maintain the grandeur of the court and the extensive building program, Solomon divided Israel into 12 areas, each under an officer, each of whom provided food and support for the king and his household for one month per year (1 Kgs 4:7). Solomon also derived considerable income from levying custom duties on trading caravans that passed regularly through his kingdom. In addition to all of this, both foreigners and native Israelites were subject to forced labor for major building projects, especially for the temple (1 Kgs 5:13; 9:20-21; 2 Chr 8:7-8). Handles from ten-gallon (37.9-liter) jars have been excavated, bearing a Hebrew stamp “to the king,” indicating that they formed part of a levy (2 Chr 2:10).<\/p>\n<p>Jehoshaphat was equally successful in taxing the people at home (2 Chr 17:5) and maintaining the tribute from abroad, including silver and gold from the Philistines and 7,700 rams and 7,700 he-goats from the Arabs (2 Chr 17:11-12). As the power of the surrounding empires increased, Judah found itself forced to pay tribute. Sennacherib, king of Assyria, required 300 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold, which necessitated the removal of the gold from the temple doors (2 Kgs 18:14-16). Approximately a century later, Pharaoh Neco required 100 talents of silver and a talent of gold from Judah (23:33), and shortly thereafter Nebuchadnezzar removed all the treasure from the temple and the royal palace, together with 10,000 captives, all the craftsmen, and 1,000 smiths, leaving few in Jerusalem except the poor (24:13-16).<\/p>\n<p>A definite, regular, organized tax system was instituted by the Persians, whose satraps, ruling each province, were required to make payment of fixed sums into the royal treasury (Est 10:1). Tax exemption was introduced by Artaxerxes I, who stated that levies should not be collected from priests, Levites, or any others occupied in any way with the service of the temple (Ezr 7:24). An additional tax was required for the maintenance of the governor’s household; it consisted of food, wine, and 40 shekels of silver (Neh 5:14-15). As governor, Nehemiah did not claim this allowance of food because he considered the taxes already burdensome, causing the mortgaging of fields, vineyards, and houses “for the king’s tax.” Simultaneously, a levy was imposed upon the Jews for the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem (4:6). Darius was politically astute enough to encourage the rebuilding of the temple and to allow the Jews to use some of the royal tax money for this purpose (Ezr 6:7-10).<\/p>\n<p>Under the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, and subsequently the Romans, there was a change in the collection of taxes, whereby the office of tax collector was sold to the highest bidder, who in turn extracted the maximum payment from the people and built up his own wealth from the surplus generated. At times, the Jews were paying tithes for the maintenance of the temple, in addition to taxes of as much as one-third of the grain and half of the fruit grown. Excise, sales, and poll taxes were also collected.<\/p>\n<p>After the extortionate level of tax imposed by Pompey, Julius Caesar reduced the amount paid by the Jews and exempted them from all payment in the sabbatical year. The provinces were considered booty by the Romans and were plundered physically by the army and financially by the tax collectors. In imperial times there was greater regulation of the tax system. An income tax was imposed on produce from the field and from artisans and tradesmen, as well as a poll tax, port duties, sales taxes, an auction tax, and an estate duty.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the taxes paid to foreign powers, all Jews worldwide who were 20 years of age and older (Ex 30:11-16) were assessed a half-shekel per person annually as a tax to support the temple in Jerusalem (Mt 17:24), a tax that continued to be levied even after the destruction of the temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70. Jesus was questioned on the validity of this tax (v 25) as well as the lawfulness of payment of taxes to Rome (Mt 22:17; Mk 12:14-15; Lk 20:22). Despite Jesus’ famous reply—“render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s” (Mt 22:21; Mk 12:17; Lk 20:25)—he was still accused before Pilate of forbidding the Jews to give taxes to Caesar (Lk 23:2). The early church also reinforced the legality of taxation as a legitimate responsibility required of all people (Rom 13:5-7).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Money; Banker, Banking; Tax Collector.<\/p>","summary_ro":"TAX, TAXATION Amount of money or goods that was extracted by the powerful nations from those whom they subjected. It commonly consisted of gold, silver, animals, produce, or forced labor. Taxes were also levied on the people both by their ruler and by the priesthood to pay for the maintenance of the temple. The term “tribute” is first used in the kjv in Genesis 49:15 (nlt “forced labor”). In Numbers 31:28 the spoils of battle were divided up to include a tribute or levy for the priesthood. Fo...","summary_en":"TAX, TAXATION Amount of money or goods that was extracted by the powerful nations from those whom they subjected. It commonly consisted of gold, silver, animals, produce, or forced labor. Taxes were also levied on the people both by their ruler and by the priesthood to pay for the maintenance of the temple. The term “tribute” is first used in the kjv in Genesis 49:15 (nlt “forced labor”). In Numbers 31:28 the spoils of battle were divided up to include a tribute or levy for the priesthood. Fo...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55454,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:14","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:14<\/strong> <em>taxes:<\/em> The Greek word refers to a poll tax or head tax; cp. Luke 2:1-2; Acts 5:37.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:14<\/strong> <em>taxes:<\/em> The Greek word refers to a poll tax or head tax; cp. Luke 2:1-2; Acts 5:37.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:14 taxes: The Greek word refers to a poll tax or head tax; cp. Luke 2:1-2; Acts 5:37.","summary_en":"12:14 taxes: The Greek word refers to a poll tax or head tax; cp. Luke 2:1-2; Acts 5:37.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83080,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:14","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:14<\/strong> <em>taxes:<\/em> The Greek word refers to a poll tax or head tax; cp. Luke 2:1-2; Acts 5:37.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:14<\/strong> <em>taxes:<\/em> The Greek word refers to a poll tax or head tax; cp. Luke 2:1-2; Acts 5:37.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:14 taxes: The Greek word refers to a poll tax or head tax; cp. Luke 2:1-2; Acts 5:37.","summary_en":"12:14 taxes: The Greek word refers to a poll tax or head tax; cp. Luke 2:1-2; Acts 5:37.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110706,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:14","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:14<\/strong> <em>taxes:<\/em> The Greek word refers to a poll tax or head tax; cp. Luke 2:1-2; Acts 5:37.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:14<\/strong> <em>taxes:<\/em> The Greek word refers to a poll tax or head tax; cp. Luke 2:1-2; Acts 5:37.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:14 taxes: The Greek word refers to a poll tax or head tax; cp. Luke 2:1-2; Acts 5:37.","summary_en":"12:14 taxes: The Greek word refers to a poll tax or head tax; cp. Luke 2:1-2; Acts 5:37.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138332,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:14","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:14<\/strong> <em>taxes:<\/em> The Greek word refers to a poll tax or head tax; cp. Luke 2:1-2; Acts 5:37.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:14<\/strong> <em>taxes:<\/em> The Greek word refers to a poll tax or head tax; cp. Luke 2:1-2; Acts 5:37.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:14 taxes: The Greek word refers to a poll tax or head tax; cp. Luke 2:1-2; Acts 5:37.","summary_en":"12:14 taxes: The Greek word refers to a poll tax or head tax; cp. Luke 2:1-2; Acts 5:37.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"15":[{"id":17057,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hypocrisy","title_en":"Hypocrisy","content_ro":"<h3>HYPOCRISY<\/h3>\n<p>The act of pretending to be what one is not, especially the false appearance of being religious or virtuous. Our modern understanding of the word “hypocrisy” is determined by its use in the NT, especially by Jesus. In both the NT and subsequent understandings the term most often meant deceit, misrepresenting the truth, or claiming virtues or qualities one does not possess.<\/p>\n<p>In contrast to its consistently negative meaning in the Bible, hypocrisy as first used by the Greeks was a neutral word. In its verb form it meant “to explain, to interpret, or to expound.” Although the noun “hypocrisy” could mean “answer,” the other noun form, “hypocrite,” almost always meant “actor” and probably came from the verb meaning “to expound.”<\/p>\n<p>Originally, a hypocrite could be a speaker or actor who interpreted the words of a poet or the music of a composer. The actor, or hypocrite, tried to make intelligible for his audience what the poet or composer had written. On a larger scale the hypocrite could be one actor among others in a drama performed on a stage. A good hypocrite faithfully interpreted his assigned role, while an undesirable hypocrite interpreted his role poorly. Because of the word’s essential neutrality, accompanying words were necessary to set its direction.<\/p>\n<p>In Hellenistic times (c. 325–125 <span>BC<\/span>), the world was commonly viewed as a stage and all human conduct as the art of acting. One’s role and script were written for him by his familial, cultural, and religious environment and could be performed either successfully or poorly. When used in this sense, hypocrisy did not carry the idea of pretense or sham. Nevertheless, there are instances where the term “hypocrite” was used to describe a person who performed life’s role deceptively. The image presented to the public was only a mask behind which the true and different self lay hidden.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospels often use the terms “hypocrisy” (Mt 23:28; Mk 12:15b; Lk 12:1) and “hypocrite” (Mt 7:5; 24:51; Lk 6:42; 13:15) to record the conflict between Jesus and his opponents. With respect to the Pharisees and Sadducees, Jesus detected a blatant contrast between their outward forms of righteousness and their failure to embrace the more substantive aspects of righteousness: mercy, justice, humility, forgiveness, and love toward the unlovely (Lk 11:38, 42). They hid their failure in this matter behind pious pretense (Mk 7:1-13). Inwardly they were full of greed and wickedness (Lk 11:39). Hypocrisy defines the one who presents an outward appearance of righteousness but who is inwardly marked by wickedness (Mt 23:28).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus condemned hypocrisy because it distorts God’s righteous command. Rather than pursue an authentic inward holiness, the hypocrites distorted righteousness into a rigid mold whose chief usefulness was exhibition before people (Mt 23:2-7). Their idea of righteousness revealed a warped conception of God and a perverse understanding of how he reconciles sinners to himself (Lk 16:15). The hypocrites, who claimed to interpret God to humans, actually misrepresented him. Consequently, their falsification led sinners away from God rather than toward reconciliation with him (Lk 11:52). Hypocrites not only keep others from entering the kingdom of God, they refrain from going in themselves (Mt 23:13).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HYPOCRISY<\/h3>\n<p>The act of pretending to be what one is not, especially the false appearance of being religious or virtuous. Our modern understanding of the word “hypocrisy” is determined by its use in the NT, especially by Jesus. In both the NT and subsequent understandings the term most often meant deceit, misrepresenting the truth, or claiming virtues or qualities one does not possess.<\/p>\n<p>In contrast to its consistently negative meaning in the Bible, hypocrisy as first used by the Greeks was a neutral word. In its verb form it meant “to explain, to interpret, or to expound.” Although the noun “hypocrisy” could mean “answer,” the other noun form, “hypocrite,” almost always meant “actor” and probably came from the verb meaning “to expound.”<\/p>\n<p>Originally, a hypocrite could be a speaker or actor who interpreted the words of a poet or the music of a composer. The actor, or hypocrite, tried to make intelligible for his audience what the poet or composer had written. On a larger scale the hypocrite could be one actor among others in a drama performed on a stage. A good hypocrite faithfully interpreted his assigned role, while an undesirable hypocrite interpreted his role poorly. Because of the word’s essential neutrality, accompanying words were necessary to set its direction.<\/p>\n<p>In Hellenistic times (c. 325–125 <span>BC<\/span>), the world was commonly viewed as a stage and all human conduct as the art of acting. One’s role and script were written for him by his familial, cultural, and religious environment and could be performed either successfully or poorly. When used in this sense, hypocrisy did not carry the idea of pretense or sham. Nevertheless, there are instances where the term “hypocrite” was used to describe a person who performed life’s role deceptively. The image presented to the public was only a mask behind which the true and different self lay hidden.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospels often use the terms “hypocrisy” (Mt 23:28; Mk 12:15b; Lk 12:1) and “hypocrite” (Mt 7:5; 24:51; Lk 6:42; 13:15) to record the conflict between Jesus and his opponents. With respect to the Pharisees and Sadducees, Jesus detected a blatant contrast between their outward forms of righteousness and their failure to embrace the more substantive aspects of righteousness: mercy, justice, humility, forgiveness, and love toward the unlovely (Lk 11:38, 42). They hid their failure in this matter behind pious pretense (Mk 7:1-13). Inwardly they were full of greed and wickedness (Lk 11:39). Hypocrisy defines the one who presents an outward appearance of righteousness but who is inwardly marked by wickedness (Mt 23:28).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus condemned hypocrisy because it distorts God’s righteous command. Rather than pursue an authentic inward holiness, the hypocrites distorted righteousness into a rigid mold whose chief usefulness was exhibition before people (Mt 23:2-7). Their idea of righteousness revealed a warped conception of God and a perverse understanding of how he reconciles sinners to himself (Lk 16:15). The hypocrites, who claimed to interpret God to humans, actually misrepresented him. Consequently, their falsification led sinners away from God rather than toward reconciliation with him (Lk 11:52). Hypocrites not only keep others from entering the kingdom of God, they refrain from going in themselves (Mt 23:13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"HYPOCRISY The act of pretending to be what one is not, especially the false appearance of being religious or virtuous. Our modern understanding of the word “hypocrisy” is determined by its use in the NT, especially by Jesus. In both the NT and subsequent understandings the term most often meant deceit, misrepresenting the truth, or claiming virtues or qualities one does not possess. In contrast to its consistently negative meaning in the Bible, hypocrisy as first used by the Greeks was a neut...","summary_en":"HYPOCRISY The act of pretending to be what one is not, especially the false appearance of being religious or virtuous. Our modern understanding of the word “hypocrisy” is determined by its use in the NT, especially by Jesus. In both the NT and subsequent understandings the term most often meant deceit, misrepresenting the truth, or claiming virtues or qualities one does not possess. In contrast to its consistently negative meaning in the Bible, hypocrisy as first used by the Greeks was a neut...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":29482,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Penny","title_en":"Penny","content_ro":"<h3>PENNY<\/h3>\n<li>1. KJV translation of denarius (Mt 20:2, 9-10, 13; 22:19; Mk 12:15; Lk 20:24; Rv 6:6).<\/li>\n<li>2. The <span>rsv<\/span> and <span>nlt<\/span> translation of the Roman assarion, equivalent to one-sixteenth of the denarius (Mt 10:29; Lk 12:6).<\/li>\n<li>3. The <span>rsv<\/span> and <span>nlt<\/span> translation of the Roman quadrans, equivalent to one-fourth of the assarion or one sixty-fourth of the denarius (Mt 5:26; Mk 12:42).<\/li>\n<li><em>See also<\/em> Coins; Money.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>PENNY<\/h3>\n<li>1. KJV translation of denarius (Mt 20:2, 9-10, 13; 22:19; Mk 12:15; Lk 20:24; Rv 6:6).<\/li>\n<li>2. The <span>rsv<\/span> and <span>nlt<\/span> translation of the Roman assarion, equivalent to one-sixteenth of the denarius (Mt 10:29; Lk 12:6).<\/li>\n<li>3. The <span>rsv<\/span> and <span>nlt<\/span> translation of the Roman quadrans, equivalent to one-fourth of the assarion or one sixty-fourth of the denarius (Mt 5:26; Mk 12:42).<\/li>\n<li><em>See also<\/em> Coins; Money.<\/li>","summary_ro":"PENNY 1. KJV translation of denarius (Mt 20:2, 9-10, 13; 22:19; Mk 12:15; Lk 20:24; Rv 6:6). 2. The rsv and nlt translation of the Roman assarion, equivalent to one-sixteenth of the denarius (Mt 10:29; Lk 12:6). 3. The rsv and nlt translation of the Roman quadrans, equivalent to one-fourth of the assarion or one sixty-fourth of the denarius (Mt 5:26; Mk 12:42). See also Coins; Money.","summary_en":"PENNY 1. KJV translation of denarius (Mt 20:2, 9-10, 13; 22:19; Mk 12:15; Lk 20:24; Rv 6:6). 2. The rsv and nlt translation of the Roman assarion, equivalent to one-sixteenth of the denarius (Mt 10:29; Lk 12:6). 3. The rsv and nlt translation of the Roman quadrans, equivalent to one-fourth of the assarion or one sixty-fourth of the denarius (Mt 5:26; Mk 12:42). See also Coins; Money.","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55455,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:15","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:15<\/strong> Jesus’ surprising reply revealed his wisdom. • <em>a Roman coin:<\/em> Apparently the poll tax had to be paid in Roman coinage.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:15<\/strong> Jesus’ surprising reply revealed his wisdom. • <em>a Roman coin:<\/em> Apparently the poll tax had to be paid in Roman coinage.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:15 Jesus’ surprising reply revealed his wisdom. • a Roman coin: Apparently the poll tax had to be paid in Roman coinage.","summary_en":"12:15 Jesus’ surprising reply revealed his wisdom. • a Roman coin: Apparently the poll tax had to be paid in Roman coinage.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83081,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:15","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:15<\/strong> Jesus’ surprising reply revealed his wisdom. • <em>a Roman coin:<\/em> Apparently the poll tax had to be paid in Roman coinage.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:15<\/strong> Jesus’ surprising reply revealed his wisdom. • <em>a Roman coin:<\/em> Apparently the poll tax had to be paid in Roman coinage.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:15 Jesus’ surprising reply revealed his wisdom. • a Roman coin: Apparently the poll tax had to be paid in Roman coinage.","summary_en":"12:15 Jesus’ surprising reply revealed his wisdom. • a Roman coin: Apparently the poll tax had to be paid in Roman coinage.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110707,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:15","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:15<\/strong> Jesus’ surprising reply revealed his wisdom. • <em>a Roman coin:<\/em> Apparently the poll tax had to be paid in Roman coinage.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:15<\/strong> Jesus’ surprising reply revealed his wisdom. • <em>a Roman coin:<\/em> Apparently the poll tax had to be paid in Roman coinage.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:15 Jesus’ surprising reply revealed his wisdom. • a Roman coin: Apparently the poll tax had to be paid in Roman coinage.","summary_en":"12:15 Jesus’ surprising reply revealed his wisdom. • a Roman coin: Apparently the poll tax had to be paid in Roman coinage.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138333,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:15","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:15<\/strong> Jesus’ surprising reply revealed his wisdom. • <em>a Roman coin:<\/em> Apparently the poll tax had to be paid in Roman coinage.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:15<\/strong> Jesus’ surprising reply revealed his wisdom. • <em>a Roman coin:<\/em> Apparently the poll tax had to be paid in Roman coinage.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:15 Jesus’ surprising reply revealed his wisdom. • a Roman coin: Apparently the poll tax had to be paid in Roman coinage.","summary_en":"12:15 Jesus’ surprising reply revealed his wisdom. • a Roman coin: Apparently the poll tax had to be paid in Roman coinage.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"16":[{"id":55456,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:16","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:16","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:16<\/strong> The <em>picture and title<\/em> on the coin was almost certainly that of Tiberius <em>Caesar<\/em><em>,<\/em> who reigned from <span>AD<\/span> 14–37. The inscription read “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of [the] Divine Augustus” on one side and “High Priest” on the other.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:16<\/strong> The <em>picture and title<\/em> on the coin was almost certainly that of Tiberius <em>Caesar<\/em><em>,<\/em> who reigned from <span>AD<\/span> 14–37. The inscription read “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of [the] Divine Augustus” on one side and “High Priest” on the other.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:16 The picture and title on the coin was almost certainly that of Tiberius Caesar, who reigned from AD 14–37. The inscription read “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of [the] Divine Augustus” on one side and “High Priest” on the other.","summary_en":"12:16 The picture and title on the coin was almost certainly that of Tiberius Caesar, who reigned from AD 14–37. The inscription read “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of [the] Divine Augustus” on one side and “High Priest” on the other.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83082,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:16","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:16","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:16<\/strong> The <em>picture and title<\/em> on the coin was almost certainly that of Tiberius <em>Caesar<\/em><em>,<\/em> who reigned from <span>AD<\/span> 14–37. The inscription read “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of [the] Divine Augustus” on one side and “High Priest” on the other.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:16<\/strong> The <em>picture and title<\/em> on the coin was almost certainly that of Tiberius <em>Caesar<\/em><em>,<\/em> who reigned from <span>AD<\/span> 14–37. The inscription read “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of [the] Divine Augustus” on one side and “High Priest” on the other.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:16 The picture and title on the coin was almost certainly that of Tiberius Caesar, who reigned from AD 14–37. The inscription read “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of [the] Divine Augustus” on one side and “High Priest” on the other.","summary_en":"12:16 The picture and title on the coin was almost certainly that of Tiberius Caesar, who reigned from AD 14–37. The inscription read “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of [the] Divine Augustus” on one side and “High Priest” on the other.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110708,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:16","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:16","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:16<\/strong> The <em>picture and title<\/em> on the coin was almost certainly that of Tiberius <em>Caesar<\/em><em>,<\/em> who reigned from <span>AD<\/span> 14–37. The inscription read “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of [the] Divine Augustus” on one side and “High Priest” on the other.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:16<\/strong> The <em>picture and title<\/em> on the coin was almost certainly that of Tiberius <em>Caesar<\/em><em>,<\/em> who reigned from <span>AD<\/span> 14–37. The inscription read “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of [the] Divine Augustus” on one side and “High Priest” on the other.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:16 The picture and title on the coin was almost certainly that of Tiberius Caesar, who reigned from AD 14–37. The inscription read “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of [the] Divine Augustus” on one side and “High Priest” on the other.","summary_en":"12:16 The picture and title on the coin was almost certainly that of Tiberius Caesar, who reigned from AD 14–37. The inscription read “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of [the] Divine Augustus” on one side and “High Priest” on the other.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138334,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:16","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:16","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:16<\/strong> The <em>picture and title<\/em> on the coin was almost certainly that of Tiberius <em>Caesar<\/em><em>,<\/em> who reigned from <span>AD<\/span> 14–37. The inscription read “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of [the] Divine Augustus” on one side and “High Priest” on the other.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:16<\/strong> The <em>picture and title<\/em> on the coin was almost certainly that of Tiberius <em>Caesar<\/em><em>,<\/em> who reigned from <span>AD<\/span> 14–37. The inscription read “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of [the] Divine Augustus” on one side and “High Priest” on the other.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:16 The picture and title on the coin was almost certainly that of Tiberius Caesar, who reigned from AD 14–37. The inscription read “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of [the] Divine Augustus” on one side and “High Priest” on the other.","summary_en":"12:16 The picture and title on the coin was almost certainly that of Tiberius Caesar, who reigned from AD 14–37. The inscription read “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of [the] Divine Augustus” on one side and “High Priest” on the other.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"17":[{"id":36828,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Taxation Tax","title_en":"Taxation Tax","content_ro":"<h3>TAX, TAXATION<\/h3>\n<p>Amount of money or goods that was extracted by the powerful nations from those whom they subjected. It commonly consisted of gold, silver, animals, produce, or forced labor. Taxes were also levied on the people both by their ruler and by the priesthood to pay for the maintenance of the temple. The term “tribute” is first used in the <span>kjv<\/span> in Genesis 49:15 (<span>nlt<\/span> “forced labor”). In Numbers 31:28 the spoils of battle were divided up to include a tribute or levy for the priesthood. For the Hebrews the temple tribute was originally a voluntary offering to the Lord (Dt 16:10) but later became a prescribed tax (Mt 17:24).<\/p>\n<p>Even in 2500 <span>BC<\/span> in the city of Lagash, taxes were imposed on most facets of life, from the means of earning a livelihood, to marriage, divorce, and death. Like many ancient peoples, the Sumerians believed that the land belonged to the god and his representative the king, and that therefore a rent or levy was payable to the owner.<\/p>\n<p>In Egypt, Joseph exacted a burdensome 20-percent tax in grain during the seven years of plenty, which alleviated the food shortages during the subsequent seven years of famine (Gn 41:25–42:5). The tax on the crops was facilitated because in Egypt the ownership of the land was vested in the ruler.<\/p>\n<p>Warrior kings, such as David, were able to maintain a healthy treasury without taxing their own people. The Canaanites and neighboring conquered peoples contributed great wealth to the treasury (2 Sm 8:6-14; 1 Chr 27:25-31), one list of which included silver, gold, bronze, 1,700 horsemen, and 20,000 foot soldiers. Forced labor was often required by David and his successors of aliens who remained within the boundaries of the Israelite kingdom (Jos 16:10; 17:13; Jgs 1:28).<\/p>\n<p>Israel was probably first taxed during Solomon’s reign. In this more stable period, income came from tribute but not from booty. To maintain the grandeur of the court and the extensive building program, Solomon divided Israel into 12 areas, each under an officer, each of whom provided food and support for the king and his household for one month per year (1 Kgs 4:7). Solomon also derived considerable income from levying custom duties on trading caravans that passed regularly through his kingdom. In addition to all of this, both foreigners and native Israelites were subject to forced labor for major building projects, especially for the temple (1 Kgs 5:13; 9:20-21; 2 Chr 8:7-8). Handles from ten-gallon (37.9-liter) jars have been excavated, bearing a Hebrew stamp “to the king,” indicating that they formed part of a levy (2 Chr 2:10).<\/p>\n<p>Jehoshaphat was equally successful in taxing the people at home (2 Chr 17:5) and maintaining the tribute from abroad, including silver and gold from the Philistines and 7,700 rams and 7,700 he-goats from the Arabs (2 Chr 17:11-12). As the power of the surrounding empires increased, Judah found itself forced to pay tribute. Sennacherib, king of Assyria, required 300 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold, which necessitated the removal of the gold from the temple doors (2 Kgs 18:14-16). Approximately a century later, Pharaoh Neco required 100 talents of silver and a talent of gold from Judah (23:33), and shortly thereafter Nebuchadnezzar removed all the treasure from the temple and the royal palace, together with 10,000 captives, all the craftsmen, and 1,000 smiths, leaving few in Jerusalem except the poor (24:13-16).<\/p>\n<p>A definite, regular, organized tax system was instituted by the Persians, whose satraps, ruling each province, were required to make payment of fixed sums into the royal treasury (Est 10:1). Tax exemption was introduced by Artaxerxes I, who stated that levies should not be collected from priests, Levites, or any others occupied in any way with the service of the temple (Ezr 7:24). An additional tax was required for the maintenance of the governor’s household; it consisted of food, wine, and 40 shekels of silver (Neh 5:14-15). As governor, Nehemiah did not claim this allowance of food because he considered the taxes already burdensome, causing the mortgaging of fields, vineyards, and houses “for the king’s tax.” Simultaneously, a levy was imposed upon the Jews for the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem (4:6). Darius was politically astute enough to encourage the rebuilding of the temple and to allow the Jews to use some of the royal tax money for this purpose (Ezr 6:7-10).<\/p>\n<p>Under the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, and subsequently the Romans, there was a change in the collection of taxes, whereby the office of tax collector was sold to the highest bidder, who in turn extracted the maximum payment from the people and built up his own wealth from the surplus generated. At times, the Jews were paying tithes for the maintenance of the temple, in addition to taxes of as much as one-third of the grain and half of the fruit grown. Excise, sales, and poll taxes were also collected.<\/p>\n<p>After the extortionate level of tax imposed by Pompey, Julius Caesar reduced the amount paid by the Jews and exempted them from all payment in the sabbatical year. The provinces were considered booty by the Romans and were plundered physically by the army and financially by the tax collectors. In imperial times there was greater regulation of the tax system. An income tax was imposed on produce from the field and from artisans and tradesmen, as well as a poll tax, port duties, sales taxes, an auction tax, and an estate duty.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the taxes paid to foreign powers, all Jews worldwide who were 20 years of age and older (Ex 30:11-16) were assessed a half-shekel per person annually as a tax to support the temple in Jerusalem (Mt 17:24), a tax that continued to be levied even after the destruction of the temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70. Jesus was questioned on the validity of this tax (v 25) as well as the lawfulness of payment of taxes to Rome (Mt 22:17; Mk 12:14-15; Lk 20:22). Despite Jesus’ famous reply—“render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s” (Mt 22:21; Mk 12:17; Lk 20:25)—he was still accused before Pilate of forbidding the Jews to give taxes to Caesar (Lk 23:2). The early church also reinforced the legality of taxation as a legitimate responsibility required of all people (Rom 13:5-7).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Money; Banker, Banking; Tax Collector.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TAX, TAXATION<\/h3>\n<p>Amount of money or goods that was extracted by the powerful nations from those whom they subjected. It commonly consisted of gold, silver, animals, produce, or forced labor. Taxes were also levied on the people both by their ruler and by the priesthood to pay for the maintenance of the temple. The term “tribute” is first used in the <span>kjv<\/span> in Genesis 49:15 (<span>nlt<\/span> “forced labor”). In Numbers 31:28 the spoils of battle were divided up to include a tribute or levy for the priesthood. For the Hebrews the temple tribute was originally a voluntary offering to the Lord (Dt 16:10) but later became a prescribed tax (Mt 17:24).<\/p>\n<p>Even in 2500 <span>BC<\/span> in the city of Lagash, taxes were imposed on most facets of life, from the means of earning a livelihood, to marriage, divorce, and death. Like many ancient peoples, the Sumerians believed that the land belonged to the god and his representative the king, and that therefore a rent or levy was payable to the owner.<\/p>\n<p>In Egypt, Joseph exacted a burdensome 20-percent tax in grain during the seven years of plenty, which alleviated the food shortages during the subsequent seven years of famine (Gn 41:25–42:5). The tax on the crops was facilitated because in Egypt the ownership of the land was vested in the ruler.<\/p>\n<p>Warrior kings, such as David, were able to maintain a healthy treasury without taxing their own people. The Canaanites and neighboring conquered peoples contributed great wealth to the treasury (2 Sm 8:6-14; 1 Chr 27:25-31), one list of which included silver, gold, bronze, 1,700 horsemen, and 20,000 foot soldiers. Forced labor was often required by David and his successors of aliens who remained within the boundaries of the Israelite kingdom (Jos 16:10; 17:13; Jgs 1:28).<\/p>\n<p>Israel was probably first taxed during Solomon’s reign. In this more stable period, income came from tribute but not from booty. To maintain the grandeur of the court and the extensive building program, Solomon divided Israel into 12 areas, each under an officer, each of whom provided food and support for the king and his household for one month per year (1 Kgs 4:7). Solomon also derived considerable income from levying custom duties on trading caravans that passed regularly through his kingdom. In addition to all of this, both foreigners and native Israelites were subject to forced labor for major building projects, especially for the temple (1 Kgs 5:13; 9:20-21; 2 Chr 8:7-8). Handles from ten-gallon (37.9-liter) jars have been excavated, bearing a Hebrew stamp “to the king,” indicating that they formed part of a levy (2 Chr 2:10).<\/p>\n<p>Jehoshaphat was equally successful in taxing the people at home (2 Chr 17:5) and maintaining the tribute from abroad, including silver and gold from the Philistines and 7,700 rams and 7,700 he-goats from the Arabs (2 Chr 17:11-12). As the power of the surrounding empires increased, Judah found itself forced to pay tribute. Sennacherib, king of Assyria, required 300 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold, which necessitated the removal of the gold from the temple doors (2 Kgs 18:14-16). Approximately a century later, Pharaoh Neco required 100 talents of silver and a talent of gold from Judah (23:33), and shortly thereafter Nebuchadnezzar removed all the treasure from the temple and the royal palace, together with 10,000 captives, all the craftsmen, and 1,000 smiths, leaving few in Jerusalem except the poor (24:13-16).<\/p>\n<p>A definite, regular, organized tax system was instituted by the Persians, whose satraps, ruling each province, were required to make payment of fixed sums into the royal treasury (Est 10:1). Tax exemption was introduced by Artaxerxes I, who stated that levies should not be collected from priests, Levites, or any others occupied in any way with the service of the temple (Ezr 7:24). An additional tax was required for the maintenance of the governor’s household; it consisted of food, wine, and 40 shekels of silver (Neh 5:14-15). As governor, Nehemiah did not claim this allowance of food because he considered the taxes already burdensome, causing the mortgaging of fields, vineyards, and houses “for the king’s tax.” Simultaneously, a levy was imposed upon the Jews for the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem (4:6). Darius was politically astute enough to encourage the rebuilding of the temple and to allow the Jews to use some of the royal tax money for this purpose (Ezr 6:7-10).<\/p>\n<p>Under the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, and subsequently the Romans, there was a change in the collection of taxes, whereby the office of tax collector was sold to the highest bidder, who in turn extracted the maximum payment from the people and built up his own wealth from the surplus generated. At times, the Jews were paying tithes for the maintenance of the temple, in addition to taxes of as much as one-third of the grain and half of the fruit grown. Excise, sales, and poll taxes were also collected.<\/p>\n<p>After the extortionate level of tax imposed by Pompey, Julius Caesar reduced the amount paid by the Jews and exempted them from all payment in the sabbatical year. The provinces were considered booty by the Romans and were plundered physically by the army and financially by the tax collectors. In imperial times there was greater regulation of the tax system. An income tax was imposed on produce from the field and from artisans and tradesmen, as well as a poll tax, port duties, sales taxes, an auction tax, and an estate duty.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the taxes paid to foreign powers, all Jews worldwide who were 20 years of age and older (Ex 30:11-16) were assessed a half-shekel per person annually as a tax to support the temple in Jerusalem (Mt 17:24), a tax that continued to be levied even after the destruction of the temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70. Jesus was questioned on the validity of this tax (v 25) as well as the lawfulness of payment of taxes to Rome (Mt 22:17; Mk 12:14-15; Lk 20:22). Despite Jesus’ famous reply—“render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s” (Mt 22:21; Mk 12:17; Lk 20:25)—he was still accused before Pilate of forbidding the Jews to give taxes to Caesar (Lk 23:2). The early church also reinforced the legality of taxation as a legitimate responsibility required of all people (Rom 13:5-7).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Money; Banker, Banking; Tax Collector.<\/p>","summary_ro":"TAX, TAXATION Amount of money or goods that was extracted by the powerful nations from those whom they subjected. It commonly consisted of gold, silver, animals, produce, or forced labor. Taxes were also levied on the people both by their ruler and by the priesthood to pay for the maintenance of the temple. The term “tribute” is first used in the kjv in Genesis 49:15 (nlt “forced labor”). In Numbers 31:28 the spoils of battle were divided up to include a tribute or levy for the priesthood. Fo...","summary_en":"TAX, TAXATION Amount of money or goods that was extracted by the powerful nations from those whom they subjected. It commonly consisted of gold, silver, animals, produce, or forced labor. Taxes were also levied on the people both by their ruler and by the priesthood to pay for the maintenance of the temple. The term “tribute” is first used in the kjv in Genesis 49:15 (nlt “forced labor”). In Numbers 31:28 the spoils of battle were divided up to include a tribute or levy for the priesthood. Fo...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55457,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:17","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:17<\/strong> <em>give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar:<\/em> Jesus’ words cannot be taken as those of an anti-Roman zealot opposing Jewish taxation by Caesar. Jesus clearly indicates elsewhere that he was opposed to the zealot cause (see Matt 5:9, 39, 41; 26:52). However, Jesus’ statement cannot be understood as pro-Roman, either, because service to God is fundamental, and God is ultimately over Caesar. Like the evil farmers in the previous parable, the religious leaders had not given God what belonged to him.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:17<\/strong> <em>give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar:<\/em> Jesus’ words cannot be taken as those of an anti-Roman zealot opposing Jewish taxation by Caesar. Jesus clearly indicates elsewhere that he was opposed to the zealot cause (see Matt 5:9, 39, 41; 26:52). However, Jesus’ statement cannot be understood as pro-Roman, either, because service to God is fundamental, and God is ultimately over Caesar. Like the evil farmers in the previous parable, the religious leaders had not given God what belonged to him.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:17 give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar: Jesus’ words cannot be taken as those of an anti-Roman zealot opposing Jewish taxation by Caesar. Jesus clearly indicates elsewhere that he was opposed to the zealot cause (see Matt 5:9, 39, 41; 26:52). However, Jesus’ statement cannot be understood as pro-Roman, either, because service to God is fundamental, and God is ultimately over Caesar. Like the evil farmers in the previous parable, the religious leaders had not given God what belonged to him.","summary_en":"12:17 give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar: Jesus’ words cannot be taken as those of an anti-Roman zealot opposing Jewish taxation by Caesar. Jesus clearly indicates elsewhere that he was opposed to the zealot cause (see Matt 5:9, 39, 41; 26:52). However, Jesus’ statement cannot be understood as pro-Roman, either, because service to God is fundamental, and God is ultimately over Caesar. Like the evil farmers in the previous parable, the religious leaders had not given God what belonged to him.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83083,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:17","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:17<\/strong> <em>give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar:<\/em> Jesus’ words cannot be taken as those of an anti-Roman zealot opposing Jewish taxation by Caesar. Jesus clearly indicates elsewhere that he was opposed to the zealot cause (see Matt 5:9, 39, 41; 26:52). However, Jesus’ statement cannot be understood as pro-Roman, either, because service to God is fundamental, and God is ultimately over Caesar. Like the evil farmers in the previous parable, the religious leaders had not given God what belonged to him.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:17<\/strong> <em>give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar:<\/em> Jesus’ words cannot be taken as those of an anti-Roman zealot opposing Jewish taxation by Caesar. Jesus clearly indicates elsewhere that he was opposed to the zealot cause (see Matt 5:9, 39, 41; 26:52). However, Jesus’ statement cannot be understood as pro-Roman, either, because service to God is fundamental, and God is ultimately over Caesar. Like the evil farmers in the previous parable, the religious leaders had not given God what belonged to him.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:17 give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar: Jesus’ words cannot be taken as those of an anti-Roman zealot opposing Jewish taxation by Caesar. Jesus clearly indicates elsewhere that he was opposed to the zealot cause (see Matt 5:9, 39, 41; 26:52). However, Jesus’ statement cannot be understood as pro-Roman, either, because service to God is fundamental, and God is ultimately over Caesar. Like the evil farmers in the previous parable, the religious leaders had not given God what belonged to him.","summary_en":"12:17 give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar: Jesus’ words cannot be taken as those of an anti-Roman zealot opposing Jewish taxation by Caesar. Jesus clearly indicates elsewhere that he was opposed to the zealot cause (see Matt 5:9, 39, 41; 26:52). However, Jesus’ statement cannot be understood as pro-Roman, either, because service to God is fundamental, and God is ultimately over Caesar. Like the evil farmers in the previous parable, the religious leaders had not given God what belonged to him.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110709,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:17","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:17<\/strong> <em>give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar:<\/em> Jesus’ words cannot be taken as those of an anti-Roman zealot opposing Jewish taxation by Caesar. Jesus clearly indicates elsewhere that he was opposed to the zealot cause (see Matt 5:9, 39, 41; 26:52). However, Jesus’ statement cannot be understood as pro-Roman, either, because service to God is fundamental, and God is ultimately over Caesar. Like the evil farmers in the previous parable, the religious leaders had not given God what belonged to him.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:17<\/strong> <em>give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar:<\/em> Jesus’ words cannot be taken as those of an anti-Roman zealot opposing Jewish taxation by Caesar. Jesus clearly indicates elsewhere that he was opposed to the zealot cause (see Matt 5:9, 39, 41; 26:52). However, Jesus’ statement cannot be understood as pro-Roman, either, because service to God is fundamental, and God is ultimately over Caesar. Like the evil farmers in the previous parable, the religious leaders had not given God what belonged to him.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:17 give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar: Jesus’ words cannot be taken as those of an anti-Roman zealot opposing Jewish taxation by Caesar. Jesus clearly indicates elsewhere that he was opposed to the zealot cause (see Matt 5:9, 39, 41; 26:52). However, Jesus’ statement cannot be understood as pro-Roman, either, because service to God is fundamental, and God is ultimately over Caesar. Like the evil farmers in the previous parable, the religious leaders had not given God what belonged to him.","summary_en":"12:17 give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar: Jesus’ words cannot be taken as those of an anti-Roman zealot opposing Jewish taxation by Caesar. Jesus clearly indicates elsewhere that he was opposed to the zealot cause (see Matt 5:9, 39, 41; 26:52). However, Jesus’ statement cannot be understood as pro-Roman, either, because service to God is fundamental, and God is ultimately over Caesar. Like the evil farmers in the previous parable, the religious leaders had not given God what belonged to him.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138335,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:17","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:17<\/strong> <em>give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar:<\/em> Jesus’ words cannot be taken as those of an anti-Roman zealot opposing Jewish taxation by Caesar. Jesus clearly indicates elsewhere that he was opposed to the zealot cause (see Matt 5:9, 39, 41; 26:52). However, Jesus’ statement cannot be understood as pro-Roman, either, because service to God is fundamental, and God is ultimately over Caesar. Like the evil farmers in the previous parable, the religious leaders had not given God what belonged to him.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:17<\/strong> <em>give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar:<\/em> Jesus’ words cannot be taken as those of an anti-Roman zealot opposing Jewish taxation by Caesar. Jesus clearly indicates elsewhere that he was opposed to the zealot cause (see Matt 5:9, 39, 41; 26:52). However, Jesus’ statement cannot be understood as pro-Roman, either, because service to God is fundamental, and God is ultimately over Caesar. Like the evil farmers in the previous parable, the religious leaders had not given God what belonged to him.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:17 give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar: Jesus’ words cannot be taken as those of an anti-Roman zealot opposing Jewish taxation by Caesar. Jesus clearly indicates elsewhere that he was opposed to the zealot cause (see Matt 5:9, 39, 41; 26:52). However, Jesus’ statement cannot be understood as pro-Roman, either, because service to God is fundamental, and God is ultimately over Caesar. Like the evil farmers in the previous parable, the religious leaders had not given God what belonged to him.","summary_en":"12:17 give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar: Jesus’ words cannot be taken as those of an anti-Roman zealot opposing Jewish taxation by Caesar. Jesus clearly indicates elsewhere that he was opposed to the zealot cause (see Matt 5:9, 39, 41; 26:52). However, Jesus’ statement cannot be understood as pro-Roman, either, because service to God is fundamental, and God is ultimately over Caesar. Like the evil farmers in the previous parable, the religious leaders had not given God what belonged to him.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65389,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Son of God","title_en":"The Son of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","summary_en":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93015,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Son of God","title_en":"The Son of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","summary_en":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":120641,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Son of God","title_en":"The Son of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","summary_en":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148267,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Son of God","title_en":"The Son of God","content_ro":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Son of God<\/h3>\n<p>Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the title “Son of God” is applied to the people of Israel (Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6, 18-19; Ps 82:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and to angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1). It is also applied in a special way to Israel’s king—the anointed king was seen as God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). The title also appears in intertestamental Jewish literature (including the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls), possibly in reference to the coming Messiah. Jews in the first century would have likely considered the coming Messiah as a “Son of God.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” was affirmed by God at his baptism (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22) and by demons he encountered during his ministry (Matt 8:29; Mark 1:24; 1:34; 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28). Later, the disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) and Jesus immediately began to teach them of his forthcoming death (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). Then, at Jesus’ transfiguration, God affirmed the disciples’ confession (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). As Jesus approached his death, he affirmed his unique identity as God’s Son, both through his teaching (Mark 12:1-12; 13:32) and at his trial (Mark 14:61-62).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the climactic confession of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman centurion became the first human in the narrative to recognize that Jesus is truly the Son of God (Mark 15:39). While Jesus’ identity as the Son of God is demonstrated in his exorcisms and by his Father’s declarations, his sacrificial death and the way he died (Mark 15:33-39) provide the supreme evidence that he is the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 4:22; Deut 32:5-6; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 22:10; 28:6; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Matt 26:63-68; Mark 1:1, 11, 24; 4:35-41; 8:31; 9:7; 12:1-12; 14:61-62; 15:32-39; Luke 1:32-35; 4:41; John 1:18; 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-26; 17:5, 24; 20:31; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:4; 5:10; 8:3, 32; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph 4:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Heb 1:2-14; 3:6; 5:5; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14; 5:20; 2 Jn 1:3, 9; Rev 2:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","summary_en":"The Son of God Time and again Jesus’ healings, exorcisms, raising of the dead, and teachings created wonder, awe, amazement, and fear (e.g., Mark 1:22, 27; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33; 7:37; 9:15; 10:24, 26, 32; 12:17; 15:5). This amazement emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ ministry. The Gospel writers wanted their readers to ask themselves, “Who is this man? . . . Even the wind and waves obey him!” (Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25). Mark gives the answer at the very beginning of his Gospel: ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"18":[{"id":42202,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Sadducees","title_en":"The Sadducees","content_ro":"<h3>The Sadducees<\/h3>\n<p>The Sadducees were made up of the priestly class (in contrast to the lay movement of the Pharisees). The Sadducees probably lived in the vicinity of Jerusalem and controlled the Temple system (Acts 4:1-2; 5:17). They were powerful aristocrats and mediators between Rome and Israel (see Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.6;<em> War<\/em> 2.10.5). They did not have great favor or influence with the people (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.4). The term <em>Sadducee<\/em> probably derives from <em>Zadok,<\/em> the high priest during the reigns of David (2 Sam 8:17; 15:24; 1 Kgs 1:8) and Solomon (1 Kgs 1:32-48); both words have the same Hebrew root. The earliest historical reference to the Sadducees occurs during the reign of John Hyrcanus (135–104 <span>BC<\/span>), a descendant of the Maccabees (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.6), but it is clear from this account that they had already existed for some time.<\/p>\n<p>Their theological views are often contrasted with those of the Pharisees (Acts 23:8; see also Acts 4:1-2). The Pentateuch had primary authority for the Sadducees. They rejected the oral tradition so cherished by the Pharisees. Also in contrast with the Pharisees, the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead (see Matt 22:23-33), angelic beings (see Acts 23:8), or the concept of final judgment. The Pharisees, by contrast, were so committed to belief in the resurrection that they sided with Paul against the Sadducees when he was on trial for disturbing the Temple (Acts 23:6-10).<\/p>\n<p>Despite their differences, the Pharisees and Sadducees united with a single front against Jesus. If the Pharisees opposed Jesus because he made light of their oral traditions, the Sadducees opposed Jesus because he affirmed the supernatural world of angels and demons and appealed to a final judgment and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>With the destruction of the Temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Sadducees disappeared from the scene. They left no written records. Since all our information about the Sadducees comes from their opponents, we have a limited idea of what they were really like.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 16:1-12; 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-2; 5:17-18; 23:6-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Sadducees<\/h3>\n<p>The Sadducees were made up of the priestly class (in contrast to the lay movement of the Pharisees). The Sadducees probably lived in the vicinity of Jerusalem and controlled the Temple system (Acts 4:1-2; 5:17). They were powerful aristocrats and mediators between Rome and Israel (see Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.6;<em> War<\/em> 2.10.5). They did not have great favor or influence with the people (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.4). The term <em>Sadducee<\/em> probably derives from <em>Zadok,<\/em> the high priest during the reigns of David (2 Sam 8:17; 15:24; 1 Kgs 1:8) and Solomon (1 Kgs 1:32-48); both words have the same Hebrew root. The earliest historical reference to the Sadducees occurs during the reign of John Hyrcanus (135–104 <span>BC<\/span>), a descendant of the Maccabees (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.6), but it is clear from this account that they had already existed for some time.<\/p>\n<p>Their theological views are often contrasted with those of the Pharisees (Acts 23:8; see also Acts 4:1-2). The Pentateuch had primary authority for the Sadducees. They rejected the oral tradition so cherished by the Pharisees. Also in contrast with the Pharisees, the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead (see Matt 22:23-33), angelic beings (see Acts 23:8), or the concept of final judgment. The Pharisees, by contrast, were so committed to belief in the resurrection that they sided with Paul against the Sadducees when he was on trial for disturbing the Temple (Acts 23:6-10).<\/p>\n<p>Despite their differences, the Pharisees and Sadducees united with a single front against Jesus. If the Pharisees opposed Jesus because he made light of their oral traditions, the Sadducees opposed Jesus because he affirmed the supernatural world of angels and demons and appealed to a final judgment and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>With the destruction of the Temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Sadducees disappeared from the scene. They left no written records. Since all our information about the Sadducees comes from their opponents, we have a limited idea of what they were really like.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 16:1-12; 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-2; 5:17-18; 23:6-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Sadducees The Sadducees were made up of the priestly class (in contrast to the lay movement of the Pharisees). The Sadducees probably lived in the vicinity of Jerusalem and controlled the Temple system (Acts 4:1-2; 5:17). They were powerful aristocrats and mediators between Rome and Israel (see Josephus, Antiquities 13.10.6; War 2.10.5). They did not have great favor or influence with the people (Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.4). The term Sadducee probably derives from Zadok, the high priest...","summary_en":"The Sadducees The Sadducees were made up of the priestly class (in contrast to the lay movement of the Pharisees). The Sadducees probably lived in the vicinity of Jerusalem and controlled the Temple system (Acts 4:1-2; 5:17). They were powerful aristocrats and mediators between Rome and Israel (see Josephus, Antiquities 13.10.6; War 2.10.5). They did not have great favor or influence with the people (Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.4). The term Sadducee probably derives from Zadok, the high priest...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69828,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Sadducees","title_en":"The Sadducees","content_ro":"<h3>The Sadducees<\/h3>\n<p>The Sadducees were made up of the priestly class (in contrast to the lay movement of the Pharisees). The Sadducees probably lived in the vicinity of Jerusalem and controlled the Temple system (Acts 4:1-2; 5:17). They were powerful aristocrats and mediators between Rome and Israel (see Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.6;<em> War<\/em> 2.10.5). They did not have great favor or influence with the people (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.4). The term <em>Sadducee<\/em> probably derives from <em>Zadok,<\/em> the high priest during the reigns of David (2 Sam 8:17; 15:24; 1 Kgs 1:8) and Solomon (1 Kgs 1:32-48); both words have the same Hebrew root. The earliest historical reference to the Sadducees occurs during the reign of John Hyrcanus (135–104 <span>BC<\/span>), a descendant of the Maccabees (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.6), but it is clear from this account that they had already existed for some time.<\/p>\n<p>Their theological views are often contrasted with those of the Pharisees (Acts 23:8; see also Acts 4:1-2). The Pentateuch had primary authority for the Sadducees. They rejected the oral tradition so cherished by the Pharisees. Also in contrast with the Pharisees, the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead (see Matt 22:23-33), angelic beings (see Acts 23:8), or the concept of final judgment. The Pharisees, by contrast, were so committed to belief in the resurrection that they sided with Paul against the Sadducees when he was on trial for disturbing the Temple (Acts 23:6-10).<\/p>\n<p>Despite their differences, the Pharisees and Sadducees united with a single front against Jesus. If the Pharisees opposed Jesus because he made light of their oral traditions, the Sadducees opposed Jesus because he affirmed the supernatural world of angels and demons and appealed to a final judgment and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>With the destruction of the Temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Sadducees disappeared from the scene. They left no written records. Since all our information about the Sadducees comes from their opponents, we have a limited idea of what they were really like.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 16:1-12; 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-2; 5:17-18; 23:6-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Sadducees<\/h3>\n<p>The Sadducees were made up of the priestly class (in contrast to the lay movement of the Pharisees). The Sadducees probably lived in the vicinity of Jerusalem and controlled the Temple system (Acts 4:1-2; 5:17). They were powerful aristocrats and mediators between Rome and Israel (see Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.6;<em> War<\/em> 2.10.5). They did not have great favor or influence with the people (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.4). The term <em>Sadducee<\/em> probably derives from <em>Zadok,<\/em> the high priest during the reigns of David (2 Sam 8:17; 15:24; 1 Kgs 1:8) and Solomon (1 Kgs 1:32-48); both words have the same Hebrew root. The earliest historical reference to the Sadducees occurs during the reign of John Hyrcanus (135–104 <span>BC<\/span>), a descendant of the Maccabees (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.6), but it is clear from this account that they had already existed for some time.<\/p>\n<p>Their theological views are often contrasted with those of the Pharisees (Acts 23:8; see also Acts 4:1-2). The Pentateuch had primary authority for the Sadducees. They rejected the oral tradition so cherished by the Pharisees. Also in contrast with the Pharisees, the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead (see Matt 22:23-33), angelic beings (see Acts 23:8), or the concept of final judgment. The Pharisees, by contrast, were so committed to belief in the resurrection that they sided with Paul against the Sadducees when he was on trial for disturbing the Temple (Acts 23:6-10).<\/p>\n<p>Despite their differences, the Pharisees and Sadducees united with a single front against Jesus. If the Pharisees opposed Jesus because he made light of their oral traditions, the Sadducees opposed Jesus because he affirmed the supernatural world of angels and demons and appealed to a final judgment and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>With the destruction of the Temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Sadducees disappeared from the scene. They left no written records. Since all our information about the Sadducees comes from their opponents, we have a limited idea of what they were really like.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 16:1-12; 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-2; 5:17-18; 23:6-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Sadducees The Sadducees were made up of the priestly class (in contrast to the lay movement of the Pharisees). The Sadducees probably lived in the vicinity of Jerusalem and controlled the Temple system (Acts 4:1-2; 5:17). They were powerful aristocrats and mediators between Rome and Israel (see Josephus, Antiquities 13.10.6; War 2.10.5). They did not have great favor or influence with the people (Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.4). The term Sadducee probably derives from Zadok, the high priest...","summary_en":"The Sadducees The Sadducees were made up of the priestly class (in contrast to the lay movement of the Pharisees). The Sadducees probably lived in the vicinity of Jerusalem and controlled the Temple system (Acts 4:1-2; 5:17). They were powerful aristocrats and mediators between Rome and Israel (see Josephus, Antiquities 13.10.6; War 2.10.5). They did not have great favor or influence with the people (Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.4). The term Sadducee probably derives from Zadok, the high priest...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97454,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Sadducees","title_en":"The Sadducees","content_ro":"<h3>The Sadducees<\/h3>\n<p>The Sadducees were made up of the priestly class (in contrast to the lay movement of the Pharisees). The Sadducees probably lived in the vicinity of Jerusalem and controlled the Temple system (Acts 4:1-2; 5:17). They were powerful aristocrats and mediators between Rome and Israel (see Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.6;<em> War<\/em> 2.10.5). They did not have great favor or influence with the people (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.4). The term <em>Sadducee<\/em> probably derives from <em>Zadok,<\/em> the high priest during the reigns of David (2 Sam 8:17; 15:24; 1 Kgs 1:8) and Solomon (1 Kgs 1:32-48); both words have the same Hebrew root. The earliest historical reference to the Sadducees occurs during the reign of John Hyrcanus (135–104 <span>BC<\/span>), a descendant of the Maccabees (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.6), but it is clear from this account that they had already existed for some time.<\/p>\n<p>Their theological views are often contrasted with those of the Pharisees (Acts 23:8; see also Acts 4:1-2). The Pentateuch had primary authority for the Sadducees. They rejected the oral tradition so cherished by the Pharisees. Also in contrast with the Pharisees, the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead (see Matt 22:23-33), angelic beings (see Acts 23:8), or the concept of final judgment. The Pharisees, by contrast, were so committed to belief in the resurrection that they sided with Paul against the Sadducees when he was on trial for disturbing the Temple (Acts 23:6-10).<\/p>\n<p>Despite their differences, the Pharisees and Sadducees united with a single front against Jesus. If the Pharisees opposed Jesus because he made light of their oral traditions, the Sadducees opposed Jesus because he affirmed the supernatural world of angels and demons and appealed to a final judgment and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>With the destruction of the Temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Sadducees disappeared from the scene. They left no written records. Since all our information about the Sadducees comes from their opponents, we have a limited idea of what they were really like.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 16:1-12; 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-2; 5:17-18; 23:6-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Sadducees<\/h3>\n<p>The Sadducees were made up of the priestly class (in contrast to the lay movement of the Pharisees). The Sadducees probably lived in the vicinity of Jerusalem and controlled the Temple system (Acts 4:1-2; 5:17). They were powerful aristocrats and mediators between Rome and Israel (see Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.6;<em> War<\/em> 2.10.5). They did not have great favor or influence with the people (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.4). The term <em>Sadducee<\/em> probably derives from <em>Zadok,<\/em> the high priest during the reigns of David (2 Sam 8:17; 15:24; 1 Kgs 1:8) and Solomon (1 Kgs 1:32-48); both words have the same Hebrew root. The earliest historical reference to the Sadducees occurs during the reign of John Hyrcanus (135–104 <span>BC<\/span>), a descendant of the Maccabees (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.6), but it is clear from this account that they had already existed for some time.<\/p>\n<p>Their theological views are often contrasted with those of the Pharisees (Acts 23:8; see also Acts 4:1-2). The Pentateuch had primary authority for the Sadducees. They rejected the oral tradition so cherished by the Pharisees. Also in contrast with the Pharisees, the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead (see Matt 22:23-33), angelic beings (see Acts 23:8), or the concept of final judgment. The Pharisees, by contrast, were so committed to belief in the resurrection that they sided with Paul against the Sadducees when he was on trial for disturbing the Temple (Acts 23:6-10).<\/p>\n<p>Despite their differences, the Pharisees and Sadducees united with a single front against Jesus. If the Pharisees opposed Jesus because he made light of their oral traditions, the Sadducees opposed Jesus because he affirmed the supernatural world of angels and demons and appealed to a final judgment and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>With the destruction of the Temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Sadducees disappeared from the scene. They left no written records. Since all our information about the Sadducees comes from their opponents, we have a limited idea of what they were really like.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 16:1-12; 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-2; 5:17-18; 23:6-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Sadducees The Sadducees were made up of the priestly class (in contrast to the lay movement of the Pharisees). The Sadducees probably lived in the vicinity of Jerusalem and controlled the Temple system (Acts 4:1-2; 5:17). They were powerful aristocrats and mediators between Rome and Israel (see Josephus, Antiquities 13.10.6; War 2.10.5). They did not have great favor or influence with the people (Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.4). The term Sadducee probably derives from Zadok, the high priest...","summary_en":"The Sadducees The Sadducees were made up of the priestly class (in contrast to the lay movement of the Pharisees). The Sadducees probably lived in the vicinity of Jerusalem and controlled the Temple system (Acts 4:1-2; 5:17). They were powerful aristocrats and mediators between Rome and Israel (see Josephus, Antiquities 13.10.6; War 2.10.5). They did not have great favor or influence with the people (Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.4). The term Sadducee probably derives from Zadok, the high priest...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125080,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Sadducees","title_en":"The Sadducees","content_ro":"<h3>The Sadducees<\/h3>\n<p>The Sadducees were made up of the priestly class (in contrast to the lay movement of the Pharisees). The Sadducees probably lived in the vicinity of Jerusalem and controlled the Temple system (Acts 4:1-2; 5:17). They were powerful aristocrats and mediators between Rome and Israel (see Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.6;<em> War<\/em> 2.10.5). They did not have great favor or influence with the people (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.4). The term <em>Sadducee<\/em> probably derives from <em>Zadok,<\/em> the high priest during the reigns of David (2 Sam 8:17; 15:24; 1 Kgs 1:8) and Solomon (1 Kgs 1:32-48); both words have the same Hebrew root. The earliest historical reference to the Sadducees occurs during the reign of John Hyrcanus (135–104 <span>BC<\/span>), a descendant of the Maccabees (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.6), but it is clear from this account that they had already existed for some time.<\/p>\n<p>Their theological views are often contrasted with those of the Pharisees (Acts 23:8; see also Acts 4:1-2). The Pentateuch had primary authority for the Sadducees. They rejected the oral tradition so cherished by the Pharisees. Also in contrast with the Pharisees, the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead (see Matt 22:23-33), angelic beings (see Acts 23:8), or the concept of final judgment. The Pharisees, by contrast, were so committed to belief in the resurrection that they sided with Paul against the Sadducees when he was on trial for disturbing the Temple (Acts 23:6-10).<\/p>\n<p>Despite their differences, the Pharisees and Sadducees united with a single front against Jesus. If the Pharisees opposed Jesus because he made light of their oral traditions, the Sadducees opposed Jesus because he affirmed the supernatural world of angels and demons and appealed to a final judgment and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>With the destruction of the Temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Sadducees disappeared from the scene. They left no written records. Since all our information about the Sadducees comes from their opponents, we have a limited idea of what they were really like.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 16:1-12; 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-2; 5:17-18; 23:6-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Sadducees<\/h3>\n<p>The Sadducees were made up of the priestly class (in contrast to the lay movement of the Pharisees). The Sadducees probably lived in the vicinity of Jerusalem and controlled the Temple system (Acts 4:1-2; 5:17). They were powerful aristocrats and mediators between Rome and Israel (see Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.6;<em> War<\/em> 2.10.5). They did not have great favor or influence with the people (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.4). The term <em>Sadducee<\/em> probably derives from <em>Zadok,<\/em> the high priest during the reigns of David (2 Sam 8:17; 15:24; 1 Kgs 1:8) and Solomon (1 Kgs 1:32-48); both words have the same Hebrew root. The earliest historical reference to the Sadducees occurs during the reign of John Hyrcanus (135–104 <span>BC<\/span>), a descendant of the Maccabees (Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.6), but it is clear from this account that they had already existed for some time.<\/p>\n<p>Their theological views are often contrasted with those of the Pharisees (Acts 23:8; see also Acts 4:1-2). The Pentateuch had primary authority for the Sadducees. They rejected the oral tradition so cherished by the Pharisees. Also in contrast with the Pharisees, the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead (see Matt 22:23-33), angelic beings (see Acts 23:8), or the concept of final judgment. The Pharisees, by contrast, were so committed to belief in the resurrection that they sided with Paul against the Sadducees when he was on trial for disturbing the Temple (Acts 23:6-10).<\/p>\n<p>Despite their differences, the Pharisees and Sadducees united with a single front against Jesus. If the Pharisees opposed Jesus because he made light of their oral traditions, the Sadducees opposed Jesus because he affirmed the supernatural world of angels and demons and appealed to a final judgment and resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>With the destruction of the Temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Sadducees disappeared from the scene. They left no written records. Since all our information about the Sadducees comes from their opponents, we have a limited idea of what they were really like.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 3:7; 16:1-12; 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-2; 5:17-18; 23:6-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Sadducees The Sadducees were made up of the priestly class (in contrast to the lay movement of the Pharisees). The Sadducees probably lived in the vicinity of Jerusalem and controlled the Temple system (Acts 4:1-2; 5:17). They were powerful aristocrats and mediators between Rome and Israel (see Josephus, Antiquities 13.10.6; War 2.10.5). They did not have great favor or influence with the people (Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.4). The term Sadducee probably derives from Zadok, the high priest...","summary_en":"The Sadducees The Sadducees were made up of the priestly class (in contrast to the lay movement of the Pharisees). The Sadducees probably lived in the vicinity of Jerusalem and controlled the Temple system (Acts 4:1-2; 5:17). They were powerful aristocrats and mediators between Rome and Israel (see Josephus, Antiquities 13.10.6; War 2.10.5). They did not have great favor or influence with the people (Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.4). The term Sadducee probably derives from Zadok, the high priest...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":17455,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Inheritance","title_en":"Inheritance","content_ro":"<h3>INHERITANCE<\/h3>\n<p>Legacy or bequest. Inheritance plays an unusually significant role in the Scriptures when it is used to convey theological truths. As we might expect, these theological applications reflect legal customs in force during OT and NT times.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LegalandHistoricalAspect\">Legal and Historical Aspect<\/p>\n<h5>The Patriarchs<\/h5>\n<p>We learn something of early-second-millennium <span>BC<\/span> practices from the patriarchal stories in Genesis. For example, the narrative indicates that the firstborn could normally expect to receive the birthright. Yet exceptions abound. Ishmael (Gn 16:15; 17:15-21), Esau (25:23), and Reuben (49:3-4) did not receive the birthright. Another item of special interest is Abraham’s suggestion that, in the absence of a son, his servant Eliezer might be regarded as the heir (15:2-5); scholars have found confirmation of this practice in Hurrian legal documents of the second millennium.<\/p>\n<h5>The Hebrew Nation<\/h5>\n<p>According to Deuteronomy 21:15-17, Hebrew firstborns were legally entitled to a double portion of the inheritance. Israelite law also made provision for widows through the practice of levirate marriage (Dt 25:5; see Gn 38:8; Ru 4:5).<\/p>\n<p>According to Numbers 27:1-11, the daughters of Zelophehad argued that they should receive the inheritance since their father had died without sons. Consequently, God decreed that if a man died without sons, the inheritance should be transferred to his daughter; if he had no daughter, to his brothers; if he had no brothers, to his nearest relatives. This particular incident also illustrates the importance of preserving tribal possessions: the daughters of Zelophehad were not allowed to marry outside the tribe of Manasseh, for this would mean transferral of the property to another tribe (Nm 36).<\/p>\n<p>How highly the Israelites valued their family’s inherited possessions may be gathered from Leviticus 25:25-28. If an individual sold his land for financial reasons, provision must be made for a relative to redeem it; if he had no near relative, he could still purchase it back at a later time, and even if he could not afford to do so, the land automatically reverted to him in the Year of Jubilee, when all debts were canceled (note also Lv 27:14-25).<\/p>\n<h5>In the New Testament<\/h5>\n<p>Apart from the reference to levirate marriage in Matthew 22:23-33 (Mk 12:18-27; Lk 20:27-40), the NT has little to say about principles of property transferral during Roman times.<\/p>\n<p>In the parable of the prodigal son, the younger son in the family requested his share of the inheritance (Lk 15:12). One should also note that the elder son, who with false piety looked down on his brother’s behavior, had not protested when his brother asked for the inheritance; on the contrary, the elder brother too, without complaining, received his share—presumably a double portion.<\/p>\n<p>In another significant passage (Gal 4:1-2) Paul, seeking to illustrate a theological point, refers to secular practices. An heir, he tells us, is subject to guardians and managers during his childhood, up to the time he actually inherits. The point Paul wants to establish is clear enough, but the illustration does not coincide with what we know of Roman law and unfortunately scholars have been unable to identify the precise social custom in view. It may be that Paul was making reference, in general rather than strict legal terms, to some practice with which he and the Galatians were familiar.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologicalAspect\">Theological Aspect<\/p>\n<h5>Canaan as Israel’s Inheritance<\/h5>\n<p>The conviction that God gave Palestine to the Israelites for their inheritance serves as a bridge between the historical and the theological data. The historical element lies in the obvious fact that the Promised Land, a physical entity, was certainly occupied by the Hebrews and distributed among their tribes. Theologically, however, the Scriptures speak of this occupation as a divine gift; in effect, even the method of distribution was based on the concept that the land belongs to God (Lv 25:23; see Ex 15:17; Jos 22:27; Ez 38:16; Jl 1:6).<\/p>\n<p>The theme goes back to Genesis 12:1-3. God, in choosing Abraham, instructed him to move to a new country and promised to make him a great and blessed nation (Heb 11:8). The significance of the land in this Abrahamic promise is made more explicit later, when we are told that God promised to give Canaan to Abraham’s descendants after four centuries of Egyptian bondage (Gn 15:12-21; see Acts 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>Since Canaan was occupied by wicked inhabitants, the land was to be taken by force; to inherit the land therefore really means <em>to take possession<\/em> of it. Israel must trust God, whose land it is, to give them the victory (Jos 1:1-9; 21:43-45; Jgs 7:2; Ps 44:1-3; Acts 13:19). Once they conquered the land, it was apportioned among the tribes according to their size (following the instructions in Nm 26:52-54). God further commanded the people to divide the land by lot (vv 55-56). Thus, from the initial promise to Abraham, to the actual apportionment of the land and even with reference to the future (Is 60:21; Ez 45:1-8; 47:13–48:29), the people were made fully aware that their inheritance lay in the hands of a sovereign Lord.<\/p>\n<h5>The Believer’s Inheritance<\/h5>\n<p>In the OT we find the concept of inheritance transferred from the purely physical to the spiritual. The tribe of Levi, which constituted the priestly clan, received no inheritance, because “the Lord is their inheritance” (Dt 18:1-2; see Nm 18:8-24). The Levites, in other words, received no land apportionment, but in their service to God they could begin to enjoy the fuller blessings to which the land inheritance pointed.<\/p>\n<p>That this truth could not be restricted to Levites is hinted at in Exodus 19:6, where the whole nation is called “a kingdom of priests” (see 1 Pt 2:9). Psalm 16 makes it clear that no one understood more clearly than David what those words entailed. Even if he were deprived of Israel’s physical inheritance, he had received by lot a more beautiful heritage, the Lord himself, in whose presence he found full joy and everlasting pleasures (Ps 16:5-6, 11; see also Pss 73:25-26; 142:5; Is 58:14; Lam 3:24).<\/p>\n<p>In later Judaism, during and after the intertestamental period, the figure was extended considerably. For example, the rabbis began to speak of the law as the inheritance of the faithful. Further, they might give the idea a negative turn, as when the wicked are said to inherit hell (cf. Jb 27:13). Neither of these figures is found in the NT.<\/p>\n<p>We also read in Jewish literature statements about inheriting the age to come, the kingdom, eternal life; these ideas occur frequently in the NT (Mt 19:29; 25:34; Lk 10:25; 18:18; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 15:50; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; Ti 3:7; Jas 2:5). Such an inheritance, however, belongs only to those who are sanctified by God’s word (Acts 20:32; 26:18; Col 1:12; note also Jn 17:17; Col 3:23-24). These future blessings do not exclude the physical (Mt 5:5; note Ps 37:11, 29; Is 60:21; Rom 4:13; 2 Pt 3:13), but they certainly exclude human frailty, for God’s inheritance is imperishable (1 Cor 15:50). In short, our heritage is nothing less than full salvation (Heb 1:14; 11:7), which God carefully guards for us in heaven (1 Pt 1:4).<\/p>\n<p>Doubtless, the most significant feature in the NT is its emphasis that, as a result of the work of Christ, his people begin even <em>now<\/em> to receive the promised inheritance. The Gospel of John frequently stresses the present reality of eternal life, as does the Letter to the Hebrews (cf. 6:12-17 with 9:15 and 11:13, 39-40).<\/p>\n<p>Paul treats this whole matter thoroughly in Galatians 3:7–4:7. In response to the Judaizers, who claim that the Abrahamic inheritance is restricted to those who become Jews through circumcision, Paul argues vigorously that Abraham’s true children are those who believe, whether Jew or Gentile (3:7; see Acts 26:16-18; Eph 3:6). They become heirs of God’s promise, for they receive the Spirit (Gal 3:14). The principle of inheritance is promise, not the Law (v 18). Those who believe are brought into union with Christ (vv 27-29); but then they are not merely Abraham’s children but God’s (v 26), for Christ is the Son of God and God has determined to send the Spirit of his Son to believers so that they too may call God <em>Father<\/em> (Gal 4:4-7; see also Rom 8:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>Indeed, Christ himself as the Son is the true heir (Mt 21:38; Mk 12:7; Lk 20:14); he has inherited a name above every name (Phil 2:9; Heb 1:4) and has been appointed heir of all things (Heb 1:2; see Ps 2:7-8; Mt 28:18). But by his grace, all who become his through faith are counted joint heirs with him (Rom 8:17).<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Inheritance<\/h5>\n<p>With a bold shift in the metaphor, the Scriptures speak of believers as God’s inheritance. In the beautiful “Song of Moses” the author speaks of God as the Israelites’ Father (Dt 32:6), who has taken special interest in their inheritance (v 8). Then we are told why God cares: “For the <span>Lord<\/span>’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance” (Dt 32:9, <span>niv<\/span>). This theme becomes very prominent throughout the OT (e.g., Dt 9:26-29; 1 Kgs 8:51-53; Pss 28:9; 33:12; 74:2; Is 19:25; Jer 10:16; Zec 2:12). Elsewhere, Israel is spoken of as God’s special possession (e.g., Ex 19:5; Dt 7:6).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians 1:14 “the redemption of the possession” refers to the final salvation of believers, who are God’s treasure. Further, “we have obtained an inheritance” (Eph 1:11) may well be translated, “we have been made an inheritance,” that is, been “chosen as God’s portion,” a view supported by verse 18. No more fundamental idea than this can be found in Scripture, and its essence is expressed by the words of the One who sits on the throne: “He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son” (Rv 21:7, <span>rsv<\/span>; see Lv 26:11-12; 2 Sm 7:14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adoption; Birthright; Firstborn; Heir.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>INHERITANCE<\/h3>\n<p>Legacy or bequest. Inheritance plays an unusually significant role in the Scriptures when it is used to convey theological truths. As we might expect, these theological applications reflect legal customs in force during OT and NT times.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LegalandHistoricalAspect\">Legal and Historical Aspect<\/p>\n<h5>The Patriarchs<\/h5>\n<p>We learn something of early-second-millennium <span>BC<\/span> practices from the patriarchal stories in Genesis. For example, the narrative indicates that the firstborn could normally expect to receive the birthright. Yet exceptions abound. Ishmael (Gn 16:15; 17:15-21), Esau (25:23), and Reuben (49:3-4) did not receive the birthright. Another item of special interest is Abraham’s suggestion that, in the absence of a son, his servant Eliezer might be regarded as the heir (15:2-5); scholars have found confirmation of this practice in Hurrian legal documents of the second millennium.<\/p>\n<h5>The Hebrew Nation<\/h5>\n<p>According to Deuteronomy 21:15-17, Hebrew firstborns were legally entitled to a double portion of the inheritance. Israelite law also made provision for widows through the practice of levirate marriage (Dt 25:5; see Gn 38:8; Ru 4:5).<\/p>\n<p>According to Numbers 27:1-11, the daughters of Zelophehad argued that they should receive the inheritance since their father had died without sons. Consequently, God decreed that if a man died without sons, the inheritance should be transferred to his daughter; if he had no daughter, to his brothers; if he had no brothers, to his nearest relatives. This particular incident also illustrates the importance of preserving tribal possessions: the daughters of Zelophehad were not allowed to marry outside the tribe of Manasseh, for this would mean transferral of the property to another tribe (Nm 36).<\/p>\n<p>How highly the Israelites valued their family’s inherited possessions may be gathered from Leviticus 25:25-28. If an individual sold his land for financial reasons, provision must be made for a relative to redeem it; if he had no near relative, he could still purchase it back at a later time, and even if he could not afford to do so, the land automatically reverted to him in the Year of Jubilee, when all debts were canceled (note also Lv 27:14-25).<\/p>\n<h5>In the New Testament<\/h5>\n<p>Apart from the reference to levirate marriage in Matthew 22:23-33 (Mk 12:18-27; Lk 20:27-40), the NT has little to say about principles of property transferral during Roman times.<\/p>\n<p>In the parable of the prodigal son, the younger son in the family requested his share of the inheritance (Lk 15:12). One should also note that the elder son, who with false piety looked down on his brother’s behavior, had not protested when his brother asked for the inheritance; on the contrary, the elder brother too, without complaining, received his share—presumably a double portion.<\/p>\n<p>In another significant passage (Gal 4:1-2) Paul, seeking to illustrate a theological point, refers to secular practices. An heir, he tells us, is subject to guardians and managers during his childhood, up to the time he actually inherits. The point Paul wants to establish is clear enough, but the illustration does not coincide with what we know of Roman law and unfortunately scholars have been unable to identify the precise social custom in view. It may be that Paul was making reference, in general rather than strict legal terms, to some practice with which he and the Galatians were familiar.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologicalAspect\">Theological Aspect<\/p>\n<h5>Canaan as Israel’s Inheritance<\/h5>\n<p>The conviction that God gave Palestine to the Israelites for their inheritance serves as a bridge between the historical and the theological data. The historical element lies in the obvious fact that the Promised Land, a physical entity, was certainly occupied by the Hebrews and distributed among their tribes. Theologically, however, the Scriptures speak of this occupation as a divine gift; in effect, even the method of distribution was based on the concept that the land belongs to God (Lv 25:23; see Ex 15:17; Jos 22:27; Ez 38:16; Jl 1:6).<\/p>\n<p>The theme goes back to Genesis 12:1-3. God, in choosing Abraham, instructed him to move to a new country and promised to make him a great and blessed nation (Heb 11:8). The significance of the land in this Abrahamic promise is made more explicit later, when we are told that God promised to give Canaan to Abraham’s descendants after four centuries of Egyptian bondage (Gn 15:12-21; see Acts 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>Since Canaan was occupied by wicked inhabitants, the land was to be taken by force; to inherit the land therefore really means <em>to take possession<\/em> of it. Israel must trust God, whose land it is, to give them the victory (Jos 1:1-9; 21:43-45; Jgs 7:2; Ps 44:1-3; Acts 13:19). Once they conquered the land, it was apportioned among the tribes according to their size (following the instructions in Nm 26:52-54). God further commanded the people to divide the land by lot (vv 55-56). Thus, from the initial promise to Abraham, to the actual apportionment of the land and even with reference to the future (Is 60:21; Ez 45:1-8; 47:13–48:29), the people were made fully aware that their inheritance lay in the hands of a sovereign Lord.<\/p>\n<h5>The Believer’s Inheritance<\/h5>\n<p>In the OT we find the concept of inheritance transferred from the purely physical to the spiritual. The tribe of Levi, which constituted the priestly clan, received no inheritance, because “the Lord is their inheritance” (Dt 18:1-2; see Nm 18:8-24). The Levites, in other words, received no land apportionment, but in their service to God they could begin to enjoy the fuller blessings to which the land inheritance pointed.<\/p>\n<p>That this truth could not be restricted to Levites is hinted at in Exodus 19:6, where the whole nation is called “a kingdom of priests” (see 1 Pt 2:9). Psalm 16 makes it clear that no one understood more clearly than David what those words entailed. Even if he were deprived of Israel’s physical inheritance, he had received by lot a more beautiful heritage, the Lord himself, in whose presence he found full joy and everlasting pleasures (Ps 16:5-6, 11; see also Pss 73:25-26; 142:5; Is 58:14; Lam 3:24).<\/p>\n<p>In later Judaism, during and after the intertestamental period, the figure was extended considerably. For example, the rabbis began to speak of the law as the inheritance of the faithful. Further, they might give the idea a negative turn, as when the wicked are said to inherit hell (cf. Jb 27:13). Neither of these figures is found in the NT.<\/p>\n<p>We also read in Jewish literature statements about inheriting the age to come, the kingdom, eternal life; these ideas occur frequently in the NT (Mt 19:29; 25:34; Lk 10:25; 18:18; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 15:50; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; Ti 3:7; Jas 2:5). Such an inheritance, however, belongs only to those who are sanctified by God’s word (Acts 20:32; 26:18; Col 1:12; note also Jn 17:17; Col 3:23-24). These future blessings do not exclude the physical (Mt 5:5; note Ps 37:11, 29; Is 60:21; Rom 4:13; 2 Pt 3:13), but they certainly exclude human frailty, for God’s inheritance is imperishable (1 Cor 15:50). In short, our heritage is nothing less than full salvation (Heb 1:14; 11:7), which God carefully guards for us in heaven (1 Pt 1:4).<\/p>\n<p>Doubtless, the most significant feature in the NT is its emphasis that, as a result of the work of Christ, his people begin even <em>now<\/em> to receive the promised inheritance. The Gospel of John frequently stresses the present reality of eternal life, as does the Letter to the Hebrews (cf. 6:12-17 with 9:15 and 11:13, 39-40).<\/p>\n<p>Paul treats this whole matter thoroughly in Galatians 3:7–4:7. In response to the Judaizers, who claim that the Abrahamic inheritance is restricted to those who become Jews through circumcision, Paul argues vigorously that Abraham’s true children are those who believe, whether Jew or Gentile (3:7; see Acts 26:16-18; Eph 3:6). They become heirs of God’s promise, for they receive the Spirit (Gal 3:14). The principle of inheritance is promise, not the Law (v 18). Those who believe are brought into union with Christ (vv 27-29); but then they are not merely Abraham’s children but God’s (v 26), for Christ is the Son of God and God has determined to send the Spirit of his Son to believers so that they too may call God <em>Father<\/em> (Gal 4:4-7; see also Rom 8:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>Indeed, Christ himself as the Son is the true heir (Mt 21:38; Mk 12:7; Lk 20:14); he has inherited a name above every name (Phil 2:9; Heb 1:4) and has been appointed heir of all things (Heb 1:2; see Ps 2:7-8; Mt 28:18). But by his grace, all who become his through faith are counted joint heirs with him (Rom 8:17).<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Inheritance<\/h5>\n<p>With a bold shift in the metaphor, the Scriptures speak of believers as God’s inheritance. In the beautiful “Song of Moses” the author speaks of God as the Israelites’ Father (Dt 32:6), who has taken special interest in their inheritance (v 8). Then we are told why God cares: “For the <span>Lord<\/span>’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance” (Dt 32:9, <span>niv<\/span>). This theme becomes very prominent throughout the OT (e.g., Dt 9:26-29; 1 Kgs 8:51-53; Pss 28:9; 33:12; 74:2; Is 19:25; Jer 10:16; Zec 2:12). Elsewhere, Israel is spoken of as God’s special possession (e.g., Ex 19:5; Dt 7:6).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians 1:14 “the redemption of the possession” refers to the final salvation of believers, who are God’s treasure. Further, “we have obtained an inheritance” (Eph 1:11) may well be translated, “we have been made an inheritance,” that is, been “chosen as God’s portion,” a view supported by verse 18. No more fundamental idea than this can be found in Scripture, and its essence is expressed by the words of the One who sits on the throne: “He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son” (Rv 21:7, <span>rsv<\/span>; see Lv 26:11-12; 2 Sm 7:14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adoption; Birthright; Firstborn; Heir.<\/p>","summary_ro":"INHERITANCE Legacy or bequest. Inheritance plays an unusually significant role in the Scriptures when it is used to convey theological truths. As we might expect, these theological applications reflect legal customs in force during OT and NT times. Legal and Historical Aspect The Patriarchs We learn something of early-second-millennium BC practices from the patriarchal stories in Genesis. For example, the narrative indicates that the firstborn could normally expect to receive the birthright. ...","summary_en":"INHERITANCE Legacy or bequest. Inheritance plays an unusually significant role in the Scriptures when it is used to convey theological truths. As we might expect, these theological applications reflect legal customs in force during OT and NT times. Legal and Historical Aspect The Patriarchs We learn something of early-second-millennium BC practices from the patriarchal stories in Genesis. For example, the narrative indicates that the firstborn could normally expect to receive the birthright. ...","source":"Articles\/I.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19706,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Teachings of Jesus Christ","title_en":"Teachings of Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of<\/h3>\n<p>Because of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? What did he mean when he spoke about the kingdom? What light does his teaching throw on the meaning of his death? What did he say about the Holy Spirit? How did he describe human beings and their needs? Did he anticipate the Christian church? Did he teach anything about the end of the world? What were the main features of his moral teaching? The following sections will seek to answer these important questions.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about God<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Himself<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about His Own Death<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Humanity<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Church<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Future<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutGod\">Teachings about God<\/p>\n<p>Anyone who comes to the teachings of Jesus after reading the OT will at once recognize that much of his teaching about God is the same. Since Jesus, as all orthodox Jews of his day, accepted the testimony of the OT as inspired, it is not surprising that his approach to God was similar. This is especially true of his assumption that God was Creator. He taught a special providential care over the created order and affirmed that God watched over such small creatures as the sparrow (Mt 10:29). There is no support in the teachings of Jesus for the view that God is uninterested in the world he made.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most characteristic titles Jesus used for God was Father. This was not new, for the idea occurs in the OT, where God is seen as Father of his people Israel. This kind of fatherhood was national rather than personal. In the intertestamental period the Jews came to regard God as so holy that he was removed from direct contact with human affairs. There had to be mediators between God and people. This exalted notion of God was not conducive to the idea of God as Father, and it is against this background that the uniqueness of the personal fatherhood of God in the teaching of Jesus must be seen. There is some evidence in Judaism that prayer to God as “Our Father” was known, but what distinguishes Jesus’ teachings from that of his contemporaries is that the fatherhood of God was central to what he taught.<\/p>\n<p>The father-son relationship is particularly vivid in John’s Gospel, where Jesus as Son is seen to be in close communion with God as Father. This comes out strongly in Jesus’ prayer in John 17 and in the frequent assertions that the Father had sent the Son and that the Son was doing the will of the Father. It is this strong relationship between God and Jesus in terms of fatherhood and sonship that led Jesus to teach men to approach God in the same way. The Lord’s Prayer at once recognizes this in its opening words. It is particularly important to note that “Our Father” precedes “hallowed be thy name,” for the more intimate idea prepares the way for the more remote. Jesus never taught men to approach God with terror.<\/p>\n<p>Although there is a connection between the way in which Jesus addressed God as Father and the way in which he taught his disciples to approach God, there is also a distinction. Jesus spoke of “my Father and your Father” when he appeared to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection (Jn 20:17), but he did not say “our Father.” His sonship was unique, for he claimed that he and the Father were one (Jn 10:30).<\/p>\n<p>In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus assured his followers that their heavenly Father knows about their needs (Mt 6:32; Lk 12:30), on the strength of which they are exhorted not to be anxious. This gives some insight into the way in which Jesus’ teachings about God has a bearing on practical issues.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHimself\">Teachings about Himself<\/p>\n<p>What Jesus said about himself is of great importance, for this undoubtedly formed the basis of what the early church came to teach about him.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus used certain titles of himself or accepted them as descriptions of himself when they were used by others. The most widely used is Son of Man. This title was used by Jesus to refer to himself but was not used by anyone else. It was used, moreover, in several different kinds of sayings. Sometimes the sayings related directly to the public ministry of Jesus, like the saying that the Son of Man was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28), or that the Son of Man had authority to forgive sins (v 10). Sometimes the sayings had a direct bearing on the Passion, as when Jesus said that the Son of Man must suffer many things (Mk 8:31; note that Mt 16:21 has “he” instead of “Son of Man”). At other times the reference is to a future appearance, as when Jesus declared to the high priest that he would see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Mk 14:62). What did Jesus mean by the title, and why did he use it?<\/p>\n<p>The title “Son of Man” had been used before. The phrase occurs in Psalm 8:4, where it refers to man or humans. Again, the expression is used many times in Ezekiel as a mode of address to the prophet, but here also it means man. A rather different use occurs in Daniel 7:13, where one like a son of man comes with the clouds before the Ancient of Days. There is a strong similarity between this passage and the words of Jesus in Mark 14:62. But an important difference is that whereas Son of Man becomes a title in Mark, it is not so in Daniel. There is some evidence for the title in Jewish apocalyptic literature (e.g., in the Similitudes of Enoch), where it represents a preexistent being who will come to judge and overthrow the enemies of God. It seems evident from this that Jesus’ use of Son of Man as a title is unique.<\/p>\n<p>The Son of Man sayings are distributed throughout the four Gospels, and there are no appreciable differences in their uses. What is at first astonishing is that though the title is so widespread in the Gospels on the lips of Jesus, it never became a name by which Jesus was known by the early Christians. In fact, only in Acts 7:56 does the title appear, in this case used by Stephen. It is clear, therefore, that it had a special meaning for Jesus that it did not have for others. There is no doubt that he was referring to himself and not to someone else, as a careful study of all the Son of Man sayings shows. Those who think that Jesus was referring to someone else arrive at this conclusion only after first dispensing with some of the sayings. The most probable reason why he used the title Son of Man was because he wanted to avoid a term like Messiah, which carried with it too many political overtones. But what did Son of Man mean to Jesus? It is rich with the idea of humanness, possibly allusions to Daniel’s “son of man,” and perhaps a touch of the Suffering Servant idea from Isaiah 53. It is most likely that Jesus saw it in terms of his mission in a way that his hearers could not fully appreciate. It is also probable that the early church preferred Messiah because this title carried the meaning of a royal deliverer; also, after the death of Jesus, there would be no further fear of political misunderstanding.<\/p>\n<p>The term Messiah, or Christ, does not belong strictly to the teachings of Jesus, since he himself never used it. The most striking instance where he accepted the ascription of Messiah was in Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi. All the synoptic Gospels record the confession “You are the Christ,” while Matthew adds the significant comment by Jesus that flesh and blood had not revealed it but “my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17). He certainly accepted the confession and regarded it as revelation. One other case in the Synoptics where he does not specifically refute messiahship is his answer to the high priest’s question “Are you the Messiah?” (Mk 14:61). In John’s Gospel, Andrew tells Peter that he had found the Messiah (Jn 1:41); the woman at Samaria talks to Jesus, and he reveals that he is the Messiah (4:25-26). There was a widespread expectation among the Jews that a deliverer would come to overthrow their political enemies, the Romans. There were various ideas about his origin (a military leader or a heavenly warrior) and his methods (the Zealots believed that deliverance could come only through armed revolution). The reticence of Jesus concerning messiahship is therefore readily understandable.<\/p>\n<p>Another title of utmost importance is Son of God, although it occurs mainly in John’s Gospel. That both Mark and John regarded Jesus in this light is clear from explicit statements in their Gospels (cf. Mk 1:1; Jn 20:30-31). There are certainly passages where Messiah is linked with Son of God and where Jesus rejects neither title (cf. Mt 16:16). But in the teachings of Jesus one passage makes abundantly clear the special relationship that Jesus had with God as Son—namely, Matthew 11:27 (also Lk 10:22, a parallel passage), where Jesus implies that he is the Son of the Father.<\/p>\n<p>Many similar passages in John’s Gospel are, however, more explicit. The Son is unquestionably preexistent, because he knows he came from the Father and returns to the Father. It is not possible from the many references to sonship in John’s Gospel to come to any other conclusion than that Jesus regarded himself as divine. It is particularly important to note that it is also in this Gospel that Jesus is portrayed most clearly in his human nature with its attendant weaknesses. Nowhere in the teachings of Jesus did he explain how God could become man, but he assumed this as a fact. He taught with the authority of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheKingdomofGod\">Teachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\n<p>No one can read the synoptic Gospels without being impressed with the frequency with which the expression “kingdom of God” (or of heaven) occurs. It was clearly an important theme in the whole teaching of Jesus. It is less evident in John’s Gospel but is nevertheless still present. Many of the parables of Jesus are specifically called parables of the kingdom. Jesus’ concept of the kingdom provided a foundational idea to the Christian gospel.<\/p>\n<p>The main idea is the rule of God over people rather than a realm that belongs to God. In other words, the emphasis is on the active reigning of the King. This is important because it means that the kingdom is inextricably affected by relationships between the members and the King. It also means the kingdom will not be expressed in institutional terms.<\/p>\n<p>There is one problem with the kingdom teachings that must be faced: its timing. Some sayings imply that it is already present, while others suggest that it will not come until the future. Some scholars disavow the idea that present and future can be held together; therefore, they reject one and concentrate on the other. Those who maintain a present understanding of the kingdom developed the idea of a social gospel, since Christianity was defined as the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. According to this view, there is no place for a future arrival of the kingdom. On the other hand, some have denied altogether the present aspect and concentrate on the future. In this case, it is difficult to see in what sense the kingdom teachings are relevant.<\/p>\n<p>Yet others have insisted that since both present and future aspects are found in the Gospel records, no explanation is satisfying that denies one at the expense of the other. One possible solution is to regard the present aspects as applying to this age but as not reaching their fulfillment until the future establishment of the kingdom. A similar solution, expressed differently, is to maintain that the reality is a future kingdom but that it has spilled over into the present. Jesus intentionally included both present and future aspects.<\/p>\n<p>That the kingdom was a theme of common interest is clear from Luke 17:20-21, where the Pharisees asked Jesus when it was coming. His answer, that it was among them, shows unmistakably a present idea. This is equally true of the statement that in the exorcism of evil spirits the kingdom had arrived (Mt 12:28; Lk 11:20). Moreover, Jesus mentioned that the kingdom has been forcefully advancing (Mt 11:12), by which he did not mean by revolutionary methods, although he clearly implied that something dynamic was already happening. This idea of dynamic power is one of the most characteristic features of the kingdom. Jesus spoke of binding the strong, armed man (Lk 11:21-22), which shows that in his ministry he expected to give a powerful demonstration against the forces of darkness.<\/p>\n<p>It is evident that the kingdom Jesus proclaimed was a kingdom in which God was supreme. It was inseparably linked with his redemptive mission, in which God was bringing spiritual deliverance to his people. Moreover, the kingdom teachings of Jesus cannot be regarded in isolation. It is part of the total message; no part of that message can be divorced from any other part without distorting the whole.<\/p>\n<p>The clearest teachings on the future aspect of the kingdom are to be found in some of the parables (Mt 13) and in the discourse on the Mt of Olives (Mt 24–25; Mk 13; Lk 21). In the latter, Jesus spoke of the future using imagery drawn from Jewish literature, like the references to clouds, to glory, and to angels in relation to the coming of the Son of Man (Mk 13:26-27). In Matthew’s account there is reference to a trumpet call, another familiar feature (Mt 24:31).<\/p>\n<p>Various features from the kingdom parables give the clearest idea of the nature of the kingdom. Membership in the kingdom is not considered to be universal, for in the parable of the sower not all the soils are productive. The same separation is seen in the parable of the tares and the parable of the dragnet. The tares are destroyed and only the wheat is harvested, while the bad fish are discarded. The members of the kingdom are those who hear and understand the word of the kingdom (Mt 13:23). It is clear, therefore, that a response is necessary if the benefits of the kingdom are to be enjoyed.<\/p>\n<p>There is an emphasis on growth in the parable of the mustard seed, where rapid development occurs from small beginnings. The parables of the treasure and the pearl are intended to underline the value of the kingdom. The universal character of the kingdom comes out sharply in the parable of the vineyard, where the kingdom is said to be taken away from the Jews and given to another “nation,” presumably an allusion to the Gentiles (Mt 21:43). This is in line with the great commission Jesus gave to his disciples to preach to all nations (28:19). A universal kingdom would certainly be entirely different from the messianic kingdom idea of Judaism, in which Israel was to be the central unit. It is not easy to appreciate how revolutionary the idea was of a worldwide kingdom with Gentiles and Jews on the same footing.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHisOwnDeath\">Teachings about His Own Death<\/p>\n<p>The announcement of the kingdom must be linked with Jesus’ approach to his own death. Did Jesus see his death as an integral part of his mission? Some have maintained that he ended his life in disillusionment, but a brief survey of his teaching about his own destiny is sufficient to dispel such a theory. To the further question, “What meaning did Jesus attach to his forthcoming death?” he gave a series of passing indications that, when taken together, supply us with a basis on which to reconstruct some idea of the place of his death within the entire range of his mission.<\/p>\n<p>It is important to note that many times Jesus showed his awareness that details of his life were a fulfillment of Scripture (cf. Mt 26:24, 56; Mk 9:12; Lk 18:31; 24:25-27, 44-45). In all the instances cited, the suffering of Jesus is referred to as the subject of OT prophecy. This must mean that he had reflected on OT predictions and recognized that they could be fulfilled only through his own sufferings. In this case the Passion must be regarded as an indispensable part of Jesus’ consciousness of his own mission.<\/p>\n<p>This emphasis on fulfillment of Scripture is also seen in John’s Gospel. His statement that the Son of Man must be lifted up even as Moses lifted up the serpent (Jn 3:14) illustrates this point. Most of the passages where fulfillment of Scripture is mentioned are the comments of the Evangelist, John. But there can be no doubt that the fulfillment motive played a vital part both in Jesus’ own understanding of his mission and in the early Christians’ understanding of his death. In this connection, some hold that John puts more stress on the Incarnation as a means of salvation in that he sees it as an illumination of the mind. But this is only part of the truth, for there is more on the meaning of the death of Jesus in John’s Gospel than in the others.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospels emphasize the divine necessity of the death of Jesus. In addition to the fulfillment motive, the idea of necessity is strong in the first prediction by Jesus of his approaching death. In John’s Gospel Jesus speaks of his “hour” several times in the earlier stages of his ministry as “not yet,” but in the later stages as having arrived. There is a sense of definite movement toward a climax, the hour undoubtedly being the hour of the Passion (cf. Jn 17:1). There is not room for any disillusionment here. Jesus knew that only through the hour of death could the Father be glorified. The climax was according to an orderly plan.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus evidently regarded his death as in some ways a sacrifice. The clearest indication of this is in the words of institution at the Last Supper. The cup is connected with the blood of the new covenant, which is said to be for the “remission of sins” (Mt 26:26-28). No explanation is given of the way in which the coming death, signified by the broken bread and poured-out wine, would bring about forgiveness of sins. But the immediate realization by the early church that Christ died for our sins (cf. 1 Cor 15:3) shows that the importance of what Jesus said had been clearly grasped. The new covenant idea is parallel to the old covenant, which according to Exodus 24 was sealed with sacrificial blood; there can be little doubt that Jesus had this in mind when he spoke the words about the new covenant. It was also akin to the ideas expressed in Jeremiah 31, referring to a covenant written on the heart rather than graven in stone.<\/p>\n<p>Another aspect of the death of Christ seen especially in John’s Gospel is the sense of completion that went with it. In Jesus’ prayer in John 17, as he faces the cross, he declares that he has finished the work that the Father had given him to do (Jn 17:4). This is reinforced by the cry from the cross, “It is finished,” which only John records (19:30). This sense of accomplishment gives an air of triumph to what might otherwise have been considered a disaster.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheHolySpirit\">Teachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n<p>At several of the major events in the life of Jesus, the Evangelists note the activity of the Spirit (e.g., the Virgin Birth, the Baptism, the Temptation). It is to be expected, therefore, that Jesus would have instructed his disciples about the Spirit. However, there is surprisingly little in the synoptic Gospels on this theme. Most of the teachings come from John’s Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus began his preaching ministry in Nazareth, according to Luke, he read the statement in Isaiah 61:1-2 about the Spirit of God and applied it to himself. He saw his ministry as being inaugurated by the Spirit. This becomes clear in the way in which he responded to the charge that he cast out demons by means of Beelzebub, prince of the demons. He identified the reality of the coming of the kingdom by the fact that he was casting out evil spirits by the Spirit of God (Mt 12:28). He was, moreover, sensitive to the seriousness of blaspheming the Spirit, which he implies his accusers were in danger of doing. Whatever he did in his ministry he saw as an activity of the Spirit, and this was especially so in the contest with evil spirits.<\/p>\n<p>While warning his disciples that they would meet with opposition, Jesus assured them of the Spirit’s support when they were forced to appear before kings or governors (Mt 10:19-20; Mk 13:11). Indeed, he told them that the Spirit would speak through them, thus emphasizing that he expected a continuation of the Spirit’s activity in the future. Luke records one instance in which Jesus comments on what fathers will do for their children and asks whether God will not give the Holy Spirit to those who ask (Lk 11:13). The assumption is that God regards the Holy Spirit as the best gift to give his children. On yet another occasion, Jesus recognized that David was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote Psalm 110 (Mk 12:36), reflecting Jesus’ belief in the Spirit’s agency in the production of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of John provides a more detailed development of what Jesus taught about the Spirit. Teachings about the Spirit are usually linked to Jesus’ teachings about giving eternal life to those who believe in him and receive him. At the same time he spoke of the new birth and eternal life to Nicodemus, Jesus also spoke of the Spirit (Jn 3:3-8, 15-16). When he spoke of water of life to the Samaritan woman, he also spoke of the Spirit (4:14, 23-24). The same holds true for the discourses on the bread of life (6:48-63) and river of life (7:37-39). Throughout the Gospel, Jesus declares to various people that he can give them eternal life if they would believe in him. He promises them the water of life, the bread of life, and the light of life, but no one could really partake of these until after the Lord was resurrected. As a foretaste, as a sample, they could receive a certain measure of life via the Lord’s words, because his words were themselves spirit and life (6:63), but it was not until the Spirit would become available that the believers could actually become the recipients of the divine, eternal life.<\/p>\n<p>After the Lord’s discourse in John 6 (a discourse that was very troubling and offensive to most of his disciples), Jesus said, “It is the Spirit who gives eternal life” (6:63). When the Spirit became available, they could have life. Again, Jesus offered the water of life—even life flowing like rivers of living water—to the Jews assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles. He told them to come and drink of him. But no one could, then and there, come and drink of him. So John added a note: “This He spoke of the Spirit, . . . for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39, <span>nasb<\/span>). Once Jesus would be glorified through resurrection, the Spirit of the glorified Jesus would be available for men to drink. In John 6, Jesus offered himself as the bread of life to be eaten by men; and in John 7, he offered himself as the water of life to refresh men. But no one could eat of him or drink of him until the Spirit of the glorified Jesus was made available, as was intimated in John 6:63 and then stated plainly in John 7:39.<\/p>\n<p>In John 14:16-18, Jesus went one step further in identifying himself with the Spirit. He told the disciples that he would give them another Comforter. Then he told them that they should know who this Comforter was because he was, then and there, abiding with them and would, in the near future, be in them. Who else but Jesus was abiding with them at that time? Then after telling the disciples that the Comforter would come to them, he said, “I am coming to you.” First he said that the Comforter would come to them and abide in them, and then in the same breath he said that he would come to them and abide in them (see 14:20). In short, the coming of the Comforter to the disciples was one and the same as the coming of Jesus to the disciples. The Comforter who was dwelling with the disciples that night was the Spirit in Christ; the Comforter who would be in the disciples (after the resurrection) would be Christ in the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>On the evening of the resurrection, the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples and then breathed into them the Holy Spirit. This inbreathing, reminiscent of God’s breathing into Adam the breath of life (Gn 2:7), became the fulfillment of all that had been promised and anticipated earlier in John’s Gospel. Through this impartation, the disciples were regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This historical event marked the genesis of the new creation. Jesus could now be realized as the bread of life, the water of life, and the light of life. The believers now possessed his divine, eternal, risen life. From that time forward, Christ as Spirit indwelt his believers. Thus, in his first epistle John could say, “We know he lives in us because the Holy Spirit lives in us” (1 Jn 3:24).<\/p>\n<p>The indwelling Spirit helped the disciples remember Jesus’ words and actions (Jn 14:26) so that they could teach and write about them with acumen. This means that Jesus did not intend that the preservation of his teachings should be left to chance. All too often theories attempting to explain the way in which the traditions about Jesus and his teachings were transmitted in the period before there were any written Gospels are suggested without any reference to the Holy Spirit. It is not acceptable to concentrate on so-called laws of oral tradition and pay no attention to the unique factor in this case—the Holy Spirit. It is part of the Spirit’s mission to preserve and transmit the teaching of Jesus. What Jesus says in this passage about the Spirit has far-reaching significance for the formation of the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Another important function is the activity of the Spirit in the world. Jesus made it clear that the Spirit would convict of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment (Jn 16:8). Without the activity of the Spirit, there would be no possibility of the disciples making any impact on the world. Nevertheless, Jesus warned that the world could not receive the Spirit because it did not know him (14:17). The mystery of the Spirit is that he dwells in every believer. This indwelling aspect is of great importance and was particularly developed in the writings of Paul.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHumanity\">Teachings about Humanity<\/p>\n<p>Jesus taught about God’s providential care over all human beings. A person’s hairs are all numbered (Mt 10:30), which is a vivid way of saying that God is concerned about the details of human life. But God is far more concerned with the eternal soul. Jesus made it clear that it would be unprofitable for anyone to gain the world and to lose his or her soul (Mt 16:26; Mk 8:36; Lk 9:25). The focus falls on what a person is and not what he or she has. Jesus even said that a maimed body was preferable to a forfeited life (Mk 9:43-47). One’s total fulfillment depends more on one’s spiritual condition than on one’s environment or physical well-being. He was not, of course, unconcerned about people’s physical state, as his many healings show, but his major concern was with people’s relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus never viewed humans as isolated individuals. Within God’s community people were expected to have responsibility toward one another. The Sermon on the Mount illustrated this social emphasis in the teaching of Jesus. Those who are merciful to others will obtain mercy (Mt 5:7). There is special commendation for peacemakers (v 9). The disciples of Jesus are expected to bring light to others (v 16). They are expected to give more than expected (v 40). Jesus is clearly saying that people have responsibility beyond themselves.<\/p>\n<p>The relation of people to God is one of dependence. Jesus taught men and women to pray to God for daily bread (Mt 6:11) as a reminder that they cannot be wholly self-sufficient. He allowed no place in his teaching for humans to boast in their own achievements.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had some specific things to say about home life. He accepted the sanctity of the marriage contract (Mt 5:31-32; cf. 19:3-9) and therefore showed a high regard for the honor and rights of the wife. It was more in his actions and attitudes rather than his specific teachings that Jesus showed his regard for the status of women. When he spoke of men, he often used the term in the sense of people, including both men and women. There is no suggestion that in matters of faith women were in the least inferior to men. Moreover, Luke points out how many women supported Jesus and his disciples in their travels.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had a high view of the human potential but also acknowledged their present condition. The stress on repentance (Mt 4:17) shows a sinfulness of which people need to repent. This sense of need is implicit in the instances where Jesus pronounces forgiveness (e.g., to the paralytic, Mt 9:1-8; and to the woman who anointed him, Lk 7:47-48). In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus instructs his disciples to pray for forgiveness (Mt 6:12; Lk 11:4). He takes for granted that they need it and desire to obtain it.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus gives no support to any self-righteousness in men or women. This is the burden of his criticism of the religious leaders in various sayings, but particularly in Matthew 23. He was critical of Jewish teachers because they placed so much importance on works of merit as contributing to salvation. His whole approach depended on humans casting themselves on the mercy of God. This is vividly illustrated in the parable about the Pharisee and the tax collector at prayer (Lk 18:10-14). It was the latter who threw himself on the mercy of God and who was commended by Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Undoubtedly, Jesus regarded sin as universal. He never suggested that there was anyone who was exempt from it. The major concept of sin in his teachings was alienation from God. This comes out clearly in John’s Gospel, with its strong antithesis between light and darkness, life and death (cf. Jn 5:24). Indeed, the “world” in John’s Gospel represents the system that takes no account of God. But sin is also seen as enslavement to Satan. The life and teachings of Jesus are seen against the background of spiritual conflict. Jesus can even say to his opponents, “You are of your father the devil” (Jn 8:44). He assumes throughout that there are hostile forces bringing man into subjection.<\/p>\n<p>In the parable of the prodigal son, sin against God is linked with sin before the father. In other words, it is regarded in terms of rebellion and revolt (Lk 15:21). This is a different assessment of the son’s offense than the one arrived at by the elder brother, who could see it only in terms of property. The view that humans are essentially in a state of rebellion against God is a basic tenet of Paul’s theological position, and it is important to note that it finds its root in the teachings of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>There is no question that Jesus had much to say about condemnation. Those who did not believe and were therefore outside the provision of salvation that Jesus had made are declared to be already condemned (Jn 3:18). At various times Jesus mentioned judgment to come, which shows that a person’s destiny is related to his or her present spiritual condition. Against this background of humanity’s spiritual need, the whole mission of Jesus must be seen. A person, if left to himself or herself, would be totally unable to achieve salvation, but Jesus came to offer eternal life to those who believe in him (Jn 3:16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheChurch\">Teachings about the Church<\/p>\n<p>Some have supposed that Jesus did not predict that there would be a church. But on two occasions he used the word “church,” which means a people called out by God. On one of the occasions—at Caesarea Philippi—Jesus told Peter that he would build his church upon the rock (Mt 16:16-19). It seems most probable that “rock” was intended to link the foundation of the church to Peter’s particular confession about Jesus. It is certain that the later church was a community that affirmed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is important to note that it is Christ himself who is the builder of the church. He assured his disciples that it would be impregnable (the gates of hades would not overcome it). Moreover, one of the functions of the church was to proclaim forgiveness of sins, and this is implied in what Jesus said to Peter. That the words were not intended to refer exclusively to him is clear from Matthew 18:18, where similar words were addressed to all the disciples. The church, according to Matthew 18:17, was to be a community that could settle disputes between believers.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to these specific references to the church, Jesus assumed that his followers would meet together in his name (Mt 18:19-20). In his final words in Matthew’s account, he commissioned them to teach what he had taught them and to baptize new disciples (Mt 28:19-20). He promised his presence would be with them. The command to baptize was reinforced by Jesus’ own example in submitting to John’s baptism. One other special rite that Jesus expected his disciples to observe was the Lord’s Supper. His instructions about this presuppose a later community that could observe it. Since the form of words used in the institution point to the meaning of the death of Christ, it is clear that Jesus intended the future community to be frequently reminded of the center of the faith. The Christian church was to be a group of people who knew that through Christ they had entered into a new relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Although there are no references to the church in John’s Gospel, there are certainly hints that support the community idea. Jesus introduced himself as the Shepherd and spoke of his followers as forming a flock (Jn 10:16). The sheep imagery occurs again in this Gospel when Peter is instructed three times by the risen Lord to feed the sheep (Jn 21:15-17). Another figure of speech that Jesus used to bring out the group idea is that of the many branches that draw their life from the vine, and therefore belong to each other because of their common life in the vine.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus recognized that the future community would need the aid of the Spirit. His teachings on this subject laid the foundation for the evident dependence of the early church on the Spirit, as seen in the book of Acts. Finally, it should be noted that there is a close connection between the church and the kingdom, although they are not identical. The kingdom is more comprehensive than the church, which is included within it.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheFuture\">Teachings about the Future<\/p>\n<p>Jesus thought of the kingdom in terms of both present realization and future hope. The future aspect is related to the end of the age. Although he did not spell it out in specific terms, Jesus did not leave his disciples without any knowledge of how the present age would end. He gave firm assurance that he would return at some time in the future.<\/p>\n<p>He told the disciples that the Son of Man would come with his angels in his Father’s glory (Mt 16:27). In the discourse in which he answers the disciples’ question about the end of the world, he speaks again of the Son of Man coming in clouds with power and glory (Mk 13:26), probably drawn from the familiar language of Daniel 7. Jesus described various signs that would precede his own coming. He spoke of wars, conflicts, earthquakes, famines, and disturbances in the heavens. The gospel was to be preached to all nations. At the same time many false Christs would arise.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus gave such details about his return to encourage his disciples in the face of persecution. The future hope had a definitely practical purpose. The disciples were urged to watch. The coming would happen as unexpectedly as a thief in the night. Jesus said that even he himself did not know when the coming would take place (Mk 13:32).<\/p>\n<p>Another important theme affecting the future is emphasized in Jesus’ teachings about resurrection. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the body. They attempted to trap Jesus with a question about a woman who had been married seven times. They wanted to know whose husband she would be at the resurrection (Mk 12:18-27). Jesus pointed out that there would be no marriage when the dead rise. The Sadducees’ idea about resurrection was clearly wrong. Jesus’ teaching was that the resurrected would be like the angels. There is no doubt about the resurrection of the dead, although no information is given about the resurrection body. Jesus told a story about a rich man and a poor man who both died (Lk 16:19-31). In the afterlife the rich man cries out in torment, while the poor man enjoys a state of blessedness. What is most clear from this is the certainty of the afterlife and the fact of a distinction between the two men, although we are not told on what grounds the distinction is made. Elsewhere in his teachings, Jesus suggested that the most vital requirement is faith in himself. The conversation between Jesus and the dying thief on the cross suggests that paradise for the latter consisted in an awareness of the presence of Jesus (Lk 23:42-43).<\/p>\n<p>The theme of rewards and punishment occurs in many passages. In Matthew 16:27 Jesus says that the Son of Man will reward everyone according to what he or she has done. Those who are worthless are promised punishment in darkness (Mt 25:30). Moreover, Jesus spoke of a day of judgment on which men and women must give an account, even of all their careless words (12:36-37). In the parable of the sheep and the goats, he spoke of a separation that the Son of Man will make when he comes. Those commended are those who have shown concern for the believers (25:31-46).<\/p>\n<p>Among Jesus’ most solemn statements are those that speak of hell. There is no way of getting around his teachings about eternal punishment for the unrighteous (as in Mt 25:41, 46), which is opposite to the eternal life promised to the righteous. He taught that his disciples would have a place prepared for them in heaven (Jn 14:2), and spoke of a Book of Life in which the names of his disciples were written (Lk 10:20).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutMoralIssues\">Teachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\n<p>Much of the teaching of Jesus is concerned with moral issues—so much so that some scholars have concluded that this was the main burden of his teaching. But the moral teachings cannot be considered apart from the many facets of his teachings outlined above. It has been said that there are close parallels between the teachings of Jesus and the moral teachings of Judaism. What is distinctive about Jesus’ teachings about morality is that the motive and power behind moral conduct is not conceived in terms of laws that must be obeyed. Right conduct is seen to be the result of a right relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was himself the pattern for moral behavior. He made clear that his aim was to fulfill the will of God. There is no sense of legalism in his approach to ethical decisions. When—in the Sermon on the Mount—he compared his own teaching with that of Moses, he showed the importance of penetrating to the inner meaning (cf. Mt 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32). On the face of it, Jesus made more rigorous demands than the Mosaic law, because he was concerned with probing the motives as well as the actions. Many have dismissed the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount as entirely impractical, but Jesus never intended that his teaching would be easy; he set as a target nothing less than the perfection of God himself (Mt 5:48). Nevertheless, he called his yoke easy and his burden light (11:29-30), which suggests that he was not setting out an impossible ethical pattern. It must be remembered that he was not producing a manifesto for society. His concern was that each individual should have powerful motives for right decisions on matters of conduct. His reaction against a rigid application of Sabbath observance at the expense of the welfare of a needy person illustrates this point. Concern for others was rated higher than ritual correctness.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>No account of the life and teachings of Jesus would be complete without some indication of the place that Jesus Christ gained in the developing church. Such a quest naturally takes us outside the scope of the Gospels into the testimony of the book of Acts and Paul’s letters. There we can see whether the predictions of Jesus were fulfilled and whether in fact the early Christians took his teaching seriously. Although there can be no question that Jesus Christ became central to the faith of the early Christians, he was regarded from many points of view. He was seen as Messiah in the sense of a spiritual deliverer, as Lord in the sense of being sovereign over his people, as Servant in the sense of his obedience to suffering, as Son in his relation to his Father. In many ways the full understanding of what and who he was could not have occurred until after the resurrection. Therefore, we find that many facets of his teachings about himself were more fully developed in the reflections of his people. This is true in a special sense of the writings of the apostle Paul.<\/p>\n<p>Many have found a problem in linking the Gospels with their detailed presentation of the acts and teachings of Jesus with the Christ who is so central in Paul’s beliefs. The problem arises because the apostle does not refer to any specific incident in the life of Jesus and does not reflect in his epistles any acquaintance with the large amount of teaching material in the Gospels. Does this suggest that Paul had no interest in the historical Jesus? Or could it be maintained that he knew nothing about him? Those who have driven a wedge between Paul and Jesus have not given sufficient weight to those incidental indications that Paul knew a great deal more about the historical Jesus than he states in his letters. He writes, for instance, about the meekness and gentleness of Christ (2 Cor 10:1), suggesting that he knew that Jesus had said of himself that he was meek and lowly of heart (Mt 11:29). Moreover, Paul speaks of the poverty of Christ (2 Cor 8:9) and must have known that the Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head. He certainly knows the details of how Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:23-26), and he knows of his death by crucifixion. It seems reasonable to conclude that Paul assumes that his readers will be acquainted with the Gospel material.<\/p>\n<p>It is perhaps useful in this connection to inquire whether the life and teachings of Jesus played a significant part in the early Christian proclamation. One passage that is valuable in this respect is Acts 10:36-38. In Peter’s address to Cornelius, he spoke of God’s having anointed Jesus of Nazareth, and of Jesus’ having gone about doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil. It is clear that some account of the acts of Jesus was included in the early preaching, and there is no reason to suppose that this was not a regular procedure.<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that the example of Jesus was a powerful motive for promoting right behavior. Peter appeals to it in encouraging Christians who were suffering for their faith (1 Pt 2:21). Paul also knows the value of imitation (1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thes 1:6). Since Jesus was recognized as being a man who did not sin (cf. 2 Cor 5:21), his behavior patterns would have proved invaluable for those who needed a new standard for moral action. While this idea of example is unquestionably present in the Epistles, it would be quite wrong to suppose that it formed a major part of Christian doctrine.<\/p>\n<p>There are a few references to the teachings of Jesus in the non-Gospel portion of the NT. In the Letter of James, which is almost wholly practical, there are more allusions to the teachings of Jesus than anywhere else in the NT. This is especially true in echoes of the Sermon on the Mount, and it shows the strong contribution that the moral teaching of Jesus had on the ethical values of the early Christians. Most of the expositions of doctrine in the Epistles find their basis in some aspect of the teachings of Jesus. These teachings have an ongoing significance for the development of the church.<\/p>\n<p>To what extent is knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus relevant to the 21st century? Existential theologians have driven such a wedge between the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history that the latter has ceased to have any importance for them. Christians today, no less than their first-century predecessors, need to know that the object of their faith is the same one who lived and taught in Galilee and Judea.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Ascension of Christ; Christ; Christology; Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Incarnation; Jesus Christ; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven; Messiah; Parable; Savior; Son of God; Son of Man; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of<\/h3>\n<p>Because of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? What did he mean when he spoke about the kingdom? What light does his teaching throw on the meaning of his death? What did he say about the Holy Spirit? How did he describe human beings and their needs? Did he anticipate the Christian church? Did he teach anything about the end of the world? What were the main features of his moral teaching? The following sections will seek to answer these important questions.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about God<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Himself<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about His Own Death<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Humanity<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Church<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Future<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutGod\">Teachings about God<\/p>\n<p>Anyone who comes to the teachings of Jesus after reading the OT will at once recognize that much of his teaching about God is the same. Since Jesus, as all orthodox Jews of his day, accepted the testimony of the OT as inspired, it is not surprising that his approach to God was similar. This is especially true of his assumption that God was Creator. He taught a special providential care over the created order and affirmed that God watched over such small creatures as the sparrow (Mt 10:29). There is no support in the teachings of Jesus for the view that God is uninterested in the world he made.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most characteristic titles Jesus used for God was Father. This was not new, for the idea occurs in the OT, where God is seen as Father of his people Israel. This kind of fatherhood was national rather than personal. In the intertestamental period the Jews came to regard God as so holy that he was removed from direct contact with human affairs. There had to be mediators between God and people. This exalted notion of God was not conducive to the idea of God as Father, and it is against this background that the uniqueness of the personal fatherhood of God in the teaching of Jesus must be seen. There is some evidence in Judaism that prayer to God as “Our Father” was known, but what distinguishes Jesus’ teachings from that of his contemporaries is that the fatherhood of God was central to what he taught.<\/p>\n<p>The father-son relationship is particularly vivid in John’s Gospel, where Jesus as Son is seen to be in close communion with God as Father. This comes out strongly in Jesus’ prayer in John 17 and in the frequent assertions that the Father had sent the Son and that the Son was doing the will of the Father. It is this strong relationship between God and Jesus in terms of fatherhood and sonship that led Jesus to teach men to approach God in the same way. The Lord’s Prayer at once recognizes this in its opening words. It is particularly important to note that “Our Father” precedes “hallowed be thy name,” for the more intimate idea prepares the way for the more remote. Jesus never taught men to approach God with terror.<\/p>\n<p>Although there is a connection between the way in which Jesus addressed God as Father and the way in which he taught his disciples to approach God, there is also a distinction. Jesus spoke of “my Father and your Father” when he appeared to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection (Jn 20:17), but he did not say “our Father.” His sonship was unique, for he claimed that he and the Father were one (Jn 10:30).<\/p>\n<p>In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus assured his followers that their heavenly Father knows about their needs (Mt 6:32; Lk 12:30), on the strength of which they are exhorted not to be anxious. This gives some insight into the way in which Jesus’ teachings about God has a bearing on practical issues.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHimself\">Teachings about Himself<\/p>\n<p>What Jesus said about himself is of great importance, for this undoubtedly formed the basis of what the early church came to teach about him.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus used certain titles of himself or accepted them as descriptions of himself when they were used by others. The most widely used is Son of Man. This title was used by Jesus to refer to himself but was not used by anyone else. It was used, moreover, in several different kinds of sayings. Sometimes the sayings related directly to the public ministry of Jesus, like the saying that the Son of Man was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28), or that the Son of Man had authority to forgive sins (v 10). Sometimes the sayings had a direct bearing on the Passion, as when Jesus said that the Son of Man must suffer many things (Mk 8:31; note that Mt 16:21 has “he” instead of “Son of Man”). At other times the reference is to a future appearance, as when Jesus declared to the high priest that he would see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Mk 14:62). What did Jesus mean by the title, and why did he use it?<\/p>\n<p>The title “Son of Man” had been used before. The phrase occurs in Psalm 8:4, where it refers to man or humans. Again, the expression is used many times in Ezekiel as a mode of address to the prophet, but here also it means man. A rather different use occurs in Daniel 7:13, where one like a son of man comes with the clouds before the Ancient of Days. There is a strong similarity between this passage and the words of Jesus in Mark 14:62. But an important difference is that whereas Son of Man becomes a title in Mark, it is not so in Daniel. There is some evidence for the title in Jewish apocalyptic literature (e.g., in the Similitudes of Enoch), where it represents a preexistent being who will come to judge and overthrow the enemies of God. It seems evident from this that Jesus’ use of Son of Man as a title is unique.<\/p>\n<p>The Son of Man sayings are distributed throughout the four Gospels, and there are no appreciable differences in their uses. What is at first astonishing is that though the title is so widespread in the Gospels on the lips of Jesus, it never became a name by which Jesus was known by the early Christians. In fact, only in Acts 7:56 does the title appear, in this case used by Stephen. It is clear, therefore, that it had a special meaning for Jesus that it did not have for others. There is no doubt that he was referring to himself and not to someone else, as a careful study of all the Son of Man sayings shows. Those who think that Jesus was referring to someone else arrive at this conclusion only after first dispensing with some of the sayings. The most probable reason why he used the title Son of Man was because he wanted to avoid a term like Messiah, which carried with it too many political overtones. But what did Son of Man mean to Jesus? It is rich with the idea of humanness, possibly allusions to Daniel’s “son of man,” and perhaps a touch of the Suffering Servant idea from Isaiah 53. It is most likely that Jesus saw it in terms of his mission in a way that his hearers could not fully appreciate. It is also probable that the early church preferred Messiah because this title carried the meaning of a royal deliverer; also, after the death of Jesus, there would be no further fear of political misunderstanding.<\/p>\n<p>The term Messiah, or Christ, does not belong strictly to the teachings of Jesus, since he himself never used it. The most striking instance where he accepted the ascription of Messiah was in Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi. All the synoptic Gospels record the confession “You are the Christ,” while Matthew adds the significant comment by Jesus that flesh and blood had not revealed it but “my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17). He certainly accepted the confession and regarded it as revelation. One other case in the Synoptics where he does not specifically refute messiahship is his answer to the high priest’s question “Are you the Messiah?” (Mk 14:61). In John’s Gospel, Andrew tells Peter that he had found the Messiah (Jn 1:41); the woman at Samaria talks to Jesus, and he reveals that he is the Messiah (4:25-26). There was a widespread expectation among the Jews that a deliverer would come to overthrow their political enemies, the Romans. There were various ideas about his origin (a military leader or a heavenly warrior) and his methods (the Zealots believed that deliverance could come only through armed revolution). The reticence of Jesus concerning messiahship is therefore readily understandable.<\/p>\n<p>Another title of utmost importance is Son of God, although it occurs mainly in John’s Gospel. That both Mark and John regarded Jesus in this light is clear from explicit statements in their Gospels (cf. Mk 1:1; Jn 20:30-31). There are certainly passages where Messiah is linked with Son of God and where Jesus rejects neither title (cf. Mt 16:16). But in the teachings of Jesus one passage makes abundantly clear the special relationship that Jesus had with God as Son—namely, Matthew 11:27 (also Lk 10:22, a parallel passage), where Jesus implies that he is the Son of the Father.<\/p>\n<p>Many similar passages in John’s Gospel are, however, more explicit. The Son is unquestionably preexistent, because he knows he came from the Father and returns to the Father. It is not possible from the many references to sonship in John’s Gospel to come to any other conclusion than that Jesus regarded himself as divine. It is particularly important to note that it is also in this Gospel that Jesus is portrayed most clearly in his human nature with its attendant weaknesses. Nowhere in the teachings of Jesus did he explain how God could become man, but he assumed this as a fact. He taught with the authority of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheKingdomofGod\">Teachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\n<p>No one can read the synoptic Gospels without being impressed with the frequency with which the expression “kingdom of God” (or of heaven) occurs. It was clearly an important theme in the whole teaching of Jesus. It is less evident in John’s Gospel but is nevertheless still present. Many of the parables of Jesus are specifically called parables of the kingdom. Jesus’ concept of the kingdom provided a foundational idea to the Christian gospel.<\/p>\n<p>The main idea is the rule of God over people rather than a realm that belongs to God. In other words, the emphasis is on the active reigning of the King. This is important because it means that the kingdom is inextricably affected by relationships between the members and the King. It also means the kingdom will not be expressed in institutional terms.<\/p>\n<p>There is one problem with the kingdom teachings that must be faced: its timing. Some sayings imply that it is already present, while others suggest that it will not come until the future. Some scholars disavow the idea that present and future can be held together; therefore, they reject one and concentrate on the other. Those who maintain a present understanding of the kingdom developed the idea of a social gospel, since Christianity was defined as the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. According to this view, there is no place for a future arrival of the kingdom. On the other hand, some have denied altogether the present aspect and concentrate on the future. In this case, it is difficult to see in what sense the kingdom teachings are relevant.<\/p>\n<p>Yet others have insisted that since both present and future aspects are found in the Gospel records, no explanation is satisfying that denies one at the expense of the other. One possible solution is to regard the present aspects as applying to this age but as not reaching their fulfillment until the future establishment of the kingdom. A similar solution, expressed differently, is to maintain that the reality is a future kingdom but that it has spilled over into the present. Jesus intentionally included both present and future aspects.<\/p>\n<p>That the kingdom was a theme of common interest is clear from Luke 17:20-21, where the Pharisees asked Jesus when it was coming. His answer, that it was among them, shows unmistakably a present idea. This is equally true of the statement that in the exorcism of evil spirits the kingdom had arrived (Mt 12:28; Lk 11:20). Moreover, Jesus mentioned that the kingdom has been forcefully advancing (Mt 11:12), by which he did not mean by revolutionary methods, although he clearly implied that something dynamic was already happening. This idea of dynamic power is one of the most characteristic features of the kingdom. Jesus spoke of binding the strong, armed man (Lk 11:21-22), which shows that in his ministry he expected to give a powerful demonstration against the forces of darkness.<\/p>\n<p>It is evident that the kingdom Jesus proclaimed was a kingdom in which God was supreme. It was inseparably linked with his redemptive mission, in which God was bringing spiritual deliverance to his people. Moreover, the kingdom teachings of Jesus cannot be regarded in isolation. It is part of the total message; no part of that message can be divorced from any other part without distorting the whole.<\/p>\n<p>The clearest teachings on the future aspect of the kingdom are to be found in some of the parables (Mt 13) and in the discourse on the Mt of Olives (Mt 24–25; Mk 13; Lk 21). In the latter, Jesus spoke of the future using imagery drawn from Jewish literature, like the references to clouds, to glory, and to angels in relation to the coming of the Son of Man (Mk 13:26-27). In Matthew’s account there is reference to a trumpet call, another familiar feature (Mt 24:31).<\/p>\n<p>Various features from the kingdom parables give the clearest idea of the nature of the kingdom. Membership in the kingdom is not considered to be universal, for in the parable of the sower not all the soils are productive. The same separation is seen in the parable of the tares and the parable of the dragnet. The tares are destroyed and only the wheat is harvested, while the bad fish are discarded. The members of the kingdom are those who hear and understand the word of the kingdom (Mt 13:23). It is clear, therefore, that a response is necessary if the benefits of the kingdom are to be enjoyed.<\/p>\n<p>There is an emphasis on growth in the parable of the mustard seed, where rapid development occurs from small beginnings. The parables of the treasure and the pearl are intended to underline the value of the kingdom. The universal character of the kingdom comes out sharply in the parable of the vineyard, where the kingdom is said to be taken away from the Jews and given to another “nation,” presumably an allusion to the Gentiles (Mt 21:43). This is in line with the great commission Jesus gave to his disciples to preach to all nations (28:19). A universal kingdom would certainly be entirely different from the messianic kingdom idea of Judaism, in which Israel was to be the central unit. It is not easy to appreciate how revolutionary the idea was of a worldwide kingdom with Gentiles and Jews on the same footing.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHisOwnDeath\">Teachings about His Own Death<\/p>\n<p>The announcement of the kingdom must be linked with Jesus’ approach to his own death. Did Jesus see his death as an integral part of his mission? Some have maintained that he ended his life in disillusionment, but a brief survey of his teaching about his own destiny is sufficient to dispel such a theory. To the further question, “What meaning did Jesus attach to his forthcoming death?” he gave a series of passing indications that, when taken together, supply us with a basis on which to reconstruct some idea of the place of his death within the entire range of his mission.<\/p>\n<p>It is important to note that many times Jesus showed his awareness that details of his life were a fulfillment of Scripture (cf. Mt 26:24, 56; Mk 9:12; Lk 18:31; 24:25-27, 44-45). In all the instances cited, the suffering of Jesus is referred to as the subject of OT prophecy. This must mean that he had reflected on OT predictions and recognized that they could be fulfilled only through his own sufferings. In this case the Passion must be regarded as an indispensable part of Jesus’ consciousness of his own mission.<\/p>\n<p>This emphasis on fulfillment of Scripture is also seen in John’s Gospel. His statement that the Son of Man must be lifted up even as Moses lifted up the serpent (Jn 3:14) illustrates this point. Most of the passages where fulfillment of Scripture is mentioned are the comments of the Evangelist, John. But there can be no doubt that the fulfillment motive played a vital part both in Jesus’ own understanding of his mission and in the early Christians’ understanding of his death. In this connection, some hold that John puts more stress on the Incarnation as a means of salvation in that he sees it as an illumination of the mind. But this is only part of the truth, for there is more on the meaning of the death of Jesus in John’s Gospel than in the others.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospels emphasize the divine necessity of the death of Jesus. In addition to the fulfillment motive, the idea of necessity is strong in the first prediction by Jesus of his approaching death. In John’s Gospel Jesus speaks of his “hour” several times in the earlier stages of his ministry as “not yet,” but in the later stages as having arrived. There is a sense of definite movement toward a climax, the hour undoubtedly being the hour of the Passion (cf. Jn 17:1). There is not room for any disillusionment here. Jesus knew that only through the hour of death could the Father be glorified. The climax was according to an orderly plan.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus evidently regarded his death as in some ways a sacrifice. The clearest indication of this is in the words of institution at the Last Supper. The cup is connected with the blood of the new covenant, which is said to be for the “remission of sins” (Mt 26:26-28). No explanation is given of the way in which the coming death, signified by the broken bread and poured-out wine, would bring about forgiveness of sins. But the immediate realization by the early church that Christ died for our sins (cf. 1 Cor 15:3) shows that the importance of what Jesus said had been clearly grasped. The new covenant idea is parallel to the old covenant, which according to Exodus 24 was sealed with sacrificial blood; there can be little doubt that Jesus had this in mind when he spoke the words about the new covenant. It was also akin to the ideas expressed in Jeremiah 31, referring to a covenant written on the heart rather than graven in stone.<\/p>\n<p>Another aspect of the death of Christ seen especially in John’s Gospel is the sense of completion that went with it. In Jesus’ prayer in John 17, as he faces the cross, he declares that he has finished the work that the Father had given him to do (Jn 17:4). This is reinforced by the cry from the cross, “It is finished,” which only John records (19:30). This sense of accomplishment gives an air of triumph to what might otherwise have been considered a disaster.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheHolySpirit\">Teachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n<p>At several of the major events in the life of Jesus, the Evangelists note the activity of the Spirit (e.g., the Virgin Birth, the Baptism, the Temptation). It is to be expected, therefore, that Jesus would have instructed his disciples about the Spirit. However, there is surprisingly little in the synoptic Gospels on this theme. Most of the teachings come from John’s Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus began his preaching ministry in Nazareth, according to Luke, he read the statement in Isaiah 61:1-2 about the Spirit of God and applied it to himself. He saw his ministry as being inaugurated by the Spirit. This becomes clear in the way in which he responded to the charge that he cast out demons by means of Beelzebub, prince of the demons. He identified the reality of the coming of the kingdom by the fact that he was casting out evil spirits by the Spirit of God (Mt 12:28). He was, moreover, sensitive to the seriousness of blaspheming the Spirit, which he implies his accusers were in danger of doing. Whatever he did in his ministry he saw as an activity of the Spirit, and this was especially so in the contest with evil spirits.<\/p>\n<p>While warning his disciples that they would meet with opposition, Jesus assured them of the Spirit’s support when they were forced to appear before kings or governors (Mt 10:19-20; Mk 13:11). Indeed, he told them that the Spirit would speak through them, thus emphasizing that he expected a continuation of the Spirit’s activity in the future. Luke records one instance in which Jesus comments on what fathers will do for their children and asks whether God will not give the Holy Spirit to those who ask (Lk 11:13). The assumption is that God regards the Holy Spirit as the best gift to give his children. On yet another occasion, Jesus recognized that David was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote Psalm 110 (Mk 12:36), reflecting Jesus’ belief in the Spirit’s agency in the production of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of John provides a more detailed development of what Jesus taught about the Spirit. Teachings about the Spirit are usually linked to Jesus’ teachings about giving eternal life to those who believe in him and receive him. At the same time he spoke of the new birth and eternal life to Nicodemus, Jesus also spoke of the Spirit (Jn 3:3-8, 15-16). When he spoke of water of life to the Samaritan woman, he also spoke of the Spirit (4:14, 23-24). The same holds true for the discourses on the bread of life (6:48-63) and river of life (7:37-39). Throughout the Gospel, Jesus declares to various people that he can give them eternal life if they would believe in him. He promises them the water of life, the bread of life, and the light of life, but no one could really partake of these until after the Lord was resurrected. As a foretaste, as a sample, they could receive a certain measure of life via the Lord’s words, because his words were themselves spirit and life (6:63), but it was not until the Spirit would become available that the believers could actually become the recipients of the divine, eternal life.<\/p>\n<p>After the Lord’s discourse in John 6 (a discourse that was very troubling and offensive to most of his disciples), Jesus said, “It is the Spirit who gives eternal life” (6:63). When the Spirit became available, they could have life. Again, Jesus offered the water of life—even life flowing like rivers of living water—to the Jews assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles. He told them to come and drink of him. But no one could, then and there, come and drink of him. So John added a note: “This He spoke of the Spirit, . . . for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39, <span>nasb<\/span>). Once Jesus would be glorified through resurrection, the Spirit of the glorified Jesus would be available for men to drink. In John 6, Jesus offered himself as the bread of life to be eaten by men; and in John 7, he offered himself as the water of life to refresh men. But no one could eat of him or drink of him until the Spirit of the glorified Jesus was made available, as was intimated in John 6:63 and then stated plainly in John 7:39.<\/p>\n<p>In John 14:16-18, Jesus went one step further in identifying himself with the Spirit. He told the disciples that he would give them another Comforter. Then he told them that they should know who this Comforter was because he was, then and there, abiding with them and would, in the near future, be in them. Who else but Jesus was abiding with them at that time? Then after telling the disciples that the Comforter would come to them, he said, “I am coming to you.” First he said that the Comforter would come to them and abide in them, and then in the same breath he said that he would come to them and abide in them (see 14:20). In short, the coming of the Comforter to the disciples was one and the same as the coming of Jesus to the disciples. The Comforter who was dwelling with the disciples that night was the Spirit in Christ; the Comforter who would be in the disciples (after the resurrection) would be Christ in the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>On the evening of the resurrection, the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples and then breathed into them the Holy Spirit. This inbreathing, reminiscent of God’s breathing into Adam the breath of life (Gn 2:7), became the fulfillment of all that had been promised and anticipated earlier in John’s Gospel. Through this impartation, the disciples were regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This historical event marked the genesis of the new creation. Jesus could now be realized as the bread of life, the water of life, and the light of life. The believers now possessed his divine, eternal, risen life. From that time forward, Christ as Spirit indwelt his believers. Thus, in his first epistle John could say, “We know he lives in us because the Holy Spirit lives in us” (1 Jn 3:24).<\/p>\n<p>The indwelling Spirit helped the disciples remember Jesus’ words and actions (Jn 14:26) so that they could teach and write about them with acumen. This means that Jesus did not intend that the preservation of his teachings should be left to chance. All too often theories attempting to explain the way in which the traditions about Jesus and his teachings were transmitted in the period before there were any written Gospels are suggested without any reference to the Holy Spirit. It is not acceptable to concentrate on so-called laws of oral tradition and pay no attention to the unique factor in this case—the Holy Spirit. It is part of the Spirit’s mission to preserve and transmit the teaching of Jesus. What Jesus says in this passage about the Spirit has far-reaching significance for the formation of the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Another important function is the activity of the Spirit in the world. Jesus made it clear that the Spirit would convict of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment (Jn 16:8). Without the activity of the Spirit, there would be no possibility of the disciples making any impact on the world. Nevertheless, Jesus warned that the world could not receive the Spirit because it did not know him (14:17). The mystery of the Spirit is that he dwells in every believer. This indwelling aspect is of great importance and was particularly developed in the writings of Paul.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHumanity\">Teachings about Humanity<\/p>\n<p>Jesus taught about God’s providential care over all human beings. A person’s hairs are all numbered (Mt 10:30), which is a vivid way of saying that God is concerned about the details of human life. But God is far more concerned with the eternal soul. Jesus made it clear that it would be unprofitable for anyone to gain the world and to lose his or her soul (Mt 16:26; Mk 8:36; Lk 9:25). The focus falls on what a person is and not what he or she has. Jesus even said that a maimed body was preferable to a forfeited life (Mk 9:43-47). One’s total fulfillment depends more on one’s spiritual condition than on one’s environment or physical well-being. He was not, of course, unconcerned about people’s physical state, as his many healings show, but his major concern was with people’s relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus never viewed humans as isolated individuals. Within God’s community people were expected to have responsibility toward one another. The Sermon on the Mount illustrated this social emphasis in the teaching of Jesus. Those who are merciful to others will obtain mercy (Mt 5:7). There is special commendation for peacemakers (v 9). The disciples of Jesus are expected to bring light to others (v 16). They are expected to give more than expected (v 40). Jesus is clearly saying that people have responsibility beyond themselves.<\/p>\n<p>The relation of people to God is one of dependence. Jesus taught men and women to pray to God for daily bread (Mt 6:11) as a reminder that they cannot be wholly self-sufficient. He allowed no place in his teaching for humans to boast in their own achievements.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had some specific things to say about home life. He accepted the sanctity of the marriage contract (Mt 5:31-32; cf. 19:3-9) and therefore showed a high regard for the honor and rights of the wife. It was more in his actions and attitudes rather than his specific teachings that Jesus showed his regard for the status of women. When he spoke of men, he often used the term in the sense of people, including both men and women. There is no suggestion that in matters of faith women were in the least inferior to men. Moreover, Luke points out how many women supported Jesus and his disciples in their travels.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had a high view of the human potential but also acknowledged their present condition. The stress on repentance (Mt 4:17) shows a sinfulness of which people need to repent. This sense of need is implicit in the instances where Jesus pronounces forgiveness (e.g., to the paralytic, Mt 9:1-8; and to the woman who anointed him, Lk 7:47-48). In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus instructs his disciples to pray for forgiveness (Mt 6:12; Lk 11:4). He takes for granted that they need it and desire to obtain it.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus gives no support to any self-righteousness in men or women. This is the burden of his criticism of the religious leaders in various sayings, but particularly in Matthew 23. He was critical of Jewish teachers because they placed so much importance on works of merit as contributing to salvation. His whole approach depended on humans casting themselves on the mercy of God. This is vividly illustrated in the parable about the Pharisee and the tax collector at prayer (Lk 18:10-14). It was the latter who threw himself on the mercy of God and who was commended by Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Undoubtedly, Jesus regarded sin as universal. He never suggested that there was anyone who was exempt from it. The major concept of sin in his teachings was alienation from God. This comes out clearly in John’s Gospel, with its strong antithesis between light and darkness, life and death (cf. Jn 5:24). Indeed, the “world” in John’s Gospel represents the system that takes no account of God. But sin is also seen as enslavement to Satan. The life and teachings of Jesus are seen against the background of spiritual conflict. Jesus can even say to his opponents, “You are of your father the devil” (Jn 8:44). He assumes throughout that there are hostile forces bringing man into subjection.<\/p>\n<p>In the parable of the prodigal son, sin against God is linked with sin before the father. In other words, it is regarded in terms of rebellion and revolt (Lk 15:21). This is a different assessment of the son’s offense than the one arrived at by the elder brother, who could see it only in terms of property. The view that humans are essentially in a state of rebellion against God is a basic tenet of Paul’s theological position, and it is important to note that it finds its root in the teachings of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>There is no question that Jesus had much to say about condemnation. Those who did not believe and were therefore outside the provision of salvation that Jesus had made are declared to be already condemned (Jn 3:18). At various times Jesus mentioned judgment to come, which shows that a person’s destiny is related to his or her present spiritual condition. Against this background of humanity’s spiritual need, the whole mission of Jesus must be seen. A person, if left to himself or herself, would be totally unable to achieve salvation, but Jesus came to offer eternal life to those who believe in him (Jn 3:16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheChurch\">Teachings about the Church<\/p>\n<p>Some have supposed that Jesus did not predict that there would be a church. But on two occasions he used the word “church,” which means a people called out by God. On one of the occasions—at Caesarea Philippi—Jesus told Peter that he would build his church upon the rock (Mt 16:16-19). It seems most probable that “rock” was intended to link the foundation of the church to Peter’s particular confession about Jesus. It is certain that the later church was a community that affirmed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is important to note that it is Christ himself who is the builder of the church. He assured his disciples that it would be impregnable (the gates of hades would not overcome it). Moreover, one of the functions of the church was to proclaim forgiveness of sins, and this is implied in what Jesus said to Peter. That the words were not intended to refer exclusively to him is clear from Matthew 18:18, where similar words were addressed to all the disciples. The church, according to Matthew 18:17, was to be a community that could settle disputes between believers.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to these specific references to the church, Jesus assumed that his followers would meet together in his name (Mt 18:19-20). In his final words in Matthew’s account, he commissioned them to teach what he had taught them and to baptize new disciples (Mt 28:19-20). He promised his presence would be with them. The command to baptize was reinforced by Jesus’ own example in submitting to John’s baptism. One other special rite that Jesus expected his disciples to observe was the Lord’s Supper. His instructions about this presuppose a later community that could observe it. Since the form of words used in the institution point to the meaning of the death of Christ, it is clear that Jesus intended the future community to be frequently reminded of the center of the faith. The Christian church was to be a group of people who knew that through Christ they had entered into a new relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Although there are no references to the church in John’s Gospel, there are certainly hints that support the community idea. Jesus introduced himself as the Shepherd and spoke of his followers as forming a flock (Jn 10:16). The sheep imagery occurs again in this Gospel when Peter is instructed three times by the risen Lord to feed the sheep (Jn 21:15-17). Another figure of speech that Jesus used to bring out the group idea is that of the many branches that draw their life from the vine, and therefore belong to each other because of their common life in the vine.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus recognized that the future community would need the aid of the Spirit. His teachings on this subject laid the foundation for the evident dependence of the early church on the Spirit, as seen in the book of Acts. Finally, it should be noted that there is a close connection between the church and the kingdom, although they are not identical. The kingdom is more comprehensive than the church, which is included within it.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheFuture\">Teachings about the Future<\/p>\n<p>Jesus thought of the kingdom in terms of both present realization and future hope. The future aspect is related to the end of the age. Although he did not spell it out in specific terms, Jesus did not leave his disciples without any knowledge of how the present age would end. He gave firm assurance that he would return at some time in the future.<\/p>\n<p>He told the disciples that the Son of Man would come with his angels in his Father’s glory (Mt 16:27). In the discourse in which he answers the disciples’ question about the end of the world, he speaks again of the Son of Man coming in clouds with power and glory (Mk 13:26), probably drawn from the familiar language of Daniel 7. Jesus described various signs that would precede his own coming. He spoke of wars, conflicts, earthquakes, famines, and disturbances in the heavens. The gospel was to be preached to all nations. At the same time many false Christs would arise.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus gave such details about his return to encourage his disciples in the face of persecution. The future hope had a definitely practical purpose. The disciples were urged to watch. The coming would happen as unexpectedly as a thief in the night. Jesus said that even he himself did not know when the coming would take place (Mk 13:32).<\/p>\n<p>Another important theme affecting the future is emphasized in Jesus’ teachings about resurrection. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the body. They attempted to trap Jesus with a question about a woman who had been married seven times. They wanted to know whose husband she would be at the resurrection (Mk 12:18-27). Jesus pointed out that there would be no marriage when the dead rise. The Sadducees’ idea about resurrection was clearly wrong. Jesus’ teaching was that the resurrected would be like the angels. There is no doubt about the resurrection of the dead, although no information is given about the resurrection body. Jesus told a story about a rich man and a poor man who both died (Lk 16:19-31). In the afterlife the rich man cries out in torment, while the poor man enjoys a state of blessedness. What is most clear from this is the certainty of the afterlife and the fact of a distinction between the two men, although we are not told on what grounds the distinction is made. Elsewhere in his teachings, Jesus suggested that the most vital requirement is faith in himself. The conversation between Jesus and the dying thief on the cross suggests that paradise for the latter consisted in an awareness of the presence of Jesus (Lk 23:42-43).<\/p>\n<p>The theme of rewards and punishment occurs in many passages. In Matthew 16:27 Jesus says that the Son of Man will reward everyone according to what he or she has done. Those who are worthless are promised punishment in darkness (Mt 25:30). Moreover, Jesus spoke of a day of judgment on which men and women must give an account, even of all their careless words (12:36-37). In the parable of the sheep and the goats, he spoke of a separation that the Son of Man will make when he comes. Those commended are those who have shown concern for the believers (25:31-46).<\/p>\n<p>Among Jesus’ most solemn statements are those that speak of hell. There is no way of getting around his teachings about eternal punishment for the unrighteous (as in Mt 25:41, 46), which is opposite to the eternal life promised to the righteous. He taught that his disciples would have a place prepared for them in heaven (Jn 14:2), and spoke of a Book of Life in which the names of his disciples were written (Lk 10:20).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutMoralIssues\">Teachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\n<p>Much of the teaching of Jesus is concerned with moral issues—so much so that some scholars have concluded that this was the main burden of his teaching. But the moral teachings cannot be considered apart from the many facets of his teachings outlined above. It has been said that there are close parallels between the teachings of Jesus and the moral teachings of Judaism. What is distinctive about Jesus’ teachings about morality is that the motive and power behind moral conduct is not conceived in terms of laws that must be obeyed. Right conduct is seen to be the result of a right relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was himself the pattern for moral behavior. He made clear that his aim was to fulfill the will of God. There is no sense of legalism in his approach to ethical decisions. When—in the Sermon on the Mount—he compared his own teaching with that of Moses, he showed the importance of penetrating to the inner meaning (cf. Mt 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32). On the face of it, Jesus made more rigorous demands than the Mosaic law, because he was concerned with probing the motives as well as the actions. Many have dismissed the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount as entirely impractical, but Jesus never intended that his teaching would be easy; he set as a target nothing less than the perfection of God himself (Mt 5:48). Nevertheless, he called his yoke easy and his burden light (11:29-30), which suggests that he was not setting out an impossible ethical pattern. It must be remembered that he was not producing a manifesto for society. His concern was that each individual should have powerful motives for right decisions on matters of conduct. His reaction against a rigid application of Sabbath observance at the expense of the welfare of a needy person illustrates this point. Concern for others was rated higher than ritual correctness.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>No account of the life and teachings of Jesus would be complete without some indication of the place that Jesus Christ gained in the developing church. Such a quest naturally takes us outside the scope of the Gospels into the testimony of the book of Acts and Paul’s letters. There we can see whether the predictions of Jesus were fulfilled and whether in fact the early Christians took his teaching seriously. Although there can be no question that Jesus Christ became central to the faith of the early Christians, he was regarded from many points of view. He was seen as Messiah in the sense of a spiritual deliverer, as Lord in the sense of being sovereign over his people, as Servant in the sense of his obedience to suffering, as Son in his relation to his Father. In many ways the full understanding of what and who he was could not have occurred until after the resurrection. Therefore, we find that many facets of his teachings about himself were more fully developed in the reflections of his people. This is true in a special sense of the writings of the apostle Paul.<\/p>\n<p>Many have found a problem in linking the Gospels with their detailed presentation of the acts and teachings of Jesus with the Christ who is so central in Paul’s beliefs. The problem arises because the apostle does not refer to any specific incident in the life of Jesus and does not reflect in his epistles any acquaintance with the large amount of teaching material in the Gospels. Does this suggest that Paul had no interest in the historical Jesus? Or could it be maintained that he knew nothing about him? Those who have driven a wedge between Paul and Jesus have not given sufficient weight to those incidental indications that Paul knew a great deal more about the historical Jesus than he states in his letters. He writes, for instance, about the meekness and gentleness of Christ (2 Cor 10:1), suggesting that he knew that Jesus had said of himself that he was meek and lowly of heart (Mt 11:29). Moreover, Paul speaks of the poverty of Christ (2 Cor 8:9) and must have known that the Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head. He certainly knows the details of how Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:23-26), and he knows of his death by crucifixion. It seems reasonable to conclude that Paul assumes that his readers will be acquainted with the Gospel material.<\/p>\n<p>It is perhaps useful in this connection to inquire whether the life and teachings of Jesus played a significant part in the early Christian proclamation. One passage that is valuable in this respect is Acts 10:36-38. In Peter’s address to Cornelius, he spoke of God’s having anointed Jesus of Nazareth, and of Jesus’ having gone about doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil. It is clear that some account of the acts of Jesus was included in the early preaching, and there is no reason to suppose that this was not a regular procedure.<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that the example of Jesus was a powerful motive for promoting right behavior. Peter appeals to it in encouraging Christians who were suffering for their faith (1 Pt 2:21). Paul also knows the value of imitation (1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thes 1:6). Since Jesus was recognized as being a man who did not sin (cf. 2 Cor 5:21), his behavior patterns would have proved invaluable for those who needed a new standard for moral action. While this idea of example is unquestionably present in the Epistles, it would be quite wrong to suppose that it formed a major part of Christian doctrine.<\/p>\n<p>There are a few references to the teachings of Jesus in the non-Gospel portion of the NT. In the Letter of James, which is almost wholly practical, there are more allusions to the teachings of Jesus than anywhere else in the NT. This is especially true in echoes of the Sermon on the Mount, and it shows the strong contribution that the moral teaching of Jesus had on the ethical values of the early Christians. Most of the expositions of doctrine in the Epistles find their basis in some aspect of the teachings of Jesus. These teachings have an ongoing significance for the development of the church.<\/p>\n<p>To what extent is knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus relevant to the 21st century? Existential theologians have driven such a wedge between the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history that the latter has ceased to have any importance for them. Christians today, no less than their first-century predecessors, need to know that the object of their faith is the same one who lived and taught in Galilee and Judea.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Ascension of Christ; Christ; Christology; Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Incarnation; Jesus Christ; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven; Messiah; Parable; Savior; Son of God; Son of Man; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of Because of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? Wh...","summary_en":"JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of Because of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? Wh...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24397,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of Mark","title_en":"Gospel of Mark","content_ro":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","summary_en":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":32805,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Resurrection","title_en":"Resurrection","content_ro":"<h3>RESURRECTION<\/h3>\n<p>Act of being raised from the dead, used in the Bible in three different contexts: (1) It refers to miraculous raising of the dead back to earthly life, such as when Elijah raised a boy (1 Kgs 17:8-24), Elisha raised the Shunammite’s son (2 Kgs 4:18-37), Jesus raised both Jairus’s daughter (Mk 5:35-43) and Lazarus (Jn 11:17-44), Peter raised Dorcas (Acts 9:36-42), and Paul raised Eutychus (20:9-12). There is no hint that these resuscitations would prevent future death. (2) It refers most frequently to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (3) It also refers to the eschatological resurrection of mankind at the end of time for punishment or reward (Jn 5:29; cf. Rv 20:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Resurrection in the Old Testament and Judaism<\/p>\n<p>• The Resurrection of Jesus Christ<\/p>\n<p>• The Resurrection Accounts<\/p>\n<p>• The Significance of Christ’s Resurrection<\/p>\n<p>• Resurrection in General<\/p>\n<p>• Resurrection and Gnosticism<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ResurrectionintheOldTestamentandJudaism\">Resurrection in the Old Testament and Judaism<\/p>\n<p>The concept of resurrection to eternal life developed slowly in Israel. Life and death were limited to physical existence in this world. Death meant leaving this world and entering a shadowy existence known as Sheol, the place of the <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">rephaim<\/span><em>,<\/em> or shades (Is 14:9), a place of hopelessness (2 Sm 12:23; Jb 7:9-10). The tragedy of Sheol was that a person was cut off from fellowship with God. At that stage of Israel’s thought, there seemed little hope for resurrection (Pss 6:4-5; 88:10-12).<\/p>\n<p>But in the midst of hopelessness concerning a personal future, Israel developed a sense of faithfulness to God. In spite of the fact that the future was not clear, Job cried helplessly, “If a man dies, will he live again?” (Jb 14:14). As Job sought for the seemingly impossible, the difficult passage in Job 19:25-26 suggests the reality of resurrection by a living redeemer (<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">go’el<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>While some would argue that Hosea 6:1-3 suggests a resurrection, it is more likely that Israel considered it to be a promise of God’s continuing care, even when it experienced defeat at the hands of its enemies. Whether Paul saw in the third-day statement of Hosea a reference to Jesus is difficult to assess. This passage, along with texts like the dry bones of Ezekiel (ch 37), focus primarily on giving Israel hope in spite of defeat. But they may have become part of a developing sense in Israel that after death there should be something more.<\/p>\n<p>In Daniel 12:2, however, there is a sure reference to the resurrection of the dead. Indeed, the text announced a twofold resurrection of Jews: some to eternal life and some to eternal contempt. But there was no general resurrection of all people suggested by this text.<\/p>\n<p>In the intertestamental period, views began to solidify. The theologically conservative Sadducees would have nothing to do with the new ideas of resurrection and the afterlife. They continued to argue that there was no mention of resurrection in the writings of Moses, that life pertained to this earthly realm, and that the future hope was experienced through one’s children (Ecclus 46:12). Sheol, the place of the dead, was devoid of relationship with God and was a place of hapless existence. The Sadducean opinion of the resurrection is generally well known to Christians because of the encounter between Jesus and the Sadducees when they sought to ensnare him concerning the wife of seven brothers. Jesus rejected their views of the resurrection, of God, and of the Scriptures (Mk 12:18-27).<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees, along with the Essenes and those at Qumran, believed in resurrection. A twofold pattern of resurrection was suggested by the famous eschatological passages of 2 Esdras 7 and the Apocalypse of Baruch 50–51. Both texts may be as late as the first century <span>AD<\/span>. In the Similitudes of 1 Enoch, the righteous Jews could generally expect resurrection, but not the wicked (1 Enoch 1:46, 51, 62). But elsewhere in Enoch there is a hint that some wicked may be raised for judgment (vv 22, 67, 90). The resurrection of the righteous in these texts would generally be linked to a spiritual type of body, yet in 2 Maccabees 7:14ff., the view seems less developed and more physical. The ascetics at Qumran expected a resurrection in the great Day of the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>While in Judaism there was a growing sense of an eschatological day of resurrection and reckoning, there was no hint anywhere of a resurrection of the Messiah. Such an idea had to await the historical reality of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheResurrectionofJesusChrist\">The Resurrection of Jesus Christ<\/p>\n<p>The resurrection of Christ is the central point of Christianity. So important was the resurrection for Paul that he hinged both preaching and faith upon its validity. He considered that a Christianity without the resurrection would be empty and meaningless (1 Cor 15:12-19). Indeed, the resurrection for him was the unveiling of God’s power in Jesus (Rom 1:4).<\/p>\n<p>The resurrection of Christ is the presupposition behind other texts of the NT as well. Rebirth to a living hope is based upon the resurrection (1 Pt 1:3). It is the foundation for witness and fellowship with God, because the living Lord has been seen and touched (1 Jn 1:1-4). It is the bedrock thesis for ministry and apostleship (Acts 1:21-25). The Gospels likewise would hardly have been good news if they did not conclude with Christ’s resurrection. Christ’s resurrection is the prototype for all the believers, who will experience resurrection when Christ returns.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheResurrectionAccounts\">The Resurrection Accounts<\/p>\n<p>While the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the very essence of Christianity, it has been the subject of considerable debate. Scholars have frequently noted the variations that are present in the accounts. How many and who were the women at the tomb? Was there one (Mt; Mk) or were there two (Lk; Jn) angels at the tomb? Did the women come to anoint the body (Mk; Lk) or to see the tomb (Mt)? Did the women say nothing to anyone because of fear (Mk), or did they report to the disciples (Mt)? What was the order of the appearances, and did they take place in Jerusalem (Lk; Jn 20) or in Galilee (Mt; Jn 21) or in both places? Can the appearances be harmonized? What kind of body did Jesus possess? These and many other questions have been the watershed for a great deal of contemporary scholarly debate.<\/p>\n<p>Many of these questions were not first discovered by recent scholars. Tatian in the second century sought to remove the questions by composing his <em>Diatessaron<\/em> (harmony) in hopes that Christians would accept his work as a variant-free substitute for the Gospels. Although Christians liked the harmony, they continued to faithfully transmit the Gospels, because they believed that in them, by divine inspiration, God had provided a powerful witness concerning his Son. Many today still try the way of harmonization in an effort to deal with the minutia of historical questions, but they usually miss the uniqueness of each testimony. Others emphasize the differences and speculate on the Gospel constructs, but the fact of the resurrection usually becomes lost in the details of these human constructs. Both are attempts at protecting the essence of faith and reason in different ways.<\/p>\n<h5>The Empty Tomb<\/h5>\n<p>Many explanations have been given concerning the empty tomb. Some said the body was stolen by the disciples (already suggested by Mt 28:13), but then one needs to explain the church on the basis of fraud. Others have said that the Jews could have stolen the body, or the disciples could have mistaken the tomb, but then the body would soon have been produced by the enemies. Others have said that Jesus could have lapsed into a swoon, reviving later in the cold tomb, but then the result would hardly have inspired the power of the Christian church. These explanations are all rationalistic attempts based upon a preconception that an actual resurrection of Jesus could not have happened.<\/p>\n<p>In spite of the material differences, and while the Gospel writers have used a great deal of common material in their tomb stories, they themselves refrain from employing the tomb as a basis for resurrection faith. With the exception of John 20:8, the empty tomb engendered surprise and fear. Indeed, it seemed to be an idle tale (Lk 24:11). It is not the tomb stories but the appearances of Jesus after his resurrection that gave rise to faith.<\/p>\n<h5>The Appearances<\/h5>\n<p>Unlike the tomb stories, there is little commonality of material in the appearances. Yet the appearances are the basis for faith that the unbelievable happened. An enemy like Paul was converted into a zealous apostle (Acts 9:1-22; 1 Cor 15:8). A fearful fisherman like Peter abandoned his nets (Jn 21). A doubter like Thomas uttered early Christianity’s greatest confession, calling Jesus “my Lord and my God” (20:24-28). And two weary travelers to Emmaus found new zeal to return quickly to Jerusalem and share the news about their encounter with the risen Jesus (Lk 24:13-35).<\/p>\n<p>Scholars have debated the nature of these appearances. Starting from Paul’s list of appearances (1 Cor 15:5-8), some have argued that all appearances are of the same nature, and since the Damascus-road appearance to Paul recorded in Acts seems to have been of a spiritual nature (Acts 9:1-9; cf. 22:6-11; 26:12-19), then all the appearances must have been similar. Statements that the risen Jesus was touchable (Lk 24:41-43) are rejected as later accretions to an earlier vision-type tradition. This type of argument is based on presuppositions of the impossibility of a bodily resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>Another theory was based on the division between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. According to this view, the resurrection was not to be regarded as a fact of history but as an experience of the faith of the disciples. The issue, however, is that the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection proclaimed the event as a historical, palpable reality.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheSignificanceofChristsResurrection\">The Significance of Christ’s Resurrection<\/p>\n<p>Several people were raised from the dead, as recorded in the Bible. A widow’s son was raised by Elijah, another widow’s son was raised by Jesus, and Lazarus was raised by Jesus. However, their revitalization (or resuscitation) is not the same as Christ’s resurrection. They arose only to die again; he arose to live forevermore. They arose still doomed by corruptibility; he arose incorruptible. They arose with no change to their constitution; he arose in a significantly different form.<\/p>\n<p>When the Lord arose, three significant things happened to him. He was glorified, he was transfigured, and he became spirit. All three happened simultaneously. When he was resurrected, he was glorified (see Lk 24:26). At the same time, his body was transfigured into a glorious one (Phil 3:21). Equally so—and quite mysteriously—he became life-giving spirit (1 Cor 15:45).<\/p>\n<p>Prior to the Lord’s crucifixion and resurrection, he declared, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say unto you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it abides alone; but if it dies, it brings forth many grains” (Jn 12:23-24; literal). This declaration provides the best picture of resurrection. Paul also used this illustration. He likened the resurrection glory to a grain being sown in death and then coming forth in life. Actually, Paul used this illustration when answering two questions the Corinthians posed about resurrection: (1) How are the dead raised? and (2) With what sort of body do they come? (1 Cor 15:35).<\/p>\n<p>To the first question Paul responded, “Foolish man, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies” (1 Cor 15:36). This follows perfectly the Lord’s saying in John 12:24, and the two explain each other. The grain must die before it can be quickened. Paul devotes more explanation to the second question; and the Spirit inspired his sublime utterance to unfold this mystery. Using the same natural example of the grain of wheat, Paul revealed that the body that comes forth in resurrection is altogether different in form from that which had been sown. Through an organic process, the single bare grain is transformed into a stalk of wheat. In essence, the grain and the stalk are one and the same—the latter simply being the living growth and expressed expansion of the former. In short, the stalk is the glory of the grain, or the glorified grain. This illustration shows that Jesus’ resurrected body was altogether different from the one that was buried. In death, he had been sown in corruption, dishonor, and weakness; in resurrection, he came forth in incorruption, glory, and power. The natural body that Jesus possessed as a man became a spiritual body, and at the same time Christ became “life-giving spirit.”<\/p>\n<p>With this new spiritual existence, Christ, as spirit and through the Holy Spirit, could indwell millions of believers simultaneously. Before the resurrection, Jesus was limited by his mortal body; after his resurrection, Jesus could be experienced illimitably by all his believers. Before his resurrection, Christ could dwell only among his believers; after his resurrection, he could dwell in his believers. Because Christ became spirit through resurrection, he can be experienced by those he indwells. The Spirit of Christ now makes Christ very real and experiential to us.<\/p>\n<p>The Lord Jesus entered into a new kind of existence when he was raised from the dead because he was glorified and simultaneously became spirit—or, to coin a term, he was “pneumafied” (from the Greek word for “spirit,” <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">pneuma<\/span>). It appears that when he arose the indwelling Spirit penetrated and saturated his body so as to constitute his entire being with spirit. Recent studies in the area of pneumatology (the study of the Spirit) point out that the risen Christ and the Spirit were united via Christ’s resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>William Milligan, the author of the best English classic on the subject of the resurrection, said that the risen Christ is spirit. In that classic, called <em>The Resurrection of Our Lord<\/em>, he wrote the following:<\/p>\n<p>The condition of our Lord after His Resurrection was viewed by the sacred writers as essentially a state of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">pneuma<\/span> (spirit). Not indeed that our Lord had then no body, for it is the constant lesson of Scripture that a body was possessed by him; but that the deepest, the fundamental characteristic of His state, interpenetrating even the body, and moulding it into a complete adaptation to and harmony with His spirit, was <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">pneuma<\/span><em>.<\/em> In other words, it is proposed to inquire whether the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">pneuma<\/span> in the New Testament is not used as a short description of what our Lord was after His Resurrection, in contrast with what He was during the days of His humiliation upon earth.<\/p>\n<p>Milligan went on from there to show that several Scriptures affirm that the resurrected Christ is spirit. He cited 1 Corinthians 6:17 to show that the believer who is joined with the risen Lord must be joined to him as spirit, because he who is joined to the Lord is said to be “one spirit” with him. He used 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 to demonstrate that the Lord who is the Spirit is none other than the risen Christ. He also employed 1 Timothy 3:16, Romans 1:3-4, and Hebrews 9:14 to prove that the risen Lord is spirit.<\/p>\n<p>When we read the last chapters of the Gospels, we realize that a great change had transpired in our Lord after the resurrection. By entering into glory, he had entered into a new sphere of existence. At one moment he was visible; in another he became invisible (Lk 24:31). He was defying the limitations of space and perhaps even time. In the early morning of the day of resurrection, he appeared to Mary Magdalene in the garden (Jn 20:11-17), then to some of the other women (Mt 28:9). After this, he ascended to his Father (Jn 20:17). Then he returned to appear to Peter, who had gone home (Jn 20:10; Lk 24:34). On the same day, in the late afternoon, he took a seven-mile (11.3-kilometer) walk with two disciples on their way to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-33), following which he appeared to the disciples as they were assembled in a closed room somewhere in Jerusalem (Lk 24:33-48; Jn 20:19-23). It is nearly impossible to follow a sequential, chronological order of all these happenings. What Jesus did was humanly impossible. How could he make all of these appearances on the same day? All we can say is that resurrection greatly changed his sphere of existence. As spirit, and yet with a body—a glorified one—he was no longer limited by time and space.<\/p>\n<p> Through resurrection, Jesus had acquired a different form (see Mk 16:12). As to his person, he was still the same; the Jesus who walked in Galilee and was crucified at Calvary is the same Jesus who arose. His person had not changed, nor will it ever; it is immutable. But his form did change; he is now life-giving spirit. As such, Christ is able to indwell all of his believers.<\/p>\n<p>Resurrection and regeneration are closely linked in the Scriptures—in the same way that crucifixion and redemption form an inseparable unity. As redemption was not possible without Christ’s crucifixion, so regeneration is not possible without Christ’s resurrection. The Scripture plainly says that we have been born again through the resurrection of Christ (1 Pt 1:23).<\/p>\n<p>After Christ was raised from the dead, he called the disciples his brothers (Mt 28:10; Jn 20:19), and he declared that his God was now their God, and his Father their Father. Through resurrection, the disciples had become the brothers of Jesus, possessing the same divine life and the same Father. As the firstborn from among the dead (Col 1:18; Rv 1:18), Jesus Christ became the firstborn among many brothers (Rom 8:29).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ResurrectioninGeneral\">Resurrection in General<\/p>\n<p>Paul looked for the Day of the Lord when the dead in Christ would be raised and those who were still alive would join the dead in final victory (1 Thes 4:15-18). There was no doubt in his mind that this resurrection was a glorious expectation, that it involved some type of a personalized body, and that this body would not be physical but spiritual (1 Cor 15:35-44). Paul did not speak of two resurrections, as do the Johannine texts (e.g., Jn 5:29), but merely of the resurrection to life. Perhaps the Revelation of John provides the best clue in understanding NT thought on this issue because it refers to the blessing of being part of the first resurrection (Rv 20:5-6). Although in Revelation the term “resurrection” is not used in connection with judgment, the appearance at the judgment seat and the verdict of the second death in the lake of fire indicate that a resurrection to judgment will hardly be of the same essence as resurrection to life.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ResurrectionandGnosticism\">Resurrection and Gnosticism<\/p>\n<p>Gnostic eschatology is indebted to the Greek view of immortality and involves the shedding of the bodily husk in the spiritual ascent of the devotee to the Pleroma, or Gnostic heaven. Because of the way Gnostics used words, the Gospel of Philip is a helpful window for understanding the Gnostic twisting of ideas. There it is argued that “those who say that the Lord died first and [then] arose are in error; because he first arose and [then] died. If anyone does not attain the resurrection first, will he not die?” (Philip 56:15-19). The concept of resurrection is de-eschatologized and defined not in terms of a truly future expectation of resurrection but in terms of a realized spiritual awakening in this world. The Gospel of Philip is also useful in perceiving why in 2 Timothy 2:17-19 the criticism was so severe against Hymenaeus and Philetus for holding that the resurrection was past. Clearly, realized eschatology was rejected in the Pauline community and by the church when it appeared in Gnosticism. And it should continue to be rejected by the church in the present day.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Dead, Place of the; Eschatology; Second Coming of Christ; Spirit.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>RESURRECTION<\/h3>\n<p>Act of being raised from the dead, used in the Bible in three different contexts: (1) It refers to miraculous raising of the dead back to earthly life, such as when Elijah raised a boy (1 Kgs 17:8-24), Elisha raised the Shunammite’s son (2 Kgs 4:18-37), Jesus raised both Jairus’s daughter (Mk 5:35-43) and Lazarus (Jn 11:17-44), Peter raised Dorcas (Acts 9:36-42), and Paul raised Eutychus (20:9-12). There is no hint that these resuscitations would prevent future death. (2) It refers most frequently to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (3) It also refers to the eschatological resurrection of mankind at the end of time for punishment or reward (Jn 5:29; cf. Rv 20:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Resurrection in the Old Testament and Judaism<\/p>\n<p>• The Resurrection of Jesus Christ<\/p>\n<p>• The Resurrection Accounts<\/p>\n<p>• The Significance of Christ’s Resurrection<\/p>\n<p>• Resurrection in General<\/p>\n<p>• Resurrection and Gnosticism<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ResurrectionintheOldTestamentandJudaism\">Resurrection in the Old Testament and Judaism<\/p>\n<p>The concept of resurrection to eternal life developed slowly in Israel. Life and death were limited to physical existence in this world. Death meant leaving this world and entering a shadowy existence known as Sheol, the place of the <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">rephaim<\/span><em>,<\/em> or shades (Is 14:9), a place of hopelessness (2 Sm 12:23; Jb 7:9-10). The tragedy of Sheol was that a person was cut off from fellowship with God. At that stage of Israel’s thought, there seemed little hope for resurrection (Pss 6:4-5; 88:10-12).<\/p>\n<p>But in the midst of hopelessness concerning a personal future, Israel developed a sense of faithfulness to God. In spite of the fact that the future was not clear, Job cried helplessly, “If a man dies, will he live again?” (Jb 14:14). As Job sought for the seemingly impossible, the difficult passage in Job 19:25-26 suggests the reality of resurrection by a living redeemer (<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">go’el<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>While some would argue that Hosea 6:1-3 suggests a resurrection, it is more likely that Israel considered it to be a promise of God’s continuing care, even when it experienced defeat at the hands of its enemies. Whether Paul saw in the third-day statement of Hosea a reference to Jesus is difficult to assess. This passage, along with texts like the dry bones of Ezekiel (ch 37), focus primarily on giving Israel hope in spite of defeat. But they may have become part of a developing sense in Israel that after death there should be something more.<\/p>\n<p>In Daniel 12:2, however, there is a sure reference to the resurrection of the dead. Indeed, the text announced a twofold resurrection of Jews: some to eternal life and some to eternal contempt. But there was no general resurrection of all people suggested by this text.<\/p>\n<p>In the intertestamental period, views began to solidify. The theologically conservative Sadducees would have nothing to do with the new ideas of resurrection and the afterlife. They continued to argue that there was no mention of resurrection in the writings of Moses, that life pertained to this earthly realm, and that the future hope was experienced through one’s children (Ecclus 46:12). Sheol, the place of the dead, was devoid of relationship with God and was a place of hapless existence. The Sadducean opinion of the resurrection is generally well known to Christians because of the encounter between Jesus and the Sadducees when they sought to ensnare him concerning the wife of seven brothers. Jesus rejected their views of the resurrection, of God, and of the Scriptures (Mk 12:18-27).<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees, along with the Essenes and those at Qumran, believed in resurrection. A twofold pattern of resurrection was suggested by the famous eschatological passages of 2 Esdras 7 and the Apocalypse of Baruch 50–51. Both texts may be as late as the first century <span>AD<\/span>. In the Similitudes of 1 Enoch, the righteous Jews could generally expect resurrection, but not the wicked (1 Enoch 1:46, 51, 62). But elsewhere in Enoch there is a hint that some wicked may be raised for judgment (vv 22, 67, 90). The resurrection of the righteous in these texts would generally be linked to a spiritual type of body, yet in 2 Maccabees 7:14ff., the view seems less developed and more physical. The ascetics at Qumran expected a resurrection in the great Day of the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>While in Judaism there was a growing sense of an eschatological day of resurrection and reckoning, there was no hint anywhere of a resurrection of the Messiah. Such an idea had to await the historical reality of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheResurrectionofJesusChrist\">The Resurrection of Jesus Christ<\/p>\n<p>The resurrection of Christ is the central point of Christianity. So important was the resurrection for Paul that he hinged both preaching and faith upon its validity. He considered that a Christianity without the resurrection would be empty and meaningless (1 Cor 15:12-19). Indeed, the resurrection for him was the unveiling of God’s power in Jesus (Rom 1:4).<\/p>\n<p>The resurrection of Christ is the presupposition behind other texts of the NT as well. Rebirth to a living hope is based upon the resurrection (1 Pt 1:3). It is the foundation for witness and fellowship with God, because the living Lord has been seen and touched (1 Jn 1:1-4). It is the bedrock thesis for ministry and apostleship (Acts 1:21-25). The Gospels likewise would hardly have been good news if they did not conclude with Christ’s resurrection. Christ’s resurrection is the prototype for all the believers, who will experience resurrection when Christ returns.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheResurrectionAccounts\">The Resurrection Accounts<\/p>\n<p>While the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the very essence of Christianity, it has been the subject of considerable debate. Scholars have frequently noted the variations that are present in the accounts. How many and who were the women at the tomb? Was there one (Mt; Mk) or were there two (Lk; Jn) angels at the tomb? Did the women come to anoint the body (Mk; Lk) or to see the tomb (Mt)? Did the women say nothing to anyone because of fear (Mk), or did they report to the disciples (Mt)? What was the order of the appearances, and did they take place in Jerusalem (Lk; Jn 20) or in Galilee (Mt; Jn 21) or in both places? Can the appearances be harmonized? What kind of body did Jesus possess? These and many other questions have been the watershed for a great deal of contemporary scholarly debate.<\/p>\n<p>Many of these questions were not first discovered by recent scholars. Tatian in the second century sought to remove the questions by composing his <em>Diatessaron<\/em> (harmony) in hopes that Christians would accept his work as a variant-free substitute for the Gospels. Although Christians liked the harmony, they continued to faithfully transmit the Gospels, because they believed that in them, by divine inspiration, God had provided a powerful witness concerning his Son. Many today still try the way of harmonization in an effort to deal with the minutia of historical questions, but they usually miss the uniqueness of each testimony. Others emphasize the differences and speculate on the Gospel constructs, but the fact of the resurrection usually becomes lost in the details of these human constructs. Both are attempts at protecting the essence of faith and reason in different ways.<\/p>\n<h5>The Empty Tomb<\/h5>\n<p>Many explanations have been given concerning the empty tomb. Some said the body was stolen by the disciples (already suggested by Mt 28:13), but then one needs to explain the church on the basis of fraud. Others have said that the Jews could have stolen the body, or the disciples could have mistaken the tomb, but then the body would soon have been produced by the enemies. Others have said that Jesus could have lapsed into a swoon, reviving later in the cold tomb, but then the result would hardly have inspired the power of the Christian church. These explanations are all rationalistic attempts based upon a preconception that an actual resurrection of Jesus could not have happened.<\/p>\n<p>In spite of the material differences, and while the Gospel writers have used a great deal of common material in their tomb stories, they themselves refrain from employing the tomb as a basis for resurrection faith. With the exception of John 20:8, the empty tomb engendered surprise and fear. Indeed, it seemed to be an idle tale (Lk 24:11). It is not the tomb stories but the appearances of Jesus after his resurrection that gave rise to faith.<\/p>\n<h5>The Appearances<\/h5>\n<p>Unlike the tomb stories, there is little commonality of material in the appearances. Yet the appearances are the basis for faith that the unbelievable happened. An enemy like Paul was converted into a zealous apostle (Acts 9:1-22; 1 Cor 15:8). A fearful fisherman like Peter abandoned his nets (Jn 21). A doubter like Thomas uttered early Christianity’s greatest confession, calling Jesus “my Lord and my God” (20:24-28). And two weary travelers to Emmaus found new zeal to return quickly to Jerusalem and share the news about their encounter with the risen Jesus (Lk 24:13-35).<\/p>\n<p>Scholars have debated the nature of these appearances. Starting from Paul’s list of appearances (1 Cor 15:5-8), some have argued that all appearances are of the same nature, and since the Damascus-road appearance to Paul recorded in Acts seems to have been of a spiritual nature (Acts 9:1-9; cf. 22:6-11; 26:12-19), then all the appearances must have been similar. Statements that the risen Jesus was touchable (Lk 24:41-43) are rejected as later accretions to an earlier vision-type tradition. This type of argument is based on presuppositions of the impossibility of a bodily resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>Another theory was based on the division between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. According to this view, the resurrection was not to be regarded as a fact of history but as an experience of the faith of the disciples. The issue, however, is that the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection proclaimed the event as a historical, palpable reality.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheSignificanceofChristsResurrection\">The Significance of Christ’s Resurrection<\/p>\n<p>Several people were raised from the dead, as recorded in the Bible. A widow’s son was raised by Elijah, another widow’s son was raised by Jesus, and Lazarus was raised by Jesus. However, their revitalization (or resuscitation) is not the same as Christ’s resurrection. They arose only to die again; he arose to live forevermore. They arose still doomed by corruptibility; he arose incorruptible. They arose with no change to their constitution; he arose in a significantly different form.<\/p>\n<p>When the Lord arose, three significant things happened to him. He was glorified, he was transfigured, and he became spirit. All three happened simultaneously. When he was resurrected, he was glorified (see Lk 24:26). At the same time, his body was transfigured into a glorious one (Phil 3:21). Equally so—and quite mysteriously—he became life-giving spirit (1 Cor 15:45).<\/p>\n<p>Prior to the Lord’s crucifixion and resurrection, he declared, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say unto you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it abides alone; but if it dies, it brings forth many grains” (Jn 12:23-24; literal). This declaration provides the best picture of resurrection. Paul also used this illustration. He likened the resurrection glory to a grain being sown in death and then coming forth in life. Actually, Paul used this illustration when answering two questions the Corinthians posed about resurrection: (1) How are the dead raised? and (2) With what sort of body do they come? (1 Cor 15:35).<\/p>\n<p>To the first question Paul responded, “Foolish man, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies” (1 Cor 15:36). This follows perfectly the Lord’s saying in John 12:24, and the two explain each other. The grain must die before it can be quickened. Paul devotes more explanation to the second question; and the Spirit inspired his sublime utterance to unfold this mystery. Using the same natural example of the grain of wheat, Paul revealed that the body that comes forth in resurrection is altogether different in form from that which had been sown. Through an organic process, the single bare grain is transformed into a stalk of wheat. In essence, the grain and the stalk are one and the same—the latter simply being the living growth and expressed expansion of the former. In short, the stalk is the glory of the grain, or the glorified grain. This illustration shows that Jesus’ resurrected body was altogether different from the one that was buried. In death, he had been sown in corruption, dishonor, and weakness; in resurrection, he came forth in incorruption, glory, and power. The natural body that Jesus possessed as a man became a spiritual body, and at the same time Christ became “life-giving spirit.”<\/p>\n<p>With this new spiritual existence, Christ, as spirit and through the Holy Spirit, could indwell millions of believers simultaneously. Before the resurrection, Jesus was limited by his mortal body; after his resurrection, Jesus could be experienced illimitably by all his believers. Before his resurrection, Christ could dwell only among his believers; after his resurrection, he could dwell in his believers. Because Christ became spirit through resurrection, he can be experienced by those he indwells. The Spirit of Christ now makes Christ very real and experiential to us.<\/p>\n<p>The Lord Jesus entered into a new kind of existence when he was raised from the dead because he was glorified and simultaneously became spirit—or, to coin a term, he was “pneumafied” (from the Greek word for “spirit,” <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">pneuma<\/span>). It appears that when he arose the indwelling Spirit penetrated and saturated his body so as to constitute his entire being with spirit. Recent studies in the area of pneumatology (the study of the Spirit) point out that the risen Christ and the Spirit were united via Christ’s resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>William Milligan, the author of the best English classic on the subject of the resurrection, said that the risen Christ is spirit. In that classic, called <em>The Resurrection of Our Lord<\/em>, he wrote the following:<\/p>\n<p>The condition of our Lord after His Resurrection was viewed by the sacred writers as essentially a state of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">pneuma<\/span> (spirit). Not indeed that our Lord had then no body, for it is the constant lesson of Scripture that a body was possessed by him; but that the deepest, the fundamental characteristic of His state, interpenetrating even the body, and moulding it into a complete adaptation to and harmony with His spirit, was <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">pneuma<\/span><em>.<\/em> In other words, it is proposed to inquire whether the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">pneuma<\/span> in the New Testament is not used as a short description of what our Lord was after His Resurrection, in contrast with what He was during the days of His humiliation upon earth.<\/p>\n<p>Milligan went on from there to show that several Scriptures affirm that the resurrected Christ is spirit. He cited 1 Corinthians 6:17 to show that the believer who is joined with the risen Lord must be joined to him as spirit, because he who is joined to the Lord is said to be “one spirit” with him. He used 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 to demonstrate that the Lord who is the Spirit is none other than the risen Christ. He also employed 1 Timothy 3:16, Romans 1:3-4, and Hebrews 9:14 to prove that the risen Lord is spirit.<\/p>\n<p>When we read the last chapters of the Gospels, we realize that a great change had transpired in our Lord after the resurrection. By entering into glory, he had entered into a new sphere of existence. At one moment he was visible; in another he became invisible (Lk 24:31). He was defying the limitations of space and perhaps even time. In the early morning of the day of resurrection, he appeared to Mary Magdalene in the garden (Jn 20:11-17), then to some of the other women (Mt 28:9). After this, he ascended to his Father (Jn 20:17). Then he returned to appear to Peter, who had gone home (Jn 20:10; Lk 24:34). On the same day, in the late afternoon, he took a seven-mile (11.3-kilometer) walk with two disciples on their way to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-33), following which he appeared to the disciples as they were assembled in a closed room somewhere in Jerusalem (Lk 24:33-48; Jn 20:19-23). It is nearly impossible to follow a sequential, chronological order of all these happenings. What Jesus did was humanly impossible. How could he make all of these appearances on the same day? All we can say is that resurrection greatly changed his sphere of existence. As spirit, and yet with a body—a glorified one—he was no longer limited by time and space.<\/p>\n<p> Through resurrection, Jesus had acquired a different form (see Mk 16:12). As to his person, he was still the same; the Jesus who walked in Galilee and was crucified at Calvary is the same Jesus who arose. His person had not changed, nor will it ever; it is immutable. But his form did change; he is now life-giving spirit. As such, Christ is able to indwell all of his believers.<\/p>\n<p>Resurrection and regeneration are closely linked in the Scriptures—in the same way that crucifixion and redemption form an inseparable unity. As redemption was not possible without Christ’s crucifixion, so regeneration is not possible without Christ’s resurrection. The Scripture plainly says that we have been born again through the resurrection of Christ (1 Pt 1:23).<\/p>\n<p>After Christ was raised from the dead, he called the disciples his brothers (Mt 28:10; Jn 20:19), and he declared that his God was now their God, and his Father their Father. Through resurrection, the disciples had become the brothers of Jesus, possessing the same divine life and the same Father. As the firstborn from among the dead (Col 1:18; Rv 1:18), Jesus Christ became the firstborn among many brothers (Rom 8:29).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ResurrectioninGeneral\">Resurrection in General<\/p>\n<p>Paul looked for the Day of the Lord when the dead in Christ would be raised and those who were still alive would join the dead in final victory (1 Thes 4:15-18). There was no doubt in his mind that this resurrection was a glorious expectation, that it involved some type of a personalized body, and that this body would not be physical but spiritual (1 Cor 15:35-44). Paul did not speak of two resurrections, as do the Johannine texts (e.g., Jn 5:29), but merely of the resurrection to life. Perhaps the Revelation of John provides the best clue in understanding NT thought on this issue because it refers to the blessing of being part of the first resurrection (Rv 20:5-6). Although in Revelation the term “resurrection” is not used in connection with judgment, the appearance at the judgment seat and the verdict of the second death in the lake of fire indicate that a resurrection to judgment will hardly be of the same essence as resurrection to life.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ResurrectionandGnosticism\">Resurrection and Gnosticism<\/p>\n<p>Gnostic eschatology is indebted to the Greek view of immortality and involves the shedding of the bodily husk in the spiritual ascent of the devotee to the Pleroma, or Gnostic heaven. Because of the way Gnostics used words, the Gospel of Philip is a helpful window for understanding the Gnostic twisting of ideas. There it is argued that “those who say that the Lord died first and [then] arose are in error; because he first arose and [then] died. If anyone does not attain the resurrection first, will he not die?” (Philip 56:15-19). The concept of resurrection is de-eschatologized and defined not in terms of a truly future expectation of resurrection but in terms of a realized spiritual awakening in this world. The Gospel of Philip is also useful in perceiving why in 2 Timothy 2:17-19 the criticism was so severe against Hymenaeus and Philetus for holding that the resurrection was past. Clearly, realized eschatology was rejected in the Pauline community and by the church when it appeared in Gnosticism. And it should continue to be rejected by the church in the present day.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Dead, Place of the; Eschatology; Second Coming of Christ; Spirit.<\/p>","summary_ro":"RESURRECTION Act of being raised from the dead, used in the Bible in three different contexts: (1) It refers to miraculous raising of the dead back to earthly life, such as when Elijah raised a boy (1 Kgs 17:8-24), Elisha raised the Shunammite’s son (2 Kgs 4:18-37), Jesus raised both Jairus’s daughter (Mk 5:35-43) and Lazarus (Jn 11:17-44), Peter raised Dorcas (Acts 9:36-42), and Paul raised Eutychus (20:9-12). There is no hint that these resuscitations would prevent future death. (2) It refe...","summary_en":"RESURRECTION Act of being raised from the dead, used in the Bible in three different contexts: (1) It refers to miraculous raising of the dead back to earthly life, such as when Elijah raised a boy (1 Kgs 17:8-24), Elisha raised the Shunammite’s son (2 Kgs 4:18-37), Jesus raised both Jairus’s daughter (Mk 5:35-43) and Lazarus (Jn 11:17-44), Peter raised Dorcas (Acts 9:36-42), and Paul raised Eutychus (20:9-12). There is no hint that these resuscitations would prevent future death. (2) It refe...","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33499,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sadducees","title_en":"Sadducees","content_ro":"<h3>SADDUCEES<\/h3>\n<p>Jewish sect cited 14 times in the NT, not referred to in the OT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheirHistory\">Their History<\/p>\n<p>A number of suggestions have been made as to the origin of the name. First, it has been connected with the Hebrew word for “righteous” (<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">saddik<\/span>). This is difficult from an etymological point of view, as there would have been a change from <em>i<\/em> to <em>u<\/em> in the word. Nor is there reason to think that they made such a claim to be the “righteous ones.” Second, the name has been connected with Zadok (sometimes written <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Saddouk<\/span> in Greek), a priest in the days of David (2 Sm 8:17; 15:24-29) who anointed Solomon (1 Kgs 1:32-39) and in his reign became chief priest (2:35). He is said to have descended from Eleazar, the son of Aaron (1 Chr 6:3-8), and Zadokite priests seem to have been responsible for priestly duties in the temple until the exile. In the blueprints for the restoration of the worship of the temple (Ez 40–48), it is the Zadokite priesthood that is again given charge to minister as “Levitical priests” (44:15-16; 48:11-12). After the exile, we read of Joshua (Jeshua) the son of Jehozadak as high priest (Hg 1:1), and his lineage was traced back to Zadok (1 Chr 6:8-15). The significance of the Zadokite priesthood continues to be stressed in writings of the early second century <span>BC<\/span>, but it is by no means clear that the Sadducees made a stand for the Zadokite priesthood. It may be added that the double <em>d<\/em> in the word is not readily explained by this view of Sadducean origins.<\/p>\n<p>Third, a late rabbinic tradition is that the Sadducees took their name from another Zadok who lived in the second century <span>BC<\/span>. There is little to commend this view.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the British NT scholar T. W. Manson suggested that their name is to be connected with the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sundikoi<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning “members of the council,” thus designating the Sadducees as councillors under the Hasmonean rulers.<\/p>\n<p>The first historical knowledge of the Sadducees is in the time of Jonathan Maccabeus, who led the Jewish struggle against the Seleucids from 160 to 143 <span>BC<\/span>. Josephus (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.5.9) said that they were a party at this time, and that when John Hyrcanus was head of the Jewish state (135–104 <span>BC<\/span>) there was strife between the Pharisees and the Sadducees (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.6). It is possible that the Sadducees stood in some sense for the Zadokite priesthood or for the claim that the Jerusalem priesthood of their day was Zadokite in origin, but this is far from clear. Josephus says that the Sadducees had the rich on their side, while the Pharisees had a following among the common people. In the days of Salome Alexandra (76–67 <span>BC<\/span>), the Pharisees were in the ascendancy, but when Judea became a Roman province and Roman governors began to put one high priest down and raise another up, it appears that most of the high priests were from high-born Sadducean families. While they could temporize with the Romans, these Sadducean families had power and influence in the land. As hostilities developed between the Jews and their Roman overlords, the influence of the Sadducees declined. After the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Sadducees fade from history.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospel narrative they first appeared, together with Pharisees, at John’s baptism. He addressed them as “sons of snakes” and challenged them to show repentance in their lives (Mt 3:7-10). Later, the Sadducees came along with some Pharisees to “test” Jesus, asking him to show them a sign from heaven (16:1). Jesus told his disciples to beware of the Sadducees (vv 6, 11-12).<\/p>\n<p>A great difference begins to emerge between Pharisees and Sadducees in Matthew 22:23-33 (cf. Mk 12:18-27; Lk 20:27-38). The Sadducees, who, like others, wanted to embarrass Jesus with their questions, came with a trick question that showed their doubts concerning the resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees were described in this context as those who say there is no resurrection after death. They cited the case of a woman who had seven brothers as her husbands in succession. “Whose wife will she be in the resurrection?” they asked, implying that because of such a problem, the resurrection could not be a reality. Jesus answered by speaking of the error of their view caused by their ignorance of the Scriptures and of God’s power.<\/p>\n<p>In the early days of the church in Jerusalem, the priests and the captain of the temple police and the Sadducees became annoyed because the disciples were proclaiming the resurrection from the dead (Acts 4:1-2). The Sadducees seem to have led the opposition to the apostles and their preaching. Later the high priest and Sadducees determined to arrest the apostles and put them in the prison (5:17). The only other reference to them in the NT is in Acts 23:6-8, in the record of Paul’s trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin. On that occasion, Paul deliberately spoke about his belief in the resurrection so as to cause a division between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, who did not believe in resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>Thus from these NT passages one realizes something of the basic tenets of the Sadducees, of their prominence among the high priestly families, and of the differences between Pharisees and Sadducees.<\/p>\n<p>Josephus, the Jewish historian who wrote in the closing years of the first century <span>AD<\/span>, adds to the information in the NT about this party. He said that the Sadducees, in contrast to the Pharisees and Essenes, gave no place to the overruling providence of God but emphasized that all that happens to us is the result of the good or evil that we do (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.5.9; <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14). Josephus, in a way comparable to the NT, spoke of the Sadducees’ rejection of “the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades” (<em>War<\/em> 2.8.14). “Souls die with the bodies” was what they said (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.4). Early Christian writers—Hippolytus, Origen, and Jerome—said that the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch and not the other OT books. It would seem, however, that they were not opposed to other OT books as a whole (though it is doubtful whether they accepted books such as Daniel, with its clear statement of the resurrection of the dead), but rather that they opposed the legal regulations introduced by the Pharisees and were saying that only the OT law should be considered mandatory. In this, as in their stand against belief in angels and in life after death, they appear to have regarded the Pharisees as innovators and themselves as conservatives.<\/p>\n<p>The other main source of knowledge about the Sadducees is the Mishnah, the collection of the teaching of the rabbis, put down in writing in the second century <span>AD<\/span>. The Sadducees opposed many of the detailed regulations that the Pharisees sought to impose on the people (<em>Parah<\/em> 3.3,7). It also indicates that they had a greater tendency to compromise with the ways of the Gentiles than other Jewish parties (<em>Niddah<\/em> 4.2).<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Essenes; Judaism; Pharisees.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SADDUCEES<\/h3>\n<p>Jewish sect cited 14 times in the NT, not referred to in the OT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheirHistory\">Their History<\/p>\n<p>A number of suggestions have been made as to the origin of the name. First, it has been connected with the Hebrew word for “righteous” (<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">saddik<\/span>). This is difficult from an etymological point of view, as there would have been a change from <em>i<\/em> to <em>u<\/em> in the word. Nor is there reason to think that they made such a claim to be the “righteous ones.” Second, the name has been connected with Zadok (sometimes written <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Saddouk<\/span> in Greek), a priest in the days of David (2 Sm 8:17; 15:24-29) who anointed Solomon (1 Kgs 1:32-39) and in his reign became chief priest (2:35). He is said to have descended from Eleazar, the son of Aaron (1 Chr 6:3-8), and Zadokite priests seem to have been responsible for priestly duties in the temple until the exile. In the blueprints for the restoration of the worship of the temple (Ez 40–48), it is the Zadokite priesthood that is again given charge to minister as “Levitical priests” (44:15-16; 48:11-12). After the exile, we read of Joshua (Jeshua) the son of Jehozadak as high priest (Hg 1:1), and his lineage was traced back to Zadok (1 Chr 6:8-15). The significance of the Zadokite priesthood continues to be stressed in writings of the early second century <span>BC<\/span>, but it is by no means clear that the Sadducees made a stand for the Zadokite priesthood. It may be added that the double <em>d<\/em> in the word is not readily explained by this view of Sadducean origins.<\/p>\n<p>Third, a late rabbinic tradition is that the Sadducees took their name from another Zadok who lived in the second century <span>BC<\/span>. There is little to commend this view.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the British NT scholar T. W. Manson suggested that their name is to be connected with the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sundikoi<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning “members of the council,” thus designating the Sadducees as councillors under the Hasmonean rulers.<\/p>\n<p>The first historical knowledge of the Sadducees is in the time of Jonathan Maccabeus, who led the Jewish struggle against the Seleucids from 160 to 143 <span>BC<\/span>. Josephus (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.5.9) said that they were a party at this time, and that when John Hyrcanus was head of the Jewish state (135–104 <span>BC<\/span>) there was strife between the Pharisees and the Sadducees (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.6). It is possible that the Sadducees stood in some sense for the Zadokite priesthood or for the claim that the Jerusalem priesthood of their day was Zadokite in origin, but this is far from clear. Josephus says that the Sadducees had the rich on their side, while the Pharisees had a following among the common people. In the days of Salome Alexandra (76–67 <span>BC<\/span>), the Pharisees were in the ascendancy, but when Judea became a Roman province and Roman governors began to put one high priest down and raise another up, it appears that most of the high priests were from high-born Sadducean families. While they could temporize with the Romans, these Sadducean families had power and influence in the land. As hostilities developed between the Jews and their Roman overlords, the influence of the Sadducees declined. After the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Sadducees fade from history.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospel narrative they first appeared, together with Pharisees, at John’s baptism. He addressed them as “sons of snakes” and challenged them to show repentance in their lives (Mt 3:7-10). Later, the Sadducees came along with some Pharisees to “test” Jesus, asking him to show them a sign from heaven (16:1). Jesus told his disciples to beware of the Sadducees (vv 6, 11-12).<\/p>\n<p>A great difference begins to emerge between Pharisees and Sadducees in Matthew 22:23-33 (cf. Mk 12:18-27; Lk 20:27-38). The Sadducees, who, like others, wanted to embarrass Jesus with their questions, came with a trick question that showed their doubts concerning the resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees were described in this context as those who say there is no resurrection after death. They cited the case of a woman who had seven brothers as her husbands in succession. “Whose wife will she be in the resurrection?” they asked, implying that because of such a problem, the resurrection could not be a reality. Jesus answered by speaking of the error of their view caused by their ignorance of the Scriptures and of God’s power.<\/p>\n<p>In the early days of the church in Jerusalem, the priests and the captain of the temple police and the Sadducees became annoyed because the disciples were proclaiming the resurrection from the dead (Acts 4:1-2). The Sadducees seem to have led the opposition to the apostles and their preaching. Later the high priest and Sadducees determined to arrest the apostles and put them in the prison (5:17). The only other reference to them in the NT is in Acts 23:6-8, in the record of Paul’s trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin. On that occasion, Paul deliberately spoke about his belief in the resurrection so as to cause a division between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, who did not believe in resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>Thus from these NT passages one realizes something of the basic tenets of the Sadducees, of their prominence among the high priestly families, and of the differences between Pharisees and Sadducees.<\/p>\n<p>Josephus, the Jewish historian who wrote in the closing years of the first century <span>AD<\/span>, adds to the information in the NT about this party. He said that the Sadducees, in contrast to the Pharisees and Essenes, gave no place to the overruling providence of God but emphasized that all that happens to us is the result of the good or evil that we do (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.5.9; <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14). Josephus, in a way comparable to the NT, spoke of the Sadducees’ rejection of “the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades” (<em>War<\/em> 2.8.14). “Souls die with the bodies” was what they said (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.4). Early Christian writers—Hippolytus, Origen, and Jerome—said that the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch and not the other OT books. It would seem, however, that they were not opposed to other OT books as a whole (though it is doubtful whether they accepted books such as Daniel, with its clear statement of the resurrection of the dead), but rather that they opposed the legal regulations introduced by the Pharisees and were saying that only the OT law should be considered mandatory. In this, as in their stand against belief in angels and in life after death, they appear to have regarded the Pharisees as innovators and themselves as conservatives.<\/p>\n<p>The other main source of knowledge about the Sadducees is the Mishnah, the collection of the teaching of the rabbis, put down in writing in the second century <span>AD<\/span>. The Sadducees opposed many of the detailed regulations that the Pharisees sought to impose on the people (<em>Parah<\/em> 3.3,7). It also indicates that they had a greater tendency to compromise with the ways of the Gentiles than other Jewish parties (<em>Niddah<\/em> 4.2).<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Essenes; Judaism; Pharisees.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SADDUCEES Jewish sect cited 14 times in the NT, not referred to in the OT. Their History A number of suggestions have been made as to the origin of the name. First, it has been connected with the Hebrew word for “righteous” (saddik). This is difficult from an etymological point of view, as there would have been a change from i to u in the word. Nor is there reason to think that they made such a claim to be the “righteous ones.” Second, the name has been connected with Zadok (sometimes written...","summary_en":"SADDUCEES Jewish sect cited 14 times in the NT, not referred to in the OT. Their History A number of suggestions have been made as to the origin of the name. First, it has been connected with the Hebrew word for “righteous” (saddik). This is difficult from an etymological point of view, as there would have been a change from i to u in the word. Nor is there reason to think that they made such a claim to be the “righteous ones.” Second, the name has been connected with Zadok (sometimes written...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55458,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:18","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:18-27<\/strong> This is the third controversy story of the series begun in 11:27. As in most New Testament references to the <em>Sadducees<\/em><em>,<\/em> the setting is the Temple (Matt 22:23-33 <em>\/\/<\/em> Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-3; 5:12, 17; 22:30–23:10; the exceptions are Matt 3:7; 16:1-12). • The Sadducees’ question (Mark 12:19-23) was carefully crafted and based on a commandment of Moses (Deut 25:5-6; see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 4:1-22). Since all seven men could not have the woman as wife in the resurrection, and since none of them had a special claim, the Sadducees thought that they had proven the absurdity of the doctrine of the resurrection and refuted the Pharisees and Jesus (cp. Matt 12:41-42; Luke 16:19-31; see also Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:18-27<\/strong> This is the third controversy story of the series begun in 11:27. As in most New Testament references to the <em>Sadducees<\/em><em>,<\/em> the setting is the Temple (Matt 22:23-33 <em>\/\/<\/em> Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-3; 5:12, 17; 22:30–23:10; the exceptions are Matt 3:7; 16:1-12). • The Sadducees’ question (Mark 12:19-23) was carefully crafted and based on a commandment of Moses (Deut 25:5-6; see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 4:1-22). Since all seven men could not have the woman as wife in the resurrection, and since none of them had a special claim, the Sadducees thought that they had proven the absurdity of the doctrine of the resurrection and refuted the Pharisees and Jesus (cp. Matt 12:41-42; Luke 16:19-31; see also Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:18-27 This is the third controversy story of the series begun in 11:27. As in most New Testament references to the Sadducees, the setting is the Temple (Matt 22:23-33 \/\/ Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-3; 5:12, 17; 22:30–23:10; the exceptions are Matt 3:7; 16:1-12). • The Sadducees’ question (Mark 12:19-23) was carefully crafted and based on a commandment of Moses (Deut 25:5-6; see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 4:1-22). Since all seven men could not have the woman as wife in the resurrection, and since none o...","summary_en":"12:18-27 This is the third controversy story of the series begun in 11:27. As in most New Testament references to the Sadducees, the setting is the Temple (Matt 22:23-33 \/\/ Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-3; 5:12, 17; 22:30–23:10; the exceptions are Matt 3:7; 16:1-12). • The Sadducees’ question (Mark 12:19-23) was carefully crafted and based on a commandment of Moses (Deut 25:5-6; see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 4:1-22). Since all seven men could not have the woman as wife in the resurrection, and since none o...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55459,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:18","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:18<\/strong> This is the only place in Mark where the <em>Sadducees<\/em> are mentioned by name, although they are included in references to the leading priests (see 8:31; 10:33; 11:18, 27). Sadducees did not believe in the <em>resurrection from the dead<\/em> (see Acts 4:1-2; 23:8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:18<\/strong> This is the only place in Mark where the <em>Sadducees<\/em> are mentioned by name, although they are included in references to the leading priests (see 8:31; 10:33; 11:18, 27). Sadducees did not believe in the <em>resurrection from the dead<\/em> (see Acts 4:1-2; 23:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:18 This is the only place in Mark where the Sadducees are mentioned by name, although they are included in references to the leading priests (see 8:31; 10:33; 11:18, 27). Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection from the dead (see Acts 4:1-2; 23:8).","summary_en":"12:18 This is the only place in Mark where the Sadducees are mentioned by name, although they are included in references to the leading priests (see 8:31; 10:33; 11:18, 27). Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection from the dead (see Acts 4:1-2; 23:8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83084,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:18","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:18-27<\/strong> This is the third controversy story of the series begun in 11:27. As in most New Testament references to the <em>Sadducees<\/em><em>,<\/em> the setting is the Temple (Matt 22:23-33 <em>\/\/<\/em> Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-3; 5:12, 17; 22:30–23:10; the exceptions are Matt 3:7; 16:1-12). • The Sadducees’ question (Mark 12:19-23) was carefully crafted and based on a commandment of Moses (Deut 25:5-6; see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 4:1-22). Since all seven men could not have the woman as wife in the resurrection, and since none of them had a special claim, the Sadducees thought that they had proven the absurdity of the doctrine of the resurrection and refuted the Pharisees and Jesus (cp. Matt 12:41-42; Luke 16:19-31; see also Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:18-27<\/strong> This is the third controversy story of the series begun in 11:27. As in most New Testament references to the <em>Sadducees<\/em><em>,<\/em> the setting is the Temple (Matt 22:23-33 <em>\/\/<\/em> Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-3; 5:12, 17; 22:30–23:10; the exceptions are Matt 3:7; 16:1-12). • The Sadducees’ question (Mark 12:19-23) was carefully crafted and based on a commandment of Moses (Deut 25:5-6; see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 4:1-22). Since all seven men could not have the woman as wife in the resurrection, and since none of them had a special claim, the Sadducees thought that they had proven the absurdity of the doctrine of the resurrection and refuted the Pharisees and Jesus (cp. Matt 12:41-42; Luke 16:19-31; see also Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:18-27 This is the third controversy story of the series begun in 11:27. As in most New Testament references to the Sadducees, the setting is the Temple (Matt 22:23-33 \/\/ Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-3; 5:12, 17; 22:30–23:10; the exceptions are Matt 3:7; 16:1-12). • The Sadducees’ question (Mark 12:19-23) was carefully crafted and based on a commandment of Moses (Deut 25:5-6; see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 4:1-22). Since all seven men could not have the woman as wife in the resurrection, and since none o...","summary_en":"12:18-27 This is the third controversy story of the series begun in 11:27. As in most New Testament references to the Sadducees, the setting is the Temple (Matt 22:23-33 \/\/ Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-3; 5:12, 17; 22:30–23:10; the exceptions are Matt 3:7; 16:1-12). • The Sadducees’ question (Mark 12:19-23) was carefully crafted and based on a commandment of Moses (Deut 25:5-6; see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 4:1-22). Since all seven men could not have the woman as wife in the resurrection, and since none o...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83085,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:18","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:18<\/strong> This is the only place in Mark where the <em>Sadducees<\/em> are mentioned by name, although they are included in references to the leading priests (see 8:31; 10:33; 11:18, 27). Sadducees did not believe in the <em>resurrection from the dead<\/em> (see Acts 4:1-2; 23:8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:18<\/strong> This is the only place in Mark where the <em>Sadducees<\/em> are mentioned by name, although they are included in references to the leading priests (see 8:31; 10:33; 11:18, 27). Sadducees did not believe in the <em>resurrection from the dead<\/em> (see Acts 4:1-2; 23:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:18 This is the only place in Mark where the Sadducees are mentioned by name, although they are included in references to the leading priests (see 8:31; 10:33; 11:18, 27). Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection from the dead (see Acts 4:1-2; 23:8).","summary_en":"12:18 This is the only place in Mark where the Sadducees are mentioned by name, although they are included in references to the leading priests (see 8:31; 10:33; 11:18, 27). Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection from the dead (see Acts 4:1-2; 23:8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110710,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:18","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:18-27<\/strong> This is the third controversy story of the series begun in 11:27. As in most New Testament references to the <em>Sadducees<\/em><em>,<\/em> the setting is the Temple (Matt 22:23-33 <em>\/\/<\/em> Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-3; 5:12, 17; 22:30–23:10; the exceptions are Matt 3:7; 16:1-12). • The Sadducees’ question (Mark 12:19-23) was carefully crafted and based on a commandment of Moses (Deut 25:5-6; see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 4:1-22). Since all seven men could not have the woman as wife in the resurrection, and since none of them had a special claim, the Sadducees thought that they had proven the absurdity of the doctrine of the resurrection and refuted the Pharisees and Jesus (cp. Matt 12:41-42; Luke 16:19-31; see also Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:18-27<\/strong> This is the third controversy story of the series begun in 11:27. As in most New Testament references to the <em>Sadducees<\/em><em>,<\/em> the setting is the Temple (Matt 22:23-33 <em>\/\/<\/em> Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-3; 5:12, 17; 22:30–23:10; the exceptions are Matt 3:7; 16:1-12). • The Sadducees’ question (Mark 12:19-23) was carefully crafted and based on a commandment of Moses (Deut 25:5-6; see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 4:1-22). Since all seven men could not have the woman as wife in the resurrection, and since none of them had a special claim, the Sadducees thought that they had proven the absurdity of the doctrine of the resurrection and refuted the Pharisees and Jesus (cp. Matt 12:41-42; Luke 16:19-31; see also Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:18-27 This is the third controversy story of the series begun in 11:27. As in most New Testament references to the Sadducees, the setting is the Temple (Matt 22:23-33 \/\/ Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-3; 5:12, 17; 22:30–23:10; the exceptions are Matt 3:7; 16:1-12). • The Sadducees’ question (Mark 12:19-23) was carefully crafted and based on a commandment of Moses (Deut 25:5-6; see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 4:1-22). Since all seven men could not have the woman as wife in the resurrection, and since none o...","summary_en":"12:18-27 This is the third controversy story of the series begun in 11:27. As in most New Testament references to the Sadducees, the setting is the Temple (Matt 22:23-33 \/\/ Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-3; 5:12, 17; 22:30–23:10; the exceptions are Matt 3:7; 16:1-12). • The Sadducees’ question (Mark 12:19-23) was carefully crafted and based on a commandment of Moses (Deut 25:5-6; see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 4:1-22). Since all seven men could not have the woman as wife in the resurrection, and since none o...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110711,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:18","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:18<\/strong> This is the only place in Mark where the <em>Sadducees<\/em> are mentioned by name, although they are included in references to the leading priests (see 8:31; 10:33; 11:18, 27). Sadducees did not believe in the <em>resurrection from the dead<\/em> (see Acts 4:1-2; 23:8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:18<\/strong> This is the only place in Mark where the <em>Sadducees<\/em> are mentioned by name, although they are included in references to the leading priests (see 8:31; 10:33; 11:18, 27). Sadducees did not believe in the <em>resurrection from the dead<\/em> (see Acts 4:1-2; 23:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:18 This is the only place in Mark where the Sadducees are mentioned by name, although they are included in references to the leading priests (see 8:31; 10:33; 11:18, 27). Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection from the dead (see Acts 4:1-2; 23:8).","summary_en":"12:18 This is the only place in Mark where the Sadducees are mentioned by name, although they are included in references to the leading priests (see 8:31; 10:33; 11:18, 27). Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection from the dead (see Acts 4:1-2; 23:8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138336,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:18","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:18-27<\/strong> This is the third controversy story of the series begun in 11:27. As in most New Testament references to the <em>Sadducees<\/em><em>,<\/em> the setting is the Temple (Matt 22:23-33 <em>\/\/<\/em> Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-3; 5:12, 17; 22:30–23:10; the exceptions are Matt 3:7; 16:1-12). • The Sadducees’ question (Mark 12:19-23) was carefully crafted and based on a commandment of Moses (Deut 25:5-6; see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 4:1-22). Since all seven men could not have the woman as wife in the resurrection, and since none of them had a special claim, the Sadducees thought that they had proven the absurdity of the doctrine of the resurrection and refuted the Pharisees and Jesus (cp. Matt 12:41-42; Luke 16:19-31; see also Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:18-27<\/strong> This is the third controversy story of the series begun in 11:27. As in most New Testament references to the <em>Sadducees<\/em><em>,<\/em> the setting is the Temple (Matt 22:23-33 <em>\/\/<\/em> Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-3; 5:12, 17; 22:30–23:10; the exceptions are Matt 3:7; 16:1-12). • The Sadducees’ question (Mark 12:19-23) was carefully crafted and based on a commandment of Moses (Deut 25:5-6; see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 4:1-22). Since all seven men could not have the woman as wife in the resurrection, and since none of them had a special claim, the Sadducees thought that they had proven the absurdity of the doctrine of the resurrection and refuted the Pharisees and Jesus (cp. Matt 12:41-42; Luke 16:19-31; see also Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:18-27 This is the third controversy story of the series begun in 11:27. As in most New Testament references to the Sadducees, the setting is the Temple (Matt 22:23-33 \/\/ Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-3; 5:12, 17; 22:30–23:10; the exceptions are Matt 3:7; 16:1-12). • The Sadducees’ question (Mark 12:19-23) was carefully crafted and based on a commandment of Moses (Deut 25:5-6; see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 4:1-22). Since all seven men could not have the woman as wife in the resurrection, and since none o...","summary_en":"12:18-27 This is the third controversy story of the series begun in 11:27. As in most New Testament references to the Sadducees, the setting is the Temple (Matt 22:23-33 \/\/ Luke 20:27-40; Acts 4:1-3; 5:12, 17; 22:30–23:10; the exceptions are Matt 3:7; 16:1-12). • The Sadducees’ question (Mark 12:19-23) was carefully crafted and based on a commandment of Moses (Deut 25:5-6; see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 4:1-22). Since all seven men could not have the woman as wife in the resurrection, and since none o...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138337,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:18","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:18<\/strong> This is the only place in Mark where the <em>Sadducees<\/em> are mentioned by name, although they are included in references to the leading priests (see 8:31; 10:33; 11:18, 27). Sadducees did not believe in the <em>resurrection from the dead<\/em> (see Acts 4:1-2; 23:8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:18<\/strong> This is the only place in Mark where the <em>Sadducees<\/em> are mentioned by name, although they are included in references to the leading priests (see 8:31; 10:33; 11:18, 27). Sadducees did not believe in the <em>resurrection from the dead<\/em> (see Acts 4:1-2; 23:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:18 This is the only place in Mark where the Sadducees are mentioned by name, although they are included in references to the leading priests (see 8:31; 10:33; 11:18, 27). Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection from the dead (see Acts 4:1-2; 23:8).","summary_en":"12:18 This is the only place in Mark where the Sadducees are mentioned by name, although they are included in references to the leading priests (see 8:31; 10:33; 11:18, 27). Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection from the dead (see Acts 4:1-2; 23:8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":67122,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Resurrection of the Dead","title_en":"The Resurrection of the Dead","content_ro":"<h3>The Resurrection of the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp. Heb 12:2). They expected Jesus to return and resurrect their bodies, and they looked forward to living with him forever (1 Pet 1:3-6, 23). Their faith was based on the foundation of Jesus’ own bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15:12-20; Acts 4:33; see also 2 Cor 4:14).<\/p>\n<p>Resurrection bodies will be fundamentally different from the bodies we experience in this life, with all of their limitations and failings. These renewed bodies will be glorious, strong, immortal, and spiritual, like Christ’s own resurrection body (1 Cor 15:35-58).<\/p>\n<p>Because they are already joined to Christ, believers actually begin to experience resurrection existence here and now. They have already been “raised” with Christ; they have already been given “resurrection life” (Rom 6:4-11; 8:10-11; Col 2:12). As a result, their lives are now centered in the spiritual realities of heaven rather than in worldly things (Col 3:1-4). Believers can experience the transforming power of that new life here and now, the new life of the Spirit that frees them from the power of sin and death (Rom 8:1-4). In all the difficulties they face, their trust is not in themselves but in the resurrection power of God (2 Cor 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Job 19:25-27; Pss 16:10; 49:15; Dan 12:2-3; Matt 16:21; 28:1-10; Mark 12:18-27; John 3:13-16; 5:25-30; 6:39-40; 11:21-27; Acts 2:23-24; 3:14-15; 4:33; 10:39-41; 17:2-3; 24:15; 26:22-23; Rom 1:4; 4:25; 6:4-11; 8:10-11; 1 Cor 15:12-58; 2 Cor 1:8-9; 4:13-18; 5:1-10; Eph 1:19-20; Col 2:12; 3:1-4; 1 Thes 4:13-18; 1 Pet 1:3-6, 23; Rev 20:11-15; 21:1-7; 22:1-6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Resurrection of the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp. Heb 12:2). They expected Jesus to return and resurrect their bodies, and they looked forward to living with him forever (1 Pet 1:3-6, 23). Their faith was based on the foundation of Jesus’ own bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15:12-20; Acts 4:33; see also 2 Cor 4:14).<\/p>\n<p>Resurrection bodies will be fundamentally different from the bodies we experience in this life, with all of their limitations and failings. These renewed bodies will be glorious, strong, immortal, and spiritual, like Christ’s own resurrection body (1 Cor 15:35-58).<\/p>\n<p>Because they are already joined to Christ, believers actually begin to experience resurrection existence here and now. They have already been “raised” with Christ; they have already been given “resurrection life” (Rom 6:4-11; 8:10-11; Col 2:12). As a result, their lives are now centered in the spiritual realities of heaven rather than in worldly things (Col 3:1-4). Believers can experience the transforming power of that new life here and now, the new life of the Spirit that frees them from the power of sin and death (Rom 8:1-4). In all the difficulties they face, their trust is not in themselves but in the resurrection power of God (2 Cor 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Job 19:25-27; Pss 16:10; 49:15; Dan 12:2-3; Matt 16:21; 28:1-10; Mark 12:18-27; John 3:13-16; 5:25-30; 6:39-40; 11:21-27; Acts 2:23-24; 3:14-15; 4:33; 10:39-41; 17:2-3; 24:15; 26:22-23; Rom 1:4; 4:25; 6:4-11; 8:10-11; 1 Cor 15:12-58; 2 Cor 1:8-9; 4:13-18; 5:1-10; Eph 1:19-20; Col 2:12; 3:1-4; 1 Thes 4:13-18; 1 Pet 1:3-6, 23; Rev 20:11-15; 21:1-7; 22:1-6<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Resurrection of the Dead Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10). This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp....","summary_en":"The Resurrection of the Dead Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10). This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp....","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":94748,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Resurrection of the Dead","title_en":"The Resurrection of the Dead","content_ro":"<h3>The Resurrection of the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp. Heb 12:2). They expected Jesus to return and resurrect their bodies, and they looked forward to living with him forever (1 Pet 1:3-6, 23). Their faith was based on the foundation of Jesus’ own bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15:12-20; Acts 4:33; see also 2 Cor 4:14).<\/p>\n<p>Resurrection bodies will be fundamentally different from the bodies we experience in this life, with all of their limitations and failings. These renewed bodies will be glorious, strong, immortal, and spiritual, like Christ’s own resurrection body (1 Cor 15:35-58).<\/p>\n<p>Because they are already joined to Christ, believers actually begin to experience resurrection existence here and now. They have already been “raised” with Christ; they have already been given “resurrection life” (Rom 6:4-11; 8:10-11; Col 2:12). As a result, their lives are now centered in the spiritual realities of heaven rather than in worldly things (Col 3:1-4). Believers can experience the transforming power of that new life here and now, the new life of the Spirit that frees them from the power of sin and death (Rom 8:1-4). In all the difficulties they face, their trust is not in themselves but in the resurrection power of God (2 Cor 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Job 19:25-27; Pss 16:10; 49:15; Dan 12:2-3; Matt 16:21; 28:1-10; Mark 12:18-27; John 3:13-16; 5:25-30; 6:39-40; 11:21-27; Acts 2:23-24; 3:14-15; 4:33; 10:39-41; 17:2-3; 24:15; 26:22-23; Rom 1:4; 4:25; 6:4-11; 8:10-11; 1 Cor 15:12-58; 2 Cor 1:8-9; 4:13-18; 5:1-10; Eph 1:19-20; Col 2:12; 3:1-4; 1 Thes 4:13-18; 1 Pet 1:3-6, 23; Rev 20:11-15; 21:1-7; 22:1-6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Resurrection of the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp. Heb 12:2). They expected Jesus to return and resurrect their bodies, and they looked forward to living with him forever (1 Pet 1:3-6, 23). Their faith was based on the foundation of Jesus’ own bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15:12-20; Acts 4:33; see also 2 Cor 4:14).<\/p>\n<p>Resurrection bodies will be fundamentally different from the bodies we experience in this life, with all of their limitations and failings. These renewed bodies will be glorious, strong, immortal, and spiritual, like Christ’s own resurrection body (1 Cor 15:35-58).<\/p>\n<p>Because they are already joined to Christ, believers actually begin to experience resurrection existence here and now. They have already been “raised” with Christ; they have already been given “resurrection life” (Rom 6:4-11; 8:10-11; Col 2:12). As a result, their lives are now centered in the spiritual realities of heaven rather than in worldly things (Col 3:1-4). Believers can experience the transforming power of that new life here and now, the new life of the Spirit that frees them from the power of sin and death (Rom 8:1-4). In all the difficulties they face, their trust is not in themselves but in the resurrection power of God (2 Cor 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Job 19:25-27; Pss 16:10; 49:15; Dan 12:2-3; Matt 16:21; 28:1-10; Mark 12:18-27; John 3:13-16; 5:25-30; 6:39-40; 11:21-27; Acts 2:23-24; 3:14-15; 4:33; 10:39-41; 17:2-3; 24:15; 26:22-23; Rom 1:4; 4:25; 6:4-11; 8:10-11; 1 Cor 15:12-58; 2 Cor 1:8-9; 4:13-18; 5:1-10; Eph 1:19-20; Col 2:12; 3:1-4; 1 Thes 4:13-18; 1 Pet 1:3-6, 23; Rev 20:11-15; 21:1-7; 22:1-6<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Resurrection of the Dead Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10). This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp....","summary_en":"The Resurrection of the Dead Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10). This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp....","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":122374,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Resurrection of the Dead","title_en":"The Resurrection of the Dead","content_ro":"<h3>The Resurrection of the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp. Heb 12:2). They expected Jesus to return and resurrect their bodies, and they looked forward to living with him forever (1 Pet 1:3-6, 23). Their faith was based on the foundation of Jesus’ own bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15:12-20; Acts 4:33; see also 2 Cor 4:14).<\/p>\n<p>Resurrection bodies will be fundamentally different from the bodies we experience in this life, with all of their limitations and failings. These renewed bodies will be glorious, strong, immortal, and spiritual, like Christ’s own resurrection body (1 Cor 15:35-58).<\/p>\n<p>Because they are already joined to Christ, believers actually begin to experience resurrection existence here and now. They have already been “raised” with Christ; they have already been given “resurrection life” (Rom 6:4-11; 8:10-11; Col 2:12). As a result, their lives are now centered in the spiritual realities of heaven rather than in worldly things (Col 3:1-4). Believers can experience the transforming power of that new life here and now, the new life of the Spirit that frees them from the power of sin and death (Rom 8:1-4). In all the difficulties they face, their trust is not in themselves but in the resurrection power of God (2 Cor 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Job 19:25-27; Pss 16:10; 49:15; Dan 12:2-3; Matt 16:21; 28:1-10; Mark 12:18-27; John 3:13-16; 5:25-30; 6:39-40; 11:21-27; Acts 2:23-24; 3:14-15; 4:33; 10:39-41; 17:2-3; 24:15; 26:22-23; Rom 1:4; 4:25; 6:4-11; 8:10-11; 1 Cor 15:12-58; 2 Cor 1:8-9; 4:13-18; 5:1-10; Eph 1:19-20; Col 2:12; 3:1-4; 1 Thes 4:13-18; 1 Pet 1:3-6, 23; Rev 20:11-15; 21:1-7; 22:1-6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Resurrection of the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp. Heb 12:2). They expected Jesus to return and resurrect their bodies, and they looked forward to living with him forever (1 Pet 1:3-6, 23). Their faith was based on the foundation of Jesus’ own bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15:12-20; Acts 4:33; see also 2 Cor 4:14).<\/p>\n<p>Resurrection bodies will be fundamentally different from the bodies we experience in this life, with all of their limitations and failings. These renewed bodies will be glorious, strong, immortal, and spiritual, like Christ’s own resurrection body (1 Cor 15:35-58).<\/p>\n<p>Because they are already joined to Christ, believers actually begin to experience resurrection existence here and now. They have already been “raised” with Christ; they have already been given “resurrection life” (Rom 6:4-11; 8:10-11; Col 2:12). As a result, their lives are now centered in the spiritual realities of heaven rather than in worldly things (Col 3:1-4). Believers can experience the transforming power of that new life here and now, the new life of the Spirit that frees them from the power of sin and death (Rom 8:1-4). In all the difficulties they face, their trust is not in themselves but in the resurrection power of God (2 Cor 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Job 19:25-27; Pss 16:10; 49:15; Dan 12:2-3; Matt 16:21; 28:1-10; Mark 12:18-27; John 3:13-16; 5:25-30; 6:39-40; 11:21-27; Acts 2:23-24; 3:14-15; 4:33; 10:39-41; 17:2-3; 24:15; 26:22-23; Rom 1:4; 4:25; 6:4-11; 8:10-11; 1 Cor 15:12-58; 2 Cor 1:8-9; 4:13-18; 5:1-10; Eph 1:19-20; Col 2:12; 3:1-4; 1 Thes 4:13-18; 1 Pet 1:3-6, 23; Rev 20:11-15; 21:1-7; 22:1-6<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Resurrection of the Dead Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10). This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp....","summary_en":"The Resurrection of the Dead Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10). This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp....","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":150000,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Resurrection of the Dead","title_en":"The Resurrection of the Dead","content_ro":"<h3>The Resurrection of the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp. Heb 12:2). They expected Jesus to return and resurrect their bodies, and they looked forward to living with him forever (1 Pet 1:3-6, 23). Their faith was based on the foundation of Jesus’ own bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15:12-20; Acts 4:33; see also 2 Cor 4:14).<\/p>\n<p>Resurrection bodies will be fundamentally different from the bodies we experience in this life, with all of their limitations and failings. These renewed bodies will be glorious, strong, immortal, and spiritual, like Christ’s own resurrection body (1 Cor 15:35-58).<\/p>\n<p>Because they are already joined to Christ, believers actually begin to experience resurrection existence here and now. They have already been “raised” with Christ; they have already been given “resurrection life” (Rom 6:4-11; 8:10-11; Col 2:12). As a result, their lives are now centered in the spiritual realities of heaven rather than in worldly things (Col 3:1-4). Believers can experience the transforming power of that new life here and now, the new life of the Spirit that frees them from the power of sin and death (Rom 8:1-4). In all the difficulties they face, their trust is not in themselves but in the resurrection power of God (2 Cor 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Job 19:25-27; Pss 16:10; 49:15; Dan 12:2-3; Matt 16:21; 28:1-10; Mark 12:18-27; John 3:13-16; 5:25-30; 6:39-40; 11:21-27; Acts 2:23-24; 3:14-15; 4:33; 10:39-41; 17:2-3; 24:15; 26:22-23; Rom 1:4; 4:25; 6:4-11; 8:10-11; 1 Cor 15:12-58; 2 Cor 1:8-9; 4:13-18; 5:1-10; Eph 1:19-20; Col 2:12; 3:1-4; 1 Thes 4:13-18; 1 Pet 1:3-6, 23; Rev 20:11-15; 21:1-7; 22:1-6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Resurrection of the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp. Heb 12:2). They expected Jesus to return and resurrect their bodies, and they looked forward to living with him forever (1 Pet 1:3-6, 23). Their faith was based on the foundation of Jesus’ own bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15:12-20; Acts 4:33; see also 2 Cor 4:14).<\/p>\n<p>Resurrection bodies will be fundamentally different from the bodies we experience in this life, with all of their limitations and failings. These renewed bodies will be glorious, strong, immortal, and spiritual, like Christ’s own resurrection body (1 Cor 15:35-58).<\/p>\n<p>Because they are already joined to Christ, believers actually begin to experience resurrection existence here and now. They have already been “raised” with Christ; they have already been given “resurrection life” (Rom 6:4-11; 8:10-11; Col 2:12). As a result, their lives are now centered in the spiritual realities of heaven rather than in worldly things (Col 3:1-4). Believers can experience the transforming power of that new life here and now, the new life of the Spirit that frees them from the power of sin and death (Rom 8:1-4). In all the difficulties they face, their trust is not in themselves but in the resurrection power of God (2 Cor 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Job 19:25-27; Pss 16:10; 49:15; Dan 12:2-3; Matt 16:21; 28:1-10; Mark 12:18-27; John 3:13-16; 5:25-30; 6:39-40; 11:21-27; Acts 2:23-24; 3:14-15; 4:33; 10:39-41; 17:2-3; 24:15; 26:22-23; Rom 1:4; 4:25; 6:4-11; 8:10-11; 1 Cor 15:12-58; 2 Cor 1:8-9; 4:13-18; 5:1-10; Eph 1:19-20; Col 2:12; 3:1-4; 1 Thes 4:13-18; 1 Pet 1:3-6, 23; Rev 20:11-15; 21:1-7; 22:1-6<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Resurrection of the Dead Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10). This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp....","summary_en":"The Resurrection of the Dead Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10). This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp....","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"19":[{"id":16279,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Family* Herod, Herodian","title_en":"Family* Herod, Herodian","content_ro":"<h3>HEROD, HERODIAN FAMILY*<\/h3>\n<p>Political rulers during the lifetime of Christ. Christ was born when Herod the Great was ruling. Herod’s son Herod Antipas was the ruler of Galilee and Perea, the territories in which Jesus and John the Baptist carried out most of their ministries. It was this ruler who beheaded John the Baptist and tried Christ just before his death. Herod Agrippa I is the persecutor of the church in Acts 12, and Herod Agrippa II heard Paul’s testimony (Acts 26) just before he went to Rome to be tried by Caesar. Without a knowledge of the Herodian family, one can hardly have a proper understanding of the times of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Herodian Dynasty<\/p>\n<p>• Herod the Great<\/p>\n<p>• Archelaus<\/p>\n<p>• Antipas<\/p>\n<p>• Philip the Tetrarch<\/p>\n<p>• Agrippa I<\/p>\n<p>• Agrippa II<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHerodianDynasty\">The Herodian Dynasty (67–47 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>The Herodian dynasty became prominent during the confusion that resulted in the decay of the Hasmonean dynasty, the transference of Syria and Palestine to Roman rule, and the civil wars that marked the decay of the nation. Much of what we know about the Herods comes from the historian Josephus’s writings: <em>Antiquities of the Jews<\/em> and <em>The Jewish War.<\/em><\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodtheGreat\">Herod the Great (47–4 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<h5>As Governor of Galilee (47–37 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/h5>\n<p>Herod the Great became governor of Galilee at 25 years of age. Although he gained the respect of both the Romans and the Galilean Jews for quickly capturing and executing the bandit leader Ezekias, some in Hyrcanus’s court thought that he was becoming too powerful and arranged to have him brought to trial. He was acquitted and released and thereafter fled to Sextus Caesar at Damascus. Sextus Caesar, governor of Syria, appointed Herod governor of Coele-Syria, and thus he became involved with Roman affairs in Syria. He remained in this position under a series of rulers and was successful in collecting taxes and suppressing various revolts. Thus, in 41 <span>BC<\/span> when Antony came to power under Octavius Caesar, after asking the advice of Hyrcanus II, Sextus appointed Herod and Phasael as tetrarchs of Judea.<\/p>\n<h5>As King (37–4 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/h5>\n<p>The reign of Herod is divided by most scholars into three periods: (1) consolidation from 37 to 25 <span>BC<\/span>; (2) prosperity from 25 to 13 <span>BC<\/span>; and (3) domestic troubles from 13 to 4 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The period of consolidation extended from his accession as king in 37 <span>BC<\/span> to the death of the sons of Babas, the last male representatives of the Hasmonean family. During this period, he had to contend with many powerful adversaries.<\/p>\n<p>The first adversaries, the people and the Pharisees, objected to his being an Idumean, a half Jew, and a friend of the Romans. Those who opposed him were punished, and those who took his side were rewarded with favors and honors.<\/p>\n<p>The second adversaries were those of the aristocracy who sided with Antigonus. Herod had executed 45 of the wealthiest and had confiscated their properties to replenish his own coffers.<\/p>\n<p>The third group of adversaries was the Hasmonean family. Herod’s chief problem was his mother-in-law, Alexandra. She was upset that he had not appointed another Hasmonean to the high priesthood to replace Hyrcanus, specifically her son Aristobulus. She wrote to Cleopatra, asking her to influence Antony to force Herod to remove the appointed high priest, Ananel, and replace him with Aristobulus. Finally, Herod gave way to the pressure. In the end, after a celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles, Herod had Aristobulus drowned, making it look like an accident. Herod put Alexandra in chains and placed her under guard to keep her from causing him more trouble.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s fourth adversary was Cleopatra. When civil war broke out between Antony and Octavius, Herod wanted to help Antony. But Cleopatra persuaded Antony to set Herod in battle against the Arabian king Malchus, who had failed to pay tribute to her. When she saw Herod winning, she ordered her troops to help Malchus, hoping to weaken both parties to the breaking point so that she could absorb them both. After a catastrophic earthquake in his domain in 31 <span>BC<\/span>, Herod defeated the Arabs and returned home. Soon after, on September 2, 31 <span>BC<\/span>, Octavius defeated Antony in the Battle of Actium, resulting in the suicides of Antony and Cleopatra.<\/p>\n<p>The second period of Herod’s reign was one of prosperity (25–14 <span>BC<\/span>). It was a period of splendor and enjoyment interrupted by occasional disturbances. According to Josephus, the most noble of all Herod’s achievements was the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, begun in 20\/19 <span>BC<\/span> (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 15.8.1). Rabbinic literature claims, “He who has not seen the Temple of Herod has never seen a beautiful building” (Babylonian Talmud: <em>Baba Bathra<\/em> 4a). Prior to this, he had built theaters, amphitheaters, and racecourses for both men and horses. In 24 <span>BC<\/span> Herod built himself a royal palace and built or rebuilt many fortresses and gentile temples, including Strato’s Tower, later renamed Caesarea.<\/p>\n<p>During this time, he became very interested in culture and gathered around him men accomplished in Greek literature and art. Greek rhetoricians were appointed to the highest offices of the state. One of these was Nicolas of Damascus, Herod’s instructor and adviser in philosophy, rhetoric, and history. In late 24 <span>BC<\/span> he married Mariamne, daughter of Simon, a well-known priest in Jerusalem (she will be referred to as Mariamne II).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, Herod’s rule was favorably accepted by the people. They were annoyed, however, by two things. First, he violated Jewish law by his introduction of the quinquennial games in honor of Caesar; and second, he built theaters and racecourses. He demanded a loyalty oath from his subjects, except for a privileged few. Also, he would not allow them to congregate freely for fear of a revolt. Despite these things, he had good control of the people and twice favored them by lowering taxes (in 14 <span>BC<\/span> he reduced taxes by one-fourth).<\/p>\n<p>The third period of Herod’s rule was clearly marked by domestic troubles (13–4 <span>BC<\/span>). By now he had married ten wives. His first wife, Doris, had only one son, Antipater. He repudiated Doris and Antipater when he married Mariamne I, allowing them to visit Jerusalem only during the festivals. He married Mariamne I in 37 <span>BC<\/span>. She was the granddaughter of Hyrcanus and had five children, two daughters and three sons. The youngest son died while in Rome, and the remaining two sons were to play an important role in this part of Herod’s reign. In late 24 <span>BC<\/span> he married his third wife, Mariamne II, to whom one child was born, Herod (Philip). Malthace, his fourth wife, was a Samaritan and mother of two sons, Archelaus and Antipas. His fifth wife, Cleopatra of Jerusalem, was the mother of Philip the tetrarch. Of the remaining five wives, only Pallas, Phaedra, and Elpsis are known by name, and none played a significant part in the events of this period.<\/p>\n<p>Alexander and Aristobulus, the sons of Mariamne I, were his favorites. Immediately following their own marriages, troubles began within the Herodian household. Salome, Herod’s sister and mother of Berenice (wife of Aristobulus), hated these two sons, mainly because she wanted the position and favor they enjoyed for her own son. Herod decided to recall his exiled son Antipater to show Alexander and Aristobulus there was another heir to the throne. Antipater took full advantage of the situation and used every conceivable means to acquire the coveted throne. Finally, a man of bad character, Eurycles from Lacedaemon, took it upon himself to inflame the father against his two sons and vice versa. Soon other mischief makers joined Eurycles, and Herod’s patience became exhausted. He put Alexander and Aristobulus in prison and named Antipater heir.<\/p>\n<p>In his impatience to gain the throne, Antipater attempted to poison Herod. This plot failed when Pheroras, Herod’s brother, drank the poison by mistake. Herod put Antipater in prison and reported the matter to the emperor (c. 5 <span>BC<\/span>). At this time Herod became very ill with an incurable disease. He drew up a new will that bypassed his older sons, Archelaus and Philip, because Antipater had poisoned his mind against them also. He chose his youngest son, Antipas, as his sole successor.<\/p>\n<p>It was during this time that the wise men arrived in Judea, searching for the newborn king of the Jews. Herod instructed them to report to him the whereabouts of this child as soon as they found him. Being warned in a dream, they did not do so, but rather returned to their homes by another route. God warned Joseph (husband of the mother of Jesus) to flee to Egypt because of Herod’s intention to kill Jesus. Joseph took his family and left Bethlehem. Shortly after, Herod killed all the male children in Bethlehem who were two years old and under.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s disease grew increasingly worse. Permission came from Rome to execute Antipater, which he promptly did. He again altered his will, making Archelaus king of Judea, Idumea, and Samaria; Antipas tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and Philip tetrarch of territories east of Galilee. On the fifth day after Antipater’s execution, Herod died at Jericho in the spring of 4 <span>BC<\/span>. The people acclaimed Archelaus as their king.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Archelaus\">Archelaus (4 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 6)<\/p>\n<p>Archelaus was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace (a Samaritan) and was born around 22 <span>BC<\/span>. Archelaus was faced with a multitude of problems. He had killed 3,000 people in putting down a revolution led by people avenging the blood of those killed by his father, Herod. Thus his rule got off to a bad start. At Pentecost in 4 <span>BC<\/span>, another revolt broke out, which lasted about two and a half months and during which the temple porticoes were burned and the treasury was pillaged by the Romans. This unrest spread to the countryside of Judea and to Galilee and Perea.<\/p>\n<p>Archelaus treated both the Jews and the Samaritans brutally (<em>War<\/em> 2.7.3), a fact borne out by the Gospels. When Joseph returned from his flight to Egypt and learned that Archelaus was ruling Judea, he was afraid to go there and was warned against it by God; he took the infant Jesus to Galilee instead (Mt 2:22).<\/p>\n<p>Archelaus’s tyranny finally caused the Jews and Samaritans to send a delegation to Rome and complain formally to Augustus. The fact that such bitter enemies as the Jews and Samaritans could cooperate in this matter indicates the serious nature of the complaint. Antipas and Philip also went to Rome to complain about him. Presumably they resented his neglect as their Roman representative for Palestine. Thus in <span>AD<\/span> 6 Archelaus was deposed and exiled to Vienna in Gaul (modern Vienne on the Rhône, south of Lyons). Antipas and Philip were allowed to continue their respective rules, and Archelaus’s territories were reduced to a province ruled by prefects or procurators.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Antipas\">Antipas (4 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 39)<\/p>\n<p>Antipas was the younger brother of Archelaus, born around 20 <span>BC<\/span>. Of all the Herodians, he is mentioned most in the NT because he ruled over Galilee and Perea, where both Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\n<p>Antipas’s domain was in turmoil caused by the rebellion begun at Pentecost in 4 <span>BC<\/span>. He immediately set out to restore order and rebuild what had been destroyed. Following the example of his father, Herod the Great, Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris was his first project; it was the largest city in Galilee and his capital city until he built Tiberias. Since Nazareth was only four miles (6.4 kilometers) south-southeast of Sepphoris, it is quite possible that Joseph, Mary’s husband, was employed as a carpenter (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3) to help rebuild that city.<\/p>\n<p>Of the 12 cities built by the Herodian family, Tiberias is the most important. It was the first city in Jewish history to be founded with the municipal framework of a Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">polis<\/span><em>.<\/em> It was built in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius. Due to the fact that a cemetery was destroyed in the process of building, Tiberias was considered unclean by the Jews. Antipas offered free houses, land and tax exemptions for the first few years to anyone who would move into the city. He completed the city in <span>AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\n<p>In the Christian world the incident for which Antipas is most remembered is his beheading of John the Baptist (Mt 14:3-12; Mk 6:17-29; Lk 3:19-20; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2.116-119). There was a tangle of family events leading up to the death of John the Baptist. Antipas had married the daughter of Aretas IV (the daughter’s name is unknown). Aretas IV was the Nabatean king, and Augustus may have encouraged this marriage since he favored intermarriages between various rulers to promote peace in his empire.<\/p>\n<p>Around <span>AD<\/span> 29 Antipas took a trip to Rome, and on the way he paid a visit to his half brother Herod Philip, who must have lived in a coastal city in Palestine. Antipas fell in love with Herodias, Philip’s wife, who was also Antipas’s niece. The idea of becoming the wife of a tetrarch appealed to her, and she agreed to marry him when he returned from Rome if he would oust Aretas’s daughter. Antipas agreed to the plan, and when Aretas’s daughter heard of it, she fled to her father. This was a breach of political alliance as well as a personal insult, which led to retaliation by Aretas.<\/p>\n<p>The marriage of Antipas and Herodias was in violation of the Mosaic law that forbade marriage to a brother’s wife (Lv 18:16; 20:21) except in order to raise children for a deceased childless brother by a levirate marriage (Dt 25:5; Mk 12:19). In this case, Philip not only had a child, Salome, but he was still alive. This is the situation that John the Baptist spoke so boldly against, and Antipas threw him in prison. Herodias’s hatred of John the Baptist was too great merely to settle for his incarceration. At an appropriate time, possibly Antipas’s birthday, she planned a banquet at Machaerus in Perea. Her daughter, Salome, danced for the king, and in an impulsive moment Antipas promised her under oath that he would give her anything, up to half of his kingdom. Following her mother’s advice, she asked for John the Baptist’s head on a platter. Immediately Antipas was sorry for his rash promise, but in order to save face in the presence of his underlords, he granted the request. Thus, John’s ministry ended around <span>AD<\/span> 31 or 32.<\/p>\n<p>There are three specific times when Antipas and Jesus are mentioned together in the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Early in Jesus’ ministry Antipas heard of him and commented, perhaps with irony, that Jesus was John the Baptist resurrected (Mt 14:1-2; Mk 6:14-16; Lk 9:7-9). It was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s, but he was reluctant to use force to bring about the meeting for fear of once more arousing the people against him. Eventually, Jesus withdrew from Antipas’s territories without the two meeting.<\/p>\n<p>Later, as Jesus became more popular, Antipas saw a potential threat to his own power and threatened to kill Jesus. Thus it was that on Jesus’ final trip to Jerusalem he was warned by some of the Pharisees that he should leave Antipas’s territories for his own safety (Lk 13:31-33). Jesus sent as answer to “that fox” that he would continue his ministry of healing and casting out demons for a little longer, and when he had finished, he would then go to Jerusalem to die. The lion and fox were often contrasted in ancient literature. The Lion of Judah, Jesus Christ, was not going to be coerced by the crafty coward, Antipas.<\/p>\n<p>The final encounter between the two occurred when Jesus was tried by Antipas in <span>AD<\/span> 33 (Lk 23:6-12). Since this event is mentioned only by Luke, some scholars consider it legendary. It must be remembered, however, that Luke’s addressee was Theophilus, probably a Roman officer, who would be especially interested in the reconciliation between Pilate and Antipas mentioned in this passage.<\/p>\n<p>According to Luke’s account, when Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, he sent him to Antipas (who was celebrating the Passover in Jerusalem). Pilate thus freed himself from an awkward situation. A more subtle reason may have been to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Lk 13:1), and because Pilate brought votive shields into Jerusalem, arousing the anger of the Jews (Philo’s <em>Legatio ad Gaium<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, the ruler only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate. The main political accomplishment of the incident was Antipas and Pilate’s reconciliation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PhiliptheTetrarch\">Philip the Tetrarch (4 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 34)<\/p>\n<p>Philip the tetrarch was the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem and was born around 22 <span>BC<\/span>. When Herod’s will was resolved, Philip was made tetrarch over Gaulanitis, Auranitis, Batanea, Trachonitis, and Iturea, all in the northern part of Herod the Great’s domain (Lk 3:1). His subjects were mainly Syrian and Greek. Thus he was the first and only Herodian to have his image on his coins.<\/p>\n<p>He built two cities. First, he rebuilt and enlarged Paneas and renamed it Caesarea Philippi. Here Peter made his confession of faith to Jesus and was given the revelation of the church (Mt 16:13-20; Mk 8:27-30). Next, he rebuilt and enlarged Bethsaida and renamed it Julias. Here Jesus healed the blind man (Mk 8:22-26), and in a nearby desert place he fed the 5,000 (Lk 9:10-17).<\/p>\n<p>Philip was not as politically ambitious as his brothers. His rule was marked by tranquility and the loyalty of his subjects. When Philip died in <span>AD<\/span> 34, Tiberius annexed his territories to Syria. After Caligula became emperor in <span>AD<\/span> 37, he gave the territories to Agrippa I, brother of Herodias.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AgrippaI\">Agrippa I (<span>AD<\/span> 37–44)<\/p>\n\n<p>Agrippa I was the son of Aristobulus (son of Herod the Great and Mariamne I) and Berenice. He was born in 10 <span>BC<\/span> and was the brother of Herodias.<\/p>\n<p>Agrippa I might be considered the black sheep of the Herodian family. While at school in Rome, he lived a wanton life, incurring many debts. In Rome he became a friend of Gaius Caligula and at one point stated that he wished Caligula were king rather than Tiberius. This was overheard and reported to Tiberius, who imprisoned him. He remained in prison until Tiberius’s death six months later.<\/p>\n<p>Upon Caligula’s accession to the throne, he released Agrippa and gave him Philip the tetrarch’s territories and the northern part of Lysanias’s territory as well as the title of king. The title of king aroused the jealousy of his sister Herodias, and that eventually led to her husband, Antipas’s, downfall. At that time (<span>AD<\/span> 39) Agrippa acquired all of Antipas’s territories and property.<\/p>\n<p>When Caligula died in <span>AD<\/span> 41, Agrippa curried the favor of the new emperor Claudius, whereupon Claudius added Judea and Samaria to Agrippa’s territory. This territory was once ruled by Agrippa’s grandfather, Herod the Great.<\/p>\n<p>Agrippa I is mentioned in the NT for his persecution of the early church in order to gain favor with the Jews (Acts 12:1-19). He killed James, the son of Zebedee, and imprisoned Peter. When Peter was released by an angel, Agrippa put the sentries to death.<\/p>\n<p>Agrippa died in <span>AD<\/span> 44 in Caesarea. Accounts of this incident are recorded both by Josephus (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 19.9.1.274–275; <em>War<\/em> 2.11.5.214–215) and the Scriptures. The incident occurred at Caesarea; he was wearing a sparkling silver robe, and when the people flattered him by calling him a god, he was suddenly struck with a mortal illness and died a horrible death. He was survived by his daughters, Bernice, Mariamne, and Drusilla, and by a son, Agrippa, who was 17 at the time. Because of Agrippa II’s youth, his father’s territories were temporarily made a province.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AgrippaII\">Agrippa II (<span>AD<\/span> 50–100)<\/p>\n<p>Agrippa II was the son of Agrippa I and Cypros. In <span>AD<\/span> 50, six years after his father’s death, Claudius made him king of Chalcis.<\/p>\n<p>Agrippa II was in control of the temple treasury and the vestments of the high priest and thus could appoint the high priest. The Romans consulted him on religious matters, which is probably why Festus asked him to hear the apostle Paul at Caesarea (<span>AD<\/span> 59), where he was accompanied by his sister Bernice (Acts 25–26).<\/p>\n<p>In May <span>AD<\/span> 66 the Palestinian revolution began (<em>War<\/em> 2.14.4.284). When Agrippa’s attempt to quell the revolt failed, he became a staunch ally of the Romans throughout the entire war (<span>AD<\/span> 66–70). During this time, Nero committed suicide, the new emperor Galba was murdered, and Vespasian became the emperor. After pledging his allegiance to the new emperor, Agrippa remained with Titus, Vespasian’s son, who was in charge of the war (Tacitus’s <em>History<\/em> 5.81). After the fall of Jerusalem (August 6, <span>AD<\/span> 70), Agrippa was probably present to celebrate the destruction of his own people.<\/p>\n<p>Following this, Vespasian added new territories to Agrippa’s kingdom, though just which ones is not known. In <span>AD<\/span> 79 Vespasian died and Titus became emperor. Little is known of Agrippa’s rule after this, except that he wrote to the historian Josephus praising him for <em>The Jewish War,<\/em> and he purchased a copy of it (Josephus’s <em>Life<\/em> 65.361–367; <em>Apion<\/em> 1.9.47–52).<\/p>\n<p>Although the Talmud implies that Agrippa II had two wives (Babylonian Talmud: <em>Sukkah<\/em> 27a), Josephus gives no indication that he had any wives or children. Rather, he was known for his incestuous relationship with his sister Bernice. He died around <span>AD<\/span> 100. His death marked the end of the Herodian dynasty.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Herodians; Judaism.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEROD, HERODIAN FAMILY*<\/h3>\n<p>Political rulers during the lifetime of Christ. Christ was born when Herod the Great was ruling. Herod’s son Herod Antipas was the ruler of Galilee and Perea, the territories in which Jesus and John the Baptist carried out most of their ministries. It was this ruler who beheaded John the Baptist and tried Christ just before his death. Herod Agrippa I is the persecutor of the church in Acts 12, and Herod Agrippa II heard Paul’s testimony (Acts 26) just before he went to Rome to be tried by Caesar. Without a knowledge of the Herodian family, one can hardly have a proper understanding of the times of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Herodian Dynasty<\/p>\n<p>• Herod the Great<\/p>\n<p>• Archelaus<\/p>\n<p>• Antipas<\/p>\n<p>• Philip the Tetrarch<\/p>\n<p>• Agrippa I<\/p>\n<p>• Agrippa II<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHerodianDynasty\">The Herodian Dynasty (67–47 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>The Herodian dynasty became prominent during the confusion that resulted in the decay of the Hasmonean dynasty, the transference of Syria and Palestine to Roman rule, and the civil wars that marked the decay of the nation. Much of what we know about the Herods comes from the historian Josephus’s writings: <em>Antiquities of the Jews<\/em> and <em>The Jewish War.<\/em><\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodtheGreat\">Herod the Great (47–4 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<h5>As Governor of Galilee (47–37 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/h5>\n<p>Herod the Great became governor of Galilee at 25 years of age. Although he gained the respect of both the Romans and the Galilean Jews for quickly capturing and executing the bandit leader Ezekias, some in Hyrcanus’s court thought that he was becoming too powerful and arranged to have him brought to trial. He was acquitted and released and thereafter fled to Sextus Caesar at Damascus. Sextus Caesar, governor of Syria, appointed Herod governor of Coele-Syria, and thus he became involved with Roman affairs in Syria. He remained in this position under a series of rulers and was successful in collecting taxes and suppressing various revolts. Thus, in 41 <span>BC<\/span> when Antony came to power under Octavius Caesar, after asking the advice of Hyrcanus II, Sextus appointed Herod and Phasael as tetrarchs of Judea.<\/p>\n<h5>As King (37–4 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/h5>\n<p>The reign of Herod is divided by most scholars into three periods: (1) consolidation from 37 to 25 <span>BC<\/span>; (2) prosperity from 25 to 13 <span>BC<\/span>; and (3) domestic troubles from 13 to 4 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The period of consolidation extended from his accession as king in 37 <span>BC<\/span> to the death of the sons of Babas, the last male representatives of the Hasmonean family. During this period, he had to contend with many powerful adversaries.<\/p>\n<p>The first adversaries, the people and the Pharisees, objected to his being an Idumean, a half Jew, and a friend of the Romans. Those who opposed him were punished, and those who took his side were rewarded with favors and honors.<\/p>\n<p>The second adversaries were those of the aristocracy who sided with Antigonus. Herod had executed 45 of the wealthiest and had confiscated their properties to replenish his own coffers.<\/p>\n<p>The third group of adversaries was the Hasmonean family. Herod’s chief problem was his mother-in-law, Alexandra. She was upset that he had not appointed another Hasmonean to the high priesthood to replace Hyrcanus, specifically her son Aristobulus. She wrote to Cleopatra, asking her to influence Antony to force Herod to remove the appointed high priest, Ananel, and replace him with Aristobulus. Finally, Herod gave way to the pressure. In the end, after a celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles, Herod had Aristobulus drowned, making it look like an accident. Herod put Alexandra in chains and placed her under guard to keep her from causing him more trouble.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s fourth adversary was Cleopatra. When civil war broke out between Antony and Octavius, Herod wanted to help Antony. But Cleopatra persuaded Antony to set Herod in battle against the Arabian king Malchus, who had failed to pay tribute to her. When she saw Herod winning, she ordered her troops to help Malchus, hoping to weaken both parties to the breaking point so that she could absorb them both. After a catastrophic earthquake in his domain in 31 <span>BC<\/span>, Herod defeated the Arabs and returned home. Soon after, on September 2, 31 <span>BC<\/span>, Octavius defeated Antony in the Battle of Actium, resulting in the suicides of Antony and Cleopatra.<\/p>\n<p>The second period of Herod’s reign was one of prosperity (25–14 <span>BC<\/span>). It was a period of splendor and enjoyment interrupted by occasional disturbances. According to Josephus, the most noble of all Herod’s achievements was the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, begun in 20\/19 <span>BC<\/span> (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 15.8.1). Rabbinic literature claims, “He who has not seen the Temple of Herod has never seen a beautiful building” (Babylonian Talmud: <em>Baba Bathra<\/em> 4a). Prior to this, he had built theaters, amphitheaters, and racecourses for both men and horses. In 24 <span>BC<\/span> Herod built himself a royal palace and built or rebuilt many fortresses and gentile temples, including Strato’s Tower, later renamed Caesarea.<\/p>\n<p>During this time, he became very interested in culture and gathered around him men accomplished in Greek literature and art. Greek rhetoricians were appointed to the highest offices of the state. One of these was Nicolas of Damascus, Herod’s instructor and adviser in philosophy, rhetoric, and history. In late 24 <span>BC<\/span> he married Mariamne, daughter of Simon, a well-known priest in Jerusalem (she will be referred to as Mariamne II).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, Herod’s rule was favorably accepted by the people. They were annoyed, however, by two things. First, he violated Jewish law by his introduction of the quinquennial games in honor of Caesar; and second, he built theaters and racecourses. He demanded a loyalty oath from his subjects, except for a privileged few. Also, he would not allow them to congregate freely for fear of a revolt. Despite these things, he had good control of the people and twice favored them by lowering taxes (in 14 <span>BC<\/span> he reduced taxes by one-fourth).<\/p>\n<p>The third period of Herod’s rule was clearly marked by domestic troubles (13–4 <span>BC<\/span>). By now he had married ten wives. His first wife, Doris, had only one son, Antipater. He repudiated Doris and Antipater when he married Mariamne I, allowing them to visit Jerusalem only during the festivals. He married Mariamne I in 37 <span>BC<\/span>. She was the granddaughter of Hyrcanus and had five children, two daughters and three sons. The youngest son died while in Rome, and the remaining two sons were to play an important role in this part of Herod’s reign. In late 24 <span>BC<\/span> he married his third wife, Mariamne II, to whom one child was born, Herod (Philip). Malthace, his fourth wife, was a Samaritan and mother of two sons, Archelaus and Antipas. His fifth wife, Cleopatra of Jerusalem, was the mother of Philip the tetrarch. Of the remaining five wives, only Pallas, Phaedra, and Elpsis are known by name, and none played a significant part in the events of this period.<\/p>\n<p>Alexander and Aristobulus, the sons of Mariamne I, were his favorites. Immediately following their own marriages, troubles began within the Herodian household. Salome, Herod’s sister and mother of Berenice (wife of Aristobulus), hated these two sons, mainly because she wanted the position and favor they enjoyed for her own son. Herod decided to recall his exiled son Antipater to show Alexander and Aristobulus there was another heir to the throne. Antipater took full advantage of the situation and used every conceivable means to acquire the coveted throne. Finally, a man of bad character, Eurycles from Lacedaemon, took it upon himself to inflame the father against his two sons and vice versa. Soon other mischief makers joined Eurycles, and Herod’s patience became exhausted. He put Alexander and Aristobulus in prison and named Antipater heir.<\/p>\n<p>In his impatience to gain the throne, Antipater attempted to poison Herod. This plot failed when Pheroras, Herod’s brother, drank the poison by mistake. Herod put Antipater in prison and reported the matter to the emperor (c. 5 <span>BC<\/span>). At this time Herod became very ill with an incurable disease. He drew up a new will that bypassed his older sons, Archelaus and Philip, because Antipater had poisoned his mind against them also. He chose his youngest son, Antipas, as his sole successor.<\/p>\n<p>It was during this time that the wise men arrived in Judea, searching for the newborn king of the Jews. Herod instructed them to report to him the whereabouts of this child as soon as they found him. Being warned in a dream, they did not do so, but rather returned to their homes by another route. God warned Joseph (husband of the mother of Jesus) to flee to Egypt because of Herod’s intention to kill Jesus. Joseph took his family and left Bethlehem. Shortly after, Herod killed all the male children in Bethlehem who were two years old and under.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s disease grew increasingly worse. Permission came from Rome to execute Antipater, which he promptly did. He again altered his will, making Archelaus king of Judea, Idumea, and Samaria; Antipas tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and Philip tetrarch of territories east of Galilee. On the fifth day after Antipater’s execution, Herod died at Jericho in the spring of 4 <span>BC<\/span>. The people acclaimed Archelaus as their king.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Archelaus\">Archelaus (4 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 6)<\/p>\n<p>Archelaus was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace (a Samaritan) and was born around 22 <span>BC<\/span>. Archelaus was faced with a multitude of problems. He had killed 3,000 people in putting down a revolution led by people avenging the blood of those killed by his father, Herod. Thus his rule got off to a bad start. At Pentecost in 4 <span>BC<\/span>, another revolt broke out, which lasted about two and a half months and during which the temple porticoes were burned and the treasury was pillaged by the Romans. This unrest spread to the countryside of Judea and to Galilee and Perea.<\/p>\n<p>Archelaus treated both the Jews and the Samaritans brutally (<em>War<\/em> 2.7.3), a fact borne out by the Gospels. When Joseph returned from his flight to Egypt and learned that Archelaus was ruling Judea, he was afraid to go there and was warned against it by God; he took the infant Jesus to Galilee instead (Mt 2:22).<\/p>\n<p>Archelaus’s tyranny finally caused the Jews and Samaritans to send a delegation to Rome and complain formally to Augustus. The fact that such bitter enemies as the Jews and Samaritans could cooperate in this matter indicates the serious nature of the complaint. Antipas and Philip also went to Rome to complain about him. Presumably they resented his neglect as their Roman representative for Palestine. Thus in <span>AD<\/span> 6 Archelaus was deposed and exiled to Vienna in Gaul (modern Vienne on the Rhône, south of Lyons). Antipas and Philip were allowed to continue their respective rules, and Archelaus’s territories were reduced to a province ruled by prefects or procurators.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Antipas\">Antipas (4 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 39)<\/p>\n<p>Antipas was the younger brother of Archelaus, born around 20 <span>BC<\/span>. Of all the Herodians, he is mentioned most in the NT because he ruled over Galilee and Perea, where both Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\n<p>Antipas’s domain was in turmoil caused by the rebellion begun at Pentecost in 4 <span>BC<\/span>. He immediately set out to restore order and rebuild what had been destroyed. Following the example of his father, Herod the Great, Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris was his first project; it was the largest city in Galilee and his capital city until he built Tiberias. Since Nazareth was only four miles (6.4 kilometers) south-southeast of Sepphoris, it is quite possible that Joseph, Mary’s husband, was employed as a carpenter (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3) to help rebuild that city.<\/p>\n<p>Of the 12 cities built by the Herodian family, Tiberias is the most important. It was the first city in Jewish history to be founded with the municipal framework of a Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">polis<\/span><em>.<\/em> It was built in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius. Due to the fact that a cemetery was destroyed in the process of building, Tiberias was considered unclean by the Jews. Antipas offered free houses, land and tax exemptions for the first few years to anyone who would move into the city. He completed the city in <span>AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\n<p>In the Christian world the incident for which Antipas is most remembered is his beheading of John the Baptist (Mt 14:3-12; Mk 6:17-29; Lk 3:19-20; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2.116-119). There was a tangle of family events leading up to the death of John the Baptist. Antipas had married the daughter of Aretas IV (the daughter’s name is unknown). Aretas IV was the Nabatean king, and Augustus may have encouraged this marriage since he favored intermarriages between various rulers to promote peace in his empire.<\/p>\n<p>Around <span>AD<\/span> 29 Antipas took a trip to Rome, and on the way he paid a visit to his half brother Herod Philip, who must have lived in a coastal city in Palestine. Antipas fell in love with Herodias, Philip’s wife, who was also Antipas’s niece. The idea of becoming the wife of a tetrarch appealed to her, and she agreed to marry him when he returned from Rome if he would oust Aretas’s daughter. Antipas agreed to the plan, and when Aretas’s daughter heard of it, she fled to her father. This was a breach of political alliance as well as a personal insult, which led to retaliation by Aretas.<\/p>\n<p>The marriage of Antipas and Herodias was in violation of the Mosaic law that forbade marriage to a brother’s wife (Lv 18:16; 20:21) except in order to raise children for a deceased childless brother by a levirate marriage (Dt 25:5; Mk 12:19). In this case, Philip not only had a child, Salome, but he was still alive. This is the situation that John the Baptist spoke so boldly against, and Antipas threw him in prison. Herodias’s hatred of John the Baptist was too great merely to settle for his incarceration. At an appropriate time, possibly Antipas’s birthday, she planned a banquet at Machaerus in Perea. Her daughter, Salome, danced for the king, and in an impulsive moment Antipas promised her under oath that he would give her anything, up to half of his kingdom. Following her mother’s advice, she asked for John the Baptist’s head on a platter. Immediately Antipas was sorry for his rash promise, but in order to save face in the presence of his underlords, he granted the request. Thus, John’s ministry ended around <span>AD<\/span> 31 or 32.<\/p>\n<p>There are three specific times when Antipas and Jesus are mentioned together in the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Early in Jesus’ ministry Antipas heard of him and commented, perhaps with irony, that Jesus was John the Baptist resurrected (Mt 14:1-2; Mk 6:14-16; Lk 9:7-9). It was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s, but he was reluctant to use force to bring about the meeting for fear of once more arousing the people against him. Eventually, Jesus withdrew from Antipas’s territories without the two meeting.<\/p>\n<p>Later, as Jesus became more popular, Antipas saw a potential threat to his own power and threatened to kill Jesus. Thus it was that on Jesus’ final trip to Jerusalem he was warned by some of the Pharisees that he should leave Antipas’s territories for his own safety (Lk 13:31-33). Jesus sent as answer to “that fox” that he would continue his ministry of healing and casting out demons for a little longer, and when he had finished, he would then go to Jerusalem to die. The lion and fox were often contrasted in ancient literature. The Lion of Judah, Jesus Christ, was not going to be coerced by the crafty coward, Antipas.<\/p>\n<p>The final encounter between the two occurred when Jesus was tried by Antipas in <span>AD<\/span> 33 (Lk 23:6-12). Since this event is mentioned only by Luke, some scholars consider it legendary. It must be remembered, however, that Luke’s addressee was Theophilus, probably a Roman officer, who would be especially interested in the reconciliation between Pilate and Antipas mentioned in this passage.<\/p>\n<p>According to Luke’s account, when Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, he sent him to Antipas (who was celebrating the Passover in Jerusalem). Pilate thus freed himself from an awkward situation. A more subtle reason may have been to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Lk 13:1), and because Pilate brought votive shields into Jerusalem, arousing the anger of the Jews (Philo’s <em>Legatio ad Gaium<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, the ruler only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate. The main political accomplishment of the incident was Antipas and Pilate’s reconciliation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PhiliptheTetrarch\">Philip the Tetrarch (4 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 34)<\/p>\n<p>Philip the tetrarch was the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem and was born around 22 <span>BC<\/span>. When Herod’s will was resolved, Philip was made tetrarch over Gaulanitis, Auranitis, Batanea, Trachonitis, and Iturea, all in the northern part of Herod the Great’s domain (Lk 3:1). His subjects were mainly Syrian and Greek. Thus he was the first and only Herodian to have his image on his coins.<\/p>\n<p>He built two cities. First, he rebuilt and enlarged Paneas and renamed it Caesarea Philippi. Here Peter made his confession of faith to Jesus and was given the revelation of the church (Mt 16:13-20; Mk 8:27-30). Next, he rebuilt and enlarged Bethsaida and renamed it Julias. Here Jesus healed the blind man (Mk 8:22-26), and in a nearby desert place he fed the 5,000 (Lk 9:10-17).<\/p>\n<p>Philip was not as politically ambitious as his brothers. His rule was marked by tranquility and the loyalty of his subjects. When Philip died in <span>AD<\/span> 34, Tiberius annexed his territories to Syria. After Caligula became emperor in <span>AD<\/span> 37, he gave the territories to Agrippa I, brother of Herodias.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AgrippaI\">Agrippa I (<span>AD<\/span> 37–44)<\/p>\n\n<p>Agrippa I was the son of Aristobulus (son of Herod the Great and Mariamne I) and Berenice. He was born in 10 <span>BC<\/span> and was the brother of Herodias.<\/p>\n<p>Agrippa I might be considered the black sheep of the Herodian family. While at school in Rome, he lived a wanton life, incurring many debts. In Rome he became a friend of Gaius Caligula and at one point stated that he wished Caligula were king rather than Tiberius. This was overheard and reported to Tiberius, who imprisoned him. He remained in prison until Tiberius’s death six months later.<\/p>\n<p>Upon Caligula’s accession to the throne, he released Agrippa and gave him Philip the tetrarch’s territories and the northern part of Lysanias’s territory as well as the title of king. The title of king aroused the jealousy of his sister Herodias, and that eventually led to her husband, Antipas’s, downfall. At that time (<span>AD<\/span> 39) Agrippa acquired all of Antipas’s territories and property.<\/p>\n<p>When Caligula died in <span>AD<\/span> 41, Agrippa curried the favor of the new emperor Claudius, whereupon Claudius added Judea and Samaria to Agrippa’s territory. This territory was once ruled by Agrippa’s grandfather, Herod the Great.<\/p>\n<p>Agrippa I is mentioned in the NT for his persecution of the early church in order to gain favor with the Jews (Acts 12:1-19). He killed James, the son of Zebedee, and imprisoned Peter. When Peter was released by an angel, Agrippa put the sentries to death.<\/p>\n<p>Agrippa died in <span>AD<\/span> 44 in Caesarea. Accounts of this incident are recorded both by Josephus (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 19.9.1.274–275; <em>War<\/em> 2.11.5.214–215) and the Scriptures. The incident occurred at Caesarea; he was wearing a sparkling silver robe, and when the people flattered him by calling him a god, he was suddenly struck with a mortal illness and died a horrible death. He was survived by his daughters, Bernice, Mariamne, and Drusilla, and by a son, Agrippa, who was 17 at the time. Because of Agrippa II’s youth, his father’s territories were temporarily made a province.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AgrippaII\">Agrippa II (<span>AD<\/span> 50–100)<\/p>\n<p>Agrippa II was the son of Agrippa I and Cypros. In <span>AD<\/span> 50, six years after his father’s death, Claudius made him king of Chalcis.<\/p>\n<p>Agrippa II was in control of the temple treasury and the vestments of the high priest and thus could appoint the high priest. The Romans consulted him on religious matters, which is probably why Festus asked him to hear the apostle Paul at Caesarea (<span>AD<\/span> 59), where he was accompanied by his sister Bernice (Acts 25–26).<\/p>\n<p>In May <span>AD<\/span> 66 the Palestinian revolution began (<em>War<\/em> 2.14.4.284). When Agrippa’s attempt to quell the revolt failed, he became a staunch ally of the Romans throughout the entire war (<span>AD<\/span> 66–70). During this time, Nero committed suicide, the new emperor Galba was murdered, and Vespasian became the emperor. After pledging his allegiance to the new emperor, Agrippa remained with Titus, Vespasian’s son, who was in charge of the war (Tacitus’s <em>History<\/em> 5.81). After the fall of Jerusalem (August 6, <span>AD<\/span> 70), Agrippa was probably present to celebrate the destruction of his own people.<\/p>\n<p>Following this, Vespasian added new territories to Agrippa’s kingdom, though just which ones is not known. In <span>AD<\/span> 79 Vespasian died and Titus became emperor. Little is known of Agrippa’s rule after this, except that he wrote to the historian Josephus praising him for <em>The Jewish War,<\/em> and he purchased a copy of it (Josephus’s <em>Life<\/em> 65.361–367; <em>Apion<\/em> 1.9.47–52).<\/p>\n<p>Although the Talmud implies that Agrippa II had two wives (Babylonian Talmud: <em>Sukkah<\/em> 27a), Josephus gives no indication that he had any wives or children. Rather, he was known for his incestuous relationship with his sister Bernice. He died around <span>AD<\/span> 100. His death marked the end of the Herodian dynasty.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Herodians; Judaism.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEROD, HERODIAN FAMILY* Political rulers during the lifetime of Christ. Christ was born when Herod the Great was ruling. Herod’s son Herod Antipas was the ruler of Galilee and Perea, the territories in which Jesus and John the Baptist carried out most of their ministries. It was this ruler who beheaded John the Baptist and tried Christ just before his death. Herod Agrippa I is the persecutor of the church in Acts 12, and Herod Agrippa II heard Paul’s testimony (Acts 26) just before he went to...","summary_en":"HEROD, HERODIAN FAMILY* Political rulers during the lifetime of Christ. Christ was born when Herod the Great was ruling. Herod’s son Herod Antipas was the ruler of Galilee and Perea, the territories in which Jesus and John the Baptist carried out most of their ministries. It was this ruler who beheaded John the Baptist and tried Christ just before his death. Herod Agrippa I is the persecutor of the church in Acts 12, and Herod Agrippa II heard Paul’s testimony (Acts 26) just before he went to...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16304,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Herodias","title_en":"Herodias","content_ro":"<h3>HERODIAS<\/h3>\n<p>Daughter of Aristobulus, the son of Herod the Great, and Berenice. Born between 9 and 7 <span>BC<\/span>, her older brother was Herod Agrippa I. In 6 <span>BC<\/span>, while still in her infancy, she was betrothed by her grandfather, Herod the Great, to his son by Mariamne II named Herod Philip. Herodias was the mother of Salome, born between <span>AD<\/span> 15 and 19.<\/p>\n<p>Herodias and Herod Philip lived on the seacoast of Judea, possibly at Azotus or Caesarea. In <span>AD<\/span> 29 Herod Antipas visited Herodias’s (his niece) residence on his way to Rome. They were attracted to each other and Herodias agreed to marry him provided he would divorce his present wife, the daughter of Aretas IV, the Nebatean king of Petra. Herodias, being a Hasmonean, did not want to share the house with an Arab—longtime foes of the Hasmonean dynasty. When Aretas’s daughter got word of this plot, she secretly escaped to her father, and Herodias and Antipas were married. This incident was the beginning of hostilities between Antipas and Aretas, which eventually led to Aretas’s war against and defeat of Antipas in <span>AD<\/span> 36.<\/p>\n<p>John the Baptist openly denounced this marriage (Mt 14:3-12; Mk 6:17-29; Lk 3:19-20) because Jewish law forbade marriage with one’s brother’s wife (Lv 18:16; 20:21), except in order to raise children for a deceased childless brother by a levirate marriage (Dt 25:5; Mk 12:19). In this case the brother, Herod Philip, was still alive and had a child, Salome. The bold denunciation by John the Baptist led to Antipas’s imprisoning him around <span>AD<\/span> 30 or 31. Herodias wanted more than this. She arranged, possibly at Herod Antipas’s birthday, to have her daughter dance before him and his magistrates. In appreciation, Herod Antipas promised Salome up to half of his kingdom. At her mother’s bidding, she asked for John the Baptist’s head on a platter.<\/p>\n<p>Herodias last appears in history involved in an intrigue between her brother, Agrippa I, who had been designated king by the emperor Caligula, and her husband Antipas, who had long wanted such a title. Antipas, at his wife’s insistence, went to Rome to plead his case, but he lost and was banished. Herodias, however, did remain faithful and followed him into exile, even though Caligula would not have punished her because she was Agrippa’s sister.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Herod, Herodian Family.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HERODIAS<\/h3>\n<p>Daughter of Aristobulus, the son of Herod the Great, and Berenice. Born between 9 and 7 <span>BC<\/span>, her older brother was Herod Agrippa I. In 6 <span>BC<\/span>, while still in her infancy, she was betrothed by her grandfather, Herod the Great, to his son by Mariamne II named Herod Philip. Herodias was the mother of Salome, born between <span>AD<\/span> 15 and 19.<\/p>\n<p>Herodias and Herod Philip lived on the seacoast of Judea, possibly at Azotus or Caesarea. In <span>AD<\/span> 29 Herod Antipas visited Herodias’s (his niece) residence on his way to Rome. They were attracted to each other and Herodias agreed to marry him provided he would divorce his present wife, the daughter of Aretas IV, the Nebatean king of Petra. Herodias, being a Hasmonean, did not want to share the house with an Arab—longtime foes of the Hasmonean dynasty. When Aretas’s daughter got word of this plot, she secretly escaped to her father, and Herodias and Antipas were married. This incident was the beginning of hostilities between Antipas and Aretas, which eventually led to Aretas’s war against and defeat of Antipas in <span>AD<\/span> 36.<\/p>\n<p>John the Baptist openly denounced this marriage (Mt 14:3-12; Mk 6:17-29; Lk 3:19-20) because Jewish law forbade marriage with one’s brother’s wife (Lv 18:16; 20:21), except in order to raise children for a deceased childless brother by a levirate marriage (Dt 25:5; Mk 12:19). In this case the brother, Herod Philip, was still alive and had a child, Salome. The bold denunciation by John the Baptist led to Antipas’s imprisoning him around <span>AD<\/span> 30 or 31. Herodias wanted more than this. She arranged, possibly at Herod Antipas’s birthday, to have her daughter dance before him and his magistrates. In appreciation, Herod Antipas promised Salome up to half of his kingdom. At her mother’s bidding, she asked for John the Baptist’s head on a platter.<\/p>\n<p>Herodias last appears in history involved in an intrigue between her brother, Agrippa I, who had been designated king by the emperor Caligula, and her husband Antipas, who had long wanted such a title. Antipas, at his wife’s insistence, went to Rome to plead his case, but he lost and was banished. Herodias, however, did remain faithful and followed him into exile, even though Caligula would not have punished her because she was Agrippa’s sister.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Herod, Herodian Family.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HERODIAS Daughter of Aristobulus, the son of Herod the Great, and Berenice. Born between 9 and 7 BC, her older brother was Herod Agrippa I. In 6 BC, while still in her infancy, she was betrothed by her grandfather, Herod the Great, to his son by Mariamne II named Herod Philip. Herodias was the mother of Salome, born between AD 15 and 19. Herodias and Herod Philip lived on the seacoast of Judea, possibly at Azotus or Caesarea. In AD 29 Herod Antipas visited Herodias’s (his niece) residence on ...","summary_en":"HERODIAS Daughter of Aristobulus, the son of Herod the Great, and Berenice. Born between 9 and 7 BC, her older brother was Herod Agrippa I. In 6 BC, while still in her infancy, she was betrothed by her grandfather, Herod the Great, to his son by Mariamne II named Herod Philip. Herodias was the mother of Salome, born between AD 15 and 19. Herodias and Herod Philip lived on the seacoast of Judea, possibly at Azotus or Caesarea. In AD 29 Herod Antipas visited Herodias’s (his niece) residence on ...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":26401,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Moses","title_en":"Moses","content_ro":"<h3>MOSES<\/h3>\n<p>Great leader of the Hebrew people who brought them out of bondage in Egypt to the Promised Land in Canaan; also the one who gave them the law at Mt Sinai that became the basis for their religious faith through the centuries. Focused in this one person are the figures of prophet, priest, lawgiver, judge, intercessor, shepherd, miracle worker, and founder of a nation.<\/p>\n<p>The meaning of his name is uncertain. It has been explained as a Hebrew word meaning “to draw out” (Ex 2:10; cf. 2 Sm 22:17; Ps 18:16). If, however, it is an Egyptian name given him by the daughter of Pharaoh who found him, it is more likely from an Egyptian word for “son” (also found as part of many well-known Egyptian names such as Ahmose, Thutmose, and Ramses). No one else in the OT bears this name.<\/p>\n<p>Without question, the greatest figure in the OT (mentioned by name 767 times), his influence also extends to the pages of the NT (where he is mentioned 79 times). The first 40 years of his life were spent in the household of Pharaoh (Acts 7:23), where he was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. The next 40 years he spent in Midian as a fugitive from the wrath of Pharaoh, after killing an Egyptian who was mistreating a Hebrew. His last 40 years were devoted to leading the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt to the land God had promised to Abraham and his descendants (Gn 12:1-3). He died at the age of 120 after leading the Israelites successfully through 40 years of wandering in the wilderness to the very edge of the Promised Land on the east side of the Jordan River (Dt 34:7). He is one of the great figures in all of history, a man who took a group of slaves and, under inconceivably difficult circumstances, molded them into a nation that has influenced and altered the entire course of history.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• The First 40 Years—In Egypt<\/p>\n<p>• The Second 40 Years—In Midian<\/p>\n<p>• The Third 40 Years—From Egypt to Canaan<\/p>\n<p>• Moses in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The only source of information for the life of Moses is the Bible. Archaeology confirms the credibility of the events associated with Moses, but it has never provided any specific confirmation of his existence or work. His story begins with the arrival in Egypt of Jacob, his sons, and their families during a time of famine in Canaan. Invited by Joseph and welcomed by Pharaoh, the family settled down in northeast Egypt in an area known as Goshen, where they remained for 430 years (Ex 12:40). With the passing of time, their numbers grew rapidly, so that the land was filled with them (1:7). A new king arose over Egypt who did not know Joseph. The biblical account does not give the name of this pharaoh, and there has never been agreement as to his identity. He has most frequently been identified as Thutmose III (1504–1451 <span>BC<\/span>), Seti I (1304–1290 <span>BC<\/span>), or Ramses II (1290–1224 <span>BC<\/span>). Out of fear that their growing numbers might become a threat to the security of his nation, Pharaoh determined to take measures to reduce their number. He put them to work building the store cities of Pithom and Rameses, but the severity of the work did not diminish them. He next tried to enlist the cooperation of the midwives to destroy the male babies, but they would not carry out his orders. He then ordered his own people to drown the male infants in the Nile River. Against the background of this first-known Jewish persecution, the baby Moses was born.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFirst40YearsInEgypt\">The First 40 Years—In Egypt<\/p>\n<h5>Birth and Early Life<\/h5>\n<p>A man of the family of Levi named Amram married his father’s sister Jochebed (Ex 6:20; cf. 2:1). Their first son, Aaron, three years older than Moses, was born before the command to drown the Hebrew babies was given, as there is no indication that his life was in danger. However, the cruel order was in force when Moses was born, and after three months, when his mother could no longer hide him, she took a basket made of bulrushes and daubed it with bitumen and pitch. She put the baby into the basket and placed it among the reeds along the banks of the river. An older sister, Miriam, stayed near the river to see what would happen. Soon the daughter of Pharaoh (identified by Josephus as Thermuthis and by others as Hatshepsut, but whose actual identity cannot be determined) came to the river to bathe, as was her custom. She discovered the baby, recognized it as one of the Hebrew children, and determined that she would raise the child as her own. Miriam emerged from her hiding place and offered to secure a Hebrew woman to nurse the child, an arrangement that was agreeable to the princess. Miriam took the baby to his own mother, who kept him for perhaps two or three years (cf. 1 Sm 1:19-24). Nothing is recorded of those formative years. Whether his mother continued seeing him during his later childhood and young manhood or revealed his true identity to him or taught him the Hebrew faith are matters of speculation. Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, as would befit a member of the royal household, and he became mighty in his words and deeds (Acts 7:22).<\/p>\n<h5>Identification with His Own People<\/h5>\n<p>Just when Moses became aware that he was a Hebrew rather than Egyptian cannot be known, but it is clear that he knew it by the time he was 40 years old. One day he went out to visit his people and to observe their treatment, for the cruel measures taken against them by Pharaoh at the time of Moses’ birth had not been lifted. Seeing an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, Moses in great anger killed the Egyptian and buried him. He thought the deed had gone unnoticed until the next day when he encountered two Hebrews fighting with each other. When he tried to act as peacemaker, they both turned on him and accused him of murder: “Who made you a prince and a judge over us? Do you mean to kill me, as you killed the Egyptian?” (Ex 2:14, <span>rsv<\/span>). Acts 7:25 adds: “He supposed that his brethren understood that God was giving them deliverance by his hand” (<span>rsv<\/span>). Aware that being a member of Pharaoh’s household would not exempt him from punishment now that the deed was known, Moses fled for his life to the land of Midian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheSecond40YearsInMidian\">The Second 40 Years—In Midian<\/p>\n<h5>Marriage into the Family of Jethro<\/h5>\n<p>Soon after arriving in Midian, Moses sat down by a well, where he observed the seven daughters of the priest of Midian who had come to the well to draw water for their father’s flock. Shepherds came and drove them away, but Moses intervened and helped them water their animals. When Jethro (Ex 3:1; also called Reuel, 2:18; Hobab, Nm 10:29) learned what had happened, he invited Moses to stay with his family and gave him Zipporah as his wife. (There is some disagreement among scholars regarding the identity of Hobab in Numbers 10:29; some think he was Moses’ father-in-law, while others maintain that Hobab was Moses’ brother-in-law. <em>See also<\/em> Hobab). Two children, Gershom (Ex 2:22) and Eliezer (18:4), were born to Moses and Zipporah during the years in Midian. Forty years passed, and Moses’ thoughts about his former life in Egypt must have faded into the past. He could not have foreseen that God would soon thrust him back into the midst of the court in Egypt, where he would confront the son of the now-dead pharaoh with the demand to release the Hebrew people from the bondage they had endured for so many years. God had not forgotten his people and was now ready to deliver them.<\/p>\n<h5>Encounter with God at the Burning Bush<\/h5>\n<p>One day, while Moses was taking care of the flocks of his father-in-law, he led them to Mt Horeb (known also as Sinai), where God appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush that burned but was not consumed. Moses approached to observe the strange sight more closely and heard God speak to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” Moses replied, “Here am I.” Before he could come any nearer to the bush, God said, “Do not come near; put off your shoes from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground” (Ex 3:4-5, <span>rsv<\/span>). He further identified himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He assured Moses that he was aware of the cruel afflictions of his people and had heard their cries. Then he told of his plan to send Moses to Egypt to deliver his people from their bondage.<\/p>\n<p>Faced with a challenge that seemed beyond his capabilities, the aged Moses began making excuses for not accepting the task. God assured Moses that he would be with him (Ex 3:11-12). To his excuse that he would not be able to give an answer if the people asked him the name of the God he represented, God revealed his name in the cryptic statement, “ ‘<span>I Am the One Who Always Is<\/span>’ . . . Just tell them, ‘I <span>Am<\/span> has sent me to you’ ” (vv 13-14, <span>nlt<\/span>). Many interpretations have been proposed for the name. Whatever else it means, it undoubtedly suggests the self-existence and all-sufficiency of God. Moses then argued that the people would not believe him when he told them that God had sent him to deliver them from Egypt. In response God gave him three signs: When he cast his shepherd’s rod to the ground, it became a serpent. When he put his hand to his bosom, it became leprous. He was also told that when he would pour water from the Nile on the ground, it would become blood (Ex 4:1-9). Even armed with these powerful evidences of the presence of God with him, Moses raised still another objection, “O Lord, I’m just not a good speaker. I never have been, and I’m not now, even after you have spoken to me. I’m clumsy with words” (v 10, <span>nlt<\/span>). God told him that he would teach him what to say, but despite such assurance, Moses asked God to send someone else. In anger mingled with compassion, God made Moses’ brother, Aaron, the spokesman, but said his instructions would still be given directly to Moses.<\/p>\n<h5>Return to Egypt<\/h5>\n<p>Moses took his wife and sons and set out for Egypt, telling his father-in-law only that he wanted to go back to Egypt to visit his kinsmen there (Ex 4:18). The biblical account says he put his wife and sons on the same donkey to journey back to Egypt (v 20). The fact that all three rode the same animal indicates that both children were quite young and had not been born in the early years of Moses’ marriage. At a lodging place along the way a strange thing happened. The Lord met him and sought to kill him (v 24), apparently because Moses had failed to circumcise the baby before leaving Midian. When Zipporah realized that Moses’ life was in danger, she performed the rite herself and said to her husband, “What a blood-smeared bridegroom you are to me!” (v 25, <span>nlt<\/span>). Whatever else may have been involved in this unusual encounter with God, it was a solemn reminder that the one who was to be the leader of the covenant people must not himself neglect any part of the covenant (Gn 17:10-14).<\/p>\n<p>God told Aaron (who was still in Egypt) to go to the mountain where Moses had encountered God at the burning bush and meet his brother there. Moses told Aaron everything that had happened, and together they went to Egypt, gathered the elders together, and informed them of these matters. When Moses and Aaron performed the signs in the presence of the people, they believed these leaders had been sent by God to deliver them from their affliction (Ex 4:30-31).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheThird40YearsFromEgypttoCanaan\">The Third 40 Years—From Egypt to Canaan<\/p>\n<h5>The Encounter with Pharaoh<\/h5>\n<p>Soon after his return to Egypt, Moses, accompanied by Aaron, went to Pharaoh and repeated the demands of the Lord, “Let my people go, for they must go out into the wilderness to hold a religious festival in my honor” (Ex 5:1, <span>nlt<\/span>). Pharaoh rejected the demand with the observation that he had never heard of this God of Moses. When one realizes that Egyptian kings considered themselves to be gods, the affront to Pharaoh becomes even more acute. Not only did he reject Moses’ demands, but he intensified the burdens of the Hebrews. Their work had up until then required them to make brick using straw provided for them, but now Pharaoh said they would have to gather their own straw and still produce the same number of bricks. The Hebrews turned in anguish and anger to Moses and blamed him for making them offensive in the sight of Pharaoh. Even Moses could not understand the turn of events and complained bitterly to God. God reassured Moses that he would deliver the Hebrews from their bondage, and moreover, he would bring them into the land he had promised Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He then instructed Moses to return to Pharaoh and repeat the demand to release the Hebrews upon threat of severe reprisal if the demand were ignored.<\/p>\n<p>Ushered again into Pharaoh’s presence, Moses repeated his request for release of the Israelites. He attempted to impress Pharaoh by turning his rod into a serpent, but the Egyptian wise men, through their secret arts, were able to duplicate the miracle, so Pharaoh’s heart remained hardened and he would not listen to Moses. In rapid succession Moses brought nine plagues upon the land of Egypt to show the omnipotence of God to force the compliance of Pharaoh. These included a plague in which the water of the Nile turned to blood, a plague of frogs, one of gnats, then of flies, a plague on the livestock, boils on the people, plagues of hail, locusts, and complete darkness. During the plagues of the frogs, flies, hail, locusts, and darkness, Pharaoh was distraught and would temporarily relent and agree to Moses’ demands, but as soon as the plague was lifted, his heart hardened and he would retract his promise. The outcome of the first nine plagues was terrible devastation of the land of Egypt, but the Israelites were not released. There was yet one more plague in store, the most terrible of all.<\/p>\n<h5>The First Passover<\/h5>\n<p>God told Moses that there remained one more plague in store for the Egyptians: “All the firstborn sons will die in every family in Egypt, from the oldest son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the oldest son of his lowliest slave. Even the firstborn of the animals will die” (Ex 11:5, <span>nlt<\/span>). Furthermore, he assured Moses that the plague would not touch a single household of the Hebrews, “Then you will know that the <span>Lord<\/span> makes a distinction between the Egyptians and the Israelites” (v 7, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>God instructed the people through Moses and Aaron to make their preparations for leaving the land in haste. They were to go to the Egyptians and ask them for their jewels of silver and gold (Ex 11:2-3), a request to which the Egyptians agreed, perhaps out of fear of the Hebrews and in the belief that the gifts would bring about an end of the terrors that had struck the land. The Hebrews were also instructed to prepare a lamb for each family—small families could share—for the last meal to be eaten in the land of Egypt (a rite that became the pattern for the Jewish observance of the Passover for many centuries). Blood of the lamb was to be put on the doorposts and lintels of the houses in which the Passover meal was being eaten that night. The Hebrews were promised that wherever the blood was on the door, no harm would come to that household. They were also instructed to prepare unleavened bread. At midnight the death angel of the Lord killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh himself to the lowest captive in a dungeon; not a single house of the Egyptians escaped tragedy. When Pharaoh saw what had happened, he ordered Moses and the people to leave the land at once (12:31-32). The biblical record says that about 600,000 Hebrew men left Egypt. Together with women and children, the total would have been in excess of 2 million people.<\/p>\n<h5>The Exodus from Egypt<\/h5>\n<p>The exodus is the central event of the OT and marks the birth of Israel as a nation. The Jewish people still look back to that event as the great redemptive act of God in history on behalf of his people, much as Christians look upon the cross as the great redemptive act of their faith.<\/p>\n\n<p>The exact route taken by the Hebrews out of Egypt cannot be determined today, though many possibilities have been proposed. They did not take the shortest, most direct route to Canaan (which would have been about a 10 days’ journey along the Mediterranean coastline), but set out in the direction of Mt Sinai, where Moses had earlier met God at the burning bush. As a sign that Moses had been sent to deliver the people, God told Moses he would bring them to that same spot, where they would worship God (Ex 3:12). The Hebrews did not forget the request of Joseph to carry his bones with them when they returned to their own land (Gn 50:25; Ex 13:19).<\/p>\n<p>As the people journeyed, they were preceded by a pillar of cloud during the day and a pillar of fire at night. The cloud represented the presence of God with his people and guided them along the route they should travel.<\/p>\n<p>Back in Egypt, Pharaoh was having second thoughts about letting the Hebrews leave the land and decided to pursue them with his army and bring them back. When the Hebrews saw the approaching cloud of dust and realized that the Egyptian army was pursuing them, they were terrified. The sea lay ahead of them and the Egyptians were behind; there seemed to be no way of escape. The people turned on Moses, blaming him for bringing them out of Egypt. God again assured them that they did not need to be afraid or do anything to defend themselves. He promised to fight the battle for them and give them victory (Ex 14:14).<\/p>\n<p>The Lord parted the water of the Sea of Reeds (traditionally but erroneously referred to as the Red Sea) by a strong east wind and allowed the Israelites to pass through the sea on dry ground to the other side. The Egyptians rushed after the Israelites, following them into the dry bed of the sea. But before they reached the other side, the waters rushed back together, destroying the Egyptian army in the midst of the sea and leaving the Israelites safe on the other side. The people celebrated their great deliverance in song (Ex 15) and then continued their journey. The narrative that follows describes the struggle of the Israelites to survive in the desert—problems of food and water, internal dissension, murmurings against Moses, and battles with enemies. Through all their experiences, Moses towers as the unifying force and great spiritual leader.<\/p>\n<p>In spite of having seen God’s great act of deliverance so recently, the faith of the Israelites was not strong. Three days later they came to a place where the water was not fit to drink, and they began complaining against Moses. The Lord showed Moses how to purify the water, and the people’s needs were satisfied (Ex 15:22-25). When they reached the wilderness of Sin, they complained again, this time because of lack of food. God met their need by supplying manna, a breadlike substance that would serve as their food until they came to Canaan (16:1-21). Later, camped at Rephidim, the people complained again, this time for lack of water. Once again God met their needs by supplying water from the rock at Horeb (17:1-7). The Amalekites attacked them while they were still camped at Rephidim, but God gave a great victory to the Israelites (vv 8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Moses and the people reached Sinai and camped there. Jethro came to visit, bringing Moses’ wife and sons. Zipporah had apparently decided to return with her children to stay with her father rather than to go on to Egypt with Moses. It was a joyful reunion, and Jethro made a burnt offering and sacrifices to God (an act that has evoked the suggestion that Jethro was a true worshiper of God, though nothing is known of his links to the Hebrew faith). When Jethro observed Moses trying to settle all the disputes and problems of the Hebrews unaided, he proposed that Moses delegate responsibility for some of the lesser matters to able men chosen from among the people. Moses accepted the suggestion, and shortly afterward Jethro returned to his own land. He did not remain at Sinai to participate in the ratification of the covenant (Ex 18:13-27).<\/p>\n<h5>Giving of the Law at Sinai<\/h5>\n<p>God had kept his promises to Moses. He had delivered the Hebrews from their Egyptian bondage and brought them to the very place where he had commissioned Moses to be their leader. He was now ready to enter into a covenant relationship with Israel. Amid a spectacular and terrifying scene of lightning, thunder, thick clouds, fire, smoke, and earthquake, God descended to the top of Sinai and called Moses to come up the mountain, where he remained 40 days to receive the law that would become the basis of the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>At Sinai, God was revealed as the God who demands exclusive allegiance in all areas of life and, at the same time, as the God who desires personal fellowship with his people.<\/p>\n<h5>Apostasy of the People<\/h5>\n<p>While Moses tarried on Mt Sinai, the people below became impatient and skeptical about his return, so they went to Aaron and asked him to make idols for them to worship. They contributed the gold earrings they were wearing. “Then Aaron took the gold, melted it down, and molded and tooled it into the shape of a calf. The people exclaimed, ‘O Israel, these are the gods who brought you out of Egypt!’ ” (Ex 32:4, <span>nlt<\/span>). The next day they joined in the worship of the idol with sacrifices and revelry. God told Moses what was taking place below and angrily declared that he was going to destroy the people but would make a great nation of Moses and his descendants. Moses immediately interceded on behalf of the people, and God’s wrath abated. Moses descended the mountain, carrying the two tablets of stone on which the law had been written, but when he entered the camp and saw what was taking place, he could not restrain his anger. He threw the stone tablets to the ground, ground the golden calf to powder, mixed it with water, and forced the people to drink it. He turned angrily to Aaron and demanded an explanation for the great sin that had been committed. Aaron lamely tried to shift the blame by minimizing his own role: “I threw them [the gold] into the fire—and out came this calf!” (v 24, <span>nlt<\/span>). Moses called for volunteers to carry out God’s judgment on the people for the great sin they had committed. Men of the tribe of Levi responded and executed about 3,000 men. Later they were commended and rewarded (Dt 33:9-10). Moses again interceded for the people, requesting that he be destroyed with the rest if God could not forgive them. God relented and promised Moses that the angel of the Lord would go with them still (Ex 32:34).<\/p>\n<p>Then Moses made a special request that he might be allowed to see the glory of the Lord. God instructed Moses to hew out two more tablets of stone like the ones he had destroyed and to return to the top of the mountain the next day. There the Lord passed before him and proclaimed his name: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span>, I am the <span>Lord<\/span>, the merciful and gracious God. I am slow to anger and rich in unfailing love and faithfulness” (Ex 34:6, <span>nlt<\/span>). Moses remained on the mountain another 40 days, where he received renewed warnings against idolatry and further instructions from the Lord, together with another copy of the Ten Commandments on tablets of stone. When Moses came down from the mountain, he was not aware that the skin of his face shone as a result of talking with God. At first the people were afraid to come near him, but he called them together and repeated all the Lord had said to him on the mountain. Afterward, he covered his face with a veil, which he removed only when he went into the presence of the Lord. Paul said the purpose of the veil was to prevent the people from seeing the heavenly light gradually fade from Moses’ face (2 Cor 3:13).<\/p>\n<h5>The Tabernacle and Establishment of the Priesthood<\/h5>\n<p>When Moses went up to the mountain the first time to receive the law from God, he was instructed to collect materials to be used in the construction of the tabernacle or tent. Gold, silver, bronze, blue and purple and scarlet yarn, fine twined linen, goats’ hair, tanned rams’ skins, goatskins, and acacia wood would be needed, along with oil for the lamps, spices for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense, onyx stones, and stones for setting (Ex 25:3-7). The pattern for construction was also given to him, together with the ritual to be used for the consecration of the priests. A man named Bezalel was put in charge of the construction of the tabernacle, assisted by Oholiab (31:1-6). The tabernacle was portable like a tent so that it could be taken down and moved from place to place as the Hebrews continued their journey toward Canaan.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to giving Moses directions for the tabernacle, God also instructed him concerning the sacrifices that were to be brought: the burnt offering, grain offering, peace offering, sin offering, and guilt offering (Lv 1–7). The solemn ceremony for ordaining Aaron and his sons as priests and for inaugurating the worship practices were to be performed by Moses (chs 8–9).<\/p>\n<p>Sometime after this solemn inauguration of the religious ritual actually took place, Nadab and Abihu, two of Aaron’s four sons, offered unauthorized fire before the Lord. A fire came out from the Lord and destroyed them. Moses forbade Aaron and his sons Eleazar and Ithamar to express grief because of the sinfulness of the act (Lv 10:1-7). The nature of their sin is difficult to determine, but it surely involved a violation of God’s holiness. Therefore, it is appropriate that a large part of the remainder of the book of Leviticus gives regulations that stress the holy living that God expected from his people.<\/p>\n<h5>From Sinai to Kadesh<\/h5>\n<p>A year had elapsed from the time the Israelites left Egypt until the census was taken (Nm 9:1). God reminded the people that it was time to observe the Passover, which they did, and a month later they set out from Sinai and came to the wilderness of Paran. Along the way they complained about the unvarying diet of manna and they longed for the fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic they had eaten in Egypt (11:4-6). In anger God sent quail in abundance, but even while the people were devouring the meat, God sent a great plague that killed many Israelites. The complaining attitude of the people was shared even by Miriam and Aaron. They began to speak against the Cushite woman Moses had married (12:1-2). It is not certain whether the Cushite was an Ethiopian or whether this was another way of referring to Zipporah. If Moses did marry a second time, no mention is made of it elsewhere in the OT. Moses made no reply to the accusations of his brother and sister. It was not necessary, for God intervened in defense of his servant. He smote Miriam with leprosy for her part in speaking against Moses, and when Aaron saw what had happened to Miriam, he acknowledged that they both had sinned. Miriam’s leprosy was removed in response to Moses’ fervent intercession.<\/p>\n\n<p>While the people were encamped at Kadesh (also called Kadesh-barnea—Nm 32:8) in the wilderness of Paran, Moses sent 12 men into Canaan, one from each tribe, to spy out the land in preparation for the Israelite entry. After 40 days the spies returned and, though they acknowledged that the land was fertile and inviting, 10 of them were afraid of the Canaanite inhabitants and advised against going into the land. Only Joshua and Caleb were willing to go ahead and occupy the territory. The entire congregation joined the protest against going in and determined to choose a new leader and return to Egypt rather than risk death by the sword in Canaan. They threatened to stone Moses and Aaron. At that moment God intervened and would have destroyed all the people on the spot except for the intervention of Moses (13:1–14:19). He declared that, if God did not bring the people into Canaan, the nations round about would conclude that the God of the Israelites was unable to bring them into the land. Once again God acquiesced to Moses’ request to pardon the people but said that none of them 20 years and older who had complained against him would be allowed to enter the land. All the people would wander in the wilderness for 40 years until that generation died, and then their children would be allowed to enter Canaan (14:29-33). When they heard the Lord’s sentence upon them, the people quickly decided to lift the sentence of judgment by entering the land at once, but God was not with them, and they suffered a disastrous defeat at the hands of the Amalekites and Canaanites.<\/p>\n<h5>Forty Years in the Wilderness<\/h5>\n<p>Very little is known about events during the 40 years of wilderness wanderings. In spite of the judgment that had already come upon them, the people did not seem to change their ways. A man named Korah led another rebellion against the authority of Moses and Aaron. God would not listen to the pleas of Moses and Aaron on behalf of these dissidents (Nm 16:22-24), but told the congregation to separate itself from the tents of Korah and his conspirators. While the people watched, the ground split open and swallowed up the rebellious factions together with their households and all their possessions. Though the rest of the Israelites witnessed the fate of the rebels, it did not deter them from again turning on Moses and Aaron. At this, God told Moses to remove himself from the murmuring congregation in order that he could take vengeance. Though Moses offered atonement for the people’s sins, 14,700 died by plague before the punishment was ended. To demonstrate further to the people that Moses was his chosen leader, the Lord instructed Moses to take rods, one for each tribe, and to deposit them in the tent of meeting. God would cause the rod of the man chosen by him to sprout, and so silence the murmurings of the people. The rod belonging to Aaron sprouted and budded and bloomed, but the people only complained more.<\/p>\n<p>As the people neared the end of their years of wilderness wanderings, Miriam died in Kadesh and was buried there (Nm 20:1). Soon after, the people began to complain once more for lack of water. God instructed Moses to speak to a rock that would bring forth water to satisfy the needs of the people. Instead of speaking to the rock, Moses struck it twice with his rod. The water came forth, but God rebuked Moses and Aaron: “Because you did not trust me enough to demonstrate my holiness to the people of Israel, you will not lead them into the land I am giving them!” (v 12, <span>nlt<\/span>). The nature of the sin is not clear, but Moses and Aaron were apparently taking to themselves honor that belonged to God alone. Because of the sin, they were denied the privilege of leading the Israelites into the Promised Land. The punishment may seem too severe for the sin, but it shows that the privileged role of leadership given to Moses and Aaron carried with it an unusual measure of responsibility.<\/p>\n<p>The people then journeyed from Kadesh to Mt Hor on the border of the land of Edom, where Aaron died. Moses took his priestly garments from him and gave them to Eleazar, his son, thereby transferring the priestly office (Nm 20:28).<\/p>\n<p>As the people came closer to their destination, resistance on the part of the native population increased. There was a skirmish with the king of Arad and his forces at Hormah, resulting in a victory for Israel (Nm 21:1-3). As they journeyed around Edom, some of the Israelites began speaking against God and Moses because there was no food or water and they were tired of eating manna. This time the Lord sent poisonous snakes among the people, and many of them died of the venomous bites. Those who had not yet been bitten came to Moses, acknowledged their sin, and asked that the serpents be removed from their midst. God instructed Moses to make a serpent of bronze and set it on a pole. If a person bitten by a serpent looked up at the bronze serpent, he or she would live.<\/p>\n<p>As the Israelites approached the territory of Sihon, king of the Amorites, they sent messengers asking permission to pass peaceably through his land. Instead of granting the request, Sihon gathered his army together and fought against Israel. He was killed in the battle, and his land and cities were taken and occupied by the Hebrews (Nm 21:21-25).<\/p>\n<h5>Arrival at the Jordan River<\/h5>\n<p>After their victory over Sihon, the Israelites set out again and encamped in the plains of Moab on the east side of the Jordan River facing Jericho, in full view of the Promised Land. The Moabites were terrified by the presence of these people because they had heard what happened to the Amorites. Their king, Balak, hired a magician named Balaam to curse the Israelites. Three times Balaam attempted to curse them, but each time God turned his words into a blessing (Nm 22–24). Though unable to curse the Israelites, Balaam was responsible for an even greater calamity. He advised the Moabites to entice the Israelites to sacrifice to their gods and bow down to them (Nm 25:1-3; 31:16; 2 Pt 2:15; Rv 2:14). While the people were worshiping the Moabite deity, Baal of Peor, God’s anger was kindled against them, and he sent a plague that killed 24,000 of them (Nm 25:9). It was Israel’s first encounter with the seductive allurement of licentious idolatry and an ominous foreview of what would happen after they settled down in Canaan. Their continued attraction to idolatry would be their final undoing.<\/p>\n<p>After the plague, God instructed Moses and Eleazar to take another census of the people like the one almost 40 years earlier. A whole generation of Israelites had died in the wilderness, but they had been replaced by an almost equal number, so that now there were 601,730 men 20 years and older who were able to go to war (Nm 26:51). Not a man remained of those who had been counted in the first census, except Caleb and Joshua.<\/p>\n<p>The Lord instructed Moses to lay hands on Joshua and commission him as the new leader in the sight of Eleazar the priest and all the congregation (Nm 27:12-23). In addition, the Lord gave Moses instructions concerning feasts and offerings and vows (chs 28–30). God ordered Moses, as his last act as leader, to avenge the Israelites on the Midianites. In that battle the armies of Israel gained a great victory over the Midianites, killing their kings, their men, and also Balaam.<\/p>\n<p>The Lord gave instructions to Moses concerning the boundaries that would mark the Promised Land and named the men who would divide the land among the tribes (Nm 34). He also ordered that 48 cities be given to the Levites, the priestly tribe, as their portion. Six of these were designated as cities of refuge where murderers could flee so that they would not be killed by those seeking vengeance without having an opportunity to stand before the congregation for judgment (ch 35).<\/p>\n<h5>Moses’ Death<\/h5>\n<p>The book of Deuteronomy has often been called Moses’ valedictory speech to the people, for in it Moses is not merely the chief speaker but the only speaker. With the congregation of his people gathered before him, he rehearsed all that God had done for them since leaving Sinai, and he reminded them of their failure to enter the Promised Land 38 years earlier (Dt 2:14). He recalled his plea that God would let him cross the Jordan and see the land that was to be the home of the people, but God responded that Moses would only be allowed to view the land from the top of Pisgah. Moses then exhorted the people to obey the statutes and ordinances that had been given to them in order to experience God’s blessings in the land.<\/p>\n\n<p>As the day of Moses’ death approached, the Lord ordered Moses and Joshua to present themselves at the tent of meeting in order for Joshua to be commissioned as the new leader (Dt 31:14-23). Before his death, Moses pronounced a blessing upon all the Israelites (ch 33). Having completed these tasks, Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mt Nebo, and to the top of Pisgah. From there God showed him the land promised long ago to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—the land that was soon to be the home of the wandering Israelite tribes. Again God told him that he would not be allowed to cross over the Jordan. Moses died there and God buried him somewhere in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-peor (34:6). Moses was 120 years old when he died, and the Israelites mourned his death for 30 days. The finest tribute to Moses is found in the closing words of the book of Deuteronomy, “There has never been another prophet like Moses, whom the <span>Lord<\/span> knew face to face” (v 10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MosesintheNewTestament\">Moses in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>All Jews and Christians in apostolic times considered Moses the author of the Pentateuch. Such expressions as “the law of Moses” (Lk 2:22), “Moses commanded” (Mt 19:7), “Moses said” (Mk 7:10) “and Moses wrote” (12:19) shows that his name was synonymous with the OT books attributed to him. He is mentioned in the NT more than any other OT figure, a total of 79 times. His role as lawgiver is emphasized more than any other aspect of his life (Mt 8:4; Mk 7:10; Jn 1:17; Acts 15:1). He appears at the transfiguration of Jesus as the representative of OT law, along with Elijah as the representative of OT prophets (Mt 17:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>Moses’ role as prophet is also mentioned in the NT. As a prophet, he spoke of the coming Messiah and his sufferings (Lk 24:25-27; Acts 3:22). The NT also draws from the life and experiences of Moses to show patterns of life under the new covenant. The nativity story of Jesus parallels the Mosaic story of the infant deliverer being rescued from the evil designs of an earthly despot (Mt 2:13-18). Jesus’ proclamation of a new law in his Sermon on the Mount parallels the giving of the law at Sinai (Mt 5–7) and presents Jesus as the authoritative interpreter of the will of God. Contrast between the old law and the new relationship with God is especially marked in the book of Galatians. The comparison of Moses with Christ is an important emphasis of the book of Hebrews (Heb 3:5-6; 9:11-22). John contrasted the law that was given through Moses with the grace and truth that came through Jesus Christ (Jn 1:17). He also contrasted the manna in the wilderness to Jesus as “the bread of life” (6:30-35).<\/p>\n<p>Other references to Moses or to events associated with him include his birth (Acts 7:20; Heb 11:23), the burning bush (Lk 20:37), the magicians of Egypt (2 Tm 3:8), the Passover (Heb 11:28), the exodus (3:16), crossing of the sea (1 Cor 10:2), the covenant sacrifice at Sinai (Mt 26:28), the manna (1 Cor 10:3), the glory on Moses’ face (2 Cor 3:7-18), water from the rock (1 Cor 10:4), the bronze serpent (Jn 3:14), and the song of Moses (Rv 15:3).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Egypt, Egyptian; Exodus, The; Israel, History of; Plagues upon Egypt; Priests and Levites; Tabernacle; Temple; Commandments, The Ten; Wilderness Wanderings.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MOSES<\/h3>\n<p>Great leader of the Hebrew people who brought them out of bondage in Egypt to the Promised Land in Canaan; also the one who gave them the law at Mt Sinai that became the basis for their religious faith through the centuries. Focused in this one person are the figures of prophet, priest, lawgiver, judge, intercessor, shepherd, miracle worker, and founder of a nation.<\/p>\n<p>The meaning of his name is uncertain. It has been explained as a Hebrew word meaning “to draw out” (Ex 2:10; cf. 2 Sm 22:17; Ps 18:16). If, however, it is an Egyptian name given him by the daughter of Pharaoh who found him, it is more likely from an Egyptian word for “son” (also found as part of many well-known Egyptian names such as Ahmose, Thutmose, and Ramses). No one else in the OT bears this name.<\/p>\n<p>Without question, the greatest figure in the OT (mentioned by name 767 times), his influence also extends to the pages of the NT (where he is mentioned 79 times). The first 40 years of his life were spent in the household of Pharaoh (Acts 7:23), where he was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. The next 40 years he spent in Midian as a fugitive from the wrath of Pharaoh, after killing an Egyptian who was mistreating a Hebrew. His last 40 years were devoted to leading the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt to the land God had promised to Abraham and his descendants (Gn 12:1-3). He died at the age of 120 after leading the Israelites successfully through 40 years of wandering in the wilderness to the very edge of the Promised Land on the east side of the Jordan River (Dt 34:7). He is one of the great figures in all of history, a man who took a group of slaves and, under inconceivably difficult circumstances, molded them into a nation that has influenced and altered the entire course of history.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• The First 40 Years—In Egypt<\/p>\n<p>• The Second 40 Years—In Midian<\/p>\n<p>• The Third 40 Years—From Egypt to Canaan<\/p>\n<p>• Moses in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The only source of information for the life of Moses is the Bible. Archaeology confirms the credibility of the events associated with Moses, but it has never provided any specific confirmation of his existence or work. His story begins with the arrival in Egypt of Jacob, his sons, and their families during a time of famine in Canaan. Invited by Joseph and welcomed by Pharaoh, the family settled down in northeast Egypt in an area known as Goshen, where they remained for 430 years (Ex 12:40). With the passing of time, their numbers grew rapidly, so that the land was filled with them (1:7). A new king arose over Egypt who did not know Joseph. The biblical account does not give the name of this pharaoh, and there has never been agreement as to his identity. He has most frequently been identified as Thutmose III (1504–1451 <span>BC<\/span>), Seti I (1304–1290 <span>BC<\/span>), or Ramses II (1290–1224 <span>BC<\/span>). Out of fear that their growing numbers might become a threat to the security of his nation, Pharaoh determined to take measures to reduce their number. He put them to work building the store cities of Pithom and Rameses, but the severity of the work did not diminish them. He next tried to enlist the cooperation of the midwives to destroy the male babies, but they would not carry out his orders. He then ordered his own people to drown the male infants in the Nile River. Against the background of this first-known Jewish persecution, the baby Moses was born.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFirst40YearsInEgypt\">The First 40 Years—In Egypt<\/p>\n<h5>Birth and Early Life<\/h5>\n<p>A man of the family of Levi named Amram married his father’s sister Jochebed (Ex 6:20; cf. 2:1). Their first son, Aaron, three years older than Moses, was born before the command to drown the Hebrew babies was given, as there is no indication that his life was in danger. However, the cruel order was in force when Moses was born, and after three months, when his mother could no longer hide him, she took a basket made of bulrushes and daubed it with bitumen and pitch. She put the baby into the basket and placed it among the reeds along the banks of the river. An older sister, Miriam, stayed near the river to see what would happen. Soon the daughter of Pharaoh (identified by Josephus as Thermuthis and by others as Hatshepsut, but whose actual identity cannot be determined) came to the river to bathe, as was her custom. She discovered the baby, recognized it as one of the Hebrew children, and determined that she would raise the child as her own. Miriam emerged from her hiding place and offered to secure a Hebrew woman to nurse the child, an arrangement that was agreeable to the princess. Miriam took the baby to his own mother, who kept him for perhaps two or three years (cf. 1 Sm 1:19-24). Nothing is recorded of those formative years. Whether his mother continued seeing him during his later childhood and young manhood or revealed his true identity to him or taught him the Hebrew faith are matters of speculation. Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, as would befit a member of the royal household, and he became mighty in his words and deeds (Acts 7:22).<\/p>\n<h5>Identification with His Own People<\/h5>\n<p>Just when Moses became aware that he was a Hebrew rather than Egyptian cannot be known, but it is clear that he knew it by the time he was 40 years old. One day he went out to visit his people and to observe their treatment, for the cruel measures taken against them by Pharaoh at the time of Moses’ birth had not been lifted. Seeing an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, Moses in great anger killed the Egyptian and buried him. He thought the deed had gone unnoticed until the next day when he encountered two Hebrews fighting with each other. When he tried to act as peacemaker, they both turned on him and accused him of murder: “Who made you a prince and a judge over us? Do you mean to kill me, as you killed the Egyptian?” (Ex 2:14, <span>rsv<\/span>). Acts 7:25 adds: “He supposed that his brethren understood that God was giving them deliverance by his hand” (<span>rsv<\/span>). Aware that being a member of Pharaoh’s household would not exempt him from punishment now that the deed was known, Moses fled for his life to the land of Midian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheSecond40YearsInMidian\">The Second 40 Years—In Midian<\/p>\n<h5>Marriage into the Family of Jethro<\/h5>\n<p>Soon after arriving in Midian, Moses sat down by a well, where he observed the seven daughters of the priest of Midian who had come to the well to draw water for their father’s flock. Shepherds came and drove them away, but Moses intervened and helped them water their animals. When Jethro (Ex 3:1; also called Reuel, 2:18; Hobab, Nm 10:29) learned what had happened, he invited Moses to stay with his family and gave him Zipporah as his wife. (There is some disagreement among scholars regarding the identity of Hobab in Numbers 10:29; some think he was Moses’ father-in-law, while others maintain that Hobab was Moses’ brother-in-law. <em>See also<\/em> Hobab). Two children, Gershom (Ex 2:22) and Eliezer (18:4), were born to Moses and Zipporah during the years in Midian. Forty years passed, and Moses’ thoughts about his former life in Egypt must have faded into the past. He could not have foreseen that God would soon thrust him back into the midst of the court in Egypt, where he would confront the son of the now-dead pharaoh with the demand to release the Hebrew people from the bondage they had endured for so many years. God had not forgotten his people and was now ready to deliver them.<\/p>\n<h5>Encounter with God at the Burning Bush<\/h5>\n<p>One day, while Moses was taking care of the flocks of his father-in-law, he led them to Mt Horeb (known also as Sinai), where God appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush that burned but was not consumed. Moses approached to observe the strange sight more closely and heard God speak to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” Moses replied, “Here am I.” Before he could come any nearer to the bush, God said, “Do not come near; put off your shoes from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground” (Ex 3:4-5, <span>rsv<\/span>). He further identified himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He assured Moses that he was aware of the cruel afflictions of his people and had heard their cries. Then he told of his plan to send Moses to Egypt to deliver his people from their bondage.<\/p>\n<p>Faced with a challenge that seemed beyond his capabilities, the aged Moses began making excuses for not accepting the task. God assured Moses that he would be with him (Ex 3:11-12). To his excuse that he would not be able to give an answer if the people asked him the name of the God he represented, God revealed his name in the cryptic statement, “ ‘<span>I Am the One Who Always Is<\/span>’ . . . Just tell them, ‘I <span>Am<\/span> has sent me to you’ ” (vv 13-14, <span>nlt<\/span>). Many interpretations have been proposed for the name. Whatever else it means, it undoubtedly suggests the self-existence and all-sufficiency of God. Moses then argued that the people would not believe him when he told them that God had sent him to deliver them from Egypt. In response God gave him three signs: When he cast his shepherd’s rod to the ground, it became a serpent. When he put his hand to his bosom, it became leprous. He was also told that when he would pour water from the Nile on the ground, it would become blood (Ex 4:1-9). Even armed with these powerful evidences of the presence of God with him, Moses raised still another objection, “O Lord, I’m just not a good speaker. I never have been, and I’m not now, even after you have spoken to me. I’m clumsy with words” (v 10, <span>nlt<\/span>). God told him that he would teach him what to say, but despite such assurance, Moses asked God to send someone else. In anger mingled with compassion, God made Moses’ brother, Aaron, the spokesman, but said his instructions would still be given directly to Moses.<\/p>\n<h5>Return to Egypt<\/h5>\n<p>Moses took his wife and sons and set out for Egypt, telling his father-in-law only that he wanted to go back to Egypt to visit his kinsmen there (Ex 4:18). The biblical account says he put his wife and sons on the same donkey to journey back to Egypt (v 20). The fact that all three rode the same animal indicates that both children were quite young and had not been born in the early years of Moses’ marriage. At a lodging place along the way a strange thing happened. The Lord met him and sought to kill him (v 24), apparently because Moses had failed to circumcise the baby before leaving Midian. When Zipporah realized that Moses’ life was in danger, she performed the rite herself and said to her husband, “What a blood-smeared bridegroom you are to me!” (v 25, <span>nlt<\/span>). Whatever else may have been involved in this unusual encounter with God, it was a solemn reminder that the one who was to be the leader of the covenant people must not himself neglect any part of the covenant (Gn 17:10-14).<\/p>\n<p>God told Aaron (who was still in Egypt) to go to the mountain where Moses had encountered God at the burning bush and meet his brother there. Moses told Aaron everything that had happened, and together they went to Egypt, gathered the elders together, and informed them of these matters. When Moses and Aaron performed the signs in the presence of the people, they believed these leaders had been sent by God to deliver them from their affliction (Ex 4:30-31).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheThird40YearsFromEgypttoCanaan\">The Third 40 Years—From Egypt to Canaan<\/p>\n<h5>The Encounter with Pharaoh<\/h5>\n<p>Soon after his return to Egypt, Moses, accompanied by Aaron, went to Pharaoh and repeated the demands of the Lord, “Let my people go, for they must go out into the wilderness to hold a religious festival in my honor” (Ex 5:1, <span>nlt<\/span>). Pharaoh rejected the demand with the observation that he had never heard of this God of Moses. When one realizes that Egyptian kings considered themselves to be gods, the affront to Pharaoh becomes even more acute. Not only did he reject Moses’ demands, but he intensified the burdens of the Hebrews. Their work had up until then required them to make brick using straw provided for them, but now Pharaoh said they would have to gather their own straw and still produce the same number of bricks. The Hebrews turned in anguish and anger to Moses and blamed him for making them offensive in the sight of Pharaoh. Even Moses could not understand the turn of events and complained bitterly to God. God reassured Moses that he would deliver the Hebrews from their bondage, and moreover, he would bring them into the land he had promised Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He then instructed Moses to return to Pharaoh and repeat the demand to release the Hebrews upon threat of severe reprisal if the demand were ignored.<\/p>\n<p>Ushered again into Pharaoh’s presence, Moses repeated his request for release of the Israelites. He attempted to impress Pharaoh by turning his rod into a serpent, but the Egyptian wise men, through their secret arts, were able to duplicate the miracle, so Pharaoh’s heart remained hardened and he would not listen to Moses. In rapid succession Moses brought nine plagues upon the land of Egypt to show the omnipotence of God to force the compliance of Pharaoh. These included a plague in which the water of the Nile turned to blood, a plague of frogs, one of gnats, then of flies, a plague on the livestock, boils on the people, plagues of hail, locusts, and complete darkness. During the plagues of the frogs, flies, hail, locusts, and darkness, Pharaoh was distraught and would temporarily relent and agree to Moses’ demands, but as soon as the plague was lifted, his heart hardened and he would retract his promise. The outcome of the first nine plagues was terrible devastation of the land of Egypt, but the Israelites were not released. There was yet one more plague in store, the most terrible of all.<\/p>\n<h5>The First Passover<\/h5>\n<p>God told Moses that there remained one more plague in store for the Egyptians: “All the firstborn sons will die in every family in Egypt, from the oldest son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the oldest son of his lowliest slave. Even the firstborn of the animals will die” (Ex 11:5, <span>nlt<\/span>). Furthermore, he assured Moses that the plague would not touch a single household of the Hebrews, “Then you will know that the <span>Lord<\/span> makes a distinction between the Egyptians and the Israelites” (v 7, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>God instructed the people through Moses and Aaron to make their preparations for leaving the land in haste. They were to go to the Egyptians and ask them for their jewels of silver and gold (Ex 11:2-3), a request to which the Egyptians agreed, perhaps out of fear of the Hebrews and in the belief that the gifts would bring about an end of the terrors that had struck the land. The Hebrews were also instructed to prepare a lamb for each family—small families could share—for the last meal to be eaten in the land of Egypt (a rite that became the pattern for the Jewish observance of the Passover for many centuries). Blood of the lamb was to be put on the doorposts and lintels of the houses in which the Passover meal was being eaten that night. The Hebrews were promised that wherever the blood was on the door, no harm would come to that household. They were also instructed to prepare unleavened bread. At midnight the death angel of the Lord killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh himself to the lowest captive in a dungeon; not a single house of the Egyptians escaped tragedy. When Pharaoh saw what had happened, he ordered Moses and the people to leave the land at once (12:31-32). The biblical record says that about 600,000 Hebrew men left Egypt. Together with women and children, the total would have been in excess of 2 million people.<\/p>\n<h5>The Exodus from Egypt<\/h5>\n<p>The exodus is the central event of the OT and marks the birth of Israel as a nation. The Jewish people still look back to that event as the great redemptive act of God in history on behalf of his people, much as Christians look upon the cross as the great redemptive act of their faith.<\/p>\n\n<p>The exact route taken by the Hebrews out of Egypt cannot be determined today, though many possibilities have been proposed. They did not take the shortest, most direct route to Canaan (which would have been about a 10 days’ journey along the Mediterranean coastline), but set out in the direction of Mt Sinai, where Moses had earlier met God at the burning bush. As a sign that Moses had been sent to deliver the people, God told Moses he would bring them to that same spot, where they would worship God (Ex 3:12). The Hebrews did not forget the request of Joseph to carry his bones with them when they returned to their own land (Gn 50:25; Ex 13:19).<\/p>\n<p>As the people journeyed, they were preceded by a pillar of cloud during the day and a pillar of fire at night. The cloud represented the presence of God with his people and guided them along the route they should travel.<\/p>\n<p>Back in Egypt, Pharaoh was having second thoughts about letting the Hebrews leave the land and decided to pursue them with his army and bring them back. When the Hebrews saw the approaching cloud of dust and realized that the Egyptian army was pursuing them, they were terrified. The sea lay ahead of them and the Egyptians were behind; there seemed to be no way of escape. The people turned on Moses, blaming him for bringing them out of Egypt. God again assured them that they did not need to be afraid or do anything to defend themselves. He promised to fight the battle for them and give them victory (Ex 14:14).<\/p>\n<p>The Lord parted the water of the Sea of Reeds (traditionally but erroneously referred to as the Red Sea) by a strong east wind and allowed the Israelites to pass through the sea on dry ground to the other side. The Egyptians rushed after the Israelites, following them into the dry bed of the sea. But before they reached the other side, the waters rushed back together, destroying the Egyptian army in the midst of the sea and leaving the Israelites safe on the other side. The people celebrated their great deliverance in song (Ex 15) and then continued their journey. The narrative that follows describes the struggle of the Israelites to survive in the desert—problems of food and water, internal dissension, murmurings against Moses, and battles with enemies. Through all their experiences, Moses towers as the unifying force and great spiritual leader.<\/p>\n<p>In spite of having seen God’s great act of deliverance so recently, the faith of the Israelites was not strong. Three days later they came to a place where the water was not fit to drink, and they began complaining against Moses. The Lord showed Moses how to purify the water, and the people’s needs were satisfied (Ex 15:22-25). When they reached the wilderness of Sin, they complained again, this time because of lack of food. God met their need by supplying manna, a breadlike substance that would serve as their food until they came to Canaan (16:1-21). Later, camped at Rephidim, the people complained again, this time for lack of water. Once again God met their needs by supplying water from the rock at Horeb (17:1-7). The Amalekites attacked them while they were still camped at Rephidim, but God gave a great victory to the Israelites (vv 8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Moses and the people reached Sinai and camped there. Jethro came to visit, bringing Moses’ wife and sons. Zipporah had apparently decided to return with her children to stay with her father rather than to go on to Egypt with Moses. It was a joyful reunion, and Jethro made a burnt offering and sacrifices to God (an act that has evoked the suggestion that Jethro was a true worshiper of God, though nothing is known of his links to the Hebrew faith). When Jethro observed Moses trying to settle all the disputes and problems of the Hebrews unaided, he proposed that Moses delegate responsibility for some of the lesser matters to able men chosen from among the people. Moses accepted the suggestion, and shortly afterward Jethro returned to his own land. He did not remain at Sinai to participate in the ratification of the covenant (Ex 18:13-27).<\/p>\n<h5>Giving of the Law at Sinai<\/h5>\n<p>God had kept his promises to Moses. He had delivered the Hebrews from their Egyptian bondage and brought them to the very place where he had commissioned Moses to be their leader. He was now ready to enter into a covenant relationship with Israel. Amid a spectacular and terrifying scene of lightning, thunder, thick clouds, fire, smoke, and earthquake, God descended to the top of Sinai and called Moses to come up the mountain, where he remained 40 days to receive the law that would become the basis of the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>At Sinai, God was revealed as the God who demands exclusive allegiance in all areas of life and, at the same time, as the God who desires personal fellowship with his people.<\/p>\n<h5>Apostasy of the People<\/h5>\n<p>While Moses tarried on Mt Sinai, the people below became impatient and skeptical about his return, so they went to Aaron and asked him to make idols for them to worship. They contributed the gold earrings they were wearing. “Then Aaron took the gold, melted it down, and molded and tooled it into the shape of a calf. The people exclaimed, ‘O Israel, these are the gods who brought you out of Egypt!’ ” (Ex 32:4, <span>nlt<\/span>). The next day they joined in the worship of the idol with sacrifices and revelry. God told Moses what was taking place below and angrily declared that he was going to destroy the people but would make a great nation of Moses and his descendants. Moses immediately interceded on behalf of the people, and God’s wrath abated. Moses descended the mountain, carrying the two tablets of stone on which the law had been written, but when he entered the camp and saw what was taking place, he could not restrain his anger. He threw the stone tablets to the ground, ground the golden calf to powder, mixed it with water, and forced the people to drink it. He turned angrily to Aaron and demanded an explanation for the great sin that had been committed. Aaron lamely tried to shift the blame by minimizing his own role: “I threw them [the gold] into the fire—and out came this calf!” (v 24, <span>nlt<\/span>). Moses called for volunteers to carry out God’s judgment on the people for the great sin they had committed. Men of the tribe of Levi responded and executed about 3,000 men. Later they were commended and rewarded (Dt 33:9-10). Moses again interceded for the people, requesting that he be destroyed with the rest if God could not forgive them. God relented and promised Moses that the angel of the Lord would go with them still (Ex 32:34).<\/p>\n<p>Then Moses made a special request that he might be allowed to see the glory of the Lord. God instructed Moses to hew out two more tablets of stone like the ones he had destroyed and to return to the top of the mountain the next day. There the Lord passed before him and proclaimed his name: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span>, I am the <span>Lord<\/span>, the merciful and gracious God. I am slow to anger and rich in unfailing love and faithfulness” (Ex 34:6, <span>nlt<\/span>). Moses remained on the mountain another 40 days, where he received renewed warnings against idolatry and further instructions from the Lord, together with another copy of the Ten Commandments on tablets of stone. When Moses came down from the mountain, he was not aware that the skin of his face shone as a result of talking with God. At first the people were afraid to come near him, but he called them together and repeated all the Lord had said to him on the mountain. Afterward, he covered his face with a veil, which he removed only when he went into the presence of the Lord. Paul said the purpose of the veil was to prevent the people from seeing the heavenly light gradually fade from Moses’ face (2 Cor 3:13).<\/p>\n<h5>The Tabernacle and Establishment of the Priesthood<\/h5>\n<p>When Moses went up to the mountain the first time to receive the law from God, he was instructed to collect materials to be used in the construction of the tabernacle or tent. Gold, silver, bronze, blue and purple and scarlet yarn, fine twined linen, goats’ hair, tanned rams’ skins, goatskins, and acacia wood would be needed, along with oil for the lamps, spices for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense, onyx stones, and stones for setting (Ex 25:3-7). The pattern for construction was also given to him, together with the ritual to be used for the consecration of the priests. A man named Bezalel was put in charge of the construction of the tabernacle, assisted by Oholiab (31:1-6). The tabernacle was portable like a tent so that it could be taken down and moved from place to place as the Hebrews continued their journey toward Canaan.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to giving Moses directions for the tabernacle, God also instructed him concerning the sacrifices that were to be brought: the burnt offering, grain offering, peace offering, sin offering, and guilt offering (Lv 1–7). The solemn ceremony for ordaining Aaron and his sons as priests and for inaugurating the worship practices were to be performed by Moses (chs 8–9).<\/p>\n<p>Sometime after this solemn inauguration of the religious ritual actually took place, Nadab and Abihu, two of Aaron’s four sons, offered unauthorized fire before the Lord. A fire came out from the Lord and destroyed them. Moses forbade Aaron and his sons Eleazar and Ithamar to express grief because of the sinfulness of the act (Lv 10:1-7). The nature of their sin is difficult to determine, but it surely involved a violation of God’s holiness. Therefore, it is appropriate that a large part of the remainder of the book of Leviticus gives regulations that stress the holy living that God expected from his people.<\/p>\n<h5>From Sinai to Kadesh<\/h5>\n<p>A year had elapsed from the time the Israelites left Egypt until the census was taken (Nm 9:1). God reminded the people that it was time to observe the Passover, which they did, and a month later they set out from Sinai and came to the wilderness of Paran. Along the way they complained about the unvarying diet of manna and they longed for the fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic they had eaten in Egypt (11:4-6). In anger God sent quail in abundance, but even while the people were devouring the meat, God sent a great plague that killed many Israelites. The complaining attitude of the people was shared even by Miriam and Aaron. They began to speak against the Cushite woman Moses had married (12:1-2). It is not certain whether the Cushite was an Ethiopian or whether this was another way of referring to Zipporah. If Moses did marry a second time, no mention is made of it elsewhere in the OT. Moses made no reply to the accusations of his brother and sister. It was not necessary, for God intervened in defense of his servant. He smote Miriam with leprosy for her part in speaking against Moses, and when Aaron saw what had happened to Miriam, he acknowledged that they both had sinned. Miriam’s leprosy was removed in response to Moses’ fervent intercession.<\/p>\n\n<p>While the people were encamped at Kadesh (also called Kadesh-barnea—Nm 32:8) in the wilderness of Paran, Moses sent 12 men into Canaan, one from each tribe, to spy out the land in preparation for the Israelite entry. After 40 days the spies returned and, though they acknowledged that the land was fertile and inviting, 10 of them were afraid of the Canaanite inhabitants and advised against going into the land. Only Joshua and Caleb were willing to go ahead and occupy the territory. The entire congregation joined the protest against going in and determined to choose a new leader and return to Egypt rather than risk death by the sword in Canaan. They threatened to stone Moses and Aaron. At that moment God intervened and would have destroyed all the people on the spot except for the intervention of Moses (13:1–14:19). He declared that, if God did not bring the people into Canaan, the nations round about would conclude that the God of the Israelites was unable to bring them into the land. Once again God acquiesced to Moses’ request to pardon the people but said that none of them 20 years and older who had complained against him would be allowed to enter the land. All the people would wander in the wilderness for 40 years until that generation died, and then their children would be allowed to enter Canaan (14:29-33). When they heard the Lord’s sentence upon them, the people quickly decided to lift the sentence of judgment by entering the land at once, but God was not with them, and they suffered a disastrous defeat at the hands of the Amalekites and Canaanites.<\/p>\n<h5>Forty Years in the Wilderness<\/h5>\n<p>Very little is known about events during the 40 years of wilderness wanderings. In spite of the judgment that had already come upon them, the people did not seem to change their ways. A man named Korah led another rebellion against the authority of Moses and Aaron. God would not listen to the pleas of Moses and Aaron on behalf of these dissidents (Nm 16:22-24), but told the congregation to separate itself from the tents of Korah and his conspirators. While the people watched, the ground split open and swallowed up the rebellious factions together with their households and all their possessions. Though the rest of the Israelites witnessed the fate of the rebels, it did not deter them from again turning on Moses and Aaron. At this, God told Moses to remove himself from the murmuring congregation in order that he could take vengeance. Though Moses offered atonement for the people’s sins, 14,700 died by plague before the punishment was ended. To demonstrate further to the people that Moses was his chosen leader, the Lord instructed Moses to take rods, one for each tribe, and to deposit them in the tent of meeting. God would cause the rod of the man chosen by him to sprout, and so silence the murmurings of the people. The rod belonging to Aaron sprouted and budded and bloomed, but the people only complained more.<\/p>\n<p>As the people neared the end of their years of wilderness wanderings, Miriam died in Kadesh and was buried there (Nm 20:1). Soon after, the people began to complain once more for lack of water. God instructed Moses to speak to a rock that would bring forth water to satisfy the needs of the people. Instead of speaking to the rock, Moses struck it twice with his rod. The water came forth, but God rebuked Moses and Aaron: “Because you did not trust me enough to demonstrate my holiness to the people of Israel, you will not lead them into the land I am giving them!” (v 12, <span>nlt<\/span>). The nature of the sin is not clear, but Moses and Aaron were apparently taking to themselves honor that belonged to God alone. Because of the sin, they were denied the privilege of leading the Israelites into the Promised Land. The punishment may seem too severe for the sin, but it shows that the privileged role of leadership given to Moses and Aaron carried with it an unusual measure of responsibility.<\/p>\n<p>The people then journeyed from Kadesh to Mt Hor on the border of the land of Edom, where Aaron died. Moses took his priestly garments from him and gave them to Eleazar, his son, thereby transferring the priestly office (Nm 20:28).<\/p>\n<p>As the people came closer to their destination, resistance on the part of the native population increased. There was a skirmish with the king of Arad and his forces at Hormah, resulting in a victory for Israel (Nm 21:1-3). As they journeyed around Edom, some of the Israelites began speaking against God and Moses because there was no food or water and they were tired of eating manna. This time the Lord sent poisonous snakes among the people, and many of them died of the venomous bites. Those who had not yet been bitten came to Moses, acknowledged their sin, and asked that the serpents be removed from their midst. God instructed Moses to make a serpent of bronze and set it on a pole. If a person bitten by a serpent looked up at the bronze serpent, he or she would live.<\/p>\n<p>As the Israelites approached the territory of Sihon, king of the Amorites, they sent messengers asking permission to pass peaceably through his land. Instead of granting the request, Sihon gathered his army together and fought against Israel. He was killed in the battle, and his land and cities were taken and occupied by the Hebrews (Nm 21:21-25).<\/p>\n<h5>Arrival at the Jordan River<\/h5>\n<p>After their victory over Sihon, the Israelites set out again and encamped in the plains of Moab on the east side of the Jordan River facing Jericho, in full view of the Promised Land. The Moabites were terrified by the presence of these people because they had heard what happened to the Amorites. Their king, Balak, hired a magician named Balaam to curse the Israelites. Three times Balaam attempted to curse them, but each time God turned his words into a blessing (Nm 22–24). Though unable to curse the Israelites, Balaam was responsible for an even greater calamity. He advised the Moabites to entice the Israelites to sacrifice to their gods and bow down to them (Nm 25:1-3; 31:16; 2 Pt 2:15; Rv 2:14). While the people were worshiping the Moabite deity, Baal of Peor, God’s anger was kindled against them, and he sent a plague that killed 24,000 of them (Nm 25:9). It was Israel’s first encounter with the seductive allurement of licentious idolatry and an ominous foreview of what would happen after they settled down in Canaan. Their continued attraction to idolatry would be their final undoing.<\/p>\n<p>After the plague, God instructed Moses and Eleazar to take another census of the people like the one almost 40 years earlier. A whole generation of Israelites had died in the wilderness, but they had been replaced by an almost equal number, so that now there were 601,730 men 20 years and older who were able to go to war (Nm 26:51). Not a man remained of those who had been counted in the first census, except Caleb and Joshua.<\/p>\n<p>The Lord instructed Moses to lay hands on Joshua and commission him as the new leader in the sight of Eleazar the priest and all the congregation (Nm 27:12-23). In addition, the Lord gave Moses instructions concerning feasts and offerings and vows (chs 28–30). God ordered Moses, as his last act as leader, to avenge the Israelites on the Midianites. In that battle the armies of Israel gained a great victory over the Midianites, killing their kings, their men, and also Balaam.<\/p>\n<p>The Lord gave instructions to Moses concerning the boundaries that would mark the Promised Land and named the men who would divide the land among the tribes (Nm 34). He also ordered that 48 cities be given to the Levites, the priestly tribe, as their portion. Six of these were designated as cities of refuge where murderers could flee so that they would not be killed by those seeking vengeance without having an opportunity to stand before the congregation for judgment (ch 35).<\/p>\n<h5>Moses’ Death<\/h5>\n<p>The book of Deuteronomy has often been called Moses’ valedictory speech to the people, for in it Moses is not merely the chief speaker but the only speaker. With the congregation of his people gathered before him, he rehearsed all that God had done for them since leaving Sinai, and he reminded them of their failure to enter the Promised Land 38 years earlier (Dt 2:14). He recalled his plea that God would let him cross the Jordan and see the land that was to be the home of the people, but God responded that Moses would only be allowed to view the land from the top of Pisgah. Moses then exhorted the people to obey the statutes and ordinances that had been given to them in order to experience God’s blessings in the land.<\/p>\n\n<p>As the day of Moses’ death approached, the Lord ordered Moses and Joshua to present themselves at the tent of meeting in order for Joshua to be commissioned as the new leader (Dt 31:14-23). Before his death, Moses pronounced a blessing upon all the Israelites (ch 33). Having completed these tasks, Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mt Nebo, and to the top of Pisgah. From there God showed him the land promised long ago to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—the land that was soon to be the home of the wandering Israelite tribes. Again God told him that he would not be allowed to cross over the Jordan. Moses died there and God buried him somewhere in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-peor (34:6). Moses was 120 years old when he died, and the Israelites mourned his death for 30 days. The finest tribute to Moses is found in the closing words of the book of Deuteronomy, “There has never been another prophet like Moses, whom the <span>Lord<\/span> knew face to face” (v 10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MosesintheNewTestament\">Moses in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>All Jews and Christians in apostolic times considered Moses the author of the Pentateuch. Such expressions as “the law of Moses” (Lk 2:22), “Moses commanded” (Mt 19:7), “Moses said” (Mk 7:10) “and Moses wrote” (12:19) shows that his name was synonymous with the OT books attributed to him. He is mentioned in the NT more than any other OT figure, a total of 79 times. His role as lawgiver is emphasized more than any other aspect of his life (Mt 8:4; Mk 7:10; Jn 1:17; Acts 15:1). He appears at the transfiguration of Jesus as the representative of OT law, along with Elijah as the representative of OT prophets (Mt 17:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>Moses’ role as prophet is also mentioned in the NT. As a prophet, he spoke of the coming Messiah and his sufferings (Lk 24:25-27; Acts 3:22). The NT also draws from the life and experiences of Moses to show patterns of life under the new covenant. The nativity story of Jesus parallels the Mosaic story of the infant deliverer being rescued from the evil designs of an earthly despot (Mt 2:13-18). Jesus’ proclamation of a new law in his Sermon on the Mount parallels the giving of the law at Sinai (Mt 5–7) and presents Jesus as the authoritative interpreter of the will of God. Contrast between the old law and the new relationship with God is especially marked in the book of Galatians. The comparison of Moses with Christ is an important emphasis of the book of Hebrews (Heb 3:5-6; 9:11-22). John contrasted the law that was given through Moses with the grace and truth that came through Jesus Christ (Jn 1:17). He also contrasted the manna in the wilderness to Jesus as “the bread of life” (6:30-35).<\/p>\n<p>Other references to Moses or to events associated with him include his birth (Acts 7:20; Heb 11:23), the burning bush (Lk 20:37), the magicians of Egypt (2 Tm 3:8), the Passover (Heb 11:28), the exodus (3:16), crossing of the sea (1 Cor 10:2), the covenant sacrifice at Sinai (Mt 26:28), the manna (1 Cor 10:3), the glory on Moses’ face (2 Cor 3:7-18), water from the rock (1 Cor 10:4), the bronze serpent (Jn 3:14), and the song of Moses (Rv 15:3).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Egypt, Egyptian; Exodus, The; Israel, History of; Plagues upon Egypt; Priests and Levites; Tabernacle; Temple; Commandments, The Ten; Wilderness Wanderings.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MOSES Great leader of the Hebrew people who brought them out of bondage in Egypt to the Promised Land in Canaan; also the one who gave them the law at Mt Sinai that became the basis for their religious faith through the centuries. Focused in this one person are the figures of prophet, priest, lawgiver, judge, intercessor, shepherd, miracle worker, and founder of a nation. The meaning of his name is uncertain. It has been explained as a Hebrew word meaning “to draw out” (Ex 2:10; cf. 2 Sm 22:1...","summary_en":"MOSES Great leader of the Hebrew people who brought them out of bondage in Egypt to the Promised Land in Canaan; also the one who gave them the law at Mt Sinai that became the basis for their religious faith through the centuries. Focused in this one person are the figures of prophet, priest, lawgiver, judge, intercessor, shepherd, miracle worker, and founder of a nation. The meaning of his name is uncertain. It has been explained as a Hebrew word meaning “to draw out” (Ex 2:10; cf. 2 Sm 22:1...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55460,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:19","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:19<\/strong> The Sadducees based their views only on the books of <em>Moses<\/em>. • Like the Pharisees (12:14), they addressed Jesus as <em>Teacher<\/em>. The Sadducees were fond of debating with religious teachers (see Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.4).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:19<\/strong> The Sadducees based their views only on the books of <em>Moses<\/em>. • Like the Pharisees (12:14), they addressed Jesus as <em>Teacher<\/em>. The Sadducees were fond of debating with religious teachers (see Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:19 The Sadducees based their views only on the books of Moses. • Like the Pharisees (12:14), they addressed Jesus as Teacher. The Sadducees were fond of debating with religious teachers (see Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.4).","summary_en":"12:19 The Sadducees based their views only on the books of Moses. • Like the Pharisees (12:14), they addressed Jesus as Teacher. The Sadducees were fond of debating with religious teachers (see Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.4).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83086,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:19","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:19<\/strong> The Sadducees based their views only on the books of <em>Moses<\/em>. • Like the Pharisees (12:14), they addressed Jesus as <em>Teacher<\/em>. The Sadducees were fond of debating with religious teachers (see Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.4).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:19<\/strong> The Sadducees based their views only on the books of <em>Moses<\/em>. • Like the Pharisees (12:14), they addressed Jesus as <em>Teacher<\/em>. The Sadducees were fond of debating with religious teachers (see Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:19 The Sadducees based their views only on the books of Moses. • Like the Pharisees (12:14), they addressed Jesus as Teacher. The Sadducees were fond of debating with religious teachers (see Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.4).","summary_en":"12:19 The Sadducees based their views only on the books of Moses. • Like the Pharisees (12:14), they addressed Jesus as Teacher. The Sadducees were fond of debating with religious teachers (see Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.4).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110712,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:19","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:19<\/strong> The Sadducees based their views only on the books of <em>Moses<\/em>. • Like the Pharisees (12:14), they addressed Jesus as <em>Teacher<\/em>. The Sadducees were fond of debating with religious teachers (see Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.4).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:19<\/strong> The Sadducees based their views only on the books of <em>Moses<\/em>. • Like the Pharisees (12:14), they addressed Jesus as <em>Teacher<\/em>. The Sadducees were fond of debating with religious teachers (see Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:19 The Sadducees based their views only on the books of Moses. • Like the Pharisees (12:14), they addressed Jesus as Teacher. The Sadducees were fond of debating with religious teachers (see Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.4).","summary_en":"12:19 The Sadducees based their views only on the books of Moses. • Like the Pharisees (12:14), they addressed Jesus as Teacher. The Sadducees were fond of debating with religious teachers (see Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.4).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138338,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:19","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:19<\/strong> The Sadducees based their views only on the books of <em>Moses<\/em>. • Like the Pharisees (12:14), they addressed Jesus as <em>Teacher<\/em>. The Sadducees were fond of debating with religious teachers (see Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.4).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:19<\/strong> The Sadducees based their views only on the books of <em>Moses<\/em>. • Like the Pharisees (12:14), they addressed Jesus as <em>Teacher<\/em>. The Sadducees were fond of debating with religious teachers (see Josephus, <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:19 The Sadducees based their views only on the books of Moses. • Like the Pharisees (12:14), they addressed Jesus as Teacher. The Sadducees were fond of debating with religious teachers (see Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.4).","summary_en":"12:19 The Sadducees based their views only on the books of Moses. • Like the Pharisees (12:14), they addressed Jesus as Teacher. The Sadducees were fond of debating with religious teachers (see Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.4).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"24":[{"id":55461,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:24","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:24","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:24-27<\/strong> Jesus’ response had two elements. First, he rebuked the Sadducees’ ignorance of the <em>Scriptures<\/em> (i.e., the Old Testament), where the resurrection of the dead is referred to most clearly in the Prophets (Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:1-14) and the Writings (Job 19:26; Pss 16:9-11; 49:15; 73:23-26; Dan 12:2). However, the Sadducees accepted only the Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy), so Jesus answered them from the Torah. The reference to God as <em>the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob<\/em> (see Exod 3:6, 15-16) showed that God’s covenant with the patriarchs could not be broken by death. They were still alive (Matt 8:11-12; 13:17; Luke 16:19-31; John 8:56), for God <em>is the God of the living, not the dead<\/em>. God’s covenant relationship with his people extends beyond their physical death, which means that the afterlife must be a reality. • Second, Jesus challenged the Sadducees’ ignorance of God’s <em>power<\/em>. They thought that life in the resurrection would have to be an extension of mortal life. Instead, it is life raised to an entirely new level. In this new existence, there is no need for sexual reproduction because there is no more death. The intimacy of marriage is superseded by fellowship with a multitude of fellow believers and with God (Mark 10:29-30; Matt 19:28-29; Luke 18:29-30; Rev 21:1-4). It is in this respect that resurrected believers <em>will be like the angels in heaven<\/em>. • Jesus’ argument demonstrates his wisdom before his opponents and affirms the hope of the resurrection for his followers. Jesus is “the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25); he has conquered death and assured those who believe in him that they will “not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:24-27<\/strong> Jesus’ response had two elements. First, he rebuked the Sadducees’ ignorance of the <em>Scriptures<\/em> (i.e., the Old Testament), where the resurrection of the dead is referred to most clearly in the Prophets (Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:1-14) and the Writings (Job 19:26; Pss 16:9-11; 49:15; 73:23-26; Dan 12:2). However, the Sadducees accepted only the Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy), so Jesus answered them from the Torah. The reference to God as <em>the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob<\/em> (see Exod 3:6, 15-16) showed that God’s covenant with the patriarchs could not be broken by death. They were still alive (Matt 8:11-12; 13:17; Luke 16:19-31; John 8:56), for God <em>is the God of the living, not the dead<\/em>. God’s covenant relationship with his people extends beyond their physical death, which means that the afterlife must be a reality. • Second, Jesus challenged the Sadducees’ ignorance of God’s <em>power<\/em>. They thought that life in the resurrection would have to be an extension of mortal life. Instead, it is life raised to an entirely new level. In this new existence, there is no need for sexual reproduction because there is no more death. The intimacy of marriage is superseded by fellowship with a multitude of fellow believers and with God (Mark 10:29-30; Matt 19:28-29; Luke 18:29-30; Rev 21:1-4). It is in this respect that resurrected believers <em>will be like the angels in heaven<\/em>. • Jesus’ argument demonstrates his wisdom before his opponents and affirms the hope of the resurrection for his followers. Jesus is “the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25); he has conquered death and assured those who believe in him that they will “not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:24-27 Jesus’ response had two elements. First, he rebuked the Sadducees’ ignorance of the Scriptures (i.e., the Old Testament), where the resurrection of the dead is referred to most clearly in the Prophets (Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:1-14) and the Writings (Job 19:26; Pss 16:9-11; 49:15; 73:23-26; Dan 12:2). However, the Sadducees accepted only the Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy), so Jesus answered them from the Torah. The reference to God as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob...","summary_en":"12:24-27 Jesus’ response had two elements. First, he rebuked the Sadducees’ ignorance of the Scriptures (i.e., the Old Testament), where the resurrection of the dead is referred to most clearly in the Prophets (Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:1-14) and the Writings (Job 19:26; Pss 16:9-11; 49:15; 73:23-26; Dan 12:2). However, the Sadducees accepted only the Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy), so Jesus answered them from the Torah. The reference to God as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83087,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:24","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:24","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:24-27<\/strong> Jesus’ response had two elements. First, he rebuked the Sadducees’ ignorance of the <em>Scriptures<\/em> (i.e., the Old Testament), where the resurrection of the dead is referred to most clearly in the Prophets (Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:1-14) and the Writings (Job 19:26; Pss 16:9-11; 49:15; 73:23-26; Dan 12:2). However, the Sadducees accepted only the Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy), so Jesus answered them from the Torah. The reference to God as <em>the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob<\/em> (see Exod 3:6, 15-16) showed that God’s covenant with the patriarchs could not be broken by death. They were still alive (Matt 8:11-12; 13:17; Luke 16:19-31; John 8:56), for God <em>is the God of the living, not the dead<\/em>. God’s covenant relationship with his people extends beyond their physical death, which means that the afterlife must be a reality. • Second, Jesus challenged the Sadducees’ ignorance of God’s <em>power<\/em>. They thought that life in the resurrection would have to be an extension of mortal life. Instead, it is life raised to an entirely new level. In this new existence, there is no need for sexual reproduction because there is no more death. The intimacy of marriage is superseded by fellowship with a multitude of fellow believers and with God (Mark 10:29-30; Matt 19:28-29; Luke 18:29-30; Rev 21:1-4). It is in this respect that resurrected believers <em>will be like the angels in heaven<\/em>. • Jesus’ argument demonstrates his wisdom before his opponents and affirms the hope of the resurrection for his followers. Jesus is “the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25); he has conquered death and assured those who believe in him that they will “not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:24-27<\/strong> Jesus’ response had two elements. First, he rebuked the Sadducees’ ignorance of the <em>Scriptures<\/em> (i.e., the Old Testament), where the resurrection of the dead is referred to most clearly in the Prophets (Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:1-14) and the Writings (Job 19:26; Pss 16:9-11; 49:15; 73:23-26; Dan 12:2). However, the Sadducees accepted only the Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy), so Jesus answered them from the Torah. The reference to God as <em>the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob<\/em> (see Exod 3:6, 15-16) showed that God’s covenant with the patriarchs could not be broken by death. They were still alive (Matt 8:11-12; 13:17; Luke 16:19-31; John 8:56), for God <em>is the God of the living, not the dead<\/em>. God’s covenant relationship with his people extends beyond their physical death, which means that the afterlife must be a reality. • Second, Jesus challenged the Sadducees’ ignorance of God’s <em>power<\/em>. They thought that life in the resurrection would have to be an extension of mortal life. Instead, it is life raised to an entirely new level. In this new existence, there is no need for sexual reproduction because there is no more death. The intimacy of marriage is superseded by fellowship with a multitude of fellow believers and with God (Mark 10:29-30; Matt 19:28-29; Luke 18:29-30; Rev 21:1-4). It is in this respect that resurrected believers <em>will be like the angels in heaven<\/em>. • Jesus’ argument demonstrates his wisdom before his opponents and affirms the hope of the resurrection for his followers. Jesus is “the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25); he has conquered death and assured those who believe in him that they will “not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:24-27 Jesus’ response had two elements. First, he rebuked the Sadducees’ ignorance of the Scriptures (i.e., the Old Testament), where the resurrection of the dead is referred to most clearly in the Prophets (Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:1-14) and the Writings (Job 19:26; Pss 16:9-11; 49:15; 73:23-26; Dan 12:2). However, the Sadducees accepted only the Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy), so Jesus answered them from the Torah. The reference to God as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob...","summary_en":"12:24-27 Jesus’ response had two elements. First, he rebuked the Sadducees’ ignorance of the Scriptures (i.e., the Old Testament), where the resurrection of the dead is referred to most clearly in the Prophets (Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:1-14) and the Writings (Job 19:26; Pss 16:9-11; 49:15; 73:23-26; Dan 12:2). However, the Sadducees accepted only the Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy), so Jesus answered them from the Torah. The reference to God as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110713,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:24","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:24","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:24-27<\/strong> Jesus’ response had two elements. First, he rebuked the Sadducees’ ignorance of the <em>Scriptures<\/em> (i.e., the Old Testament), where the resurrection of the dead is referred to most clearly in the Prophets (Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:1-14) and the Writings (Job 19:26; Pss 16:9-11; 49:15; 73:23-26; Dan 12:2). However, the Sadducees accepted only the Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy), so Jesus answered them from the Torah. The reference to God as <em>the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob<\/em> (see Exod 3:6, 15-16) showed that God’s covenant with the patriarchs could not be broken by death. They were still alive (Matt 8:11-12; 13:17; Luke 16:19-31; John 8:56), for God <em>is the God of the living, not the dead<\/em>. God’s covenant relationship with his people extends beyond their physical death, which means that the afterlife must be a reality. • Second, Jesus challenged the Sadducees’ ignorance of God’s <em>power<\/em>. They thought that life in the resurrection would have to be an extension of mortal life. Instead, it is life raised to an entirely new level. In this new existence, there is no need for sexual reproduction because there is no more death. The intimacy of marriage is superseded by fellowship with a multitude of fellow believers and with God (Mark 10:29-30; Matt 19:28-29; Luke 18:29-30; Rev 21:1-4). It is in this respect that resurrected believers <em>will be like the angels in heaven<\/em>. • Jesus’ argument demonstrates his wisdom before his opponents and affirms the hope of the resurrection for his followers. Jesus is “the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25); he has conquered death and assured those who believe in him that they will “not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:24-27<\/strong> Jesus’ response had two elements. First, he rebuked the Sadducees’ ignorance of the <em>Scriptures<\/em> (i.e., the Old Testament), where the resurrection of the dead is referred to most clearly in the Prophets (Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:1-14) and the Writings (Job 19:26; Pss 16:9-11; 49:15; 73:23-26; Dan 12:2). However, the Sadducees accepted only the Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy), so Jesus answered them from the Torah. The reference to God as <em>the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob<\/em> (see Exod 3:6, 15-16) showed that God’s covenant with the patriarchs could not be broken by death. They were still alive (Matt 8:11-12; 13:17; Luke 16:19-31; John 8:56), for God <em>is the God of the living, not the dead<\/em>. God’s covenant relationship with his people extends beyond their physical death, which means that the afterlife must be a reality. • Second, Jesus challenged the Sadducees’ ignorance of God’s <em>power<\/em>. They thought that life in the resurrection would have to be an extension of mortal life. Instead, it is life raised to an entirely new level. In this new existence, there is no need for sexual reproduction because there is no more death. The intimacy of marriage is superseded by fellowship with a multitude of fellow believers and with God (Mark 10:29-30; Matt 19:28-29; Luke 18:29-30; Rev 21:1-4). It is in this respect that resurrected believers <em>will be like the angels in heaven<\/em>. • Jesus’ argument demonstrates his wisdom before his opponents and affirms the hope of the resurrection for his followers. Jesus is “the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25); he has conquered death and assured those who believe in him that they will “not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:24-27 Jesus’ response had two elements. First, he rebuked the Sadducees’ ignorance of the Scriptures (i.e., the Old Testament), where the resurrection of the dead is referred to most clearly in the Prophets (Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:1-14) and the Writings (Job 19:26; Pss 16:9-11; 49:15; 73:23-26; Dan 12:2). However, the Sadducees accepted only the Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy), so Jesus answered them from the Torah. The reference to God as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob...","summary_en":"12:24-27 Jesus’ response had two elements. First, he rebuked the Sadducees’ ignorance of the Scriptures (i.e., the Old Testament), where the resurrection of the dead is referred to most clearly in the Prophets (Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:1-14) and the Writings (Job 19:26; Pss 16:9-11; 49:15; 73:23-26; Dan 12:2). However, the Sadducees accepted only the Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy), so Jesus answered them from the Torah. The reference to God as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138339,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:24","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:24","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:24-27<\/strong> Jesus’ response had two elements. First, he rebuked the Sadducees’ ignorance of the <em>Scriptures<\/em> (i.e., the Old Testament), where the resurrection of the dead is referred to most clearly in the Prophets (Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:1-14) and the Writings (Job 19:26; Pss 16:9-11; 49:15; 73:23-26; Dan 12:2). However, the Sadducees accepted only the Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy), so Jesus answered them from the Torah. The reference to God as <em>the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob<\/em> (see Exod 3:6, 15-16) showed that God’s covenant with the patriarchs could not be broken by death. They were still alive (Matt 8:11-12; 13:17; Luke 16:19-31; John 8:56), for God <em>is the God of the living, not the dead<\/em>. God’s covenant relationship with his people extends beyond their physical death, which means that the afterlife must be a reality. • Second, Jesus challenged the Sadducees’ ignorance of God’s <em>power<\/em>. They thought that life in the resurrection would have to be an extension of mortal life. Instead, it is life raised to an entirely new level. In this new existence, there is no need for sexual reproduction because there is no more death. The intimacy of marriage is superseded by fellowship with a multitude of fellow believers and with God (Mark 10:29-30; Matt 19:28-29; Luke 18:29-30; Rev 21:1-4). It is in this respect that resurrected believers <em>will be like the angels in heaven<\/em>. • Jesus’ argument demonstrates his wisdom before his opponents and affirms the hope of the resurrection for his followers. Jesus is “the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25); he has conquered death and assured those who believe in him that they will “not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:24-27<\/strong> Jesus’ response had two elements. First, he rebuked the Sadducees’ ignorance of the <em>Scriptures<\/em> (i.e., the Old Testament), where the resurrection of the dead is referred to most clearly in the Prophets (Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:1-14) and the Writings (Job 19:26; Pss 16:9-11; 49:15; 73:23-26; Dan 12:2). However, the Sadducees accepted only the Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy), so Jesus answered them from the Torah. The reference to God as <em>the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob<\/em> (see Exod 3:6, 15-16) showed that God’s covenant with the patriarchs could not be broken by death. They were still alive (Matt 8:11-12; 13:17; Luke 16:19-31; John 8:56), for God <em>is the God of the living, not the dead<\/em>. God’s covenant relationship with his people extends beyond their physical death, which means that the afterlife must be a reality. • Second, Jesus challenged the Sadducees’ ignorance of God’s <em>power<\/em>. They thought that life in the resurrection would have to be an extension of mortal life. Instead, it is life raised to an entirely new level. In this new existence, there is no need for sexual reproduction because there is no more death. The intimacy of marriage is superseded by fellowship with a multitude of fellow believers and with God (Mark 10:29-30; Matt 19:28-29; Luke 18:29-30; Rev 21:1-4). It is in this respect that resurrected believers <em>will be like the angels in heaven<\/em>. • Jesus’ argument demonstrates his wisdom before his opponents and affirms the hope of the resurrection for his followers. Jesus is “the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25); he has conquered death and assured those who believe in him that they will “not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:24-27 Jesus’ response had two elements. First, he rebuked the Sadducees’ ignorance of the Scriptures (i.e., the Old Testament), where the resurrection of the dead is referred to most clearly in the Prophets (Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:1-14) and the Writings (Job 19:26; Pss 16:9-11; 49:15; 73:23-26; Dan 12:2). However, the Sadducees accepted only the Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy), so Jesus answered them from the Torah. The reference to God as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob...","summary_en":"12:24-27 Jesus’ response had two elements. First, he rebuked the Sadducees’ ignorance of the Scriptures (i.e., the Old Testament), where the resurrection of the dead is referred to most clearly in the Prophets (Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:1-14) and the Writings (Job 19:26; Pss 16:9-11; 49:15; 73:23-26; Dan 12:2). However, the Sadducees accepted only the Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy), so Jesus answered them from the Torah. The reference to God as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"25":[{"id":7626,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"First Letter to the Corinthians","title_en":"First Letter to the Corinthians","content_ro":"<h3>CORINTHIANS, First Letter to the<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date and Origin<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt about who wrote 1 Corinthians, for all scholars agree that the apostle Paul wrote it on his third missionary journey while he was living in Ephesus. By this time Paul was a mature, middle-aged (perhaps 55 years old) missionary, fully seasoned from planting churches around a quarter of the Mediterranean world.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateandOrigin\">Date and Origin<\/p>\n<p>Paul worked in Corinth from about <span>AD<\/span> 50 to 52. After a brief stay in Jerusalem, he returned to his missionary work, this time at Ephesus (Acts 19), where he ministered for three years (<span>AD<\/span> 53–55\/56). During this period, he wrote at least three letters to Corinth and made a visit as well. His first letter, often called “the previous letter,” is referred to in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11. We know from this reference that the letter was misunderstood, but we know little of its content, for it has been lost.<\/p>\n<p>Sometime in <span>AD<\/span> 55, after hearing reports from Chloe’s household (1 Cor 1:11), who were probably members of Chloe’s house church, he dictated a second letter to Corinth, our 1 Corinthians. This was probably sent off in the hands of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (16:17). Paul would later write a third letter to Corinth, called “the letter of tears” (2 Cor 2:2-3), and then finally 2 Corinthians.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>Corinth was a seaport city, destroyed by the Romans in 146 <span>BC<\/span> and rebuilt in 46 <span>BC<\/span> by Julius Caesar. After 27 <span>BC<\/span>, it was the Roman capital of Achaia, where the proconsul had his residence (Acts 18:12). The city itself was really three cities: the port of Cenchrea, about eight miles (13 kilometers) to the east, where ships from the Aegean would unload; the port of Lechaion, about a mile (1.6 kilometers) to the west on the Gulf of Corinth, where the ships would be reloaded, their goods having been transported in wagons over the isthmus and the ships on rollers; and the city itself on the high ground in between.<\/p>\n<p>The acropolis of the city, on top of the steep, high Acrocorinth, contained the temple of Aphrodite, where 1,000 female slaves were dedicated to the service of this goddess of love. This distinctive cult of Corinth was dedicated to the veneration of Aphrodite, goddess of love, beauty, and fertility, who is identified with the Roman Venus. Associated with such religious practices was a general moral degradation. Corinthian morals were notoriously corrupt, even when compared with pagan Rome. Down in the city was the synagogue (Acts 18:4); for while the city as a Roman colony was largely populated by Italians, it had attracted other peoples from the Mediterranean, among whom were the Jews.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTeaching\">Purpose and Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The main concern of Paul in 1 Corinthians was the unity of the church. There was a self-centeredness in Corinth that resulted in building cliques within the church, in flaunting knowledge and liberty in the face of others scandalized by it, and in selfish displays in the worship services.<\/p>\n<p>Two other major concerns also surface in the book. First, along with other pagan practices, the lax sexual ethics of Corinth had influenced the church; Paul needed to erect some barriers. Second, there was a problem in accepting the resurrection of the body; Paul realized that this issue had implications for the core of the faith and vigorously affirmed the resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>Both of these latter two areas, as well as aspects of the unity issue (particularly their concern with knowledge), have been identified by some scholars as Gnostic motifs, leading to the conclusion that Paul was opposing a Gnostic party in Corinth. Careful examination reveals, however, that while some of the elements floating in the Corinthian milieu would later contribute to the development of Gnosticism, it would be anachronistic to call them gnostic. While recognizing protognostic ideas in the Corinthian situation, it is important to keep interpretation within the first-century context.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, the focus of Paul’s concern was the church, its unity and purity. Paul was fighting to keep this church from disintegrating into a number of competing and bickering factions divided over moral and doctrinal issues. Furthermore, he wanted to keep the focus of the church on Jesus, the exalted Lord.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Greeting, 1:1-9<\/h5>\n<p>Paul begins with a standard greeting, followed by his usual thanksgiving prayer. Two features stand out. First, the greeting associates Sosthenes with Paul. While we cannot be sure who Sosthenes was, he was surely well known to the Corinthians; probably he was the Sosthenes whom Acts 18:17 identifies as the ruler of the synagogue, following the conversion of Crispus.<\/p>\n<p>Second, Paul stresses the Corinthians’ abilities in speech, knowledge, and spiritual gifts. They had all of these, and these were genuine, but it was precisely these good things that they were abusing. Paul’s solution is not to suppress these gifts (indeed, he thanks God for them), but to place them in a new context.<\/p>\n<h5>Report from Chloe’s People, 1:10–4:21<\/h5>\n<p>The Corinthians had made Paul, Cephas (Peter), Apollos, and even Christ into party leaders. We are not sure what each of these groups stood for, but one might guess that the Pauline group stressed Paul’s slogans of liberty; the Petrine group, the need to hold to Jewish practices; and the Apollos group, the value of philosophical understanding and oratory. Whatever they stood for, Paul is appalled that it breaks their unity. His first response is to argue that his behavior was not calculated to build a following but to point to Christ. That is, he did not insist on personally baptizing converts; who performed these acts did not matter, since they were all baptized into Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Paul immediately moves to the underlying issue, that of various persons wanting to show themselves better or wiser than others who did not have the insights of their party in the church. Their seeking for wisdom contradicts Paul’s preaching of the gospel.<\/p>\n<p>First, the message of a crucified Christ (1:18) made no sense within the wisdom and values of either Jews or Greeks. It demanded a whole new way of looking on life—God’s way.<\/p>\n<p>Second, God had not chosen them on the basis of their status in society; quite the contrary, he had made their only status the equal status they received from him (1:26-31).<\/p>\n<p>Third, their faith had not been based on Paul’s oratory but on the gifts of the Spirit that Paul had manifested (2:4), which had convinced them that God was acting in Paul. Thus, it was not argument that led them to God, but God’s Spirit. Therefore it was the Spirit, not human reasoning, that would continue to reveal God to them. Unless they became fools with respect to the world’s ways of reasoning, they would never be able to rethink life from the perspective of the Spirit, who gives true wisdom.<\/p>\n<p>Fourth, they were not acting on this spiritual level when they claimed Paul and others as party leaders; this activity demonstrates the evil impulse in human beings (“the flesh” or “fallen human nature”) at work since it elevates human servants rather than the God who works equally in each of them.<\/p>\n<p>Fifth, these servants were working together to build one “temple” for God based on the one foundation in Jesus Christ, that is, the church. God alone will judge how each Christian contributes to the work of building the church. But woe to the person who divides the church, for “if anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him” (3:17, <span>rsv<\/span>). (Note that here the temple imagery is used collectively; the church is the temple. In chapter 6 it will be used individually; each Christian is the temple.)<\/p>\n<p>Finally, he points to their overrealized eschatology, for with their spiritual gifts (which were genuine) and vaunted wisdom (which was worldly) they claimed they were reigning with Christ (4:8-13). Paul, with ironic sarcasm, points out how different this claim is from the lifestyle of the apostles. The apostles lived like Jesus—a life of suffering, expecting exaltation later. The Corinthians were trying to have their exaltation now without crucifixion.<\/p>\n<p>Paul closes this section with an admonition. He softens his words toward some who would be responsive, urging them to copy his lifestyle. The teacher was the message (vv 14-16). Timothy will also faithfully live the truth before them. Then he threatens the “arrogant” (v 18), pointing out that he will not challenge their words but their spiritual power if he comes.<\/p>\n<h5>The Report from the Corinthian Messengers, 5:1–6:20<\/h5>\n<p>Paul now turns to three issues raised by oral reports from the messengers bearing the Corinthians’ letter to him.<\/p>\n<p>The first issue is that of church discipline (5:12-13). Paul cites a case of flagrant immorality—that of incest. This immorality was so clear (even pagans considered it immoral), that it was not a case of ignorance of Christian principles. Further, the church had taken no action but rather boasted in its tolerance, perhaps on the basis of a misunderstanding of Paul’s teaching on freedom from the law.<\/p>\n<p>Paul presents three principles in this section: (1) the primary goal of church discipline is the repentance and restoration of the offender; (2) the secondary goal of church discipline is the protection of the church (5:6-8); and (3) the church is not to seek to judge or control the actions of evil persons in the world—they are God’s responsibility—but to discipline those within the church (vv 9-13). Paul will use these principles also in the following chapters (cf. 7:12-16).<\/p>\n<p>The second issue is that of lawsuits between Christians (6:1-11). The Corinthian society was as prone to litigation as our own, and Christians did not see anything wrong in suing each other. Paul was troubled. If Christians are to judge the world, they certainly should not bring the world in to judge issues within the church. Rather than put their cases before “those who are least esteemed by the church” (6:4, <span>rsv<\/span>, i.e., pagan judges), they should decide the cases within the church.<\/p>\n<p>Paul has an even better way than bypassing the pagan courts, and that is to simply suffer the wrong (1 Cor 6:7). Applying the teaching of Jesus quite literally (Mt 5:38-42), Paul argues that it would be best to allow themselves to be defrauded. Instead, the Corinthians are willing to step on their brothers in Christ to get what they feel are their rights. This raises the issue as to whether greed is not still in their hearts (1 Cor 6:9-11). While Paul accepts people who formerly did all sorts of evil (for Jesus has cleansed them), he makes it very clear that anyone presently practicing greed or immorality is not part of the kingdom, whatever their doctrinal commitments may be.<\/p>\n<p>The final issue in this section is that of casual sexual intercourse (6:12-20). In a world where virginity was important if a woman wished to be married and where slaves in the temple of Aphrodite were available as prostitutes, prostitution was the major form of casual sex. The libertine party used two slogans: “All things are lawful for me,” a saying that may well have been derived from Paul’s teaching, and “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—that is, since the body works this way, it must be the Creator’s purpose. Paul qualifies rather than contradicts their slogans. Freedom is subordinate to other goals (6:12, 20). The body is not made to be used as we wish, but is to be dedicated to the Lord, as the doctrine of the resurrection demonstrates (vv 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, sexual intercourse is an act of the whole person, unlike eating (Paul cites Gn 2:24; cf. Jesus in Mt 19:5). Therefore, this act takes a member (i.e., the person) from the body of Christ and makes him a unity with a prostitute (1 Cor 6:15-17). Thus immorality is unlike other sins that are external to the self, for it changes the self and thus defiles the body, the place where the Holy Spirit dwells. It disregards the fact that Christ has redeemed the body, and that the whole of the Christian belongs to God, not to the Christian.<\/p>\n<h5>Paul’s Answers to the Corinthians, 7:1–16:4<\/h5>\n<p>Now Paul turns to the Corinthians’ own issues, building on the answers he has already given to questions they did not ask.<\/p>\n<p>The first issue is that of marriage (7:1-24). The slogan of the ascetic party in Corinth (perhaps a reaction against the libertines of ch 6) was “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” (7:1, <span>kjv<\/span>). The Corinthians applied this slogan to both married and unmarried, arguing that married Christians should abstain from sexual relations. Paul clarified the matter with three points. First, he said that this was totally unrealistic, for total abstinence would lead to immorality (vv 2, 7-9). Second, when people get married they no longer own their own bodies; their bodies belong to each other for their mutual benefit (vv 3-4). Sexual refusal denies a spouse what rightly belongs to him or her. Third, abstinence is allowed for limited periods by mutual agreement as a type of fast to help focus on Christ (v 5).<\/p>\n<p>While Paul will address the issue of the unmarried more fully in 7:25-40, in a side remark he indicates that he is himself content to be unmarried. But since some do not have this gift, full sexual expression in marriage is far better than fighting passion (7:7-9). Once two Christians are married, divorce is unthinkable. A clear word of Christ proves this (Mt 5:31-32; Mk 10:11-12; Lk 16:18 and parallels), so there are no exceptions (Paul either does not know of the exception clause in Mt 19:9 or he understands it as referring to something like premarital unchastity discovered before the wedding, not to adultery after the wedding). Although in some cases a Christian couple must live separately, it is always with a view to reconciliation. The teaching of Jesus does not allow him to think of the marriage as ending (1 Cor 7:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>But what if the spouse is not a Christian? Paul applies his principles to a situation for which Jesus did not leave a clear word. First, since Jesus told Christians not to divorce, even in this situation the Christian may not initiate a divorce (7:12-13). Second, since Christians are not to control or judge non-Christians (6:12-13), the Christian does not need to continue the relationship if the non-Christian insists on a divorce (7:15). Third, far from defiling the Christian (as the relationship in 6:15 does), the Christian will make the relationship holy, with positive results for the children and the possible salvation of the spouse (7:14, 16). While this is no call to remain in situations of physical or sexual abuse, it is a call to remain faithful to a mixed marriage situation.<\/p>\n<p>Paul does not believe that one normally needs to change one’s life situation to serve Christ (7:17-24). Therefore, normally each person should remain in that state of life in which he or she was when called to Christ. Paul’s examples show that he was thinking in terms of marriage or singleness, Jew (circumcision) or Gentile, slave or free, not in terms of situations that might be immoral in themselves. In the case of slaves, they can accept freedom if it becomes available, but it does not make an essential difference in their real state before God or their ability to serve Christ (vv 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The second issue is that of the unmarried (7:25-40). Paul argues that single people and widows may marry—it is not wrong. Yet he advises them to remain single. Since all in this age is passing away, it would be good to stay single so as to avoid the extra suffering to which marriage exposes a person (vv 25-31). What is more, marriage always divides one’s attention between the Lord and the legitimate needs of the spouse. One must not abandon the spouse or ignore his or her needs in order to serve the Lord, but one can remain single so that the Lord can be the sole focus of life and devotion (vv 32-35). Finally, if one is in a situation in which marriage is expected, the person must make his own decision as to whether he should marry the woman for her sake (and perhaps that of the wider family) or whether he can and should simply care for her as a single person (vv 36-38). Paul closes this section by repeating his general principles (vv 39-40).<\/p>\n<p>The third issue Paul deals with is that of food that has been offered to idols (8:1–11:1). Most meat that was available in the marketplace came either from animals slaughtered as sacrifices in the temples or from groups of animals from which one was offered as a dedicatory sacrifice. To scrupulous Jews, all of this meat would be untouched. Furthermore, pagans invited Christians to feasts in their homes and to private feasts held in the precincts of pagan temples, where trade guilds also held feasts. Paul discusses these issues and uses them to teach wider principles of Christian conduct.<\/p>\n<p>First, love, not knowledge, is the key to correct behavior (8:1-13). Some Corinthians felt superior because they were convinced that idols had no reality (there is only one God), and therefore any food offered to them was still fit to eat. Paul again accepts their slogans, but counters with the statement, “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (v 1, <span>niv<\/span>). God is not concerned with what we know or eat, but he is concerned with whether or not we love our fellow Christians. The concern is not that a fellow Christian might become enraged because one indulged, but that he or she might have a vulnerable conscience and indulge himself, even though he believed it wrong and thus in his own eyes apostasizes from the faith (i.e., rebels against Christ). Such leading astray is not love. It would be better never to eat meat than to lead a fellow Christian into sin.<\/p>\n<p>Second, he points out that one should subordinate one’s own interests to those of others, especially those of Christ and his gospel (9:1-23). Both the examples of the apostles, who expected the church to support them and their families (cf. Lk 10:5-7), and Scripture prove that Paul had the right to demand support from the Corinthians. This had not been his practice, for he had normally made tents to support his ministry, though he did accept gifts from other churches. Paul did this to prevent people from thinking he was peddling religion for profit (9:12) and for the personal satisfaction of doing more than he had to do (vv 16-17). This was part of Paul’s larger policy of subordinating his own personal preferences and interests to those of Christ and his gospel (vv 19-23).<\/p>\n<p>Third, the bravado of the strong who demonstrate their liberty with disregard of fellow Christians is spiritually dangerous (9:24–10:22). It is not who begins but who completes the Christian life that counts; therefore, it is a life of discipline, not relaxed license (9:24-27). Israel in the wilderness presents an example of failure in this regard. They had “baptism” and “the Lord’s Supper” (10:2-4), just like the church, yet most of them did not make it to the Promised Land. The reason God destroyed them was simple: they turned to sin. Likewise, the Christian has to be careful not to be so proud about faith and freedom that he becomes careless about sin and falls from the faith (v 12). On the other hand, Christians need not be fearful, for the temptation is not more powerful than they are; God has provided a way of escape, if they will take it (v 13).<\/p>\n<p>Another link between the Israelites and the Corinthians pertains to partaking of a sacrificial meal (10:14-22). In the Lord’s Supper there is a sharing of the blood and body of Christ, just as real as Israel’s sacrifices on the altar. Food offered to idols is also a sharing, not with the supposed god, but with the real demon that is behind the idol. To try to share at both tables is to provoke God’s jealousy just as Israel did (v 22).<\/p>\n<p>A summary of the discussion draws the three chapters together (10:23–11:1). Since the food is not changed by being offered to idols, and since all food really belongs to God, one may eat anything sold in the market—do not ask any questions (10:25-26). Likewise, the Christian may eat anything served at a dinner in the home of an unbeliever. However, if someone points out that the food was offered to idols, the Christian should pass it by, not because it would hurt him, but because it is an issue with the person who raised the question, and the Christian is concerned about the good of his neighbor (vv 27-30). In other words, follow Paul’s example as he patterns himself in turn after Christ, who served others rather than himself. Act so that God’s reputation and character shine through even in what one eats (v 31); try to offend no one but to benefit each person in moving him toward salvation (v 32).<\/p>\n<p>The fourth issue Paul deals with is that of order in church meetings (11:2–14:40). The Corinthians’ house churches had lively meetings, but rather than showing unity in Christ, they demonstrated selfishness. Paul had no desire to change what they did; he did want to change how they did it.<\/p>\n<p>The first problem in the meetings was the behavior of married women (11:1-16). The sign of marriage in that day was the wearing of a veil or distinctive hairstyle, as a ring is today. Women praying and delivering prophecies in church was no issue for Paul, but the women may have felt that this loosed them from their husbands (cf. Mk 12:25) and therefore was a reason to set aside their veils. Paul argues that husband and wife are intimately joined, just as humans are to God (1 Cor 11:3). Therefore as humans should not shame but glorify God, so the wife should act toward her husband. Thus, while Paul approves of ministry by women, he puts marriage first.<\/p>\n<p>The second problem in the meetings was that of making class distinctions (11:17-34). Until the weekly Lord’s Supper began to be turned into the sacrifice of the Mass in the third and fourth centuries, it was a full shared meal. Middle- and upper-class Christians could come earlier to the church gatherings and also provide better food and drink for themselves. Following the customs of pagan clubs, they had no scruples against starting early and feasting as befit their class, so long as at least simple food was provided for the slaves and peasants who could not come as early (v 21). This shamed the poorer Christians and made them feel class distinctions keenly (v 22). This, argues Paul, is not the Lord’s Supper but a sham (v 20).<\/p>\n<p>Paul repeats the words of institution to point out that they all are participating in Christ’s body and blood (cf. 10:16-17), not their own meal. To do it in an unworthy manner, with divisions and class distinctions among them, is to profane his meal by failing to demonstrate the unity of his body, the church (11:29), and thus invite his judgment, which they were already experiencing. Instead, they should examine their own motives and truly gather as one to eat this common meal.<\/p>\n<p>The third problem in their meetings was the use of spiritual gifts (12:1–14:40). It is possible that some people in these house churches, under the influence of Gnostic ideas in which the spiritual is good and the material evil, and feeling inspired by a spirit, cried out, “Jesus [meaning the human Jesus as opposed to the spiritual Christ] be cursed.” It is not the Spirit of God saying this, argues Paul, for the Spirit in us cries the basic Christian confession, “Jesus is Lord.”<\/p>\n<p>Others in these churches were exalting their own particular gift, especially the gift of tongues, shouting down others or refusing to give them a turn. There is only one Spirit and he gives all the gifts, Paul argues (12:4-6). The Spirit manifests himself sovereignly in each Christian, not simply for the Christian’s own benefit, but for the good of all (v 7). Since it is the Spirit, not a given manifestation, that the Christian has, the gifts manifested could change from meeting to meeting.<\/p>\n<p>That same Spirit has made all Christians into one organic unity in Christ (12:12-13). Thus not only does the one Spirit give all the gifts—all are equally inspired—but all the gifts are equally needed for the proper functioning of the body of Christ (vv 14-26). No one can say that his lack of a given gift makes him less a part of the body; indeed, the less noticeable gifts may well be the more important. Thus, within the body of Christ, there are not only different manifestations of the Spirit through individuals in a given meeting, but different ministries or functions of individuals in the body (vv 27-31).<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, it is not the demonstration of a particular gift that shows one’s spirituality, but how one demonstrates it—that is, whether one manifests it with love (13:1-13). Any gift exercised for selfish purposes may be a genuine gift of the Spirit, but it is worthless to the individual (vv 1-3). This is because love is the opposite of selfishness (vv 4-7). In fact, the gifts of the Spirit are only for the period between Jesus’ first coming and his second coming, when the kingdom of God will be perfectly revealed and the King will be present in person, and thus the intermediary gifts of the Spirit will be no longer necessary (vv 10, 12). It is not giftedness but faith and hope that will have a reward then, and love, which is the greatest, because it will continue as Christians live in perfect love with each other and with Jesus (v 13).<\/p>\n<p>Applying this to Corinth, Paul argues that while one should desire all the gifts, love dictates that prophecy should be the gift of choice in the church meetings (14:1-25). The Corinthians had evidently been stressing tongues. Tongues without interpretation is of little value to anyone except to the speaker himself. It does not build anyone up; its confusion seems madness to outsiders. Outside the church meetings there is a role for tongues, both as a sign of judgment (v 21) and for private devotion (v 18), but inside, only with interpretation. Prophecy, however, both builds up and convicts, and thus is to be sought in the meetings.<\/p>\n<p>In the church meetings, then, both gifts and order are to prevail (14:26-40). All types of gifts are allowed expression with a goal of mutual edification, not selfish demonstration (v 26). Tongues speakers must have an interpreter; both they and prophets must speak in turn, with time being taken to evaluate the utterances after every few speakers (vv 27-33). Furthermore, the women, who were perhaps chatting in the service (perhaps due to habits learned in Jewish synagogues, where they were segregated and did not participate) are to cease their chattering, pay attention, and learn, asking questions at home if they do not understand (vv 34-36). In his concluding summary, Paul states that all should be done in an orderly manner (vv 37-40).<\/p>\n<p>The fifth issue Paul deals with is that of the resurrection of the dead (ch 15). Some of the problems mentioned earlier concerning loose morals (chs 5–6), ascetic denial, sexuality (ch 7), or feeling one was resurrected already (ch 11) point to the fact that some Corinthians did not believe in the resurrection of the body, though they apparently believed in the resurrection of Jesus and the immortality of the human soul.<\/p>\n<p>Paul reaffirms that the resurrection of Jesus is an essential part of the gospel message (15:1-19). The unified voice of the church was that Jesus not only died but rose again and appeared to numerous witnesses (vv 3-11). If they were consistent in their antiresurrection argument, Christ could not have been raised. Yet if this were the case, the whole gospel message is false and all their hopes for salvation are in vain (vv 12-19).<\/p>\n<p>Since Christ has been raised, Christians will also be raised because of their solidarity with him (15:20-28). As they had experienced the results of being in Adam, so now they will experience the results of being in Christ. But resurrection does not happen at once. There are progressive stages: (a) Christ was first; (b) Christians will be raised at his coming; (c) Christ must reign until he extends kingdom rule over the whole world, destroying all demonic powers (including death itself); and (d) then he will turn over the perfected kingdom to the Father (vv 23-28).<\/p>\n<p>Resurrection hope also explains Christian practices such as baptizing people on behalf of others who had died (probably people who had turned to Christ but had died before they could be baptized, 15:29), and willingness to risk death for Christ (vv 30-32).<\/p>\n<p>Paul admits that there are intellectual problems involved, but these are solved when one realizes that resurrection includes both continuity and discontinuity (15:35-50). Just as seed and plant are the same and yet different, and just as many types of bodies exist, so it is with the resurrection. What was perishable, dishonorable, weak, and physical (i.e., in Adam) will be raised imperishable, glorious, powerful, and spiritual (i.e., in Christ). Indeed, it is only as Christians thus become like Christ, the heavenly man, that they can become part of God’s kingdom.<\/p>\n<p>With excitement Paul shares his real hope, that of transformation (15:51-58). At the coming of Christ the dead will be raised and transformed. But the living will also need transformation, and this will happen in a split second, making all of them impervious to death. Then they will truly know the victory already present in Jesus’ resurrection (vv 54-57). A concluding summary draws the practical conclusion that this teaching should give them assurance of a reward for anything done for Christ now (v 58).<\/p>\n<p>The sixth issue Paul deals with is that of the collection for the needy Jerusalem church (16:1-4). Because of famine in Judea in the 40s, the church there had become impoverished. Partly because of the need and partly to further the unity of the church, Paul took up a collection in some of his churches for the Judean church. He answers the Corinthians’ practical queries by stating that the collection should be made weekly according to ability, not all at once when Paul arrives (16:2). When he comes, he will send off the money with their own messengers. Paul remains vague about whether or not he will accompany them, allaying suspicions that somehow he plans to profit from it (cf. 2 Cor 8–9).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Remarks and Closing, 16:5-24<\/h5>\n<p>Having come to the end, Paul discusses his travel plans, including his intention for a lengthy visit whenever he leaves Ephesus (cf. 2 Cor 1). Timothy was either coming with the letter or else would arrive shortly after another mission; they were to respect him and help him return. Paul points out that he urged Apollos to visit Corinth, in case some suspect Paul is against him. A closing formal exhortation to firm faith and love leads into his final customary greetings. He praises the Corinthian messengers who had brought him their letter (16:15-18) and sends greetings from Aquila and Prisca (Priscilla), his comissionaries who had helped him found the church in Corinth (Acts 18:2-3, 18). Referring to the customary greeting in the church, he tells them to greet each other with a kiss on each cheek (16:20). Paul then takes the pen from the scribe, as was normal, and writes the closing exhortation—placing a curse on those who do not love Jesus, the common Aramaic expression used in the church “Come, O Lord” (<em>Marana tha,<\/em> perhaps used to close services), and providing an assurance of his own love for them (vv 21-24).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Acts of the Apostles, Book of the; Corinth; Corinthians, Second Letter to the; Paul, The Apostle.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CORINTHIANS, First Letter to the<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date and Origin<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt about who wrote 1 Corinthians, for all scholars agree that the apostle Paul wrote it on his third missionary journey while he was living in Ephesus. By this time Paul was a mature, middle-aged (perhaps 55 years old) missionary, fully seasoned from planting churches around a quarter of the Mediterranean world.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateandOrigin\">Date and Origin<\/p>\n<p>Paul worked in Corinth from about <span>AD<\/span> 50 to 52. After a brief stay in Jerusalem, he returned to his missionary work, this time at Ephesus (Acts 19), where he ministered for three years (<span>AD<\/span> 53–55\/56). During this period, he wrote at least three letters to Corinth and made a visit as well. His first letter, often called “the previous letter,” is referred to in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11. We know from this reference that the letter was misunderstood, but we know little of its content, for it has been lost.<\/p>\n<p>Sometime in <span>AD<\/span> 55, after hearing reports from Chloe’s household (1 Cor 1:11), who were probably members of Chloe’s house church, he dictated a second letter to Corinth, our 1 Corinthians. This was probably sent off in the hands of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (16:17). Paul would later write a third letter to Corinth, called “the letter of tears” (2 Cor 2:2-3), and then finally 2 Corinthians.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>Corinth was a seaport city, destroyed by the Romans in 146 <span>BC<\/span> and rebuilt in 46 <span>BC<\/span> by Julius Caesar. After 27 <span>BC<\/span>, it was the Roman capital of Achaia, where the proconsul had his residence (Acts 18:12). The city itself was really three cities: the port of Cenchrea, about eight miles (13 kilometers) to the east, where ships from the Aegean would unload; the port of Lechaion, about a mile (1.6 kilometers) to the west on the Gulf of Corinth, where the ships would be reloaded, their goods having been transported in wagons over the isthmus and the ships on rollers; and the city itself on the high ground in between.<\/p>\n<p>The acropolis of the city, on top of the steep, high Acrocorinth, contained the temple of Aphrodite, where 1,000 female slaves were dedicated to the service of this goddess of love. This distinctive cult of Corinth was dedicated to the veneration of Aphrodite, goddess of love, beauty, and fertility, who is identified with the Roman Venus. Associated with such religious practices was a general moral degradation. Corinthian morals were notoriously corrupt, even when compared with pagan Rome. Down in the city was the synagogue (Acts 18:4); for while the city as a Roman colony was largely populated by Italians, it had attracted other peoples from the Mediterranean, among whom were the Jews.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTeaching\">Purpose and Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The main concern of Paul in 1 Corinthians was the unity of the church. There was a self-centeredness in Corinth that resulted in building cliques within the church, in flaunting knowledge and liberty in the face of others scandalized by it, and in selfish displays in the worship services.<\/p>\n<p>Two other major concerns also surface in the book. First, along with other pagan practices, the lax sexual ethics of Corinth had influenced the church; Paul needed to erect some barriers. Second, there was a problem in accepting the resurrection of the body; Paul realized that this issue had implications for the core of the faith and vigorously affirmed the resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>Both of these latter two areas, as well as aspects of the unity issue (particularly their concern with knowledge), have been identified by some scholars as Gnostic motifs, leading to the conclusion that Paul was opposing a Gnostic party in Corinth. Careful examination reveals, however, that while some of the elements floating in the Corinthian milieu would later contribute to the development of Gnosticism, it would be anachronistic to call them gnostic. While recognizing protognostic ideas in the Corinthian situation, it is important to keep interpretation within the first-century context.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, the focus of Paul’s concern was the church, its unity and purity. Paul was fighting to keep this church from disintegrating into a number of competing and bickering factions divided over moral and doctrinal issues. Furthermore, he wanted to keep the focus of the church on Jesus, the exalted Lord.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Greeting, 1:1-9<\/h5>\n<p>Paul begins with a standard greeting, followed by his usual thanksgiving prayer. Two features stand out. First, the greeting associates Sosthenes with Paul. While we cannot be sure who Sosthenes was, he was surely well known to the Corinthians; probably he was the Sosthenes whom Acts 18:17 identifies as the ruler of the synagogue, following the conversion of Crispus.<\/p>\n<p>Second, Paul stresses the Corinthians’ abilities in speech, knowledge, and spiritual gifts. They had all of these, and these were genuine, but it was precisely these good things that they were abusing. Paul’s solution is not to suppress these gifts (indeed, he thanks God for them), but to place them in a new context.<\/p>\n<h5>Report from Chloe’s People, 1:10–4:21<\/h5>\n<p>The Corinthians had made Paul, Cephas (Peter), Apollos, and even Christ into party leaders. We are not sure what each of these groups stood for, but one might guess that the Pauline group stressed Paul’s slogans of liberty; the Petrine group, the need to hold to Jewish practices; and the Apollos group, the value of philosophical understanding and oratory. Whatever they stood for, Paul is appalled that it breaks their unity. His first response is to argue that his behavior was not calculated to build a following but to point to Christ. That is, he did not insist on personally baptizing converts; who performed these acts did not matter, since they were all baptized into Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Paul immediately moves to the underlying issue, that of various persons wanting to show themselves better or wiser than others who did not have the insights of their party in the church. Their seeking for wisdom contradicts Paul’s preaching of the gospel.<\/p>\n<p>First, the message of a crucified Christ (1:18) made no sense within the wisdom and values of either Jews or Greeks. It demanded a whole new way of looking on life—God’s way.<\/p>\n<p>Second, God had not chosen them on the basis of their status in society; quite the contrary, he had made their only status the equal status they received from him (1:26-31).<\/p>\n<p>Third, their faith had not been based on Paul’s oratory but on the gifts of the Spirit that Paul had manifested (2:4), which had convinced them that God was acting in Paul. Thus, it was not argument that led them to God, but God’s Spirit. Therefore it was the Spirit, not human reasoning, that would continue to reveal God to them. Unless they became fools with respect to the world’s ways of reasoning, they would never be able to rethink life from the perspective of the Spirit, who gives true wisdom.<\/p>\n<p>Fourth, they were not acting on this spiritual level when they claimed Paul and others as party leaders; this activity demonstrates the evil impulse in human beings (“the flesh” or “fallen human nature”) at work since it elevates human servants rather than the God who works equally in each of them.<\/p>\n<p>Fifth, these servants were working together to build one “temple” for God based on the one foundation in Jesus Christ, that is, the church. God alone will judge how each Christian contributes to the work of building the church. But woe to the person who divides the church, for “if anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him” (3:17, <span>rsv<\/span>). (Note that here the temple imagery is used collectively; the church is the temple. In chapter 6 it will be used individually; each Christian is the temple.)<\/p>\n<p>Finally, he points to their overrealized eschatology, for with their spiritual gifts (which were genuine) and vaunted wisdom (which was worldly) they claimed they were reigning with Christ (4:8-13). Paul, with ironic sarcasm, points out how different this claim is from the lifestyle of the apostles. The apostles lived like Jesus—a life of suffering, expecting exaltation later. The Corinthians were trying to have their exaltation now without crucifixion.<\/p>\n<p>Paul closes this section with an admonition. He softens his words toward some who would be responsive, urging them to copy his lifestyle. The teacher was the message (vv 14-16). Timothy will also faithfully live the truth before them. Then he threatens the “arrogant” (v 18), pointing out that he will not challenge their words but their spiritual power if he comes.<\/p>\n<h5>The Report from the Corinthian Messengers, 5:1–6:20<\/h5>\n<p>Paul now turns to three issues raised by oral reports from the messengers bearing the Corinthians’ letter to him.<\/p>\n<p>The first issue is that of church discipline (5:12-13). Paul cites a case of flagrant immorality—that of incest. This immorality was so clear (even pagans considered it immoral), that it was not a case of ignorance of Christian principles. Further, the church had taken no action but rather boasted in its tolerance, perhaps on the basis of a misunderstanding of Paul’s teaching on freedom from the law.<\/p>\n<p>Paul presents three principles in this section: (1) the primary goal of church discipline is the repentance and restoration of the offender; (2) the secondary goal of church discipline is the protection of the church (5:6-8); and (3) the church is not to seek to judge or control the actions of evil persons in the world—they are God’s responsibility—but to discipline those within the church (vv 9-13). Paul will use these principles also in the following chapters (cf. 7:12-16).<\/p>\n<p>The second issue is that of lawsuits between Christians (6:1-11). The Corinthian society was as prone to litigation as our own, and Christians did not see anything wrong in suing each other. Paul was troubled. If Christians are to judge the world, they certainly should not bring the world in to judge issues within the church. Rather than put their cases before “those who are least esteemed by the church” (6:4, <span>rsv<\/span>, i.e., pagan judges), they should decide the cases within the church.<\/p>\n<p>Paul has an even better way than bypassing the pagan courts, and that is to simply suffer the wrong (1 Cor 6:7). Applying the teaching of Jesus quite literally (Mt 5:38-42), Paul argues that it would be best to allow themselves to be defrauded. Instead, the Corinthians are willing to step on their brothers in Christ to get what they feel are their rights. This raises the issue as to whether greed is not still in their hearts (1 Cor 6:9-11). While Paul accepts people who formerly did all sorts of evil (for Jesus has cleansed them), he makes it very clear that anyone presently practicing greed or immorality is not part of the kingdom, whatever their doctrinal commitments may be.<\/p>\n<p>The final issue in this section is that of casual sexual intercourse (6:12-20). In a world where virginity was important if a woman wished to be married and where slaves in the temple of Aphrodite were available as prostitutes, prostitution was the major form of casual sex. The libertine party used two slogans: “All things are lawful for me,” a saying that may well have been derived from Paul’s teaching, and “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—that is, since the body works this way, it must be the Creator’s purpose. Paul qualifies rather than contradicts their slogans. Freedom is subordinate to other goals (6:12, 20). The body is not made to be used as we wish, but is to be dedicated to the Lord, as the doctrine of the resurrection demonstrates (vv 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, sexual intercourse is an act of the whole person, unlike eating (Paul cites Gn 2:24; cf. Jesus in Mt 19:5). Therefore, this act takes a member (i.e., the person) from the body of Christ and makes him a unity with a prostitute (1 Cor 6:15-17). Thus immorality is unlike other sins that are external to the self, for it changes the self and thus defiles the body, the place where the Holy Spirit dwells. It disregards the fact that Christ has redeemed the body, and that the whole of the Christian belongs to God, not to the Christian.<\/p>\n<h5>Paul’s Answers to the Corinthians, 7:1–16:4<\/h5>\n<p>Now Paul turns to the Corinthians’ own issues, building on the answers he has already given to questions they did not ask.<\/p>\n<p>The first issue is that of marriage (7:1-24). The slogan of the ascetic party in Corinth (perhaps a reaction against the libertines of ch 6) was “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” (7:1, <span>kjv<\/span>). The Corinthians applied this slogan to both married and unmarried, arguing that married Christians should abstain from sexual relations. Paul clarified the matter with three points. First, he said that this was totally unrealistic, for total abstinence would lead to immorality (vv 2, 7-9). Second, when people get married they no longer own their own bodies; their bodies belong to each other for their mutual benefit (vv 3-4). Sexual refusal denies a spouse what rightly belongs to him or her. Third, abstinence is allowed for limited periods by mutual agreement as a type of fast to help focus on Christ (v 5).<\/p>\n<p>While Paul will address the issue of the unmarried more fully in 7:25-40, in a side remark he indicates that he is himself content to be unmarried. But since some do not have this gift, full sexual expression in marriage is far better than fighting passion (7:7-9). Once two Christians are married, divorce is unthinkable. A clear word of Christ proves this (Mt 5:31-32; Mk 10:11-12; Lk 16:18 and parallels), so there are no exceptions (Paul either does not know of the exception clause in Mt 19:9 or he understands it as referring to something like premarital unchastity discovered before the wedding, not to adultery after the wedding). Although in some cases a Christian couple must live separately, it is always with a view to reconciliation. The teaching of Jesus does not allow him to think of the marriage as ending (1 Cor 7:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>But what if the spouse is not a Christian? Paul applies his principles to a situation for which Jesus did not leave a clear word. First, since Jesus told Christians not to divorce, even in this situation the Christian may not initiate a divorce (7:12-13). Second, since Christians are not to control or judge non-Christians (6:12-13), the Christian does not need to continue the relationship if the non-Christian insists on a divorce (7:15). Third, far from defiling the Christian (as the relationship in 6:15 does), the Christian will make the relationship holy, with positive results for the children and the possible salvation of the spouse (7:14, 16). While this is no call to remain in situations of physical or sexual abuse, it is a call to remain faithful to a mixed marriage situation.<\/p>\n<p>Paul does not believe that one normally needs to change one’s life situation to serve Christ (7:17-24). Therefore, normally each person should remain in that state of life in which he or she was when called to Christ. Paul’s examples show that he was thinking in terms of marriage or singleness, Jew (circumcision) or Gentile, slave or free, not in terms of situations that might be immoral in themselves. In the case of slaves, they can accept freedom if it becomes available, but it does not make an essential difference in their real state before God or their ability to serve Christ (vv 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The second issue is that of the unmarried (7:25-40). Paul argues that single people and widows may marry—it is not wrong. Yet he advises them to remain single. Since all in this age is passing away, it would be good to stay single so as to avoid the extra suffering to which marriage exposes a person (vv 25-31). What is more, marriage always divides one’s attention between the Lord and the legitimate needs of the spouse. One must not abandon the spouse or ignore his or her needs in order to serve the Lord, but one can remain single so that the Lord can be the sole focus of life and devotion (vv 32-35). Finally, if one is in a situation in which marriage is expected, the person must make his own decision as to whether he should marry the woman for her sake (and perhaps that of the wider family) or whether he can and should simply care for her as a single person (vv 36-38). Paul closes this section by repeating his general principles (vv 39-40).<\/p>\n<p>The third issue Paul deals with is that of food that has been offered to idols (8:1–11:1). Most meat that was available in the marketplace came either from animals slaughtered as sacrifices in the temples or from groups of animals from which one was offered as a dedicatory sacrifice. To scrupulous Jews, all of this meat would be untouched. Furthermore, pagans invited Christians to feasts in their homes and to private feasts held in the precincts of pagan temples, where trade guilds also held feasts. Paul discusses these issues and uses them to teach wider principles of Christian conduct.<\/p>\n<p>First, love, not knowledge, is the key to correct behavior (8:1-13). Some Corinthians felt superior because they were convinced that idols had no reality (there is only one God), and therefore any food offered to them was still fit to eat. Paul again accepts their slogans, but counters with the statement, “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (v 1, <span>niv<\/span>). God is not concerned with what we know or eat, but he is concerned with whether or not we love our fellow Christians. The concern is not that a fellow Christian might become enraged because one indulged, but that he or she might have a vulnerable conscience and indulge himself, even though he believed it wrong and thus in his own eyes apostasizes from the faith (i.e., rebels against Christ). Such leading astray is not love. It would be better never to eat meat than to lead a fellow Christian into sin.<\/p>\n<p>Second, he points out that one should subordinate one’s own interests to those of others, especially those of Christ and his gospel (9:1-23). Both the examples of the apostles, who expected the church to support them and their families (cf. Lk 10:5-7), and Scripture prove that Paul had the right to demand support from the Corinthians. This had not been his practice, for he had normally made tents to support his ministry, though he did accept gifts from other churches. Paul did this to prevent people from thinking he was peddling religion for profit (9:12) and for the personal satisfaction of doing more than he had to do (vv 16-17). This was part of Paul’s larger policy of subordinating his own personal preferences and interests to those of Christ and his gospel (vv 19-23).<\/p>\n<p>Third, the bravado of the strong who demonstrate their liberty with disregard of fellow Christians is spiritually dangerous (9:24–10:22). It is not who begins but who completes the Christian life that counts; therefore, it is a life of discipline, not relaxed license (9:24-27). Israel in the wilderness presents an example of failure in this regard. They had “baptism” and “the Lord’s Supper” (10:2-4), just like the church, yet most of them did not make it to the Promised Land. The reason God destroyed them was simple: they turned to sin. Likewise, the Christian has to be careful not to be so proud about faith and freedom that he becomes careless about sin and falls from the faith (v 12). On the other hand, Christians need not be fearful, for the temptation is not more powerful than they are; God has provided a way of escape, if they will take it (v 13).<\/p>\n<p>Another link between the Israelites and the Corinthians pertains to partaking of a sacrificial meal (10:14-22). In the Lord’s Supper there is a sharing of the blood and body of Christ, just as real as Israel’s sacrifices on the altar. Food offered to idols is also a sharing, not with the supposed god, but with the real demon that is behind the idol. To try to share at both tables is to provoke God’s jealousy just as Israel did (v 22).<\/p>\n<p>A summary of the discussion draws the three chapters together (10:23–11:1). Since the food is not changed by being offered to idols, and since all food really belongs to God, one may eat anything sold in the market—do not ask any questions (10:25-26). Likewise, the Christian may eat anything served at a dinner in the home of an unbeliever. However, if someone points out that the food was offered to idols, the Christian should pass it by, not because it would hurt him, but because it is an issue with the person who raised the question, and the Christian is concerned about the good of his neighbor (vv 27-30). In other words, follow Paul’s example as he patterns himself in turn after Christ, who served others rather than himself. Act so that God’s reputation and character shine through even in what one eats (v 31); try to offend no one but to benefit each person in moving him toward salvation (v 32).<\/p>\n<p>The fourth issue Paul deals with is that of order in church meetings (11:2–14:40). The Corinthians’ house churches had lively meetings, but rather than showing unity in Christ, they demonstrated selfishness. Paul had no desire to change what they did; he did want to change how they did it.<\/p>\n<p>The first problem in the meetings was the behavior of married women (11:1-16). The sign of marriage in that day was the wearing of a veil or distinctive hairstyle, as a ring is today. Women praying and delivering prophecies in church was no issue for Paul, but the women may have felt that this loosed them from their husbands (cf. Mk 12:25) and therefore was a reason to set aside their veils. Paul argues that husband and wife are intimately joined, just as humans are to God (1 Cor 11:3). Therefore as humans should not shame but glorify God, so the wife should act toward her husband. Thus, while Paul approves of ministry by women, he puts marriage first.<\/p>\n<p>The second problem in the meetings was that of making class distinctions (11:17-34). Until the weekly Lord’s Supper began to be turned into the sacrifice of the Mass in the third and fourth centuries, it was a full shared meal. Middle- and upper-class Christians could come earlier to the church gatherings and also provide better food and drink for themselves. Following the customs of pagan clubs, they had no scruples against starting early and feasting as befit their class, so long as at least simple food was provided for the slaves and peasants who could not come as early (v 21). This shamed the poorer Christians and made them feel class distinctions keenly (v 22). This, argues Paul, is not the Lord’s Supper but a sham (v 20).<\/p>\n<p>Paul repeats the words of institution to point out that they all are participating in Christ’s body and blood (cf. 10:16-17), not their own meal. To do it in an unworthy manner, with divisions and class distinctions among them, is to profane his meal by failing to demonstrate the unity of his body, the church (11:29), and thus invite his judgment, which they were already experiencing. Instead, they should examine their own motives and truly gather as one to eat this common meal.<\/p>\n<p>The third problem in their meetings was the use of spiritual gifts (12:1–14:40). It is possible that some people in these house churches, under the influence of Gnostic ideas in which the spiritual is good and the material evil, and feeling inspired by a spirit, cried out, “Jesus [meaning the human Jesus as opposed to the spiritual Christ] be cursed.” It is not the Spirit of God saying this, argues Paul, for the Spirit in us cries the basic Christian confession, “Jesus is Lord.”<\/p>\n<p>Others in these churches were exalting their own particular gift, especially the gift of tongues, shouting down others or refusing to give them a turn. There is only one Spirit and he gives all the gifts, Paul argues (12:4-6). The Spirit manifests himself sovereignly in each Christian, not simply for the Christian’s own benefit, but for the good of all (v 7). Since it is the Spirit, not a given manifestation, that the Christian has, the gifts manifested could change from meeting to meeting.<\/p>\n<p>That same Spirit has made all Christians into one organic unity in Christ (12:12-13). Thus not only does the one Spirit give all the gifts—all are equally inspired—but all the gifts are equally needed for the proper functioning of the body of Christ (vv 14-26). No one can say that his lack of a given gift makes him less a part of the body; indeed, the less noticeable gifts may well be the more important. Thus, within the body of Christ, there are not only different manifestations of the Spirit through individuals in a given meeting, but different ministries or functions of individuals in the body (vv 27-31).<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, it is not the demonstration of a particular gift that shows one’s spirituality, but how one demonstrates it—that is, whether one manifests it with love (13:1-13). Any gift exercised for selfish purposes may be a genuine gift of the Spirit, but it is worthless to the individual (vv 1-3). This is because love is the opposite of selfishness (vv 4-7). In fact, the gifts of the Spirit are only for the period between Jesus’ first coming and his second coming, when the kingdom of God will be perfectly revealed and the King will be present in person, and thus the intermediary gifts of the Spirit will be no longer necessary (vv 10, 12). It is not giftedness but faith and hope that will have a reward then, and love, which is the greatest, because it will continue as Christians live in perfect love with each other and with Jesus (v 13).<\/p>\n<p>Applying this to Corinth, Paul argues that while one should desire all the gifts, love dictates that prophecy should be the gift of choice in the church meetings (14:1-25). The Corinthians had evidently been stressing tongues. Tongues without interpretation is of little value to anyone except to the speaker himself. It does not build anyone up; its confusion seems madness to outsiders. Outside the church meetings there is a role for tongues, both as a sign of judgment (v 21) and for private devotion (v 18), but inside, only with interpretation. Prophecy, however, both builds up and convicts, and thus is to be sought in the meetings.<\/p>\n<p>In the church meetings, then, both gifts and order are to prevail (14:26-40). All types of gifts are allowed expression with a goal of mutual edification, not selfish demonstration (v 26). Tongues speakers must have an interpreter; both they and prophets must speak in turn, with time being taken to evaluate the utterances after every few speakers (vv 27-33). Furthermore, the women, who were perhaps chatting in the service (perhaps due to habits learned in Jewish synagogues, where they were segregated and did not participate) are to cease their chattering, pay attention, and learn, asking questions at home if they do not understand (vv 34-36). In his concluding summary, Paul states that all should be done in an orderly manner (vv 37-40).<\/p>\n<p>The fifth issue Paul deals with is that of the resurrection of the dead (ch 15). Some of the problems mentioned earlier concerning loose morals (chs 5–6), ascetic denial, sexuality (ch 7), or feeling one was resurrected already (ch 11) point to the fact that some Corinthians did not believe in the resurrection of the body, though they apparently believed in the resurrection of Jesus and the immortality of the human soul.<\/p>\n<p>Paul reaffirms that the resurrection of Jesus is an essential part of the gospel message (15:1-19). The unified voice of the church was that Jesus not only died but rose again and appeared to numerous witnesses (vv 3-11). If they were consistent in their antiresurrection argument, Christ could not have been raised. Yet if this were the case, the whole gospel message is false and all their hopes for salvation are in vain (vv 12-19).<\/p>\n<p>Since Christ has been raised, Christians will also be raised because of their solidarity with him (15:20-28). As they had experienced the results of being in Adam, so now they will experience the results of being in Christ. But resurrection does not happen at once. There are progressive stages: (a) Christ was first; (b) Christians will be raised at his coming; (c) Christ must reign until he extends kingdom rule over the whole world, destroying all demonic powers (including death itself); and (d) then he will turn over the perfected kingdom to the Father (vv 23-28).<\/p>\n<p>Resurrection hope also explains Christian practices such as baptizing people on behalf of others who had died (probably people who had turned to Christ but had died before they could be baptized, 15:29), and willingness to risk death for Christ (vv 30-32).<\/p>\n<p>Paul admits that there are intellectual problems involved, but these are solved when one realizes that resurrection includes both continuity and discontinuity (15:35-50). Just as seed and plant are the same and yet different, and just as many types of bodies exist, so it is with the resurrection. What was perishable, dishonorable, weak, and physical (i.e., in Adam) will be raised imperishable, glorious, powerful, and spiritual (i.e., in Christ). Indeed, it is only as Christians thus become like Christ, the heavenly man, that they can become part of God’s kingdom.<\/p>\n<p>With excitement Paul shares his real hope, that of transformation (15:51-58). At the coming of Christ the dead will be raised and transformed. But the living will also need transformation, and this will happen in a split second, making all of them impervious to death. Then they will truly know the victory already present in Jesus’ resurrection (vv 54-57). A concluding summary draws the practical conclusion that this teaching should give them assurance of a reward for anything done for Christ now (v 58).<\/p>\n<p>The sixth issue Paul deals with is that of the collection for the needy Jerusalem church (16:1-4). Because of famine in Judea in the 40s, the church there had become impoverished. Partly because of the need and partly to further the unity of the church, Paul took up a collection in some of his churches for the Judean church. He answers the Corinthians’ practical queries by stating that the collection should be made weekly according to ability, not all at once when Paul arrives (16:2). When he comes, he will send off the money with their own messengers. Paul remains vague about whether or not he will accompany them, allaying suspicions that somehow he plans to profit from it (cf. 2 Cor 8–9).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Remarks and Closing, 16:5-24<\/h5>\n<p>Having come to the end, Paul discusses his travel plans, including his intention for a lengthy visit whenever he leaves Ephesus (cf. 2 Cor 1). Timothy was either coming with the letter or else would arrive shortly after another mission; they were to respect him and help him return. Paul points out that he urged Apollos to visit Corinth, in case some suspect Paul is against him. A closing formal exhortation to firm faith and love leads into his final customary greetings. He praises the Corinthian messengers who had brought him their letter (16:15-18) and sends greetings from Aquila and Prisca (Priscilla), his comissionaries who had helped him found the church in Corinth (Acts 18:2-3, 18). Referring to the customary greeting in the church, he tells them to greet each other with a kiss on each cheek (16:20). Paul then takes the pen from the scribe, as was normal, and writes the closing exhortation—placing a curse on those who do not love Jesus, the common Aramaic expression used in the church “Come, O Lord” (<em>Marana tha,<\/em> perhaps used to close services), and providing an assurance of his own love for them (vv 21-24).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Acts of the Apostles, Book of the; Corinth; Corinthians, Second Letter to the; Paul, The Apostle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CORINTHIANS, First Letter to the Preview • Author • Date and Origin • Background • Purpose and Teaching • Content Author There is no doubt about who wrote 1 Corinthians, for all scholars agree that the apostle Paul wrote it on his third missionary journey while he was living in Ephesus. By this time Paul was a mature, middle-aged (perhaps 55 years old) missionary, fully seasoned from planting churches around a quarter of the Mediterranean world. Date and Origin Paul worked in Corinth from abo...","summary_en":"CORINTHIANS, First Letter to the Preview • Author • Date and Origin • Background • Purpose and Teaching • Content Author There is no doubt about who wrote 1 Corinthians, for all scholars agree that the apostle Paul wrote it on his third missionary journey while he was living in Ephesus. By this time Paul was a mature, middle-aged (perhaps 55 years old) missionary, fully seasoned from planting churches around a quarter of the Mediterranean world. Date and Origin Paul worked in Corinth from abo...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"26":[{"id":4657,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of the Bible*, Canon","title_en":"of the Bible*, Canon","content_ro":"<h3>BIBLE*, C<span>anon of the<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Those books in the Jewish and Christian Bible considered to be Scripture and therefore authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine. The term translates both a Greek and a Hebrew word that mean “a rule,” or “measuring rod.” It is a list to which other books are compared and by which they are measured. After the fourth century <span>AD<\/span>, the Christian church found itself with only 66 books that constituted its Scripture; 27 of these were the NT and 39 were the OT. Just as Plato, Aristotle, and Homer form a canon of Greek literature, so the NT books became the canon of Christian literature. The criteria for selecting the books in the Jewish canon (the OT) are not known but clearly had to do with their worth in the ongoing life and religion of the worshiping nation. The criteria of the selection of NT books revolved around their “apostolicity,” according to early church writers. Like those of the OT, these books were collected and preserved by local churches in the continuing process of their worship and need for authoritative guidance for Christian living. The formation of the canon was a process, rather than an event, that took several hundred years to reach finality in all parts of the Roman Empire. Local canons were the basis for comparison, and out of them eventually emerged the general canon that exists in Christendom today, although some of the Eastern churches have a NT that is slightly smaller than that accepted in the West. Judaism, as well as Christianity as a whole, believes that the Spirit of God was operative in some providential way in the production and preservation of his Word.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CanonoftheOldTestament\">Canon of the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The Old Testament is a name that does not appear in Jewish literature. Jews prefer to call their collection of Scriptures the TANAK—an acronym formed from the first letters of <em>Torah<\/em> (Law), <em>Nevi<\/em><em>’<\/em><em>im<\/em> (Prophets), and <em>Kethubim<\/em> (Writings). In Luke 24:44 (<span>niv<\/span>), these are called the “Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (the first book of the Writings in the Hebrew Bible). Christians called their collection of writings the New Testament, or covenant, the latter term being a designation earlier used of the agreement God made with Abraham and the patriarchs, which was repeated by Christ to his apostles (Mt 26:28). Christians in the first century considered their new covenant from Christ (1 Cor 11:25) to be a continuation of the one made earlier with the patriarchs (Eph 2:12), spoken of by the prophets (Jer 31:31-34), and which was therefore called a former covenant (Heb 8:7-13; 9:1, 15-22) or in later centuries the OT. The terms “Old” and “New” do not appear in the apostolic fathers of the first and second century or in the apologists of the early- to mid-second century, but they do appear in the latter half of the second century in Justin Martyr (<em>Dialogues<\/em> 11:2), Irenaeus (<em>Against Heresies<\/em> 4.9.1), and Clement of Alexandria (<em>Stromata<\/em> 1:5). In these authors the expression referred more to the covenant itself than to the books containing it, though the transfer was eventually made. The term “canon” was not used in the OT or NT to refer to the Jewish Scriptures. The idea of limitation inherent in the word was not appropriate to the nature of religious authority in Jewish religion during the thousand years when the OT books were being written. Only the Torah was conceived as incapable of being added to or taken from (Dt 4:2). Jewish religion existed for a millennium, from Moses to Malachi, without a closed canon, i.e., an exclusive list of authoritative books. Never in their history did the people of the OT have the entire 39 books of the OT. When their canon was closed is not known. Although some questions were being asked about religious authority by rabbis at Jamnia 20 years after the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, we have our first list of 39 books produced by Melito of Sardis around <span>AD<\/span> 170. That list included no books written after the time of Malachi, unless one is disposed to date Daniel to the second century. The Prophets and the Writings were always considered secondary to the Law. Their composition and collection was a process rather than an event in the life of the people of Israel and functioned largely as a record of the nation’s response to the Law, which was so sacred that it was kept (according to rabbinical tradition: Babylonian Talmud, <em>Baba Bathra<\/em> 14a; cf. also <em>Cairo Damascus Document<\/em> 5.2) in the ark of the covenant that stood in the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle. In Deuteronomy 31:26, however, the Levites were commanded by Moses merely to put the Book of the Law beside the ark. Nevertheless, its very presence in the Holy of Holies establishes its uniqueness in relation to other OT books.<\/p>\n\n<p>The 39 books of the modern OT were originally divided into only 24, according to the uniform testimony of early Hebrew tradition. The Talmud, rabbinic literature, and probably 4 Esdras testify to this arrangement that included five books of the Law, eight Prophets, and eleven Writings (Greek—Hagiographa). Modern Hebrew Bibles reflect this tripartite arrangement that was used in the first three printed editions (Soncino, 1488; Naples, 1491–1493; Brescia, 1492–1494). The Law contained the Pentateuch in our familiar order, Genesis to Deuteronomy. The eight Prophets were Joshua, Judges, Samuel (1 and 2), Kings (1 and 2), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets (all 12), which were considered as one book and arranged in the same order as our English Bibles. The eleven books of Writings contained three of poetry (Ps, Prv, Jb), the Five Scrolls (Sg, Ru, Lam, Eccl, Est), which were read at the important feasts and arranged in the chronological order of their observance, and three of narrative or historical (Dn, Ezr-Neh, 1 and 2 Chr).<\/p>\n<p>Apart from authentic Jewish tradition, efforts were made to divide the books into 21, combining Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremiah. Josephus was the first to do so, in the first century <span>AD<\/span>, but he was influenced by the Greek OT, the Septuagint. Origen observed in the early third century that this arrangement also corresponded to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, as did Athanasius in the fourth, and others, including Jerome. It was dubiously concluded that the number of books in the Hebrew Bible had been divinely ordained to agree with the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet! Church fathers added their support to this coincidence, which became providence to them. All such efforts, however, are of Greek origin and have no support in Hebrew tradition.<\/p>\n<p>The oldest extant manuscripts of the complete OT in Hebrew are the Masoretic Texts, which are no earlier than the eighth century <span>AD<\/span>. Only manuscripts of individual books have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Masoretic scribes apparently laid down no rules about arrangement of books because there is no uniform order of the Latter Prophets or the Writings in early Hebrew manuscripts. Nor is the situation any different in ancient Greek translations of the Hebrew. Great diversity exists in the order of books in all three of our oldest manuscripts—Codex Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus. All the early Christian authors who profess to give the order and contents of the Hebrew Bible but who do not reflect the Hebrew tripartite division are clearly dependent on the Alexandrian order reflected in these Greek editions, rather than on the Hebrew Bible. Modern Protestant Bibles follow the order of the Latin Vulgate and the content of the Hebrew. Both the Vulgate and the Septuagint (Greek translation) contained the Apocrypha, which was never accepted by the Jews. The Roman Catholic Church includes the Apocrypha in its English translations because of the influence of the Vulgate on Catholic tradition. It is considered deuterocanonical.<\/p>\n<p>Even though no uniformity of order was maintained, the Alexandrian order, reflected in the Greek manuscripts, generally arranged books according to their subject matter—narrative, history, poetry, and prophecy, with the apocryphal books appropriately interspersed into these categories. The Hebrew division was totally ignored.<\/p>\n<p>Early Hebrew Bibles divided the text into small paragraphs and larger sections somewhat akin to our paragraphs. These were indicated by spaces left between them—three letters between the small sections and nine letters between the larger ones. The number of sections is not the same in all manuscripts. Jesus probably referred to such sections in his comment concerning the “passage about the bush” (Mk 12:26). Later, liturgical needs led to further divisions of the text for the complete reading of the Law in Babylonian synagogues in one year (54 sections) and in Palestinian synagogues in three years (154 sections). These are reflected in the lectionary cycles marked in some early Hebrew Bibles.<\/p>\n<p>The division of the text into modern chapters, done in the 13th century (c. 1228) for the Latin Vulgate by Stephen Langton, was applied to the Hebrew Bible in 1518 (Bomberg Edition), but the numbers were not given to the chapters until 1571 in the text of Montanus, a Hebrew Bible with Latin interlinear translation. The verses were introduced in Bomberg’s Great Bible of 1547–48 in which every fifth verse was designated by a Hebrew numeral 1, 5, 10, and so on. Verses were inserted into the Latin Vulgate in 1555 in the small octavo edition of Stephanus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CanonoftheNewTestament\">Canon of the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The NT was written within the period of half a century, several hundred years after the completion of the OT. Both halves of that statement would be questioned by modern critics, who would extend the time span for completion of both Testaments. The writer of this survey is confident of its truthfulness to historic fact, however, and the approach taken to canonization of both OT and NT is based solidly upon that twofold premise.<\/p>\n<p>In a sense, we possess far higher certification of the OT canon than of the NT canon. We refer to the fact of our Lord’s own imprimatur by way of his use of the Hebrew Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God. Yet there is a sense in which Jesus Christ did establish the NT content or canon as well, by way of anticipation. It was he who promised, “The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” and “he will guide you into all truth” (Jn 14:26; 16:13, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n\n<p>From this we can derive, in turn, the basic principle of canonicity for the NT. It is identical to that of the OT, since it narrows down to a matter of divine inspiration. Whether we think of the prophets of OT times or the apostles and their God-given associates of the New, the recognition at the very time of their writing that they were authentic spokesmen for God is what determines the intrinsic canonicity of their writing. It is altogether God’s Word only if it is God-breathed. We can be assured that the books under question were received by the church of the apostolic age precisely when they had been certified by an apostle as being thus inspired. The apparent variation, relative to geographic area, in acknowledgment of some of the NT epistles may well reflect the simple fact that this attestation was by its very nature localized at first. Conversely, that all 27 books of the now universally received NT were ultimately agreed upon is evidence that proper attestation was indeed confirmed after rigorous investigation.<\/p>\n<p>Tertullian, an outstanding Christian writer in the first two decades of the third century, was one of the first to call the Christian Scriptures the “New Testament.” That title had appeared earlier (c. 190) in a composition against Montanism, the author of which is unknown. This is significant. Its use placed the NT Scripture on a level of inspiration and authority with the OT.<\/p>\n<p>From available information, the gradual process that led to full and formal public recognition of a fixed canon of the 27 books comprising the NT takes us down into the fourth century of our era. This does not necessarily mean that these Scriptures were lacking recognition in their entirety before that time, but that a need for officially defining the canon was not pressing until then.<\/p>\n<p>Though a much shorter period of time was involved in the writing of the NT than the OT, the geographic range of its origin is far wider. This circumstance alone is sufficient to account for a lack of spontaneous or simultaneous recognition of the precise extent of the NT canon. Because of the geographic isolation of the various recipients of portions of the NT, there was bound to be some lag and uncertainty from one region to another in the acknowledgment of some of the books.<\/p>\n<p>In order to appreciate just what did transpire in the process of canonization of the NT books, we must review the facts available to us. This will enable us to analyze <em>how<\/em> and <em>why<\/em> our early Christian forebears settled upon the 27 books in our NT.<\/p>\n<p>The historic process was a gradual and continuous one, but it will help us understand it if we subdivide the nearly three and a half centuries involved into shorter periods of time. Some speak of three major stages toward canonization. This implies, without justification, that there are readily discernible steps along the way. Others simply present a long list of the names of persons and documents involved. Such a list makes it difficult to sense any motion at all. A somewhat arbitrary breakdown into five periods will be made here, with the reminder that the spreading of the knowledge of sacred literature and the deepening consensus as to its authenticity as inspired Scripture continued uninterruptedly. The periods are:<\/p>\n<p>1. First Century<\/p>\n<li>2. First Half of Second Century<\/li>\n<li>3. Second Half of Second Century<\/li>\n<li>4. Third Century<\/li>\n<li>5. Fourth Century<\/li>\n<p>Again, without meaning to imply that these are clear-cut stages, it will be helpful to notice the major trends observable in each of the periods just identified. In the first period, of course, the various books were written, but they also began to be copied and disseminated among the churches. In the second, as they became more widely known and cherished for their contents, they began to be cited as authoritative. By the end of the third period, they held a recognized place alongside the OT as “Scripture,” and they began to be both translated into regional languages and made the subject of commentaries. During the third century <span>AD<\/span>, our fourth period, the collecting of books into a whole “New Testament” was underway, together with a sifting process that was separating them from other Christian literature. The final, or fifth, period finds the church fathers of the fourth century stating that conclusions regarding the canon have been reached that indicate acceptance by the whole church. Thus, in the most strict and formal sense of the word, the canon had become fixed. It remains to list in greater detail the forces and individuals that produced the written sources witnessing to this remarkable process through which, by God’s providence, we have inherited our NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Period One: First Century<\/h5>\n<p>The principle determining recognition of the authority of the canonical NT writings was established within the content of those writings themselves. There are repeated exhortations for public reading of the apostolic communications. At the close of his First Letter to the Thessalonians, possibly the first book of the NT to be written, Paul says, “I command you in the name of the Lord to read this letter to all the brothers and sisters” (1 Thes 5:27, <span>nlt<\/span>). Earlier in the same letter Paul commends their ready acceptance of his spoken word as “the word of God” (2:13), and in 1 Corinthians 14:37 he speaks similarly of his “writings,” insisting that his message be recognized as a commandment from the Lord himself. (See also Col 4:16; Rv 1:3.) In 2 Peter 3:15-16 Paul’s letters are included with “the other Scriptures.” Since Peter’s is a general letter, widespread knowledge of Paul’s letters is thereby implied. Highly indicative also is Paul’s usage in 1 Timothy 5:18. He follows up the formula “the Scriptures say” by a combined quotation about not muzzling an ox (Dt 25:4) and “the worker deserves his wages” (cf. Lk 10:7). Thus, an equivalence is implied between OT Scripture and a NT Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>In <span>AD<\/span> 95, Clement of Rome wrote to the Christians in Corinth using a free rendering of material from Matthew and Luke. He seems to be strongly influenced by Hebrews and is obviously familiar with Romans and Corinthians. There are also reflections of Ephesians, 1 Timothy, Titus, and 1 Peter.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Two: First Half of Second Century<\/h5>\n<p>One of the earliest NT manuscripts yet discovered, a fragment of John from Egypt known as the John Rylands papyrus, demonstrates how the writings of the apostle John were revered and copied by about <span>AD<\/span> 125, within 30 to 35 years of his death. There is evidence that within 30 years of the apostle’s death all the Gospels and Pauline letters were known and used in all those centers from which any evidence has come down to us. It is true that some of the smaller letters were being questioned as to their authority in some quarters for perhaps another 50 years, but this was due only to uncertainty about their authorship in those particular locales. This demonstrates that acceptance was not being imposed by the actions of councils but was rather happening spontaneously through a normal response on the part of those who had learned the facts about authorship. In those places where the churches were uncertain about the authorship or apostolic approval of certain books, acceptance was slower.<\/p>\n<p>The first three outstanding church fathers, Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius, used the bulk of the material of the NT in a revealingly casual manner—authenticated Scriptures were being accepted as authoritative without argument. In the writings of these men only Mark (which closely parallels the material of Matthew), 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude are not clearly attested.<\/p>\n<p>The Epistles of Ignatius (c. <span>AD<\/span> 115) have correspondences in several places with the Gospels and seem to incorporate language from a number of the Pauline letters. The Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve), perhaps even earlier, makes references to a written Gospel. Most important is the fact that Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius all draw a clear distinction between their own and the inspired, authoritative apostolic writings.<\/p>\n<p>It is in the Epistle of Barnabas (c. <span>AD<\/span> 130) that we first find the formula “it is written” (4:14) used in reference to a NT book (Mt 22:14). But even before this, Polycarp, who had personal acquaintance with eyewitnesses of our Lord’s ministry, used a combined OT and NT quotation. Citing Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 4:26, where the apostle quotes Psalm 4:4 and makes an addition, Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians introduces the reference by “as it is said in these Scriptures” (12:4). Then Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (c. 130–140), in a work preserved for us by Eusebius, mentions by name the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, and his use of them as the basis of exposition indicates his acceptance of them as canonical. Also around <span>AD<\/span> 140, the recently discovered Gospel of Truth (a Gnostic-oriented work probably authored by Valentinius) makes an important contribution. Its use of canonical NT sources, treating them as authoritative, is comprehensive enough to warrant the conclusion that in Rome at this period there was a NT compilation in existence corresponding very closely to our own. Citations are made from the Gospels, Acts, letters of Paul, Hebrews, and the book of Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>The heretic Marcion, by defining a limited canon of his own (c. 140), in effect hastened the day when the orthodox believers needed to declare themselves on this issue. Rejecting the entire OT, Marcion settled for Luke’s Gospel (eliminating chapters 1 and 2 as too Jewish) and Paul’s letters (except for the pastoral ones). Interestingly, especially in the light of Colossians 4:16, he substitutes the name “Laodiceans” for Ephesians.<\/p>\n<p>Near the end of this period, Justin Martyr, in describing the worship services of the early church, puts the apostolic writings on a par with those of the OT prophets. He states that the voice which spoke through the apostles of Christ in the NT was the same as that which spoke through the prophets—the voice of God—and the same voice that Abraham heard, responding in faith and obedience. Justin was also free in his use of “it is written” with quotations from NT Scriptures.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Three: Second Half of Second Century<\/h5>\n<p>Irenaeus had been privileged to begin his Christian training under Polycarp, a disciple of apostles. Then, as a presbyter in Lyons, he had association with Bishop Pothinus, whose own background also included contact with firstgeneration Christians. Irenaeus quotes from almost all the NT on the basis of its authority and asserts that the apostles were endowed with power from on high. They were, he says, “fully informed concerning all things, and had a perfect knowledge . . . having indeed all in equal measure and each one singly the Gospel of God” (<em>Against Heresies<\/em> 3.3). Irenaeus gives reasons why there should be four Gospels. “The word,” he says, “gave us the Gospel in a fourfold shape, but held together by one Spirit.” In addition to the Gospels, he makes reference also to Acts, all the letters of Paul except Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the book of Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>Tatian, pupil of Justin Martyr, made a harmony of the four Gospels, the <em>Diatessaron,<\/em> attesting to the equal status they had in the church by <span>AD<\/span> 170. Other “gospels” had come into existence by then, but he recognized only the four. Also dating from about 170 was the <em>Muratorian Canon.<\/em> An eighth-century copy of this document was discovered and published in 1740 by librarian L. A. Muratori. The manuscript is mutilated at both ends, but the remaining text makes it evident that Matthew and Mark were included in the now missing part. The fragment begins with Luke and John, cites Acts, 13 Pauline letters, 1 and 2 John, Jude, and Revelation. There follows a statement, “We accept only the Apocalypse of John and Peter, although some of us do not want it [Apocalypse of Peter is 2 Peter?] to be read in the Church.” The list goes on to reject by name various heretical leaders and their writings.<\/p>\n<p>Translated versions existed by this period. In the form of Syriac and Old Latin translations we secure, by <span>AD<\/span> 170, adequate witness from the extreme eastern and western branches of the church, as we might well expect from the other evidence in hand. The NT canon is represented with no additions and the omission of only one book, 2 Peter.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Four: Third Century<\/h5>\n<p>The outstanding Christian name of the third century is that of Origen (<span>AD<\/span> 185– 254). A prodigious scholar and interpreter, he made critical studies of the NT text (alongside his work on the <em>Hexapla<\/em>) and wrote commentaries and homilies on most of the books of the NT, emphasizing their inspiration by God.<\/p>\n<p>Dionysius of Alexandria, pupil of Origen, indicates that while the Western church accepted the book of Revelation from the first, its position in the East was variable. In the case of the Letter to the Hebrews, the situation was reversed. It proved to be more insecure in the West than in the East. When it comes to other contested books (note, incidently, that all in that category have the hindmost position in our present Bibles—Hebrews to Revelation), among the so-called “Catholic Epistles” Dionysius supports James and 2 and 3 John but not 2 Peter or Jude. In other words, even at the end of the third century there was the same lack of finality about certain books as at its beginning.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Five: Fourth Century<\/h5>\n<p>Early in this period, the picture begins to clarify. Eusebius (<span>AD<\/span> 270–340, bishop of Caesarea before 315), the great church historian, sets forth his estimate of the canon in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> (3.3–25). Herein he makes a straightforward statement on the status of the canon in the early part of the fourth century: (1) Universally agreed upon as canonical were the four Gospels, Acts, letters of Paul (including Hebrews, with question about his authorship), 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation. (2) Admitted by a majority, including Eusebius himself, but disputed by some were James, 2 Peter (the most strongly contested), 2 and 3 John, and Jude. (3) The Acts of Paul, the Didache, and Shepherd of Hermas were classified “spurious,” and still other writings were listed as “heretical and absurd.”<\/p>\n<p>It is in the latter half of the fourth century, however, that the NT canon finds full and final declaration. In his <em>Festal Letter<\/em> for Easter, 367, Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria included information designed to eliminate once and for all the use of certain apocryphal books. This letter, with its admonition, “Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away,” gives us the earliest extant document that specifies our 27 books without qualification. At the close of the century, the Council of Carthage (<span>AD<\/span> 397) decreed that “aside from the canonical Scriptures nothing is to be read in church under the Name of Divine Scriptures.” This, too, lists the 27 books of the NT.<\/p>\n<p>The sudden advance of Christianity under Emperor Constantine (Edict of Milan, 313) had a great deal to do with the reception of all the NT books in the East. When he assigned Eusebius the task of preparing “fifty copies of the Divine Scriptures,” the historian, fully aware of which were the sacred books for which many believers had been willing to lay down their very lives, in effect established the standard that gave recognition to all of the once-doubtful books. In the West, of course, Jerome and Augustine were the leaders who exercised a determinitive influence. Publication of the 27 books in the Vulgate version virtually settled the matter.<\/p>\n<h5>Principles and Factors Determining the Canon<\/h5>\n<p>By its very nature, Holy Scripture, whether OT or NT, is a production given of God, not the work of human creation. The key to canonicity is divine inspiration. Therefore, the method of determination is not one of selection from a number of possible candidates (there are no other candidates, in actuality) but one of reception of authentic material and its consequent recognition by an ever-widening circle as the facts of its origin become known.<\/p>\n<p>In a sense, the movement of Montanus, which was declared heretical by the church of his day (mid-second century), was an impetus toward the recognition of a closed canon of the written Word of God. He taught that the prophetic gift was permanently granted to the church and that he himself was a prophet. The pressure to deal with Montanism, therefore, intensified the search for a basic authority, and apostolic authorship or approval became recognized as the only sure standard for identifying God’s revelation. Even within the Scripture record, first-century prophets were subordinate and subject to apostolic authority (see, for example, 1 Cor 14:29-30; Eph 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When all things were being reexamined in the Protestant Reformation, some of the Reformers sought means of reassuring themselves and their followers about the canon of Scripture. This was in some ways an unfortunate aspect of Reformation thinking, because once God in his providence had determined for his people the fixed content of Scripture, that became a fact of history and was not a repeatable process. Nevertheless, Luther established a theological test for the books of the Bible (and questioned some of them)—“Do they teach Christ?” Equally subjective, it would seem, was Calvin’s insistence that the Spirit of God bears witness to each individual Christian in any age of church history as to what is his Word and what is not.<\/p>\n<p>Actually, even for the initial acceptance of the written Word, it is neither safe nor sound (as far as Scripture or history teaches us) to say that recognition and reception was an intuitive matter. It was rather a matter of simple obedience to the known commands of Christ and his apostles. As we saw at the outset, our Lord promised (Jn 14:26; 16:13) to communicate all things necessary through his agents. The apostles were conscious of this responsibility and agency as they wrote. Paul’s explanation in 1 Corinthians 2:13 is apropos: “In telling you about these gifts we have even used the very words given to us by the Holy Spirit, not words that we as men might choose. So we use the Holy Spirit’s words to explain the Holy Spirit’s facts” (<span>tlb<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Hence, the early church, with closer ties and greater information than is available to us today, examined the testimony of the ancients. They were able to discern which were the authentic and authoritative books by their apostolic origin. Mark’s association with Peter, and Luke’s with Paul, gave them such apostolic approval, and epistles like Hebrews and Jude were also tied in with the apostolic message and ministry. Incontrovertible consistency of doctrine in all the books, including the sometime contested ones, was perhaps a subordinate test. But historically the procedure was essentially one of acceptance and approval of those books that were vouched for by knowledgeable church leaders. Full acceptance by the original recipients followed by a continued acknowledgment and use is an essential factor in the development of the canon.<\/p>\n<p>The church’s concept of canon, derived first of all from the reverence given the OT Scriptures, rested in the conviction that the apostles were uniquely authorized to speak in the name of the one who possessed all authority—the Lord Jesus Christ. The development from there is logical and straightforward. Those who heard Jesus in person were immediately subject to his authority. He personally authenticated his words to the believers. These same believers knew that Jesus authorized his apostles to speak in his name, both during and (more significantly) after his earthly ministry. Apostolic speaking on behalf of Christ was recognized in the church, whether in personal utterance or in written form. Both the spoken word of an apostle and the letter of an apostle constituted the word of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The generation that followed that of the apostles themselves received the witness of those who knew that the apostles had the right to speak and write in the name of Christ. Consequently, the second and third generation of Christians looked back to apostolic words (writings) as the very words of Christ. This is what is really meant by canonization—recognition of the divinely authenticated Word. Hence, the believers (the church) did not establish the canon but simply bore witness to its extent by recognizing the authority of the word of Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BIBLE*, C<span>anon of the<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Those books in the Jewish and Christian Bible considered to be Scripture and therefore authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine. The term translates both a Greek and a Hebrew word that mean “a rule,” or “measuring rod.” It is a list to which other books are compared and by which they are measured. After the fourth century <span>AD<\/span>, the Christian church found itself with only 66 books that constituted its Scripture; 27 of these were the NT and 39 were the OT. Just as Plato, Aristotle, and Homer form a canon of Greek literature, so the NT books became the canon of Christian literature. The criteria for selecting the books in the Jewish canon (the OT) are not known but clearly had to do with their worth in the ongoing life and religion of the worshiping nation. The criteria of the selection of NT books revolved around their “apostolicity,” according to early church writers. Like those of the OT, these books were collected and preserved by local churches in the continuing process of their worship and need for authoritative guidance for Christian living. The formation of the canon was a process, rather than an event, that took several hundred years to reach finality in all parts of the Roman Empire. Local canons were the basis for comparison, and out of them eventually emerged the general canon that exists in Christendom today, although some of the Eastern churches have a NT that is slightly smaller than that accepted in the West. Judaism, as well as Christianity as a whole, believes that the Spirit of God was operative in some providential way in the production and preservation of his Word.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CanonoftheOldTestament\">Canon of the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The Old Testament is a name that does not appear in Jewish literature. Jews prefer to call their collection of Scriptures the TANAK—an acronym formed from the first letters of <em>Torah<\/em> (Law), <em>Nevi<\/em><em>’<\/em><em>im<\/em> (Prophets), and <em>Kethubim<\/em> (Writings). In Luke 24:44 (<span>niv<\/span>), these are called the “Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (the first book of the Writings in the Hebrew Bible). Christians called their collection of writings the New Testament, or covenant, the latter term being a designation earlier used of the agreement God made with Abraham and the patriarchs, which was repeated by Christ to his apostles (Mt 26:28). Christians in the first century considered their new covenant from Christ (1 Cor 11:25) to be a continuation of the one made earlier with the patriarchs (Eph 2:12), spoken of by the prophets (Jer 31:31-34), and which was therefore called a former covenant (Heb 8:7-13; 9:1, 15-22) or in later centuries the OT. The terms “Old” and “New” do not appear in the apostolic fathers of the first and second century or in the apologists of the early- to mid-second century, but they do appear in the latter half of the second century in Justin Martyr (<em>Dialogues<\/em> 11:2), Irenaeus (<em>Against Heresies<\/em> 4.9.1), and Clement of Alexandria (<em>Stromata<\/em> 1:5). In these authors the expression referred more to the covenant itself than to the books containing it, though the transfer was eventually made. The term “canon” was not used in the OT or NT to refer to the Jewish Scriptures. The idea of limitation inherent in the word was not appropriate to the nature of religious authority in Jewish religion during the thousand years when the OT books were being written. Only the Torah was conceived as incapable of being added to or taken from (Dt 4:2). Jewish religion existed for a millennium, from Moses to Malachi, without a closed canon, i.e., an exclusive list of authoritative books. Never in their history did the people of the OT have the entire 39 books of the OT. When their canon was closed is not known. Although some questions were being asked about religious authority by rabbis at Jamnia 20 years after the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, we have our first list of 39 books produced by Melito of Sardis around <span>AD<\/span> 170. That list included no books written after the time of Malachi, unless one is disposed to date Daniel to the second century. The Prophets and the Writings were always considered secondary to the Law. Their composition and collection was a process rather than an event in the life of the people of Israel and functioned largely as a record of the nation’s response to the Law, which was so sacred that it was kept (according to rabbinical tradition: Babylonian Talmud, <em>Baba Bathra<\/em> 14a; cf. also <em>Cairo Damascus Document<\/em> 5.2) in the ark of the covenant that stood in the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle. In Deuteronomy 31:26, however, the Levites were commanded by Moses merely to put the Book of the Law beside the ark. Nevertheless, its very presence in the Holy of Holies establishes its uniqueness in relation to other OT books.<\/p>\n\n<p>The 39 books of the modern OT were originally divided into only 24, according to the uniform testimony of early Hebrew tradition. The Talmud, rabbinic literature, and probably 4 Esdras testify to this arrangement that included five books of the Law, eight Prophets, and eleven Writings (Greek—Hagiographa). Modern Hebrew Bibles reflect this tripartite arrangement that was used in the first three printed editions (Soncino, 1488; Naples, 1491–1493; Brescia, 1492–1494). The Law contained the Pentateuch in our familiar order, Genesis to Deuteronomy. The eight Prophets were Joshua, Judges, Samuel (1 and 2), Kings (1 and 2), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets (all 12), which were considered as one book and arranged in the same order as our English Bibles. The eleven books of Writings contained three of poetry (Ps, Prv, Jb), the Five Scrolls (Sg, Ru, Lam, Eccl, Est), which were read at the important feasts and arranged in the chronological order of their observance, and three of narrative or historical (Dn, Ezr-Neh, 1 and 2 Chr).<\/p>\n<p>Apart from authentic Jewish tradition, efforts were made to divide the books into 21, combining Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremiah. Josephus was the first to do so, in the first century <span>AD<\/span>, but he was influenced by the Greek OT, the Septuagint. Origen observed in the early third century that this arrangement also corresponded to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, as did Athanasius in the fourth, and others, including Jerome. It was dubiously concluded that the number of books in the Hebrew Bible had been divinely ordained to agree with the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet! Church fathers added their support to this coincidence, which became providence to them. All such efforts, however, are of Greek origin and have no support in Hebrew tradition.<\/p>\n<p>The oldest extant manuscripts of the complete OT in Hebrew are the Masoretic Texts, which are no earlier than the eighth century <span>AD<\/span>. Only manuscripts of individual books have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Masoretic scribes apparently laid down no rules about arrangement of books because there is no uniform order of the Latter Prophets or the Writings in early Hebrew manuscripts. Nor is the situation any different in ancient Greek translations of the Hebrew. Great diversity exists in the order of books in all three of our oldest manuscripts—Codex Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus. All the early Christian authors who profess to give the order and contents of the Hebrew Bible but who do not reflect the Hebrew tripartite division are clearly dependent on the Alexandrian order reflected in these Greek editions, rather than on the Hebrew Bible. Modern Protestant Bibles follow the order of the Latin Vulgate and the content of the Hebrew. Both the Vulgate and the Septuagint (Greek translation) contained the Apocrypha, which was never accepted by the Jews. The Roman Catholic Church includes the Apocrypha in its English translations because of the influence of the Vulgate on Catholic tradition. It is considered deuterocanonical.<\/p>\n<p>Even though no uniformity of order was maintained, the Alexandrian order, reflected in the Greek manuscripts, generally arranged books according to their subject matter—narrative, history, poetry, and prophecy, with the apocryphal books appropriately interspersed into these categories. The Hebrew division was totally ignored.<\/p>\n<p>Early Hebrew Bibles divided the text into small paragraphs and larger sections somewhat akin to our paragraphs. These were indicated by spaces left between them—three letters between the small sections and nine letters between the larger ones. The number of sections is not the same in all manuscripts. Jesus probably referred to such sections in his comment concerning the “passage about the bush” (Mk 12:26). Later, liturgical needs led to further divisions of the text for the complete reading of the Law in Babylonian synagogues in one year (54 sections) and in Palestinian synagogues in three years (154 sections). These are reflected in the lectionary cycles marked in some early Hebrew Bibles.<\/p>\n<p>The division of the text into modern chapters, done in the 13th century (c. 1228) for the Latin Vulgate by Stephen Langton, was applied to the Hebrew Bible in 1518 (Bomberg Edition), but the numbers were not given to the chapters until 1571 in the text of Montanus, a Hebrew Bible with Latin interlinear translation. The verses were introduced in Bomberg’s Great Bible of 1547–48 in which every fifth verse was designated by a Hebrew numeral 1, 5, 10, and so on. Verses were inserted into the Latin Vulgate in 1555 in the small octavo edition of Stephanus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CanonoftheNewTestament\">Canon of the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The NT was written within the period of half a century, several hundred years after the completion of the OT. Both halves of that statement would be questioned by modern critics, who would extend the time span for completion of both Testaments. The writer of this survey is confident of its truthfulness to historic fact, however, and the approach taken to canonization of both OT and NT is based solidly upon that twofold premise.<\/p>\n<p>In a sense, we possess far higher certification of the OT canon than of the NT canon. We refer to the fact of our Lord’s own imprimatur by way of his use of the Hebrew Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God. Yet there is a sense in which Jesus Christ did establish the NT content or canon as well, by way of anticipation. It was he who promised, “The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” and “he will guide you into all truth” (Jn 14:26; 16:13, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n\n<p>From this we can derive, in turn, the basic principle of canonicity for the NT. It is identical to that of the OT, since it narrows down to a matter of divine inspiration. Whether we think of the prophets of OT times or the apostles and their God-given associates of the New, the recognition at the very time of their writing that they were authentic spokesmen for God is what determines the intrinsic canonicity of their writing. It is altogether God’s Word only if it is God-breathed. We can be assured that the books under question were received by the church of the apostolic age precisely when they had been certified by an apostle as being thus inspired. The apparent variation, relative to geographic area, in acknowledgment of some of the NT epistles may well reflect the simple fact that this attestation was by its very nature localized at first. Conversely, that all 27 books of the now universally received NT were ultimately agreed upon is evidence that proper attestation was indeed confirmed after rigorous investigation.<\/p>\n<p>Tertullian, an outstanding Christian writer in the first two decades of the third century, was one of the first to call the Christian Scriptures the “New Testament.” That title had appeared earlier (c. 190) in a composition against Montanism, the author of which is unknown. This is significant. Its use placed the NT Scripture on a level of inspiration and authority with the OT.<\/p>\n<p>From available information, the gradual process that led to full and formal public recognition of a fixed canon of the 27 books comprising the NT takes us down into the fourth century of our era. This does not necessarily mean that these Scriptures were lacking recognition in their entirety before that time, but that a need for officially defining the canon was not pressing until then.<\/p>\n<p>Though a much shorter period of time was involved in the writing of the NT than the OT, the geographic range of its origin is far wider. This circumstance alone is sufficient to account for a lack of spontaneous or simultaneous recognition of the precise extent of the NT canon. Because of the geographic isolation of the various recipients of portions of the NT, there was bound to be some lag and uncertainty from one region to another in the acknowledgment of some of the books.<\/p>\n<p>In order to appreciate just what did transpire in the process of canonization of the NT books, we must review the facts available to us. This will enable us to analyze <em>how<\/em> and <em>why<\/em> our early Christian forebears settled upon the 27 books in our NT.<\/p>\n<p>The historic process was a gradual and continuous one, but it will help us understand it if we subdivide the nearly three and a half centuries involved into shorter periods of time. Some speak of three major stages toward canonization. This implies, without justification, that there are readily discernible steps along the way. Others simply present a long list of the names of persons and documents involved. Such a list makes it difficult to sense any motion at all. A somewhat arbitrary breakdown into five periods will be made here, with the reminder that the spreading of the knowledge of sacred literature and the deepening consensus as to its authenticity as inspired Scripture continued uninterruptedly. The periods are:<\/p>\n<p>1. First Century<\/p>\n<li>2. First Half of Second Century<\/li>\n<li>3. Second Half of Second Century<\/li>\n<li>4. Third Century<\/li>\n<li>5. Fourth Century<\/li>\n<p>Again, without meaning to imply that these are clear-cut stages, it will be helpful to notice the major trends observable in each of the periods just identified. In the first period, of course, the various books were written, but they also began to be copied and disseminated among the churches. In the second, as they became more widely known and cherished for their contents, they began to be cited as authoritative. By the end of the third period, they held a recognized place alongside the OT as “Scripture,” and they began to be both translated into regional languages and made the subject of commentaries. During the third century <span>AD<\/span>, our fourth period, the collecting of books into a whole “New Testament” was underway, together with a sifting process that was separating them from other Christian literature. The final, or fifth, period finds the church fathers of the fourth century stating that conclusions regarding the canon have been reached that indicate acceptance by the whole church. Thus, in the most strict and formal sense of the word, the canon had become fixed. It remains to list in greater detail the forces and individuals that produced the written sources witnessing to this remarkable process through which, by God’s providence, we have inherited our NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Period One: First Century<\/h5>\n<p>The principle determining recognition of the authority of the canonical NT writings was established within the content of those writings themselves. There are repeated exhortations for public reading of the apostolic communications. At the close of his First Letter to the Thessalonians, possibly the first book of the NT to be written, Paul says, “I command you in the name of the Lord to read this letter to all the brothers and sisters” (1 Thes 5:27, <span>nlt<\/span>). Earlier in the same letter Paul commends their ready acceptance of his spoken word as “the word of God” (2:13), and in 1 Corinthians 14:37 he speaks similarly of his “writings,” insisting that his message be recognized as a commandment from the Lord himself. (See also Col 4:16; Rv 1:3.) In 2 Peter 3:15-16 Paul’s letters are included with “the other Scriptures.” Since Peter’s is a general letter, widespread knowledge of Paul’s letters is thereby implied. Highly indicative also is Paul’s usage in 1 Timothy 5:18. He follows up the formula “the Scriptures say” by a combined quotation about not muzzling an ox (Dt 25:4) and “the worker deserves his wages” (cf. Lk 10:7). Thus, an equivalence is implied between OT Scripture and a NT Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>In <span>AD<\/span> 95, Clement of Rome wrote to the Christians in Corinth using a free rendering of material from Matthew and Luke. He seems to be strongly influenced by Hebrews and is obviously familiar with Romans and Corinthians. There are also reflections of Ephesians, 1 Timothy, Titus, and 1 Peter.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Two: First Half of Second Century<\/h5>\n<p>One of the earliest NT manuscripts yet discovered, a fragment of John from Egypt known as the John Rylands papyrus, demonstrates how the writings of the apostle John were revered and copied by about <span>AD<\/span> 125, within 30 to 35 years of his death. There is evidence that within 30 years of the apostle’s death all the Gospels and Pauline letters were known and used in all those centers from which any evidence has come down to us. It is true that some of the smaller letters were being questioned as to their authority in some quarters for perhaps another 50 years, but this was due only to uncertainty about their authorship in those particular locales. This demonstrates that acceptance was not being imposed by the actions of councils but was rather happening spontaneously through a normal response on the part of those who had learned the facts about authorship. In those places where the churches were uncertain about the authorship or apostolic approval of certain books, acceptance was slower.<\/p>\n<p>The first three outstanding church fathers, Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius, used the bulk of the material of the NT in a revealingly casual manner—authenticated Scriptures were being accepted as authoritative without argument. In the writings of these men only Mark (which closely parallels the material of Matthew), 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude are not clearly attested.<\/p>\n<p>The Epistles of Ignatius (c. <span>AD<\/span> 115) have correspondences in several places with the Gospels and seem to incorporate language from a number of the Pauline letters. The Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve), perhaps even earlier, makes references to a written Gospel. Most important is the fact that Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius all draw a clear distinction between their own and the inspired, authoritative apostolic writings.<\/p>\n<p>It is in the Epistle of Barnabas (c. <span>AD<\/span> 130) that we first find the formula “it is written” (4:14) used in reference to a NT book (Mt 22:14). But even before this, Polycarp, who had personal acquaintance with eyewitnesses of our Lord’s ministry, used a combined OT and NT quotation. Citing Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 4:26, where the apostle quotes Psalm 4:4 and makes an addition, Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians introduces the reference by “as it is said in these Scriptures” (12:4). Then Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (c. 130–140), in a work preserved for us by Eusebius, mentions by name the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, and his use of them as the basis of exposition indicates his acceptance of them as canonical. Also around <span>AD<\/span> 140, the recently discovered Gospel of Truth (a Gnostic-oriented work probably authored by Valentinius) makes an important contribution. Its use of canonical NT sources, treating them as authoritative, is comprehensive enough to warrant the conclusion that in Rome at this period there was a NT compilation in existence corresponding very closely to our own. Citations are made from the Gospels, Acts, letters of Paul, Hebrews, and the book of Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>The heretic Marcion, by defining a limited canon of his own (c. 140), in effect hastened the day when the orthodox believers needed to declare themselves on this issue. Rejecting the entire OT, Marcion settled for Luke’s Gospel (eliminating chapters 1 and 2 as too Jewish) and Paul’s letters (except for the pastoral ones). Interestingly, especially in the light of Colossians 4:16, he substitutes the name “Laodiceans” for Ephesians.<\/p>\n<p>Near the end of this period, Justin Martyr, in describing the worship services of the early church, puts the apostolic writings on a par with those of the OT prophets. He states that the voice which spoke through the apostles of Christ in the NT was the same as that which spoke through the prophets—the voice of God—and the same voice that Abraham heard, responding in faith and obedience. Justin was also free in his use of “it is written” with quotations from NT Scriptures.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Three: Second Half of Second Century<\/h5>\n<p>Irenaeus had been privileged to begin his Christian training under Polycarp, a disciple of apostles. Then, as a presbyter in Lyons, he had association with Bishop Pothinus, whose own background also included contact with firstgeneration Christians. Irenaeus quotes from almost all the NT on the basis of its authority and asserts that the apostles were endowed with power from on high. They were, he says, “fully informed concerning all things, and had a perfect knowledge . . . having indeed all in equal measure and each one singly the Gospel of God” (<em>Against Heresies<\/em> 3.3). Irenaeus gives reasons why there should be four Gospels. “The word,” he says, “gave us the Gospel in a fourfold shape, but held together by one Spirit.” In addition to the Gospels, he makes reference also to Acts, all the letters of Paul except Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the book of Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>Tatian, pupil of Justin Martyr, made a harmony of the four Gospels, the <em>Diatessaron,<\/em> attesting to the equal status they had in the church by <span>AD<\/span> 170. Other “gospels” had come into existence by then, but he recognized only the four. Also dating from about 170 was the <em>Muratorian Canon.<\/em> An eighth-century copy of this document was discovered and published in 1740 by librarian L. A. Muratori. The manuscript is mutilated at both ends, but the remaining text makes it evident that Matthew and Mark were included in the now missing part. The fragment begins with Luke and John, cites Acts, 13 Pauline letters, 1 and 2 John, Jude, and Revelation. There follows a statement, “We accept only the Apocalypse of John and Peter, although some of us do not want it [Apocalypse of Peter is 2 Peter?] to be read in the Church.” The list goes on to reject by name various heretical leaders and their writings.<\/p>\n<p>Translated versions existed by this period. In the form of Syriac and Old Latin translations we secure, by <span>AD<\/span> 170, adequate witness from the extreme eastern and western branches of the church, as we might well expect from the other evidence in hand. The NT canon is represented with no additions and the omission of only one book, 2 Peter.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Four: Third Century<\/h5>\n<p>The outstanding Christian name of the third century is that of Origen (<span>AD<\/span> 185– 254). A prodigious scholar and interpreter, he made critical studies of the NT text (alongside his work on the <em>Hexapla<\/em>) and wrote commentaries and homilies on most of the books of the NT, emphasizing their inspiration by God.<\/p>\n<p>Dionysius of Alexandria, pupil of Origen, indicates that while the Western church accepted the book of Revelation from the first, its position in the East was variable. In the case of the Letter to the Hebrews, the situation was reversed. It proved to be more insecure in the West than in the East. When it comes to other contested books (note, incidently, that all in that category have the hindmost position in our present Bibles—Hebrews to Revelation), among the so-called “Catholic Epistles” Dionysius supports James and 2 and 3 John but not 2 Peter or Jude. In other words, even at the end of the third century there was the same lack of finality about certain books as at its beginning.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Five: Fourth Century<\/h5>\n<p>Early in this period, the picture begins to clarify. Eusebius (<span>AD<\/span> 270–340, bishop of Caesarea before 315), the great church historian, sets forth his estimate of the canon in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> (3.3–25). Herein he makes a straightforward statement on the status of the canon in the early part of the fourth century: (1) Universally agreed upon as canonical were the four Gospels, Acts, letters of Paul (including Hebrews, with question about his authorship), 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation. (2) Admitted by a majority, including Eusebius himself, but disputed by some were James, 2 Peter (the most strongly contested), 2 and 3 John, and Jude. (3) The Acts of Paul, the Didache, and Shepherd of Hermas were classified “spurious,” and still other writings were listed as “heretical and absurd.”<\/p>\n<p>It is in the latter half of the fourth century, however, that the NT canon finds full and final declaration. In his <em>Festal Letter<\/em> for Easter, 367, Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria included information designed to eliminate once and for all the use of certain apocryphal books. This letter, with its admonition, “Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away,” gives us the earliest extant document that specifies our 27 books without qualification. At the close of the century, the Council of Carthage (<span>AD<\/span> 397) decreed that “aside from the canonical Scriptures nothing is to be read in church under the Name of Divine Scriptures.” This, too, lists the 27 books of the NT.<\/p>\n<p>The sudden advance of Christianity under Emperor Constantine (Edict of Milan, 313) had a great deal to do with the reception of all the NT books in the East. When he assigned Eusebius the task of preparing “fifty copies of the Divine Scriptures,” the historian, fully aware of which were the sacred books for which many believers had been willing to lay down their very lives, in effect established the standard that gave recognition to all of the once-doubtful books. In the West, of course, Jerome and Augustine were the leaders who exercised a determinitive influence. Publication of the 27 books in the Vulgate version virtually settled the matter.<\/p>\n<h5>Principles and Factors Determining the Canon<\/h5>\n<p>By its very nature, Holy Scripture, whether OT or NT, is a production given of God, not the work of human creation. The key to canonicity is divine inspiration. Therefore, the method of determination is not one of selection from a number of possible candidates (there are no other candidates, in actuality) but one of reception of authentic material and its consequent recognition by an ever-widening circle as the facts of its origin become known.<\/p>\n<p>In a sense, the movement of Montanus, which was declared heretical by the church of his day (mid-second century), was an impetus toward the recognition of a closed canon of the written Word of God. He taught that the prophetic gift was permanently granted to the church and that he himself was a prophet. The pressure to deal with Montanism, therefore, intensified the search for a basic authority, and apostolic authorship or approval became recognized as the only sure standard for identifying God’s revelation. Even within the Scripture record, first-century prophets were subordinate and subject to apostolic authority (see, for example, 1 Cor 14:29-30; Eph 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When all things were being reexamined in the Protestant Reformation, some of the Reformers sought means of reassuring themselves and their followers about the canon of Scripture. This was in some ways an unfortunate aspect of Reformation thinking, because once God in his providence had determined for his people the fixed content of Scripture, that became a fact of history and was not a repeatable process. Nevertheless, Luther established a theological test for the books of the Bible (and questioned some of them)—“Do they teach Christ?” Equally subjective, it would seem, was Calvin’s insistence that the Spirit of God bears witness to each individual Christian in any age of church history as to what is his Word and what is not.<\/p>\n<p>Actually, even for the initial acceptance of the written Word, it is neither safe nor sound (as far as Scripture or history teaches us) to say that recognition and reception was an intuitive matter. It was rather a matter of simple obedience to the known commands of Christ and his apostles. As we saw at the outset, our Lord promised (Jn 14:26; 16:13) to communicate all things necessary through his agents. The apostles were conscious of this responsibility and agency as they wrote. Paul’s explanation in 1 Corinthians 2:13 is apropos: “In telling you about these gifts we have even used the very words given to us by the Holy Spirit, not words that we as men might choose. So we use the Holy Spirit’s words to explain the Holy Spirit’s facts” (<span>tlb<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Hence, the early church, with closer ties and greater information than is available to us today, examined the testimony of the ancients. They were able to discern which were the authentic and authoritative books by their apostolic origin. Mark’s association with Peter, and Luke’s with Paul, gave them such apostolic approval, and epistles like Hebrews and Jude were also tied in with the apostolic message and ministry. Incontrovertible consistency of doctrine in all the books, including the sometime contested ones, was perhaps a subordinate test. But historically the procedure was essentially one of acceptance and approval of those books that were vouched for by knowledgeable church leaders. Full acceptance by the original recipients followed by a continued acknowledgment and use is an essential factor in the development of the canon.<\/p>\n<p>The church’s concept of canon, derived first of all from the reverence given the OT Scriptures, rested in the conviction that the apostles were uniquely authorized to speak in the name of the one who possessed all authority—the Lord Jesus Christ. The development from there is logical and straightforward. Those who heard Jesus in person were immediately subject to his authority. He personally authenticated his words to the believers. These same believers knew that Jesus authorized his apostles to speak in his name, both during and (more significantly) after his earthly ministry. Apostolic speaking on behalf of Christ was recognized in the church, whether in personal utterance or in written form. Both the spoken word of an apostle and the letter of an apostle constituted the word of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The generation that followed that of the apostles themselves received the witness of those who knew that the apostles had the right to speak and write in the name of Christ. Consequently, the second and third generation of Christians looked back to apostolic words (writings) as the very words of Christ. This is what is really meant by canonization—recognition of the divinely authenticated Word. Hence, the believers (the church) did not establish the canon but simply bore witness to its extent by recognizing the authority of the word of Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BIBLE*, Canon of the Those books in the Jewish and Christian Bible considered to be Scripture and therefore authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine. The term translates both a Greek and a Hebrew word that mean “a rule,” or “measuring rod.” It is a list to which other books are compared and by which they are measured. After the fourth century AD, the Christian church found itself with only 66 books that constituted its Scripture; 27 of these were the NT and 39 were the OT. Just as Plato...","summary_en":"BIBLE*, Canon of the Those books in the Jewish and Christian Bible considered to be Scripture and therefore authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine. The term translates both a Greek and a Hebrew word that mean “a rule,” or “measuring rod.” It is a list to which other books are compared and by which they are measured. After the fourth century AD, the Christian church found itself with only 66 books that constituted its Scripture; 27 of these were the NT and 39 were the OT. Just as Plato...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":5504,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book","title_en":"Book","content_ro":"<h3>BOOK<\/h3>\n<p>A set of written sheets or a scroll—whether composed of wood, parchment, papyrus, or paper—containing records or a literary composition. With respect to the Bible, each individual composition is called a “book” because that was what the document was before it became part of the biblical collection. As such, the Bible has 66 books—such as Genesis, Isaiah, Matthew, and Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>The most important book to the ancient Hebrews was the Book of the Law (2 Kgs 22:8), because it came from God to Moses (Jos 23:6; Mk 12:26) and contained the record of the Mosaic covenant (e.g., Ex 20). God instructed Joshua to meditate on it day and night (Jos 1:8). The prophets appealed to it constantly, particularly to Deuteronomy. The discovery of the Book of the Law during the renovation of the temple in Josiah’s reign led to important religious reforms (2 Kgs 22:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Some books specifically labeled as biblical source materials are the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Nm 21:14), the Book of Jashar (Jos 10:13; 2 Sm 1:18), the Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:41), and the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (14:29). A number of prophetic works are cited in the books of Chronicles as sources for the material recorded in those books. Some of these are the Chronicles of Samuel the Seer, the Chronicles of Nathan the Prophet, the Chronicles of Gad the Seer (1 Chr 29:29), and the Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chr 9:29). The fact that prophetic sources were used for Chronicles demonstrates that the Hebrew people regarded their history as the record of God’s activity. <em>See<\/em> Writing.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BOOK<\/h3>\n<p>A set of written sheets or a scroll—whether composed of wood, parchment, papyrus, or paper—containing records or a literary composition. With respect to the Bible, each individual composition is called a “book” because that was what the document was before it became part of the biblical collection. As such, the Bible has 66 books—such as Genesis, Isaiah, Matthew, and Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>The most important book to the ancient Hebrews was the Book of the Law (2 Kgs 22:8), because it came from God to Moses (Jos 23:6; Mk 12:26) and contained the record of the Mosaic covenant (e.g., Ex 20). God instructed Joshua to meditate on it day and night (Jos 1:8). The prophets appealed to it constantly, particularly to Deuteronomy. The discovery of the Book of the Law during the renovation of the temple in Josiah’s reign led to important religious reforms (2 Kgs 22:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Some books specifically labeled as biblical source materials are the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Nm 21:14), the Book of Jashar (Jos 10:13; 2 Sm 1:18), the Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:41), and the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (14:29). A number of prophetic works are cited in the books of Chronicles as sources for the material recorded in those books. Some of these are the Chronicles of Samuel the Seer, the Chronicles of Nathan the Prophet, the Chronicles of Gad the Seer (1 Chr 29:29), and the Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chr 9:29). The fact that prophetic sources were used for Chronicles demonstrates that the Hebrew people regarded their history as the record of God’s activity. <em>See<\/em> Writing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BOOK A set of written sheets or a scroll—whether composed of wood, parchment, papyrus, or paper—containing records or a literary composition. With respect to the Bible, each individual composition is called a “book” because that was what the document was before it became part of the biblical collection. As such, the Bible has 66 books—such as Genesis, Isaiah, Matthew, and Revelation. The most important book to the ancient Hebrews was the Book of the Law (2 Kgs 22:8), because it came from God ...","summary_en":"BOOK A set of written sheets or a scroll—whether composed of wood, parchment, papyrus, or paper—containing records or a literary composition. With respect to the Bible, each individual composition is called a “book” because that was what the document was before it became part of the biblical collection. As such, the Bible has 66 books—such as Genesis, Isaiah, Matthew, and Revelation. The most important book to the ancient Hebrews was the Book of the Law (2 Kgs 22:8), because it came from God ...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":5858,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Burning Bush","title_en":"Burning Bush","content_ro":"<h3>BURNING BUSH<\/h3>\n<p>Flaming bush on Mt Horeb, where Moses experienced God’s presence and received the commission to lead the people of Israel out of Egypt (Ex 3:1-15; Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37; Acts 7:30-34). The enigma of a plant burning without being consumed provided the opportunity for God to reveal his name, “<span>I Am Who I Am<\/span>.” The burning bush was a theophany, a visible revelation of God’s glory. Association of clouds, fire, and smoke with the manifestation of God’s glory is a common biblical theme (see Ex 13:21; 19:18; 1 Kgs 8:10-11; 2 Kgs 1:12; 2:11; Is 6:1-6; 2 Thes 1:7; Rv 1:14; 19:12).<\/p>\n<p>The burning bush was also symbolic of God’s holiness. Moses was commanded not to approach, but to remove his shoes because the place where he was standing was holy ground (Ex 3:5). Unlike the gods of Egypt, who were pictured as living in gloomy darkness, Israel’s God revealed himself as one who lives in unapproachable light (1 Tm 6:16). The burning bush evidently symbolized his intent not to consume or destroy his people, but to be their savior, to lead them out of bondage in Egypt and into the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Exodus, Book of; Moses; Theophany; God, Names of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BURNING BUSH<\/h3>\n<p>Flaming bush on Mt Horeb, where Moses experienced God’s presence and received the commission to lead the people of Israel out of Egypt (Ex 3:1-15; Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37; Acts 7:30-34). The enigma of a plant burning without being consumed provided the opportunity for God to reveal his name, “<span>I Am Who I Am<\/span>.” The burning bush was a theophany, a visible revelation of God’s glory. Association of clouds, fire, and smoke with the manifestation of God’s glory is a common biblical theme (see Ex 13:21; 19:18; 1 Kgs 8:10-11; 2 Kgs 1:12; 2:11; Is 6:1-6; 2 Thes 1:7; Rv 1:14; 19:12).<\/p>\n<p>The burning bush was also symbolic of God’s holiness. Moses was commanded not to approach, but to remove his shoes because the place where he was standing was holy ground (Ex 3:5). Unlike the gods of Egypt, who were pictured as living in gloomy darkness, Israel’s God revealed himself as one who lives in unapproachable light (1 Tm 6:16). The burning bush evidently symbolized his intent not to consume or destroy his people, but to be their savior, to lead them out of bondage in Egypt and into the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Exodus, Book of; Moses; Theophany; God, Names of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BURNING BUSH Flaming bush on Mt Horeb, where Moses experienced God’s presence and received the commission to lead the people of Israel out of Egypt (Ex 3:1-15; Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37; Acts 7:30-34). The enigma of a plant burning without being consumed provided the opportunity for God to reveal his name, “I Am Who I Am.” The burning bush was a theophany, a visible revelation of God’s glory. Association of clouds, fire, and smoke with the manifestation of God’s glory is a common biblical theme (see...","summary_en":"BURNING BUSH Flaming bush on Mt Horeb, where Moses experienced God’s presence and received the commission to lead the people of Israel out of Egypt (Ex 3:1-15; Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37; Acts 7:30-34). The enigma of a plant burning without being consumed provided the opportunity for God to reveal his name, “I Am Who I Am.” The burning bush was a theophany, a visible revelation of God’s glory. Association of clouds, fire, and smoke with the manifestation of God’s glory is a common biblical theme (see...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":11405,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Exodus","title_en":"Book of Exodus","content_ro":"<h3>EXODUS, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the Bible, containing the story of God’s liberation of the people of Israel from slavery in Egypt. Few books of the OT are as important historically and theologically as the book of Exodus.<\/p>\n<p>Historically, the exodus event was the birth of Israel as a nation. At Mt Sinai a group of tribes who were descendants of Abraham became a nation ruled by God. The book of Exodus explains how the Israelites were able to resettle the land God had promised to Abraham and gives the basis for this religious, political, and social life.<\/p>\n<p>Theologically, the book of Exodus is so frequently referred to in the OT and NT that theologians speak of an “exodus motif.” In Psalm 68, for example, David received assurance in remembering that his God was the same one who rescued Israel from Egypt. The prophet Jeremiah compared the future regathering of Israel to their exodus from Egypt as an even more miraculous event (Jer 16:14-15). The return of Jesus and his parents from Egypt is associated with the exodus in Matthew 2:13-15. The deliverance of the Jewish people from Egypt was interpreted as a prototype for God’s freeing of all his people, both Israel and the church. Thus, the message of the book of Exodus is foundational to understanding God’s plan of salvation throughout the Bible.<\/p>\n<p>The English title “Exodus” comes from the Septuagint, a pre-Christian translation of the OT into Greek. The word means “a way out” or “departure” and refers to Israel’s rescue from Egypt. The Hebrew title is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shemoth<\/span> (“these are the names”), from the book’s opening words, referring to the names of the sons of Jacob who joined Joseph in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>According to tradition, Exodus and the entire Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) were written by Moses. Exodus was probably written at Mt Sinai or shortly after the events there, according to this view. There is much to support that claim: (1) The book states that Moses wrote God’s words in at least one book (Ex 17:14; 24:2, 7; 34:27-28). According to Deuteronomy 31:9, 24, Moses recorded God’s law in a book that was deposited beside the ark of the covenant as a witness for God. (2) Many OT writers referred to portions of Exodus as the “law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3; 2 Chr 34:14; Neh 8:1; 13:1). The NT, including the testimony of Jesus, calls Moses the author (Mk 7:10; 12:26; Jn 1:45; 7:19).<\/p>\n<p>Various other theories about the origin of Exodus have been proposed. Some scholars credit Moses with writing nearly the entire book. One writer claims that Moses was an unknown desert sheikh who never even met the Israelites. Some critics think they detect in the book several documents from various periods in Israel’s history that were finally put together by an editor centuries after Moses’ death. Others have isolated various literary forms, such as the “Song of Moses” (Ex 15), and traced their development. Another interpretation says that the exodus story was passed on by word of mouth for many generations before being written.<\/p>\n<p>Although such theories are held by biblical scholars, they deny what the text of the book repeatedly affirms: that Moses wrote Exodus. The book of Exodus contains evidence of being written by an eyewitness. Only such a person would recall, for example, that there were 12 fountains and 70 palm trees at Elim (Ex 15:27). The author shows a thorough knowledge of Egyptian court life, customs, and language. Some of the materials used to construct the tabernacle, such as acacia wood for its furniture (25:10) and rams’ skins for the outer covering (v 5), are found in Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula but not in Palestine. The book thus seems to have had a desert setting.<\/p>\n<p>Moses was not only commissioned by God to write the book of Exodus, but he was also well qualified. He was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds” (Acts 7:22, <span>rsv<\/span>). In addition, the 40 years spent in the wilderness of Midian and Sinai gave him a thorough knowledge of the geography and wildlife of the regions through which the Israelites traveled. The events of the exodus—deliverance from the Egyptians and God’s giving of the law—were so central to the history of Israel that Moses took special care to preserve the record so it could be passed on to following generations.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>If one accepts the traditional view that Moses wrote Exodus, then the book is to be dated in the time of Moses. Two dates are generally suggested for the exodus from Egypt.<\/p>\n\n<h5>The “Late Date” View<\/h5>\n<p>This view says that the pharaoh who oppressed the Israelites was Seti I (Sethos, c. 1304–1290 <span>BC<\/span>) and the pharaoh of the exodus was Ramses II (c. 1290–1224 <span>BC<\/span>). The exodus would thus have occurred in 1290, and the conquest of Canaan would have begun in 1250. There are two principal arguments for this view: (1) According to Exodus 1:11, the Israelites were forced to build the store city of Rameses; therefore, Ramses II must have been ruling at the time. But the city of Rameses could have existed earlier under a different name and then been renamed after Ramses II when he rebuilt it. Or there could have been an earlier monarch named Ramses who commissioned its construction. (2) There is archaeological evidence of movements of people and widespread destruction in Canaan around 1250 <span>BC<\/span>. If this destruction was caused by the Hebrew conquest under Joshua, it would place the exodus around 1290. But it could just as easily have been the result of social turbulence and anarchy in the period of the Israelite judges, or of the military activities of neighboring peoples.<\/p>\n<h5>The “Early Date” View<\/h5>\n<p>This view says that the pharaoh of the oppression was Thutmose III (c. 1504–1450 <span>BC<\/span>) and the pharaoh of the exodus was Amenhotep II (c. 1450–1424 <span>BC<\/span>). Thus, the exodus would have occurred about 1440, and the conquest would have begun around 1400. Three chief arguments support that view: (1) If the fourth year of King Solomon was 966 <span>BC<\/span>, then the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 would place the exodus at 1446. (2) If the time of Jephthah was 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, then the 300 years of Judges 11:26 would date the conquest at 1400. (3) The late date would not leave enough time for the period of the judges, which most chronologies indicate lasted between 300 and 400 years. On the basis of such biblical references to the date of the exodus, the early date appears preferable.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>Some events in Egypt during the period covered by the book of Exodus shed additional light on the biblical record. Exodus 12:40 records that the Israelites lived in Egypt for 430 years. That would place the settling of Jacob and his family in Goshen (Gn 47:4, 11) at about 1870 <span>BC<\/span>, during the powerful 12th dynasty of Egypt’s Middle Kingdom. Around the turn of the century, two weaker dynasties followed. Semite invaders from Asia began to infiltrate northern (or Lower) Egypt. Those outsiders, known as the Hyksos, were able to displace the native dynasty with their own king around 1730. That was the “new king” who “did not know Joseph” (Ex 1:8). Being foreigners themselves, they were naturally concerned about the Israelites, who were too many and too mighty for them (v 9). Enslavement was the easiest solution to the problem of the Israelites. The Hyksos kings could use the new source of labor to enlarge Rameses, at that time the capital of Lower Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>Not until about 1580 <span>BC<\/span> were the Egyptians, led by Ahmose, able to drive out the Hyksos and reestablish an Egyptian line of kings. Because the Israelites were still multiplying, despite their hard labor, the pharaohs of the 18th dynasty continued their bondage and decreed that all male children must be killed. When Moses was born (c. 1560 <span>BC<\/span>), that edict was still in effect. Thutmose I (1539–1514), the great empire builder and third of that dynasty, was pharaoh.<\/p>\n<p>Thutmose I’s only surviving legal heir was a daughter, Hatshepsut. Her husband assumed the name Thutmose II (1514–1504). When he died, another of the pharaoh’s descendants was named the successor—Thutmose III (1504–1450), who was ten years old at the time. Hatshepsut took the kingdom from the young ruler and controlled it for 22 years (1503–1482). Such a strong-willed woman could have the nerve to disobey her father’s command by saving the life of a Hebrew baby and raising him in the palace at Thebes.<\/p>\n<p>Hatshepsut, who continued to rule despite Thutmose III’s coronation, possibly intended for Moses to have the throne, or at least a high position in the realm. Thutmose III, once he had full power after Hatshepsut’s death, would have been eager to do away with Moses. Moses’ hurried flight into the wilderness after killing the overseer fits well with such historical possibilities. Thutmose III’s death in 1450 <span>BC<\/span> opened the way for Moses to return and confront Pharaoh Amenhotep II with God’s command, “Let my people go.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the book of Exodus is to show how God’s promise to Abraham (Gn 15:12-16) was fulfilled when the Lord rescued the Israelite descendants of Abraham from Egyptian bondage. It also explains the origin of the Passover festival, the beginning of the nation by God’s establishment of a covenant with Israel, and the giving of the law on Mt Sinai.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus tells the moving story of a mighty God, creator of the universe, beyond all limitations of time and space, who intervenes in history on behalf of a helpless group of slaves. God defeats the ruler of the greatest empire on earth and then leads his oppressed people from that land to freedom. Exodus is the story of a single family that providentially grows into a multitude. Through God’s covenant a nation is formed, and through his law the nation is given stability and set apart from all its neighbors. The book of Exodus tells of an unusual man, whose 80 years of preparation are equally divided between the palace of a king and the pasture of a nomadic priest. Moses is a reluctant leader, but he defies the pharaoh, speaks with God face-to-face, and writes nearly one-fourth of the Hebrew Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p>The God of Exodus is faithful. He makes promises and keeps them. Genesis 15:13-16 records an amazing prophecy: “Then the <span>Lord<\/span> said to Abram, ‘Know of a surety that your descendants will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs, and will be slaves there, and they will be oppressed for four hundred years; but I will bring judgment on the nation which they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. . . . And they shall come back here in the fourth generation’ ” (<span>rsv<\/span>). In response to this promise, Joseph, “at the end of his life, made mention of the exodus of the Israelites and gave directions concerning his burial” (Heb 11:22, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>That promise provides a background for the drama of redemption on which the book of Exodus focuses. Redemption can be defined as “deliverance from the power of an alien dominion, and enjoyment of the resulting freedom.” It speaks of a deliverer and what he does to achieve deliverance. The book of Exodus is full of the vocabulary of redemption. It tells of the God who “remembers” his promise to the Hebrew patriarchs (Ex 2:24; 6:5). God “comes down to deliver” the Israelites (3:8), or “save” them (14:30; 15:2), in order to “bring them” out of the land of Egypt (3:10-12). Redemption involves these aspects:<\/p>\n<p>1. The Lord is the author of redemption. In Exodus 6:1-8, as God answered Moses’ prayer to deliver his people, he used the pronoun “I” 18 times to emphasize that he was the one initiating the action. The Hebrew descendants of Abraham had known God primarily by the Hebrew name “El,” a common title in the ancient Near East for the supreme deity. But in Exodus, Israel learned that God is “Jehovah” or “Yahweh.” That is his personal name, a reminder that he is the God of the covenant who personally cares for his people’s welfare. In Exodus 3:14, God told Moses, “I am who I am” or “I will be who I will be.” Some scholars think that statement shows that the name Yahweh comes from the Hebrew verb “to be.” In any case, the concept of “name” in the Hebrew culture is synonymous with “character.” To know the name of God is to know something of his character. Israel knew God as the one who is eternally self-existent yet present with them wherever they would go, acting on their behalf (Ex 3:12; 33:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. The reason for redemption was God’s promise to the forefathers of the Israelites. When God heard the groaning of the people of Israel, he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob (Ex 2:24; cf. 6:5). In response to their need, he selected an agent of redemption, the unwilling Moses. Moses exhausted every possible excuse, but God would not take no for an answer. Moses is a vivid example of how God prepares, empowers, and sustains his chosen servants, using them to accomplish his purpose.<\/li>\n<li>3. The motive of redemption was God’s grace and love (Ex 15:13; 20:6; 34:6-7). The purpose of redemption was that Israel and the Egyptians might know God (6:7; 7:5; 8:10; 14:18). The Lord worked so that all who were involved—Moses, the Israelites, Pharaoh, and the Egyptians—would be sure that he alone is God. The Hebrew understanding of knowledge is not primarily intellectual but experience-oriented. The desired response to God’s action is not mere mental assent but also faith and obedience.<\/li>\n<li>4. Redemption is achieved in Exodus by miracles (4:21)—all natural processes controlled supernaturally by God. They are variously described as signs and wonders (7:3), great acts of judgment (6:6; 7:4), and “the finger of God” (8:19). Such miracles were not frivolous fireworks but purposeful works of God. Some of the miracles prove that Moses was sent by God. The miraculous plagues proved that God is supreme, for each of them was a direct challenge to one of the gods of Egypt: Osiris the river god, Yeqt the frog god, Ra (Re) the sun god, Athor the cattle god. The miracles in the wilderness proved that God fulfills all the needs of his people.<\/li>\n<li>5. The pharaoh was the villain—a picture of rebellious humanity confronted by God’s command (Ex 4:21-23). Ten times the pharaoh hardened his heart. Yet, in a sense, it was God who hardened the pharaoh’s heart, effecting the king’s decision to defy him.<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passover marked the purchase of redemption (Ex 12:23-27; 15:16). It was a clear example of salvation by substitution. When the death angel saw the blood on the doorposts and lintels, he passed by.<\/li>\n<li>7. The recipients of God’s redemption in Exodus were the Israelites. God took them as his own special people (6:7), and they were no longer free to do as they pleased. Even before the exodus he had claimed them, telling Pharaoh, “Israel is my first-born son, and I say to you, ‘Let my son go that he may serve me’ ” (4:22-23, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/li>\n<li>8. The demand of redemption was obedience. On the basis of his deliverance of the Israelites from bondage, God set forth the Ten Commandments (20:1-17) and the rest of the law for them to obey. The people, though quick to pledge their obedience (19:8; 24:3), were even quicker to disobey (32:8). Because the Lord is holy and wants his people to be holy and wholehearted in devotion (34:14), he must punish iniquity. But being compassionate, he also forgives. Throughout the centuries of Israel’s history, God pleaded with his people through the prophets to remember the exodus and repent (see Mi 6:3-4). The faithful responded in gratitude with Moses’ “song of redemption” (Ex 15; cf. Rv 15:3-4).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus can be divided into four sections, each describing one aspect of God’s dealings with the Israelites during the 15th century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Unveiling (Ex 1–6)<\/h5>\n<p>The book of Exodus begins with the 70 descendants of Jacob who joined Joseph in Egypt for the duration of a famine that was afflicting their land (cf. Gn 46–50). After more than a century of prosperity for the Israelites in the land of Goshen, a new dynasty is established in Egypt whose leaders are not friendly toward Israel. In order to stem the rapid growth of the Hebrew people, the Egyptians force them to do hard labor, building storage cities for the pharaoh.<\/p>\n<p>A further command requires all Israelite male children to be killed at birth. The superintendents of the midwives do not comply, however, and God rewards them—not to show his approval of their lie but because they fear and obey God rather than the pharaoh. A new command calls for all male Israelite babies to be drowned in the Nile River. One special child, who escapes when Pharaoh’s daughter has his basket fished out of the Nile, is Moses. Ironically, Moses’ mother is paid by the princess to raise her own child, who grows up in the palace as the princess’s adopted son.<\/p>\n<p>As an adult, Moses chooses to identify with his Hebrew kin, a tribute to the early instruction given him by his godly parents (see Heb 11:24-26). He sets out to liberate Israel from the Egyptians, one man at a time. But he has to flee to Midian, at the eastern edge of the Sinai Peninsula or in Arabia beyond the northern top of the Gulf of Aqaba. Moses marries into the household of Jethro, also named Reuel. Reuel (“friend of God”) is probably the man’s personal name, and Jethro (“excellence”) his title. Because he is called a “priest of Midian” (Ex 2:16), some scholars have maintained a “Kenite hypothesis,” suggesting that Moses adopted the religion of his father-in-law and taught it to the Israelites. But the Bible states that Moses received his religion by a direct revelation from God. Jethro seems to believe only after he sees that God has rescued Israel from the Egyptians (18:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>While their future deliverer is in Midian, the Israelites continue to be oppressed and cry out to God in their misery (2:23-25). God responds by descending to his people. He came down to rescue Israel (3:8). He appears to Moses in a burning bush and identifies himself as the same God who promised the patriarchs a land “flowing with milk and honey” (3:17). Moses will lead the Israelites there, assisted by his brother, Aaron.<\/p>\n<p>Assured that God’s presence and miraculous signs will accompany him, Moses takes his wife Zipporah and his two sons and departs for Egypt. On the way, the Lord meets him and seeks to put him to death (4:24). That is probably the Hebrew way of saying that God strikes him with a mortal illness. Moses, who is going to deliver God’s people, has neglected the sign of the covenant in failing to circumcise one of his sons (Gn 17:14). Moses recovers after the rite is performed and continues on to Egypt, meeting Aaron at Mt Sinai. Their reception by the Israelites is more cordial than that of Pharaoh, who refuses to honor the God who sent Moses. Instead of releasing the Israelites to offer sacrifices to their God in the wilderness, he increases their burdens. The people complain to Moses, and Moses complains to God. God appears again to Moses (Ex 6), reassuring him that Israel will be delivered by divine power. God’s plan is not a failure—he is just beginning to put it into action.<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Deliverance (Ex 7–19)<\/h5>\n<p>Chapters 7–12 record ten plagues with which God afflicts the Egyptians. Even before the first of them, the pharaoh has hardened his heart to defy God (7:13). There are three cycles of three plagues each:<\/p>\n\n<p> The first three plagues affect both the Egyptians and the Israelites; the Israelites are protected from the final six. The Egyptian magicians are able to duplicate the first two plagues, but when the third strikes, they admit, “This is the finger of God” (8:19). After the plague of flies covers the land, the pharaoh offers Moses the first of four compromises, but Moses refuses all of them (8:25-29; 10:8-11, 24-29). The first plagues are merely unpleasant, but the final ones are destructive and inflict much suffering. Since all of the plagues are common to that area, they themselves are not miraculous. The miracle is how the phenomena are multiplied and limited to the land of Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>The nine plagues serve to harden the pharaoh’s heart even more, so God prepares one final stroke. The death of every firstborn male, among both animals and humans, will be the fatal blow. God warns the Israelites to get ready to leave. To avert the death angel, they must put blood from an unblemished yearling male sheep or goat on their doorways. While they are eating the Passover meal, the death angel begins moving through the land of Egypt. In anguish the pharaoh drives the Israelites from the land; the slaves are free at last. Just as he has promised, the Lord goes before the children of Israel in a pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night.<\/p>\n<p>But once again the pharaoh’s heart is hardened and he gives pursuit. God parts the waters of the sea with a great wind. The literal meaning of the name given that body of water is “sea of reeds.” It could refer to any shoreline where the water is sufficiently shallow for such plants to grow (see 1 Kgs 9:26, where the same term refers to the Gulf of Aqaba near Eloth). Whatever the location, there God hands the Egyptians their final defeat. The rescue is complete.<\/p>\n<p>Moses and the Israelites respond with renewed faith in the Lord and with a song of victory and praise (Ex 14:31–15:21). Soon, however, thanksgiving turns into grumbling because of bitter water (15:22-26), lack of meat and bread (16:1-15), and lack of water (17:1-7). In each situation God provides for their need. He also gives them victory over the Amalekites (vv 8-16). As the Israelites approach Mt Sinai, Moses’ family rejoins him, accompanied by Jethro. Jethro now confesses his faith in the God of the Israelites and shares in a fellowship meal with the leaders. He also assists Moses in reorganizing the judicial system, then returns to Midian (ch 18).<\/p>\n<p>The Israelites arrive at Mt Sinai, also called Horeb (3:1), and prepare to meet the Lord who has rescued them in fulfillment of his promise to Moses (v 12). The Lord establishes his covenant with Israel, taking them as his own possession, “a kingdom of priests, my holy nation.” They quickly respond, “We will certainly do everything the <span>Lord<\/span> asks of us” (19:5-8, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Instruction (Ex 20–24)<\/h5>\n<p>The God who redeems a people, who literally “buys them back from slavery,” has a right to make certain demands of them. The commandments God gives to Israel at Sinai are not burdensome requirements but protective guidelines for living as God’s people (20:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>The Law (or Torah, meaning “instruction”) revealed at Sinai consists of three parts:<\/p>\n<p>1. The Ten Commandments (ch 20), addressing a person’s relationship to God and other people. Based on God’s nature (and therefore permanent), the Ten Commandments are unique in the history of the nations.<\/p>\n<li>2. The judgments (chs 21–23), social regulations for governing the people as a theocracy, similar in many ways to the law codes of Israel’s neighbors.<\/li>\n<li>3. Ordinances (chs 24–31) regulating religious ceremonies.<\/li>\n<p>All of the laws are given to Moses during the weeks he spends with God on the mountain.<\/p>\n<p>The Ten Commandments form the basis of all other laws in Israel (20:1-17). The first five deal with honoring the Lord, the second five with respecting one’s neighbor. The last commandment deals with one’s thoughts and intentions rather than with specific actions. It thus forms a safeguard against all sins not included in the first nine.<\/p>\n<p>The judgments recorded in chapters 21–23 deal with master-slave relationships (21:1-11), offenses punishable by death (vv 12-17), compensation for injury to persons or damage to property (21:18–22:15), various interpersonal relationships (22:16–23:9), and Sabbaths, feasts, and the offering of firstfruits (23:10-19). Many of the judgments would not take effect until Israel settled in the Promised Land. Accordingly, that section of the Law closes with a solemn warning against being rebellious and adopting pagan ways. It also contains a bright promise that God will drive out Israel’s enemies, protect his people from sickness, and grant them prosperity, if they obey the Lord’s commands (23:22).<\/p>\n<p>Exodus 24 records a reaffirmation of the covenant between God and Israel, as Moses seals it with the blood of a sacrifice. In response, God appears to the leaders of the people, giving them a glimpse of his splendor. Then Moses ascends the mountain one more time to receive the stone tablets containing the commandments, as well as further instructions regarding the meeting tent (tabernacle), the priesthood, and worship.<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Presence with his People (Ex 25–40)<\/h5>\n<p>After the Lord redeemed the Israelites, he told Moses, “I will make you my own special people, and I will be your God. And you will know that I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God who has rescued you from your slavery in Egypt” (6:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Moses had seen that wonderful promise fulfilled, yet one further step remained: “I want the people of Israel to build me a sacred residence where I can live among them” (25:8). God’s dwelling among his people is possible because God had descended to deliver the people and because they had pledged to meet his demands. God calls for a contribution from all whose hearts were willing to give, and he shows Moses a detailed pattern of the tabernacle and its furniture. Aaron and his sons are set apart to serve in the tent. Stipulations for the various offerings, including the Day of Atonement, are given. God tells Moses that he has chosen Bezalel and Oholiab to build the tabernacle and to craft its furnishings, having filled them with his Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>In the meantime the Israelites, who so recently promised total obedience, grow impatient as Moses lingers for 40 days on the mountain. They demand that Aaron make an idol for them. Under pressure, Aaron complies and forms a molten calf, a representation of a pagan deity (32:4).<\/p>\n<p>The Lord informs Moses of the people’s idolatry, revelry, and immorality and says that he is angry enough to destroy all of them and start again with Moses’ offspring. Moses pleads for Israel until the Lord relents, then descends from the mountain to punish the people. Moses pleads again for forgiveness for Israel, and God in mercy pardons their terrible sin (34:8-10).<\/p>\n<p>Once more God offers to make a covenant with the people (34:10). Moses spends another 40 days with the Lord, writing the commandments on tablets to replace those smashed when he saw the golden calf. When he returns to the people, his face shines from being in God’s presence, and he must keep it veiled.<\/p>\n<p>Now that Israel has been restored to God’s favor, the construction of the tabernacle can begin. The contributions are so generous that Moses must restrain the people from bringing any more. Finally, all is ready. Moses examines the tabernacle, and it is erected on the first day of the first month, nearly a year after the first Passover. The priests are consecrated, the lamps are lit, and the first burnt sacrifice is offered. A cloud descends, filling the tabernacle with the glory of the Lord. God dwells among his people, the goal of redemption has been attained, and the drama of the book of Exodus has come to an end.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Egypt, Egyptian; Exodus, The; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Israel, History of; Moses; Plagues upon Egypt; Tabernacle; Temple; Commandments, The Ten.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EXODUS, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the Bible, containing the story of God’s liberation of the people of Israel from slavery in Egypt. Few books of the OT are as important historically and theologically as the book of Exodus.<\/p>\n<p>Historically, the exodus event was the birth of Israel as a nation. At Mt Sinai a group of tribes who were descendants of Abraham became a nation ruled by God. The book of Exodus explains how the Israelites were able to resettle the land God had promised to Abraham and gives the basis for this religious, political, and social life.<\/p>\n<p>Theologically, the book of Exodus is so frequently referred to in the OT and NT that theologians speak of an “exodus motif.” In Psalm 68, for example, David received assurance in remembering that his God was the same one who rescued Israel from Egypt. The prophet Jeremiah compared the future regathering of Israel to their exodus from Egypt as an even more miraculous event (Jer 16:14-15). The return of Jesus and his parents from Egypt is associated with the exodus in Matthew 2:13-15. The deliverance of the Jewish people from Egypt was interpreted as a prototype for God’s freeing of all his people, both Israel and the church. Thus, the message of the book of Exodus is foundational to understanding God’s plan of salvation throughout the Bible.<\/p>\n<p>The English title “Exodus” comes from the Septuagint, a pre-Christian translation of the OT into Greek. The word means “a way out” or “departure” and refers to Israel’s rescue from Egypt. The Hebrew title is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shemoth<\/span> (“these are the names”), from the book’s opening words, referring to the names of the sons of Jacob who joined Joseph in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>According to tradition, Exodus and the entire Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) were written by Moses. Exodus was probably written at Mt Sinai or shortly after the events there, according to this view. There is much to support that claim: (1) The book states that Moses wrote God’s words in at least one book (Ex 17:14; 24:2, 7; 34:27-28). According to Deuteronomy 31:9, 24, Moses recorded God’s law in a book that was deposited beside the ark of the covenant as a witness for God. (2) Many OT writers referred to portions of Exodus as the “law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3; 2 Chr 34:14; Neh 8:1; 13:1). The NT, including the testimony of Jesus, calls Moses the author (Mk 7:10; 12:26; Jn 1:45; 7:19).<\/p>\n<p>Various other theories about the origin of Exodus have been proposed. Some scholars credit Moses with writing nearly the entire book. One writer claims that Moses was an unknown desert sheikh who never even met the Israelites. Some critics think they detect in the book several documents from various periods in Israel’s history that were finally put together by an editor centuries after Moses’ death. Others have isolated various literary forms, such as the “Song of Moses” (Ex 15), and traced their development. Another interpretation says that the exodus story was passed on by word of mouth for many generations before being written.<\/p>\n<p>Although such theories are held by biblical scholars, they deny what the text of the book repeatedly affirms: that Moses wrote Exodus. The book of Exodus contains evidence of being written by an eyewitness. Only such a person would recall, for example, that there were 12 fountains and 70 palm trees at Elim (Ex 15:27). The author shows a thorough knowledge of Egyptian court life, customs, and language. Some of the materials used to construct the tabernacle, such as acacia wood for its furniture (25:10) and rams’ skins for the outer covering (v 5), are found in Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula but not in Palestine. The book thus seems to have had a desert setting.<\/p>\n<p>Moses was not only commissioned by God to write the book of Exodus, but he was also well qualified. He was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds” (Acts 7:22, <span>rsv<\/span>). In addition, the 40 years spent in the wilderness of Midian and Sinai gave him a thorough knowledge of the geography and wildlife of the regions through which the Israelites traveled. The events of the exodus—deliverance from the Egyptians and God’s giving of the law—were so central to the history of Israel that Moses took special care to preserve the record so it could be passed on to following generations.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>If one accepts the traditional view that Moses wrote Exodus, then the book is to be dated in the time of Moses. Two dates are generally suggested for the exodus from Egypt.<\/p>\n\n<h5>The “Late Date” View<\/h5>\n<p>This view says that the pharaoh who oppressed the Israelites was Seti I (Sethos, c. 1304–1290 <span>BC<\/span>) and the pharaoh of the exodus was Ramses II (c. 1290–1224 <span>BC<\/span>). The exodus would thus have occurred in 1290, and the conquest of Canaan would have begun in 1250. There are two principal arguments for this view: (1) According to Exodus 1:11, the Israelites were forced to build the store city of Rameses; therefore, Ramses II must have been ruling at the time. But the city of Rameses could have existed earlier under a different name and then been renamed after Ramses II when he rebuilt it. Or there could have been an earlier monarch named Ramses who commissioned its construction. (2) There is archaeological evidence of movements of people and widespread destruction in Canaan around 1250 <span>BC<\/span>. If this destruction was caused by the Hebrew conquest under Joshua, it would place the exodus around 1290. But it could just as easily have been the result of social turbulence and anarchy in the period of the Israelite judges, or of the military activities of neighboring peoples.<\/p>\n<h5>The “Early Date” View<\/h5>\n<p>This view says that the pharaoh of the oppression was Thutmose III (c. 1504–1450 <span>BC<\/span>) and the pharaoh of the exodus was Amenhotep II (c. 1450–1424 <span>BC<\/span>). Thus, the exodus would have occurred about 1440, and the conquest would have begun around 1400. Three chief arguments support that view: (1) If the fourth year of King Solomon was 966 <span>BC<\/span>, then the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 would place the exodus at 1446. (2) If the time of Jephthah was 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, then the 300 years of Judges 11:26 would date the conquest at 1400. (3) The late date would not leave enough time for the period of the judges, which most chronologies indicate lasted between 300 and 400 years. On the basis of such biblical references to the date of the exodus, the early date appears preferable.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>Some events in Egypt during the period covered by the book of Exodus shed additional light on the biblical record. Exodus 12:40 records that the Israelites lived in Egypt for 430 years. That would place the settling of Jacob and his family in Goshen (Gn 47:4, 11) at about 1870 <span>BC<\/span>, during the powerful 12th dynasty of Egypt’s Middle Kingdom. Around the turn of the century, two weaker dynasties followed. Semite invaders from Asia began to infiltrate northern (or Lower) Egypt. Those outsiders, known as the Hyksos, were able to displace the native dynasty with their own king around 1730. That was the “new king” who “did not know Joseph” (Ex 1:8). Being foreigners themselves, they were naturally concerned about the Israelites, who were too many and too mighty for them (v 9). Enslavement was the easiest solution to the problem of the Israelites. The Hyksos kings could use the new source of labor to enlarge Rameses, at that time the capital of Lower Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>Not until about 1580 <span>BC<\/span> were the Egyptians, led by Ahmose, able to drive out the Hyksos and reestablish an Egyptian line of kings. Because the Israelites were still multiplying, despite their hard labor, the pharaohs of the 18th dynasty continued their bondage and decreed that all male children must be killed. When Moses was born (c. 1560 <span>BC<\/span>), that edict was still in effect. Thutmose I (1539–1514), the great empire builder and third of that dynasty, was pharaoh.<\/p>\n<p>Thutmose I’s only surviving legal heir was a daughter, Hatshepsut. Her husband assumed the name Thutmose II (1514–1504). When he died, another of the pharaoh’s descendants was named the successor—Thutmose III (1504–1450), who was ten years old at the time. Hatshepsut took the kingdom from the young ruler and controlled it for 22 years (1503–1482). Such a strong-willed woman could have the nerve to disobey her father’s command by saving the life of a Hebrew baby and raising him in the palace at Thebes.<\/p>\n<p>Hatshepsut, who continued to rule despite Thutmose III’s coronation, possibly intended for Moses to have the throne, or at least a high position in the realm. Thutmose III, once he had full power after Hatshepsut’s death, would have been eager to do away with Moses. Moses’ hurried flight into the wilderness after killing the overseer fits well with such historical possibilities. Thutmose III’s death in 1450 <span>BC<\/span> opened the way for Moses to return and confront Pharaoh Amenhotep II with God’s command, “Let my people go.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the book of Exodus is to show how God’s promise to Abraham (Gn 15:12-16) was fulfilled when the Lord rescued the Israelite descendants of Abraham from Egyptian bondage. It also explains the origin of the Passover festival, the beginning of the nation by God’s establishment of a covenant with Israel, and the giving of the law on Mt Sinai.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus tells the moving story of a mighty God, creator of the universe, beyond all limitations of time and space, who intervenes in history on behalf of a helpless group of slaves. God defeats the ruler of the greatest empire on earth and then leads his oppressed people from that land to freedom. Exodus is the story of a single family that providentially grows into a multitude. Through God’s covenant a nation is formed, and through his law the nation is given stability and set apart from all its neighbors. The book of Exodus tells of an unusual man, whose 80 years of preparation are equally divided between the palace of a king and the pasture of a nomadic priest. Moses is a reluctant leader, but he defies the pharaoh, speaks with God face-to-face, and writes nearly one-fourth of the Hebrew Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p>The God of Exodus is faithful. He makes promises and keeps them. Genesis 15:13-16 records an amazing prophecy: “Then the <span>Lord<\/span> said to Abram, ‘Know of a surety that your descendants will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs, and will be slaves there, and they will be oppressed for four hundred years; but I will bring judgment on the nation which they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. . . . And they shall come back here in the fourth generation’ ” (<span>rsv<\/span>). In response to this promise, Joseph, “at the end of his life, made mention of the exodus of the Israelites and gave directions concerning his burial” (Heb 11:22, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>That promise provides a background for the drama of redemption on which the book of Exodus focuses. Redemption can be defined as “deliverance from the power of an alien dominion, and enjoyment of the resulting freedom.” It speaks of a deliverer and what he does to achieve deliverance. The book of Exodus is full of the vocabulary of redemption. It tells of the God who “remembers” his promise to the Hebrew patriarchs (Ex 2:24; 6:5). God “comes down to deliver” the Israelites (3:8), or “save” them (14:30; 15:2), in order to “bring them” out of the land of Egypt (3:10-12). Redemption involves these aspects:<\/p>\n<p>1. The Lord is the author of redemption. In Exodus 6:1-8, as God answered Moses’ prayer to deliver his people, he used the pronoun “I” 18 times to emphasize that he was the one initiating the action. The Hebrew descendants of Abraham had known God primarily by the Hebrew name “El,” a common title in the ancient Near East for the supreme deity. But in Exodus, Israel learned that God is “Jehovah” or “Yahweh.” That is his personal name, a reminder that he is the God of the covenant who personally cares for his people’s welfare. In Exodus 3:14, God told Moses, “I am who I am” or “I will be who I will be.” Some scholars think that statement shows that the name Yahweh comes from the Hebrew verb “to be.” In any case, the concept of “name” in the Hebrew culture is synonymous with “character.” To know the name of God is to know something of his character. Israel knew God as the one who is eternally self-existent yet present with them wherever they would go, acting on their behalf (Ex 3:12; 33:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. The reason for redemption was God’s promise to the forefathers of the Israelites. When God heard the groaning of the people of Israel, he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob (Ex 2:24; cf. 6:5). In response to their need, he selected an agent of redemption, the unwilling Moses. Moses exhausted every possible excuse, but God would not take no for an answer. Moses is a vivid example of how God prepares, empowers, and sustains his chosen servants, using them to accomplish his purpose.<\/li>\n<li>3. The motive of redemption was God’s grace and love (Ex 15:13; 20:6; 34:6-7). The purpose of redemption was that Israel and the Egyptians might know God (6:7; 7:5; 8:10; 14:18). The Lord worked so that all who were involved—Moses, the Israelites, Pharaoh, and the Egyptians—would be sure that he alone is God. The Hebrew understanding of knowledge is not primarily intellectual but experience-oriented. The desired response to God’s action is not mere mental assent but also faith and obedience.<\/li>\n<li>4. Redemption is achieved in Exodus by miracles (4:21)—all natural processes controlled supernaturally by God. They are variously described as signs and wonders (7:3), great acts of judgment (6:6; 7:4), and “the finger of God” (8:19). Such miracles were not frivolous fireworks but purposeful works of God. Some of the miracles prove that Moses was sent by God. The miraculous plagues proved that God is supreme, for each of them was a direct challenge to one of the gods of Egypt: Osiris the river god, Yeqt the frog god, Ra (Re) the sun god, Athor the cattle god. The miracles in the wilderness proved that God fulfills all the needs of his people.<\/li>\n<li>5. The pharaoh was the villain—a picture of rebellious humanity confronted by God’s command (Ex 4:21-23). Ten times the pharaoh hardened his heart. Yet, in a sense, it was God who hardened the pharaoh’s heart, effecting the king’s decision to defy him.<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passover marked the purchase of redemption (Ex 12:23-27; 15:16). It was a clear example of salvation by substitution. When the death angel saw the blood on the doorposts and lintels, he passed by.<\/li>\n<li>7. The recipients of God’s redemption in Exodus were the Israelites. God took them as his own special people (6:7), and they were no longer free to do as they pleased. Even before the exodus he had claimed them, telling Pharaoh, “Israel is my first-born son, and I say to you, ‘Let my son go that he may serve me’ ” (4:22-23, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/li>\n<li>8. The demand of redemption was obedience. On the basis of his deliverance of the Israelites from bondage, God set forth the Ten Commandments (20:1-17) and the rest of the law for them to obey. The people, though quick to pledge their obedience (19:8; 24:3), were even quicker to disobey (32:8). Because the Lord is holy and wants his people to be holy and wholehearted in devotion (34:14), he must punish iniquity. But being compassionate, he also forgives. Throughout the centuries of Israel’s history, God pleaded with his people through the prophets to remember the exodus and repent (see Mi 6:3-4). The faithful responded in gratitude with Moses’ “song of redemption” (Ex 15; cf. Rv 15:3-4).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus can be divided into four sections, each describing one aspect of God’s dealings with the Israelites during the 15th century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Unveiling (Ex 1–6)<\/h5>\n<p>The book of Exodus begins with the 70 descendants of Jacob who joined Joseph in Egypt for the duration of a famine that was afflicting their land (cf. Gn 46–50). After more than a century of prosperity for the Israelites in the land of Goshen, a new dynasty is established in Egypt whose leaders are not friendly toward Israel. In order to stem the rapid growth of the Hebrew people, the Egyptians force them to do hard labor, building storage cities for the pharaoh.<\/p>\n<p>A further command requires all Israelite male children to be killed at birth. The superintendents of the midwives do not comply, however, and God rewards them—not to show his approval of their lie but because they fear and obey God rather than the pharaoh. A new command calls for all male Israelite babies to be drowned in the Nile River. One special child, who escapes when Pharaoh’s daughter has his basket fished out of the Nile, is Moses. Ironically, Moses’ mother is paid by the princess to raise her own child, who grows up in the palace as the princess’s adopted son.<\/p>\n<p>As an adult, Moses chooses to identify with his Hebrew kin, a tribute to the early instruction given him by his godly parents (see Heb 11:24-26). He sets out to liberate Israel from the Egyptians, one man at a time. But he has to flee to Midian, at the eastern edge of the Sinai Peninsula or in Arabia beyond the northern top of the Gulf of Aqaba. Moses marries into the household of Jethro, also named Reuel. Reuel (“friend of God”) is probably the man’s personal name, and Jethro (“excellence”) his title. Because he is called a “priest of Midian” (Ex 2:16), some scholars have maintained a “Kenite hypothesis,” suggesting that Moses adopted the religion of his father-in-law and taught it to the Israelites. But the Bible states that Moses received his religion by a direct revelation from God. Jethro seems to believe only after he sees that God has rescued Israel from the Egyptians (18:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>While their future deliverer is in Midian, the Israelites continue to be oppressed and cry out to God in their misery (2:23-25). God responds by descending to his people. He came down to rescue Israel (3:8). He appears to Moses in a burning bush and identifies himself as the same God who promised the patriarchs a land “flowing with milk and honey” (3:17). Moses will lead the Israelites there, assisted by his brother, Aaron.<\/p>\n<p>Assured that God’s presence and miraculous signs will accompany him, Moses takes his wife Zipporah and his two sons and departs for Egypt. On the way, the Lord meets him and seeks to put him to death (4:24). That is probably the Hebrew way of saying that God strikes him with a mortal illness. Moses, who is going to deliver God’s people, has neglected the sign of the covenant in failing to circumcise one of his sons (Gn 17:14). Moses recovers after the rite is performed and continues on to Egypt, meeting Aaron at Mt Sinai. Their reception by the Israelites is more cordial than that of Pharaoh, who refuses to honor the God who sent Moses. Instead of releasing the Israelites to offer sacrifices to their God in the wilderness, he increases their burdens. The people complain to Moses, and Moses complains to God. God appears again to Moses (Ex 6), reassuring him that Israel will be delivered by divine power. God’s plan is not a failure—he is just beginning to put it into action.<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Deliverance (Ex 7–19)<\/h5>\n<p>Chapters 7–12 record ten plagues with which God afflicts the Egyptians. Even before the first of them, the pharaoh has hardened his heart to defy God (7:13). There are three cycles of three plagues each:<\/p>\n\n<p> The first three plagues affect both the Egyptians and the Israelites; the Israelites are protected from the final six. The Egyptian magicians are able to duplicate the first two plagues, but when the third strikes, they admit, “This is the finger of God” (8:19). After the plague of flies covers the land, the pharaoh offers Moses the first of four compromises, but Moses refuses all of them (8:25-29; 10:8-11, 24-29). The first plagues are merely unpleasant, but the final ones are destructive and inflict much suffering. Since all of the plagues are common to that area, they themselves are not miraculous. The miracle is how the phenomena are multiplied and limited to the land of Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>The nine plagues serve to harden the pharaoh’s heart even more, so God prepares one final stroke. The death of every firstborn male, among both animals and humans, will be the fatal blow. God warns the Israelites to get ready to leave. To avert the death angel, they must put blood from an unblemished yearling male sheep or goat on their doorways. While they are eating the Passover meal, the death angel begins moving through the land of Egypt. In anguish the pharaoh drives the Israelites from the land; the slaves are free at last. Just as he has promised, the Lord goes before the children of Israel in a pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night.<\/p>\n<p>But once again the pharaoh’s heart is hardened and he gives pursuit. God parts the waters of the sea with a great wind. The literal meaning of the name given that body of water is “sea of reeds.” It could refer to any shoreline where the water is sufficiently shallow for such plants to grow (see 1 Kgs 9:26, where the same term refers to the Gulf of Aqaba near Eloth). Whatever the location, there God hands the Egyptians their final defeat. The rescue is complete.<\/p>\n<p>Moses and the Israelites respond with renewed faith in the Lord and with a song of victory and praise (Ex 14:31–15:21). Soon, however, thanksgiving turns into grumbling because of bitter water (15:22-26), lack of meat and bread (16:1-15), and lack of water (17:1-7). In each situation God provides for their need. He also gives them victory over the Amalekites (vv 8-16). As the Israelites approach Mt Sinai, Moses’ family rejoins him, accompanied by Jethro. Jethro now confesses his faith in the God of the Israelites and shares in a fellowship meal with the leaders. He also assists Moses in reorganizing the judicial system, then returns to Midian (ch 18).<\/p>\n<p>The Israelites arrive at Mt Sinai, also called Horeb (3:1), and prepare to meet the Lord who has rescued them in fulfillment of his promise to Moses (v 12). The Lord establishes his covenant with Israel, taking them as his own possession, “a kingdom of priests, my holy nation.” They quickly respond, “We will certainly do everything the <span>Lord<\/span> asks of us” (19:5-8, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Instruction (Ex 20–24)<\/h5>\n<p>The God who redeems a people, who literally “buys them back from slavery,” has a right to make certain demands of them. The commandments God gives to Israel at Sinai are not burdensome requirements but protective guidelines for living as God’s people (20:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>The Law (or Torah, meaning “instruction”) revealed at Sinai consists of three parts:<\/p>\n<p>1. The Ten Commandments (ch 20), addressing a person’s relationship to God and other people. Based on God’s nature (and therefore permanent), the Ten Commandments are unique in the history of the nations.<\/p>\n<li>2. The judgments (chs 21–23), social regulations for governing the people as a theocracy, similar in many ways to the law codes of Israel’s neighbors.<\/li>\n<li>3. Ordinances (chs 24–31) regulating religious ceremonies.<\/li>\n<p>All of the laws are given to Moses during the weeks he spends with God on the mountain.<\/p>\n<p>The Ten Commandments form the basis of all other laws in Israel (20:1-17). The first five deal with honoring the Lord, the second five with respecting one’s neighbor. The last commandment deals with one’s thoughts and intentions rather than with specific actions. It thus forms a safeguard against all sins not included in the first nine.<\/p>\n<p>The judgments recorded in chapters 21–23 deal with master-slave relationships (21:1-11), offenses punishable by death (vv 12-17), compensation for injury to persons or damage to property (21:18–22:15), various interpersonal relationships (22:16–23:9), and Sabbaths, feasts, and the offering of firstfruits (23:10-19). Many of the judgments would not take effect until Israel settled in the Promised Land. Accordingly, that section of the Law closes with a solemn warning against being rebellious and adopting pagan ways. It also contains a bright promise that God will drive out Israel’s enemies, protect his people from sickness, and grant them prosperity, if they obey the Lord’s commands (23:22).<\/p>\n<p>Exodus 24 records a reaffirmation of the covenant between God and Israel, as Moses seals it with the blood of a sacrifice. In response, God appears to the leaders of the people, giving them a glimpse of his splendor. Then Moses ascends the mountain one more time to receive the stone tablets containing the commandments, as well as further instructions regarding the meeting tent (tabernacle), the priesthood, and worship.<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Presence with his People (Ex 25–40)<\/h5>\n<p>After the Lord redeemed the Israelites, he told Moses, “I will make you my own special people, and I will be your God. And you will know that I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God who has rescued you from your slavery in Egypt” (6:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Moses had seen that wonderful promise fulfilled, yet one further step remained: “I want the people of Israel to build me a sacred residence where I can live among them” (25:8). God’s dwelling among his people is possible because God had descended to deliver the people and because they had pledged to meet his demands. God calls for a contribution from all whose hearts were willing to give, and he shows Moses a detailed pattern of the tabernacle and its furniture. Aaron and his sons are set apart to serve in the tent. Stipulations for the various offerings, including the Day of Atonement, are given. God tells Moses that he has chosen Bezalel and Oholiab to build the tabernacle and to craft its furnishings, having filled them with his Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>In the meantime the Israelites, who so recently promised total obedience, grow impatient as Moses lingers for 40 days on the mountain. They demand that Aaron make an idol for them. Under pressure, Aaron complies and forms a molten calf, a representation of a pagan deity (32:4).<\/p>\n<p>The Lord informs Moses of the people’s idolatry, revelry, and immorality and says that he is angry enough to destroy all of them and start again with Moses’ offspring. Moses pleads for Israel until the Lord relents, then descends from the mountain to punish the people. Moses pleads again for forgiveness for Israel, and God in mercy pardons their terrible sin (34:8-10).<\/p>\n<p>Once more God offers to make a covenant with the people (34:10). Moses spends another 40 days with the Lord, writing the commandments on tablets to replace those smashed when he saw the golden calf. When he returns to the people, his face shines from being in God’s presence, and he must keep it veiled.<\/p>\n<p>Now that Israel has been restored to God’s favor, the construction of the tabernacle can begin. The contributions are so generous that Moses must restrain the people from bringing any more. Finally, all is ready. Moses examines the tabernacle, and it is erected on the first day of the first month, nearly a year after the first Passover. The priests are consecrated, the lamps are lit, and the first burnt sacrifice is offered. A cloud descends, filling the tabernacle with the glory of the Lord. God dwells among his people, the goal of redemption has been attained, and the drama of the book of Exodus has come to an end.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Egypt, Egyptian; Exodus, The; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Israel, History of; Moses; Plagues upon Egypt; Tabernacle; Temple; Commandments, The Ten.<\/p>","summary_ro":"EXODUS, Book of Second book of the Bible, containing the story of God’s liberation of the people of Israel from slavery in Egypt. Few books of the OT are as important historically and theologically as the book of Exodus. Historically, the exodus event was the birth of Israel as a nation. At Mt Sinai a group of tribes who were descendants of Abraham became a nation ruled by God. The book of Exodus explains how the Israelites were able to resettle the land God had promised to Abraham and gives ...","summary_en":"EXODUS, Book of Second book of the Bible, containing the story of God’s liberation of the people of Israel from slavery in Egypt. Few books of the OT are as important historically and theologically as the book of Exodus. Historically, the exodus event was the birth of Israel as a nation. At Mt Sinai a group of tribes who were descendants of Abraham became a nation ruled by God. The book of Exodus explains how the Israelites were able to resettle the land God had promised to Abraham and gives ...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13495,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Genesis","title_en":"Book of Genesis","content_ro":"<h3>GENESIS, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>First book of the Bible.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Name<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Name\">Name<\/p>\n<p>The name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">bere’shith<\/span><em>,<\/em> “in the beginning.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The authorship of Genesis is closely related to the authorship of the entire Pentateuch (lit. “five-volumed,” the first five books of the Bible, which in Hebrew are called the Torah). It is clear that the Bible regards the human author of these books as Moses. On several occasions the Lord commanded Moses to write down various things: “in a book” (Ex 17:14) “write these words” (34:27). The Pentateuch reports that “Moses wrote all the words of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (24:4); he wrote the itinerary of the exodus wanderings (Nm 33:2); “Moses wrote this law” (Dt 31:9). (Here it is not certain that all five books are meant, but it must refer to at least the greater part of Deuteronomy.) In Exodus 24:7 it is said that Moses read the Book of the Covenant, which he must have just completed.<\/p>\n<p>The rest of the OT bears witness to the writing of the Pentateuch by Moses. David referred to “the law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3). In the time of Josiah, there was found in the temple the “Book of the Law of the <span>Lord<\/span> . . . given through Moses” (2 Chr 34:14, <span>nlt<\/span>). Day by day Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of God” (Neh 8:18, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, Jesus refers to “the book of Moses” (Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37) and otherwise mentions the commands or statements of Moses (Mt 8:4; 19:8; Mk 7:10; cf. Lk 16:31; 24:44). The Jews also quoted from the Torah as coming from Moses, and Jesus did not contradict them.<\/p>\n<p>Of Genesis in particular, it may be said that Moses had the opportunity and ability to write the book. He could have written it during his years in Egypt or while exiled with the Kenites. As the recognized leader of the Israelites, he would have had access to, or perhaps even custody of, the records that Jacob brought from Canaan. He was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22) and probably could have written in several languages and in several scripts (hieroglyphic, cuneiform, Old Hebrew). Although Moses was admirably fitted for the task of writing, one must remember that he was not putting together a human composition but was writing under the inspiration of God (2 Pt 1:21). We may with confidence conclude that Moses was the human author of Genesis.<\/p>\n<p>The liberal view of the authorship of Genesis is that the book is an editorial composite—a view first put forward by a French physician, Jean Astruc, who suggested that the different names for God indicated different documents or sources for the writing of the book. The German higher critics expanded the view of the use of documents in the writing of Genesis and developed it into the Graf-Wellhausen-Kuenen, or Documentary, Hypothesis, which may also be called the JEDP theory of the authorship of the book. This view holds that there were four basic documents: (1) J, which uses the name YHWH (Jehovah or Yahweh) for God, dates from about the ninth century <span>BC<\/span> and comes from Judah; (2) E uses the name Elohim, dates from the eighth century, and comes from the northern kingdom; (3) D is Deuteronomy and is supposed to come from the time of Josiah, about 621 <span>BC<\/span>; and (4) P is the priestly element, which deals with matters of the priesthood and ritual, dating to the fifth century <span>BC<\/span> or later. Some may date portions of Genesis as late as the Hellenistic period. According to this theory, the various documents were blended together by editors, so that there was a JE, JED, and so on.<\/p>\n<p>The science of archaeology discredited many of the extreme postulations of these critics, and the work of W. F. Albright and his followers did much to restore confidence in the historicity of Genesis. Within the last several decades, the patriarchal narratives and the account of Joseph have again come under strong attack, but these views are extreme, and much of the evidence adduced by Albright and earlier scholars like R. D. Wilson, W. H. Green, and others still has validity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>The date of the book is also a matter of debate. Even among those who accept Mosaic authorship there is debate as to when Moses lived. Based on the biblical data, Moses should have lived in the 15th century <span>BC<\/span> (cf. Jgs 11:26; 1 Kgs 6:1), but many scholars incline toward a 13th-century date. As outlined above, the liberal view of the date of Genesis would be from the ninth to the fifth centuries <span>BC<\/span>, with the final editing coming around the fifth century or perhaps even later.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>Genesis sketches the origin of many things: the universe, the earth, plants, animals, and mankind. It gives the beginnings of human institutions, professions, and crafts. It describes the origin of sin and death, and illustrates the insidious working of Satan in human life. Above all, Genesis relates the beginning of the history of redemption with the announcement of a Redeemer who was to come (Gn 3:15). It names the early progenitors in the lineage of the Messiah and the beginning of the Hebrew people through whom the Bible and the Savior came. Genesis also gives a selective history of people and events as viewed from the perspective of the purposes of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The book is divided into 11 parts of uneven length, each set off by the expression “these are the generations [descendants, history] of” (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). Only three times does the formula coincide with the first verse of a chapter. Usually called a heading or superscription, the expression serves as a kind of link between what precedes and what follows.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Creation (1:1–2:25)<\/h5>\n<p>These two chapters have been a scientific-theological battleground for many years, as researchers and students have tried to probe the origins of the universe and of life. Much of the evidence is not subject to scientific scrutiny, for science by definition requires that the evidence must be reproducible by experiment.<\/p>\n<p>The statement of Genesis 1:1 remains the grandest, most precise, and most accurate statement of origins: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He did this <em>ex nihilo<\/em> (“out of nothing”) by his word (Heb 11:3); he spoke the word of command and it was done (Gn 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20; Ps 33:6, 9).<\/p>\n<p>The date of the beginning is unknown. Uniformitarian cosmogonists (students of the origins of the universe who believe that natural events have always followed a uniform pattern; cf. 2 Pt 3:3-7) have speculated that the beginning of the universe was billions of years ago. But some creationists posit a world thousands of years old.<\/p>\n<p>To accommodate geological ages and the existence of extinct animals, some interpreters have proposed a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, with Genesis 1:2–2:3 representing a second or new creation. But this is conjecture. So is the idea that each day represents a geological age.<\/p>\n<p>As the text stands, there is a correlation between the first three days and the second three days. Day one saw the creation of light; day four, the light bearers. Day two was the time of the creation of the firmament (better, “expanse”), which divided the waters; day five, birds and swarming water creatures. On day three, God made the dry land and plants; on day six he created the land animals and man. He made man in the image of God (Gn 1:26), “a little less than God” (Ps 8:5), and gave him dominion over the earth. He made everything “according to their kinds,” so that each kind is distinct and unique. The perfection of his work is affirmed in that “God saw that it was good” (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21; “very good,” v 31). The seventh day was a time of cessation from the activity of creating and served as a type for mankind’s day of rest (2:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>Critical scholarship eyes 2:4-25 as a doublet in conflict with Genesis 1:1–2:3. To conservative scholars, the second chapter is the same account from a different perspective. Chapter 1 gives the Creation from the standpoint of sequence; chapter 2 shows it in view of the centrality of mankind in God’s creative work.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 2 gives details of the creation of man of “dust from the ground” (v 7) and woman from a rib of the man (vv 21-22). She was created to be “a companion who will help him” (vv 18-20). They were created as mature adults, with the gift of speech and with great intelligence. Adam had imagination and vocabulary sufficient for naming all of the animal species (v 19).<\/p>\n<p>The location of the Garden of Eden is given (vv 10-14). Two of the four rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, can be identified with certainty. So man lived in this beautiful garden in the bliss of innocence.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Humankind from Eden to Babel (3:1–11:26)<\/h5>\n<h6>The Fall<\/h6>\n<p>The loss of Eden and the break in fellowship with God is the saddest chapter in human history. The serpent, the devil, approached Eve with the same philosophy he always uses: doubt of God’s word (Gn 3:1), denial of death (v 4), and the suggestion of equality with God (v 5). He gained access to her will by deceiving her with the promise that the fruit would make her as wise as God is (Gn 3:5; cf. 1 Jn 2:16). Eve was deceived, but when she offered the fruit to Adam, he took it willingly, knowing what he was doing (Gn 3:6; cf. 1 Tm 2:14). Later, he tried to blame God for giving him the wife who gave him the fruit (Gn 3:12). Fellowship with God was broken (v 8), yet God came seeking Adam and found him.<\/p>\n<p>With sin came judgment, and the Lord pronounced righteous judgment on the serpent, the woman, and the man. The earth was also “subjected to frustration” and now groans as it awaits renewal (Rom 8:21-22). God gave hope to man and a promise of a Redeemer (Gn 3:15), who was to bruise the serpent’s head. Adam and Eve were forced out of the Garden, and it was made inaccessible to them.<\/p>\n<p>The impatience of humankind is shown in Eve’s expectation that her son Cain was the promised Deliverer. Instead, he developed a wrong-hearted attitude toward God and became so jealous of his younger brother that he murdered him. Apprehended by God and confronted with his crime, Cain showed only self-pity and went east from Eden, where he built a city (4:1-16). Chapter 4 closes with another contrast: the brazen Lamech, who called for vengeance, while others began to call upon the name of the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>The Generations of Adam<\/h6>\n<p>This genealogical table (5:1-32) brings humankind to the time of Noah and the Flood. The longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs seems very striking to us, but one must remember that the earth had not yet been subjected to pollution and that the effects of sin on the human race were still nominal. The refrain “and he died” reminds us of man’s mortality. For Enoch, however, there was something better: “He enjoyed a close relationship with God throughout his life. Then, suddenly, he disappeared because God took him” (5:24, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>The Flood<\/h6>\n<p>With increased population came an eruption of sin (6:1-5). As men multiplied, so did their corruption. The universal condemnation of verse 5 shows a world ripe for judgment. Noah, however, “found favor with the <span>Lord<\/span>,” for he was a righteous and blameless man who walked with God (6:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The Lord planned to annihilate the human race, but he determined to save Noah and his family. Intending to flood the earth, God instructed Noah to build an ark. Noah was directed to take animals aboard the ark, two by two, male and female, for the preservation of each species. When all was in readiness, the Flood came: “the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky” (7:11, <span>nlt<\/span>). It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The highest mountains were covered, and life outside the ark perished. “But God remembered Noah” and sent a wind to evaporate the waters (8:1). Eventually the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (v 4). Noah made a sacrifice to the Lord, and the Lord determined that he would never again bring such destruction upon the earth.<\/p>\n<p>The Flood is another of God’s acts that has been much debated. Many have argued for a local flood, which affected only part of Mesopotamia. Archaeologists have pointed to various flood strata in the excavation of Mesopotamian city-mounds as evidence for the account of the flood and have cited the various flood stories from that area as the source of the Genesis record. The epic of Gilgamesh gives an interesting tale of this hero, who went on a mission to visit Utnapishtim, the cuneiform Noah, in quest of eternal life. The flood story told by Utnapishtim has many parallels to Genesis, but there are greater contrasts, which demonstrate that the Bible preserves the true account.<\/p>\n<p>Both the Genesis account and the references to it in the NT (cf. 2 Pt 3:6) favor the view that the deluge was not a minor episode in the Tigris-Euphrates area but was an unprecedented worldwide catastrophe. Christian geologists affirm that the Flood had far-reaching effects on the earth itself. Flood stories are almost universally known, lending support to the conclusion that the Flood covered the whole earth. Following the Flood, God blessed Noah and his sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth. God made a covenant with Noah, promising that he would never again send a worldwide flood. As a sign of this, he established the rainbow.<\/p>\n<p>Noah was the first tiller of the soil, and he planted a vineyard (9:20). Noah became drunk from wine he made and lay uncovered in his tent. Ham saw him and reported this to his brothers, who discreetly covered him. Ham and his son Canaan were cursed; Shem and Japheth were blessed.<\/p>\n<h6>The History of the Nations<\/h6>\n<p>“This is the history of the families of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the three sons of Noah. Many children were born to them after the Flood” (10:1, <span>nlt<\/span>). This chapter lists the descendants of Noah’s three sons, in the order of Japheth (vv 2-5), Ham (vv 6-20), and Shem (vv 21-31). Many of the names of their descendants are preserved in tribes and nations of the world.<\/p>\n<h6>The Tower of Babel<\/h6>\n<p>The building of the Tower of Babel (“Gate of God”) illustrates man’s perversity and his tendency to want independence from God. The desire of man to displace God follows the fateful example of Lucifer and is a basic tenet of many cults. God thwarted the designs of the builders of Babel by confusing their languages, so that the project came to a halt (11:1-9). The site of this tower is not known with certainty. Some associate it with Birs Nimrud, not far from the ruins of the city of Babylon. Genesis 11:10-25 picks up the line of Shem and carries it down to Terah, the father of Abram.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Abraham (11:27–25:10) and Isaac (21:1–28:5)<\/h5>\n<p>Abram came from Ur of the Chaldees, a prosperous city. The city had an imposing ziggurat (temple-tower), with many temples, storehouses, and residences. Abram and Sarai, his half sister and wife, went with his father to Haran in Syria, which like Ur was a center of the worship of the moon god, Sin (or Annar).<\/p>\n<h6>Abram’s Call<\/h6>\n<p>The call of God came to Abram directing him to leave his relatives and move to a land that the Lord would show him (12:1; cf. Acts 7:2-3). Abram obeyed. At the age of 75, he, Sarai, and his nephew Lot left Haran and went to Shechem, where the Lord appeared to him and promised that land to his descendants.<\/p>\n<p>Famine drove Abram down to Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of Sarai’s beauty, he feared that someone might kill him to get her, so he passed her off as his sister. She was taken into the pharaoh’s harem. When the Lord plagued Pharaoh because of this, Abram’s lie was discovered and Sarai was returned to him.<\/p>\n<h6>Abram and Lot<\/h6>\n<p>Abram and Lot returned to Canaan, where strife broke out between Abram’s herdsmen and those of Lot. Abram suggested that they should separate, and he gave Lot the choice of territory. Lot chose the well-watered Jordan Valley and the cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah (ch 13).<\/p>\n<h6>The Invasion of the Four Kings from the East<\/h6>\n<p>The four kings who invaded along the King’s Highway in Transjordan cannot be identified with certainty. Those kings were successful in their attack against the five cities of the plain, and they moved off with much booty and many captives, including Lot. Abram took 318 retainers, born in his household, and set off after them. By surprise attack, Abram recovered both Lot and the loot. On his return he was met by Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, to whom Abram paid tithes (ch 14).<\/p>\n<h6>The Covenant<\/h6>\n<p>The Lord promised Abram a son as heir, and in an impressive nighttime ceremony, God made a covenant with Abram and promised him the land from the River of Egypt (Wadi el Arish) to the Euphrates (ch 15). Because of her own barrenness, Sarai gave her Egyptian maid, Hagar, to Abram. Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arab peoples. When trouble arose between the women, Sarai sent Hagar away, which was her right according to Near Eastern customs (as illustrated by the Nuzi tablets). God showed mercy to Hagar and promised that she would have a great posterity (ch 16).<\/p>\n<p>God repeated his promise to Abram concerning his descendants and changed the names of Abram (“exalted father”) and Sarai to Abraham (“father of many”) and Sarah (“princess”). A covenant sign of circumcision was given to Abraham (ch 17). This operation had already been practiced among the Egyptians for several centuries.<\/p>\n<h6>The Destruction of the Cities of the Plain<\/h6>\n<p>The Lord and two angels appeared to Abraham and announced the birth of the promised heir within a year, as well as proclaimed the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, concerning which Abraham bargained with God (18:22-33). Lot and his immediate family were rescued from Sodom, and the cities were destroyed by God with brimstone and fire (19:24-25). Lot’s two daughters, wishing to preserve their family line, got their father drunk and had sexual relations with him. Moab and Ammon, enemies of Israel in later times, were the result.<\/p>\n<p>In Genesis 20:1-18, Abraham again represented Sarah as his sister and got into trouble with Abimelech, king of Gerar.<\/p>\n<h6>Isaac<\/h6>\n<p>When Isaac was born (21:1-3), trouble again broke out between Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was driven out a second time, and once more was befriended by the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>A disagreement arose between Abraham and Abimelech concerning a well, but they made a covenant of peace at Beersheba (21:25-34).<\/p>\n<p>God tested Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice Isaac on Mt Moriah, which probably is the same site David later bought from Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sm 24:16-25), the place where the temple was to stand. As Abraham was about to use the knife, God called to him and showed him a ram caught in a thicket. Isaac was freed and the animal was sacrificed in his stead.<\/p>\n<p>Sarah died at Hebron, and Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite (ch 23), in a transaction typical of Near Eastern business dealings. To find a wife for Isaac, Abraham sent his servant Eliezer back to the area of Haran, and the Lord directed Eliezer to Rebekah (ch 24).<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 25 records the marriage of Abraham to Keturah, who bore him a number of children. Abraham died at the age of 175 years and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Jacob and Esau (25:19–37:1)<\/h5>\n<p>Rebekah gave birth to twin sons, Esau and Jacob. When the boys were grown, Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a meal of red pottage (25:27-34).<\/p>\n<p>When famine came to the land, Isaac went to Gerar, as his father had done (ch 20), and repeated his father’s lie by calling his wife his sister (26:1-11). Trouble arose with the Philistines over wells, but Isaac was a peaceable man and preferred digging new wells rather than fighting over old ones (vv 17-33).<\/p>\n<p>In Isaac’s old age, when his sight had failed, Rebekah connived with Jacob to trick Isaac into giving to Jacob the blessing of the firstborn, which was rightfully Esau’s. This oral blessing had legal validity and was irrevocable, according to the ancient Nuzi tablets. Fearing for Jacob’s life at the hands of Esau, Rebekah arranged to send Jacob to Haran to find a wife from among her own people. At Bethel, God appeared to Jacob in a dream of a ladder leading up to heaven; God renewed with Jacob the promise made to Abraham and Isaac (28:10-22).<\/p>\n<p>Jacob reached Haran, found his uncle Laban, and was employed by him (ch 29). His wages for seven years of labor were to be Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel, as his wife. But Laban substituted Leah, so that Jacob had to work another seven years for Rachel. The Lord prospered Jacob, but he continually had difficulties with Laban. The Lord directed Jacob back to Canaan (31:3), so he left secretly with his wives, children, and property. Laban pursued them because his household gods were missing (possession of these “gods” made the holder heir to the owner’s estate, according to Nuzi custom). Rachel had taken them but successfully concealed them from her father, and Laban went back to Haran.<\/p>\n<p>Fearing a meeting with Esau as they passed through Edom, Jacob sent gifts to his brother and divided his own party into two camps for security. On this return journey, Jacob had an unexpected wrestling bout with the Angel of the Lord, and he was left with a limp and a new name, Israel (ch 32).<\/p>\n<p>The meeting with Esau was friendly, and Jacob went on to Shechem (ch 33), where his sons killed the male Shechemites because of the rape of their sister Dinah (ch 34). God told Jacob to go to Bethel and build an altar to the Lord. All idols of foreign gods were buried (35:1-4). At Bethel, God reaffirmed his promise of a posterity and the land (vv 9-15). Rachel died on the way to Bethlehem, while giving birth to Benjamin, Jacob’s 12th and last son. Isaac died at Hebron at age 180 and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by Esau and Jacob.<\/p>\n<p>Genesis 36 records “the generations of Esau” (v 1). Here Esau is also named Edom (“Red”; cf. 25:30).<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Joseph (37:2–50:26)<\/h5>\n<p>Joseph was Jacob’s favorite son and thus incurred the jealousy of his brothers. This was heightened by Joseph’s dreams of lordship over them. Their resentment of Joseph came to a climax when Jacob gave Joseph a beautiful coat. The brothers determined to kill Joseph, but they compromised by selling him to a caravan of merchants, who took him to Egypt and sold him as a slave to Potiphar, an Egyptian captain of the guard (37:36; 39:1).<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 38 relates a historic case of levirate marriage. Judah failed to give his widowed daughter-in-law to his third son. She deceived him into fathering twin sons and forced him to acknowledge his faults. The elder son, Perez, is named in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:33).<\/p>\n<p>The Lord blessed Joseph, who soon was put in charge of Potiphar’s household (Gn 39). The young man attracted the attention of Potiphar’s wife, who, after many attempts to seduce him, at last accused him of attempted rape. Sentenced on this charge, Joseph met with favor in prison, where he had opportunity to interpret dreams for two of the pharaoh’s servants (ch 40). When the king had dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret, Joseph was summoned from jail. Joseph told Pharaoh that the dreams meant seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. Joseph was then exalted to the office of vizier, or prime minister, second only to the king, and put in charge of the administration of the land (41:37-44).<\/p>\n<p>When the famine came to Palestine, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to purchase grain. Joseph recognized his brothers but did not reveal his identity to them. Joseph put them to the test by accusing them of being spies (42:9), by keeping one of the brothers (Simeon) hostage (v 19), and by demanding that if they came to Egypt again, they must bring their youngest brother with them (42:20; 43:3). The famine became so severe in Canaan (43:1) that Jacob at last allowed Benjamin to go with his brothers to Egypt. The brothers were again set up by Joseph, who had his silver cup put into Benjamin’s grain sack and then had him apprehended as a thief (ch 44).<\/p>\n<p>At this point Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers (45:4-15) and there was much rejoicing. Joseph pointed out that it was God who had sent him to Egypt (vv 7-8), in order to preserve the lives of all the family. Jacob was then sent for (46:1), and Joseph met him in the land of Goshen (46:28-29). The Israelites were assigned land in the region of Goshen, where they prospered (47:27).<\/p>\n<p>In Jacob’s final illness, Joseph brought his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to his father for his blessing. Jacob gave the primary blessing to the second-born, Ephraim (48:13-20). Jacob blessed each of his own sons and then died at the age of at least 130 years. Joseph arranged for Jacob’s body to be prepared for burial according to Egyptian custom (50:2-3). After the burial of their father in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron, Joseph’s brothers worried about vengeance, but Joseph declared, “As far as I am concerned, God turned into good what you meant for evil. He brought me to the high position I have today so I could save the lives of many people” (v 20, <span>nlt<\/span>). Joseph died at age 110 with the prophetic request that when the Israelites went up from Egypt they would take his bones with them (50:25; cf. Ex 13:19; Jos 24:32).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Abraham; Adam (Person); Covenant; Creation; Eve; Fall of Man; Flood, The; Isaac; Jacob #1; Joseph #1; Nations; Noah #1; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GENESIS, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>First book of the Bible.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Name<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Name\">Name<\/p>\n<p>The name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">bere’shith<\/span><em>,<\/em> “in the beginning.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The authorship of Genesis is closely related to the authorship of the entire Pentateuch (lit. “five-volumed,” the first five books of the Bible, which in Hebrew are called the Torah). It is clear that the Bible regards the human author of these books as Moses. On several occasions the Lord commanded Moses to write down various things: “in a book” (Ex 17:14) “write these words” (34:27). The Pentateuch reports that “Moses wrote all the words of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (24:4); he wrote the itinerary of the exodus wanderings (Nm 33:2); “Moses wrote this law” (Dt 31:9). (Here it is not certain that all five books are meant, but it must refer to at least the greater part of Deuteronomy.) In Exodus 24:7 it is said that Moses read the Book of the Covenant, which he must have just completed.<\/p>\n<p>The rest of the OT bears witness to the writing of the Pentateuch by Moses. David referred to “the law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3). In the time of Josiah, there was found in the temple the “Book of the Law of the <span>Lord<\/span> . . . given through Moses” (2 Chr 34:14, <span>nlt<\/span>). Day by day Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of God” (Neh 8:18, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, Jesus refers to “the book of Moses” (Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37) and otherwise mentions the commands or statements of Moses (Mt 8:4; 19:8; Mk 7:10; cf. Lk 16:31; 24:44). The Jews also quoted from the Torah as coming from Moses, and Jesus did not contradict them.<\/p>\n<p>Of Genesis in particular, it may be said that Moses had the opportunity and ability to write the book. He could have written it during his years in Egypt or while exiled with the Kenites. As the recognized leader of the Israelites, he would have had access to, or perhaps even custody of, the records that Jacob brought from Canaan. He was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22) and probably could have written in several languages and in several scripts (hieroglyphic, cuneiform, Old Hebrew). Although Moses was admirably fitted for the task of writing, one must remember that he was not putting together a human composition but was writing under the inspiration of God (2 Pt 1:21). We may with confidence conclude that Moses was the human author of Genesis.<\/p>\n<p>The liberal view of the authorship of Genesis is that the book is an editorial composite—a view first put forward by a French physician, Jean Astruc, who suggested that the different names for God indicated different documents or sources for the writing of the book. The German higher critics expanded the view of the use of documents in the writing of Genesis and developed it into the Graf-Wellhausen-Kuenen, or Documentary, Hypothesis, which may also be called the JEDP theory of the authorship of the book. This view holds that there were four basic documents: (1) J, which uses the name YHWH (Jehovah or Yahweh) for God, dates from about the ninth century <span>BC<\/span> and comes from Judah; (2) E uses the name Elohim, dates from the eighth century, and comes from the northern kingdom; (3) D is Deuteronomy and is supposed to come from the time of Josiah, about 621 <span>BC<\/span>; and (4) P is the priestly element, which deals with matters of the priesthood and ritual, dating to the fifth century <span>BC<\/span> or later. Some may date portions of Genesis as late as the Hellenistic period. According to this theory, the various documents were blended together by editors, so that there was a JE, JED, and so on.<\/p>\n<p>The science of archaeology discredited many of the extreme postulations of these critics, and the work of W. F. Albright and his followers did much to restore confidence in the historicity of Genesis. Within the last several decades, the patriarchal narratives and the account of Joseph have again come under strong attack, but these views are extreme, and much of the evidence adduced by Albright and earlier scholars like R. D. Wilson, W. H. Green, and others still has validity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>The date of the book is also a matter of debate. Even among those who accept Mosaic authorship there is debate as to when Moses lived. Based on the biblical data, Moses should have lived in the 15th century <span>BC<\/span> (cf. Jgs 11:26; 1 Kgs 6:1), but many scholars incline toward a 13th-century date. As outlined above, the liberal view of the date of Genesis would be from the ninth to the fifth centuries <span>BC<\/span>, with the final editing coming around the fifth century or perhaps even later.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>Genesis sketches the origin of many things: the universe, the earth, plants, animals, and mankind. It gives the beginnings of human institutions, professions, and crafts. It describes the origin of sin and death, and illustrates the insidious working of Satan in human life. Above all, Genesis relates the beginning of the history of redemption with the announcement of a Redeemer who was to come (Gn 3:15). It names the early progenitors in the lineage of the Messiah and the beginning of the Hebrew people through whom the Bible and the Savior came. Genesis also gives a selective history of people and events as viewed from the perspective of the purposes of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The book is divided into 11 parts of uneven length, each set off by the expression “these are the generations [descendants, history] of” (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). Only three times does the formula coincide with the first verse of a chapter. Usually called a heading or superscription, the expression serves as a kind of link between what precedes and what follows.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Creation (1:1–2:25)<\/h5>\n<p>These two chapters have been a scientific-theological battleground for many years, as researchers and students have tried to probe the origins of the universe and of life. Much of the evidence is not subject to scientific scrutiny, for science by definition requires that the evidence must be reproducible by experiment.<\/p>\n<p>The statement of Genesis 1:1 remains the grandest, most precise, and most accurate statement of origins: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He did this <em>ex nihilo<\/em> (“out of nothing”) by his word (Heb 11:3); he spoke the word of command and it was done (Gn 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20; Ps 33:6, 9).<\/p>\n<p>The date of the beginning is unknown. Uniformitarian cosmogonists (students of the origins of the universe who believe that natural events have always followed a uniform pattern; cf. 2 Pt 3:3-7) have speculated that the beginning of the universe was billions of years ago. But some creationists posit a world thousands of years old.<\/p>\n<p>To accommodate geological ages and the existence of extinct animals, some interpreters have proposed a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, with Genesis 1:2–2:3 representing a second or new creation. But this is conjecture. So is the idea that each day represents a geological age.<\/p>\n<p>As the text stands, there is a correlation between the first three days and the second three days. Day one saw the creation of light; day four, the light bearers. Day two was the time of the creation of the firmament (better, “expanse”), which divided the waters; day five, birds and swarming water creatures. On day three, God made the dry land and plants; on day six he created the land animals and man. He made man in the image of God (Gn 1:26), “a little less than God” (Ps 8:5), and gave him dominion over the earth. He made everything “according to their kinds,” so that each kind is distinct and unique. The perfection of his work is affirmed in that “God saw that it was good” (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21; “very good,” v 31). The seventh day was a time of cessation from the activity of creating and served as a type for mankind’s day of rest (2:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>Critical scholarship eyes 2:4-25 as a doublet in conflict with Genesis 1:1–2:3. To conservative scholars, the second chapter is the same account from a different perspective. Chapter 1 gives the Creation from the standpoint of sequence; chapter 2 shows it in view of the centrality of mankind in God’s creative work.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 2 gives details of the creation of man of “dust from the ground” (v 7) and woman from a rib of the man (vv 21-22). She was created to be “a companion who will help him” (vv 18-20). They were created as mature adults, with the gift of speech and with great intelligence. Adam had imagination and vocabulary sufficient for naming all of the animal species (v 19).<\/p>\n<p>The location of the Garden of Eden is given (vv 10-14). Two of the four rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, can be identified with certainty. So man lived in this beautiful garden in the bliss of innocence.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Humankind from Eden to Babel (3:1–11:26)<\/h5>\n<h6>The Fall<\/h6>\n<p>The loss of Eden and the break in fellowship with God is the saddest chapter in human history. The serpent, the devil, approached Eve with the same philosophy he always uses: doubt of God’s word (Gn 3:1), denial of death (v 4), and the suggestion of equality with God (v 5). He gained access to her will by deceiving her with the promise that the fruit would make her as wise as God is (Gn 3:5; cf. 1 Jn 2:16). Eve was deceived, but when she offered the fruit to Adam, he took it willingly, knowing what he was doing (Gn 3:6; cf. 1 Tm 2:14). Later, he tried to blame God for giving him the wife who gave him the fruit (Gn 3:12). Fellowship with God was broken (v 8), yet God came seeking Adam and found him.<\/p>\n<p>With sin came judgment, and the Lord pronounced righteous judgment on the serpent, the woman, and the man. The earth was also “subjected to frustration” and now groans as it awaits renewal (Rom 8:21-22). God gave hope to man and a promise of a Redeemer (Gn 3:15), who was to bruise the serpent’s head. Adam and Eve were forced out of the Garden, and it was made inaccessible to them.<\/p>\n<p>The impatience of humankind is shown in Eve’s expectation that her son Cain was the promised Deliverer. Instead, he developed a wrong-hearted attitude toward God and became so jealous of his younger brother that he murdered him. Apprehended by God and confronted with his crime, Cain showed only self-pity and went east from Eden, where he built a city (4:1-16). Chapter 4 closes with another contrast: the brazen Lamech, who called for vengeance, while others began to call upon the name of the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>The Generations of Adam<\/h6>\n<p>This genealogical table (5:1-32) brings humankind to the time of Noah and the Flood. The longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs seems very striking to us, but one must remember that the earth had not yet been subjected to pollution and that the effects of sin on the human race were still nominal. The refrain “and he died” reminds us of man’s mortality. For Enoch, however, there was something better: “He enjoyed a close relationship with God throughout his life. Then, suddenly, he disappeared because God took him” (5:24, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>The Flood<\/h6>\n<p>With increased population came an eruption of sin (6:1-5). As men multiplied, so did their corruption. The universal condemnation of verse 5 shows a world ripe for judgment. Noah, however, “found favor with the <span>Lord<\/span>,” for he was a righteous and blameless man who walked with God (6:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The Lord planned to annihilate the human race, but he determined to save Noah and his family. Intending to flood the earth, God instructed Noah to build an ark. Noah was directed to take animals aboard the ark, two by two, male and female, for the preservation of each species. When all was in readiness, the Flood came: “the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky” (7:11, <span>nlt<\/span>). It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The highest mountains were covered, and life outside the ark perished. “But God remembered Noah” and sent a wind to evaporate the waters (8:1). Eventually the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (v 4). Noah made a sacrifice to the Lord, and the Lord determined that he would never again bring such destruction upon the earth.<\/p>\n<p>The Flood is another of God’s acts that has been much debated. Many have argued for a local flood, which affected only part of Mesopotamia. Archaeologists have pointed to various flood strata in the excavation of Mesopotamian city-mounds as evidence for the account of the flood and have cited the various flood stories from that area as the source of the Genesis record. The epic of Gilgamesh gives an interesting tale of this hero, who went on a mission to visit Utnapishtim, the cuneiform Noah, in quest of eternal life. The flood story told by Utnapishtim has many parallels to Genesis, but there are greater contrasts, which demonstrate that the Bible preserves the true account.<\/p>\n<p>Both the Genesis account and the references to it in the NT (cf. 2 Pt 3:6) favor the view that the deluge was not a minor episode in the Tigris-Euphrates area but was an unprecedented worldwide catastrophe. Christian geologists affirm that the Flood had far-reaching effects on the earth itself. Flood stories are almost universally known, lending support to the conclusion that the Flood covered the whole earth. Following the Flood, God blessed Noah and his sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth. God made a covenant with Noah, promising that he would never again send a worldwide flood. As a sign of this, he established the rainbow.<\/p>\n<p>Noah was the first tiller of the soil, and he planted a vineyard (9:20). Noah became drunk from wine he made and lay uncovered in his tent. Ham saw him and reported this to his brothers, who discreetly covered him. Ham and his son Canaan were cursed; Shem and Japheth were blessed.<\/p>\n<h6>The History of the Nations<\/h6>\n<p>“This is the history of the families of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the three sons of Noah. Many children were born to them after the Flood” (10:1, <span>nlt<\/span>). This chapter lists the descendants of Noah’s three sons, in the order of Japheth (vv 2-5), Ham (vv 6-20), and Shem (vv 21-31). Many of the names of their descendants are preserved in tribes and nations of the world.<\/p>\n<h6>The Tower of Babel<\/h6>\n<p>The building of the Tower of Babel (“Gate of God”) illustrates man’s perversity and his tendency to want independence from God. The desire of man to displace God follows the fateful example of Lucifer and is a basic tenet of many cults. God thwarted the designs of the builders of Babel by confusing their languages, so that the project came to a halt (11:1-9). The site of this tower is not known with certainty. Some associate it with Birs Nimrud, not far from the ruins of the city of Babylon. Genesis 11:10-25 picks up the line of Shem and carries it down to Terah, the father of Abram.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Abraham (11:27–25:10) and Isaac (21:1–28:5)<\/h5>\n<p>Abram came from Ur of the Chaldees, a prosperous city. The city had an imposing ziggurat (temple-tower), with many temples, storehouses, and residences. Abram and Sarai, his half sister and wife, went with his father to Haran in Syria, which like Ur was a center of the worship of the moon god, Sin (or Annar).<\/p>\n<h6>Abram’s Call<\/h6>\n<p>The call of God came to Abram directing him to leave his relatives and move to a land that the Lord would show him (12:1; cf. Acts 7:2-3). Abram obeyed. At the age of 75, he, Sarai, and his nephew Lot left Haran and went to Shechem, where the Lord appeared to him and promised that land to his descendants.<\/p>\n<p>Famine drove Abram down to Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of Sarai’s beauty, he feared that someone might kill him to get her, so he passed her off as his sister. She was taken into the pharaoh’s harem. When the Lord plagued Pharaoh because of this, Abram’s lie was discovered and Sarai was returned to him.<\/p>\n<h6>Abram and Lot<\/h6>\n<p>Abram and Lot returned to Canaan, where strife broke out between Abram’s herdsmen and those of Lot. Abram suggested that they should separate, and he gave Lot the choice of territory. Lot chose the well-watered Jordan Valley and the cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah (ch 13).<\/p>\n<h6>The Invasion of the Four Kings from the East<\/h6>\n<p>The four kings who invaded along the King’s Highway in Transjordan cannot be identified with certainty. Those kings were successful in their attack against the five cities of the plain, and they moved off with much booty and many captives, including Lot. Abram took 318 retainers, born in his household, and set off after them. By surprise attack, Abram recovered both Lot and the loot. On his return he was met by Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, to whom Abram paid tithes (ch 14).<\/p>\n<h6>The Covenant<\/h6>\n<p>The Lord promised Abram a son as heir, and in an impressive nighttime ceremony, God made a covenant with Abram and promised him the land from the River of Egypt (Wadi el Arish) to the Euphrates (ch 15). Because of her own barrenness, Sarai gave her Egyptian maid, Hagar, to Abram. Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arab peoples. When trouble arose between the women, Sarai sent Hagar away, which was her right according to Near Eastern customs (as illustrated by the Nuzi tablets). God showed mercy to Hagar and promised that she would have a great posterity (ch 16).<\/p>\n<p>God repeated his promise to Abram concerning his descendants and changed the names of Abram (“exalted father”) and Sarai to Abraham (“father of many”) and Sarah (“princess”). A covenant sign of circumcision was given to Abraham (ch 17). This operation had already been practiced among the Egyptians for several centuries.<\/p>\n<h6>The Destruction of the Cities of the Plain<\/h6>\n<p>The Lord and two angels appeared to Abraham and announced the birth of the promised heir within a year, as well as proclaimed the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, concerning which Abraham bargained with God (18:22-33). Lot and his immediate family were rescued from Sodom, and the cities were destroyed by God with brimstone and fire (19:24-25). Lot’s two daughters, wishing to preserve their family line, got their father drunk and had sexual relations with him. Moab and Ammon, enemies of Israel in later times, were the result.<\/p>\n<p>In Genesis 20:1-18, Abraham again represented Sarah as his sister and got into trouble with Abimelech, king of Gerar.<\/p>\n<h6>Isaac<\/h6>\n<p>When Isaac was born (21:1-3), trouble again broke out between Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was driven out a second time, and once more was befriended by the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>A disagreement arose between Abraham and Abimelech concerning a well, but they made a covenant of peace at Beersheba (21:25-34).<\/p>\n<p>God tested Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice Isaac on Mt Moriah, which probably is the same site David later bought from Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sm 24:16-25), the place where the temple was to stand. As Abraham was about to use the knife, God called to him and showed him a ram caught in a thicket. Isaac was freed and the animal was sacrificed in his stead.<\/p>\n<p>Sarah died at Hebron, and Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite (ch 23), in a transaction typical of Near Eastern business dealings. To find a wife for Isaac, Abraham sent his servant Eliezer back to the area of Haran, and the Lord directed Eliezer to Rebekah (ch 24).<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 25 records the marriage of Abraham to Keturah, who bore him a number of children. Abraham died at the age of 175 years and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Jacob and Esau (25:19–37:1)<\/h5>\n<p>Rebekah gave birth to twin sons, Esau and Jacob. When the boys were grown, Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a meal of red pottage (25:27-34).<\/p>\n<p>When famine came to the land, Isaac went to Gerar, as his father had done (ch 20), and repeated his father’s lie by calling his wife his sister (26:1-11). Trouble arose with the Philistines over wells, but Isaac was a peaceable man and preferred digging new wells rather than fighting over old ones (vv 17-33).<\/p>\n<p>In Isaac’s old age, when his sight had failed, Rebekah connived with Jacob to trick Isaac into giving to Jacob the blessing of the firstborn, which was rightfully Esau’s. This oral blessing had legal validity and was irrevocable, according to the ancient Nuzi tablets. Fearing for Jacob’s life at the hands of Esau, Rebekah arranged to send Jacob to Haran to find a wife from among her own people. At Bethel, God appeared to Jacob in a dream of a ladder leading up to heaven; God renewed with Jacob the promise made to Abraham and Isaac (28:10-22).<\/p>\n<p>Jacob reached Haran, found his uncle Laban, and was employed by him (ch 29). His wages for seven years of labor were to be Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel, as his wife. But Laban substituted Leah, so that Jacob had to work another seven years for Rachel. The Lord prospered Jacob, but he continually had difficulties with Laban. The Lord directed Jacob back to Canaan (31:3), so he left secretly with his wives, children, and property. Laban pursued them because his household gods were missing (possession of these “gods” made the holder heir to the owner’s estate, according to Nuzi custom). Rachel had taken them but successfully concealed them from her father, and Laban went back to Haran.<\/p>\n<p>Fearing a meeting with Esau as they passed through Edom, Jacob sent gifts to his brother and divided his own party into two camps for security. On this return journey, Jacob had an unexpected wrestling bout with the Angel of the Lord, and he was left with a limp and a new name, Israel (ch 32).<\/p>\n<p>The meeting with Esau was friendly, and Jacob went on to Shechem (ch 33), where his sons killed the male Shechemites because of the rape of their sister Dinah (ch 34). God told Jacob to go to Bethel and build an altar to the Lord. All idols of foreign gods were buried (35:1-4). At Bethel, God reaffirmed his promise of a posterity and the land (vv 9-15). Rachel died on the way to Bethlehem, while giving birth to Benjamin, Jacob’s 12th and last son. Isaac died at Hebron at age 180 and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by Esau and Jacob.<\/p>\n<p>Genesis 36 records “the generations of Esau” (v 1). Here Esau is also named Edom (“Red”; cf. 25:30).<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Joseph (37:2–50:26)<\/h5>\n<p>Joseph was Jacob’s favorite son and thus incurred the jealousy of his brothers. This was heightened by Joseph’s dreams of lordship over them. Their resentment of Joseph came to a climax when Jacob gave Joseph a beautiful coat. The brothers determined to kill Joseph, but they compromised by selling him to a caravan of merchants, who took him to Egypt and sold him as a slave to Potiphar, an Egyptian captain of the guard (37:36; 39:1).<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 38 relates a historic case of levirate marriage. Judah failed to give his widowed daughter-in-law to his third son. She deceived him into fathering twin sons and forced him to acknowledge his faults. The elder son, Perez, is named in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:33).<\/p>\n<p>The Lord blessed Joseph, who soon was put in charge of Potiphar’s household (Gn 39). The young man attracted the attention of Potiphar’s wife, who, after many attempts to seduce him, at last accused him of attempted rape. Sentenced on this charge, Joseph met with favor in prison, where he had opportunity to interpret dreams for two of the pharaoh’s servants (ch 40). When the king had dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret, Joseph was summoned from jail. Joseph told Pharaoh that the dreams meant seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. Joseph was then exalted to the office of vizier, or prime minister, second only to the king, and put in charge of the administration of the land (41:37-44).<\/p>\n<p>When the famine came to Palestine, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to purchase grain. Joseph recognized his brothers but did not reveal his identity to them. Joseph put them to the test by accusing them of being spies (42:9), by keeping one of the brothers (Simeon) hostage (v 19), and by demanding that if they came to Egypt again, they must bring their youngest brother with them (42:20; 43:3). The famine became so severe in Canaan (43:1) that Jacob at last allowed Benjamin to go with his brothers to Egypt. The brothers were again set up by Joseph, who had his silver cup put into Benjamin’s grain sack and then had him apprehended as a thief (ch 44).<\/p>\n<p>At this point Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers (45:4-15) and there was much rejoicing. Joseph pointed out that it was God who had sent him to Egypt (vv 7-8), in order to preserve the lives of all the family. Jacob was then sent for (46:1), and Joseph met him in the land of Goshen (46:28-29). The Israelites were assigned land in the region of Goshen, where they prospered (47:27).<\/p>\n<p>In Jacob’s final illness, Joseph brought his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to his father for his blessing. Jacob gave the primary blessing to the second-born, Ephraim (48:13-20). Jacob blessed each of his own sons and then died at the age of at least 130 years. Joseph arranged for Jacob’s body to be prepared for burial according to Egyptian custom (50:2-3). After the burial of their father in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron, Joseph’s brothers worried about vengeance, but Joseph declared, “As far as I am concerned, God turned into good what you meant for evil. He brought me to the high position I have today so I could save the lives of many people” (v 20, <span>nlt<\/span>). Joseph died at age 110 with the prophetic request that when the Israelites went up from Egypt they would take his bones with them (50:25; cf. Ex 13:19; Jos 24:32).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Abraham; Adam (Person); Covenant; Creation; Eve; Fall of Man; Flood, The; Isaac; Jacob #1; Joseph #1; Nations; Noah #1; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GENESIS, Book of First book of the Bible. Preview • Name • Author • Date • Purpose • Structure • Content Name The name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith, “in the beginning.” Author The authorship of Gene...","summary_en":"GENESIS, Book of First book of the Bible. Preview • Name • Author • Date • Purpose • Structure • Content Name The name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith, “in the beginning.” Author The authorship of Gene...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":60090,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Death","title_en":"Death","content_ro":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\n<p>Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\n<p>Death entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was <em>Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\n<p>While the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\n<p>Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\n<p>Death entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was <em>Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\n<p>While the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","summary_en":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":67093,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Resurrection of the Dead","title_en":"The Resurrection of the Dead","content_ro":"<h3>The Resurrection of the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp. Heb 12:2). They expected Jesus to return and resurrect their bodies, and they looked forward to living with him forever (1 Pet 1:3-6, 23). Their faith was based on the foundation of Jesus’ own bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15:12-20; Acts 4:33; see also 2 Cor 4:14).<\/p>\n<p>Resurrection bodies will be fundamentally different from the bodies we experience in this life, with all of their limitations and failings. These renewed bodies will be glorious, strong, immortal, and spiritual, like Christ’s own resurrection body (1 Cor 15:35-58).<\/p>\n<p>Because they are already joined to Christ, believers actually begin to experience resurrection existence here and now. They have already been “raised” with Christ; they have already been given “resurrection life” (Rom 6:4-11; 8:10-11; Col 2:12). As a result, their lives are now centered in the spiritual realities of heaven rather than in worldly things (Col 3:1-4). Believers can experience the transforming power of that new life here and now, the new life of the Spirit that frees them from the power of sin and death (Rom 8:1-4). In all the difficulties they face, their trust is not in themselves but in the resurrection power of God (2 Cor 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Job 19:25-27; Pss 16:10; 49:15; Dan 12:2-3; Matt 16:21; 28:1-10; Mark 12:18-27; John 3:13-16; 5:25-30; 6:39-40; 11:21-27; Acts 2:23-24; 3:14-15; 4:33; 10:39-41; 17:2-3; 24:15; 26:22-23; Rom 1:4; 4:25; 6:4-11; 8:10-11; 1 Cor 15:12-58; 2 Cor 1:8-9; 4:13-18; 5:1-10; Eph 1:19-20; Col 2:12; 3:1-4; 1 Thes 4:13-18; 1 Pet 1:3-6, 23; Rev 20:11-15; 21:1-7; 22:1-6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Resurrection of the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp. Heb 12:2). They expected Jesus to return and resurrect their bodies, and they looked forward to living with him forever (1 Pet 1:3-6, 23). Their faith was based on the foundation of Jesus’ own bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15:12-20; Acts 4:33; see also 2 Cor 4:14).<\/p>\n<p>Resurrection bodies will be fundamentally different from the bodies we experience in this life, with all of their limitations and failings. These renewed bodies will be glorious, strong, immortal, and spiritual, like Christ’s own resurrection body (1 Cor 15:35-58).<\/p>\n<p>Because they are already joined to Christ, believers actually begin to experience resurrection existence here and now. They have already been “raised” with Christ; they have already been given “resurrection life” (Rom 6:4-11; 8:10-11; Col 2:12). As a result, their lives are now centered in the spiritual realities of heaven rather than in worldly things (Col 3:1-4). Believers can experience the transforming power of that new life here and now, the new life of the Spirit that frees them from the power of sin and death (Rom 8:1-4). In all the difficulties they face, their trust is not in themselves but in the resurrection power of God (2 Cor 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Job 19:25-27; Pss 16:10; 49:15; Dan 12:2-3; Matt 16:21; 28:1-10; Mark 12:18-27; John 3:13-16; 5:25-30; 6:39-40; 11:21-27; Acts 2:23-24; 3:14-15; 4:33; 10:39-41; 17:2-3; 24:15; 26:22-23; Rom 1:4; 4:25; 6:4-11; 8:10-11; 1 Cor 15:12-58; 2 Cor 1:8-9; 4:13-18; 5:1-10; Eph 1:19-20; Col 2:12; 3:1-4; 1 Thes 4:13-18; 1 Pet 1:3-6, 23; Rev 20:11-15; 21:1-7; 22:1-6<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Resurrection of the Dead Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10). This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp....","summary_en":"The Resurrection of the Dead Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10). This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp....","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":87716,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Death","title_en":"Death","content_ro":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\n<p>Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\n<p>Death entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was <em>Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\n<p>While the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\n<p>Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\n<p>Death entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was <em>Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\n<p>While the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","summary_en":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":94719,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Resurrection of the Dead","title_en":"The Resurrection of the Dead","content_ro":"<h3>The Resurrection of the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp. Heb 12:2). They expected Jesus to return and resurrect their bodies, and they looked forward to living with him forever (1 Pet 1:3-6, 23). Their faith was based on the foundation of Jesus’ own bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15:12-20; Acts 4:33; see also 2 Cor 4:14).<\/p>\n<p>Resurrection bodies will be fundamentally different from the bodies we experience in this life, with all of their limitations and failings. These renewed bodies will be glorious, strong, immortal, and spiritual, like Christ’s own resurrection body (1 Cor 15:35-58).<\/p>\n<p>Because they are already joined to Christ, believers actually begin to experience resurrection existence here and now. They have already been “raised” with Christ; they have already been given “resurrection life” (Rom 6:4-11; 8:10-11; Col 2:12). As a result, their lives are now centered in the spiritual realities of heaven rather than in worldly things (Col 3:1-4). Believers can experience the transforming power of that new life here and now, the new life of the Spirit that frees them from the power of sin and death (Rom 8:1-4). In all the difficulties they face, their trust is not in themselves but in the resurrection power of God (2 Cor 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Job 19:25-27; Pss 16:10; 49:15; Dan 12:2-3; Matt 16:21; 28:1-10; Mark 12:18-27; John 3:13-16; 5:25-30; 6:39-40; 11:21-27; Acts 2:23-24; 3:14-15; 4:33; 10:39-41; 17:2-3; 24:15; 26:22-23; Rom 1:4; 4:25; 6:4-11; 8:10-11; 1 Cor 15:12-58; 2 Cor 1:8-9; 4:13-18; 5:1-10; Eph 1:19-20; Col 2:12; 3:1-4; 1 Thes 4:13-18; 1 Pet 1:3-6, 23; Rev 20:11-15; 21:1-7; 22:1-6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Resurrection of the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp. Heb 12:2). They expected Jesus to return and resurrect their bodies, and they looked forward to living with him forever (1 Pet 1:3-6, 23). Their faith was based on the foundation of Jesus’ own bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15:12-20; Acts 4:33; see also 2 Cor 4:14).<\/p>\n<p>Resurrection bodies will be fundamentally different from the bodies we experience in this life, with all of their limitations and failings. These renewed bodies will be glorious, strong, immortal, and spiritual, like Christ’s own resurrection body (1 Cor 15:35-58).<\/p>\n<p>Because they are already joined to Christ, believers actually begin to experience resurrection existence here and now. They have already been “raised” with Christ; they have already been given “resurrection life” (Rom 6:4-11; 8:10-11; Col 2:12). As a result, their lives are now centered in the spiritual realities of heaven rather than in worldly things (Col 3:1-4). Believers can experience the transforming power of that new life here and now, the new life of the Spirit that frees them from the power of sin and death (Rom 8:1-4). In all the difficulties they face, their trust is not in themselves but in the resurrection power of God (2 Cor 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Job 19:25-27; Pss 16:10; 49:15; Dan 12:2-3; Matt 16:21; 28:1-10; Mark 12:18-27; John 3:13-16; 5:25-30; 6:39-40; 11:21-27; Acts 2:23-24; 3:14-15; 4:33; 10:39-41; 17:2-3; 24:15; 26:22-23; Rom 1:4; 4:25; 6:4-11; 8:10-11; 1 Cor 15:12-58; 2 Cor 1:8-9; 4:13-18; 5:1-10; Eph 1:19-20; Col 2:12; 3:1-4; 1 Thes 4:13-18; 1 Pet 1:3-6, 23; Rev 20:11-15; 21:1-7; 22:1-6<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Resurrection of the Dead Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10). This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp....","summary_en":"The Resurrection of the Dead Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10). This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp....","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":115342,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Death","title_en":"Death","content_ro":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\n<p>Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\n<p>Death entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was <em>Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\n<p>While the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\n<p>Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\n<p>Death entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was <em>Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\n<p>While the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","summary_en":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":122345,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Resurrection of the Dead","title_en":"The Resurrection of the Dead","content_ro":"<h3>The Resurrection of the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp. Heb 12:2). They expected Jesus to return and resurrect their bodies, and they looked forward to living with him forever (1 Pet 1:3-6, 23). Their faith was based on the foundation of Jesus’ own bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15:12-20; Acts 4:33; see also 2 Cor 4:14).<\/p>\n<p>Resurrection bodies will be fundamentally different from the bodies we experience in this life, with all of their limitations and failings. These renewed bodies will be glorious, strong, immortal, and spiritual, like Christ’s own resurrection body (1 Cor 15:35-58).<\/p>\n<p>Because they are already joined to Christ, believers actually begin to experience resurrection existence here and now. They have already been “raised” with Christ; they have already been given “resurrection life” (Rom 6:4-11; 8:10-11; Col 2:12). As a result, their lives are now centered in the spiritual realities of heaven rather than in worldly things (Col 3:1-4). Believers can experience the transforming power of that new life here and now, the new life of the Spirit that frees them from the power of sin and death (Rom 8:1-4). In all the difficulties they face, their trust is not in themselves but in the resurrection power of God (2 Cor 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Job 19:25-27; Pss 16:10; 49:15; Dan 12:2-3; Matt 16:21; 28:1-10; Mark 12:18-27; John 3:13-16; 5:25-30; 6:39-40; 11:21-27; Acts 2:23-24; 3:14-15; 4:33; 10:39-41; 17:2-3; 24:15; 26:22-23; Rom 1:4; 4:25; 6:4-11; 8:10-11; 1 Cor 15:12-58; 2 Cor 1:8-9; 4:13-18; 5:1-10; Eph 1:19-20; Col 2:12; 3:1-4; 1 Thes 4:13-18; 1 Pet 1:3-6, 23; Rev 20:11-15; 21:1-7; 22:1-6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Resurrection of the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp. Heb 12:2). They expected Jesus to return and resurrect their bodies, and they looked forward to living with him forever (1 Pet 1:3-6, 23). Their faith was based on the foundation of Jesus’ own bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15:12-20; Acts 4:33; see also 2 Cor 4:14).<\/p>\n<p>Resurrection bodies will be fundamentally different from the bodies we experience in this life, with all of their limitations and failings. These renewed bodies will be glorious, strong, immortal, and spiritual, like Christ’s own resurrection body (1 Cor 15:35-58).<\/p>\n<p>Because they are already joined to Christ, believers actually begin to experience resurrection existence here and now. They have already been “raised” with Christ; they have already been given “resurrection life” (Rom 6:4-11; 8:10-11; Col 2:12). As a result, their lives are now centered in the spiritual realities of heaven rather than in worldly things (Col 3:1-4). Believers can experience the transforming power of that new life here and now, the new life of the Spirit that frees them from the power of sin and death (Rom 8:1-4). In all the difficulties they face, their trust is not in themselves but in the resurrection power of God (2 Cor 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Job 19:25-27; Pss 16:10; 49:15; Dan 12:2-3; Matt 16:21; 28:1-10; Mark 12:18-27; John 3:13-16; 5:25-30; 6:39-40; 11:21-27; Acts 2:23-24; 3:14-15; 4:33; 10:39-41; 17:2-3; 24:15; 26:22-23; Rom 1:4; 4:25; 6:4-11; 8:10-11; 1 Cor 15:12-58; 2 Cor 1:8-9; 4:13-18; 5:1-10; Eph 1:19-20; Col 2:12; 3:1-4; 1 Thes 4:13-18; 1 Pet 1:3-6, 23; Rev 20:11-15; 21:1-7; 22:1-6<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Resurrection of the Dead Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10). This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp....","summary_en":"The Resurrection of the Dead Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10). This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp....","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":142968,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Death","title_en":"Death","content_ro":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\n<p>Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\n<p>Death entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was <em>Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\n<p>While the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\n<p>Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\n<p>Death entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was <em>Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\n<p>While the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","summary_en":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":149971,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Resurrection of the Dead","title_en":"The Resurrection of the Dead","content_ro":"<h3>The Resurrection of the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp. Heb 12:2). They expected Jesus to return and resurrect their bodies, and they looked forward to living with him forever (1 Pet 1:3-6, 23). Their faith was based on the foundation of Jesus’ own bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15:12-20; Acts 4:33; see also 2 Cor 4:14).<\/p>\n<p>Resurrection bodies will be fundamentally different from the bodies we experience in this life, with all of their limitations and failings. These renewed bodies will be glorious, strong, immortal, and spiritual, like Christ’s own resurrection body (1 Cor 15:35-58).<\/p>\n<p>Because they are already joined to Christ, believers actually begin to experience resurrection existence here and now. They have already been “raised” with Christ; they have already been given “resurrection life” (Rom 6:4-11; 8:10-11; Col 2:12). As a result, their lives are now centered in the spiritual realities of heaven rather than in worldly things (Col 3:1-4). Believers can experience the transforming power of that new life here and now, the new life of the Spirit that frees them from the power of sin and death (Rom 8:1-4). In all the difficulties they face, their trust is not in themselves but in the resurrection power of God (2 Cor 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Job 19:25-27; Pss 16:10; 49:15; Dan 12:2-3; Matt 16:21; 28:1-10; Mark 12:18-27; John 3:13-16; 5:25-30; 6:39-40; 11:21-27; Acts 2:23-24; 3:14-15; 4:33; 10:39-41; 17:2-3; 24:15; 26:22-23; Rom 1:4; 4:25; 6:4-11; 8:10-11; 1 Cor 15:12-58; 2 Cor 1:8-9; 4:13-18; 5:1-10; Eph 1:19-20; Col 2:12; 3:1-4; 1 Thes 4:13-18; 1 Pet 1:3-6, 23; Rev 20:11-15; 21:1-7; 22:1-6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Resurrection of the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp. Heb 12:2). They expected Jesus to return and resurrect their bodies, and they looked forward to living with him forever (1 Pet 1:3-6, 23). Their faith was based on the foundation of Jesus’ own bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15:12-20; Acts 4:33; see also 2 Cor 4:14).<\/p>\n<p>Resurrection bodies will be fundamentally different from the bodies we experience in this life, with all of their limitations and failings. These renewed bodies will be glorious, strong, immortal, and spiritual, like Christ’s own resurrection body (1 Cor 15:35-58).<\/p>\n<p>Because they are already joined to Christ, believers actually begin to experience resurrection existence here and now. They have already been “raised” with Christ; they have already been given “resurrection life” (Rom 6:4-11; 8:10-11; Col 2:12). As a result, their lives are now centered in the spiritual realities of heaven rather than in worldly things (Col 3:1-4). Believers can experience the transforming power of that new life here and now, the new life of the Spirit that frees them from the power of sin and death (Rom 8:1-4). In all the difficulties they face, their trust is not in themselves but in the resurrection power of God (2 Cor 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Job 19:25-27; Pss 16:10; 49:15; Dan 12:2-3; Matt 16:21; 28:1-10; Mark 12:18-27; John 3:13-16; 5:25-30; 6:39-40; 11:21-27; Acts 2:23-24; 3:14-15; 4:33; 10:39-41; 17:2-3; 24:15; 26:22-23; Rom 1:4; 4:25; 6:4-11; 8:10-11; 1 Cor 15:12-58; 2 Cor 1:8-9; 4:13-18; 5:1-10; Eph 1:19-20; Col 2:12; 3:1-4; 1 Thes 4:13-18; 1 Pet 1:3-6, 23; Rev 20:11-15; 21:1-7; 22:1-6<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Resurrection of the Dead Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10). This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp....","summary_en":"The Resurrection of the Dead Jesus spoke of a future resurrection of all people—either to eternal life or to judgment (Mark 12:26-27; John 5:28-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25-26; cp. Luke 20:34-36). When Christ returns, all his people will be resurrected to be with him forever (1 Thes 4:13-18; cp. 2 Cor 5:1-10). This strong hope characterized the outlook of the early Christians. They were able to endure their suffering because their eyes were fixed on what lay beyond this life (2 Cor 4:16-18; cp....","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"28":[{"id":22740,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Biblical Concept of Law","title_en":"Biblical Concept of Law","content_ro":"<h3>LAW, Biblical Concept of<\/h3>\n<p>God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>• Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>• Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>• Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalContext\">Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). However, in his exalted status as ruler over God’s creation on earth, man had to prove his loyalty to the Lord. For this purpose God set up a simple test: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man was prohibited from eating the fruit of that tree (2:17). His disobedience marked him as unfit for fellowship with the great King. He was rebellious and by nature full of treachery, as the subsequent accounts of Cain (4:1-16), the generation of the Flood (6:1-13), Ham and Canaan (9:18-26; 10:6-20), and the Tower of Babel (11:1-9) demonstrate.<\/p>\n<p>Yet in the midst of all this the Lord graciously called Abraham. He promised to bless him, his seed, and the families of the earth that would join in a common expression of faith (Gn 12:2-3; 17:4-7). Abraham responded to God in faith (15:6), willingly observed the ritual of circumcision as a sign of the covenant (17:10; cf. 21:4), and walked before God with integrity of heart (17:1). Abraham subsequently learned that God had sovereignly and graciously chosen him with the purpose that Abraham’s family might distinguish itself from the nations “by doing righteousness and justice” (18:19). The Lord was pleased with his servant Abraham, who, though he had not received detailed laws, was a man of integrity. His heart was right with God, so that he willingly did what God commanded.<\/p>\n<p>The father of faith was the father of the faithful; the Lord testified that Abraham “obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws” (Gn 26:5, <span>niv<\/span>). His faith resulted in the fruits of righteousness (Jas 2:21-24).<\/p>\n<p>However, Israel, blessed by the Lord in the increase of descendants, the exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea, and his presence, did not respond to him in faith. They murmured and complained at Mt Sinai, at Kadesh-barnea, and in the plains of Moab. They proved themselves to be a rebellious and stiff-necked people (Ex 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Dt 9:6, 13). Though they had shown their character, the Lord was faithful to Abraham by covenanting himself to them. Israel became his people, his royal priesthood, his holy nation (Ex 19:5-6; Dt 26:18-19). He gave Israel the Ten Commandments, the law, and the covenant, symbolized by the two tablets of the testimony (Ex 32:15-16). Even after Moses had broken them in anger because of the people’s idolatrous worship of the golden calf, the Lord renewed his covenant by writing again the words of the covenant (34:28). On one hand, the context in which the law was given reflects God’s grace and forbearance with Israel’s sins (vv 6-7) and his determination to use Israel in the unfolding of his plan of redemption for the world. On the other hand, the context reflects Israel’s immaturity and stubbornness. Therefore, the law in the OT has positive and negative purposes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LawintheOldTestament\">Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The OT has many words for God’s law. The most general word is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Torah<\/span><em>,<\/em> which signifies instruction of any kind: religious and secular, written and oral, divine and human. Law in Israel was God’s law, mediated through Moses (Ex 20:19; Dt 5:23-27). Because Israel rejected the direct revelation of God’s oracles, the law was mediated through Moses the servant of God (Jn 1:17).<\/p>\n<p>Synonyms for law are, in various translations, word (cf. Ex 24:3; 34:27), judgment (cf. Ex 24:3), decree (cf. Nm 30:16; Dt 4:1), ordinance (cf. Nm 9:12, 14; Dt 6:2), command(ment) (cf. Dt 6:1, 25), statutes (Lv 3:17; 10:11), precepts (a Hebrew word used only in Psalms; cf. 119:4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87, 93, 94, 100, 104, 110, 128, 134, 141, 159, 168, 173), stipulations, requirements, testimonies (cf. Dt 4:45; 6:20; 1 Kgs 2:3), precept (a Hebrew term not in the Pentateuch; cf. Ps 119:15), or simply the “way(s)” (cf. 1 Kgs 2:3; Pss 18:21; 25:9; 37:34).<\/p>\n<p>These words form a semantic field, and it is far from easy to distinguish clearly among the various forms of laws. Generally “the words” pertain to the duties of man toward God, especially the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1; 34:27). The “judgments” contain civil regulations and duties to one’s fellows and to the social environment (21:1–23:9); these are often in the form of “if . . . then. . . .” In Leviticus and in cultic formulations the word “ordinances” has the technical sense of cultic regulations—the ceremonial laws. However, in other contexts, especially in a series of synonyms for law, it signifies any expectation or regulation. The “commandments” are those regulations given by a higher authority. Though the OT has many words for law, the connotation of one word is often indistinguishable from that of other words, especially in series such as “the decrees and laws” (Dt 4:1, 5; 5:1), “the commands, decrees and laws” (6:1), “walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The motivation for keeping the divine law lies in the acts and presence of the Lord. The prologue to the Decalogue reminds us of God’s mighty acts: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex 20:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). In the historic acts of Israel’s redemption, revelation at Mt Sinai, and consecration of Israel to be his people, he involved himself with Israel as a “father.” He adopted Israel to sonship and consecrated them; that is, he declared them holy (Ex 19:6; 31:13; Lv 20:8; 22:32; cf. Rom 9:4). Sometimes the two concepts of redemption and consecration are placed together, but whether they are or not, they are inseparable: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span>, who makes you holy” (Lv 22:32b, <span>niv<\/span>). The ground of obedience can be stated simply by an appeal to God’s name: “I am Yahweh” (cf. Lv 18:6, 21, 30; 19:10, 14, 16, 18, 28, 30-31, 34, 36-37). The requisite of practical holiness is also based on the experience of God’s presence. The Lord commanded Israel to be holy because he is holy (Lv 11:44-45; 19:2). The “holy one of Israel” dwelt in the midst of his people (Ex 25:8; 29:45; Nm 5:3; 35:34).<\/p>\n<p>How could rebellious Israel grasp what God required, if it were not by precise moral, social, civil, and cultic regulations? The Lord had observed that they did not have “the heart” to serve him as a covenant-loyal people (Dt 5:29). By Israel’s very nature, it could not develop an adequate moral and cultic system to please God. Because of the people’s hardness of heart, God had to reveal (i.e., “spell out”) his will.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IsraeliteLawandtheAncientNearEast\">Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s law reflected the practices of its ancient Near Eastern context. Ancient Babylonian law codes (Eshnunna, Hammurabi) show similarities with the biblical codes. The similarities go beyond similarity of cases and include legal formulations (casuistic law). Israelite law is distinct in that it is divine law. Moses is the mediator and not the promulgator of the law, as was the practice of a king who, like Hammurabi, put into force a legal code. The Lord himself gave Israel its laws (cf. Dt 4:5-8). The laws in the ancient Near East dealt with the ordering of society. But Israel’s laws were given to regulate every aspect of life: personal, familial, social, and cultic. The laws were to teach Israel to distinguish between holy and profane, between clean and unclean, and between just and unjust.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLaws\">Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>The legal corpus of the OT is not given in one book or in one section. Moreover, the laws reflect the development from the desert context (Exodus) to the context of the land (Deuteronomy). The OT legal material is complex, full of variations and duplications. It is found in Exodus (chs 20–24; 25–31), Leviticus, Numbers (chs 3–6; 8–10; 15; 18; 19; 28–30), and Deuteronomy (chs 5–26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ten Commandments<\/h5>\n<p>The commandments are simply designated as “the words” of God (Ex 20:1). They appear in Exodus 20:1-17 and in Deuteronomy 5:6-21, but minor variations and individual commandments occur in other contexts (e.g., Ex 34:14, 17, 21; Lv 19:1-8; Dt 27:15-16). As a part of the covenant, the commandments were first addressed to Israel; they now form the basis of morality in Christianity. The abiding relevance of the moral law is clear from the NT. Our Lord established his authority as interpreter of all the commandments (Mt 5:17-48; 12:1-14; 23:23-24). He summarized the law in terms of love for God and man (cf. Mt 22:37-40; Mk 12:28-34; Lk 10:27; cf. Rom 13:8-9; Gal 5:14). Since he is also the Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath cannot be divorced from the other commandments (Mt 12:8). The apostle Paul also upheld the law, as his “ethics of the Spirit” reflects an internalization of the law of God in the hearts of believers (cf. Rom 8:1-17; 12:1–15:13; 1 Cor 2:6-16; 5:1-8; 10:23–11:1; Gal 5:13–6:10; Eph 4:17–6:9; Phil 2:1-18; Col 3:1–4:6; 1 Thes 4:1-12; 5:12-24; 2 Thes 3:6-15; 1 Tm 6:3-10; Ti 3:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The commandments were written on both sides of the two tablets by the Lord (Ex 32:15-16). It is unclear whether the tablets were duplicate copies, how the commandments were divided, and how the commandments were numbered. They were kept in the ark of the covenant as a testimony to the covenant (40:20).<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Covenant (Ex 20:23–23:19)<\/h5>\n<p>The purpose of the covenant code was to exemplify and to set into motion the legal machinery by which Israel as a nation could reflect God’s concern for justice, love, peace, and the value of life. The laws in the Book of the Covenant are mainly of the casuistic type. They regulate life in an agricultural society with servants, donkeys, bulls, oxen, sheep, and fields of grain. The regulations pertain to relations with women (including widows), aliens, orphans; to legal concerns (liability, damages, ownership); as well as to religious obligations (altar, Sabbath). Often the law requires restitution, but restitution is not the rule when human life is involved (Ex 21:12-29; 22:2-3), especially when it involves one’s family (21:15-17, 22-25). The penal code attached to the case laws makes clear the value of human life, which is protected by the <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”). The <em>lex talionis<\/em> does not point to a lack of forgiveness under the OT but rather was intended to be a legal principle giving coherence and justice to a society. The Book of the Covenant explicates by means of principles and cases how Israel must live together as a nation embracing the law of God and applying it <em>justly<\/em> (without discrimination or twisting of rights), <em>lovingly<\/em> (with a concern for the parties involved), and <em>peaceably.<\/em><\/p>\n<h5>The Priestly Law<\/h5>\n<p>God’s concern for holiness and purity comes to expression in the priestly laws (Ex 25–31; 35–40; Lv 1–27; Nm 4–10). The regulations pertain to the construction of the tabernacle, the consecration and ordination of priests, the offerings and sacrifices, rules of purity, the holy days, and vows.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was set in the middle of Israel’s camp in the wilderness. It symbolized the presence of God with his people. The priests and Levites were encamped around the tabernacle to serve and protect God’s holiness. All the tribes were situated around the tabernacle, and though the members of the tribes did not have access to all parts of the tabernacle, they had to be ritually clean to live in the camp. Anyone who was ritually defiled (Lv 13:46; Nm 5:1-3) or had sinned grievously was put outside the camp (Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36). This regulation even included objects that had become defiled (Lv 8:17; 9:11).<\/p>\n<p>By means of prescribed offerings and sacrifices (Lv 1–7; 16; Nm 15:1-31; 28), God assured Israel, individually and corporately, of forgiveness when it had unwittingly sinned. The offerings and sacrifices concretely embodied the purpose of the offerer, whether forgiveness, dedication, or fellowship.<\/p>\n<p>The priests and Levites taught the law of God (Dt 31:9-13), applied its regulations, and served in courts (17:8-13).<\/p>\n<h5>The Holiness Code (Lv 17–26)<\/h5>\n<p>The holiness code forms a significant part of the book of Leviticus. Here Moses addressed all of Israel (cf. Lv 17:2; 18:2; 19:2; 20:2; 21:24; 23:2; 24:2; 25:2; 26:46; 27:2).<\/p>\n<p>The laws are in the form of prohibitions and direct commands. They pertain to the place of sacrifice and the prohibition of eating meat with blood in it (ch 17); the prohibition of sexual relations with specified family members (ch 18); and regulations promoting godliness, holiness, justice, and love in society (ch 19). The penal code applies penalties to those who sin against the regulations (ch 20; 24:10-23). Chapters 21–24 apply the cultic regulations to the priests and to all Israelites. The institutions of the sabbatical year and the Year of Jubilee regulate the remission of debts, freedom of people, and restitution of land (ch 25).<\/p>\n<p>The holiness code spells out the qualities required of a holy people: devotion to God (offerings, sacrifices, priests) and love for man (Lv 19:18b) demonstrated in concern for justice, peace, freedom, the value of human life, and a concern for the family. Many of the laws reflect the spirit of the Decalogue (ch 19).<\/p>\n<p>Both promises and curses are attached to the holiness code (ch 26). The curses predict exile as a consequence of breaking the laws. But always underlying the laws and penalties is the grace of the Lord, who promises freely to forgive the people’s sins and to renew the broken covenant (26:44-45).<\/p>\n<h5>Laws of Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The Deuteronomic laws are explications and new applications of the Book of the Covenant in view of Israel’s new historical situation. Israel was about to enter the Promised Land when Moses outlined to them the law of God (Dt 1:5). The impersonal element of the Book of the Covenant is here transformed by personal appeal. Moses strongly appeals to Israel to be loyal to the Lord, the covenant, and the covenantal stipulations. The Deuteronomic laws envision the people in the land of promise, with a central sanctuary (12:5, 11-18; 14:23; 15:20; 16:5-7, 16, 21; 17:8; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11) and with a king (17:14-20). The blessings and the curses motivate covenant loyalty (ch 28). However, Israel is also here assured that even if it breaks God’s law, the Lord remains gracious and forgiving.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposesoftheLaw\">Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p>The law revealed at Mt Sinai was intended to lead Israel closer to God. Rebellious though they were, God used the law as his righteous instrument to teach, in a very specific way, what sin is (cf. Rom 5:20; 7:7-8) and how they should walk on a path that kept them undefiled by sin and holy to the Lord. The law was the teacher and the keeper of Israel (Gal 3:24). The detailed explications of the laws in all areas of life (work, society, family, cult, and nation) had an important place in God’s dealings with Israel. Israel was a nation in a special land, with a theocratic government, and was in need of a legislative corpus. Moreover, Israel’s condition at Mt Sinai was such that it could not receive direct revelation. The revelation had to be mediated through Moses. It had to be set forth in detail because Israel had no intuitive grasp of what the revelation of God’s holiness, justice, righteousness, love, and forebearance required of them. They had adopted Egyptian ways and had to learn the divine will by revelation. However, Moses and the prophets emphasize that the purpose of the law is not strict adherence to the law for its own sake (legalism) or for a reward (Pharisaism). Keeping the law is an act of devotion to God, for the sake of God. Our Lord confirmed the purpose of the law: to establish a dynamic way of life in which one continually seeks God’s kingdom and his righteousness (Mt 6:33).<\/p>\n<p>The law of God is his means of sanctification. He consecrated Israel by an act of grace, and he required Israel to remain holy. Jesus confirmed those uses of the law whereby one may know his sinfulness and by which he may be driven to Christ. On the cross our Lord carried the penalties of the law, fulfilled in a greater way the tabernacle\/temple presence of God, fulfilled the Father’s expectations of atonement, and demonstrated the love of the Father. He, the Son and greater than Moses, gave the essence of the law in the summary of God’s requirements: love of God and love of neighbor (Mt 23:23-24; Lk 11:42-44). Jesus taught that the purpose of obedience is not primarily to receive a reward but to serve as salt (Mt 5:13) and light (Mt 5:14-16; cf. Eph 4:17–5:20), and to bear fruit (Jn 15:1-17). The purpose of the law of God is the gradual transformation of the children of God to reflect the image of the Son (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10), to be an imitation of the Father (Eph 5:1-2), and to be filled with the Spirit of God (Gal 5:18, 22-24). For this purpose Jesus gave us the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, which summarize the intent of the teaching of Moses and the prophets (Mt 5–7).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the law is to transform regenerated believers into maturity. Spiritual maturity is not a privilege that was reserved for believers after Christ; OT saints also walked with God (Enoch, Gn 5:22-24; Noah, 6:9; Abraham, 17:1). These were mature men who lived with integrity in the presence of God (cf. Gn 17:1; Dt 18:13; Pss 15:1-2; 18:26; 101:2, 6; 119:80; Prv 11:5).<\/p>\n<p>Maturity, or integrity, is that response to God whereby the believer no longer needs to live by individual stipulations or in fear of mistakes and sins of omission, but delights in doing the Lord’s will (Pss 1:2; 112:1). Since the coming of Christ and Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has been poured out on every believer. He has come not only to internalize the law of God (Jer 31:33) but also to help us develop Christian maturity by giving the fruits of godliness in greater fullness (Gal 5:22-24). Whereas maturity and freedom were experienced by some OT saints, it is God’s gift to all his children in Christ (Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 12:13). The purpose is still the same, “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped [mature] for every good work” (2 Tm 3:17, <span>niv<\/span>), but the means to accomplish this and the status of the child of God is so much better since Pentecost.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Criminal Law and Punishment; Galatians, Letter to the; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Justification; Romans, Letter to the; Commandments, The Ten; Torah; Tradition.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LAW, Biblical Concept of<\/h3>\n<p>God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>• Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>• Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>• Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalContext\">Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). However, in his exalted status as ruler over God’s creation on earth, man had to prove his loyalty to the Lord. For this purpose God set up a simple test: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man was prohibited from eating the fruit of that tree (2:17). His disobedience marked him as unfit for fellowship with the great King. He was rebellious and by nature full of treachery, as the subsequent accounts of Cain (4:1-16), the generation of the Flood (6:1-13), Ham and Canaan (9:18-26; 10:6-20), and the Tower of Babel (11:1-9) demonstrate.<\/p>\n<p>Yet in the midst of all this the Lord graciously called Abraham. He promised to bless him, his seed, and the families of the earth that would join in a common expression of faith (Gn 12:2-3; 17:4-7). Abraham responded to God in faith (15:6), willingly observed the ritual of circumcision as a sign of the covenant (17:10; cf. 21:4), and walked before God with integrity of heart (17:1). Abraham subsequently learned that God had sovereignly and graciously chosen him with the purpose that Abraham’s family might distinguish itself from the nations “by doing righteousness and justice” (18:19). The Lord was pleased with his servant Abraham, who, though he had not received detailed laws, was a man of integrity. His heart was right with God, so that he willingly did what God commanded.<\/p>\n<p>The father of faith was the father of the faithful; the Lord testified that Abraham “obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws” (Gn 26:5, <span>niv<\/span>). His faith resulted in the fruits of righteousness (Jas 2:21-24).<\/p>\n<p>However, Israel, blessed by the Lord in the increase of descendants, the exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea, and his presence, did not respond to him in faith. They murmured and complained at Mt Sinai, at Kadesh-barnea, and in the plains of Moab. They proved themselves to be a rebellious and stiff-necked people (Ex 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Dt 9:6, 13). Though they had shown their character, the Lord was faithful to Abraham by covenanting himself to them. Israel became his people, his royal priesthood, his holy nation (Ex 19:5-6; Dt 26:18-19). He gave Israel the Ten Commandments, the law, and the covenant, symbolized by the two tablets of the testimony (Ex 32:15-16). Even after Moses had broken them in anger because of the people’s idolatrous worship of the golden calf, the Lord renewed his covenant by writing again the words of the covenant (34:28). On one hand, the context in which the law was given reflects God’s grace and forbearance with Israel’s sins (vv 6-7) and his determination to use Israel in the unfolding of his plan of redemption for the world. On the other hand, the context reflects Israel’s immaturity and stubbornness. Therefore, the law in the OT has positive and negative purposes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LawintheOldTestament\">Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The OT has many words for God’s law. The most general word is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Torah<\/span><em>,<\/em> which signifies instruction of any kind: religious and secular, written and oral, divine and human. Law in Israel was God’s law, mediated through Moses (Ex 20:19; Dt 5:23-27). Because Israel rejected the direct revelation of God’s oracles, the law was mediated through Moses the servant of God (Jn 1:17).<\/p>\n<p>Synonyms for law are, in various translations, word (cf. Ex 24:3; 34:27), judgment (cf. Ex 24:3), decree (cf. Nm 30:16; Dt 4:1), ordinance (cf. Nm 9:12, 14; Dt 6:2), command(ment) (cf. Dt 6:1, 25), statutes (Lv 3:17; 10:11), precepts (a Hebrew word used only in Psalms; cf. 119:4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87, 93, 94, 100, 104, 110, 128, 134, 141, 159, 168, 173), stipulations, requirements, testimonies (cf. Dt 4:45; 6:20; 1 Kgs 2:3), precept (a Hebrew term not in the Pentateuch; cf. Ps 119:15), or simply the “way(s)” (cf. 1 Kgs 2:3; Pss 18:21; 25:9; 37:34).<\/p>\n<p>These words form a semantic field, and it is far from easy to distinguish clearly among the various forms of laws. Generally “the words” pertain to the duties of man toward God, especially the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1; 34:27). The “judgments” contain civil regulations and duties to one’s fellows and to the social environment (21:1–23:9); these are often in the form of “if . . . then. . . .” In Leviticus and in cultic formulations the word “ordinances” has the technical sense of cultic regulations—the ceremonial laws. However, in other contexts, especially in a series of synonyms for law, it signifies any expectation or regulation. The “commandments” are those regulations given by a higher authority. Though the OT has many words for law, the connotation of one word is often indistinguishable from that of other words, especially in series such as “the decrees and laws” (Dt 4:1, 5; 5:1), “the commands, decrees and laws” (6:1), “walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The motivation for keeping the divine law lies in the acts and presence of the Lord. The prologue to the Decalogue reminds us of God’s mighty acts: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex 20:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). In the historic acts of Israel’s redemption, revelation at Mt Sinai, and consecration of Israel to be his people, he involved himself with Israel as a “father.” He adopted Israel to sonship and consecrated them; that is, he declared them holy (Ex 19:6; 31:13; Lv 20:8; 22:32; cf. Rom 9:4). Sometimes the two concepts of redemption and consecration are placed together, but whether they are or not, they are inseparable: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span>, who makes you holy” (Lv 22:32b, <span>niv<\/span>). The ground of obedience can be stated simply by an appeal to God’s name: “I am Yahweh” (cf. Lv 18:6, 21, 30; 19:10, 14, 16, 18, 28, 30-31, 34, 36-37). The requisite of practical holiness is also based on the experience of God’s presence. The Lord commanded Israel to be holy because he is holy (Lv 11:44-45; 19:2). The “holy one of Israel” dwelt in the midst of his people (Ex 25:8; 29:45; Nm 5:3; 35:34).<\/p>\n<p>How could rebellious Israel grasp what God required, if it were not by precise moral, social, civil, and cultic regulations? The Lord had observed that they did not have “the heart” to serve him as a covenant-loyal people (Dt 5:29). By Israel’s very nature, it could not develop an adequate moral and cultic system to please God. Because of the people’s hardness of heart, God had to reveal (i.e., “spell out”) his will.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IsraeliteLawandtheAncientNearEast\">Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s law reflected the practices of its ancient Near Eastern context. Ancient Babylonian law codes (Eshnunna, Hammurabi) show similarities with the biblical codes. The similarities go beyond similarity of cases and include legal formulations (casuistic law). Israelite law is distinct in that it is divine law. Moses is the mediator and not the promulgator of the law, as was the practice of a king who, like Hammurabi, put into force a legal code. The Lord himself gave Israel its laws (cf. Dt 4:5-8). The laws in the ancient Near East dealt with the ordering of society. But Israel’s laws were given to regulate every aspect of life: personal, familial, social, and cultic. The laws were to teach Israel to distinguish between holy and profane, between clean and unclean, and between just and unjust.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLaws\">Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>The legal corpus of the OT is not given in one book or in one section. Moreover, the laws reflect the development from the desert context (Exodus) to the context of the land (Deuteronomy). The OT legal material is complex, full of variations and duplications. It is found in Exodus (chs 20–24; 25–31), Leviticus, Numbers (chs 3–6; 8–10; 15; 18; 19; 28–30), and Deuteronomy (chs 5–26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ten Commandments<\/h5>\n<p>The commandments are simply designated as “the words” of God (Ex 20:1). They appear in Exodus 20:1-17 and in Deuteronomy 5:6-21, but minor variations and individual commandments occur in other contexts (e.g., Ex 34:14, 17, 21; Lv 19:1-8; Dt 27:15-16). As a part of the covenant, the commandments were first addressed to Israel; they now form the basis of morality in Christianity. The abiding relevance of the moral law is clear from the NT. Our Lord established his authority as interpreter of all the commandments (Mt 5:17-48; 12:1-14; 23:23-24). He summarized the law in terms of love for God and man (cf. Mt 22:37-40; Mk 12:28-34; Lk 10:27; cf. Rom 13:8-9; Gal 5:14). Since he is also the Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath cannot be divorced from the other commandments (Mt 12:8). The apostle Paul also upheld the law, as his “ethics of the Spirit” reflects an internalization of the law of God in the hearts of believers (cf. Rom 8:1-17; 12:1–15:13; 1 Cor 2:6-16; 5:1-8; 10:23–11:1; Gal 5:13–6:10; Eph 4:17–6:9; Phil 2:1-18; Col 3:1–4:6; 1 Thes 4:1-12; 5:12-24; 2 Thes 3:6-15; 1 Tm 6:3-10; Ti 3:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The commandments were written on both sides of the two tablets by the Lord (Ex 32:15-16). It is unclear whether the tablets were duplicate copies, how the commandments were divided, and how the commandments were numbered. They were kept in the ark of the covenant as a testimony to the covenant (40:20).<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Covenant (Ex 20:23–23:19)<\/h5>\n<p>The purpose of the covenant code was to exemplify and to set into motion the legal machinery by which Israel as a nation could reflect God’s concern for justice, love, peace, and the value of life. The laws in the Book of the Covenant are mainly of the casuistic type. They regulate life in an agricultural society with servants, donkeys, bulls, oxen, sheep, and fields of grain. The regulations pertain to relations with women (including widows), aliens, orphans; to legal concerns (liability, damages, ownership); as well as to religious obligations (altar, Sabbath). Often the law requires restitution, but restitution is not the rule when human life is involved (Ex 21:12-29; 22:2-3), especially when it involves one’s family (21:15-17, 22-25). The penal code attached to the case laws makes clear the value of human life, which is protected by the <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”). The <em>lex talionis<\/em> does not point to a lack of forgiveness under the OT but rather was intended to be a legal principle giving coherence and justice to a society. The Book of the Covenant explicates by means of principles and cases how Israel must live together as a nation embracing the law of God and applying it <em>justly<\/em> (without discrimination or twisting of rights), <em>lovingly<\/em> (with a concern for the parties involved), and <em>peaceably.<\/em><\/p>\n<h5>The Priestly Law<\/h5>\n<p>God’s concern for holiness and purity comes to expression in the priestly laws (Ex 25–31; 35–40; Lv 1–27; Nm 4–10). The regulations pertain to the construction of the tabernacle, the consecration and ordination of priests, the offerings and sacrifices, rules of purity, the holy days, and vows.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was set in the middle of Israel’s camp in the wilderness. It symbolized the presence of God with his people. The priests and Levites were encamped around the tabernacle to serve and protect God’s holiness. All the tribes were situated around the tabernacle, and though the members of the tribes did not have access to all parts of the tabernacle, they had to be ritually clean to live in the camp. Anyone who was ritually defiled (Lv 13:46; Nm 5:1-3) or had sinned grievously was put outside the camp (Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36). This regulation even included objects that had become defiled (Lv 8:17; 9:11).<\/p>\n<p>By means of prescribed offerings and sacrifices (Lv 1–7; 16; Nm 15:1-31; 28), God assured Israel, individually and corporately, of forgiveness when it had unwittingly sinned. The offerings and sacrifices concretely embodied the purpose of the offerer, whether forgiveness, dedication, or fellowship.<\/p>\n<p>The priests and Levites taught the law of God (Dt 31:9-13), applied its regulations, and served in courts (17:8-13).<\/p>\n<h5>The Holiness Code (Lv 17–26)<\/h5>\n<p>The holiness code forms a significant part of the book of Leviticus. Here Moses addressed all of Israel (cf. Lv 17:2; 18:2; 19:2; 20:2; 21:24; 23:2; 24:2; 25:2; 26:46; 27:2).<\/p>\n<p>The laws are in the form of prohibitions and direct commands. They pertain to the place of sacrifice and the prohibition of eating meat with blood in it (ch 17); the prohibition of sexual relations with specified family members (ch 18); and regulations promoting godliness, holiness, justice, and love in society (ch 19). The penal code applies penalties to those who sin against the regulations (ch 20; 24:10-23). Chapters 21–24 apply the cultic regulations to the priests and to all Israelites. The institutions of the sabbatical year and the Year of Jubilee regulate the remission of debts, freedom of people, and restitution of land (ch 25).<\/p>\n<p>The holiness code spells out the qualities required of a holy people: devotion to God (offerings, sacrifices, priests) and love for man (Lv 19:18b) demonstrated in concern for justice, peace, freedom, the value of human life, and a concern for the family. Many of the laws reflect the spirit of the Decalogue (ch 19).<\/p>\n<p>Both promises and curses are attached to the holiness code (ch 26). The curses predict exile as a consequence of breaking the laws. But always underlying the laws and penalties is the grace of the Lord, who promises freely to forgive the people’s sins and to renew the broken covenant (26:44-45).<\/p>\n<h5>Laws of Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The Deuteronomic laws are explications and new applications of the Book of the Covenant in view of Israel’s new historical situation. Israel was about to enter the Promised Land when Moses outlined to them the law of God (Dt 1:5). The impersonal element of the Book of the Covenant is here transformed by personal appeal. Moses strongly appeals to Israel to be loyal to the Lord, the covenant, and the covenantal stipulations. The Deuteronomic laws envision the people in the land of promise, with a central sanctuary (12:5, 11-18; 14:23; 15:20; 16:5-7, 16, 21; 17:8; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11) and with a king (17:14-20). The blessings and the curses motivate covenant loyalty (ch 28). However, Israel is also here assured that even if it breaks God’s law, the Lord remains gracious and forgiving.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposesoftheLaw\">Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p>The law revealed at Mt Sinai was intended to lead Israel closer to God. Rebellious though they were, God used the law as his righteous instrument to teach, in a very specific way, what sin is (cf. Rom 5:20; 7:7-8) and how they should walk on a path that kept them undefiled by sin and holy to the Lord. The law was the teacher and the keeper of Israel (Gal 3:24). The detailed explications of the laws in all areas of life (work, society, family, cult, and nation) had an important place in God’s dealings with Israel. Israel was a nation in a special land, with a theocratic government, and was in need of a legislative corpus. Moreover, Israel’s condition at Mt Sinai was such that it could not receive direct revelation. The revelation had to be mediated through Moses. It had to be set forth in detail because Israel had no intuitive grasp of what the revelation of God’s holiness, justice, righteousness, love, and forebearance required of them. They had adopted Egyptian ways and had to learn the divine will by revelation. However, Moses and the prophets emphasize that the purpose of the law is not strict adherence to the law for its own sake (legalism) or for a reward (Pharisaism). Keeping the law is an act of devotion to God, for the sake of God. Our Lord confirmed the purpose of the law: to establish a dynamic way of life in which one continually seeks God’s kingdom and his righteousness (Mt 6:33).<\/p>\n<p>The law of God is his means of sanctification. He consecrated Israel by an act of grace, and he required Israel to remain holy. Jesus confirmed those uses of the law whereby one may know his sinfulness and by which he may be driven to Christ. On the cross our Lord carried the penalties of the law, fulfilled in a greater way the tabernacle\/temple presence of God, fulfilled the Father’s expectations of atonement, and demonstrated the love of the Father. He, the Son and greater than Moses, gave the essence of the law in the summary of God’s requirements: love of God and love of neighbor (Mt 23:23-24; Lk 11:42-44). Jesus taught that the purpose of obedience is not primarily to receive a reward but to serve as salt (Mt 5:13) and light (Mt 5:14-16; cf. Eph 4:17–5:20), and to bear fruit (Jn 15:1-17). The purpose of the law of God is the gradual transformation of the children of God to reflect the image of the Son (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10), to be an imitation of the Father (Eph 5:1-2), and to be filled with the Spirit of God (Gal 5:18, 22-24). For this purpose Jesus gave us the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, which summarize the intent of the teaching of Moses and the prophets (Mt 5–7).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the law is to transform regenerated believers into maturity. Spiritual maturity is not a privilege that was reserved for believers after Christ; OT saints also walked with God (Enoch, Gn 5:22-24; Noah, 6:9; Abraham, 17:1). These were mature men who lived with integrity in the presence of God (cf. Gn 17:1; Dt 18:13; Pss 15:1-2; 18:26; 101:2, 6; 119:80; Prv 11:5).<\/p>\n<p>Maturity, or integrity, is that response to God whereby the believer no longer needs to live by individual stipulations or in fear of mistakes and sins of omission, but delights in doing the Lord’s will (Pss 1:2; 112:1). Since the coming of Christ and Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has been poured out on every believer. He has come not only to internalize the law of God (Jer 31:33) but also to help us develop Christian maturity by giving the fruits of godliness in greater fullness (Gal 5:22-24). Whereas maturity and freedom were experienced by some OT saints, it is God’s gift to all his children in Christ (Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 12:13). The purpose is still the same, “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped [mature] for every good work” (2 Tm 3:17, <span>niv<\/span>), but the means to accomplish this and the status of the child of God is so much better since Pentecost.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Criminal Law and Punishment; Galatians, Letter to the; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Justification; Romans, Letter to the; Commandments, The Ten; Torah; Tradition.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LAW, Biblical Concept of God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God. Preview • Historical Context • Law in the Old Testament • Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East • Old Testament Laws • Purposes of the Law Historical Context When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). Howe...","summary_en":"LAW, Biblical Concept of God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God. Preview • Historical Context • Law in the Old Testament • Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East • Old Testament Laws • Purposes of the Law Historical Context When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). Howe...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24398,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of Mark","title_en":"Gospel of Mark","content_ro":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","summary_en":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":27286,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Neighbor","title_en":"Neighbor","content_ro":"<h3>NEIGHBOR<\/h3>\n<p>Concept apparently limited in the OT period and late Judaism to one’s fellow Israelite, or member of the covenant, and extended by Jesus to include anyone encountered in life.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Although it is never explicitly limited as such, the prominent connotation of “neighbor” in the OT is that of a fellow member of the covenant community; that is, another Israelite (see Lv 6:1-7; 19; Dt 15:2-3). In Leviticus 19:18, a passage often quoted in the NT, the Israelite is commanded to “love your neighbor as yourself.” In 19:34, it is explicitly stated that such love should also be shown to the foreigner (or “sojourner”) passing through the land. If “neighbor” (v 18) implied a more encompassing notion, such as “mankind” or “fellow man,” there presumably would have been no need to include the further stipulation in verse 34. “Neighbor” was therefore probably taken to mean one’s immediate neighbor, the fellow Israelite.<\/p>\n<p>Within the covenant community, love of neighbor involved certain responsibilities explicitly set forth in the law. The neighbor was to be treated fairly (Ex 22:5-15; Lv 6:2-7; 19:9-18) and respected (Ex 20:16), as were his belongings (Ex 20:17). To foster such just and merciful relationships within the covenant community, the neighbor was to be thought of as a “brother” (Lv 25:25; Dt 22:1-4). What one did to one’s neighbor was to be returned in kind (Lv 24:19-23; Dt 19:11-19).<\/p>\n<p>The grave importance attached to treatment of the neighbor is understandable when seen as part of one’s wider relationship with God and was considered something that could affect significantly the divine-human relationship (Lv 6:1-7; 19; 25:17; Dt 24:10-13; Ps 12). Israelites were to treat their neighbors in the same loving way they had themselves been treated by God (Ex 22:21; Lv 25:35-38).<\/p>\n<p>The importance of the neighbor relationship within the covenant community is also demonstrated by the fact that when such responsibilities were ignored, a societal breakdown or national turmoil followed (Dt 28:15-68; Hos 4:1-3; Am 2:6-7). That the Israelites often did neglect love for neighbor, particularly the neighbor in need, is a contributing cause for the divine punishment of the exile (Jer 5:7-9; 7:1-15; 9:2-9; Hos 4:1-3; Am 2:6-7; 5:10-13; 8:4-6). The mere fact that proper love of neighbor was also part of Israel’s hope for the messianic age to come (Jer 31:34; Zec 3:10) also points to its common neglect within the OT covenant community.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InLateJudaism\">In Late Judaism<\/p>\n<p>From the exilic experience, Israel recognized that divine blessing was conditional somewhat on justice and love exercised toward one another (Zec 8:14-17). The identity of the “neighbor” was debatable, however. Several factors suggest that “neighbor” was limited in this period to the fellow Israelite and the proselyte (gentile convert to Judaism). Evidence from rabbinic material excludes Samaritans and the Gentiles living in the land from being considered “neighbors” and thus worthy of love. Within the Jewish Essene community at Qumran, the “neighbor” to be respected and treated fairly was restricted to one’s fellow community members. Finally, when Jesus recalls, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy’” (Mt 5:43), he is quoting only partially from the OT (Lv 19:18—“You shall love your neighbor”). The last phrase (“and hate your enemy”) reflects the contemporary Jewish feeling toward outsiders; that is, God did not require love toward those considered “enemies” but only toward fellow countrymen.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Jesus differed dramatically from his Jewish contemporaries by eradicating the limitations on the neighbor to be loved. In contrast to those who would limit love to one’s fellow countrymen, Jesus advocated extending the obligation reserved for the neighbor to the enemy as well (Mt 5:43-48), and in so doing, he destroyed the distinction between neighbor and enemy altogether.<\/p>\n<p>On another occasion, a scribe asked Jesus what was the greatest commandment given by God (Mk 12:28-31). In response, Jesus cited Deuteronomy 6:5 concerning the nature of God and man’s obligation to love God with his entire being: heart, soul, and mind. Of significance is that Jesus did not stop there but linked with this a second commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lv 19:18). Some scholars suggest that this dramatic and close association of love of God and love of neighbor originated with Jesus. If Jesus was the first to tie these commands together (see Mt 22:37; Mk 12:29-31), it reveals our Lord’s own understanding of the relation of these two obligations; proper love for neighbor derives from love for God, and conversely, love for God is inseparable from meeting the needs of a neighbor in love.<\/p>\n<p>The debate in Jesus’ time was not over how to properly treat a neighbor but who, in fact, was the neighbor. Jesus is asked this very question by an expert of the law (Lk 10:29). Jesus had complimented the lawyer for his clear understanding of what was required to inherit eternal life, namely, love of God and love of neighbor. Luke suggests that the lawyer asked the further qualifying question in order to “justify himself,” that is, justify his actual behavior of limited love toward his fellow man. Jesus chose not to respond directly but through the use of a parable, in this case, the familiar parable of the Good Samaritan (vv 30-35).<\/p>\n<p>In order to open the lawyer’s eyes to the tragic shortsightedness of his question, Jesus related an everyday story of a man traveling the treacherous road from Jerusalem down to Jericho, a road particularly plagued by robbers. The traveler is robbed, stripped, beaten, and left half dead. To this point, the lawyer might have assumed Jesus was offering an example of who constitutes a “neighbor”—a fellow Jew in need. Jesus proceeds, however, to introduce two figures, a priest and a Levite who, in an academic discussion, could have argued quite ably on who is the neighbor God calls one to love. The lawyer would no doubt have anticipated such experts in the law to act rightly toward the victim. In contrast, the priest and Levite, upon seeing the man in need, respond by “passing by on the other side.” Unable to determine whether the victim was dead or barely alive, and possibly not wanting to risk uncleanness, the experts of the law pass by, thus violating the greatest of the commandments just identified by the lawyer (10:25-28).<\/p>\n<p>Enter a Samaritan—a figure especially despised by the Jews. Viewed as heretics by the Jewish religious authorities, the Samaritans were disqualified in rabbinic circles from being considered a “neighbor” and thus worthy of love. In fact, previous centuries had witnessed the slaughter of many Samaritans by Jewish rulers, and animosity clearly existed between the two peoples (see Jn 4:9). While the lawyer listening to the parable would have expected the priest and Levite to act justly toward the victim, he must have been surprised that a hated Samaritan would show compassion and thus fulfill the greatest commandment. Jesus intentionally spelled out the extent of the Samaritan’s compassion (immediate care in dressing wounds, transport to the inn, care for the victim there and extended care in paying for care by others while he is away, Lk 10:34-35) to such a degree that the lawyer would have no doubt as to the genuineness of the Samaritan’s love. The irony of the story is that one not considered worthy to be called “neighbor” by Jews was precisely the one who showed himself to be “neighbor” to the victim (vv 36-37).<\/p>\n<p>The parable, like the statement in Matthew 5:43-48, reveals Jesus’ own understanding of “neighbor” and what “love of neighbor” demands. Jesus sets no limitation on who qualifies as the neighbor commanded by God to be loved.<\/p>\n<p>The forcefulness and power of Jesus’ teachings on the love of neighbor and its relationship to one’s love for God are demonstrated by a similar emphasis within the early church. Paul on two occasions called the love of neighbor the fulfillment of the entire law (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14), while James referred to the same commandment as “the royal law” (Jas 2:8).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NEIGHBOR<\/h3>\n<p>Concept apparently limited in the OT period and late Judaism to one’s fellow Israelite, or member of the covenant, and extended by Jesus to include anyone encountered in life.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Although it is never explicitly limited as such, the prominent connotation of “neighbor” in the OT is that of a fellow member of the covenant community; that is, another Israelite (see Lv 6:1-7; 19; Dt 15:2-3). In Leviticus 19:18, a passage often quoted in the NT, the Israelite is commanded to “love your neighbor as yourself.” In 19:34, it is explicitly stated that such love should also be shown to the foreigner (or “sojourner”) passing through the land. If “neighbor” (v 18) implied a more encompassing notion, such as “mankind” or “fellow man,” there presumably would have been no need to include the further stipulation in verse 34. “Neighbor” was therefore probably taken to mean one’s immediate neighbor, the fellow Israelite.<\/p>\n<p>Within the covenant community, love of neighbor involved certain responsibilities explicitly set forth in the law. The neighbor was to be treated fairly (Ex 22:5-15; Lv 6:2-7; 19:9-18) and respected (Ex 20:16), as were his belongings (Ex 20:17). To foster such just and merciful relationships within the covenant community, the neighbor was to be thought of as a “brother” (Lv 25:25; Dt 22:1-4). What one did to one’s neighbor was to be returned in kind (Lv 24:19-23; Dt 19:11-19).<\/p>\n<p>The grave importance attached to treatment of the neighbor is understandable when seen as part of one’s wider relationship with God and was considered something that could affect significantly the divine-human relationship (Lv 6:1-7; 19; 25:17; Dt 24:10-13; Ps 12). Israelites were to treat their neighbors in the same loving way they had themselves been treated by God (Ex 22:21; Lv 25:35-38).<\/p>\n<p>The importance of the neighbor relationship within the covenant community is also demonstrated by the fact that when such responsibilities were ignored, a societal breakdown or national turmoil followed (Dt 28:15-68; Hos 4:1-3; Am 2:6-7). That the Israelites often did neglect love for neighbor, particularly the neighbor in need, is a contributing cause for the divine punishment of the exile (Jer 5:7-9; 7:1-15; 9:2-9; Hos 4:1-3; Am 2:6-7; 5:10-13; 8:4-6). The mere fact that proper love of neighbor was also part of Israel’s hope for the messianic age to come (Jer 31:34; Zec 3:10) also points to its common neglect within the OT covenant community.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InLateJudaism\">In Late Judaism<\/p>\n<p>From the exilic experience, Israel recognized that divine blessing was conditional somewhat on justice and love exercised toward one another (Zec 8:14-17). The identity of the “neighbor” was debatable, however. Several factors suggest that “neighbor” was limited in this period to the fellow Israelite and the proselyte (gentile convert to Judaism). Evidence from rabbinic material excludes Samaritans and the Gentiles living in the land from being considered “neighbors” and thus worthy of love. Within the Jewish Essene community at Qumran, the “neighbor” to be respected and treated fairly was restricted to one’s fellow community members. Finally, when Jesus recalls, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy’” (Mt 5:43), he is quoting only partially from the OT (Lv 19:18—“You shall love your neighbor”). The last phrase (“and hate your enemy”) reflects the contemporary Jewish feeling toward outsiders; that is, God did not require love toward those considered “enemies” but only toward fellow countrymen.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Jesus differed dramatically from his Jewish contemporaries by eradicating the limitations on the neighbor to be loved. In contrast to those who would limit love to one’s fellow countrymen, Jesus advocated extending the obligation reserved for the neighbor to the enemy as well (Mt 5:43-48), and in so doing, he destroyed the distinction between neighbor and enemy altogether.<\/p>\n<p>On another occasion, a scribe asked Jesus what was the greatest commandment given by God (Mk 12:28-31). In response, Jesus cited Deuteronomy 6:5 concerning the nature of God and man’s obligation to love God with his entire being: heart, soul, and mind. Of significance is that Jesus did not stop there but linked with this a second commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lv 19:18). Some scholars suggest that this dramatic and close association of love of God and love of neighbor originated with Jesus. If Jesus was the first to tie these commands together (see Mt 22:37; Mk 12:29-31), it reveals our Lord’s own understanding of the relation of these two obligations; proper love for neighbor derives from love for God, and conversely, love for God is inseparable from meeting the needs of a neighbor in love.<\/p>\n<p>The debate in Jesus’ time was not over how to properly treat a neighbor but who, in fact, was the neighbor. Jesus is asked this very question by an expert of the law (Lk 10:29). Jesus had complimented the lawyer for his clear understanding of what was required to inherit eternal life, namely, love of God and love of neighbor. Luke suggests that the lawyer asked the further qualifying question in order to “justify himself,” that is, justify his actual behavior of limited love toward his fellow man. Jesus chose not to respond directly but through the use of a parable, in this case, the familiar parable of the Good Samaritan (vv 30-35).<\/p>\n<p>In order to open the lawyer’s eyes to the tragic shortsightedness of his question, Jesus related an everyday story of a man traveling the treacherous road from Jerusalem down to Jericho, a road particularly plagued by robbers. The traveler is robbed, stripped, beaten, and left half dead. To this point, the lawyer might have assumed Jesus was offering an example of who constitutes a “neighbor”—a fellow Jew in need. Jesus proceeds, however, to introduce two figures, a priest and a Levite who, in an academic discussion, could have argued quite ably on who is the neighbor God calls one to love. The lawyer would no doubt have anticipated such experts in the law to act rightly toward the victim. In contrast, the priest and Levite, upon seeing the man in need, respond by “passing by on the other side.” Unable to determine whether the victim was dead or barely alive, and possibly not wanting to risk uncleanness, the experts of the law pass by, thus violating the greatest of the commandments just identified by the lawyer (10:25-28).<\/p>\n<p>Enter a Samaritan—a figure especially despised by the Jews. Viewed as heretics by the Jewish religious authorities, the Samaritans were disqualified in rabbinic circles from being considered a “neighbor” and thus worthy of love. In fact, previous centuries had witnessed the slaughter of many Samaritans by Jewish rulers, and animosity clearly existed between the two peoples (see Jn 4:9). While the lawyer listening to the parable would have expected the priest and Levite to act justly toward the victim, he must have been surprised that a hated Samaritan would show compassion and thus fulfill the greatest commandment. Jesus intentionally spelled out the extent of the Samaritan’s compassion (immediate care in dressing wounds, transport to the inn, care for the victim there and extended care in paying for care by others while he is away, Lk 10:34-35) to such a degree that the lawyer would have no doubt as to the genuineness of the Samaritan’s love. The irony of the story is that one not considered worthy to be called “neighbor” by Jews was precisely the one who showed himself to be “neighbor” to the victim (vv 36-37).<\/p>\n<p>The parable, like the statement in Matthew 5:43-48, reveals Jesus’ own understanding of “neighbor” and what “love of neighbor” demands. Jesus sets no limitation on who qualifies as the neighbor commanded by God to be loved.<\/p>\n<p>The forcefulness and power of Jesus’ teachings on the love of neighbor and its relationship to one’s love for God are demonstrated by a similar emphasis within the early church. Paul on two occasions called the love of neighbor the fulfillment of the entire law (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14), while James referred to the same commandment as “the royal law” (Jas 2:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"NEIGHBOR Concept apparently limited in the OT period and late Judaism to one’s fellow Israelite, or member of the covenant, and extended by Jesus to include anyone encountered in life. In the Old Testament Although it is never explicitly limited as such, the prominent connotation of “neighbor” in the OT is that of a fellow member of the covenant community; that is, another Israelite (see Lv 6:1-7; 19; Dt 15:2-3). In Leviticus 19:18, a passage often quoted in the NT, the Israelite is commanded...","summary_en":"NEIGHBOR Concept apparently limited in the OT period and late Judaism to one’s fellow Israelite, or member of the covenant, and extended by Jesus to include anyone encountered in life. In the Old Testament Although it is never explicitly limited as such, the prominent connotation of “neighbor” in the OT is that of a fellow member of the covenant community; that is, another Israelite (see Lv 6:1-7; 19; Dt 15:2-3). In Leviticus 19:18, a passage often quoted in the NT, the Israelite is commanded...","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34135,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Scribe","title_en":"Scribe","content_ro":"<h3>SCRIBE<\/h3>\n<p>Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPreexilicTimes\">Scribes in Preexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion of the term “scribe” and has no particular religious connotation. Scribes were employed to keep accounts or transcribe legal information (Jer 32:12), military data (2 Chr 26:11), other public documents (Jgs 8:14; Is 50:1), or personal correspondence (Jer 36:18). These secretaries were essential to royal administrations, and there is frequent mention of a chief scribe who functioned as a court recorder (1 Kgs 4:3; 2 Chr 24:11), adviser (2 Sm 8:16-17; 2 Kgs 18:18; 22:12; 1 Chr 27:32; Is 36:3), and financial overseer (2 Kgs 22:3-4). Secretaries or scribes were associated with the priesthood as well, serving as recorders for temple affairs (1 Chr 24:6; 2 Chr 34:13-15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPostexilicTimes\">Scribes in Postexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>With the restoration of Judaism under Ezra and Nehemiah, the term “scribe” begins to be associated more narrowly with those who gathered together, studied, and interpreted the Torah (Jewish law). They became, in essence, a separate profession of teachers (although unpaid), able to preserve accurately the law of Moses and interpret it to meet conditions in postexilic times. In this initial period, Ezra himself appears as the ideal “scribe who studied and taught the commands and laws of the <span>Lord<\/span> to Israel” (Ezr 7:11, <span>nlt<\/span>). In Ecclesiasticus, the scribe is portrayed as one who, because of his diligent study of the Law, the Prophets, and Writings (Ecclus 38:24ff; 39:1), is able to penetrate the hidden meanings of texts (39:2-3) and thus is able to serve as judge and counsel for the affairs of the people and state (38:33; 39:4-8). Because of his invaluable place in a society governed by the Torah, the scribe is worthy of praise and veneration throughout succeeding generations (39:9). By the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the scribes were a fairly distinct class in Jewish society. They appear as such during the Maccabean wars, acting as a negotiating body with the rival Syrians (1 Macc 7:12). It is also significant that, from this time forward, the history of the scribe in Jewish life is closely linked with the rise of the Pharisees. Although there were apparently some scribes affiliated with the rival Sadducean party, the party of the Pharisees, with its absolute devotion to the law (including the oral law), became the primary religiopolitical affiliation for the scribes (see the close connection in the NT: Mt 5:20; 12:38; 15:1; Mk 7:5; Lk 6:7).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrainingandStatus\">Training and Status<\/p>\n<p>The training of scribes initially occurred within priestly family-based guilds that guaranteed the regulation and perpetuation of this position (1 Chr 2:55). Later, scribal training in the law became open to members of all classes, with the eventual result, by Jesus’ time, of scribes from nonpriestly families being far more numerous and influential. Training in the law began at an early age under the personal supervision of a teacher (rabbi), who gave instructions in all matters pertaining to the law and its interpretation for present needs. Because the written law of Moses could not possibly speak directly to conditions in postexilic times, the oral interpretation and application of the written law to meet such current needs was a significant contribution by the scribes. Such oral law promulgated by them was regarded as equal to the written law and equally binding for those desiring to please God (see Mk 7:6-13). This important function, lying at the heart of Jewish life, accounts for the participation of the scribes in the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin, in order to make legal decisions in keeping with the law, obviously needed the presence of those most knowledgeable about the minutest details of the Torah and the principles governing its application to new circumstances. The scribes, consequently, were the only members outside the aristocratic high priests and elders to be represented in this Jewish supreme court (Mt 26:57; Mk 14:43, 53; Lk 22:66; Acts 23:9). Being the authoritative instructors of the law both within the temple (Lk 2:46) and within the various synagogues of Judea and Galilee (5:17), as well as prominent members of the Sanhedrin, the scribes were greatly respected within the Jewish community. They wore special robes (Mk 12:38) with memorial fringes at the bottom and phylacteries, or “prayer boxes,” hanging from the arms (Mt 23:5). Such attire made their presence obvious and occasioned the rising or bowing of the common people when they passed (Mk 12:38). They were addressed with respect as “rabbi” or “master” (Mt 23:7) and were given the place of honor at worship as well as at social affairs (Mt 23:2; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46). Indeed, the high regard the Jews held for their scribes is testified by the fact that such teachers of the law were buried alongside the tombs of the patriarchs and prophets.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheScribesinJesusDay\">The Scribes in Jesus’ Day<\/p>\n<p>The scribes appear predominantly in the ministry of Jesus as those concerned with the circumspectness of legal observance. Luke refers to the scribes as “lawyers,” thereby describing their chief function as interpreters of the Jewish law in a way that communicated to his gentile audience. It is often found, therefore, that the scribes were critical members of Jesus’ audience, accusing him of violating the law on numerous occasions: in forgiving sins (Mt 9:1-3; Lk 5:17-26), in breaking their notion of Sabbath observance through work (Lk 6:1-2) and healing (vv 6-11), in not following their accepted ceremonial washings (Mk 7:2-5), and in ignoring their practice of fasting (Lk 5:33-39). Not surprisingly, they especially disapproved of Jesus’ practice of mingling with the unclean and outcasts of Jewish society (Mk 2:16-17; Lk 15:1-2). In a similar light, they are not unfrequently found presenting questions concerning the law for the purpose of tricking Jesus (Mk 7:5; 12:28, 35; Lk 11:53; Jn 8:3-4). In a similar fashion, they demanded that Jesus make his identity clear (Mt 12:38) and reveal the source of his authority to perform miracles (Mk 3:22; Lk 20:1-4). Although there is evidence that a minority of the scribes accepted Jesus (Mt 8:19; 13:52; Mk 12:32; Jn 3:1-2), their primary attitude toward Jesus was one of hostility. As previously suggested, this was partly due to Jesus’ differing expression of fidelity to the Mosaic law and his openness toward the outcasts. It was also partly due to the rising popularity of Jesus among the people, which posed a threat to their own authority (Mt 7:29) and to the safety of the city (Mt 21:15; Mk 11:18). Certainly, another major contributing factor of their opposition to Jesus was his exposure of their hypocrisy and corruption. In his rebukes of the scribes and the Pharisees, Jesus openly accused them of catering to public approval (Mt 23:5-7; Mk 12:38-39; Lk 11:43). While appearing to be outwardly correct and holy, they were inwardly corrupt (Mt 23:25-28; Lk 11:39-41). Jesus also attacked the principle of oral law taught by the scribes, which they demanded that the people follow. Jesus charged that the oral law was a “heavy burden” that the scribes themselves did not even bother to follow (Mt 23:2-4, 13-22; Lk 11:46). While emphasizing the minor points of the law, the scribes were also guilty of ignoring the weightier concerns of justice, mercy, and faith (Mt 23:23-24; Mk 12:40; Lk 11:42). Contrary to being the descendants of the prophets, as the scribes held themselves to be, the scribes (Jesus claimed) would have killed the prophets if they had lived in their day (Mt 23:29-36; Lk 20:9-19).<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising to find, therefore, the scribes anxious to get rid of Jesus (Mk 14:1; Lk 11:53). His more flexible interpretation of the law posed a clear threat to their position and authority within the community. The scribes joined forces with their normal opponents (the high priesthood) to engineer Jesus’ arrest (Mk 14:43). When Jesus appeared before them and the rest of the Sanhedrin, they worked with the other leaders to construct a case against him worthy of death (Mt 26:57-66). When taking Jesus before Herod, they stood by and shouted their accusations with the others (Lk 23:10). Finally, they participated with other members of the Sanhedrin in mocking Jesus on the cross, demanding that Jesus save himself by coming down from the cross (Mt 27:41-43). Prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the scribes continued with the other elements of the Sanhedrin to oppose the early Christian church, and they brought about Stephen’s martyrdom (Acts 6:12-14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Judaism; Pharisees; Writer.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SCRIBE<\/h3>\n<p>Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPreexilicTimes\">Scribes in Preexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion of the term “scribe” and has no particular religious connotation. Scribes were employed to keep accounts or transcribe legal information (Jer 32:12), military data (2 Chr 26:11), other public documents (Jgs 8:14; Is 50:1), or personal correspondence (Jer 36:18). These secretaries were essential to royal administrations, and there is frequent mention of a chief scribe who functioned as a court recorder (1 Kgs 4:3; 2 Chr 24:11), adviser (2 Sm 8:16-17; 2 Kgs 18:18; 22:12; 1 Chr 27:32; Is 36:3), and financial overseer (2 Kgs 22:3-4). Secretaries or scribes were associated with the priesthood as well, serving as recorders for temple affairs (1 Chr 24:6; 2 Chr 34:13-15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPostexilicTimes\">Scribes in Postexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>With the restoration of Judaism under Ezra and Nehemiah, the term “scribe” begins to be associated more narrowly with those who gathered together, studied, and interpreted the Torah (Jewish law). They became, in essence, a separate profession of teachers (although unpaid), able to preserve accurately the law of Moses and interpret it to meet conditions in postexilic times. In this initial period, Ezra himself appears as the ideal “scribe who studied and taught the commands and laws of the <span>Lord<\/span> to Israel” (Ezr 7:11, <span>nlt<\/span>). In Ecclesiasticus, the scribe is portrayed as one who, because of his diligent study of the Law, the Prophets, and Writings (Ecclus 38:24ff; 39:1), is able to penetrate the hidden meanings of texts (39:2-3) and thus is able to serve as judge and counsel for the affairs of the people and state (38:33; 39:4-8). Because of his invaluable place in a society governed by the Torah, the scribe is worthy of praise and veneration throughout succeeding generations (39:9). By the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the scribes were a fairly distinct class in Jewish society. They appear as such during the Maccabean wars, acting as a negotiating body with the rival Syrians (1 Macc 7:12). It is also significant that, from this time forward, the history of the scribe in Jewish life is closely linked with the rise of the Pharisees. Although there were apparently some scribes affiliated with the rival Sadducean party, the party of the Pharisees, with its absolute devotion to the law (including the oral law), became the primary religiopolitical affiliation for the scribes (see the close connection in the NT: Mt 5:20; 12:38; 15:1; Mk 7:5; Lk 6:7).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrainingandStatus\">Training and Status<\/p>\n<p>The training of scribes initially occurred within priestly family-based guilds that guaranteed the regulation and perpetuation of this position (1 Chr 2:55). Later, scribal training in the law became open to members of all classes, with the eventual result, by Jesus’ time, of scribes from nonpriestly families being far more numerous and influential. Training in the law began at an early age under the personal supervision of a teacher (rabbi), who gave instructions in all matters pertaining to the law and its interpretation for present needs. Because the written law of Moses could not possibly speak directly to conditions in postexilic times, the oral interpretation and application of the written law to meet such current needs was a significant contribution by the scribes. Such oral law promulgated by them was regarded as equal to the written law and equally binding for those desiring to please God (see Mk 7:6-13). This important function, lying at the heart of Jewish life, accounts for the participation of the scribes in the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin, in order to make legal decisions in keeping with the law, obviously needed the presence of those most knowledgeable about the minutest details of the Torah and the principles governing its application to new circumstances. The scribes, consequently, were the only members outside the aristocratic high priests and elders to be represented in this Jewish supreme court (Mt 26:57; Mk 14:43, 53; Lk 22:66; Acts 23:9). Being the authoritative instructors of the law both within the temple (Lk 2:46) and within the various synagogues of Judea and Galilee (5:17), as well as prominent members of the Sanhedrin, the scribes were greatly respected within the Jewish community. They wore special robes (Mk 12:38) with memorial fringes at the bottom and phylacteries, or “prayer boxes,” hanging from the arms (Mt 23:5). Such attire made their presence obvious and occasioned the rising or bowing of the common people when they passed (Mk 12:38). They were addressed with respect as “rabbi” or “master” (Mt 23:7) and were given the place of honor at worship as well as at social affairs (Mt 23:2; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46). Indeed, the high regard the Jews held for their scribes is testified by the fact that such teachers of the law were buried alongside the tombs of the patriarchs and prophets.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheScribesinJesusDay\">The Scribes in Jesus’ Day<\/p>\n<p>The scribes appear predominantly in the ministry of Jesus as those concerned with the circumspectness of legal observance. Luke refers to the scribes as “lawyers,” thereby describing their chief function as interpreters of the Jewish law in a way that communicated to his gentile audience. It is often found, therefore, that the scribes were critical members of Jesus’ audience, accusing him of violating the law on numerous occasions: in forgiving sins (Mt 9:1-3; Lk 5:17-26), in breaking their notion of Sabbath observance through work (Lk 6:1-2) and healing (vv 6-11), in not following their accepted ceremonial washings (Mk 7:2-5), and in ignoring their practice of fasting (Lk 5:33-39). Not surprisingly, they especially disapproved of Jesus’ practice of mingling with the unclean and outcasts of Jewish society (Mk 2:16-17; Lk 15:1-2). In a similar light, they are not unfrequently found presenting questions concerning the law for the purpose of tricking Jesus (Mk 7:5; 12:28, 35; Lk 11:53; Jn 8:3-4). In a similar fashion, they demanded that Jesus make his identity clear (Mt 12:38) and reveal the source of his authority to perform miracles (Mk 3:22; Lk 20:1-4). Although there is evidence that a minority of the scribes accepted Jesus (Mt 8:19; 13:52; Mk 12:32; Jn 3:1-2), their primary attitude toward Jesus was one of hostility. As previously suggested, this was partly due to Jesus’ differing expression of fidelity to the Mosaic law and his openness toward the outcasts. It was also partly due to the rising popularity of Jesus among the people, which posed a threat to their own authority (Mt 7:29) and to the safety of the city (Mt 21:15; Mk 11:18). Certainly, another major contributing factor of their opposition to Jesus was his exposure of their hypocrisy and corruption. In his rebukes of the scribes and the Pharisees, Jesus openly accused them of catering to public approval (Mt 23:5-7; Mk 12:38-39; Lk 11:43). While appearing to be outwardly correct and holy, they were inwardly corrupt (Mt 23:25-28; Lk 11:39-41). Jesus also attacked the principle of oral law taught by the scribes, which they demanded that the people follow. Jesus charged that the oral law was a “heavy burden” that the scribes themselves did not even bother to follow (Mt 23:2-4, 13-22; Lk 11:46). While emphasizing the minor points of the law, the scribes were also guilty of ignoring the weightier concerns of justice, mercy, and faith (Mt 23:23-24; Mk 12:40; Lk 11:42). Contrary to being the descendants of the prophets, as the scribes held themselves to be, the scribes (Jesus claimed) would have killed the prophets if they had lived in their day (Mt 23:29-36; Lk 20:9-19).<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising to find, therefore, the scribes anxious to get rid of Jesus (Mk 14:1; Lk 11:53). His more flexible interpretation of the law posed a clear threat to their position and authority within the community. The scribes joined forces with their normal opponents (the high priesthood) to engineer Jesus’ arrest (Mk 14:43). When Jesus appeared before them and the rest of the Sanhedrin, they worked with the other leaders to construct a case against him worthy of death (Mt 26:57-66). When taking Jesus before Herod, they stood by and shouted their accusations with the others (Lk 23:10). Finally, they participated with other members of the Sanhedrin in mocking Jesus on the cross, demanding that Jesus save himself by coming down from the cross (Mt 27:41-43). Prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the scribes continued with the other elements of the Sanhedrin to oppose the early Christian church, and they brought about Stephen’s martyrdom (Acts 6:12-14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Judaism; Pharisees; Writer.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SCRIBE Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus. Scribes in Preexilic Times The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion...","summary_en":"SCRIBE Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus. Scribes in Preexilic Times The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55462,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:28","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:28-34<\/strong> After the three hostile challenges of 11:27–12:27, the reader might expect the next question to Jesus to be hostile (see 11:28; 12:13, 15, 19-23), but this was not a hostile counter. Earlier references in Mark to the teachers of religious law have portrayed them as antagonistic (2:6-7, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 8:31; 9:14; 10:33; 11:18, 27), and Jesus will warn the crowds against their hypocrisy (12:38-40), but this teacher was positively inclined toward Jesus (12:28, 32) and praised him (12:32-33). Jesus described the man’s answer to his question as having understanding, and Jesus said that the man was not far from the Kingdom of God (12:34).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:28-34<\/strong> After the three hostile challenges of 11:27–12:27, the reader might expect the next question to Jesus to be hostile (see 11:28; 12:13, 15, 19-23), but this was not a hostile counter. Earlier references in Mark to the teachers of religious law have portrayed them as antagonistic (2:6-7, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 8:31; 9:14; 10:33; 11:18, 27), and Jesus will warn the crowds against their hypocrisy (12:38-40), but this teacher was positively inclined toward Jesus (12:28, 32) and praised him (12:32-33). Jesus described the man’s answer to his question as having understanding, and Jesus said that the man was not far from the Kingdom of God (12:34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:28-34 After the three hostile challenges of 11:27–12:27, the reader might expect the next question to Jesus to be hostile (see 11:28; 12:13, 15, 19-23), but this was not a hostile counter. Earlier references in Mark to the teachers of religious law have portrayed them as antagonistic (2:6-7, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 8:31; 9:14; 10:33; 11:18, 27), and Jesus will warn the crowds against their hypocrisy (12:38-40), but this teacher was positively inclined toward Jesus (12:28, 32) and praised him (12...","summary_en":"12:28-34 After the three hostile challenges of 11:27–12:27, the reader might expect the next question to Jesus to be hostile (see 11:28; 12:13, 15, 19-23), but this was not a hostile counter. Earlier references in Mark to the teachers of religious law have portrayed them as antagonistic (2:6-7, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 8:31; 9:14; 10:33; 11:18, 27), and Jesus will warn the crowds against their hypocrisy (12:38-40), but this teacher was positively inclined toward Jesus (12:28, 32) and praised him (12...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55463,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:28","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:28<\/strong> <em>Of all the commandments:<\/em> The Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy) contains 613 separate commandments, and Jewish teachers frequently debated about which were more important than others. No command was considered unimportant, but some were recognized as more fundamental than others (see Matt 22:40). Rabbi Hillel’s answer to this question was, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor” (<em>Babylonian Shabbat<\/em> 31a; see also <em>Tobit<\/em> 4:15). Other suggestions included Prov 3:6; Isa 33:15-16; 56:1; Amos 5:4; Mic 6:8; and Hab 2:4.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:28<\/strong> <em>Of all the commandments:<\/em> The Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy) contains 613 separate commandments, and Jewish teachers frequently debated about which were more important than others. No command was considered unimportant, but some were recognized as more fundamental than others (see Matt 22:40). Rabbi Hillel’s answer to this question was, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor” (<em>Babylonian Shabbat<\/em> 31a; see also <em>Tobit<\/em> 4:15). Other suggestions included Prov 3:6; Isa 33:15-16; 56:1; Amos 5:4; Mic 6:8; and Hab 2:4.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:28 Of all the commandments: The Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy) contains 613 separate commandments, and Jewish teachers frequently debated about which were more important than others. No command was considered unimportant, but some were recognized as more fundamental than others (see Matt 22:40). Rabbi Hillel’s answer to this question was, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor” (Babylonian Shabbat 31a; see also Tobit 4:15). Other suggestions included Prov 3:6; Isa 33:15-16; 56:1;...","summary_en":"12:28 Of all the commandments: The Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy) contains 613 separate commandments, and Jewish teachers frequently debated about which were more important than others. No command was considered unimportant, but some were recognized as more fundamental than others (see Matt 22:40). Rabbi Hillel’s answer to this question was, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor” (Babylonian Shabbat 31a; see also Tobit 4:15). Other suggestions included Prov 3:6; Isa 33:15-16; 56:1;...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83088,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:28","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:28-34<\/strong> After the three hostile challenges of 11:27–12:27, the reader might expect the next question to Jesus to be hostile (see 11:28; 12:13, 15, 19-23), but this was not a hostile counter. Earlier references in Mark to the teachers of religious law have portrayed them as antagonistic (2:6-7, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 8:31; 9:14; 10:33; 11:18, 27), and Jesus will warn the crowds against their hypocrisy (12:38-40), but this teacher was positively inclined toward Jesus (12:28, 32) and praised him (12:32-33). Jesus described the man’s answer to his question as having understanding, and Jesus said that the man was not far from the Kingdom of God (12:34).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:28-34<\/strong> After the three hostile challenges of 11:27–12:27, the reader might expect the next question to Jesus to be hostile (see 11:28; 12:13, 15, 19-23), but this was not a hostile counter. Earlier references in Mark to the teachers of religious law have portrayed them as antagonistic (2:6-7, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 8:31; 9:14; 10:33; 11:18, 27), and Jesus will warn the crowds against their hypocrisy (12:38-40), but this teacher was positively inclined toward Jesus (12:28, 32) and praised him (12:32-33). Jesus described the man’s answer to his question as having understanding, and Jesus said that the man was not far from the Kingdom of God (12:34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:28-34 After the three hostile challenges of 11:27–12:27, the reader might expect the next question to Jesus to be hostile (see 11:28; 12:13, 15, 19-23), but this was not a hostile counter. Earlier references in Mark to the teachers of religious law have portrayed them as antagonistic (2:6-7, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 8:31; 9:14; 10:33; 11:18, 27), and Jesus will warn the crowds against their hypocrisy (12:38-40), but this teacher was positively inclined toward Jesus (12:28, 32) and praised him (12...","summary_en":"12:28-34 After the three hostile challenges of 11:27–12:27, the reader might expect the next question to Jesus to be hostile (see 11:28; 12:13, 15, 19-23), but this was not a hostile counter. Earlier references in Mark to the teachers of religious law have portrayed them as antagonistic (2:6-7, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 8:31; 9:14; 10:33; 11:18, 27), and Jesus will warn the crowds against their hypocrisy (12:38-40), but this teacher was positively inclined toward Jesus (12:28, 32) and praised him (12...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83089,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:28","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:28<\/strong> <em>Of all the commandments:<\/em> The Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy) contains 613 separate commandments, and Jewish teachers frequently debated about which were more important than others. No command was considered unimportant, but some were recognized as more fundamental than others (see Matt 22:40). Rabbi Hillel’s answer to this question was, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor” (<em>Babylonian Shabbat<\/em> 31a; see also <em>Tobit<\/em> 4:15). Other suggestions included Prov 3:6; Isa 33:15-16; 56:1; Amos 5:4; Mic 6:8; and Hab 2:4.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:28<\/strong> <em>Of all the commandments:<\/em> The Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy) contains 613 separate commandments, and Jewish teachers frequently debated about which were more important than others. No command was considered unimportant, but some were recognized as more fundamental than others (see Matt 22:40). Rabbi Hillel’s answer to this question was, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor” (<em>Babylonian Shabbat<\/em> 31a; see also <em>Tobit<\/em> 4:15). Other suggestions included Prov 3:6; Isa 33:15-16; 56:1; Amos 5:4; Mic 6:8; and Hab 2:4.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:28 Of all the commandments: The Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy) contains 613 separate commandments, and Jewish teachers frequently debated about which were more important than others. No command was considered unimportant, but some were recognized as more fundamental than others (see Matt 22:40). Rabbi Hillel’s answer to this question was, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor” (Babylonian Shabbat 31a; see also Tobit 4:15). Other suggestions included Prov 3:6; Isa 33:15-16; 56:1;...","summary_en":"12:28 Of all the commandments: The Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy) contains 613 separate commandments, and Jewish teachers frequently debated about which were more important than others. No command was considered unimportant, but some were recognized as more fundamental than others (see Matt 22:40). Rabbi Hillel’s answer to this question was, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor” (Babylonian Shabbat 31a; see also Tobit 4:15). Other suggestions included Prov 3:6; Isa 33:15-16; 56:1;...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110714,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:28","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:28-34<\/strong> After the three hostile challenges of 11:27–12:27, the reader might expect the next question to Jesus to be hostile (see 11:28; 12:13, 15, 19-23), but this was not a hostile counter. Earlier references in Mark to the teachers of religious law have portrayed them as antagonistic (2:6-7, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 8:31; 9:14; 10:33; 11:18, 27), and Jesus will warn the crowds against their hypocrisy (12:38-40), but this teacher was positively inclined toward Jesus (12:28, 32) and praised him (12:32-33). Jesus described the man’s answer to his question as having understanding, and Jesus said that the man was not far from the Kingdom of God (12:34).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:28-34<\/strong> After the three hostile challenges of 11:27–12:27, the reader might expect the next question to Jesus to be hostile (see 11:28; 12:13, 15, 19-23), but this was not a hostile counter. Earlier references in Mark to the teachers of religious law have portrayed them as antagonistic (2:6-7, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 8:31; 9:14; 10:33; 11:18, 27), and Jesus will warn the crowds against their hypocrisy (12:38-40), but this teacher was positively inclined toward Jesus (12:28, 32) and praised him (12:32-33). Jesus described the man’s answer to his question as having understanding, and Jesus said that the man was not far from the Kingdom of God (12:34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:28-34 After the three hostile challenges of 11:27–12:27, the reader might expect the next question to Jesus to be hostile (see 11:28; 12:13, 15, 19-23), but this was not a hostile counter. Earlier references in Mark to the teachers of religious law have portrayed them as antagonistic (2:6-7, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 8:31; 9:14; 10:33; 11:18, 27), and Jesus will warn the crowds against their hypocrisy (12:38-40), but this teacher was positively inclined toward Jesus (12:28, 32) and praised him (12...","summary_en":"12:28-34 After the three hostile challenges of 11:27–12:27, the reader might expect the next question to Jesus to be hostile (see 11:28; 12:13, 15, 19-23), but this was not a hostile counter. Earlier references in Mark to the teachers of religious law have portrayed them as antagonistic (2:6-7, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 8:31; 9:14; 10:33; 11:18, 27), and Jesus will warn the crowds against their hypocrisy (12:38-40), but this teacher was positively inclined toward Jesus (12:28, 32) and praised him (12...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110715,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:28","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:28<\/strong> <em>Of all the commandments:<\/em> The Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy) contains 613 separate commandments, and Jewish teachers frequently debated about which were more important than others. No command was considered unimportant, but some were recognized as more fundamental than others (see Matt 22:40). Rabbi Hillel’s answer to this question was, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor” (<em>Babylonian Shabbat<\/em> 31a; see also <em>Tobit<\/em> 4:15). Other suggestions included Prov 3:6; Isa 33:15-16; 56:1; Amos 5:4; Mic 6:8; and Hab 2:4.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:28<\/strong> <em>Of all the commandments:<\/em> The Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy) contains 613 separate commandments, and Jewish teachers frequently debated about which were more important than others. No command was considered unimportant, but some were recognized as more fundamental than others (see Matt 22:40). Rabbi Hillel’s answer to this question was, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor” (<em>Babylonian Shabbat<\/em> 31a; see also <em>Tobit<\/em> 4:15). Other suggestions included Prov 3:6; Isa 33:15-16; 56:1; Amos 5:4; Mic 6:8; and Hab 2:4.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:28 Of all the commandments: The Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy) contains 613 separate commandments, and Jewish teachers frequently debated about which were more important than others. No command was considered unimportant, but some were recognized as more fundamental than others (see Matt 22:40). Rabbi Hillel’s answer to this question was, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor” (Babylonian Shabbat 31a; see also Tobit 4:15). Other suggestions included Prov 3:6; Isa 33:15-16; 56:1;...","summary_en":"12:28 Of all the commandments: The Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy) contains 613 separate commandments, and Jewish teachers frequently debated about which were more important than others. No command was considered unimportant, but some were recognized as more fundamental than others (see Matt 22:40). Rabbi Hillel’s answer to this question was, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor” (Babylonian Shabbat 31a; see also Tobit 4:15). Other suggestions included Prov 3:6; Isa 33:15-16; 56:1;...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138340,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:28","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:28-34<\/strong> After the three hostile challenges of 11:27–12:27, the reader might expect the next question to Jesus to be hostile (see 11:28; 12:13, 15, 19-23), but this was not a hostile counter. Earlier references in Mark to the teachers of religious law have portrayed them as antagonistic (2:6-7, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 8:31; 9:14; 10:33; 11:18, 27), and Jesus will warn the crowds against their hypocrisy (12:38-40), but this teacher was positively inclined toward Jesus (12:28, 32) and praised him (12:32-33). Jesus described the man’s answer to his question as having understanding, and Jesus said that the man was not far from the Kingdom of God (12:34).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:28-34<\/strong> After the three hostile challenges of 11:27–12:27, the reader might expect the next question to Jesus to be hostile (see 11:28; 12:13, 15, 19-23), but this was not a hostile counter. Earlier references in Mark to the teachers of religious law have portrayed them as antagonistic (2:6-7, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 8:31; 9:14; 10:33; 11:18, 27), and Jesus will warn the crowds against their hypocrisy (12:38-40), but this teacher was positively inclined toward Jesus (12:28, 32) and praised him (12:32-33). Jesus described the man’s answer to his question as having understanding, and Jesus said that the man was not far from the Kingdom of God (12:34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:28-34 After the three hostile challenges of 11:27–12:27, the reader might expect the next question to Jesus to be hostile (see 11:28; 12:13, 15, 19-23), but this was not a hostile counter. Earlier references in Mark to the teachers of religious law have portrayed them as antagonistic (2:6-7, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 8:31; 9:14; 10:33; 11:18, 27), and Jesus will warn the crowds against their hypocrisy (12:38-40), but this teacher was positively inclined toward Jesus (12:28, 32) and praised him (12...","summary_en":"12:28-34 After the three hostile challenges of 11:27–12:27, the reader might expect the next question to Jesus to be hostile (see 11:28; 12:13, 15, 19-23), but this was not a hostile counter. Earlier references in Mark to the teachers of religious law have portrayed them as antagonistic (2:6-7, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 8:31; 9:14; 10:33; 11:18, 27), and Jesus will warn the crowds against their hypocrisy (12:38-40), but this teacher was positively inclined toward Jesus (12:28, 32) and praised him (12...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138341,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:28","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:28<\/strong> <em>Of all the commandments:<\/em> The Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy) contains 613 separate commandments, and Jewish teachers frequently debated about which were more important than others. No command was considered unimportant, but some were recognized as more fundamental than others (see Matt 22:40). Rabbi Hillel’s answer to this question was, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor” (<em>Babylonian Shabbat<\/em> 31a; see also <em>Tobit<\/em> 4:15). Other suggestions included Prov 3:6; Isa 33:15-16; 56:1; Amos 5:4; Mic 6:8; and Hab 2:4.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:28<\/strong> <em>Of all the commandments:<\/em> The Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy) contains 613 separate commandments, and Jewish teachers frequently debated about which were more important than others. No command was considered unimportant, but some were recognized as more fundamental than others (see Matt 22:40). Rabbi Hillel’s answer to this question was, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor” (<em>Babylonian Shabbat<\/em> 31a; see also <em>Tobit<\/em> 4:15). Other suggestions included Prov 3:6; Isa 33:15-16; 56:1; Amos 5:4; Mic 6:8; and Hab 2:4.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:28 Of all the commandments: The Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy) contains 613 separate commandments, and Jewish teachers frequently debated about which were more important than others. No command was considered unimportant, but some were recognized as more fundamental than others (see Matt 22:40). Rabbi Hillel’s answer to this question was, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor” (Babylonian Shabbat 31a; see also Tobit 4:15). Other suggestions included Prov 3:6; Isa 33:15-16; 56:1;...","summary_en":"12:28 Of all the commandments: The Torah (Genesis—Deuteronomy) contains 613 separate commandments, and Jewish teachers frequently debated about which were more important than others. No command was considered unimportant, but some were recognized as more fundamental than others (see Matt 22:40). Rabbi Hillel’s answer to this question was, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor” (Babylonian Shabbat 31a; see also Tobit 4:15). Other suggestions included Prov 3:6; Isa 33:15-16; 56:1;...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"29":[{"id":9485,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Deuteronomy","title_en":"Book of Deuteronomy","content_ro":"<h3>DEUTERONOMY, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Fifth book of the OT, and last of the Pentateuch (the five books of the Law). In it Moses restated to the people of Israel various laws and precepts of the covenant that God had revealed to them at Mt Sinai. Thus, the book has become known in Greek and Latin tradition as Deuteronomy (“second law”). That name has led some to misinterpret the significance of its contents as secondary. The book makes an important contribution to God’s unfolding revelation of his purpose for the nation of Israel. Moses’ reminders of the wilderness wanderings and the Ten Commandments, plus his instructions for life in the Promised Land, are a vital part of the OT covenant literature.<\/p>\n\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Date and Authorship<\/p>\n<p>• Historical Setting<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of Deuteronomy<\/p>\n<p>• Deuteronomy and the Law<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateandAuthorship\">Date and Authorship<\/p>\n<p>Two basic views (with variations) on the date and authorship of Deuteronomy are advocated by modern biblical scholars. Those who consider Moses the author date the book in the 14th or 13th century <span>BC<\/span>. Others believe that it was composed by an unknown author in the seventh century <span>BC<\/span>, when Josiah was king in the southern kingdom of Judah.<\/p>\n<h5>The Case for a Seventh-Century Date<\/h5>\n<p>As early as 1805, W. M. L. de Wette advocated that Deuteronomy was used by Josiah in his seventh-century reforms, and that it was written shortly before that. Biblical critic Julius Wellhausen adopted that view, which has been advocated by many scholars ever since S. R. Driver publicized it in his <em>Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament<\/em> (1891). According to that view, the book was written late but ascribed to Moses.<\/p>\n<p>Many modern scholars, such as Gerhard von Rad and G. E. Wright, regard Moses as the founder of Israel’s faith. They argue that whatever in Deuteronomy is from Moses was transmitted orally until about the seventh century <span>BC<\/span>. Denying that Moses actually wrote Deuteronomy, they attribute its present form to numerous writers and editors over an extended period of centuries.<\/p>\n<h5>The Case for Mosaic Authorship<\/h5>\n<p>In recent decades, studies of Hittite suzerainty treaties from the second millennium <span>BC<\/span> have yielded interesting comparisons between those treaty forms and the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy. In 1954 G. Mendenhall suggested that the form of the covenant at Mt Sinai was the same literary form used by Hittites in treaties with Syrian vassal states during the 14th and 13th centuries <span>BC<\/span>. In 1960 M. G. Kline applied that idea to the book of Deuteronomy, seeing it as a renewal of the Sinaitic covenant and outlining its structure as a literary unit reflecting the pattern of Hittite covenant forms.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Deuteronomy does contain certain parallels to Hittite vassal treaties. As a renewal treaty it appeals to the covenant of God with Israel at Mt Sinai, recorded in the book of Exodus.<\/p>\n<p>1. The “preamble” in ancient Hittite treaties usually identified the suzerain or ruler. In Deuteronomy 1:1-5 (Ex 20:1) Moses as the speaker represents God, the King of Israel. As his death approaches, Moses makes an appeal for the renewal of the covenant.<\/p>\n<li>2. In the “historical prologue” the suzerain usually cited the benefits he had bestowed on his vassal. In Deuteronomy 1:6–4:49 (Ex 20:2) Moses declares what God has done for Israel since his revelation at Mt Sinai. Moses reminds the people of Israel of God’s faithfulness even when they had been unfaithful.<\/li>\n<li>3. The “stipulations” were usually stated by the suzerain in the treaty’s third division. In Deuteronomy 5–26 Moses outlines the stipulations for Israel in their covenant relationship to God. The basic requirement in Deuteronomy 5–11 (Ex 20:3-17) is exclusive, wholehearted love for God. In the following chapters, Deuteronomy 12–26, the basic principle of exclusive love for God is applied to specific areas of culticceremonial consecration (Dt 12:1–16:17), judicial justice in government (16:18–21:23), the sanctity of God’s order (chs 22–25), and public acknowledgment of God as their Redeemer and King (ch 26).<\/li>\n<li>4. “Covenant ratification” usually contained a provision for treaty renewal and a formula for curses and blessings. In Deuteronomy 27 provision is made for Joshua to conclude the renewal of the covenant after the Israelites occupy the land. In addition, the divine threat and promise are expressed in blessings and curses as Israel swears its oath of allegiance on the plains of Moab.<\/li>\n<li>5. “Succession arrangements” were usually the concluding part of suzerainty-vassal treaties. In chapters 31–34 Joshua is designated as Moses’ successor. The written text is deposited in the sanctuary with the song of witness and a testamentary blessing by Moses. The book of Deuteronomy thus constitutes the documentary witness of God’s covenant as it concludes with the death of Moses.<\/li>\n<p>The fact that the literary structure of Deuteronomy parallels the legal forms characteristic of ancient Hittite treaties supports the traditional viewpoint that Moses is the author of Deuteronomy. When Moses is recognized as the mediator between God and Israel in the Sinaitic covenant, it is significant that the book of Deuteronomy represents Moses’ renewal of the covenant in the literary form current in the culture of his day.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalSetting\">Historical Setting<\/p>\n<p>Moses led the Israelites from Egypt through the wilderness to the plains of Moab east of the Dead Sea. Exodus 1–19 gives an account of the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt, the birth and preparation of Moses, his contest with the pharaoh, the miraculous deliverance out of Egypt, and the journey to Mt Sinai (probably also known as Mt Horeb).<\/p>\n<p>In that desert area God’s great revelation came to Israel through Moses (Ex 20–40; Lv 1–27; Nm 1–9). At Mt Sinai, God identified himself as the one who had delivered the Israelites. There he established an agreement by which they would be exclusively devoted to him as his holy nation. There the tabernacle was built and the priesthood established. Instructions were given for making sacrifices and offerings, and for observing feasts and seasons, so that Israel’s pattern of living would show that they were God’s holy people. The tribes were also organized for encampment around the tabernacle and for the march to Canaan, the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<p>Numbers 10–21 is an account of the 38 years the Israelites spent in the wilderness. In 11 days they marched from Mt Horeb to Kadesh-barnea, about 40 miles (64 kilometers) south of Beersheba. From there 12 spies were sent into Canaan. Their report produced a crisis in the form of a revolt against God. Subsequently, Israel wandered in the wilderness for 38 years, during which those who had been at least 20 years old when they left Egypt died. The new generation moved to the plains of Moab, located east of the Dead Sea and north of the Arnon River. Numbers 20–36 tells of the conquest and occupation of the land east of the Jordan River.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Deuteronomy presents Moses’ address to the new generation of Israelites. In Exodus and Numbers God frequently speaks to Moses; in Deuteronomy, Moses is speaking at God’s command to the Israelites (Dt 1:1-4; 5:1; 29:1). In contrast to the preceding books, Deuteronomy has a style of exhortation in which Moses admonishes the new generation about their responsibility in view of the preceding generation’s failures. Whatever repetition occurs in Deuteronomy is carefully selected, with the specific purpose of warning the new generation so that they will not fail to conquer and occupy Canaan. Deuteronomy is not primarily retrospective; its outlook is optimistic about the future, offering hope for fulfilling the promises God made to the Israelites in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceofDeuteronomy\">Significance of Deuteronomy<\/p>\n<p>Deuteronomy (with Genesis, Psalms, and Isaiah) is among the most frequently quoted books in the early Christian centuries. More than 80 OT quotations in the NT come from Deuteronomy.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus focused attention on Deuteronomy when he summarized the essence of the entire OT Law and Prophets in the two great commandments of love for God and neighbor (Mt 22:37; see Dt 6:5; 10:19). Jesus also quoted Deuteronomy (6:13, 16; 8:3) in his temptation experience (Mt 4:4-10). Deuteronomy unfolds the essence of what God revealed to Moses at Mt Sinai. In Deuteronomy, Moses shares with the Israelites the core of God’s revelation without repeating details of sacrifices, observances, or rituals. He expounds the character of Israel’s faith and nationhood. Moses repeatedly emphasizes his concern that they faithfully maintain a good relationship with God. An exclusive devotion to God expressed in everyday life is the key to a lifetime of blessing.<\/p>\n<p>The primary need of love toward God and neighbor eventually became a basic requirement for the followers of Jesus Christ (Lk 10:25-28). The book of Deuteronomy is thus crucially important to the Christian concern to maintain a vital relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DeuteronomyandtheLaw\">Deuteronomy and the Law<\/p>\n<p>To designate the book of Deuteronomy as a “second law” or a repetition of the law is misleading. Moses’ emphasis is not legalistic. Details of worship and ritual are not repeated or delineated to any great extent. Although the Ten Commandments are repeated, emphasis is placed on the first commandment, explicitly requiring exclusive devotion to God. Moses is primarily concerned with Israel’s relationship with God and their determination to maintain it in their own and their children’s lives.<\/p>\n<p>The NT reveals that a legalistic interpretation of the Mosaic revelation was held by the Jews of the first century <span>AD<\/span>. Such legalism developed in Judaism especially during the intertestamental era. The Judaistic legalism of NT times has in modern times been ascribed wrongly to Moses. Moses did warn of the necessity of keeping all of God’s law (Dt 28:1, 58), but in Deuteronomy his message as a whole makes it clear that he was not exclusively concerned about legalistic observance. Rather, the central theme of Deuteronomy is the unique relationship that had been established by a unique God with a unique people, the Israelites.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Brief Historical Review (1:1–4:43)<\/h5>\n<p>Moses is identified as the speaker, addressing the Israelites on the plains of Moab during the last year of his life. The Israelites were on the verge of entering the Promised Land of Canaan.<\/p>\n<p>Moses began with a reference to Mt Sinai, scene of the greatest revelation in OT times. He focused attention on God’s explicit command for them to move up to Canaan and occupy the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Their rebellion brought divine judgment, so the conquest of Canaan had been delayed 38 years while an entire disobedient generation died in the wilderness.<\/p>\n<p>Instructed by God not to molest the Edomites or Moabites, Moses had led the Israelites to the Moab plains north of the Arnon River. The Israelites defeated Sihon, the Amorite king of Heshbon, and Og, king of Bashan. The tribes of Reuben and Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh appropriated the territory east of the Jordan River as their land (Nm 32). On the basis of that conquest, Moses encouraged Joshua to believe that God would aid him and the Israelites in the conquest of the land of Canaan west of the Jordan River.<\/p>\n<p>The Israelites should learn from the mistakes of the generation that died in the wilderness (Dt 4:1-40). They should consider the fact that the word of God had been spoken to them. The revelation that had come to them through Moses was unique, and the most important thing was for them to revere the God who had revealed himself. The uniqueness of Israel’s God among the nations that worship idols should never be forgotten.<\/p>\n<p>Moses reminded the Israelites that they had entered into a contractual agreement with their unique God. That covenant was mentioned 26 more times by Moses. No nation had ever experienced anything like it. If Israel obeyed, they would enjoy God’s blessing and favor.<\/p>\n<h5>Exhortations and Applications (4:44–26:19)<\/h5>\n<p>The circumstances in which Moses addressed the Israelites are reported in a short transitional passage (Dt 4:44-49). From the slopes of Mt Pisgah (or Nebo), with Israel encamped in the valley opposite Beth-peor, Moses made his appeal to the people before they crossed the Jordan River.<\/p>\n<p>Moses’ exposition of the “great commandment” is centered in the agreement made between God and Israel. He repeated the Ten Commandments as the essence of God’s revelation at Sinai. As Moses explained what God expected of Israel, he elaborated the first commandment: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (5:6, <span>rsv<\/span>). Their relationship with God was of basic importance, since God’s wrath will be against those who worship other gods (v 9).<\/p>\n<p>Love is the key word in the relationship between God and Israel. Moses boldly asserted, “Hear, O Israel! The <span>Lord<\/span> is our God, the <span>Lord<\/span> alone. And you must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Dt 6:4-5, <span>nlt<\/span>). All other commandments are significant because they bear on that relationship (as spelled out in chs 5–11).<\/p>\n<p>Exclusive love and devotion to God are essential. In a relationship of wholehearted love, no idols can be recognized or tolerated. Yet Moses wanted Israel to convey its consciousness of God to future generations by many external things: signs on their hands, frontlets (or “phylacteries”) on their foreheads, Scripture verses on their doorposts, and so on. By precept and example they should convey to their children that they love God (Dt 6).<\/p>\n<p>The Israelites should never forget that God had chosen them to be his people (Dt 7). They were to execute God’s judgment on the Canaanites, who had been spared judgment since Abraham’s time (Gn 15:16). Although the Israelites themselves did not merit God’s love, in love and mercy he had redeemed them out of Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>Moses appealed to the people to remember what God had done for them (Dt 8). To God’s sustaining provisions they should respond with thankfulness, recognizing that the power to achieve anything they had done had been God’s gift.<\/p>\n<p>The Israelites had repeatedly failed in their faith and commitment to God (9:1–10:11). Through Moses’ intercession they had been spared. It was for no merit of their own that they would enter Canaan; that was God’s gracious provision for them. Moses’ appeal for a wholehearted commitment is summarized in Deuteronomy 10:12–11:32. It is necessary to display reverence, respect, love, and obedience to God (see also 6:5, 13, 24).<\/p>\n<p>The God whom the Israelites must love sincerely and without reservation is the Lord of the cosmos. He is the righteous judge who rules supreme over all nature and history. God loved their forefathers, the patriarchs. He redeemed the Israelites from Egyptian enslavement and gave them his covenant. He manifested himself in helping the orphans, widows, and strangers. He multiplied Israel to be as numerous as the stars of the heavens.<\/p>\n<p>Moses gave two basic instructions to apply in daily life to maintain their relationship with God as a reality: “circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart” (Dt 10:16, <span>rsv<\/span>). He did not refer to physical circumcision, a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham (Gn 17). Circumcision, which was not observed during the years of wilderness wanderings, was reinstituted under Joshua after the Israelites crossed the Jordan River (Jos 5:2-9). Moses referred to “spiritual circumcision” (see Lv 26:40-41; Jer 4:4; 9:25; Rom 2:29). All things that might restrict, interfere with, or negate total devotion to God were to be cut away (circumcised) so that the Israelites would continue to love God with all their heart.<\/p>\n<p>“Love the foreigner” (Dt 10:19) ranks second in importance to wholehearted love for God. Love for the stranger or neighbor is basic to all other human obligations (see Lv 19:9-18). Social obligations issue out of a person’s relationship with God. Being recipients of God’s love, the Israelites were to love others. They were to remember God’s love for them when they were slaves and strangers in Egypt. God loves the stranger, the widow, and the orphan; therefore, if anyone loves God, he or she is under obligation to love other people. God is concerned about justice and righteousness; a person who professes to love God must be concerned about just treatment for other people.<\/p>\n<p>The Israelites were to be known for their concern for people whose social position exposed them to exploitation and oppression. The profound humanitarian spirit of the Mosaic law stands in unique contrast to the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi and the Assyrian and Hittite law codes of that day. In those codes human relationships reflected no vital consciousness of a love relationship with deity.<\/p>\n<p>In the first century <span>AD<\/span> Jesus Christ came into conflict with Jewish religious leaders who had lost the essence of God’s law in a maze of legalism. For Jesus, the greatest commandment was to love God; the second was to love one’s neighbor. Those two commandments (which constitute the essence of the entire OT revelation) would, if kept perfectly, provide the basis for eternal life (Mt 22:37-39; Mk 12:29-31; Lk 10:27-28). Christians believe that the climax of God’s revelation of love came in Jesus Christ. For them, responding to God’s love means to accept Jesus Christ in wholehearted devotion and to love one’s neighbor as Jesus exemplified in his life.<\/p>\n<p>In Deuteronomy 12:1–26:19, Moses gave instruction in practical living for a God-related people when they resided in the land God had promised to them. Having once survived on manna supplied directly by God, in Canaan they would enjoy the fruit and produce of the land. They would also encounter a culture permeated by Canaanite religion.<\/p>\n<p>In worshiping God in their new setting, they were cautioned to maintain due sanctity (Dt 12:1–14:21). They were not to worship at pagan shrines. They should bring their offerings to divinely appointed places for fellowship and rejoicing together in the Lord’s presence. Idolatry was not to be tolerated in any form. Any prophet who deviated from the law of Moses in advising the worship of other gods should be stoned. Exclusive devotion to God was to be daily practice.<\/p>\n<p>Canaan’s abundant blessings should be shared with neighbors (14:22–15:23). Tithes should be brought to the central sanctuary where Levites assisted the priests in religious ministration. Joy in sharing life’s blessings and opportunities was to characterize Israel’s pattern of living.<\/p>\n<p>Moses prescribed three annual pilgrimages (16:1-17). The people should remember their deliverance out of Egypt by observing the feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread. Seven weeks later, when the barley harvest was completed, they should spend time rejoicing before the Lord in a one-day festival called the Feast of Weeks. When the vintage as well as the grain harvest was completed, they were to observe the Feast of Ingathering (or Booths), a time of thanksgiving and sharing with others. Every seven years the law was read at the Feast of Ingathering.<\/p>\n<p>In human relations justice was to prevail among the Israelites (16:18–21:23). The Book of the Law kept at the main sanctuary was their divine authority, providing God’s instructions for them. The king was to have a copy of this law and govern his life in accordance with it. Prophets and priests played an important role as religious leaders in the life of Israel. Judicial authority was vested in the priests. In contrast to the brutality of other nations, humanitarian principles were to prevail in Israel’s warfare. Fathers were responsible for their own family households.<\/p>\n<p>In domestic and social relationships, the law of love was to prevail (22:1–26:19). Many regulations governed family life. In matters of sustenance, wages, and business dealings, the Israelites were admonished to be compassionate and just. Promises and warnings raised their consciousness about using the resources of land and animals entrusted to them so that their stewardship would please God.<\/p>\n<p>In Deuteronomy 26, Moses instructed the Israelites in two liturgical confessions and a reaffirmation of the covenant. By acknowledging that God was the giver of all they had, and by confessing before God that they shared his gifts with others, they confirmed their covenant with God.<\/p>\n<h5>Alternatives: Blessings or Curses (27:1–30:20)<\/h5>\n<p>Moses set before the Israelites the alternatives of blessings or curses. Under Joshua they were to renew the covenant publicly. At Mt Ebal stones were to be erected for inscribing the law and an altar constructed for offering sacrifice. The curses were to be read from Mt Ebal and the blessings from Mt Gerizim. Conditional self-curses were read regarding offenses against God and other human beings (Dt 27:15-26). Thus they acknowledged their accountability to God. Though their sins might be hidden from people, it was God to whom they were primarily and ultimately accountable. Blessings as a way of life and curses as a way of death were clearly set before the Israelites (ch 28). Setting them in the perspective of history, Moses appealed to the new generation to take advantage of their present opportunity (ch 29). Warning that, should they fail to love God, they would ultimately be subjected to dispersion, Moses admonished them to choose the way of life and good rather than the way of death and evil (ch 30).<\/p>\n<h5>Transition: from Moses to Joshua (31:1–34:12)<\/h5>\n<p>When the life and ministry of Moses were nearing completion, and transfer of leadership was near (Dt 31:1–34:12), Joshua had already been designated by God as Israel’s new leader. Moses assured the Israelites that God would be the same with Joshua in charge. The revelation given through Moses had been put in writing and now was committed to the priests, the custodians of the Book of the Law. Joshua, who had already distinguished himself in responsible leadership, was publicly confirmed at the door of the tabernacle (31:1-29).<\/p>\n<p>The “Song of Moses” is the covenant’s document of witness (32:1-47). In it Moses spoke with prophetic understanding as he recounted Israel’s past experience. Reiterating the consequences of their attitude toward God, he assured the people of restoration if they failed again. He encouraged them to fix their hearts on what God had revealed to them and to impress it on their children. Keeping the covenant by maintaining a wholehearted love for God would be important for all future generations as well as for those then listening to Moses.<\/p>\n<p>After some final, brief instructions (32:48-52), Moses pronounced his blessings on the Israelites, whom he had led for 40 years (33:1-29). In his final blessing, also called the “Testament of Moses,” the greatness of God and his special relationship with Israel are delineated. Israel is unique among all the nations of the world.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Deuteronomy appropriately ends with an account of the death of Moses, the greatest prophet in OT times (34:1-12).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of; Moses.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DEUTERONOMY, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Fifth book of the OT, and last of the Pentateuch (the five books of the Law). In it Moses restated to the people of Israel various laws and precepts of the covenant that God had revealed to them at Mt Sinai. Thus, the book has become known in Greek and Latin tradition as Deuteronomy (“second law”). That name has led some to misinterpret the significance of its contents as secondary. The book makes an important contribution to God’s unfolding revelation of his purpose for the nation of Israel. Moses’ reminders of the wilderness wanderings and the Ten Commandments, plus his instructions for life in the Promised Land, are a vital part of the OT covenant literature.<\/p>\n\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Date and Authorship<\/p>\n<p>• Historical Setting<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of Deuteronomy<\/p>\n<p>• Deuteronomy and the Law<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateandAuthorship\">Date and Authorship<\/p>\n<p>Two basic views (with variations) on the date and authorship of Deuteronomy are advocated by modern biblical scholars. Those who consider Moses the author date the book in the 14th or 13th century <span>BC<\/span>. Others believe that it was composed by an unknown author in the seventh century <span>BC<\/span>, when Josiah was king in the southern kingdom of Judah.<\/p>\n<h5>The Case for a Seventh-Century Date<\/h5>\n<p>As early as 1805, W. M. L. de Wette advocated that Deuteronomy was used by Josiah in his seventh-century reforms, and that it was written shortly before that. Biblical critic Julius Wellhausen adopted that view, which has been advocated by many scholars ever since S. R. Driver publicized it in his <em>Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament<\/em> (1891). According to that view, the book was written late but ascribed to Moses.<\/p>\n<p>Many modern scholars, such as Gerhard von Rad and G. E. Wright, regard Moses as the founder of Israel’s faith. They argue that whatever in Deuteronomy is from Moses was transmitted orally until about the seventh century <span>BC<\/span>. Denying that Moses actually wrote Deuteronomy, they attribute its present form to numerous writers and editors over an extended period of centuries.<\/p>\n<h5>The Case for Mosaic Authorship<\/h5>\n<p>In recent decades, studies of Hittite suzerainty treaties from the second millennium <span>BC<\/span> have yielded interesting comparisons between those treaty forms and the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy. In 1954 G. Mendenhall suggested that the form of the covenant at Mt Sinai was the same literary form used by Hittites in treaties with Syrian vassal states during the 14th and 13th centuries <span>BC<\/span>. In 1960 M. G. Kline applied that idea to the book of Deuteronomy, seeing it as a renewal of the Sinaitic covenant and outlining its structure as a literary unit reflecting the pattern of Hittite covenant forms.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Deuteronomy does contain certain parallels to Hittite vassal treaties. As a renewal treaty it appeals to the covenant of God with Israel at Mt Sinai, recorded in the book of Exodus.<\/p>\n<p>1. The “preamble” in ancient Hittite treaties usually identified the suzerain or ruler. In Deuteronomy 1:1-5 (Ex 20:1) Moses as the speaker represents God, the King of Israel. As his death approaches, Moses makes an appeal for the renewal of the covenant.<\/p>\n<li>2. In the “historical prologue” the suzerain usually cited the benefits he had bestowed on his vassal. In Deuteronomy 1:6–4:49 (Ex 20:2) Moses declares what God has done for Israel since his revelation at Mt Sinai. Moses reminds the people of Israel of God’s faithfulness even when they had been unfaithful.<\/li>\n<li>3. The “stipulations” were usually stated by the suzerain in the treaty’s third division. In Deuteronomy 5–26 Moses outlines the stipulations for Israel in their covenant relationship to God. The basic requirement in Deuteronomy 5–11 (Ex 20:3-17) is exclusive, wholehearted love for God. In the following chapters, Deuteronomy 12–26, the basic principle of exclusive love for God is applied to specific areas of culticceremonial consecration (Dt 12:1–16:17), judicial justice in government (16:18–21:23), the sanctity of God’s order (chs 22–25), and public acknowledgment of God as their Redeemer and King (ch 26).<\/li>\n<li>4. “Covenant ratification” usually contained a provision for treaty renewal and a formula for curses and blessings. In Deuteronomy 27 provision is made for Joshua to conclude the renewal of the covenant after the Israelites occupy the land. In addition, the divine threat and promise are expressed in blessings and curses as Israel swears its oath of allegiance on the plains of Moab.<\/li>\n<li>5. “Succession arrangements” were usually the concluding part of suzerainty-vassal treaties. In chapters 31–34 Joshua is designated as Moses’ successor. The written text is deposited in the sanctuary with the song of witness and a testamentary blessing by Moses. The book of Deuteronomy thus constitutes the documentary witness of God’s covenant as it concludes with the death of Moses.<\/li>\n<p>The fact that the literary structure of Deuteronomy parallels the legal forms characteristic of ancient Hittite treaties supports the traditional viewpoint that Moses is the author of Deuteronomy. When Moses is recognized as the mediator between God and Israel in the Sinaitic covenant, it is significant that the book of Deuteronomy represents Moses’ renewal of the covenant in the literary form current in the culture of his day.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalSetting\">Historical Setting<\/p>\n<p>Moses led the Israelites from Egypt through the wilderness to the plains of Moab east of the Dead Sea. Exodus 1–19 gives an account of the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt, the birth and preparation of Moses, his contest with the pharaoh, the miraculous deliverance out of Egypt, and the journey to Mt Sinai (probably also known as Mt Horeb).<\/p>\n<p>In that desert area God’s great revelation came to Israel through Moses (Ex 20–40; Lv 1–27; Nm 1–9). At Mt Sinai, God identified himself as the one who had delivered the Israelites. There he established an agreement by which they would be exclusively devoted to him as his holy nation. There the tabernacle was built and the priesthood established. Instructions were given for making sacrifices and offerings, and for observing feasts and seasons, so that Israel’s pattern of living would show that they were God’s holy people. The tribes were also organized for encampment around the tabernacle and for the march to Canaan, the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<p>Numbers 10–21 is an account of the 38 years the Israelites spent in the wilderness. In 11 days they marched from Mt Horeb to Kadesh-barnea, about 40 miles (64 kilometers) south of Beersheba. From there 12 spies were sent into Canaan. Their report produced a crisis in the form of a revolt against God. Subsequently, Israel wandered in the wilderness for 38 years, during which those who had been at least 20 years old when they left Egypt died. The new generation moved to the plains of Moab, located east of the Dead Sea and north of the Arnon River. Numbers 20–36 tells of the conquest and occupation of the land east of the Jordan River.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Deuteronomy presents Moses’ address to the new generation of Israelites. In Exodus and Numbers God frequently speaks to Moses; in Deuteronomy, Moses is speaking at God’s command to the Israelites (Dt 1:1-4; 5:1; 29:1). In contrast to the preceding books, Deuteronomy has a style of exhortation in which Moses admonishes the new generation about their responsibility in view of the preceding generation’s failures. Whatever repetition occurs in Deuteronomy is carefully selected, with the specific purpose of warning the new generation so that they will not fail to conquer and occupy Canaan. Deuteronomy is not primarily retrospective; its outlook is optimistic about the future, offering hope for fulfilling the promises God made to the Israelites in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceofDeuteronomy\">Significance of Deuteronomy<\/p>\n<p>Deuteronomy (with Genesis, Psalms, and Isaiah) is among the most frequently quoted books in the early Christian centuries. More than 80 OT quotations in the NT come from Deuteronomy.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus focused attention on Deuteronomy when he summarized the essence of the entire OT Law and Prophets in the two great commandments of love for God and neighbor (Mt 22:37; see Dt 6:5; 10:19). Jesus also quoted Deuteronomy (6:13, 16; 8:3) in his temptation experience (Mt 4:4-10). Deuteronomy unfolds the essence of what God revealed to Moses at Mt Sinai. In Deuteronomy, Moses shares with the Israelites the core of God’s revelation without repeating details of sacrifices, observances, or rituals. He expounds the character of Israel’s faith and nationhood. Moses repeatedly emphasizes his concern that they faithfully maintain a good relationship with God. An exclusive devotion to God expressed in everyday life is the key to a lifetime of blessing.<\/p>\n<p>The primary need of love toward God and neighbor eventually became a basic requirement for the followers of Jesus Christ (Lk 10:25-28). The book of Deuteronomy is thus crucially important to the Christian concern to maintain a vital relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DeuteronomyandtheLaw\">Deuteronomy and the Law<\/p>\n<p>To designate the book of Deuteronomy as a “second law” or a repetition of the law is misleading. Moses’ emphasis is not legalistic. Details of worship and ritual are not repeated or delineated to any great extent. Although the Ten Commandments are repeated, emphasis is placed on the first commandment, explicitly requiring exclusive devotion to God. Moses is primarily concerned with Israel’s relationship with God and their determination to maintain it in their own and their children’s lives.<\/p>\n<p>The NT reveals that a legalistic interpretation of the Mosaic revelation was held by the Jews of the first century <span>AD<\/span>. Such legalism developed in Judaism especially during the intertestamental era. The Judaistic legalism of NT times has in modern times been ascribed wrongly to Moses. Moses did warn of the necessity of keeping all of God’s law (Dt 28:1, 58), but in Deuteronomy his message as a whole makes it clear that he was not exclusively concerned about legalistic observance. Rather, the central theme of Deuteronomy is the unique relationship that had been established by a unique God with a unique people, the Israelites.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Brief Historical Review (1:1–4:43)<\/h5>\n<p>Moses is identified as the speaker, addressing the Israelites on the plains of Moab during the last year of his life. The Israelites were on the verge of entering the Promised Land of Canaan.<\/p>\n<p>Moses began with a reference to Mt Sinai, scene of the greatest revelation in OT times. He focused attention on God’s explicit command for them to move up to Canaan and occupy the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Their rebellion brought divine judgment, so the conquest of Canaan had been delayed 38 years while an entire disobedient generation died in the wilderness.<\/p>\n<p>Instructed by God not to molest the Edomites or Moabites, Moses had led the Israelites to the Moab plains north of the Arnon River. The Israelites defeated Sihon, the Amorite king of Heshbon, and Og, king of Bashan. The tribes of Reuben and Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh appropriated the territory east of the Jordan River as their land (Nm 32). On the basis of that conquest, Moses encouraged Joshua to believe that God would aid him and the Israelites in the conquest of the land of Canaan west of the Jordan River.<\/p>\n<p>The Israelites should learn from the mistakes of the generation that died in the wilderness (Dt 4:1-40). They should consider the fact that the word of God had been spoken to them. The revelation that had come to them through Moses was unique, and the most important thing was for them to revere the God who had revealed himself. The uniqueness of Israel’s God among the nations that worship idols should never be forgotten.<\/p>\n<p>Moses reminded the Israelites that they had entered into a contractual agreement with their unique God. That covenant was mentioned 26 more times by Moses. No nation had ever experienced anything like it. If Israel obeyed, they would enjoy God’s blessing and favor.<\/p>\n<h5>Exhortations and Applications (4:44–26:19)<\/h5>\n<p>The circumstances in which Moses addressed the Israelites are reported in a short transitional passage (Dt 4:44-49). From the slopes of Mt Pisgah (or Nebo), with Israel encamped in the valley opposite Beth-peor, Moses made his appeal to the people before they crossed the Jordan River.<\/p>\n<p>Moses’ exposition of the “great commandment” is centered in the agreement made between God and Israel. He repeated the Ten Commandments as the essence of God’s revelation at Sinai. As Moses explained what God expected of Israel, he elaborated the first commandment: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (5:6, <span>rsv<\/span>). Their relationship with God was of basic importance, since God’s wrath will be against those who worship other gods (v 9).<\/p>\n<p>Love is the key word in the relationship between God and Israel. Moses boldly asserted, “Hear, O Israel! The <span>Lord<\/span> is our God, the <span>Lord<\/span> alone. And you must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Dt 6:4-5, <span>nlt<\/span>). All other commandments are significant because they bear on that relationship (as spelled out in chs 5–11).<\/p>\n<p>Exclusive love and devotion to God are essential. In a relationship of wholehearted love, no idols can be recognized or tolerated. Yet Moses wanted Israel to convey its consciousness of God to future generations by many external things: signs on their hands, frontlets (or “phylacteries”) on their foreheads, Scripture verses on their doorposts, and so on. By precept and example they should convey to their children that they love God (Dt 6).<\/p>\n<p>The Israelites should never forget that God had chosen them to be his people (Dt 7). They were to execute God’s judgment on the Canaanites, who had been spared judgment since Abraham’s time (Gn 15:16). Although the Israelites themselves did not merit God’s love, in love and mercy he had redeemed them out of Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>Moses appealed to the people to remember what God had done for them (Dt 8). To God’s sustaining provisions they should respond with thankfulness, recognizing that the power to achieve anything they had done had been God’s gift.<\/p>\n<p>The Israelites had repeatedly failed in their faith and commitment to God (9:1–10:11). Through Moses’ intercession they had been spared. It was for no merit of their own that they would enter Canaan; that was God’s gracious provision for them. Moses’ appeal for a wholehearted commitment is summarized in Deuteronomy 10:12–11:32. It is necessary to display reverence, respect, love, and obedience to God (see also 6:5, 13, 24).<\/p>\n<p>The God whom the Israelites must love sincerely and without reservation is the Lord of the cosmos. He is the righteous judge who rules supreme over all nature and history. God loved their forefathers, the patriarchs. He redeemed the Israelites from Egyptian enslavement and gave them his covenant. He manifested himself in helping the orphans, widows, and strangers. He multiplied Israel to be as numerous as the stars of the heavens.<\/p>\n<p>Moses gave two basic instructions to apply in daily life to maintain their relationship with God as a reality: “circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart” (Dt 10:16, <span>rsv<\/span>). He did not refer to physical circumcision, a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham (Gn 17). Circumcision, which was not observed during the years of wilderness wanderings, was reinstituted under Joshua after the Israelites crossed the Jordan River (Jos 5:2-9). Moses referred to “spiritual circumcision” (see Lv 26:40-41; Jer 4:4; 9:25; Rom 2:29). All things that might restrict, interfere with, or negate total devotion to God were to be cut away (circumcised) so that the Israelites would continue to love God with all their heart.<\/p>\n<p>“Love the foreigner” (Dt 10:19) ranks second in importance to wholehearted love for God. Love for the stranger or neighbor is basic to all other human obligations (see Lv 19:9-18). Social obligations issue out of a person’s relationship with God. Being recipients of God’s love, the Israelites were to love others. They were to remember God’s love for them when they were slaves and strangers in Egypt. God loves the stranger, the widow, and the orphan; therefore, if anyone loves God, he or she is under obligation to love other people. God is concerned about justice and righteousness; a person who professes to love God must be concerned about just treatment for other people.<\/p>\n<p>The Israelites were to be known for their concern for people whose social position exposed them to exploitation and oppression. The profound humanitarian spirit of the Mosaic law stands in unique contrast to the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi and the Assyrian and Hittite law codes of that day. In those codes human relationships reflected no vital consciousness of a love relationship with deity.<\/p>\n<p>In the first century <span>AD<\/span> Jesus Christ came into conflict with Jewish religious leaders who had lost the essence of God’s law in a maze of legalism. For Jesus, the greatest commandment was to love God; the second was to love one’s neighbor. Those two commandments (which constitute the essence of the entire OT revelation) would, if kept perfectly, provide the basis for eternal life (Mt 22:37-39; Mk 12:29-31; Lk 10:27-28). Christians believe that the climax of God’s revelation of love came in Jesus Christ. For them, responding to God’s love means to accept Jesus Christ in wholehearted devotion and to love one’s neighbor as Jesus exemplified in his life.<\/p>\n<p>In Deuteronomy 12:1–26:19, Moses gave instruction in practical living for a God-related people when they resided in the land God had promised to them. Having once survived on manna supplied directly by God, in Canaan they would enjoy the fruit and produce of the land. They would also encounter a culture permeated by Canaanite religion.<\/p>\n<p>In worshiping God in their new setting, they were cautioned to maintain due sanctity (Dt 12:1–14:21). They were not to worship at pagan shrines. They should bring their offerings to divinely appointed places for fellowship and rejoicing together in the Lord’s presence. Idolatry was not to be tolerated in any form. Any prophet who deviated from the law of Moses in advising the worship of other gods should be stoned. Exclusive devotion to God was to be daily practice.<\/p>\n<p>Canaan’s abundant blessings should be shared with neighbors (14:22–15:23). Tithes should be brought to the central sanctuary where Levites assisted the priests in religious ministration. Joy in sharing life’s blessings and opportunities was to characterize Israel’s pattern of living.<\/p>\n<p>Moses prescribed three annual pilgrimages (16:1-17). The people should remember their deliverance out of Egypt by observing the feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread. Seven weeks later, when the barley harvest was completed, they should spend time rejoicing before the Lord in a one-day festival called the Feast of Weeks. When the vintage as well as the grain harvest was completed, they were to observe the Feast of Ingathering (or Booths), a time of thanksgiving and sharing with others. Every seven years the law was read at the Feast of Ingathering.<\/p>\n<p>In human relations justice was to prevail among the Israelites (16:18–21:23). The Book of the Law kept at the main sanctuary was their divine authority, providing God’s instructions for them. The king was to have a copy of this law and govern his life in accordance with it. Prophets and priests played an important role as religious leaders in the life of Israel. Judicial authority was vested in the priests. In contrast to the brutality of other nations, humanitarian principles were to prevail in Israel’s warfare. Fathers were responsible for their own family households.<\/p>\n<p>In domestic and social relationships, the law of love was to prevail (22:1–26:19). Many regulations governed family life. In matters of sustenance, wages, and business dealings, the Israelites were admonished to be compassionate and just. Promises and warnings raised their consciousness about using the resources of land and animals entrusted to them so that their stewardship would please God.<\/p>\n<p>In Deuteronomy 26, Moses instructed the Israelites in two liturgical confessions and a reaffirmation of the covenant. By acknowledging that God was the giver of all they had, and by confessing before God that they shared his gifts with others, they confirmed their covenant with God.<\/p>\n<h5>Alternatives: Blessings or Curses (27:1–30:20)<\/h5>\n<p>Moses set before the Israelites the alternatives of blessings or curses. Under Joshua they were to renew the covenant publicly. At Mt Ebal stones were to be erected for inscribing the law and an altar constructed for offering sacrifice. The curses were to be read from Mt Ebal and the blessings from Mt Gerizim. Conditional self-curses were read regarding offenses against God and other human beings (Dt 27:15-26). Thus they acknowledged their accountability to God. Though their sins might be hidden from people, it was God to whom they were primarily and ultimately accountable. Blessings as a way of life and curses as a way of death were clearly set before the Israelites (ch 28). Setting them in the perspective of history, Moses appealed to the new generation to take advantage of their present opportunity (ch 29). Warning that, should they fail to love God, they would ultimately be subjected to dispersion, Moses admonished them to choose the way of life and good rather than the way of death and evil (ch 30).<\/p>\n<h5>Transition: from Moses to Joshua (31:1–34:12)<\/h5>\n<p>When the life and ministry of Moses were nearing completion, and transfer of leadership was near (Dt 31:1–34:12), Joshua had already been designated by God as Israel’s new leader. Moses assured the Israelites that God would be the same with Joshua in charge. The revelation given through Moses had been put in writing and now was committed to the priests, the custodians of the Book of the Law. Joshua, who had already distinguished himself in responsible leadership, was publicly confirmed at the door of the tabernacle (31:1-29).<\/p>\n<p>The “Song of Moses” is the covenant’s document of witness (32:1-47). In it Moses spoke with prophetic understanding as he recounted Israel’s past experience. Reiterating the consequences of their attitude toward God, he assured the people of restoration if they failed again. He encouraged them to fix their hearts on what God had revealed to them and to impress it on their children. Keeping the covenant by maintaining a wholehearted love for God would be important for all future generations as well as for those then listening to Moses.<\/p>\n<p>After some final, brief instructions (32:48-52), Moses pronounced his blessings on the Israelites, whom he had led for 40 years (33:1-29). In his final blessing, also called the “Testament of Moses,” the greatness of God and his special relationship with Israel are delineated. Israel is unique among all the nations of the world.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Deuteronomy appropriately ends with an account of the death of Moses, the greatest prophet in OT times (34:1-12).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of; Moses.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DEUTERONOMY, Book of Fifth book of the OT, and last of the Pentateuch (the five books of the Law). In it Moses restated to the people of Israel various laws and precepts of the covenant that God had revealed to them at Mt Sinai. Thus, the book has become known in Greek and Latin tradition as Deuteronomy (“second law”). That name has led some to misinterpret the significance of its contents as secondary. The book makes an important contribution to God’s unfolding revelation of his purpose for ...","summary_en":"DEUTERONOMY, Book of Fifth book of the OT, and last of the Pentateuch (the five books of the Law). In it Moses restated to the people of Israel various laws and precepts of the covenant that God had revealed to them at Mt Sinai. Thus, the book has become known in Greek and Latin tradition as Deuteronomy (“second law”). That name has led some to misinterpret the significance of its contents as secondary. The book makes an important contribution to God’s unfolding revelation of his purpose for ...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":14104,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Being and Attributes of God","title_en":"Being and Attributes of God","content_ro":"<h3>GOD, Being and Attributes of<\/h3>\n<p>Inherent characteristics of God revealed in Scripture and displayed in God’s actions in biblical history. They are characteristics equally of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God’s attributes are revealed in progressively richer and fuller ways within the history of redemption.<\/p>\n<p>According to the Bible, the entire creation shows God’s deity and eternal power (Ps 19:1-6; Rom 1:20). God’s providence also reveals certain of his attributes (Mt 5:45; Lk 6:35; Acts 14:16-17; 17:22-31). The fullest revelation of God’s attributes is seen in his work of redemption through Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p>How does Scripture express the characteristics of God? First, in the divine names by which God revealed himself (Gn 1:1; 2:4; 17:1; Ex 3:6, 14-15; 6:2-5). Some of God’s attributes are revealed implicitly in the biblical accounts of Creation, fall, Flood, Babel, and the exodus, and more fully in the various covenants God made with his people. To Israel, he identified himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ex 3:15). To the pharaoh, he identified himself as the “God of Israel” or the “God of the Hebrews” (5:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>By the time the people of Israel had reached Mt Sinai, the revelation of God’s attributes in the biblical narrative had become more explicit: “The <span>Lord<\/span>, the <span>Lord<\/span>, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation” (Ex 34:6-7, <span>rsv<\/span>). This summary is repeated elsewhere with slight variations (Nm 14:18; Neh 9:17; Ps 103:8; Jer 32:18; Jon 4:2).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Attributes of God<\/p>\n<p>• Incommunicable Attributes<\/p>\n<p>• Communicable Attributes<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheAttributesofGod\">The Attributes of God<\/p>\n<p>The historic Christian confessions refer to various characteristics of God without calling them attributes or classifying them. The Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647) shows a tendency toward classification, describing God as “a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.” The first four attributes qualify the others.<\/p>\n<p>Several ways of classifying the attributes have been suggested. Generally such schemes divide the divine attributes into pairs: negative and positive, natural and moral, absolute and relative, immanent and eminent, intransitive and transitive, quiescent and operative, antithetical and synthetical, or incommunicable and communicable. Roman Catholics prefer the distinction of negative and positive, or natural and moral. Lutherans generally favor the distinction between quiescent and operative attributes. Reformed and evangelical scholars usually distinguish incommunicable and communicable attributes. Karl Barth grouped the attributes under freedom and love, and then proposed pairs of attributes that reflect freedom-love or love-freedom. In spite of the diversity of labels given the groups of attributes, surprising agreement exists in the attributes listed under each group.<\/p>\n<p>This article will make a distinction between incommunicable and communicable attributes without considering the classification itself as significant. No classification of God’s attributes is fully satisfactory. The <em>incommunicable<\/em> attributes emphasize the absolute distinctness of God, his transcendent greatness and exalted nature. Such attributes have little or no analogy in God’s creatures. The <em>communicable<\/em> attributes find some reflection or analogy in human beings created in God’s image. They indicate the immanence of God in relation to creatures. Yet all the attributes are God’s attributes; the distinction between God and man, between Creator and creature, is always basic.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IncommunicableAttributes\">Incommunicable Attributes<\/p>\n<p>Acknowledging some diversity of theological opinion, the following attributes will be considered incommunicable: unity, spirituality, independence, immutability, eternity, and immensity. In addition, the incomprehensibility of God must be mentioned.<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>incomprehensibility<\/em> is sometimes included in lists of his attributes. It seems preferable to regard it as a description of human inability to understand God fully. Incomprehensibility is therefore not an attribute, although it is a given in every discussion of God. Through his revelation God is truly known by faith, yet no creature will ever comprehend God the Creator. Likewise, no one will ever fully understand any one of God’s attributes. Acknowledgment of God’s incomprehensibility should contribute to a spirit of humility in every consideration of God and his attributes (Pss 139:6; 145:3; Is 40:28; 55:8-9; Mt 11:25-27; Rom 11:33-36; 1 Cor 2:6-16; 13:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>unity<\/em> is an expression of monotheism—the fact that the God of Scripture is the only, living, true God (Dt 6:4; Mk 12:29; Jn 17:3). All other gods are idols and figments of human imagination. This attribute is reflected in the first commandment: “You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex 20:3).<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>spirituality<\/em> indicates that God is not physical and is invisible. Positively it means that God is personal, living, self-conscious, and self-determining. The invisible God cannot be seen by human eyes (Ex 33:20), so the second commandment forbids every visible representation of God (20:4). Because God is Spirit, he must be worshiped in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:24).<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>independence<\/em> or self-existence indicates that he is not dependent upon anything outside himself. He is self-sufficient in his existence, in his decrees, and in all his works. God has “life in himself” (Jn 5:26) and “he himself gives life and breath and everything” (Acts 17:25). To Israel, he revealed himself as the “<span>I Am<\/span>” (Ex 3:14), and he made Israel a covenant people for his own possession. God continues to work out his will in the world, and even though he uses various means, his independence remains intact. Thus, he enters into fellowship with his covenant people, and he publishes the gospel through human agents.<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>immutability<\/em> or constancy expresses his changelessness and his faithfulness to himself, to his decrees, promises, and works. He remains forever the same true God who undergoes no change from within or from anything outside himself. And so in James 1:17 we read: “Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (<span>rsv<\/span>). God’s oath to Abraham expressed his immutability so that his covenant people could be sure of the “unchangeable character of his purpose” (Heb 6:17). Samuel told King Saul that the Lord would not “change his mind; for he is not a man” (1 Sm 15:29, <span>niv<\/span>; cf. Nm 23:19). “For I the <span>Lord<\/span> do not change” (Mal 3:6). That was God’s explanation for not destroying sinful Judah; he shows mercy and keeps his covenant. Because “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever,” Christians are warned not to be “led by diverse and strange teachings” (Heb 13:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>God’s immutability or constancy does not imply that he is static or immobile. He is a dynamic, living God who is constantly working (Jn 5:17). Sometimes God is described as being sorry, repenting, or changing his mind (Gn 6:6-7; 1 Sm 15:11; Jon 3:10). In their contexts, such figurative expressions show the constancy of a God who, in holiness and righteousness, always abhors sin and reacts against it. In his grace and mercy, he forgives the penitent, and he carries out his promises without fail (Ps 110:4; Is 46:10; Jer 18:7-10; Eph 1:11). Thus, the constancy of God is significant in all human relationships with him, including petitions offered in prayer.<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>eternity<\/em> indicates his transcendence over time. He is timeless and everlasting. He has no beginning or end; he does not undergo growth, development, or maturation. He existed before the creation of the world; he dwells now in eternity; he will continue as the eternal God even when history ends. Scripture speaks of God as “eternal” (Dt 33:27), “the King” (1 Tm 1:17), “the beginning and the end” (Rv 22:13). He “inhabits eternity” (Is 57:15) and his “years have no end” (Ps 102:27; cf. 2 Pt 3:8). Although God is above time and is timeless, time is his creation and history is the arena of his work. “When the time had fully come God sent forth his Son” (Gal 4:4); Jesus Christ died on a Friday and rose on the third day.<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>immensity<\/em> and <em>omnipresence<\/em> express his transcendence over space. God fills heaven and earth (Jer 23:23-24). Heaven is his throne, and the earth his footstool, so he is not restricted to a temple building (Is 66:1; Acts 17:24). Yet God is immanent in this world and is actively at work in it to establish his kingdom. No one can hide from the omnipresent God (Ps 139:6-12). Jesus promised, “I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Mt 28:20). Since Pentecost (Acts 2), the Holy Spirit is said actually to dwell within the bodies of believers (1 Cor 6:19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CommunicableAttributes\">Communicable Attributes<\/p>\n<p>Many attributes of God can be classified under this heading, although it is sometimes difficult to say which biblical references to God should be regarded as attributes. A rich diversity of terminology is found in Scripture, with many synonyms. For convenience, the communicable attributes are often classified as intellectual, moral, and volitional.<\/p>\n<h5>Intellectual Attributes<\/h5>\n<p>God’s <em>knowledge<\/em> indicates that in a unique way God knows himself and all things possible and actual. <em>Omniscience<\/em> means that “he knows everything” (1 Jn 3:20). “Even before a word is on my tongue, lo, O <span>Lord<\/span>, thou knowest it altogether” (Ps 139:4), including the secret thoughts of a person’s heart. God’s righteous judgment is rooted in the fact that he “knows the thoughts of man” (Ps 94:11). Acknowledging that God’s omniscience is incomprehensible, the psalmist finds it a source of comfort (139:1-5). All the “treasures of wisdom and knowledge” are hidden in Christ (Col 2:3); therefore, the Christian is told to bring every thought captive to obey Christ (2 Cor 10:5). Christian sanctification includes renewal in knowledge to become more like Christ (Col 3:10).<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>wisdom<\/em> indicates that he uses his knowledge in the best possible manner to achieve his goals. God’s works are varied, but they are all done in wisdom (Ps 104:24). “The <span>Lord<\/span> by wisdom founded the earth” (Prv 3:19); his providence also displays his wisdom (Gn 50:20). Redemption through Jesus Christ reveals God’s wisdom (1 Cor 1:24) and awakens awe and praise (Rom 11:33-36). Human beings should seek wisdom (Prv 3:21)—wisdom rooted in the fear of God (Jb 28:28; Ps 111:10; Prv 9:10). Christians are said to be “wise in Christ” (1 Cor 4:10), and Christ charges them to act wisely (Mt 10:16), thus emulating the wisdom of God.<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>veracity<\/em> expresses his truthfulness and faithfulness. He is the truth and he is faithful to himself, to his Word, and to his promises (2 Tm 2:13). “God is light and in him is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1:5); therefore, his followers are to walk in the light (vv 6-7). Jesus is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6); hence, Christians are to walk in the truth and show faithfulness in their lives.<\/p>\n<h5>Moral Attributes<\/h5>\n<p>The most comprehensive description of God’s moral character is his <em>goodness.<\/em> God deals bountifully and kindly with all his creatures. He is “good to all” (Ps 145:9). Jesus insisted that “no one is good but God alone” (Mk 10:18; Lk 18:19). The redeemed praise God for his goodness (1 Chr 16:34; 2 Chr 5:13; Pss 106:1; 107:1; 118:1; 136:1; Jer 33:11) and are called upon to emulate this divine characteristic (Mt 5:45; Lk 6:27-36).<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>love<\/em> is the heartbeat of the gospel. Perfect love flows among the Persons of the Trinity (Jn 3:35; 17:24). At Sinai God revealed himself as abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness (Ex 34:6-7), and all his covenantal relations with Abraham’s descendants showed his steadfast love. The chief manifestation of God’s love was the sending of his Son, Jesus Christ (Jn 3:16). The apostle John, who declared that “God is love,” pointed to the cross to indicate what that love really meant: “he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins” (1 Jn 4:8, 10).<\/p>\n<p>God’s love shown to undeserving sinners is called <em>grace<\/em> (Eph 1:6-8; 2:7-9; Ti 3:4). <em>Mercy<\/em> is God’s love (sometimes his goodness) shown to those in misery and distress. God is <em>longsuffering<\/em> or patient in his love; he gives time for repentance.<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>holiness<\/em> depicts the moral purity and excellence of God. The description of Jesus’ holiness is applicable to each of the Persons of the Trinity: “holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens” (Heb 7:26). The root idea of holiness is to be separate or set apart. Because of his inherent holiness, God is distinct from everything impure or unholy. God alone is holy; his name is holy, and he bears the name the “Holy One” (Pss 78:41; 89:18; 99:3, 9; 111:9; Is 12:6; Jer 51:5; Rv 15:4). Angels praise God’s holiness (Is 6:3; Rv 4:8). Objects, places, and people are called holy when set apart for the worship of God. Because God is holy, his people are called to holiness (Lv 11:44-45; 19:2; 1 Pt 1:14-15). God’s discipline of his people is aimed at making them share his holiness (Heb 12:10). The holiness of God is so prominent in Scripture that some have (mistakenly) regarded it as God’s chief attribute.<\/p>\n<h5>Volitional Attributes<\/h5>\n<p>God’s <em>sovereignty<\/em> indicates the divine authority with which he rules the entire creation and in his sovereign good pleasure does whatever he wills. God is King over the entire creation, and he rules the destiny of human beings and nations. He restores his kingdom through Jesus Christ; the risen Lord revealed that all authority in heaven and on earth was given to him (Mt 28:18). Election to salvation in Christ is “according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph 1:11, <span>rsv<\/span>). God’s sovereign will, though free, is not arbitrary; it is righteous and holy. He created the world and gave his law as the rule for his people’s lives; he covenants, blesses, and judges. God is the “King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Tm 6:15); he calls all his subjects to obedient love (Dt 6:4-5; Mt 22:37-40; 1 Jn 5:3).<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>sovereign power<\/em> means that he is without bounds or limit in ability; he is <em>omnipotent<\/em> or almighty (Rv 4:8). By his powerful word, he created all things, and upholds “the universe by his word of power” (Heb 1:3). There is nothing too hard for the Lord God Almighty (Gn 18:14; Jer 32:27; Mt 19:26); he keeps his gracious covenant and fulfills all his promises (Lk 1:37; 2 Tm 2:13; Heb 6:18). The gospel is “the power of God for salvation” (Rom 1:16), for Christ is “the power of God” to save (1 Cor 1:24). Hence, believers must come to know “the immeasurable greatness of his power in us who believe, according to the working of his great might which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places” (Eph 1:19-20, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Glory<\/h5>\n<p>All the attributes of God are summarized in Scripture’s references to the <em>glory<\/em> of God. The majesty, splendor, beauty, and brilliance of God who dwells in unapproachable light are expressed by this indefinable term. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham (Acts 7:2); God showed his glory to Moses (Ex 33:18-19; 34:6-7). The God of the Lord Jesus Christ is the Father of glory (Eph 1:17). The heavens declare the glory of God (Ps 19:1); the majesty and glory of God fill heaven and earth (8:1). When finally every tongue shall confess Jesus as Lord, it will be for the glory of God the Father (Phil 2:11). Human beings were created for God’s glory, and Christian believers are instructed to do everything for the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31), thus reflecting in themselves his inherent glory.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GOD, Being and Attributes of<\/h3>\n<p>Inherent characteristics of God revealed in Scripture and displayed in God’s actions in biblical history. They are characteristics equally of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God’s attributes are revealed in progressively richer and fuller ways within the history of redemption.<\/p>\n<p>According to the Bible, the entire creation shows God’s deity and eternal power (Ps 19:1-6; Rom 1:20). God’s providence also reveals certain of his attributes (Mt 5:45; Lk 6:35; Acts 14:16-17; 17:22-31). The fullest revelation of God’s attributes is seen in his work of redemption through Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p>How does Scripture express the characteristics of God? First, in the divine names by which God revealed himself (Gn 1:1; 2:4; 17:1; Ex 3:6, 14-15; 6:2-5). Some of God’s attributes are revealed implicitly in the biblical accounts of Creation, fall, Flood, Babel, and the exodus, and more fully in the various covenants God made with his people. To Israel, he identified himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ex 3:15). To the pharaoh, he identified himself as the “God of Israel” or the “God of the Hebrews” (5:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>By the time the people of Israel had reached Mt Sinai, the revelation of God’s attributes in the biblical narrative had become more explicit: “The <span>Lord<\/span>, the <span>Lord<\/span>, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation” (Ex 34:6-7, <span>rsv<\/span>). This summary is repeated elsewhere with slight variations (Nm 14:18; Neh 9:17; Ps 103:8; Jer 32:18; Jon 4:2).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Attributes of God<\/p>\n<p>• Incommunicable Attributes<\/p>\n<p>• Communicable Attributes<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheAttributesofGod\">The Attributes of God<\/p>\n<p>The historic Christian confessions refer to various characteristics of God without calling them attributes or classifying them. The Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647) shows a tendency toward classification, describing God as “a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.” The first four attributes qualify the others.<\/p>\n<p>Several ways of classifying the attributes have been suggested. Generally such schemes divide the divine attributes into pairs: negative and positive, natural and moral, absolute and relative, immanent and eminent, intransitive and transitive, quiescent and operative, antithetical and synthetical, or incommunicable and communicable. Roman Catholics prefer the distinction of negative and positive, or natural and moral. Lutherans generally favor the distinction between quiescent and operative attributes. Reformed and evangelical scholars usually distinguish incommunicable and communicable attributes. Karl Barth grouped the attributes under freedom and love, and then proposed pairs of attributes that reflect freedom-love or love-freedom. In spite of the diversity of labels given the groups of attributes, surprising agreement exists in the attributes listed under each group.<\/p>\n<p>This article will make a distinction between incommunicable and communicable attributes without considering the classification itself as significant. No classification of God’s attributes is fully satisfactory. The <em>incommunicable<\/em> attributes emphasize the absolute distinctness of God, his transcendent greatness and exalted nature. Such attributes have little or no analogy in God’s creatures. The <em>communicable<\/em> attributes find some reflection or analogy in human beings created in God’s image. They indicate the immanence of God in relation to creatures. Yet all the attributes are God’s attributes; the distinction between God and man, between Creator and creature, is always basic.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IncommunicableAttributes\">Incommunicable Attributes<\/p>\n<p>Acknowledging some diversity of theological opinion, the following attributes will be considered incommunicable: unity, spirituality, independence, immutability, eternity, and immensity. In addition, the incomprehensibility of God must be mentioned.<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>incomprehensibility<\/em> is sometimes included in lists of his attributes. It seems preferable to regard it as a description of human inability to understand God fully. Incomprehensibility is therefore not an attribute, although it is a given in every discussion of God. Through his revelation God is truly known by faith, yet no creature will ever comprehend God the Creator. Likewise, no one will ever fully understand any one of God’s attributes. Acknowledgment of God’s incomprehensibility should contribute to a spirit of humility in every consideration of God and his attributes (Pss 139:6; 145:3; Is 40:28; 55:8-9; Mt 11:25-27; Rom 11:33-36; 1 Cor 2:6-16; 13:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>unity<\/em> is an expression of monotheism—the fact that the God of Scripture is the only, living, true God (Dt 6:4; Mk 12:29; Jn 17:3). All other gods are idols and figments of human imagination. This attribute is reflected in the first commandment: “You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex 20:3).<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>spirituality<\/em> indicates that God is not physical and is invisible. Positively it means that God is personal, living, self-conscious, and self-determining. The invisible God cannot be seen by human eyes (Ex 33:20), so the second commandment forbids every visible representation of God (20:4). Because God is Spirit, he must be worshiped in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:24).<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>independence<\/em> or self-existence indicates that he is not dependent upon anything outside himself. He is self-sufficient in his existence, in his decrees, and in all his works. God has “life in himself” (Jn 5:26) and “he himself gives life and breath and everything” (Acts 17:25). To Israel, he revealed himself as the “<span>I Am<\/span>” (Ex 3:14), and he made Israel a covenant people for his own possession. God continues to work out his will in the world, and even though he uses various means, his independence remains intact. Thus, he enters into fellowship with his covenant people, and he publishes the gospel through human agents.<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>immutability<\/em> or constancy expresses his changelessness and his faithfulness to himself, to his decrees, promises, and works. He remains forever the same true God who undergoes no change from within or from anything outside himself. And so in James 1:17 we read: “Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (<span>rsv<\/span>). God’s oath to Abraham expressed his immutability so that his covenant people could be sure of the “unchangeable character of his purpose” (Heb 6:17). Samuel told King Saul that the Lord would not “change his mind; for he is not a man” (1 Sm 15:29, <span>niv<\/span>; cf. Nm 23:19). “For I the <span>Lord<\/span> do not change” (Mal 3:6). That was God’s explanation for not destroying sinful Judah; he shows mercy and keeps his covenant. Because “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever,” Christians are warned not to be “led by diverse and strange teachings” (Heb 13:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>God’s immutability or constancy does not imply that he is static or immobile. He is a dynamic, living God who is constantly working (Jn 5:17). Sometimes God is described as being sorry, repenting, or changing his mind (Gn 6:6-7; 1 Sm 15:11; Jon 3:10). In their contexts, such figurative expressions show the constancy of a God who, in holiness and righteousness, always abhors sin and reacts against it. In his grace and mercy, he forgives the penitent, and he carries out his promises without fail (Ps 110:4; Is 46:10; Jer 18:7-10; Eph 1:11). Thus, the constancy of God is significant in all human relationships with him, including petitions offered in prayer.<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>eternity<\/em> indicates his transcendence over time. He is timeless and everlasting. He has no beginning or end; he does not undergo growth, development, or maturation. He existed before the creation of the world; he dwells now in eternity; he will continue as the eternal God even when history ends. Scripture speaks of God as “eternal” (Dt 33:27), “the King” (1 Tm 1:17), “the beginning and the end” (Rv 22:13). He “inhabits eternity” (Is 57:15) and his “years have no end” (Ps 102:27; cf. 2 Pt 3:8). Although God is above time and is timeless, time is his creation and history is the arena of his work. “When the time had fully come God sent forth his Son” (Gal 4:4); Jesus Christ died on a Friday and rose on the third day.<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>immensity<\/em> and <em>omnipresence<\/em> express his transcendence over space. God fills heaven and earth (Jer 23:23-24). Heaven is his throne, and the earth his footstool, so he is not restricted to a temple building (Is 66:1; Acts 17:24). Yet God is immanent in this world and is actively at work in it to establish his kingdom. No one can hide from the omnipresent God (Ps 139:6-12). Jesus promised, “I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Mt 28:20). Since Pentecost (Acts 2), the Holy Spirit is said actually to dwell within the bodies of believers (1 Cor 6:19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CommunicableAttributes\">Communicable Attributes<\/p>\n<p>Many attributes of God can be classified under this heading, although it is sometimes difficult to say which biblical references to God should be regarded as attributes. A rich diversity of terminology is found in Scripture, with many synonyms. For convenience, the communicable attributes are often classified as intellectual, moral, and volitional.<\/p>\n<h5>Intellectual Attributes<\/h5>\n<p>God’s <em>knowledge<\/em> indicates that in a unique way God knows himself and all things possible and actual. <em>Omniscience<\/em> means that “he knows everything” (1 Jn 3:20). “Even before a word is on my tongue, lo, O <span>Lord<\/span>, thou knowest it altogether” (Ps 139:4), including the secret thoughts of a person’s heart. God’s righteous judgment is rooted in the fact that he “knows the thoughts of man” (Ps 94:11). Acknowledging that God’s omniscience is incomprehensible, the psalmist finds it a source of comfort (139:1-5). All the “treasures of wisdom and knowledge” are hidden in Christ (Col 2:3); therefore, the Christian is told to bring every thought captive to obey Christ (2 Cor 10:5). Christian sanctification includes renewal in knowledge to become more like Christ (Col 3:10).<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>wisdom<\/em> indicates that he uses his knowledge in the best possible manner to achieve his goals. God’s works are varied, but they are all done in wisdom (Ps 104:24). “The <span>Lord<\/span> by wisdom founded the earth” (Prv 3:19); his providence also displays his wisdom (Gn 50:20). Redemption through Jesus Christ reveals God’s wisdom (1 Cor 1:24) and awakens awe and praise (Rom 11:33-36). Human beings should seek wisdom (Prv 3:21)—wisdom rooted in the fear of God (Jb 28:28; Ps 111:10; Prv 9:10). Christians are said to be “wise in Christ” (1 Cor 4:10), and Christ charges them to act wisely (Mt 10:16), thus emulating the wisdom of God.<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>veracity<\/em> expresses his truthfulness and faithfulness. He is the truth and he is faithful to himself, to his Word, and to his promises (2 Tm 2:13). “God is light and in him is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1:5); therefore, his followers are to walk in the light (vv 6-7). Jesus is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6); hence, Christians are to walk in the truth and show faithfulness in their lives.<\/p>\n<h5>Moral Attributes<\/h5>\n<p>The most comprehensive description of God’s moral character is his <em>goodness.<\/em> God deals bountifully and kindly with all his creatures. He is “good to all” (Ps 145:9). Jesus insisted that “no one is good but God alone” (Mk 10:18; Lk 18:19). The redeemed praise God for his goodness (1 Chr 16:34; 2 Chr 5:13; Pss 106:1; 107:1; 118:1; 136:1; Jer 33:11) and are called upon to emulate this divine characteristic (Mt 5:45; Lk 6:27-36).<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>love<\/em> is the heartbeat of the gospel. Perfect love flows among the Persons of the Trinity (Jn 3:35; 17:24). At Sinai God revealed himself as abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness (Ex 34:6-7), and all his covenantal relations with Abraham’s descendants showed his steadfast love. The chief manifestation of God’s love was the sending of his Son, Jesus Christ (Jn 3:16). The apostle John, who declared that “God is love,” pointed to the cross to indicate what that love really meant: “he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins” (1 Jn 4:8, 10).<\/p>\n<p>God’s love shown to undeserving sinners is called <em>grace<\/em> (Eph 1:6-8; 2:7-9; Ti 3:4). <em>Mercy<\/em> is God’s love (sometimes his goodness) shown to those in misery and distress. God is <em>longsuffering<\/em> or patient in his love; he gives time for repentance.<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>holiness<\/em> depicts the moral purity and excellence of God. The description of Jesus’ holiness is applicable to each of the Persons of the Trinity: “holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens” (Heb 7:26). The root idea of holiness is to be separate or set apart. Because of his inherent holiness, God is distinct from everything impure or unholy. God alone is holy; his name is holy, and he bears the name the “Holy One” (Pss 78:41; 89:18; 99:3, 9; 111:9; Is 12:6; Jer 51:5; Rv 15:4). Angels praise God’s holiness (Is 6:3; Rv 4:8). Objects, places, and people are called holy when set apart for the worship of God. Because God is holy, his people are called to holiness (Lv 11:44-45; 19:2; 1 Pt 1:14-15). God’s discipline of his people is aimed at making them share his holiness (Heb 12:10). The holiness of God is so prominent in Scripture that some have (mistakenly) regarded it as God’s chief attribute.<\/p>\n<h5>Volitional Attributes<\/h5>\n<p>God’s <em>sovereignty<\/em> indicates the divine authority with which he rules the entire creation and in his sovereign good pleasure does whatever he wills. God is King over the entire creation, and he rules the destiny of human beings and nations. He restores his kingdom through Jesus Christ; the risen Lord revealed that all authority in heaven and on earth was given to him (Mt 28:18). Election to salvation in Christ is “according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph 1:11, <span>rsv<\/span>). God’s sovereign will, though free, is not arbitrary; it is righteous and holy. He created the world and gave his law as the rule for his people’s lives; he covenants, blesses, and judges. God is the “King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Tm 6:15); he calls all his subjects to obedient love (Dt 6:4-5; Mt 22:37-40; 1 Jn 5:3).<\/p>\n<p>God’s <em>sovereign power<\/em> means that he is without bounds or limit in ability; he is <em>omnipotent<\/em> or almighty (Rv 4:8). By his powerful word, he created all things, and upholds “the universe by his word of power” (Heb 1:3). There is nothing too hard for the Lord God Almighty (Gn 18:14; Jer 32:27; Mt 19:26); he keeps his gracious covenant and fulfills all his promises (Lk 1:37; 2 Tm 2:13; Heb 6:18). The gospel is “the power of God for salvation” (Rom 1:16), for Christ is “the power of God” to save (1 Cor 1:24). Hence, believers must come to know “the immeasurable greatness of his power in us who believe, according to the working of his great might which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places” (Eph 1:19-20, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Glory<\/h5>\n<p>All the attributes of God are summarized in Scripture’s references to the <em>glory<\/em> of God. The majesty, splendor, beauty, and brilliance of God who dwells in unapproachable light are expressed by this indefinable term. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham (Acts 7:2); God showed his glory to Moses (Ex 33:18-19; 34:6-7). The God of the Lord Jesus Christ is the Father of glory (Eph 1:17). The heavens declare the glory of God (Ps 19:1); the majesty and glory of God fill heaven and earth (8:1). When finally every tongue shall confess Jesus as Lord, it will be for the glory of God the Father (Phil 2:11). Human beings were created for God’s glory, and Christian believers are instructed to do everything for the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31), thus reflecting in themselves his inherent glory.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GOD, Being and Attributes of Inherent characteristics of God revealed in Scripture and displayed in God’s actions in biblical history. They are characteristics equally of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God’s attributes are revealed in progressively richer and fuller ways within the history of redemption. According to the Bible, the entire creation shows God’s deity and eternal power (Ps 19:1-6; Rom 1:20). God’s providence also reveals certain of his attributes (Mt 5:45; Lk 6:35; Ac...","summary_en":"GOD, Being and Attributes of Inherent characteristics of God revealed in Scripture and displayed in God’s actions in biblical history. They are characteristics equally of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God’s attributes are revealed in progressively richer and fuller ways within the history of redemption. According to the Bible, the entire creation shows God’s deity and eternal power (Ps 19:1-6; Rom 1:20). God’s providence also reveals certain of his attributes (Mt 5:45; Lk 6:35; Ac...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":27289,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Neighbor","title_en":"Neighbor","content_ro":"<h3>NEIGHBOR<\/h3>\n<p>Concept apparently limited in the OT period and late Judaism to one’s fellow Israelite, or member of the covenant, and extended by Jesus to include anyone encountered in life.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Although it is never explicitly limited as such, the prominent connotation of “neighbor” in the OT is that of a fellow member of the covenant community; that is, another Israelite (see Lv 6:1-7; 19; Dt 15:2-3). In Leviticus 19:18, a passage often quoted in the NT, the Israelite is commanded to “love your neighbor as yourself.” In 19:34, it is explicitly stated that such love should also be shown to the foreigner (or “sojourner”) passing through the land. If “neighbor” (v 18) implied a more encompassing notion, such as “mankind” or “fellow man,” there presumably would have been no need to include the further stipulation in verse 34. “Neighbor” was therefore probably taken to mean one’s immediate neighbor, the fellow Israelite.<\/p>\n<p>Within the covenant community, love of neighbor involved certain responsibilities explicitly set forth in the law. The neighbor was to be treated fairly (Ex 22:5-15; Lv 6:2-7; 19:9-18) and respected (Ex 20:16), as were his belongings (Ex 20:17). To foster such just and merciful relationships within the covenant community, the neighbor was to be thought of as a “brother” (Lv 25:25; Dt 22:1-4). What one did to one’s neighbor was to be returned in kind (Lv 24:19-23; Dt 19:11-19).<\/p>\n<p>The grave importance attached to treatment of the neighbor is understandable when seen as part of one’s wider relationship with God and was considered something that could affect significantly the divine-human relationship (Lv 6:1-7; 19; 25:17; Dt 24:10-13; Ps 12). Israelites were to treat their neighbors in the same loving way they had themselves been treated by God (Ex 22:21; Lv 25:35-38).<\/p>\n<p>The importance of the neighbor relationship within the covenant community is also demonstrated by the fact that when such responsibilities were ignored, a societal breakdown or national turmoil followed (Dt 28:15-68; Hos 4:1-3; Am 2:6-7). That the Israelites often did neglect love for neighbor, particularly the neighbor in need, is a contributing cause for the divine punishment of the exile (Jer 5:7-9; 7:1-15; 9:2-9; Hos 4:1-3; Am 2:6-7; 5:10-13; 8:4-6). The mere fact that proper love of neighbor was also part of Israel’s hope for the messianic age to come (Jer 31:34; Zec 3:10) also points to its common neglect within the OT covenant community.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InLateJudaism\">In Late Judaism<\/p>\n<p>From the exilic experience, Israel recognized that divine blessing was conditional somewhat on justice and love exercised toward one another (Zec 8:14-17). The identity of the “neighbor” was debatable, however. Several factors suggest that “neighbor” was limited in this period to the fellow Israelite and the proselyte (gentile convert to Judaism). Evidence from rabbinic material excludes Samaritans and the Gentiles living in the land from being considered “neighbors” and thus worthy of love. Within the Jewish Essene community at Qumran, the “neighbor” to be respected and treated fairly was restricted to one’s fellow community members. Finally, when Jesus recalls, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy’” (Mt 5:43), he is quoting only partially from the OT (Lv 19:18—“You shall love your neighbor”). The last phrase (“and hate your enemy”) reflects the contemporary Jewish feeling toward outsiders; that is, God did not require love toward those considered “enemies” but only toward fellow countrymen.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Jesus differed dramatically from his Jewish contemporaries by eradicating the limitations on the neighbor to be loved. In contrast to those who would limit love to one’s fellow countrymen, Jesus advocated extending the obligation reserved for the neighbor to the enemy as well (Mt 5:43-48), and in so doing, he destroyed the distinction between neighbor and enemy altogether.<\/p>\n<p>On another occasion, a scribe asked Jesus what was the greatest commandment given by God (Mk 12:28-31). In response, Jesus cited Deuteronomy 6:5 concerning the nature of God and man’s obligation to love God with his entire being: heart, soul, and mind. Of significance is that Jesus did not stop there but linked with this a second commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lv 19:18). Some scholars suggest that this dramatic and close association of love of God and love of neighbor originated with Jesus. If Jesus was the first to tie these commands together (see Mt 22:37; Mk 12:29-31), it reveals our Lord’s own understanding of the relation of these two obligations; proper love for neighbor derives from love for God, and conversely, love for God is inseparable from meeting the needs of a neighbor in love.<\/p>\n<p>The debate in Jesus’ time was not over how to properly treat a neighbor but who, in fact, was the neighbor. Jesus is asked this very question by an expert of the law (Lk 10:29). Jesus had complimented the lawyer for his clear understanding of what was required to inherit eternal life, namely, love of God and love of neighbor. Luke suggests that the lawyer asked the further qualifying question in order to “justify himself,” that is, justify his actual behavior of limited love toward his fellow man. Jesus chose not to respond directly but through the use of a parable, in this case, the familiar parable of the Good Samaritan (vv 30-35).<\/p>\n<p>In order to open the lawyer’s eyes to the tragic shortsightedness of his question, Jesus related an everyday story of a man traveling the treacherous road from Jerusalem down to Jericho, a road particularly plagued by robbers. The traveler is robbed, stripped, beaten, and left half dead. To this point, the lawyer might have assumed Jesus was offering an example of who constitutes a “neighbor”—a fellow Jew in need. Jesus proceeds, however, to introduce two figures, a priest and a Levite who, in an academic discussion, could have argued quite ably on who is the neighbor God calls one to love. The lawyer would no doubt have anticipated such experts in the law to act rightly toward the victim. In contrast, the priest and Levite, upon seeing the man in need, respond by “passing by on the other side.” Unable to determine whether the victim was dead or barely alive, and possibly not wanting to risk uncleanness, the experts of the law pass by, thus violating the greatest of the commandments just identified by the lawyer (10:25-28).<\/p>\n<p>Enter a Samaritan—a figure especially despised by the Jews. Viewed as heretics by the Jewish religious authorities, the Samaritans were disqualified in rabbinic circles from being considered a “neighbor” and thus worthy of love. In fact, previous centuries had witnessed the slaughter of many Samaritans by Jewish rulers, and animosity clearly existed between the two peoples (see Jn 4:9). While the lawyer listening to the parable would have expected the priest and Levite to act justly toward the victim, he must have been surprised that a hated Samaritan would show compassion and thus fulfill the greatest commandment. Jesus intentionally spelled out the extent of the Samaritan’s compassion (immediate care in dressing wounds, transport to the inn, care for the victim there and extended care in paying for care by others while he is away, Lk 10:34-35) to such a degree that the lawyer would have no doubt as to the genuineness of the Samaritan’s love. The irony of the story is that one not considered worthy to be called “neighbor” by Jews was precisely the one who showed himself to be “neighbor” to the victim (vv 36-37).<\/p>\n<p>The parable, like the statement in Matthew 5:43-48, reveals Jesus’ own understanding of “neighbor” and what “love of neighbor” demands. Jesus sets no limitation on who qualifies as the neighbor commanded by God to be loved.<\/p>\n<p>The forcefulness and power of Jesus’ teachings on the love of neighbor and its relationship to one’s love for God are demonstrated by a similar emphasis within the early church. Paul on two occasions called the love of neighbor the fulfillment of the entire law (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14), while James referred to the same commandment as “the royal law” (Jas 2:8).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NEIGHBOR<\/h3>\n<p>Concept apparently limited in the OT period and late Judaism to one’s fellow Israelite, or member of the covenant, and extended by Jesus to include anyone encountered in life.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Although it is never explicitly limited as such, the prominent connotation of “neighbor” in the OT is that of a fellow member of the covenant community; that is, another Israelite (see Lv 6:1-7; 19; Dt 15:2-3). In Leviticus 19:18, a passage often quoted in the NT, the Israelite is commanded to “love your neighbor as yourself.” In 19:34, it is explicitly stated that such love should also be shown to the foreigner (or “sojourner”) passing through the land. If “neighbor” (v 18) implied a more encompassing notion, such as “mankind” or “fellow man,” there presumably would have been no need to include the further stipulation in verse 34. “Neighbor” was therefore probably taken to mean one’s immediate neighbor, the fellow Israelite.<\/p>\n<p>Within the covenant community, love of neighbor involved certain responsibilities explicitly set forth in the law. The neighbor was to be treated fairly (Ex 22:5-15; Lv 6:2-7; 19:9-18) and respected (Ex 20:16), as were his belongings (Ex 20:17). To foster such just and merciful relationships within the covenant community, the neighbor was to be thought of as a “brother” (Lv 25:25; Dt 22:1-4). What one did to one’s neighbor was to be returned in kind (Lv 24:19-23; Dt 19:11-19).<\/p>\n<p>The grave importance attached to treatment of the neighbor is understandable when seen as part of one’s wider relationship with God and was considered something that could affect significantly the divine-human relationship (Lv 6:1-7; 19; 25:17; Dt 24:10-13; Ps 12). Israelites were to treat their neighbors in the same loving way they had themselves been treated by God (Ex 22:21; Lv 25:35-38).<\/p>\n<p>The importance of the neighbor relationship within the covenant community is also demonstrated by the fact that when such responsibilities were ignored, a societal breakdown or national turmoil followed (Dt 28:15-68; Hos 4:1-3; Am 2:6-7). That the Israelites often did neglect love for neighbor, particularly the neighbor in need, is a contributing cause for the divine punishment of the exile (Jer 5:7-9; 7:1-15; 9:2-9; Hos 4:1-3; Am 2:6-7; 5:10-13; 8:4-6). The mere fact that proper love of neighbor was also part of Israel’s hope for the messianic age to come (Jer 31:34; Zec 3:10) also points to its common neglect within the OT covenant community.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InLateJudaism\">In Late Judaism<\/p>\n<p>From the exilic experience, Israel recognized that divine blessing was conditional somewhat on justice and love exercised toward one another (Zec 8:14-17). The identity of the “neighbor” was debatable, however. Several factors suggest that “neighbor” was limited in this period to the fellow Israelite and the proselyte (gentile convert to Judaism). Evidence from rabbinic material excludes Samaritans and the Gentiles living in the land from being considered “neighbors” and thus worthy of love. Within the Jewish Essene community at Qumran, the “neighbor” to be respected and treated fairly was restricted to one’s fellow community members. Finally, when Jesus recalls, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy’” (Mt 5:43), he is quoting only partially from the OT (Lv 19:18—“You shall love your neighbor”). The last phrase (“and hate your enemy”) reflects the contemporary Jewish feeling toward outsiders; that is, God did not require love toward those considered “enemies” but only toward fellow countrymen.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Jesus differed dramatically from his Jewish contemporaries by eradicating the limitations on the neighbor to be loved. In contrast to those who would limit love to one’s fellow countrymen, Jesus advocated extending the obligation reserved for the neighbor to the enemy as well (Mt 5:43-48), and in so doing, he destroyed the distinction between neighbor and enemy altogether.<\/p>\n<p>On another occasion, a scribe asked Jesus what was the greatest commandment given by God (Mk 12:28-31). In response, Jesus cited Deuteronomy 6:5 concerning the nature of God and man’s obligation to love God with his entire being: heart, soul, and mind. Of significance is that Jesus did not stop there but linked with this a second commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lv 19:18). Some scholars suggest that this dramatic and close association of love of God and love of neighbor originated with Jesus. If Jesus was the first to tie these commands together (see Mt 22:37; Mk 12:29-31), it reveals our Lord’s own understanding of the relation of these two obligations; proper love for neighbor derives from love for God, and conversely, love for God is inseparable from meeting the needs of a neighbor in love.<\/p>\n<p>The debate in Jesus’ time was not over how to properly treat a neighbor but who, in fact, was the neighbor. Jesus is asked this very question by an expert of the law (Lk 10:29). Jesus had complimented the lawyer for his clear understanding of what was required to inherit eternal life, namely, love of God and love of neighbor. Luke suggests that the lawyer asked the further qualifying question in order to “justify himself,” that is, justify his actual behavior of limited love toward his fellow man. Jesus chose not to respond directly but through the use of a parable, in this case, the familiar parable of the Good Samaritan (vv 30-35).<\/p>\n<p>In order to open the lawyer’s eyes to the tragic shortsightedness of his question, Jesus related an everyday story of a man traveling the treacherous road from Jerusalem down to Jericho, a road particularly plagued by robbers. The traveler is robbed, stripped, beaten, and left half dead. To this point, the lawyer might have assumed Jesus was offering an example of who constitutes a “neighbor”—a fellow Jew in need. Jesus proceeds, however, to introduce two figures, a priest and a Levite who, in an academic discussion, could have argued quite ably on who is the neighbor God calls one to love. The lawyer would no doubt have anticipated such experts in the law to act rightly toward the victim. In contrast, the priest and Levite, upon seeing the man in need, respond by “passing by on the other side.” Unable to determine whether the victim was dead or barely alive, and possibly not wanting to risk uncleanness, the experts of the law pass by, thus violating the greatest of the commandments just identified by the lawyer (10:25-28).<\/p>\n<p>Enter a Samaritan—a figure especially despised by the Jews. Viewed as heretics by the Jewish religious authorities, the Samaritans were disqualified in rabbinic circles from being considered a “neighbor” and thus worthy of love. In fact, previous centuries had witnessed the slaughter of many Samaritans by Jewish rulers, and animosity clearly existed between the two peoples (see Jn 4:9). While the lawyer listening to the parable would have expected the priest and Levite to act justly toward the victim, he must have been surprised that a hated Samaritan would show compassion and thus fulfill the greatest commandment. Jesus intentionally spelled out the extent of the Samaritan’s compassion (immediate care in dressing wounds, transport to the inn, care for the victim there and extended care in paying for care by others while he is away, Lk 10:34-35) to such a degree that the lawyer would have no doubt as to the genuineness of the Samaritan’s love. The irony of the story is that one not considered worthy to be called “neighbor” by Jews was precisely the one who showed himself to be “neighbor” to the victim (vv 36-37).<\/p>\n<p>The parable, like the statement in Matthew 5:43-48, reveals Jesus’ own understanding of “neighbor” and what “love of neighbor” demands. Jesus sets no limitation on who qualifies as the neighbor commanded by God to be loved.<\/p>\n<p>The forcefulness and power of Jesus’ teachings on the love of neighbor and its relationship to one’s love for God are demonstrated by a similar emphasis within the early church. Paul on two occasions called the love of neighbor the fulfillment of the entire law (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14), while James referred to the same commandment as “the royal law” (Jas 2:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"NEIGHBOR Concept apparently limited in the OT period and late Judaism to one’s fellow Israelite, or member of the covenant, and extended by Jesus to include anyone encountered in life. In the Old Testament Although it is never explicitly limited as such, the prominent connotation of “neighbor” in the OT is that of a fellow member of the covenant community; that is, another Israelite (see Lv 6:1-7; 19; Dt 15:2-3). In Leviticus 19:18, a passage often quoted in the NT, the Israelite is commanded...","summary_en":"NEIGHBOR Concept apparently limited in the OT period and late Judaism to one’s fellow Israelite, or member of the covenant, and extended by Jesus to include anyone encountered in life. In the Old Testament Although it is never explicitly limited as such, the prominent connotation of “neighbor” in the OT is that of a fellow member of the covenant community; that is, another Israelite (see Lv 6:1-7; 19; Dt 15:2-3). In Leviticus 19:18, a passage often quoted in the NT, the Israelite is commanded...","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34877,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"the Shema*","title_en":"the Shema*","content_ro":"<h3>SHEMA*, The<\/h3>\n<p>The declaration “Hear, O Israel, Yahweh our God is one Yahweh” (Dt 6:4). <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shema<\/span> comes from the first Hebrew word of the verse, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shema<\/span><em>,<\/em> “hear.” Verses 4-9 make up the whole of this foundational biblical truth. While several translations of verse 4 are grammatically correct, Jesus’ words in Mark 12:29 correspond most closely to the one given above. Religious Jews recite the Shema three times daily as part of their devotional life; no Sabbath worship is conducted in the synagogue without its proclamation.<\/p>\n<p>Within the Shema is found both a fundamental doctrinal truth and a resultant obligation. There is an urgency connected to the teaching: the word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shema<\/span> demands that the hearer respond with his total being to the fact and demands of this essential revelation.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the teaching pertaining to the nature of God, the word “one” (<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">echad<\/span>) designates a compound unity rather than an absolute singular. While the eminent medieval Jewish theologian Maimonides insisted that God was <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">yachid<\/span> (an absolute singular), the OT does not use this word to define God’s nature. The compound singular word for “one” first occurs in Genesis 2:24 where a man and woman, though separate entities, are seen to be one (<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">echad<\/span>) in marriage. Understandably, Jesus could freely quote Deuteronomy 6:4 without infringing upon the truth of his own deity.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Deuteronomy, Book of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SHEMA*, The<\/h3>\n<p>The declaration “Hear, O Israel, Yahweh our God is one Yahweh” (Dt 6:4). <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shema<\/span> comes from the first Hebrew word of the verse, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shema<\/span><em>,<\/em> “hear.” Verses 4-9 make up the whole of this foundational biblical truth. While several translations of verse 4 are grammatically correct, Jesus’ words in Mark 12:29 correspond most closely to the one given above. Religious Jews recite the Shema three times daily as part of their devotional life; no Sabbath worship is conducted in the synagogue without its proclamation.<\/p>\n<p>Within the Shema is found both a fundamental doctrinal truth and a resultant obligation. There is an urgency connected to the teaching: the word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shema<\/span> demands that the hearer respond with his total being to the fact and demands of this essential revelation.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the teaching pertaining to the nature of God, the word “one” (<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">echad<\/span>) designates a compound unity rather than an absolute singular. While the eminent medieval Jewish theologian Maimonides insisted that God was <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">yachid<\/span> (an absolute singular), the OT does not use this word to define God’s nature. The compound singular word for “one” first occurs in Genesis 2:24 where a man and woman, though separate entities, are seen to be one (<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">echad<\/span>) in marriage. Understandably, Jesus could freely quote Deuteronomy 6:4 without infringing upon the truth of his own deity.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Deuteronomy, Book of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SHEMA*, The The declaration “Hear, O Israel, Yahweh our God is one Yahweh” (Dt 6:4). Shema comes from the first Hebrew word of the verse, shema, “hear.” Verses 4-9 make up the whole of this foundational biblical truth. While several translations of verse 4 are grammatically correct, Jesus’ words in Mark 12:29 correspond most closely to the one given above. Religious Jews recite the Shema three times daily as part of their devotional life; no Sabbath worship is conducted in the synagogue witho...","summary_en":"SHEMA*, The The declaration “Hear, O Israel, Yahweh our God is one Yahweh” (Dt 6:4). Shema comes from the first Hebrew word of the verse, shema, “hear.” Verses 4-9 make up the whole of this foundational biblical truth. While several translations of verse 4 are grammatically correct, Jesus’ words in Mark 12:29 correspond most closely to the one given above. Religious Jews recite the Shema three times daily as part of their devotional life; no Sabbath worship is conducted in the synagogue witho...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55464,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:29","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:29","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:29-31<\/strong> Jesus’ reply combined two widely separated commands from the Torah. • The first, Deut 6:4-5, was probably the best known passage in the Old Testament, for it was repeated twice daily by observant Jews. It is called the <em>Shema<\/em> because it begins with the word <em>Listen<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shema‘<\/span>). The first command corresponds to the first part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-11), which deals with a person’s relationship to God. • The oneness of God is foundational to Jewish and Christian monotheism and is the basis for the command to love God with all one’s <em>heart<\/em> (thinking and affection), <em>soul<\/em> (desire and feeling), <em>mind<\/em> (understanding), and <em>strength<\/em> (energy and power). • The second command is from Lev 19:18. It corresponds to the second part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:12-17), which concerns a person’s relationship with other people. The second command is based on the natural inclination of people to look after themselves. Its importance to the early church can be seen in its frequent repetition (Matt 5:43-44; 19:19; 25:31-46; Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8; <em>Didache<\/em> 1.2; 2.7). The two commands are not independent, but are intimately associated as one commandment. Their integration precludes religious mysticism that addresses only a person’s relationship with God or humanism that addresses only human relationships.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:29-31<\/strong> Jesus’ reply combined two widely separated commands from the Torah. • The first, Deut 6:4-5, was probably the best known passage in the Old Testament, for it was repeated twice daily by observant Jews. It is called the <em>Shema<\/em> because it begins with the word <em>Listen<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shema‘<\/span>). The first command corresponds to the first part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-11), which deals with a person’s relationship to God. • The oneness of God is foundational to Jewish and Christian monotheism and is the basis for the command to love God with all one’s <em>heart<\/em> (thinking and affection), <em>soul<\/em> (desire and feeling), <em>mind<\/em> (understanding), and <em>strength<\/em> (energy and power). • The second command is from Lev 19:18. It corresponds to the second part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:12-17), which concerns a person’s relationship with other people. The second command is based on the natural inclination of people to look after themselves. Its importance to the early church can be seen in its frequent repetition (Matt 5:43-44; 19:19; 25:31-46; Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8; <em>Didache<\/em> 1.2; 2.7). The two commands are not independent, but are intimately associated as one commandment. Their integration precludes religious mysticism that addresses only a person’s relationship with God or humanism that addresses only human relationships.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:29-31 Jesus’ reply combined two widely separated commands from the Torah. • The first, Deut 6:4-5, was probably the best known passage in the Old Testament, for it was repeated twice daily by observant Jews. It is called the Shema because it begins with the word Listen (Hebrew shema‘). The first command corresponds to the first part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-11), which deals with a person’s relationship to God. • The oneness of God is foundational to Jewish and Christian monotheis...","summary_en":"12:29-31 Jesus’ reply combined two widely separated commands from the Torah. • The first, Deut 6:4-5, was probably the best known passage in the Old Testament, for it was repeated twice daily by observant Jews. It is called the Shema because it begins with the word Listen (Hebrew shema‘). The first command corresponds to the first part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-11), which deals with a person’s relationship to God. • The oneness of God is foundational to Jewish and Christian monotheis...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83090,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:29","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:29","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:29-31<\/strong> Jesus’ reply combined two widely separated commands from the Torah. • The first, Deut 6:4-5, was probably the best known passage in the Old Testament, for it was repeated twice daily by observant Jews. It is called the <em>Shema<\/em> because it begins with the word <em>Listen<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shema‘<\/span>). The first command corresponds to the first part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-11), which deals with a person’s relationship to God. • The oneness of God is foundational to Jewish and Christian monotheism and is the basis for the command to love God with all one’s <em>heart<\/em> (thinking and affection), <em>soul<\/em> (desire and feeling), <em>mind<\/em> (understanding), and <em>strength<\/em> (energy and power). • The second command is from Lev 19:18. It corresponds to the second part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:12-17), which concerns a person’s relationship with other people. The second command is based on the natural inclination of people to look after themselves. Its importance to the early church can be seen in its frequent repetition (Matt 5:43-44; 19:19; 25:31-46; Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8; <em>Didache<\/em> 1.2; 2.7). The two commands are not independent, but are intimately associated as one commandment. Their integration precludes religious mysticism that addresses only a person’s relationship with God or humanism that addresses only human relationships.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:29-31<\/strong> Jesus’ reply combined two widely separated commands from the Torah. • The first, Deut 6:4-5, was probably the best known passage in the Old Testament, for it was repeated twice daily by observant Jews. It is called the <em>Shema<\/em> because it begins with the word <em>Listen<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shema‘<\/span>). The first command corresponds to the first part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-11), which deals with a person’s relationship to God. • The oneness of God is foundational to Jewish and Christian monotheism and is the basis for the command to love God with all one’s <em>heart<\/em> (thinking and affection), <em>soul<\/em> (desire and feeling), <em>mind<\/em> (understanding), and <em>strength<\/em> (energy and power). • The second command is from Lev 19:18. It corresponds to the second part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:12-17), which concerns a person’s relationship with other people. The second command is based on the natural inclination of people to look after themselves. Its importance to the early church can be seen in its frequent repetition (Matt 5:43-44; 19:19; 25:31-46; Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8; <em>Didache<\/em> 1.2; 2.7). The two commands are not independent, but are intimately associated as one commandment. Their integration precludes religious mysticism that addresses only a person’s relationship with God or humanism that addresses only human relationships.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:29-31 Jesus’ reply combined two widely separated commands from the Torah. • The first, Deut 6:4-5, was probably the best known passage in the Old Testament, for it was repeated twice daily by observant Jews. It is called the Shema because it begins with the word Listen (Hebrew shema‘). The first command corresponds to the first part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-11), which deals with a person’s relationship to God. • The oneness of God is foundational to Jewish and Christian monotheis...","summary_en":"12:29-31 Jesus’ reply combined two widely separated commands from the Torah. • The first, Deut 6:4-5, was probably the best known passage in the Old Testament, for it was repeated twice daily by observant Jews. It is called the Shema because it begins with the word Listen (Hebrew shema‘). The first command corresponds to the first part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-11), which deals with a person’s relationship to God. • The oneness of God is foundational to Jewish and Christian monotheis...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110716,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:29","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:29","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:29-31<\/strong> Jesus’ reply combined two widely separated commands from the Torah. • The first, Deut 6:4-5, was probably the best known passage in the Old Testament, for it was repeated twice daily by observant Jews. It is called the <em>Shema<\/em> because it begins with the word <em>Listen<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shema‘<\/span>). The first command corresponds to the first part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-11), which deals with a person’s relationship to God. • The oneness of God is foundational to Jewish and Christian monotheism and is the basis for the command to love God with all one’s <em>heart<\/em> (thinking and affection), <em>soul<\/em> (desire and feeling), <em>mind<\/em> (understanding), and <em>strength<\/em> (energy and power). • The second command is from Lev 19:18. It corresponds to the second part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:12-17), which concerns a person’s relationship with other people. The second command is based on the natural inclination of people to look after themselves. Its importance to the early church can be seen in its frequent repetition (Matt 5:43-44; 19:19; 25:31-46; Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8; <em>Didache<\/em> 1.2; 2.7). The two commands are not independent, but are intimately associated as one commandment. Their integration precludes religious mysticism that addresses only a person’s relationship with God or humanism that addresses only human relationships.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:29-31<\/strong> Jesus’ reply combined two widely separated commands from the Torah. • The first, Deut 6:4-5, was probably the best known passage in the Old Testament, for it was repeated twice daily by observant Jews. It is called the <em>Shema<\/em> because it begins with the word <em>Listen<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shema‘<\/span>). The first command corresponds to the first part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-11), which deals with a person’s relationship to God. • The oneness of God is foundational to Jewish and Christian monotheism and is the basis for the command to love God with all one’s <em>heart<\/em> (thinking and affection), <em>soul<\/em> (desire and feeling), <em>mind<\/em> (understanding), and <em>strength<\/em> (energy and power). • The second command is from Lev 19:18. It corresponds to the second part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:12-17), which concerns a person’s relationship with other people. The second command is based on the natural inclination of people to look after themselves. Its importance to the early church can be seen in its frequent repetition (Matt 5:43-44; 19:19; 25:31-46; Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8; <em>Didache<\/em> 1.2; 2.7). The two commands are not independent, but are intimately associated as one commandment. Their integration precludes religious mysticism that addresses only a person’s relationship with God or humanism that addresses only human relationships.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:29-31 Jesus’ reply combined two widely separated commands from the Torah. • The first, Deut 6:4-5, was probably the best known passage in the Old Testament, for it was repeated twice daily by observant Jews. It is called the Shema because it begins with the word Listen (Hebrew shema‘). The first command corresponds to the first part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-11), which deals with a person’s relationship to God. • The oneness of God is foundational to Jewish and Christian monotheis...","summary_en":"12:29-31 Jesus’ reply combined two widely separated commands from the Torah. • The first, Deut 6:4-5, was probably the best known passage in the Old Testament, for it was repeated twice daily by observant Jews. It is called the Shema because it begins with the word Listen (Hebrew shema‘). The first command corresponds to the first part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-11), which deals with a person’s relationship to God. • The oneness of God is foundational to Jewish and Christian monotheis...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138342,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:29","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:29","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:29-31<\/strong> Jesus’ reply combined two widely separated commands from the Torah. • The first, Deut 6:4-5, was probably the best known passage in the Old Testament, for it was repeated twice daily by observant Jews. It is called the <em>Shema<\/em> because it begins with the word <em>Listen<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shema‘<\/span>). The first command corresponds to the first part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-11), which deals with a person’s relationship to God. • The oneness of God is foundational to Jewish and Christian monotheism and is the basis for the command to love God with all one’s <em>heart<\/em> (thinking and affection), <em>soul<\/em> (desire and feeling), <em>mind<\/em> (understanding), and <em>strength<\/em> (energy and power). • The second command is from Lev 19:18. It corresponds to the second part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:12-17), which concerns a person’s relationship with other people. The second command is based on the natural inclination of people to look after themselves. Its importance to the early church can be seen in its frequent repetition (Matt 5:43-44; 19:19; 25:31-46; Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8; <em>Didache<\/em> 1.2; 2.7). The two commands are not independent, but are intimately associated as one commandment. Their integration precludes religious mysticism that addresses only a person’s relationship with God or humanism that addresses only human relationships.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:29-31<\/strong> Jesus’ reply combined two widely separated commands from the Torah. • The first, Deut 6:4-5, was probably the best known passage in the Old Testament, for it was repeated twice daily by observant Jews. It is called the <em>Shema<\/em> because it begins with the word <em>Listen<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shema‘<\/span>). The first command corresponds to the first part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-11), which deals with a person’s relationship to God. • The oneness of God is foundational to Jewish and Christian monotheism and is the basis for the command to love God with all one’s <em>heart<\/em> (thinking and affection), <em>soul<\/em> (desire and feeling), <em>mind<\/em> (understanding), and <em>strength<\/em> (energy and power). • The second command is from Lev 19:18. It corresponds to the second part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:12-17), which concerns a person’s relationship with other people. The second command is based on the natural inclination of people to look after themselves. Its importance to the early church can be seen in its frequent repetition (Matt 5:43-44; 19:19; 25:31-46; Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8; <em>Didache<\/em> 1.2; 2.7). The two commands are not independent, but are intimately associated as one commandment. Their integration precludes religious mysticism that addresses only a person’s relationship with God or humanism that addresses only human relationships.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:29-31 Jesus’ reply combined two widely separated commands from the Torah. • The first, Deut 6:4-5, was probably the best known passage in the Old Testament, for it was repeated twice daily by observant Jews. It is called the Shema because it begins with the word Listen (Hebrew shema‘). The first command corresponds to the first part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-11), which deals with a person’s relationship to God. • The oneness of God is foundational to Jewish and Christian monotheis...","summary_en":"12:29-31 Jesus’ reply combined two widely separated commands from the Torah. • The first, Deut 6:4-5, was probably the best known passage in the Old Testament, for it was repeated twice daily by observant Jews. It is called the Shema because it begins with the word Listen (Hebrew shema‘). The first command corresponds to the first part of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-11), which deals with a person’s relationship to God. • The oneness of God is foundational to Jewish and Christian monotheis...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"30":[{"id":15716,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Heart","title_en":"Heart","content_ro":"<h3>HEART<\/h3>\n<p>Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">leb<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kardia<\/span>) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PhysicalHeart\">Physical Heart<\/p>\n<p>That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physical food and wine affect the heart (Jgs 19:5; Ps 104:15; Acts 14:17), and the heart can “faint” and “tremble.” The heart’s position in the body yields an obvious metaphor for “the center” (Mt 12:40).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PyschologicalHeart\">Pyschological Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart attends intellectually (e.g., Jer 12:11); it also perceives (Jn 12:40), understands (1 Kgs 3:9), debates (Mk 2:6), reflects (Lk 2:19), remembers (Lk 2:51), thinks (Dt 8:17), imagines (Lk 1:51), is wise (Eccl 1:17, <span>kjv<\/span>), has technical skill (Ex 28:3, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Emotionally, the heart experiences intoxicated merriment (1 Sm 25:36), gladness (Is 30:29), joy (Jn 16:22), sorrow (Neh 2:2), anguish (Rom 9:2), bitterness (Prv 14:10), anxiety (1 Sm 4:13), despair (Eccl 2:20), love (2 Sm 14:1), trust (Ps 112:7), affection (2 Cor 7:3), lust (Mt 5:28), callousness (Mk 3:5), hatred (Lv 19:17), fear (Gn 42:28), jealousy (Jas 3:14), desire (Rom 10:1), discouragement (Nm 32:9), sympathy (Ex 23:9), anger (Dt 19:6, <span>kjv<\/span>), irresolution (2 Chr 13:7, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Volitionally, the heart can purpose (1 Cor 4:5), incline to (1 Sm 14:7), prompt (2 Kgs 12:4; cf. Prv 4:23), be steadfast (Acts 11:23), be willing (Ex 35:22), contrive evil (Acts 5:4), or follow its “treasure” (Mt 6:21).<\/p>\n<p>Morally, the heart can be gentle, lowly (Mt 11:29), holy (1 Thes 3:13), faithful (Neh 9:8), upright (Ps 97:11), pure, single-minded (Jas 4:8), clean (Acts 15:8), loving toward God (Mk 12:30) and others (1 Pt 1:22), hardened, or sensitive (Ez 11:19). Scripture’s emphasis falls upon the heart’s evil (Gn 6:5 and throughout), as self-deceiving (Jas 1:26), deceitful (Jer 17:9), avaricious (Mt 6:19-21), lustful (Mt 5:28), arrogant (Is 9:9), impious (Acts 7:51), perverse (Ps 101:4), and impenitent (Rom 2:5). Nothing defiles a man worse than his own heart (Mk 7:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Yet out of the heart can come good (Lk 6:45; 8:15). Even when frustrated by circumstances or by fear, the heart’s good intention remains good; its evil intent, bad (1 Kgs 8:18; Mt 5:28).<\/p>\n<p>Being so complex, a person’s heart is sadly divided, and Scripture often extols a perfect, whole, true (i.e., united) heart (Gn 20:5; Ps 86:11; Acts 8:37). The “heart” signifies the total inner self, a person’s hidden core of being (1 Pt 3:4), with which one communes, which one “pours out” in prayer, words, and deeds (Ps 62:8; Mt 15:18-19). It is the genuine self, distinguished from appearance, public position, and physical presence (1 Sm 16:7; 2 Cor 5:12; 1 Thes 2:17). And this “heart-self” has its own nature, character, and disposition (Dn 4:16; 7:4, <span>kjv<\/span>; cf. Mt 12:33-37).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheSpiritualHeart\">The Spiritual Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart is especially important in biblical religion. The mystery of the hidden self is fully known to God and to Christ (Jer 17:10; Lk 9:47; Rom 8:27), and the heart is the seat of our knowledge of God (2 Cor 4:6). The state of heart governs the vision of God (Mt 5:8); from the heart one speaks to God (Ps 27:8); the heart is the locus of divine indwelling (2 Cor 1:22; Gal 4:6; Eph 3:17).<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, moral evil in the heart is seen in biblical perspective as sin against God. Senseless hearts are darkened, often secretly idolatrous, far from God, “not right” before God (Dt 29:18-19; Mt 15:8; Acts 8:21; Rom 1:21). Yet the Lord will not despise a broken, contrite heart (Ps 51:17). When one’s heart is turned toward God, he promises to make it sensitive to divine things, renewed and purified (Dt 4:29; 2 Kgs 23:25; Ps 51:10; Jl 2:13; Ez 36:25-27). God’s law shall then be written on the heart as the inward guide and incentive (Jer 31:33; Heb 8:10; cf. 2 Cor 3:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>In Christian terms, such transformation involves believing the gospel from the “honest and good heart” that provides fruitful soil for the Word of God (Lk 8:15; Rom 10:9). The true heart draws near to God, loves him with all its intellect, feeling, and will (Lk 10:27; Heb 10:22). Then God gives strength, reward, renewal, grace, peace, and joy to the heart (Ps 73:26; Is 57:15; Acts 2:46; Phil 4:7; Heb 13:9). So the ancient ideal becomes possible again, that of being “a man after God’s own heart” (1 Sm 13:14; Acts 13:22).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEART<\/h3>\n<p>Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">leb<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kardia<\/span>) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PhysicalHeart\">Physical Heart<\/p>\n<p>That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physical food and wine affect the heart (Jgs 19:5; Ps 104:15; Acts 14:17), and the heart can “faint” and “tremble.” The heart’s position in the body yields an obvious metaphor for “the center” (Mt 12:40).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PyschologicalHeart\">Pyschological Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart attends intellectually (e.g., Jer 12:11); it also perceives (Jn 12:40), understands (1 Kgs 3:9), debates (Mk 2:6), reflects (Lk 2:19), remembers (Lk 2:51), thinks (Dt 8:17), imagines (Lk 1:51), is wise (Eccl 1:17, <span>kjv<\/span>), has technical skill (Ex 28:3, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Emotionally, the heart experiences intoxicated merriment (1 Sm 25:36), gladness (Is 30:29), joy (Jn 16:22), sorrow (Neh 2:2), anguish (Rom 9:2), bitterness (Prv 14:10), anxiety (1 Sm 4:13), despair (Eccl 2:20), love (2 Sm 14:1), trust (Ps 112:7), affection (2 Cor 7:3), lust (Mt 5:28), callousness (Mk 3:5), hatred (Lv 19:17), fear (Gn 42:28), jealousy (Jas 3:14), desire (Rom 10:1), discouragement (Nm 32:9), sympathy (Ex 23:9), anger (Dt 19:6, <span>kjv<\/span>), irresolution (2 Chr 13:7, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Volitionally, the heart can purpose (1 Cor 4:5), incline to (1 Sm 14:7), prompt (2 Kgs 12:4; cf. Prv 4:23), be steadfast (Acts 11:23), be willing (Ex 35:22), contrive evil (Acts 5:4), or follow its “treasure” (Mt 6:21).<\/p>\n<p>Morally, the heart can be gentle, lowly (Mt 11:29), holy (1 Thes 3:13), faithful (Neh 9:8), upright (Ps 97:11), pure, single-minded (Jas 4:8), clean (Acts 15:8), loving toward God (Mk 12:30) and others (1 Pt 1:22), hardened, or sensitive (Ez 11:19). Scripture’s emphasis falls upon the heart’s evil (Gn 6:5 and throughout), as self-deceiving (Jas 1:26), deceitful (Jer 17:9), avaricious (Mt 6:19-21), lustful (Mt 5:28), arrogant (Is 9:9), impious (Acts 7:51), perverse (Ps 101:4), and impenitent (Rom 2:5). Nothing defiles a man worse than his own heart (Mk 7:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Yet out of the heart can come good (Lk 6:45; 8:15). Even when frustrated by circumstances or by fear, the heart’s good intention remains good; its evil intent, bad (1 Kgs 8:18; Mt 5:28).<\/p>\n<p>Being so complex, a person’s heart is sadly divided, and Scripture often extols a perfect, whole, true (i.e., united) heart (Gn 20:5; Ps 86:11; Acts 8:37). The “heart” signifies the total inner self, a person’s hidden core of being (1 Pt 3:4), with which one communes, which one “pours out” in prayer, words, and deeds (Ps 62:8; Mt 15:18-19). It is the genuine self, distinguished from appearance, public position, and physical presence (1 Sm 16:7; 2 Cor 5:12; 1 Thes 2:17). And this “heart-self” has its own nature, character, and disposition (Dn 4:16; 7:4, <span>kjv<\/span>; cf. Mt 12:33-37).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheSpiritualHeart\">The Spiritual Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart is especially important in biblical religion. The mystery of the hidden self is fully known to God and to Christ (Jer 17:10; Lk 9:47; Rom 8:27), and the heart is the seat of our knowledge of God (2 Cor 4:6). The state of heart governs the vision of God (Mt 5:8); from the heart one speaks to God (Ps 27:8); the heart is the locus of divine indwelling (2 Cor 1:22; Gal 4:6; Eph 3:17).<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, moral evil in the heart is seen in biblical perspective as sin against God. Senseless hearts are darkened, often secretly idolatrous, far from God, “not right” before God (Dt 29:18-19; Mt 15:8; Acts 8:21; Rom 1:21). Yet the Lord will not despise a broken, contrite heart (Ps 51:17). When one’s heart is turned toward God, he promises to make it sensitive to divine things, renewed and purified (Dt 4:29; 2 Kgs 23:25; Ps 51:10; Jl 2:13; Ez 36:25-27). God’s law shall then be written on the heart as the inward guide and incentive (Jer 31:33; Heb 8:10; cf. 2 Cor 3:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>In Christian terms, such transformation involves believing the gospel from the “honest and good heart” that provides fruitful soil for the Word of God (Lk 8:15; Rom 10:9). The true heart draws near to God, loves him with all its intellect, feeling, and will (Lk 10:27; Heb 10:22). Then God gives strength, reward, renewal, grace, peace, and joy to the heart (Ps 73:26; Is 57:15; Acts 2:46; Phil 4:7; Heb 13:9). So the ancient ideal becomes possible again, that of being “a man after God’s own heart” (1 Sm 13:14; Acts 13:22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEART Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being. In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew leb; Greek kardia) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great. Physical Heart That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see nlt mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physi...","summary_en":"HEART Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being. In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew leb; Greek kardia) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great. Physical Heart That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see nlt mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physi...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":25776,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Mind","title_en":"Mind","content_ro":"<h3>MIND<\/h3>\n<p>One’s intellectual processes in a narrow sense or, more broadly, the sum total of a person’s mental and moral state of being. To the Hebrew way of thinking, there is no distinctive terminology for the concept of the mind. To the Greek world, the mind plays a very important role in the understanding of humans.<\/p>\n<p>Since in the OT there was no separate word that could be used for the human mind, translators of the English versions have supplied other words (“soul,” “spirit,” or “heart”), as the context dictates. Thus, precise distinctions among these terms are hard to define. A person is a soul, having a spirit and a heart. Any of these terms may represent the mind. This means that the widely held distinction between the mind as the seat of thinking and the heart as the seat of feeling is alien to the meanings these terms carry in the OT.<\/p>\n<p>While the “mind” denotes a person’s thoughts, the prominent idea of “mind” in the OT is that it denotes the heart (1 Sm 2:35; Ez 11:5; 20:32). The heart is often intended to include the entire inner person and thus often relates especially to the mind. In these instances it relates primarily to the functions of will and memory (Is 46:8; 65:17; Jer 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>The basic patterns of Hebrew reasoning continue in the Gospel accounts. The conception of mind appears quite rarely. When used, it is mostly in connection with the heart—for example, the imaginations of the heart (Lk 1:51). The only other occurrences of the word “mind” come in the statement of the great commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind” (cf. Mt 22:37; Mk 12:30; Lk 10:27). The Gospel writers are unanimous in their agreement that Jesus added “with all your mind” to Deuteronomy 6:5. In Mark, however, the questioner repeats the command of Jesus but with a word for “understanding” in place of the word for “mind” (Mk 12:33).<\/p>\n<p>With the writings of Paul, one moves into the Greek world. Paul understood the mind as distinct from the spirit of man. It possesses the ability to understand and to reason (1 Cor 14:14-19); it is the seat of intelligence. In other places, “mind” is used in a broader sense that includes the entire mental and moral process or state of being of a human (Rom 12:2; Eph 4:23). A human’s actions flow from the inclinations of his or her mind. Whether a person is good or evil depends on the state of the mind.<\/p>\n<p>The state of a person depends upon what or who controls the mind. Romans 8:6-7 speaks of a person’s mind being controlled either by the flesh or by the Spirit. The person whose mind is controlled by the flesh is evil. The mind controlled by the Spirit leads to good. Other passages refer to the inclination of a person’s mind being controlled by the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4). People whose minds are controlled by the “god of this world” will have their minds darkened and will not be able to understand the world as it really is (3:14). It is as a veil over one’s understanding. But the Lord can open people’s minds. For example, Jesus opened the minds of the disciples who walked the Emmaus road with him so that they might understand the Scriptures (Lk 24:45).<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, the action of conversion is considered to be a “renewing of the mind” (Rom 12:2; Eph 4:23). In both cases, the process is one whereby God takes control of the mind of a person through the Holy Spirit and leads the thoughts of that person into proper channels. Thus, the renewed person is given power to make proper value judgments. Such people have new minds with which to make spiritual discernments (1 Cor 2:15-16).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Man; Heart; Soul.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MIND<\/h3>\n<p>One’s intellectual processes in a narrow sense or, more broadly, the sum total of a person’s mental and moral state of being. To the Hebrew way of thinking, there is no distinctive terminology for the concept of the mind. To the Greek world, the mind plays a very important role in the understanding of humans.<\/p>\n<p>Since in the OT there was no separate word that could be used for the human mind, translators of the English versions have supplied other words (“soul,” “spirit,” or “heart”), as the context dictates. Thus, precise distinctions among these terms are hard to define. A person is a soul, having a spirit and a heart. Any of these terms may represent the mind. This means that the widely held distinction between the mind as the seat of thinking and the heart as the seat of feeling is alien to the meanings these terms carry in the OT.<\/p>\n<p>While the “mind” denotes a person’s thoughts, the prominent idea of “mind” in the OT is that it denotes the heart (1 Sm 2:35; Ez 11:5; 20:32). The heart is often intended to include the entire inner person and thus often relates especially to the mind. In these instances it relates primarily to the functions of will and memory (Is 46:8; 65:17; Jer 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>The basic patterns of Hebrew reasoning continue in the Gospel accounts. The conception of mind appears quite rarely. When used, it is mostly in connection with the heart—for example, the imaginations of the heart (Lk 1:51). The only other occurrences of the word “mind” come in the statement of the great commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind” (cf. Mt 22:37; Mk 12:30; Lk 10:27). The Gospel writers are unanimous in their agreement that Jesus added “with all your mind” to Deuteronomy 6:5. In Mark, however, the questioner repeats the command of Jesus but with a word for “understanding” in place of the word for “mind” (Mk 12:33).<\/p>\n<p>With the writings of Paul, one moves into the Greek world. Paul understood the mind as distinct from the spirit of man. It possesses the ability to understand and to reason (1 Cor 14:14-19); it is the seat of intelligence. In other places, “mind” is used in a broader sense that includes the entire mental and moral process or state of being of a human (Rom 12:2; Eph 4:23). A human’s actions flow from the inclinations of his or her mind. Whether a person is good or evil depends on the state of the mind.<\/p>\n<p>The state of a person depends upon what or who controls the mind. Romans 8:6-7 speaks of a person’s mind being controlled either by the flesh or by the Spirit. The person whose mind is controlled by the flesh is evil. The mind controlled by the Spirit leads to good. Other passages refer to the inclination of a person’s mind being controlled by the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4). People whose minds are controlled by the “god of this world” will have their minds darkened and will not be able to understand the world as it really is (3:14). It is as a veil over one’s understanding. But the Lord can open people’s minds. For example, Jesus opened the minds of the disciples who walked the Emmaus road with him so that they might understand the Scriptures (Lk 24:45).<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, the action of conversion is considered to be a “renewing of the mind” (Rom 12:2; Eph 4:23). In both cases, the process is one whereby God takes control of the mind of a person through the Holy Spirit and leads the thoughts of that person into proper channels. Thus, the renewed person is given power to make proper value judgments. Such people have new minds with which to make spiritual discernments (1 Cor 2:15-16).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Man; Heart; Soul.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MIND One’s intellectual processes in a narrow sense or, more broadly, the sum total of a person’s mental and moral state of being. To the Hebrew way of thinking, there is no distinctive terminology for the concept of the mind. To the Greek world, the mind plays a very important role in the understanding of humans. Since in the OT there was no separate word that could be used for the human mind, translators of the English versions have supplied other words (“soul,” “spirit,” or “heart”), as th...","summary_en":"MIND One’s intellectual processes in a narrow sense or, more broadly, the sum total of a person’s mental and moral state of being. To the Hebrew way of thinking, there is no distinctive terminology for the concept of the mind. To the Greek world, the mind plays a very important role in the understanding of humans. Since in the OT there was no separate word that could be used for the human mind, translators of the English versions have supplied other words (“soul,” “spirit,” or “heart”), as th...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36005,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Soul","title_en":"Soul","content_ro":"<h3>SOUL<\/h3>\n<p>Term translating the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">psuche<\/span> and the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">nephesh<\/span><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Greek philosopher Plato (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>) perceived the soul as the eternal element in humans; whereas the body perishes at death, the soul is indestructible. At death the soul enters another body; if it has been wicked in this life, it may be sent into an inferior human being or even an animal or bird. By means of transmigration from one body to another, the soul is eventually purged of evil. In the early centuries of the Christian era, Gnosticism also taught that the body was the prison house of the soul. Redemption comes to those initiated into the Gnostic secrets, leading to the release of the soul from the body.<\/p>\n<p>Biblical thought about the soul is different. In the OT the soul signifies that which is vital to humans in the broadest sense. The Hebrew and Greek words for soul often can be translated as “life”; occasionally, they can be used for the life of creatures (Gn 1:20; Lv 11:10). “Soul for soul” means “life for life” (Ex 21:23). In legal writings, a soul refers to a person in relation to a particular law (e.g., “If a soul shall sin . . . ,” Lv 4:2, <span>kjv<\/span>). When people were counted, they were counted as souls, that is, persons (Ex 1:5; Dt 10:22).<\/p>\n<p>In a narrower sense, the soul denotes human emotions and inner powers. People are called to love God with all their heart and soul (Dt 13:3). Knowledge and understanding (Ps 139:14), thought (1 Sm 20:3), love (1 Sm 18:1), and memory (Lam 3:20) all originate in the soul. Here the soul comes close to what today would be called the self, one’s person, personality, or ego.<\/p>\n<p>There is no suggestion in the OT of the transmigration of the soul as an immaterial, immortal entity. Man is a unity of body and soul—terms that describe not so much two separate entities in a person as much as one person from different standpoints. Hence, in the description of man’s creation in Genesis 2:7, the phrase “a living soul” (<span>kjv<\/span>) is better translated as “a living being.” The thought is not that men and women became <em>souls,<\/em> for clearly they had bodies. The use of the word in the original draws attention to the vital aspect of humans as “living beings.” The Hebrew view of the unity of the person may help to explain why people in the OT had only a shadowy view of life after death, for it would be difficult to conceive how people could exist without a body (Pss 16:10; 49:15; 88:3-12). Where hope of an afterlife exists, it is not because of the intrinsic character of the soul itself (as in Plato). It is grounded in confidence in the God who has power over death and the belief that communion with him cannot be broken even by death (Ex 3:6; 1 Sm 2:6; Jb 19:25-26; Pss 16:10-11; 73:24-25; Is 25:8; 26:19; Dn 12:2; Hos 6:1-3; 13:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the word for soul (<span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">psuche<\/span>) has a range of meanings similar to that in the OT. Often it is synonymous with life itself. Followers of Jesus are said to have risked their lives (souls) for his sake (Acts 15:26; cf. Jn 13:37; Rom 16:4; Phil 2:30). As the Son of Man, Jesus came not to be served but to serve and to give his life (soul) as a ransom for many (Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45). As the Good Shepherd, he lays down his life (soul) for the sheep (Jn 10:14, 17-18). In Luke 14:26 the condition of discipleship is to hate one’s soul, that is, to be willing to deny oneself to the point of losing one’s life for Christ’s sake (cf. Lk 9:23; Rv 12:11).<\/p>\n<p>Frequently “soul” can mean “person” (Acts 2:43; 3:23; 7:14; Rom 2:9; 13:1; 1 Pt 3:20). The expression “every living soul” (Rv 16:3, <span>kjv<\/span>) reflects the vital aspect of living beings. As in the OT, the soul can denote not only the vital aspect of the person on the physical level, but it can also connote one’s emotional energies. It denotes the person himself, the seat of his or her emotions, one’s inmost being. For example, when Jesus was agonizing about his death, he spoke of his soul being crushed (Mt 26:38; Mk 14:34; cf. Ps 42:6). In an entirely different setting, Jesus promised rest to the souls of those who come to him (Mt 11:29). Here, as elsewhere, “soul” denotes the essential person (cf. Lk 2:35; 2 Cor 1:23; 2 Thes 2:8; 3 Jn 1:2).<\/p>\n<p>Several passages place the soul alongside the spirit. Luke 1:46 is probably a case of Hebrew poetic parallelism, which expresses the same idea in two different ways. Both terms denote Mary as a person in the depths of her being. Similarly, in Hebrews 4:12, dividing the soul and the spirit is a graphic way of saying how the Word of God probes the inmost recesses of our being. The prayer in 1 Thessalonians 5:23—that the readers may be kept blameless in spirit, soul, and body—is a way of speaking of the whole being. Here soul probably suggests physical existence, as in Genesis 2:7 and 1 Corinthians 2:14, whereas spirit may imply the higher or “spiritual” side of life.<\/p>\n<p>In other passages, the emotions, the will, and even the mind come to the fore, though in each case there is the accompanying idea of a person’s inmost being. People are to love God with all the soul (Mt 22:37; Mk 12:30; cf. Dt 6:5). The expression “from the soul” (Eph 6:6; Col 3:23) means “from the heart,” with all one’s being. In Philippians 1:27 believers are called to be of one mind (cf. Acts 4:32; 14:2). Passages that speak of the soul in relation to salvation include Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:5; Hebrews 6:19; 10:39; 12:3; 13:7; James 1:21; 5:20; 1 Peter 1:9, 22-23; 2:25; 4:19; and Revelation 6:9; 20:4. Such passages speak of the soul either to stress the essential human being, as distinct from the physical body, or to express man’s continued existence with God prior to the resurrection.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Man; Spirit of Man.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SOUL<\/h3>\n<p>Term translating the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">psuche<\/span> and the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">nephesh<\/span><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Greek philosopher Plato (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>) perceived the soul as the eternal element in humans; whereas the body perishes at death, the soul is indestructible. At death the soul enters another body; if it has been wicked in this life, it may be sent into an inferior human being or even an animal or bird. By means of transmigration from one body to another, the soul is eventually purged of evil. In the early centuries of the Christian era, Gnosticism also taught that the body was the prison house of the soul. Redemption comes to those initiated into the Gnostic secrets, leading to the release of the soul from the body.<\/p>\n<p>Biblical thought about the soul is different. In the OT the soul signifies that which is vital to humans in the broadest sense. The Hebrew and Greek words for soul often can be translated as “life”; occasionally, they can be used for the life of creatures (Gn 1:20; Lv 11:10). “Soul for soul” means “life for life” (Ex 21:23). In legal writings, a soul refers to a person in relation to a particular law (e.g., “If a soul shall sin . . . ,” Lv 4:2, <span>kjv<\/span>). When people were counted, they were counted as souls, that is, persons (Ex 1:5; Dt 10:22).<\/p>\n<p>In a narrower sense, the soul denotes human emotions and inner powers. People are called to love God with all their heart and soul (Dt 13:3). Knowledge and understanding (Ps 139:14), thought (1 Sm 20:3), love (1 Sm 18:1), and memory (Lam 3:20) all originate in the soul. Here the soul comes close to what today would be called the self, one’s person, personality, or ego.<\/p>\n<p>There is no suggestion in the OT of the transmigration of the soul as an immaterial, immortal entity. Man is a unity of body and soul—terms that describe not so much two separate entities in a person as much as one person from different standpoints. Hence, in the description of man’s creation in Genesis 2:7, the phrase “a living soul” (<span>kjv<\/span>) is better translated as “a living being.” The thought is not that men and women became <em>souls,<\/em> for clearly they had bodies. The use of the word in the original draws attention to the vital aspect of humans as “living beings.” The Hebrew view of the unity of the person may help to explain why people in the OT had only a shadowy view of life after death, for it would be difficult to conceive how people could exist without a body (Pss 16:10; 49:15; 88:3-12). Where hope of an afterlife exists, it is not because of the intrinsic character of the soul itself (as in Plato). It is grounded in confidence in the God who has power over death and the belief that communion with him cannot be broken even by death (Ex 3:6; 1 Sm 2:6; Jb 19:25-26; Pss 16:10-11; 73:24-25; Is 25:8; 26:19; Dn 12:2; Hos 6:1-3; 13:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the word for soul (<span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">psuche<\/span>) has a range of meanings similar to that in the OT. Often it is synonymous with life itself. Followers of Jesus are said to have risked their lives (souls) for his sake (Acts 15:26; cf. Jn 13:37; Rom 16:4; Phil 2:30). As the Son of Man, Jesus came not to be served but to serve and to give his life (soul) as a ransom for many (Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45). As the Good Shepherd, he lays down his life (soul) for the sheep (Jn 10:14, 17-18). In Luke 14:26 the condition of discipleship is to hate one’s soul, that is, to be willing to deny oneself to the point of losing one’s life for Christ’s sake (cf. Lk 9:23; Rv 12:11).<\/p>\n<p>Frequently “soul” can mean “person” (Acts 2:43; 3:23; 7:14; Rom 2:9; 13:1; 1 Pt 3:20). The expression “every living soul” (Rv 16:3, <span>kjv<\/span>) reflects the vital aspect of living beings. As in the OT, the soul can denote not only the vital aspect of the person on the physical level, but it can also connote one’s emotional energies. It denotes the person himself, the seat of his or her emotions, one’s inmost being. For example, when Jesus was agonizing about his death, he spoke of his soul being crushed (Mt 26:38; Mk 14:34; cf. Ps 42:6). In an entirely different setting, Jesus promised rest to the souls of those who come to him (Mt 11:29). Here, as elsewhere, “soul” denotes the essential person (cf. Lk 2:35; 2 Cor 1:23; 2 Thes 2:8; 3 Jn 1:2).<\/p>\n<p>Several passages place the soul alongside the spirit. Luke 1:46 is probably a case of Hebrew poetic parallelism, which expresses the same idea in two different ways. Both terms denote Mary as a person in the depths of her being. Similarly, in Hebrews 4:12, dividing the soul and the spirit is a graphic way of saying how the Word of God probes the inmost recesses of our being. The prayer in 1 Thessalonians 5:23—that the readers may be kept blameless in spirit, soul, and body—is a way of speaking of the whole being. Here soul probably suggests physical existence, as in Genesis 2:7 and 1 Corinthians 2:14, whereas spirit may imply the higher or “spiritual” side of life.<\/p>\n<p>In other passages, the emotions, the will, and even the mind come to the fore, though in each case there is the accompanying idea of a person’s inmost being. People are to love God with all the soul (Mt 22:37; Mk 12:30; cf. Dt 6:5). The expression “from the soul” (Eph 6:6; Col 3:23) means “from the heart,” with all one’s being. In Philippians 1:27 believers are called to be of one mind (cf. Acts 4:32; 14:2). Passages that speak of the soul in relation to salvation include Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:5; Hebrews 6:19; 10:39; 12:3; 13:7; James 1:21; 5:20; 1 Peter 1:9, 22-23; 2:25; 4:19; and Revelation 6:9; 20:4. Such passages speak of the soul either to stress the essential human being, as distinct from the physical body, or to express man’s continued existence with God prior to the resurrection.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Man; Spirit of Man.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SOUL Term translating the Greek word psuche and the Hebrew nephesh. The Greek philosopher Plato (fourth century BC) perceived the soul as the eternal element in humans; whereas the body perishes at death, the soul is indestructible. At death the soul enters another body; if it has been wicked in this life, it may be sent into an inferior human being or even an animal or bird. By means of transmigration from one body to another, the soul is eventually purged of evil. In the early centuries of ...","summary_en":"SOUL Term translating the Greek word psuche and the Hebrew nephesh. The Greek philosopher Plato (fourth century BC) perceived the soul as the eternal element in humans; whereas the body perishes at death, the soul is indestructible. At death the soul enters another body; if it has been wicked in this life, it may be sent into an inferior human being or even an animal or bird. By means of transmigration from one body to another, the soul is eventually purged of evil. In the early centuries of ...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":64120,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Basic Laws","title_en":"Basic Laws","content_ro":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\n<p>The negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>In the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\n<p>The negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>In the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","summary_en":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":66974,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Belonging to Christ","title_en":"Belonging to Christ","content_ro":"<h3>Belonging to Christ<\/h3>\n<p>To many modern readers, the New Testament seems to portray an extreme view of the Christian life. Believers are called to forfeit their rights, suffer, and even die for the sake of Christ (Mark 8:34-36). They are to turn away from the things of the world that everybody else lives for (1 Jn 2:15-17) and even to despise their life in this world (John 12:24-25). Paul encourages believers to give up the normal desires for marriage and family and remain single for Christ, if they have that spiritual gift (1 Cor 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>What lies behind such an apparently extreme view of life? For Paul, it is the awareness that believers are claimed by Christ and so belong to him, body and soul. When Christ died, he bought them for himself (6:20). They must no longer live simply for themselves and their own desires (2 Cor 5:14-15). Having died to their own personal interests, they are called to live entirely for their Lord (Rom 14:7-9).<\/p>\n<p>For true Christians, obedience to Christ is not an onerous burden, but a way to express their love and loyalty to the one who died for them. For the people of Christ, the whole of life is to be a joyful expression of thanks for the grace God has shown them in Jesus Christ. They gladly yield their lives to serve the one who gave up everything for them (see 1 Jn 3:16). By dying to themselves, believers make it possible for Christ to live in and through them (Gal 2:19-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 9:26, 29; 32:9; 1 Kgs 8:53; Pss 2:8; 28:9; Ezek 18:4; Mark 8:34-36; 12:30; Rom 14:7-9; 1 Cor 6:19-20; 7:20-24; 7:32-35; 2 Cor 5:14-15; Gal 2:19-20; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Belonging to Christ<\/h3>\n<p>To many modern readers, the New Testament seems to portray an extreme view of the Christian life. Believers are called to forfeit their rights, suffer, and even die for the sake of Christ (Mark 8:34-36). They are to turn away from the things of the world that everybody else lives for (1 Jn 2:15-17) and even to despise their life in this world (John 12:24-25). Paul encourages believers to give up the normal desires for marriage and family and remain single for Christ, if they have that spiritual gift (1 Cor 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>What lies behind such an apparently extreme view of life? For Paul, it is the awareness that believers are claimed by Christ and so belong to him, body and soul. When Christ died, he bought them for himself (6:20). They must no longer live simply for themselves and their own desires (2 Cor 5:14-15). Having died to their own personal interests, they are called to live entirely for their Lord (Rom 14:7-9).<\/p>\n<p>For true Christians, obedience to Christ is not an onerous burden, but a way to express their love and loyalty to the one who died for them. For the people of Christ, the whole of life is to be a joyful expression of thanks for the grace God has shown them in Jesus Christ. They gladly yield their lives to serve the one who gave up everything for them (see 1 Jn 3:16). By dying to themselves, believers make it possible for Christ to live in and through them (Gal 2:19-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 9:26, 29; 32:9; 1 Kgs 8:53; Pss 2:8; 28:9; Ezek 18:4; Mark 8:34-36; 12:30; Rom 14:7-9; 1 Cor 6:19-20; 7:20-24; 7:32-35; 2 Cor 5:14-15; Gal 2:19-20; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Belonging to Christ To many modern readers, the New Testament seems to portray an extreme view of the Christian life. Believers are called to forfeit their rights, suffer, and even die for the sake of Christ (Mark 8:34-36). They are to turn away from the things of the world that everybody else lives for (1 Jn 2:15-17) and even to despise their life in this world (John 12:24-25). Paul encourages believers to give up the normal desires for marriage and family and remain single for Christ, if th...","summary_en":"Belonging to Christ To many modern readers, the New Testament seems to portray an extreme view of the Christian life. Believers are called to forfeit their rights, suffer, and even die for the sake of Christ (Mark 8:34-36). They are to turn away from the things of the world that everybody else lives for (1 Jn 2:15-17) and even to despise their life in this world (John 12:24-25). Paul encourages believers to give up the normal desires for marriage and family and remain single for Christ, if th...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":91746,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Basic Laws","title_en":"Basic Laws","content_ro":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\n<p>The negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>In the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\n<p>The negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>In the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","summary_en":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":94600,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Belonging to Christ","title_en":"Belonging to Christ","content_ro":"<h3>Belonging to Christ<\/h3>\n<p>To many modern readers, the New Testament seems to portray an extreme view of the Christian life. Believers are called to forfeit their rights, suffer, and even die for the sake of Christ (Mark 8:34-36). They are to turn away from the things of the world that everybody else lives for (1 Jn 2:15-17) and even to despise their life in this world (John 12:24-25). Paul encourages believers to give up the normal desires for marriage and family and remain single for Christ, if they have that spiritual gift (1 Cor 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>What lies behind such an apparently extreme view of life? For Paul, it is the awareness that believers are claimed by Christ and so belong to him, body and soul. When Christ died, he bought them for himself (6:20). They must no longer live simply for themselves and their own desires (2 Cor 5:14-15). Having died to their own personal interests, they are called to live entirely for their Lord (Rom 14:7-9).<\/p>\n<p>For true Christians, obedience to Christ is not an onerous burden, but a way to express their love and loyalty to the one who died for them. For the people of Christ, the whole of life is to be a joyful expression of thanks for the grace God has shown them in Jesus Christ. They gladly yield their lives to serve the one who gave up everything for them (see 1 Jn 3:16). By dying to themselves, believers make it possible for Christ to live in and through them (Gal 2:19-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 9:26, 29; 32:9; 1 Kgs 8:53; Pss 2:8; 28:9; Ezek 18:4; Mark 8:34-36; 12:30; Rom 14:7-9; 1 Cor 6:19-20; 7:20-24; 7:32-35; 2 Cor 5:14-15; Gal 2:19-20; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Belonging to Christ<\/h3>\n<p>To many modern readers, the New Testament seems to portray an extreme view of the Christian life. Believers are called to forfeit their rights, suffer, and even die for the sake of Christ (Mark 8:34-36). They are to turn away from the things of the world that everybody else lives for (1 Jn 2:15-17) and even to despise their life in this world (John 12:24-25). Paul encourages believers to give up the normal desires for marriage and family and remain single for Christ, if they have that spiritual gift (1 Cor 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>What lies behind such an apparently extreme view of life? For Paul, it is the awareness that believers are claimed by Christ and so belong to him, body and soul. When Christ died, he bought them for himself (6:20). They must no longer live simply for themselves and their own desires (2 Cor 5:14-15). Having died to their own personal interests, they are called to live entirely for their Lord (Rom 14:7-9).<\/p>\n<p>For true Christians, obedience to Christ is not an onerous burden, but a way to express their love and loyalty to the one who died for them. For the people of Christ, the whole of life is to be a joyful expression of thanks for the grace God has shown them in Jesus Christ. They gladly yield their lives to serve the one who gave up everything for them (see 1 Jn 3:16). By dying to themselves, believers make it possible for Christ to live in and through them (Gal 2:19-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 9:26, 29; 32:9; 1 Kgs 8:53; Pss 2:8; 28:9; Ezek 18:4; Mark 8:34-36; 12:30; Rom 14:7-9; 1 Cor 6:19-20; 7:20-24; 7:32-35; 2 Cor 5:14-15; Gal 2:19-20; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Belonging to Christ To many modern readers, the New Testament seems to portray an extreme view of the Christian life. Believers are called to forfeit their rights, suffer, and even die for the sake of Christ (Mark 8:34-36). They are to turn away from the things of the world that everybody else lives for (1 Jn 2:15-17) and even to despise their life in this world (John 12:24-25). Paul encourages believers to give up the normal desires for marriage and family and remain single for Christ, if th...","summary_en":"Belonging to Christ To many modern readers, the New Testament seems to portray an extreme view of the Christian life. Believers are called to forfeit their rights, suffer, and even die for the sake of Christ (Mark 8:34-36). They are to turn away from the things of the world that everybody else lives for (1 Jn 2:15-17) and even to despise their life in this world (John 12:24-25). Paul encourages believers to give up the normal desires for marriage and family and remain single for Christ, if th...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":119372,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Basic Laws","title_en":"Basic Laws","content_ro":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\n<p>The negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>In the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\n<p>The negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>In the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","summary_en":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":122226,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Belonging to Christ","title_en":"Belonging to Christ","content_ro":"<h3>Belonging to Christ<\/h3>\n<p>To many modern readers, the New Testament seems to portray an extreme view of the Christian life. Believers are called to forfeit their rights, suffer, and even die for the sake of Christ (Mark 8:34-36). They are to turn away from the things of the world that everybody else lives for (1 Jn 2:15-17) and even to despise their life in this world (John 12:24-25). Paul encourages believers to give up the normal desires for marriage and family and remain single for Christ, if they have that spiritual gift (1 Cor 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>What lies behind such an apparently extreme view of life? For Paul, it is the awareness that believers are claimed by Christ and so belong to him, body and soul. When Christ died, he bought them for himself (6:20). They must no longer live simply for themselves and their own desires (2 Cor 5:14-15). Having died to their own personal interests, they are called to live entirely for their Lord (Rom 14:7-9).<\/p>\n<p>For true Christians, obedience to Christ is not an onerous burden, but a way to express their love and loyalty to the one who died for them. For the people of Christ, the whole of life is to be a joyful expression of thanks for the grace God has shown them in Jesus Christ. They gladly yield their lives to serve the one who gave up everything for them (see 1 Jn 3:16). By dying to themselves, believers make it possible for Christ to live in and through them (Gal 2:19-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 9:26, 29; 32:9; 1 Kgs 8:53; Pss 2:8; 28:9; Ezek 18:4; Mark 8:34-36; 12:30; Rom 14:7-9; 1 Cor 6:19-20; 7:20-24; 7:32-35; 2 Cor 5:14-15; Gal 2:19-20; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Belonging to Christ<\/h3>\n<p>To many modern readers, the New Testament seems to portray an extreme view of the Christian life. Believers are called to forfeit their rights, suffer, and even die for the sake of Christ (Mark 8:34-36). They are to turn away from the things of the world that everybody else lives for (1 Jn 2:15-17) and even to despise their life in this world (John 12:24-25). Paul encourages believers to give up the normal desires for marriage and family and remain single for Christ, if they have that spiritual gift (1 Cor 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>What lies behind such an apparently extreme view of life? For Paul, it is the awareness that believers are claimed by Christ and so belong to him, body and soul. When Christ died, he bought them for himself (6:20). They must no longer live simply for themselves and their own desires (2 Cor 5:14-15). Having died to their own personal interests, they are called to live entirely for their Lord (Rom 14:7-9).<\/p>\n<p>For true Christians, obedience to Christ is not an onerous burden, but a way to express their love and loyalty to the one who died for them. For the people of Christ, the whole of life is to be a joyful expression of thanks for the grace God has shown them in Jesus Christ. They gladly yield their lives to serve the one who gave up everything for them (see 1 Jn 3:16). By dying to themselves, believers make it possible for Christ to live in and through them (Gal 2:19-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 9:26, 29; 32:9; 1 Kgs 8:53; Pss 2:8; 28:9; Ezek 18:4; Mark 8:34-36; 12:30; Rom 14:7-9; 1 Cor 6:19-20; 7:20-24; 7:32-35; 2 Cor 5:14-15; Gal 2:19-20; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Belonging to Christ To many modern readers, the New Testament seems to portray an extreme view of the Christian life. Believers are called to forfeit their rights, suffer, and even die for the sake of Christ (Mark 8:34-36). They are to turn away from the things of the world that everybody else lives for (1 Jn 2:15-17) and even to despise their life in this world (John 12:24-25). Paul encourages believers to give up the normal desires for marriage and family and remain single for Christ, if th...","summary_en":"Belonging to Christ To many modern readers, the New Testament seems to portray an extreme view of the Christian life. Believers are called to forfeit their rights, suffer, and even die for the sake of Christ (Mark 8:34-36). They are to turn away from the things of the world that everybody else lives for (1 Jn 2:15-17) and even to despise their life in this world (John 12:24-25). Paul encourages believers to give up the normal desires for marriage and family and remain single for Christ, if th...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":146998,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Basic Laws","title_en":"Basic Laws","content_ro":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\n<p>The negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>In the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\n<p>The negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>In the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","summary_en":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":149852,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Belonging to Christ","title_en":"Belonging to Christ","content_ro":"<h3>Belonging to Christ<\/h3>\n<p>To many modern readers, the New Testament seems to portray an extreme view of the Christian life. Believers are called to forfeit their rights, suffer, and even die for the sake of Christ (Mark 8:34-36). They are to turn away from the things of the world that everybody else lives for (1 Jn 2:15-17) and even to despise their life in this world (John 12:24-25). Paul encourages believers to give up the normal desires for marriage and family and remain single for Christ, if they have that spiritual gift (1 Cor 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>What lies behind such an apparently extreme view of life? For Paul, it is the awareness that believers are claimed by Christ and so belong to him, body and soul. When Christ died, he bought them for himself (6:20). They must no longer live simply for themselves and their own desires (2 Cor 5:14-15). Having died to their own personal interests, they are called to live entirely for their Lord (Rom 14:7-9).<\/p>\n<p>For true Christians, obedience to Christ is not an onerous burden, but a way to express their love and loyalty to the one who died for them. For the people of Christ, the whole of life is to be a joyful expression of thanks for the grace God has shown them in Jesus Christ. They gladly yield their lives to serve the one who gave up everything for them (see 1 Jn 3:16). By dying to themselves, believers make it possible for Christ to live in and through them (Gal 2:19-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 9:26, 29; 32:9; 1 Kgs 8:53; Pss 2:8; 28:9; Ezek 18:4; Mark 8:34-36; 12:30; Rom 14:7-9; 1 Cor 6:19-20; 7:20-24; 7:32-35; 2 Cor 5:14-15; Gal 2:19-20; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Belonging to Christ<\/h3>\n<p>To many modern readers, the New Testament seems to portray an extreme view of the Christian life. Believers are called to forfeit their rights, suffer, and even die for the sake of Christ (Mark 8:34-36). They are to turn away from the things of the world that everybody else lives for (1 Jn 2:15-17) and even to despise their life in this world (John 12:24-25). Paul encourages believers to give up the normal desires for marriage and family and remain single for Christ, if they have that spiritual gift (1 Cor 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>What lies behind such an apparently extreme view of life? For Paul, it is the awareness that believers are claimed by Christ and so belong to him, body and soul. When Christ died, he bought them for himself (6:20). They must no longer live simply for themselves and their own desires (2 Cor 5:14-15). Having died to their own personal interests, they are called to live entirely for their Lord (Rom 14:7-9).<\/p>\n<p>For true Christians, obedience to Christ is not an onerous burden, but a way to express their love and loyalty to the one who died for them. For the people of Christ, the whole of life is to be a joyful expression of thanks for the grace God has shown them in Jesus Christ. They gladly yield their lives to serve the one who gave up everything for them (see 1 Jn 3:16). By dying to themselves, believers make it possible for Christ to live in and through them (Gal 2:19-20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 9:26, 29; 32:9; 1 Kgs 8:53; Pss 2:8; 28:9; Ezek 18:4; Mark 8:34-36; 12:30; Rom 14:7-9; 1 Cor 6:19-20; 7:20-24; 7:32-35; 2 Cor 5:14-15; Gal 2:19-20; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Belonging to Christ To many modern readers, the New Testament seems to portray an extreme view of the Christian life. Believers are called to forfeit their rights, suffer, and even die for the sake of Christ (Mark 8:34-36). They are to turn away from the things of the world that everybody else lives for (1 Jn 2:15-17) and even to despise their life in this world (John 12:24-25). Paul encourages believers to give up the normal desires for marriage and family and remain single for Christ, if th...","summary_en":"Belonging to Christ To many modern readers, the New Testament seems to portray an extreme view of the Christian life. Believers are called to forfeit their rights, suffer, and even die for the sake of Christ (Mark 8:34-36). They are to turn away from the things of the world that everybody else lives for (1 Jn 2:15-17) and even to despise their life in this world (John 12:24-25). Paul encourages believers to give up the normal desires for marriage and family and remain single for Christ, if th...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"31":[{"id":64124,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Basic Laws","title_en":"Basic Laws","content_ro":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\n<p>The negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>In the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\n<p>The negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>In the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","summary_en":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":67068,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Loving Others","title_en":"Loving Others","content_ro":"<h3>Loving Others<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of loving one’s neighbor as the second most important of the Old Testament commandments (Mark 12:31). In fact, love summarizes the entire Old Testament law (22:40; cp. Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; see Rom 13:8-10). Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their failure to show love (Matt 9:13; 12:7; 23:4, 13-14, 23). Love is the mark of a true follower of Jesus (John 13:34-35) and of an authentic experience of God (1 Jn 2:9-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21).<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, love is more important than any of the spiritual gifts and the most important virtue. Love “binds us all together in perfect harmony” (Col 3:14). Without love, ministry has limited value (1 Cor 13:1-3). Paul summed up the whole of Christian ethics as “faith expressing itself in love” (Gal 5:6). Love is the natural outworking of Christian faith, the primary fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and the most important motivation for ministry. As believers grow in Christ, they will seek more and more to love others as he did.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 19:18; Hos 6:6; Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; 22:37-40; 23:2-4, 13, 23; John 13:34-35; Rom 13:8-10; 1 Cor 13:1-13; Gal 5:6, 22-23; Col 3:12-14; 1 Jn 2:7-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Loving Others<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of loving one’s neighbor as the second most important of the Old Testament commandments (Mark 12:31). In fact, love summarizes the entire Old Testament law (22:40; cp. Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; see Rom 13:8-10). Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their failure to show love (Matt 9:13; 12:7; 23:4, 13-14, 23). Love is the mark of a true follower of Jesus (John 13:34-35) and of an authentic experience of God (1 Jn 2:9-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21).<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, love is more important than any of the spiritual gifts and the most important virtue. Love “binds us all together in perfect harmony” (Col 3:14). Without love, ministry has limited value (1 Cor 13:1-3). Paul summed up the whole of Christian ethics as “faith expressing itself in love” (Gal 5:6). Love is the natural outworking of Christian faith, the primary fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and the most important motivation for ministry. As believers grow in Christ, they will seek more and more to love others as he did.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 19:18; Hos 6:6; Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; 22:37-40; 23:2-4, 13, 23; John 13:34-35; Rom 13:8-10; 1 Cor 13:1-13; Gal 5:6, 22-23; Col 3:12-14; 1 Jn 2:7-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Loving Others Jesus spoke of loving one’s neighbor as the second most important of the Old Testament commandments (Mark 12:31). In fact, love summarizes the entire Old Testament law (22:40; cp. Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; see Rom 13:8-10). Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their failure to show love (Matt 9:13; 12:7; 23:4, 13-14, 23). Love is the mark of a true follower of Jesus (John 13:34-35) and of an authentic experience of God (1 Jn 2:9-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21). For Paul, love is more impor...","summary_en":"Loving Others Jesus spoke of loving one’s neighbor as the second most important of the Old Testament commandments (Mark 12:31). In fact, love summarizes the entire Old Testament law (22:40; cp. Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; see Rom 13:8-10). Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their failure to show love (Matt 9:13; 12:7; 23:4, 13-14, 23). Love is the mark of a true follower of Jesus (John 13:34-35) and of an authentic experience of God (1 Jn 2:9-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21). For Paul, love is more impor...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":91750,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Basic Laws","title_en":"Basic Laws","content_ro":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\n<p>The negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>In the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\n<p>The negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>In the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","summary_en":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":94694,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Loving Others","title_en":"Loving Others","content_ro":"<h3>Loving Others<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of loving one’s neighbor as the second most important of the Old Testament commandments (Mark 12:31). In fact, love summarizes the entire Old Testament law (22:40; cp. Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; see Rom 13:8-10). Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their failure to show love (Matt 9:13; 12:7; 23:4, 13-14, 23). Love is the mark of a true follower of Jesus (John 13:34-35) and of an authentic experience of God (1 Jn 2:9-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21).<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, love is more important than any of the spiritual gifts and the most important virtue. Love “binds us all together in perfect harmony” (Col 3:14). Without love, ministry has limited value (1 Cor 13:1-3). Paul summed up the whole of Christian ethics as “faith expressing itself in love” (Gal 5:6). Love is the natural outworking of Christian faith, the primary fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and the most important motivation for ministry. As believers grow in Christ, they will seek more and more to love others as he did.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 19:18; Hos 6:6; Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; 22:37-40; 23:2-4, 13, 23; John 13:34-35; Rom 13:8-10; 1 Cor 13:1-13; Gal 5:6, 22-23; Col 3:12-14; 1 Jn 2:7-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Loving Others<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of loving one’s neighbor as the second most important of the Old Testament commandments (Mark 12:31). In fact, love summarizes the entire Old Testament law (22:40; cp. Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; see Rom 13:8-10). Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their failure to show love (Matt 9:13; 12:7; 23:4, 13-14, 23). Love is the mark of a true follower of Jesus (John 13:34-35) and of an authentic experience of God (1 Jn 2:9-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21).<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, love is more important than any of the spiritual gifts and the most important virtue. Love “binds us all together in perfect harmony” (Col 3:14). Without love, ministry has limited value (1 Cor 13:1-3). Paul summed up the whole of Christian ethics as “faith expressing itself in love” (Gal 5:6). Love is the natural outworking of Christian faith, the primary fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and the most important motivation for ministry. As believers grow in Christ, they will seek more and more to love others as he did.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 19:18; Hos 6:6; Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; 22:37-40; 23:2-4, 13, 23; John 13:34-35; Rom 13:8-10; 1 Cor 13:1-13; Gal 5:6, 22-23; Col 3:12-14; 1 Jn 2:7-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Loving Others Jesus spoke of loving one’s neighbor as the second most important of the Old Testament commandments (Mark 12:31). In fact, love summarizes the entire Old Testament law (22:40; cp. Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; see Rom 13:8-10). Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their failure to show love (Matt 9:13; 12:7; 23:4, 13-14, 23). Love is the mark of a true follower of Jesus (John 13:34-35) and of an authentic experience of God (1 Jn 2:9-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21). For Paul, love is more impor...","summary_en":"Loving Others Jesus spoke of loving one’s neighbor as the second most important of the Old Testament commandments (Mark 12:31). In fact, love summarizes the entire Old Testament law (22:40; cp. Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; see Rom 13:8-10). Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their failure to show love (Matt 9:13; 12:7; 23:4, 13-14, 23). Love is the mark of a true follower of Jesus (John 13:34-35) and of an authentic experience of God (1 Jn 2:9-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21). For Paul, love is more impor...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":119376,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Basic Laws","title_en":"Basic Laws","content_ro":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\n<p>The negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>In the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\n<p>The negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>In the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","summary_en":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":122320,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Loving Others","title_en":"Loving Others","content_ro":"<h3>Loving Others<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of loving one’s neighbor as the second most important of the Old Testament commandments (Mark 12:31). In fact, love summarizes the entire Old Testament law (22:40; cp. Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; see Rom 13:8-10). Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their failure to show love (Matt 9:13; 12:7; 23:4, 13-14, 23). Love is the mark of a true follower of Jesus (John 13:34-35) and of an authentic experience of God (1 Jn 2:9-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21).<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, love is more important than any of the spiritual gifts and the most important virtue. Love “binds us all together in perfect harmony” (Col 3:14). Without love, ministry has limited value (1 Cor 13:1-3). Paul summed up the whole of Christian ethics as “faith expressing itself in love” (Gal 5:6). Love is the natural outworking of Christian faith, the primary fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and the most important motivation for ministry. As believers grow in Christ, they will seek more and more to love others as he did.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 19:18; Hos 6:6; Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; 22:37-40; 23:2-4, 13, 23; John 13:34-35; Rom 13:8-10; 1 Cor 13:1-13; Gal 5:6, 22-23; Col 3:12-14; 1 Jn 2:7-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Loving Others<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of loving one’s neighbor as the second most important of the Old Testament commandments (Mark 12:31). In fact, love summarizes the entire Old Testament law (22:40; cp. Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; see Rom 13:8-10). Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their failure to show love (Matt 9:13; 12:7; 23:4, 13-14, 23). Love is the mark of a true follower of Jesus (John 13:34-35) and of an authentic experience of God (1 Jn 2:9-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21).<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, love is more important than any of the spiritual gifts and the most important virtue. Love “binds us all together in perfect harmony” (Col 3:14). Without love, ministry has limited value (1 Cor 13:1-3). Paul summed up the whole of Christian ethics as “faith expressing itself in love” (Gal 5:6). Love is the natural outworking of Christian faith, the primary fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and the most important motivation for ministry. As believers grow in Christ, they will seek more and more to love others as he did.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 19:18; Hos 6:6; Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; 22:37-40; 23:2-4, 13, 23; John 13:34-35; Rom 13:8-10; 1 Cor 13:1-13; Gal 5:6, 22-23; Col 3:12-14; 1 Jn 2:7-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Loving Others Jesus spoke of loving one’s neighbor as the second most important of the Old Testament commandments (Mark 12:31). In fact, love summarizes the entire Old Testament law (22:40; cp. Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; see Rom 13:8-10). Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their failure to show love (Matt 9:13; 12:7; 23:4, 13-14, 23). Love is the mark of a true follower of Jesus (John 13:34-35) and of an authentic experience of God (1 Jn 2:9-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21). For Paul, love is more impor...","summary_en":"Loving Others Jesus spoke of loving one’s neighbor as the second most important of the Old Testament commandments (Mark 12:31). In fact, love summarizes the entire Old Testament law (22:40; cp. Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; see Rom 13:8-10). Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their failure to show love (Matt 9:13; 12:7; 23:4, 13-14, 23). Love is the mark of a true follower of Jesus (John 13:34-35) and of an authentic experience of God (1 Jn 2:9-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21). For Paul, love is more impor...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":147002,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Basic Laws","title_en":"Basic Laws","content_ro":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\n<p>The negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>In the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\n<p>The negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>In the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","summary_en":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":149946,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Loving Others","title_en":"Loving Others","content_ro":"<h3>Loving Others<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of loving one’s neighbor as the second most important of the Old Testament commandments (Mark 12:31). In fact, love summarizes the entire Old Testament law (22:40; cp. Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; see Rom 13:8-10). Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their failure to show love (Matt 9:13; 12:7; 23:4, 13-14, 23). Love is the mark of a true follower of Jesus (John 13:34-35) and of an authentic experience of God (1 Jn 2:9-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21).<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, love is more important than any of the spiritual gifts and the most important virtue. Love “binds us all together in perfect harmony” (Col 3:14). Without love, ministry has limited value (1 Cor 13:1-3). Paul summed up the whole of Christian ethics as “faith expressing itself in love” (Gal 5:6). Love is the natural outworking of Christian faith, the primary fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and the most important motivation for ministry. As believers grow in Christ, they will seek more and more to love others as he did.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 19:18; Hos 6:6; Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; 22:37-40; 23:2-4, 13, 23; John 13:34-35; Rom 13:8-10; 1 Cor 13:1-13; Gal 5:6, 22-23; Col 3:12-14; 1 Jn 2:7-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Loving Others<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus spoke of loving one’s neighbor as the second most important of the Old Testament commandments (Mark 12:31). In fact, love summarizes the entire Old Testament law (22:40; cp. Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; see Rom 13:8-10). Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their failure to show love (Matt 9:13; 12:7; 23:4, 13-14, 23). Love is the mark of a true follower of Jesus (John 13:34-35) and of an authentic experience of God (1 Jn 2:9-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21).<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, love is more important than any of the spiritual gifts and the most important virtue. Love “binds us all together in perfect harmony” (Col 3:14). Without love, ministry has limited value (1 Cor 13:1-3). Paul summed up the whole of Christian ethics as “faith expressing itself in love” (Gal 5:6). Love is the natural outworking of Christian faith, the primary fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), and the most important motivation for ministry. As believers grow in Christ, they will seek more and more to love others as he did.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 19:18; Hos 6:6; Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; 22:37-40; 23:2-4, 13, 23; John 13:34-35; Rom 13:8-10; 1 Cor 13:1-13; Gal 5:6, 22-23; Col 3:12-14; 1 Jn 2:7-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Loving Others Jesus spoke of loving one’s neighbor as the second most important of the Old Testament commandments (Mark 12:31). In fact, love summarizes the entire Old Testament law (22:40; cp. Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; see Rom 13:8-10). Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their failure to show love (Matt 9:13; 12:7; 23:4, 13-14, 23). Love is the mark of a true follower of Jesus (John 13:34-35) and of an authentic experience of God (1 Jn 2:9-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21). For Paul, love is more impor...","summary_en":"Loving Others Jesus spoke of loving one’s neighbor as the second most important of the Old Testament commandments (Mark 12:31). In fact, love summarizes the entire Old Testament law (22:40; cp. Matt 7:12; 9:9-13; 12:1-13; see Rom 13:8-10). Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their failure to show love (Matt 9:13; 12:7; 23:4, 13-14, 23). Love is the mark of a true follower of Jesus (John 13:34-35) and of an authentic experience of God (1 Jn 2:9-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21). For Paul, love is more impor...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"32":[{"id":14373,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gods and Goddesses","title_en":"Gods and Goddesses","content_ro":"<h3>GODS AND GODDESSES<\/h3>\n<p>Male and female deities worshiped by pagans. Although the Bible teaches that there is only one God (Is 45:18, 21-22; Mk 12:32), heathen people in ancient times quickly developed a belief in large numbers of so-called gods (Jer 10:11) and goddesses. Eventually each nation created and worshiped its own deities, usually more than one. Many of these “foreign gods” (1 Sm 7:3) are named in the Bible, and in most cases we are told to what nation each belonged. The list from Mesopotamia, a center of idol worship, is the longest: Adrammelech and Anammelech (2 Kgs 17:31), Bel (also known as Marduk, Is 46:1; Jer 50:2; 51:44), Kaiwan (Am 5:26), Nebo or Nabu (Is 46:1), Nergal (2 Kgs 17:30), Nisroch (19:37; Is 37:38), Rephan (Acts 7:43), Sakkuth (Am 5:26), Succoth-benoth (2 Kgs 17:30), Tammuz (Ez 8:14), and Tartak (2 Kgs 17:31). The Syrians were devoted to Ashima (v 30) and Rimmon (5:18), who was also worshiped under the compound name Hadad-rimmon (Zec 12:11). Israel’s eastern neighbors, Ammon and Moab, worshiped Milcom or Molech (1 Kgs 11:5-7, 33; 2 Kgs 23:13) and Chemosh, respectively, although the Moabites also worshiped a local manifestation of Baal (Nm 25:3-5). The Philistine gods were Dagon and Baal-zebub (2 Kgs 1:2-3, 6, 16), who is the equivalent of the NT Beelzebul (Mt 12:24; Lk 11:15). One Canaanite god, Baal, and two Canaanite goddesses, Asherah and Ashtoreth, are mentioned frequently in the OT; Ashtoreth was the same as the Mesopotamian Ishtar, also known as the “Queen of Heaven” (Jer 7:18; 44:17-19, 25). The gods of Egypt are represented by only two names in the Bible: Amon (Jer 46:25) and Apis (v 15). Nibhaz (2 Kgs 17:31) was probably an Elamite god.<\/p>\n<p>At least three Greco-Roman deities are mentioned in the NT: the Greek goddess Artemis (Acts 19:24-28, 34-35), known as Diana by the Romans, and the Greek gods Zeus and Hermes (Acts 14:12-13), known as Jupiter and Mercury, respectively, by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible clearly teaches that the gods of the nations have no objective reality (Jer 2:11), even though their worshipers sincerely believe that they actually exist (v 28). But the Lord proclaims that “they are no gods,” (Jer 2:11; 16:20) or “gods that are not gods” (5:7, <span>niv<\/span>). The NT further declares of idols that “an idol has no real existence” (1 Cor 8:4) and that “gods made with hands are not gods” (Acts 19:26). It is not surprising, then, that when the Israelites began to encounter other nations in significant ways—that is, as early as the time of the exodus—they were told repeatedly that the Lord is greater than all other gods (Ex 15:11; 18:11; Dt 10:17; 1 Chr 16:25; 2 Chr 2:5; Pss 86:8; 95:3; 96:4-5; 97:7-9; 135:5, 136:2; Dn 2:47; Zep 2:11).<\/p>\n<p>Such so-called gods were not worthy of Israel’s attention or veneration. Since there is only one God, other gods could not claim and did not deserve Israel’s worship (Ex 20:3; Dt 5:7). The Hebrew language did not even have a word for “goddess” and therefore had to use its word for “god” to express that concept (see 1 Kgs 11:5, 33). The Israelites were to make no images (Ex 20:4, 23; Lv 19:4; Dt 5:8) or mention (Ex 23:13; Jos 23:7) of the gods and goddesses of their heathen neighbors.<\/p>\n<p>Yet despite all God’s warnings, idolatry was Israel’s besetting sin from the earliest times. During the patriarchal period, God’s people were attracted to the “household idols” (Gn 31:32) of their relatives, and they continued to worship other gods throughout most of their history (Ex 32:1-4, 8, 23, 31; 34:15; Hos 11:2). Idolatry eventually led to the destruction of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:7-18) in 722 <span>BC<\/span> and of the southern kingdom (2 Kgs 22:17; cf. Dt 29:25-28) in 586 <span>BC<\/span>. During their time of exile in Babylonia, the Jewish people saw idolatry at its worst and turned away from it, but their ancestors could have avoided untold agony if they had simply followed the example of Joshua: “As for me and my house, we will serve the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Jos 24:15).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Canaanite Deities and Religion; Idols, Idolatry; High Place.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GODS AND GODDESSES<\/h3>\n<p>Male and female deities worshiped by pagans. Although the Bible teaches that there is only one God (Is 45:18, 21-22; Mk 12:32), heathen people in ancient times quickly developed a belief in large numbers of so-called gods (Jer 10:11) and goddesses. Eventually each nation created and worshiped its own deities, usually more than one. Many of these “foreign gods” (1 Sm 7:3) are named in the Bible, and in most cases we are told to what nation each belonged. The list from Mesopotamia, a center of idol worship, is the longest: Adrammelech and Anammelech (2 Kgs 17:31), Bel (also known as Marduk, Is 46:1; Jer 50:2; 51:44), Kaiwan (Am 5:26), Nebo or Nabu (Is 46:1), Nergal (2 Kgs 17:30), Nisroch (19:37; Is 37:38), Rephan (Acts 7:43), Sakkuth (Am 5:26), Succoth-benoth (2 Kgs 17:30), Tammuz (Ez 8:14), and Tartak (2 Kgs 17:31). The Syrians were devoted to Ashima (v 30) and Rimmon (5:18), who was also worshiped under the compound name Hadad-rimmon (Zec 12:11). Israel’s eastern neighbors, Ammon and Moab, worshiped Milcom or Molech (1 Kgs 11:5-7, 33; 2 Kgs 23:13) and Chemosh, respectively, although the Moabites also worshiped a local manifestation of Baal (Nm 25:3-5). The Philistine gods were Dagon and Baal-zebub (2 Kgs 1:2-3, 6, 16), who is the equivalent of the NT Beelzebul (Mt 12:24; Lk 11:15). One Canaanite god, Baal, and two Canaanite goddesses, Asherah and Ashtoreth, are mentioned frequently in the OT; Ashtoreth was the same as the Mesopotamian Ishtar, also known as the “Queen of Heaven” (Jer 7:18; 44:17-19, 25). The gods of Egypt are represented by only two names in the Bible: Amon (Jer 46:25) and Apis (v 15). Nibhaz (2 Kgs 17:31) was probably an Elamite god.<\/p>\n<p>At least three Greco-Roman deities are mentioned in the NT: the Greek goddess Artemis (Acts 19:24-28, 34-35), known as Diana by the Romans, and the Greek gods Zeus and Hermes (Acts 14:12-13), known as Jupiter and Mercury, respectively, by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible clearly teaches that the gods of the nations have no objective reality (Jer 2:11), even though their worshipers sincerely believe that they actually exist (v 28). But the Lord proclaims that “they are no gods,” (Jer 2:11; 16:20) or “gods that are not gods” (5:7, <span>niv<\/span>). The NT further declares of idols that “an idol has no real existence” (1 Cor 8:4) and that “gods made with hands are not gods” (Acts 19:26). It is not surprising, then, that when the Israelites began to encounter other nations in significant ways—that is, as early as the time of the exodus—they were told repeatedly that the Lord is greater than all other gods (Ex 15:11; 18:11; Dt 10:17; 1 Chr 16:25; 2 Chr 2:5; Pss 86:8; 95:3; 96:4-5; 97:7-9; 135:5, 136:2; Dn 2:47; Zep 2:11).<\/p>\n<p>Such so-called gods were not worthy of Israel’s attention or veneration. Since there is only one God, other gods could not claim and did not deserve Israel’s worship (Ex 20:3; Dt 5:7). The Hebrew language did not even have a word for “goddess” and therefore had to use its word for “god” to express that concept (see 1 Kgs 11:5, 33). The Israelites were to make no images (Ex 20:4, 23; Lv 19:4; Dt 5:8) or mention (Ex 23:13; Jos 23:7) of the gods and goddesses of their heathen neighbors.<\/p>\n<p>Yet despite all God’s warnings, idolatry was Israel’s besetting sin from the earliest times. During the patriarchal period, God’s people were attracted to the “household idols” (Gn 31:32) of their relatives, and they continued to worship other gods throughout most of their history (Ex 32:1-4, 8, 23, 31; 34:15; Hos 11:2). Idolatry eventually led to the destruction of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:7-18) in 722 <span>BC<\/span> and of the southern kingdom (2 Kgs 22:17; cf. Dt 29:25-28) in 586 <span>BC<\/span>. During their time of exile in Babylonia, the Jewish people saw idolatry at its worst and turned away from it, but their ancestors could have avoided untold agony if they had simply followed the example of Joshua: “As for me and my house, we will serve the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Jos 24:15).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Canaanite Deities and Religion; Idols, Idolatry; High Place.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GODS AND GODDESSES Male and female deities worshiped by pagans. Although the Bible teaches that there is only one God (Is 45:18, 21-22; Mk 12:32), heathen people in ancient times quickly developed a belief in large numbers of so-called gods (Jer 10:11) and goddesses. Eventually each nation created and worshiped its own deities, usually more than one. Many of these “foreign gods” (1 Sm 7:3) are named in the Bible, and in most cases we are told to what nation each belonged. The list from Mesopo...","summary_en":"GODS AND GODDESSES Male and female deities worshiped by pagans. Although the Bible teaches that there is only one God (Is 45:18, 21-22; Mk 12:32), heathen people in ancient times quickly developed a belief in large numbers of so-called gods (Jer 10:11) and goddesses. Eventually each nation created and worshiped its own deities, usually more than one. Many of these “foreign gods” (1 Sm 7:3) are named in the Bible, and in most cases we are told to what nation each belonged. The list from Mesopo...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34142,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Scribe","title_en":"Scribe","content_ro":"<h3>SCRIBE<\/h3>\n<p>Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPreexilicTimes\">Scribes in Preexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion of the term “scribe” and has no particular religious connotation. Scribes were employed to keep accounts or transcribe legal information (Jer 32:12), military data (2 Chr 26:11), other public documents (Jgs 8:14; Is 50:1), or personal correspondence (Jer 36:18). These secretaries were essential to royal administrations, and there is frequent mention of a chief scribe who functioned as a court recorder (1 Kgs 4:3; 2 Chr 24:11), adviser (2 Sm 8:16-17; 2 Kgs 18:18; 22:12; 1 Chr 27:32; Is 36:3), and financial overseer (2 Kgs 22:3-4). Secretaries or scribes were associated with the priesthood as well, serving as recorders for temple affairs (1 Chr 24:6; 2 Chr 34:13-15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPostexilicTimes\">Scribes in Postexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>With the restoration of Judaism under Ezra and Nehemiah, the term “scribe” begins to be associated more narrowly with those who gathered together, studied, and interpreted the Torah (Jewish law). They became, in essence, a separate profession of teachers (although unpaid), able to preserve accurately the law of Moses and interpret it to meet conditions in postexilic times. In this initial period, Ezra himself appears as the ideal “scribe who studied and taught the commands and laws of the <span>Lord<\/span> to Israel” (Ezr 7:11, <span>nlt<\/span>). In Ecclesiasticus, the scribe is portrayed as one who, because of his diligent study of the Law, the Prophets, and Writings (Ecclus 38:24ff; 39:1), is able to penetrate the hidden meanings of texts (39:2-3) and thus is able to serve as judge and counsel for the affairs of the people and state (38:33; 39:4-8). Because of his invaluable place in a society governed by the Torah, the scribe is worthy of praise and veneration throughout succeeding generations (39:9). By the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the scribes were a fairly distinct class in Jewish society. They appear as such during the Maccabean wars, acting as a negotiating body with the rival Syrians (1 Macc 7:12). It is also significant that, from this time forward, the history of the scribe in Jewish life is closely linked with the rise of the Pharisees. Although there were apparently some scribes affiliated with the rival Sadducean party, the party of the Pharisees, with its absolute devotion to the law (including the oral law), became the primary religiopolitical affiliation for the scribes (see the close connection in the NT: Mt 5:20; 12:38; 15:1; Mk 7:5; Lk 6:7).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrainingandStatus\">Training and Status<\/p>\n<p>The training of scribes initially occurred within priestly family-based guilds that guaranteed the regulation and perpetuation of this position (1 Chr 2:55). Later, scribal training in the law became open to members of all classes, with the eventual result, by Jesus’ time, of scribes from nonpriestly families being far more numerous and influential. Training in the law began at an early age under the personal supervision of a teacher (rabbi), who gave instructions in all matters pertaining to the law and its interpretation for present needs. Because the written law of Moses could not possibly speak directly to conditions in postexilic times, the oral interpretation and application of the written law to meet such current needs was a significant contribution by the scribes. Such oral law promulgated by them was regarded as equal to the written law and equally binding for those desiring to please God (see Mk 7:6-13). This important function, lying at the heart of Jewish life, accounts for the participation of the scribes in the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin, in order to make legal decisions in keeping with the law, obviously needed the presence of those most knowledgeable about the minutest details of the Torah and the principles governing its application to new circumstances. The scribes, consequently, were the only members outside the aristocratic high priests and elders to be represented in this Jewish supreme court (Mt 26:57; Mk 14:43, 53; Lk 22:66; Acts 23:9). Being the authoritative instructors of the law both within the temple (Lk 2:46) and within the various synagogues of Judea and Galilee (5:17), as well as prominent members of the Sanhedrin, the scribes were greatly respected within the Jewish community. They wore special robes (Mk 12:38) with memorial fringes at the bottom and phylacteries, or “prayer boxes,” hanging from the arms (Mt 23:5). Such attire made their presence obvious and occasioned the rising or bowing of the common people when they passed (Mk 12:38). They were addressed with respect as “rabbi” or “master” (Mt 23:7) and were given the place of honor at worship as well as at social affairs (Mt 23:2; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46). Indeed, the high regard the Jews held for their scribes is testified by the fact that such teachers of the law were buried alongside the tombs of the patriarchs and prophets.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheScribesinJesusDay\">The Scribes in Jesus’ Day<\/p>\n<p>The scribes appear predominantly in the ministry of Jesus as those concerned with the circumspectness of legal observance. Luke refers to the scribes as “lawyers,” thereby describing their chief function as interpreters of the Jewish law in a way that communicated to his gentile audience. It is often found, therefore, that the scribes were critical members of Jesus’ audience, accusing him of violating the law on numerous occasions: in forgiving sins (Mt 9:1-3; Lk 5:17-26), in breaking their notion of Sabbath observance through work (Lk 6:1-2) and healing (vv 6-11), in not following their accepted ceremonial washings (Mk 7:2-5), and in ignoring their practice of fasting (Lk 5:33-39). Not surprisingly, they especially disapproved of Jesus’ practice of mingling with the unclean and outcasts of Jewish society (Mk 2:16-17; Lk 15:1-2). In a similar light, they are not unfrequently found presenting questions concerning the law for the purpose of tricking Jesus (Mk 7:5; 12:28, 35; Lk 11:53; Jn 8:3-4). In a similar fashion, they demanded that Jesus make his identity clear (Mt 12:38) and reveal the source of his authority to perform miracles (Mk 3:22; Lk 20:1-4). Although there is evidence that a minority of the scribes accepted Jesus (Mt 8:19; 13:52; Mk 12:32; Jn 3:1-2), their primary attitude toward Jesus was one of hostility. As previously suggested, this was partly due to Jesus’ differing expression of fidelity to the Mosaic law and his openness toward the outcasts. It was also partly due to the rising popularity of Jesus among the people, which posed a threat to their own authority (Mt 7:29) and to the safety of the city (Mt 21:15; Mk 11:18). Certainly, another major contributing factor of their opposition to Jesus was his exposure of their hypocrisy and corruption. In his rebukes of the scribes and the Pharisees, Jesus openly accused them of catering to public approval (Mt 23:5-7; Mk 12:38-39; Lk 11:43). While appearing to be outwardly correct and holy, they were inwardly corrupt (Mt 23:25-28; Lk 11:39-41). Jesus also attacked the principle of oral law taught by the scribes, which they demanded that the people follow. Jesus charged that the oral law was a “heavy burden” that the scribes themselves did not even bother to follow (Mt 23:2-4, 13-22; Lk 11:46). While emphasizing the minor points of the law, the scribes were also guilty of ignoring the weightier concerns of justice, mercy, and faith (Mt 23:23-24; Mk 12:40; Lk 11:42). Contrary to being the descendants of the prophets, as the scribes held themselves to be, the scribes (Jesus claimed) would have killed the prophets if they had lived in their day (Mt 23:29-36; Lk 20:9-19).<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising to find, therefore, the scribes anxious to get rid of Jesus (Mk 14:1; Lk 11:53). His more flexible interpretation of the law posed a clear threat to their position and authority within the community. The scribes joined forces with their normal opponents (the high priesthood) to engineer Jesus’ arrest (Mk 14:43). When Jesus appeared before them and the rest of the Sanhedrin, they worked with the other leaders to construct a case against him worthy of death (Mt 26:57-66). When taking Jesus before Herod, they stood by and shouted their accusations with the others (Lk 23:10). Finally, they participated with other members of the Sanhedrin in mocking Jesus on the cross, demanding that Jesus save himself by coming down from the cross (Mt 27:41-43). Prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the scribes continued with the other elements of the Sanhedrin to oppose the early Christian church, and they brought about Stephen’s martyrdom (Acts 6:12-14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Judaism; Pharisees; Writer.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SCRIBE<\/h3>\n<p>Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPreexilicTimes\">Scribes in Preexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion of the term “scribe” and has no particular religious connotation. Scribes were employed to keep accounts or transcribe legal information (Jer 32:12), military data (2 Chr 26:11), other public documents (Jgs 8:14; Is 50:1), or personal correspondence (Jer 36:18). These secretaries were essential to royal administrations, and there is frequent mention of a chief scribe who functioned as a court recorder (1 Kgs 4:3; 2 Chr 24:11), adviser (2 Sm 8:16-17; 2 Kgs 18:18; 22:12; 1 Chr 27:32; Is 36:3), and financial overseer (2 Kgs 22:3-4). Secretaries or scribes were associated with the priesthood as well, serving as recorders for temple affairs (1 Chr 24:6; 2 Chr 34:13-15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPostexilicTimes\">Scribes in Postexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>With the restoration of Judaism under Ezra and Nehemiah, the term “scribe” begins to be associated more narrowly with those who gathered together, studied, and interpreted the Torah (Jewish law). They became, in essence, a separate profession of teachers (although unpaid), able to preserve accurately the law of Moses and interpret it to meet conditions in postexilic times. In this initial period, Ezra himself appears as the ideal “scribe who studied and taught the commands and laws of the <span>Lord<\/span> to Israel” (Ezr 7:11, <span>nlt<\/span>). In Ecclesiasticus, the scribe is portrayed as one who, because of his diligent study of the Law, the Prophets, and Writings (Ecclus 38:24ff; 39:1), is able to penetrate the hidden meanings of texts (39:2-3) and thus is able to serve as judge and counsel for the affairs of the people and state (38:33; 39:4-8). Because of his invaluable place in a society governed by the Torah, the scribe is worthy of praise and veneration throughout succeeding generations (39:9). By the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the scribes were a fairly distinct class in Jewish society. They appear as such during the Maccabean wars, acting as a negotiating body with the rival Syrians (1 Macc 7:12). It is also significant that, from this time forward, the history of the scribe in Jewish life is closely linked with the rise of the Pharisees. Although there were apparently some scribes affiliated with the rival Sadducean party, the party of the Pharisees, with its absolute devotion to the law (including the oral law), became the primary religiopolitical affiliation for the scribes (see the close connection in the NT: Mt 5:20; 12:38; 15:1; Mk 7:5; Lk 6:7).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrainingandStatus\">Training and Status<\/p>\n<p>The training of scribes initially occurred within priestly family-based guilds that guaranteed the regulation and perpetuation of this position (1 Chr 2:55). Later, scribal training in the law became open to members of all classes, with the eventual result, by Jesus’ time, of scribes from nonpriestly families being far more numerous and influential. Training in the law began at an early age under the personal supervision of a teacher (rabbi), who gave instructions in all matters pertaining to the law and its interpretation for present needs. Because the written law of Moses could not possibly speak directly to conditions in postexilic times, the oral interpretation and application of the written law to meet such current needs was a significant contribution by the scribes. Such oral law promulgated by them was regarded as equal to the written law and equally binding for those desiring to please God (see Mk 7:6-13). This important function, lying at the heart of Jewish life, accounts for the participation of the scribes in the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin, in order to make legal decisions in keeping with the law, obviously needed the presence of those most knowledgeable about the minutest details of the Torah and the principles governing its application to new circumstances. The scribes, consequently, were the only members outside the aristocratic high priests and elders to be represented in this Jewish supreme court (Mt 26:57; Mk 14:43, 53; Lk 22:66; Acts 23:9). Being the authoritative instructors of the law both within the temple (Lk 2:46) and within the various synagogues of Judea and Galilee (5:17), as well as prominent members of the Sanhedrin, the scribes were greatly respected within the Jewish community. They wore special robes (Mk 12:38) with memorial fringes at the bottom and phylacteries, or “prayer boxes,” hanging from the arms (Mt 23:5). Such attire made their presence obvious and occasioned the rising or bowing of the common people when they passed (Mk 12:38). They were addressed with respect as “rabbi” or “master” (Mt 23:7) and were given the place of honor at worship as well as at social affairs (Mt 23:2; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46). Indeed, the high regard the Jews held for their scribes is testified by the fact that such teachers of the law were buried alongside the tombs of the patriarchs and prophets.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheScribesinJesusDay\">The Scribes in Jesus’ Day<\/p>\n<p>The scribes appear predominantly in the ministry of Jesus as those concerned with the circumspectness of legal observance. Luke refers to the scribes as “lawyers,” thereby describing their chief function as interpreters of the Jewish law in a way that communicated to his gentile audience. It is often found, therefore, that the scribes were critical members of Jesus’ audience, accusing him of violating the law on numerous occasions: in forgiving sins (Mt 9:1-3; Lk 5:17-26), in breaking their notion of Sabbath observance through work (Lk 6:1-2) and healing (vv 6-11), in not following their accepted ceremonial washings (Mk 7:2-5), and in ignoring their practice of fasting (Lk 5:33-39). Not surprisingly, they especially disapproved of Jesus’ practice of mingling with the unclean and outcasts of Jewish society (Mk 2:16-17; Lk 15:1-2). In a similar light, they are not unfrequently found presenting questions concerning the law for the purpose of tricking Jesus (Mk 7:5; 12:28, 35; Lk 11:53; Jn 8:3-4). In a similar fashion, they demanded that Jesus make his identity clear (Mt 12:38) and reveal the source of his authority to perform miracles (Mk 3:22; Lk 20:1-4). Although there is evidence that a minority of the scribes accepted Jesus (Mt 8:19; 13:52; Mk 12:32; Jn 3:1-2), their primary attitude toward Jesus was one of hostility. As previously suggested, this was partly due to Jesus’ differing expression of fidelity to the Mosaic law and his openness toward the outcasts. It was also partly due to the rising popularity of Jesus among the people, which posed a threat to their own authority (Mt 7:29) and to the safety of the city (Mt 21:15; Mk 11:18). Certainly, another major contributing factor of their opposition to Jesus was his exposure of their hypocrisy and corruption. In his rebukes of the scribes and the Pharisees, Jesus openly accused them of catering to public approval (Mt 23:5-7; Mk 12:38-39; Lk 11:43). While appearing to be outwardly correct and holy, they were inwardly corrupt (Mt 23:25-28; Lk 11:39-41). Jesus also attacked the principle of oral law taught by the scribes, which they demanded that the people follow. Jesus charged that the oral law was a “heavy burden” that the scribes themselves did not even bother to follow (Mt 23:2-4, 13-22; Lk 11:46). While emphasizing the minor points of the law, the scribes were also guilty of ignoring the weightier concerns of justice, mercy, and faith (Mt 23:23-24; Mk 12:40; Lk 11:42). Contrary to being the descendants of the prophets, as the scribes held themselves to be, the scribes (Jesus claimed) would have killed the prophets if they had lived in their day (Mt 23:29-36; Lk 20:9-19).<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising to find, therefore, the scribes anxious to get rid of Jesus (Mk 14:1; Lk 11:53). His more flexible interpretation of the law posed a clear threat to their position and authority within the community. The scribes joined forces with their normal opponents (the high priesthood) to engineer Jesus’ arrest (Mk 14:43). When Jesus appeared before them and the rest of the Sanhedrin, they worked with the other leaders to construct a case against him worthy of death (Mt 26:57-66). When taking Jesus before Herod, they stood by and shouted their accusations with the others (Lk 23:10). Finally, they participated with other members of the Sanhedrin in mocking Jesus on the cross, demanding that Jesus save himself by coming down from the cross (Mt 27:41-43). Prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the scribes continued with the other elements of the Sanhedrin to oppose the early Christian church, and they brought about Stephen’s martyrdom (Acts 6:12-14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Judaism; Pharisees; Writer.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SCRIBE Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus. Scribes in Preexilic Times The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion...","summary_en":"SCRIBE Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus. Scribes in Preexilic Times The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55465,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:32","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:32","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:32-33<\/strong> The scribe’s affirmation adds emphasis to the importance of these two commands for authentic devotion.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:32-33<\/strong> The scribe’s affirmation adds emphasis to the importance of these two commands for authentic devotion.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:32-33 The scribe’s affirmation adds emphasis to the importance of these two commands for authentic devotion.","summary_en":"12:32-33 The scribe’s affirmation adds emphasis to the importance of these two commands for authentic devotion.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83091,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:32","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:32","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:32-33<\/strong> The scribe’s affirmation adds emphasis to the importance of these two commands for authentic devotion.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:32-33<\/strong> The scribe’s affirmation adds emphasis to the importance of these two commands for authentic devotion.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:32-33 The scribe’s affirmation adds emphasis to the importance of these two commands for authentic devotion.","summary_en":"12:32-33 The scribe’s affirmation adds emphasis to the importance of these two commands for authentic devotion.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110717,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:32","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:32","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:32-33<\/strong> The scribe’s affirmation adds emphasis to the importance of these two commands for authentic devotion.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:32-33<\/strong> The scribe’s affirmation adds emphasis to the importance of these two commands for authentic devotion.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:32-33 The scribe’s affirmation adds emphasis to the importance of these two commands for authentic devotion.","summary_en":"12:32-33 The scribe’s affirmation adds emphasis to the importance of these two commands for authentic devotion.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138343,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:32","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:32","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:32-33<\/strong> The scribe’s affirmation adds emphasis to the importance of these two commands for authentic devotion.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:32-33<\/strong> The scribe’s affirmation adds emphasis to the importance of these two commands for authentic devotion.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:32-33 The scribe’s affirmation adds emphasis to the importance of these two commands for authentic devotion.","summary_en":"12:32-33 The scribe’s affirmation adds emphasis to the importance of these two commands for authentic devotion.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"33":[{"id":25779,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Mind","title_en":"Mind","content_ro":"<h3>MIND<\/h3>\n<p>One’s intellectual processes in a narrow sense or, more broadly, the sum total of a person’s mental and moral state of being. To the Hebrew way of thinking, there is no distinctive terminology for the concept of the mind. To the Greek world, the mind plays a very important role in the understanding of humans.<\/p>\n<p>Since in the OT there was no separate word that could be used for the human mind, translators of the English versions have supplied other words (“soul,” “spirit,” or “heart”), as the context dictates. Thus, precise distinctions among these terms are hard to define. A person is a soul, having a spirit and a heart. Any of these terms may represent the mind. This means that the widely held distinction between the mind as the seat of thinking and the heart as the seat of feeling is alien to the meanings these terms carry in the OT.<\/p>\n<p>While the “mind” denotes a person’s thoughts, the prominent idea of “mind” in the OT is that it denotes the heart (1 Sm 2:35; Ez 11:5; 20:32). The heart is often intended to include the entire inner person and thus often relates especially to the mind. In these instances it relates primarily to the functions of will and memory (Is 46:8; 65:17; Jer 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>The basic patterns of Hebrew reasoning continue in the Gospel accounts. The conception of mind appears quite rarely. When used, it is mostly in connection with the heart—for example, the imaginations of the heart (Lk 1:51). The only other occurrences of the word “mind” come in the statement of the great commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind” (cf. Mt 22:37; Mk 12:30; Lk 10:27). The Gospel writers are unanimous in their agreement that Jesus added “with all your mind” to Deuteronomy 6:5. In Mark, however, the questioner repeats the command of Jesus but with a word for “understanding” in place of the word for “mind” (Mk 12:33).<\/p>\n<p>With the writings of Paul, one moves into the Greek world. Paul understood the mind as distinct from the spirit of man. It possesses the ability to understand and to reason (1 Cor 14:14-19); it is the seat of intelligence. In other places, “mind” is used in a broader sense that includes the entire mental and moral process or state of being of a human (Rom 12:2; Eph 4:23). A human’s actions flow from the inclinations of his or her mind. Whether a person is good or evil depends on the state of the mind.<\/p>\n<p>The state of a person depends upon what or who controls the mind. Romans 8:6-7 speaks of a person’s mind being controlled either by the flesh or by the Spirit. The person whose mind is controlled by the flesh is evil. The mind controlled by the Spirit leads to good. Other passages refer to the inclination of a person’s mind being controlled by the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4). People whose minds are controlled by the “god of this world” will have their minds darkened and will not be able to understand the world as it really is (3:14). It is as a veil over one’s understanding. But the Lord can open people’s minds. For example, Jesus opened the minds of the disciples who walked the Emmaus road with him so that they might understand the Scriptures (Lk 24:45).<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, the action of conversion is considered to be a “renewing of the mind” (Rom 12:2; Eph 4:23). In both cases, the process is one whereby God takes control of the mind of a person through the Holy Spirit and leads the thoughts of that person into proper channels. Thus, the renewed person is given power to make proper value judgments. Such people have new minds with which to make spiritual discernments (1 Cor 2:15-16).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Man; Heart; Soul.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MIND<\/h3>\n<p>One’s intellectual processes in a narrow sense or, more broadly, the sum total of a person’s mental and moral state of being. To the Hebrew way of thinking, there is no distinctive terminology for the concept of the mind. To the Greek world, the mind plays a very important role in the understanding of humans.<\/p>\n<p>Since in the OT there was no separate word that could be used for the human mind, translators of the English versions have supplied other words (“soul,” “spirit,” or “heart”), as the context dictates. Thus, precise distinctions among these terms are hard to define. A person is a soul, having a spirit and a heart. Any of these terms may represent the mind. This means that the widely held distinction between the mind as the seat of thinking and the heart as the seat of feeling is alien to the meanings these terms carry in the OT.<\/p>\n<p>While the “mind” denotes a person’s thoughts, the prominent idea of “mind” in the OT is that it denotes the heart (1 Sm 2:35; Ez 11:5; 20:32). The heart is often intended to include the entire inner person and thus often relates especially to the mind. In these instances it relates primarily to the functions of will and memory (Is 46:8; 65:17; Jer 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>The basic patterns of Hebrew reasoning continue in the Gospel accounts. The conception of mind appears quite rarely. When used, it is mostly in connection with the heart—for example, the imaginations of the heart (Lk 1:51). The only other occurrences of the word “mind” come in the statement of the great commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind” (cf. Mt 22:37; Mk 12:30; Lk 10:27). The Gospel writers are unanimous in their agreement that Jesus added “with all your mind” to Deuteronomy 6:5. In Mark, however, the questioner repeats the command of Jesus but with a word for “understanding” in place of the word for “mind” (Mk 12:33).<\/p>\n<p>With the writings of Paul, one moves into the Greek world. Paul understood the mind as distinct from the spirit of man. It possesses the ability to understand and to reason (1 Cor 14:14-19); it is the seat of intelligence. In other places, “mind” is used in a broader sense that includes the entire mental and moral process or state of being of a human (Rom 12:2; Eph 4:23). A human’s actions flow from the inclinations of his or her mind. Whether a person is good or evil depends on the state of the mind.<\/p>\n<p>The state of a person depends upon what or who controls the mind. Romans 8:6-7 speaks of a person’s mind being controlled either by the flesh or by the Spirit. The person whose mind is controlled by the flesh is evil. The mind controlled by the Spirit leads to good. Other passages refer to the inclination of a person’s mind being controlled by the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4). People whose minds are controlled by the “god of this world” will have their minds darkened and will not be able to understand the world as it really is (3:14). It is as a veil over one’s understanding. But the Lord can open people’s minds. For example, Jesus opened the minds of the disciples who walked the Emmaus road with him so that they might understand the Scriptures (Lk 24:45).<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, the action of conversion is considered to be a “renewing of the mind” (Rom 12:2; Eph 4:23). In both cases, the process is one whereby God takes control of the mind of a person through the Holy Spirit and leads the thoughts of that person into proper channels. Thus, the renewed person is given power to make proper value judgments. Such people have new minds with which to make spiritual discernments (1 Cor 2:15-16).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Man; Heart; Soul.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MIND One’s intellectual processes in a narrow sense or, more broadly, the sum total of a person’s mental and moral state of being. To the Hebrew way of thinking, there is no distinctive terminology for the concept of the mind. To the Greek world, the mind plays a very important role in the understanding of humans. Since in the OT there was no separate word that could be used for the human mind, translators of the English versions have supplied other words (“soul,” “spirit,” or “heart”), as th...","summary_en":"MIND One’s intellectual processes in a narrow sense or, more broadly, the sum total of a person’s mental and moral state of being. To the Hebrew way of thinking, there is no distinctive terminology for the concept of the mind. To the Greek world, the mind plays a very important role in the understanding of humans. Since in the OT there was no separate word that could be used for the human mind, translators of the English versions have supplied other words (“soul,” “spirit,” or “heart”), as th...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"34":[{"id":55466,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:34","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:34","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:34<\/strong> The account ends with Jesus’ commending the teacher of religious law for recognizing that this twofold command was more important than burnt offerings and sacrifices (see Hos 6:6). We are left uncertain as to the fate of this man. He was <em>not far from the Kingdom of God<\/em>, but did he enter it? Mark might have intentionally left this question unanswered so that each reader would wrestle with the question, <em>Have I entered the Kingdom of God?<\/em><\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:34<\/strong> The account ends with Jesus’ commending the teacher of religious law for recognizing that this twofold command was more important than burnt offerings and sacrifices (see Hos 6:6). We are left uncertain as to the fate of this man. He was <em>not far from the Kingdom of God<\/em>, but did he enter it? Mark might have intentionally left this question unanswered so that each reader would wrestle with the question, <em>Have I entered the Kingdom of God?<\/em><\/p>","summary_ro":"12:34 The account ends with Jesus’ commending the teacher of religious law for recognizing that this twofold command was more important than burnt offerings and sacrifices (see Hos 6:6). We are left uncertain as to the fate of this man. He was not far from the Kingdom of God, but did he enter it? Mark might have intentionally left this question unanswered so that each reader would wrestle with the question, Have I entered the Kingdom of God?","summary_en":"12:34 The account ends with Jesus’ commending the teacher of religious law for recognizing that this twofold command was more important than burnt offerings and sacrifices (see Hos 6:6). We are left uncertain as to the fate of this man. He was not far from the Kingdom of God, but did he enter it? Mark might have intentionally left this question unanswered so that each reader would wrestle with the question, Have I entered the Kingdom of God?","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83092,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:34","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:34","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:34<\/strong> The account ends with Jesus’ commending the teacher of religious law for recognizing that this twofold command was more important than burnt offerings and sacrifices (see Hos 6:6). We are left uncertain as to the fate of this man. He was <em>not far from the Kingdom of God<\/em>, but did he enter it? Mark might have intentionally left this question unanswered so that each reader would wrestle with the question, <em>Have I entered the Kingdom of God?<\/em><\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:34<\/strong> The account ends with Jesus’ commending the teacher of religious law for recognizing that this twofold command was more important than burnt offerings and sacrifices (see Hos 6:6). We are left uncertain as to the fate of this man. He was <em>not far from the Kingdom of God<\/em>, but did he enter it? Mark might have intentionally left this question unanswered so that each reader would wrestle with the question, <em>Have I entered the Kingdom of God?<\/em><\/p>","summary_ro":"12:34 The account ends with Jesus’ commending the teacher of religious law for recognizing that this twofold command was more important than burnt offerings and sacrifices (see Hos 6:6). We are left uncertain as to the fate of this man. He was not far from the Kingdom of God, but did he enter it? Mark might have intentionally left this question unanswered so that each reader would wrestle with the question, Have I entered the Kingdom of God?","summary_en":"12:34 The account ends with Jesus’ commending the teacher of religious law for recognizing that this twofold command was more important than burnt offerings and sacrifices (see Hos 6:6). We are left uncertain as to the fate of this man. He was not far from the Kingdom of God, but did he enter it? Mark might have intentionally left this question unanswered so that each reader would wrestle with the question, Have I entered the Kingdom of God?","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110718,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:34","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:34","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:34<\/strong> The account ends with Jesus’ commending the teacher of religious law for recognizing that this twofold command was more important than burnt offerings and sacrifices (see Hos 6:6). We are left uncertain as to the fate of this man. He was <em>not far from the Kingdom of God<\/em>, but did he enter it? Mark might have intentionally left this question unanswered so that each reader would wrestle with the question, <em>Have I entered the Kingdom of God?<\/em><\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:34<\/strong> The account ends with Jesus’ commending the teacher of religious law for recognizing that this twofold command was more important than burnt offerings and sacrifices (see Hos 6:6). We are left uncertain as to the fate of this man. He was <em>not far from the Kingdom of God<\/em>, but did he enter it? Mark might have intentionally left this question unanswered so that each reader would wrestle with the question, <em>Have I entered the Kingdom of God?<\/em><\/p>","summary_ro":"12:34 The account ends with Jesus’ commending the teacher of religious law for recognizing that this twofold command was more important than burnt offerings and sacrifices (see Hos 6:6). We are left uncertain as to the fate of this man. He was not far from the Kingdom of God, but did he enter it? Mark might have intentionally left this question unanswered so that each reader would wrestle with the question, Have I entered the Kingdom of God?","summary_en":"12:34 The account ends with Jesus’ commending the teacher of religious law for recognizing that this twofold command was more important than burnt offerings and sacrifices (see Hos 6:6). We are left uncertain as to the fate of this man. He was not far from the Kingdom of God, but did he enter it? Mark might have intentionally left this question unanswered so that each reader would wrestle with the question, Have I entered the Kingdom of God?","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138344,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:34","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:34","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:34<\/strong> The account ends with Jesus’ commending the teacher of religious law for recognizing that this twofold command was more important than burnt offerings and sacrifices (see Hos 6:6). We are left uncertain as to the fate of this man. He was <em>not far from the Kingdom of God<\/em>, but did he enter it? Mark might have intentionally left this question unanswered so that each reader would wrestle with the question, <em>Have I entered the Kingdom of God?<\/em><\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:34<\/strong> The account ends with Jesus’ commending the teacher of religious law for recognizing that this twofold command was more important than burnt offerings and sacrifices (see Hos 6:6). We are left uncertain as to the fate of this man. He was <em>not far from the Kingdom of God<\/em>, but did he enter it? Mark might have intentionally left this question unanswered so that each reader would wrestle with the question, <em>Have I entered the Kingdom of God?<\/em><\/p>","summary_ro":"12:34 The account ends with Jesus’ commending the teacher of religious law for recognizing that this twofold command was more important than burnt offerings and sacrifices (see Hos 6:6). We are left uncertain as to the fate of this man. He was not far from the Kingdom of God, but did he enter it? Mark might have intentionally left this question unanswered so that each reader would wrestle with the question, Have I entered the Kingdom of God?","summary_en":"12:34 The account ends with Jesus’ commending the teacher of religious law for recognizing that this twofold command was more important than burnt offerings and sacrifices (see Hos 6:6). We are left uncertain as to the fate of this man. He was not far from the Kingdom of God, but did he enter it? Mark might have intentionally left this question unanswered so that each reader would wrestle with the question, Have I entered the Kingdom of God?","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"35":[{"id":41315,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"David","title_en":"David","content_ro":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","summary_en":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":68941,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"David","title_en":"David","content_ro":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","summary_en":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":96567,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"David","title_en":"David","content_ro":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","summary_en":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124193,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"David","title_en":"David","content_ro":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>David<\/h3>\n<p>David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance.<\/p>\n<p>David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use David to complete the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n<p>As a youth, David was a simple shepherd, watching his father’s sheep (1 Sam 16:11; 17:14-15). His life took an unexpected turn when the prophet Samuel came to Jesse and anointed David as the next king of Israel. However, David’s kingship was not initiated by a coup or an assassination. In fact, David became a faithful servant to King Saul. David first entered Saul’s service as a musician, playing songs that soothed Saul’s tormented soul (16:14-23). This service anticipated David’s role as the composer of many of the psalms. The youthful David also helped Saul by famously defeating the Philistine champion Goliath in individual combat (17:32-51). This victory anticipated David’s role as a victorious military leader.<\/p>\n<p>Although David was loyal, Saul grew deeply suspicious of him, and David had to flee. He was able to escape with help from Saul’s own children, Jonathan and Michal. David led a virtual kingdom in exile. He had a standing army of six hundred men. The prophet Gad and the priest Abiathar were also with him, providing direction and guidance from the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>God’s long-suffering patience finally ran out with Saul, and Saul died on the battlefield. Yet it was still not easy for David to establish his rule over all Israel. The tribe of Judah immediately proclaimed him its king, but at first the northern tribes chose Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, to be their leader. Ishbosheth was not a powerful or good leader; he only stayed in power because of the protection of his father’s military leader, Abner. However, Ishbosheth foolishly insulted Abner, so the general helped turn the kingdom over to David.<\/p>\n<p>As king over a united Israel, David proceeded to solidify the kingdom. He and his men captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made this central city his capital. He also expelled the remaining Philistines from the land. He then brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. David wanted to build a permanent temple to God in Jerusalem to replace the Tabernacle. God denied this wish, but he showed his love for David by entering into a covenant with him that established his descendants as a dynasty (2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s life soon took a turn for the worse, however (see 2 Sam 11–12). At a time when he probably should have been on the battlefield with his army, he was lounging around on the palace roof. He saw a beautiful woman named Bathsheba taking a bath. He wanted her, so, like a Near Eastern despot, he took her. She became pregnant, and his attempt to cover up his adultery failed. In a desperate attempt to keep things secret, he had her husband, Uriah, killed. But not even a great king like David can keep secrets from God, and God sent his prophet Nathan to confront David. David repented (see Pss 32, 51), but the consequences of his actions plagued his family and the rest of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>From that point on, David’s family fell apart. David’s son Amnon raped his half sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1-14). Her brother Absalom then murdered Amnon (2 Sam 13:20-29). Absalom later created a civil war as he tried to steal the throne from his father (2 Sam 15–18). Another son, Adonijah, tried to take the throne from David by having himself proclaimed king while his father was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5-10). But David was able to muster enough strength to ensure that Solomon would succeed him (1 Kgs 1:28-40). David died, Solomon was proclaimed king, and David’s long dynasty began (as promised in 2 Sam 7).<\/p>\n<p>David’s successors seldom measured up. Only rarely did his descendants lead the nation to worship God faithfully; the united monarchy did not even outlive Solomon. In the centuries that followed, the descendants of David ruled only Judah in the south. Eventually, the kingdom of Judah was destroyed. Never again did a descendant of David reign as king in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>What, then, of the promise to David that “your throne will be secure forever” (2 Sam 7:16)? The New Testament points to Jesus. He was the descendant of David, and God proclaimed him the Christ, or Messiah—the anointed king (see Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 18:38-39; 20:41-44; John 7:42; Rev 5:5; 22:16). The life and rule of David foreshadows the messianic reign of Jesus Christ, which will last forever (see Luke 1:32-33; Rev 11:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ruth 4:13-22; 1 Sam 16:1–17:58; 18:1–27:12; 29:1–30:31; 2 Sam 1:1–24:25; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:12; 1 Chr 11:1–29:30; Pss 1–32, 34–41, 51–71, 86, 91–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145; Matt 1:1; 9:27; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; John 7:40-44; Acts 2:22-37; 13:20-43; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","summary_en":"David David is one of the monumental figures of biblical history. His reign was a high point in God’s plan for Israel, and it had great and lasting significance. David was born in Bethlehem as Jesse’s youngest son; his lineage is traced back to Judah (Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:3-15; Matt 1:3-6; Luke 3:31-33). At the time of his birth, Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, and large parts of the Promised Land were still occupied by foreign people, most notably the Philistines. God would use Dav...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":8767,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"David","title_en":"David","content_ro":"<h3>DAVID<\/h3>\n<p>Israel’s most important king. David’s kingdom represented the epitome of Israel’s power and influence during the nation’s OT history.<\/p>\n<p>The two books in the OT devoted to David’s reign are 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. His earlier years are recorded in 1 Samuel, beginning at chapter 16. Almost half of the biblical psalms are ascribed to David. His importance extends into the NT, where he is identified as an ancestor of Jesus Christ and forerunner of the messianic king.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Early Years<\/p>\n<p>• Preparation for Kingship<\/p>\n<p>• David as King<\/p>\n<p>David’s Lasting Influence<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"EarlyYears\">Early Years<\/p>\n<h5>Family<\/h5>\n<p>David was the youngest son in Jesse’s family, part of Judah’s tribe. The family lived in Bethlehem, about six miles (10 kilometers) south of Jerusalem. His great-grandmother was Ruth, from the land of Moab (Ru 4:18-22). Genealogies in both the OT and the NT trace David’s lineage back to Judah, son of the patriarch Jacob (1 Chr 2:3-15; Mt 1:3-6; Lk 3:31-33).<\/p>\n<h5>Training and Talents<\/h5>\n<p>Little is known about David’s early life. As a boy, he took care of his father’s sheep, risking his life to kill attacking bears and lions. Later, David publicly acknowledged God’s help and strength in protecting the flocks under his care (1 Sm 17:34-37).<\/p>\n<p>David was an accomplished musician. He had developed his ability as a harpist so well that, when a musician was needed at the royal court of King Saul, someone immediately recommended David.<\/p>\n<p>In Jesse’s family, David was regarded as unimportant. When the nationally known prophet Samuel visited Jesse’s home, all the older sons were on hand to meet him; David was tending the sheep. Samuel had been instructed by God to anoint a king from Jesse’s family, not knowing beforehand which son to anoint. Sensing divine restraint as seven brothers passed before him, he made further inquiry. When he learned that Jesse had one other son, David was immediately summoned. David was anointed by Samuel and endowed with the Spirit of the Lord (1 Sm 16:1-13). Whatever Jesse and his family understood by that anointing, it seems to have made no immediate change in David’s pattern of living. He continued to tend the sheep.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PreparationforKingship\">Preparation for Kingship<\/p>\n<p>During his youth, David was willing to serve others, even though he had been anointed king. It was his willingness to take supplies to three of his older brothers in the army that gave him his opportunity for national fame.<\/p>\n<p>As a young man, David was also sensitive toward God. While greeting his brothers on the battlefield, he was disturbed by the Philistine Goliath’s defiance of God’s armies. Although rebuked by his brothers, David accepted the challenge to take on Goliath. He had a reasonable confidence that God, who had helped him encounter a lion and a bear, would aid him against a champion warrior. So, with faith in God and using his ability to sling stones, David killed Goliath (1 Sm 17:12-58).<\/p>\n<h5>National Fame<\/h5>\n<p>Killing Goliath made David a hero to the nation of Israel. It also brought him into close relationship with the royal family of Saul. But success and national acclaim brought on the jealousy of Saul and ultimately resulted in David’s expulsion from the land of Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Royal Court<\/h5>\n<p>Saul promised his oldest daughter, Merab, to David in marriage, but then Saul went back on the promise and offered David another daughter, Michal. The dowry of trophies from dead Philistines demanded by Saul was designed to bring about David’s death at Philistine hands. But again David was victorious. Women sang praises of his exploits, intensifying Saul’s jealousy and further endangering David’s life (1 Sm 18:6-30).<\/p>\n<p>In the meantime, David and Saul’s son Jonathan developed a deep friendship. When they made a covenant, Jonathan gave David his choicest military equipment (sword, bow, and belt). Although Saul tried to turn Jonathan against David, the friendship deepened. Because Saul was trying to kill him, David had to flee from the court and live as a fugitive.<\/p>\n<p>After Jonathan had warned David of Saul’s continuing designs on his life, David went to Ramah to see the prophet Samuel. Together they went to Naioth, near Ramah. After sending several groups of men after David, Saul finally went with them himself. All his attempts to seize David were thwarted by the Spirit of God, who caused Saul and his men to prophesy all night in religious fervor (1 Sm 19).<\/p>\n<p>Conferring again with Jonathan, David realized that Saul’s jealousy had developed into hatred. Jonathan, aware that David would be the future king of Israel, requested assurance that his descendants would receive protection under David’s rule (1 Sm 20).<\/p>\n<h5>Life as a Fugitive<\/h5>\n<p>Fleeing from Saul, David stopped at Nob. By deceiving Ahimelech, who was officiating as priest there, David obtained food supplies and Goliath’s sword (kept as a trophy). An Edomite named Doeg, chief of Saul’s herdsmen, saw what happened at Nob. David continued his flight, taking refuge temporarily in Gath with King Achish (1 Sm 21), then finding shelter in the cave of Adullam, located 10 miles (16.1 kilometers) southwest of Bethlehem. There his relatives and about 400 fighting men joined him. He went to Mizpeh in Moab, appealing to the Moabite king for protection, especially for his parents. When the prophet Gad warned him not to stay there, David moved back to Judah to the Hereth woods (1 Sm 22:1-5).<\/p>\n<p>David’s freedom of movement enraged Saul, who charged his own people with conspiracy. When Doeg reported what he had witnessed at Nob, Saul executed Ahimelech and 84 other priests, then massacred all of Nob’s inhabitants. One priest named Abiathar escaped to report Saul’s atrocities to David, who assured him of protection (1 Sm 22:6-23).<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines were always ready to take advantage of any weakness in Israel. David’s reprisal after a Philistine raid on Keilah, 12 miles (19.3 kilometers) southwest of Bethlehem, gave Saul an opportunity to attack David, who escaped to the wilderness of Ziph, a desert area near Hebron. David and Jonathan met for the last time in that wilderness. Pursued by Saul’s army, David fled still farther south. He was almost encircled in uninhabited country near Maon when Saul had to march his army off to respond to a Philistine attack (1 Sm 23).<\/p>\n<p>At his next place of refuge, En-gedi, on the western shore of the Dead Sea, David was attacked by Saul with 3,000 soldiers. David had an opportunity to kill Saul but refused to harm the “Lord’s anointed” king of Israel. Learning of David’s loyalty, Saul confessed his sin in seeking David’s life (1 Sm 24).<\/p>\n<p>During the years they roamed the wilderness in the Maon\/Ziph\/En-gedi area, David’s band provided protection for Nabal, a rich man living in Maon with large flocks of sheep at Carmel. In exchange for that protection, David proposed that Nabal share some of his wealth. Nabal’s scorn angered David, but Nabal’s wife, Abigail, appealed to David not to take revenge. When Abigail told Nabal of his narrow escape, he was evidently so shocked that he had a heart seizure. He died ten days later, and Abigail later became David’s wife (1 Sm 25).<\/p>\n<p>Once more Saul came with an army of 3,000 men into the Ziph Desert to find David, and David again passed up an opportunity to harm the king. Finally realizing the folly of seeking David’s life, Saul abandoned pursuit (1 Sm 26).<\/p>\n<h5>Refuge in Philistia<\/h5>\n<p>David continued to feel unsafe in Saul’s kingdom. Returning to Gath in Philistine country, he was welcomed by King Achish. His followers were allotted the city of Ziklag, where they lived for about 16 months, attracting new recruits from Judah and the rest of Israel (1 Sm 27; 1 Chr 12:19-22).<\/p>\n<p>The Philistine army, marching up to the Megiddo Valley to fight Saul’s army, was uneasy with David’s guerrillas in their rear column, so the commanders put pressure on Achish to dismiss David. When he returned to Ziklag, David found that the city had just been raided by the Amalekites. He pursued the enemy, rescued his people and goods, and divided the spoils with those who had remained behind to guard the supplies (1 Sm 29–30). Meanwhile, the Philistines routed the Israelites at Mt Gilboa, killing Jonathan and two of Saul’s other sons in a fierce battle. Saul, badly wounded, killed himself with his own sword (ch 31).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DavidasKing\">David as King<\/p>\n<p>David ruled over Israel for about 40 years, although the accounts of his reign do not contain enough information for an exact chronology. He began his rule at Hebron and reigned over Judah’s territory for seven or eight years. With the death of Saul’s successor, Ishbosheth, David was recognized as king by all the tribes and made Jerusalem his capital. During the next decade, he unified Israel through military and economic expansion. Then came approximately 10 years of disruption in the royal family. The last years of David’s reign seem to have been devoted to plans for the Jerusalem temple, which was built in the reign of his son Solomon.<\/p>\n<h5>The Years in Hebron<\/h5>\n<p>David was subjected to an unusually rugged period of training for his kingship. Serving under Saul, he gained experience in military exploits against the Philistines. Then, during his fugitive wanderings in the desert area of southern Judah, he ingratiated himself with the landholders and sheep raisers by giving them protection. Being recognized as an outlaw of Israel even enabled him to negotiate diplomatic relations with Moab and Philistia.<\/p>\n<p>David was in Philistine country when news came to him that both Saul and Jonathan had been slain. In a beautiful elegy he paid tribute to his friend Jonathan as well as to King Saul (2 Sm 1).<\/p>\n<p>Sure of God’s guidance, David returned to his home, where the leaders of Judah anointed him king at Hebron. He sent a message of commendation to the men of Jabesh for providing a respectable burial for King Saul, probably also bidding for their support.<\/p>\n<p>Confusion probably swept through Israel when Saul was killed, because the Philistines occupied much of the land. Various leaders gathered whatever fighting men they could find, as old tribal loyalties reasserted themselves. David had most of Judah’s tribe firmly behind him.<\/p>\n<p>A kind of civil war broke out between the followers of David and those of Saul, with David gaining the allegiance of more and more people. Saul’s general, Abner, eventually negotiated peace with David, who requested the restoration of Michal as his wife, indicating that he held no animosity toward Saul’s dynasty. With the consent of Saul’s son Ishbosheth, whom Abner had enthroned as king, Abner went to Hebron and pledged Israel’s support for David. But Abner was killed by Joab, one of David’s captains, in a family vendetta, and soon afterward Ishbosheth was assassinated. David publicly mourned Abner’s death and had Ishbosheth’s two murderers executed. Thus, when Saul’s dynasty ended, David was seen by the people not so much as a challenger but as a logical successor. Hence, he was recognized as king by all Israel (2 Sm 2–4).<\/p>\n<h5>Consolidation in Jerusalem<\/h5>\n<p>When the Israelites turned to David as king, the Philistines became alarmed and attacked (2 Sm 5; 1 Chr 14:8-17). David was strong enough to defeat them and thus unify the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>In search of a more central location for his capital, David turned toward the city of Jerusalem, a Jebusite stronghold. Joab responded to his challenge to conquer the city and was rewarded by being made general of David’s army. Jerusalem became known as the “city of David” (1 Chr 11:4-9).<\/p>\n<p>In the same way that he had organized his earliest followers into an effective guerrilla band (1 Chr 11:1–12:22) at Hebron, David began organizing the whole nation (12:23-40). Once established in Jerusalem, he quickly gained recognition from the Phoenicians, contracting for their artisans to build him a magnificent palace in the new capital (14:1-2). He also made sure that Jerusalem would become Israel’s religious center (2 Sm 6; 1 Chr 13–16). His abortive attempt to move the ark of the covenant by oxcart (cf. Nm 4) reminded the powerful king that he still had to do things God’s way to be successful.<\/p>\n<p>With Jerusalem well established as the nation’s capital, David intended to build God a temple. He shared his plan with the prophet Nathan, whose immediate response was positive. That night, however, God sent a message via Nathan that David should not build the temple. David’s throne would be established eternally, the prophet said, and unlike Saul, King David would have a son to succeed him and perpetuate the kingdom; that son would build the temple (2 Sm 7; 1 Chr 17).<\/p>\n<h5>Prosperity and Supremacy<\/h5>\n<p>Little is recorded about the expansion of David’s rule from the tribal area of Judah to a vast empire stretching from the Nile River of Egypt to regions of the Tigris-Euphrates valley. Nothing in secular history negates the biblical perspective that David had the most powerful kingdom in the heart of that “Fertile Crescent” about 1000 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>It is likely that skirmishes with the Philistines to the west were frequent until they finally became subservient to David and paid him tribute. In Saul’s day the Philistines had enjoyed a monopoly on the use of iron (1 Sm 13:19-21). The fact that David freely used iron near the end of his reign (1 Chr 22:3) hints at profound economic changes in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>David’s kingdom expanded southward as he built military garrisons in Edomite territory. Beyond Edom, he controlled the Moabites and Amalekites, who paid him tribute in silver and gold. To the northeast, Israelite domination was extended over the Ammonites and the Arameans, whose capital was Damascus. David’s treatment of both friends and enemies seemed to contribute to the strength of his kingdom (2 Sm 8–10). Although he was a brilliant military strategist who used all the means and resources available to bring Israel success, David was humble enough to glorify God (2 Sm 22; see Ps 18).<\/p>\n<h5>Sin in the Royal Family<\/h5>\n<p>A lengthy section of the book of 2 Samuel (chs 11–20) gives a remarkably frank account of sin, crime, and rebellion in David’s family. The king’s own imperfections are clearly portrayed; the king of Israel himself could not escape God’s judgement when he did wrong.<\/p>\n<p>Although polygamy was then a Near Eastern status symbol, it was forbidden for a king of Israel (Dt 17:17). David practiced polygamy, however; some of his marriages undoubtedly had political implications (such as his marriages to Saul’s daughter Michal and to princess Maacah of Geshur). Flagrant sins of incest, murder, and rebellion in his family brought David much suffering and almost cost him the throne.<\/p>\n<p>David’s sin of adultery with Bathsheba, committed at the height of his military success and territorial expansion, led him further into evil: he planned a strategy to have Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, killed on the front line of battle. David seems to have excluded God from consideration in that segment of his personal life. Yet when the prophet Nathan confronted the king with his sins, David acknowledged his guilt. He confessed his sin and pleaded with God for forgiveness (as in Pss 32 and 51). God forgave him, but for nearly ten years David endured the consequences of his lack of self-restraint and his failure to exercise discipline in his family. Although unsurpassed in military and diplomatic strategy, David lacked strength of character in his domestic affairs. Evil fermented in his own house; the father’s self-indulgence was soon reflected in Amnon’s crime of incest, followed by Absalom’s murder of his brother.<\/p>\n<p>Having incurred his father’s disfavor, Absalom took refuge in Geshur with his mother’s people for three years. Joab, David’s general, was eventually able to reconcile David with his alienated son. Absalom, however, having taken advantage of his position in the royal family to gain a following, went to Hebron, staged a surprise rebellion, and proclaimed himself king throughout Israel. His strong following posed such a threat that David fled from Jerusalem. David, still a master strategist, gained time through a ruse to organize his forces and put down his son’s rebellion. Absalom was killed while trying to flee; his death plunged David into grief.<\/p>\n<p>On his return to Jerusalem, David had to work at undoing the damage caused by Absalom’s revolt. His own tribe of Judah, for example, had supported Absalom. Another rebellion, fomented by Sheba of Benjamin’s tribe, had to be suppressed by Joab before the nation could settle down.<\/p>\n<h5>David’s Last Years<\/h5>\n<p>Although David was not permitted to build the temple in Jerusalem, he made extensive preparations for that project during the last years of his reign. He stockpiled materials and organized the kingdom for efficient use of domestic and foreign labor. He also outlined details for religious worship in the new structure (1 Chr 21–29).<\/p>\n<p>The military and civic organization developed by David was probably patterned after Egyptian practice. The army, rigidly controlled by officers of proven loyalty to the king, included mercenaries. The king also appointed trusted supervisors over farms, livestock, and orchards in various parts of his empire (1 Chr 27:25-31).<\/p>\n<p>David took, or at least began, a census of Israel (2 Sm 24; 1 Chr 21). The incompleteness of the accounts leaves unanswered such questions as the reason for God’s punishment. The king overruled Joab’s objection and insisted that the census be taken. Since David later seemed keenly aware that he had sinned in taking the census, it may be that he was motivated by pride to ascertain his exact military strength (approx. 1.5 million men). God may also have been judging the people for their support of the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba.<\/p>\n<p>Through the prophet Gad, David was given a choice of punishments for his sin. He chose a three-day pestilence. As David and the elders repented, they saw an angel on the threshing floor of the Jebusite Ornan (Araunah). David offered sacrifice there and prayed for his people. Later he purchased the threshing floor, located just outside the city of Jerusalem, concluding that it should be the site for the temple to be built by his son Solomon (1 Chr 21:28–22:1).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DavidsLastingInfluence\">David’s Lasting Influence<\/p>\n<h5>The Writer of Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>The OT book of Psalms became one of the most popular books in ancient Israel, and has remained so among countless millions of people throughout the centuries. These words of praise prepared by David were intended for use in the temple worship (2 Chr 29:30). The 73 psalms ascribed to David generally grew out of his own relationship to God and to other persons.<\/p>\n\n<p>David probably compiled Book I of the book of Psalms (1–41) and Book IV (90–106), since most of those psalms were written by David himself. Other psalms of his (Pss 51–71) are in Book II (42–72), which was probably compiled by Solomon. As those psalms were used for worship in later generations, various people added others until the time of Ezra.<\/p>\n<p>David’s psalms provided much of the poetry that was set to music for Israel’s worship. His organization of the priests and Levites and his provision of instruments for worship (2 Chr 7:6; 8:14) set the pattern for generations to come in the religious life of Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>David in the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\n<p>David, recognized as the greatest Israelite king, is often mentioned as a standard of comparison in the writings of the OT prophets. Isaiah (as in Is 7:2, 13; 22:22) and Jeremiah often referred to their contemporary kings as belonging to the “house” or “throne” of David. Contrasting David with some of his descendants who did not honor God, both Isaiah and Jeremiah predicted a messianic ruler who would establish justice and righteousness on the throne of David forever (Is 9:7; Jer 33:15). When Isaiah described the coming ruler, he identified him as being from the lineage of Jesse, David’s father (Is 11:1-10). Predicting a period of universal peace, Isaiah saw the capital in “Zion,” identified with the city of David (2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel promised the restoration of David as king in an eschatological and messianic sense (Ez 37:24-25), and of “my servant David” as Israel’s shepherd (34:23). Hosea likewise identified the future ruler as King David (Hos 3:5). Amos assured the people that God would restore the “tabernacle” of David (Am 9:11) so that they could again dwell in safety. Zechariah referred five times to the “house of David” (in Zec 12–13, <span>rsv<\/span>), encouraging the hope of a restoration of David’s glorious dynasty. The concept of the eternal throne promised to David during his reign was delineated in the message of the prophets even while they were announcing judgments to come on the rulers and people of their time.<\/p>\n<h5>David in the New Testament<\/h5>\n<p>David is frequently mentioned by the Gospel writers, who established Jesus’ identity as the “son of David.” The covenant God made with David was that an eternal king would come from David’s family (Mt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mk 10:48; 12:35; Lk 18:38-39; 20:41). According to Mark 11:10 and John 7:42, the Jews of Jesus’ day expected the Messiah (Christ) to be a descendant of David. While stating that Jesus came from the lineage of David, the Gospels also clearly teach that Jesus was the Son of God (Mt 22:41-45; Mk 12:35-37; Lk 20:41-44).<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Acts, David is recognized as the recipient of God’s promises that were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. David is also seen as a prophet whom the Holy Spirit inspired to write the psalms (Acts 1:16; 2:22-36; 4:25; 13:26-39).<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Revelation, Jesus is designated as having the “key of David” (Rv 3:7), and as being “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David” (5:5). Jesus is quoted as asserting that “I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star” (22:16).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Christology; Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Israel, History of; King; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven; Messiah.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DAVID<\/h3>\n<p>Israel’s most important king. David’s kingdom represented the epitome of Israel’s power and influence during the nation’s OT history.<\/p>\n<p>The two books in the OT devoted to David’s reign are 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. His earlier years are recorded in 1 Samuel, beginning at chapter 16. Almost half of the biblical psalms are ascribed to David. His importance extends into the NT, where he is identified as an ancestor of Jesus Christ and forerunner of the messianic king.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Early Years<\/p>\n<p>• Preparation for Kingship<\/p>\n<p>• David as King<\/p>\n<p>David’s Lasting Influence<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"EarlyYears\">Early Years<\/p>\n<h5>Family<\/h5>\n<p>David was the youngest son in Jesse’s family, part of Judah’s tribe. The family lived in Bethlehem, about six miles (10 kilometers) south of Jerusalem. His great-grandmother was Ruth, from the land of Moab (Ru 4:18-22). Genealogies in both the OT and the NT trace David’s lineage back to Judah, son of the patriarch Jacob (1 Chr 2:3-15; Mt 1:3-6; Lk 3:31-33).<\/p>\n<h5>Training and Talents<\/h5>\n<p>Little is known about David’s early life. As a boy, he took care of his father’s sheep, risking his life to kill attacking bears and lions. Later, David publicly acknowledged God’s help and strength in protecting the flocks under his care (1 Sm 17:34-37).<\/p>\n<p>David was an accomplished musician. He had developed his ability as a harpist so well that, when a musician was needed at the royal court of King Saul, someone immediately recommended David.<\/p>\n<p>In Jesse’s family, David was regarded as unimportant. When the nationally known prophet Samuel visited Jesse’s home, all the older sons were on hand to meet him; David was tending the sheep. Samuel had been instructed by God to anoint a king from Jesse’s family, not knowing beforehand which son to anoint. Sensing divine restraint as seven brothers passed before him, he made further inquiry. When he learned that Jesse had one other son, David was immediately summoned. David was anointed by Samuel and endowed with the Spirit of the Lord (1 Sm 16:1-13). Whatever Jesse and his family understood by that anointing, it seems to have made no immediate change in David’s pattern of living. He continued to tend the sheep.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PreparationforKingship\">Preparation for Kingship<\/p>\n<p>During his youth, David was willing to serve others, even though he had been anointed king. It was his willingness to take supplies to three of his older brothers in the army that gave him his opportunity for national fame.<\/p>\n<p>As a young man, David was also sensitive toward God. While greeting his brothers on the battlefield, he was disturbed by the Philistine Goliath’s defiance of God’s armies. Although rebuked by his brothers, David accepted the challenge to take on Goliath. He had a reasonable confidence that God, who had helped him encounter a lion and a bear, would aid him against a champion warrior. So, with faith in God and using his ability to sling stones, David killed Goliath (1 Sm 17:12-58).<\/p>\n<h5>National Fame<\/h5>\n<p>Killing Goliath made David a hero to the nation of Israel. It also brought him into close relationship with the royal family of Saul. But success and national acclaim brought on the jealousy of Saul and ultimately resulted in David’s expulsion from the land of Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Royal Court<\/h5>\n<p>Saul promised his oldest daughter, Merab, to David in marriage, but then Saul went back on the promise and offered David another daughter, Michal. The dowry of trophies from dead Philistines demanded by Saul was designed to bring about David’s death at Philistine hands. But again David was victorious. Women sang praises of his exploits, intensifying Saul’s jealousy and further endangering David’s life (1 Sm 18:6-30).<\/p>\n<p>In the meantime, David and Saul’s son Jonathan developed a deep friendship. When they made a covenant, Jonathan gave David his choicest military equipment (sword, bow, and belt). Although Saul tried to turn Jonathan against David, the friendship deepened. Because Saul was trying to kill him, David had to flee from the court and live as a fugitive.<\/p>\n<p>After Jonathan had warned David of Saul’s continuing designs on his life, David went to Ramah to see the prophet Samuel. Together they went to Naioth, near Ramah. After sending several groups of men after David, Saul finally went with them himself. All his attempts to seize David were thwarted by the Spirit of God, who caused Saul and his men to prophesy all night in religious fervor (1 Sm 19).<\/p>\n<p>Conferring again with Jonathan, David realized that Saul’s jealousy had developed into hatred. Jonathan, aware that David would be the future king of Israel, requested assurance that his descendants would receive protection under David’s rule (1 Sm 20).<\/p>\n<h5>Life as a Fugitive<\/h5>\n<p>Fleeing from Saul, David stopped at Nob. By deceiving Ahimelech, who was officiating as priest there, David obtained food supplies and Goliath’s sword (kept as a trophy). An Edomite named Doeg, chief of Saul’s herdsmen, saw what happened at Nob. David continued his flight, taking refuge temporarily in Gath with King Achish (1 Sm 21), then finding shelter in the cave of Adullam, located 10 miles (16.1 kilometers) southwest of Bethlehem. There his relatives and about 400 fighting men joined him. He went to Mizpeh in Moab, appealing to the Moabite king for protection, especially for his parents. When the prophet Gad warned him not to stay there, David moved back to Judah to the Hereth woods (1 Sm 22:1-5).<\/p>\n<p>David’s freedom of movement enraged Saul, who charged his own people with conspiracy. When Doeg reported what he had witnessed at Nob, Saul executed Ahimelech and 84 other priests, then massacred all of Nob’s inhabitants. One priest named Abiathar escaped to report Saul’s atrocities to David, who assured him of protection (1 Sm 22:6-23).<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines were always ready to take advantage of any weakness in Israel. David’s reprisal after a Philistine raid on Keilah, 12 miles (19.3 kilometers) southwest of Bethlehem, gave Saul an opportunity to attack David, who escaped to the wilderness of Ziph, a desert area near Hebron. David and Jonathan met for the last time in that wilderness. Pursued by Saul’s army, David fled still farther south. He was almost encircled in uninhabited country near Maon when Saul had to march his army off to respond to a Philistine attack (1 Sm 23).<\/p>\n<p>At his next place of refuge, En-gedi, on the western shore of the Dead Sea, David was attacked by Saul with 3,000 soldiers. David had an opportunity to kill Saul but refused to harm the “Lord’s anointed” king of Israel. Learning of David’s loyalty, Saul confessed his sin in seeking David’s life (1 Sm 24).<\/p>\n<p>During the years they roamed the wilderness in the Maon\/Ziph\/En-gedi area, David’s band provided protection for Nabal, a rich man living in Maon with large flocks of sheep at Carmel. In exchange for that protection, David proposed that Nabal share some of his wealth. Nabal’s scorn angered David, but Nabal’s wife, Abigail, appealed to David not to take revenge. When Abigail told Nabal of his narrow escape, he was evidently so shocked that he had a heart seizure. He died ten days later, and Abigail later became David’s wife (1 Sm 25).<\/p>\n<p>Once more Saul came with an army of 3,000 men into the Ziph Desert to find David, and David again passed up an opportunity to harm the king. Finally realizing the folly of seeking David’s life, Saul abandoned pursuit (1 Sm 26).<\/p>\n<h5>Refuge in Philistia<\/h5>\n<p>David continued to feel unsafe in Saul’s kingdom. Returning to Gath in Philistine country, he was welcomed by King Achish. His followers were allotted the city of Ziklag, where they lived for about 16 months, attracting new recruits from Judah and the rest of Israel (1 Sm 27; 1 Chr 12:19-22).<\/p>\n<p>The Philistine army, marching up to the Megiddo Valley to fight Saul’s army, was uneasy with David’s guerrillas in their rear column, so the commanders put pressure on Achish to dismiss David. When he returned to Ziklag, David found that the city had just been raided by the Amalekites. He pursued the enemy, rescued his people and goods, and divided the spoils with those who had remained behind to guard the supplies (1 Sm 29–30). Meanwhile, the Philistines routed the Israelites at Mt Gilboa, killing Jonathan and two of Saul’s other sons in a fierce battle. Saul, badly wounded, killed himself with his own sword (ch 31).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DavidasKing\">David as King<\/p>\n<p>David ruled over Israel for about 40 years, although the accounts of his reign do not contain enough information for an exact chronology. He began his rule at Hebron and reigned over Judah’s territory for seven or eight years. With the death of Saul’s successor, Ishbosheth, David was recognized as king by all the tribes and made Jerusalem his capital. During the next decade, he unified Israel through military and economic expansion. Then came approximately 10 years of disruption in the royal family. The last years of David’s reign seem to have been devoted to plans for the Jerusalem temple, which was built in the reign of his son Solomon.<\/p>\n<h5>The Years in Hebron<\/h5>\n<p>David was subjected to an unusually rugged period of training for his kingship. Serving under Saul, he gained experience in military exploits against the Philistines. Then, during his fugitive wanderings in the desert area of southern Judah, he ingratiated himself with the landholders and sheep raisers by giving them protection. Being recognized as an outlaw of Israel even enabled him to negotiate diplomatic relations with Moab and Philistia.<\/p>\n<p>David was in Philistine country when news came to him that both Saul and Jonathan had been slain. In a beautiful elegy he paid tribute to his friend Jonathan as well as to King Saul (2 Sm 1).<\/p>\n<p>Sure of God’s guidance, David returned to his home, where the leaders of Judah anointed him king at Hebron. He sent a message of commendation to the men of Jabesh for providing a respectable burial for King Saul, probably also bidding for their support.<\/p>\n<p>Confusion probably swept through Israel when Saul was killed, because the Philistines occupied much of the land. Various leaders gathered whatever fighting men they could find, as old tribal loyalties reasserted themselves. David had most of Judah’s tribe firmly behind him.<\/p>\n<p>A kind of civil war broke out between the followers of David and those of Saul, with David gaining the allegiance of more and more people. Saul’s general, Abner, eventually negotiated peace with David, who requested the restoration of Michal as his wife, indicating that he held no animosity toward Saul’s dynasty. With the consent of Saul’s son Ishbosheth, whom Abner had enthroned as king, Abner went to Hebron and pledged Israel’s support for David. But Abner was killed by Joab, one of David’s captains, in a family vendetta, and soon afterward Ishbosheth was assassinated. David publicly mourned Abner’s death and had Ishbosheth’s two murderers executed. Thus, when Saul’s dynasty ended, David was seen by the people not so much as a challenger but as a logical successor. Hence, he was recognized as king by all Israel (2 Sm 2–4).<\/p>\n<h5>Consolidation in Jerusalem<\/h5>\n<p>When the Israelites turned to David as king, the Philistines became alarmed and attacked (2 Sm 5; 1 Chr 14:8-17). David was strong enough to defeat them and thus unify the people of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>In search of a more central location for his capital, David turned toward the city of Jerusalem, a Jebusite stronghold. Joab responded to his challenge to conquer the city and was rewarded by being made general of David’s army. Jerusalem became known as the “city of David” (1 Chr 11:4-9).<\/p>\n<p>In the same way that he had organized his earliest followers into an effective guerrilla band (1 Chr 11:1–12:22) at Hebron, David began organizing the whole nation (12:23-40). Once established in Jerusalem, he quickly gained recognition from the Phoenicians, contracting for their artisans to build him a magnificent palace in the new capital (14:1-2). He also made sure that Jerusalem would become Israel’s religious center (2 Sm 6; 1 Chr 13–16). His abortive attempt to move the ark of the covenant by oxcart (cf. Nm 4) reminded the powerful king that he still had to do things God’s way to be successful.<\/p>\n<p>With Jerusalem well established as the nation’s capital, David intended to build God a temple. He shared his plan with the prophet Nathan, whose immediate response was positive. That night, however, God sent a message via Nathan that David should not build the temple. David’s throne would be established eternally, the prophet said, and unlike Saul, King David would have a son to succeed him and perpetuate the kingdom; that son would build the temple (2 Sm 7; 1 Chr 17).<\/p>\n<h5>Prosperity and Supremacy<\/h5>\n<p>Little is recorded about the expansion of David’s rule from the tribal area of Judah to a vast empire stretching from the Nile River of Egypt to regions of the Tigris-Euphrates valley. Nothing in secular history negates the biblical perspective that David had the most powerful kingdom in the heart of that “Fertile Crescent” about 1000 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>It is likely that skirmishes with the Philistines to the west were frequent until they finally became subservient to David and paid him tribute. In Saul’s day the Philistines had enjoyed a monopoly on the use of iron (1 Sm 13:19-21). The fact that David freely used iron near the end of his reign (1 Chr 22:3) hints at profound economic changes in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>David’s kingdom expanded southward as he built military garrisons in Edomite territory. Beyond Edom, he controlled the Moabites and Amalekites, who paid him tribute in silver and gold. To the northeast, Israelite domination was extended over the Ammonites and the Arameans, whose capital was Damascus. David’s treatment of both friends and enemies seemed to contribute to the strength of his kingdom (2 Sm 8–10). Although he was a brilliant military strategist who used all the means and resources available to bring Israel success, David was humble enough to glorify God (2 Sm 22; see Ps 18).<\/p>\n<h5>Sin in the Royal Family<\/h5>\n<p>A lengthy section of the book of 2 Samuel (chs 11–20) gives a remarkably frank account of sin, crime, and rebellion in David’s family. The king’s own imperfections are clearly portrayed; the king of Israel himself could not escape God’s judgement when he did wrong.<\/p>\n<p>Although polygamy was then a Near Eastern status symbol, it was forbidden for a king of Israel (Dt 17:17). David practiced polygamy, however; some of his marriages undoubtedly had political implications (such as his marriages to Saul’s daughter Michal and to princess Maacah of Geshur). Flagrant sins of incest, murder, and rebellion in his family brought David much suffering and almost cost him the throne.<\/p>\n<p>David’s sin of adultery with Bathsheba, committed at the height of his military success and territorial expansion, led him further into evil: he planned a strategy to have Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, killed on the front line of battle. David seems to have excluded God from consideration in that segment of his personal life. Yet when the prophet Nathan confronted the king with his sins, David acknowledged his guilt. He confessed his sin and pleaded with God for forgiveness (as in Pss 32 and 51). God forgave him, but for nearly ten years David endured the consequences of his lack of self-restraint and his failure to exercise discipline in his family. Although unsurpassed in military and diplomatic strategy, David lacked strength of character in his domestic affairs. Evil fermented in his own house; the father’s self-indulgence was soon reflected in Amnon’s crime of incest, followed by Absalom’s murder of his brother.<\/p>\n<p>Having incurred his father’s disfavor, Absalom took refuge in Geshur with his mother’s people for three years. Joab, David’s general, was eventually able to reconcile David with his alienated son. Absalom, however, having taken advantage of his position in the royal family to gain a following, went to Hebron, staged a surprise rebellion, and proclaimed himself king throughout Israel. His strong following posed such a threat that David fled from Jerusalem. David, still a master strategist, gained time through a ruse to organize his forces and put down his son’s rebellion. Absalom was killed while trying to flee; his death plunged David into grief.<\/p>\n<p>On his return to Jerusalem, David had to work at undoing the damage caused by Absalom’s revolt. His own tribe of Judah, for example, had supported Absalom. Another rebellion, fomented by Sheba of Benjamin’s tribe, had to be suppressed by Joab before the nation could settle down.<\/p>\n<h5>David’s Last Years<\/h5>\n<p>Although David was not permitted to build the temple in Jerusalem, he made extensive preparations for that project during the last years of his reign. He stockpiled materials and organized the kingdom for efficient use of domestic and foreign labor. He also outlined details for religious worship in the new structure (1 Chr 21–29).<\/p>\n<p>The military and civic organization developed by David was probably patterned after Egyptian practice. The army, rigidly controlled by officers of proven loyalty to the king, included mercenaries. The king also appointed trusted supervisors over farms, livestock, and orchards in various parts of his empire (1 Chr 27:25-31).<\/p>\n<p>David took, or at least began, a census of Israel (2 Sm 24; 1 Chr 21). The incompleteness of the accounts leaves unanswered such questions as the reason for God’s punishment. The king overruled Joab’s objection and insisted that the census be taken. Since David later seemed keenly aware that he had sinned in taking the census, it may be that he was motivated by pride to ascertain his exact military strength (approx. 1.5 million men). God may also have been judging the people for their support of the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba.<\/p>\n<p>Through the prophet Gad, David was given a choice of punishments for his sin. He chose a three-day pestilence. As David and the elders repented, they saw an angel on the threshing floor of the Jebusite Ornan (Araunah). David offered sacrifice there and prayed for his people. Later he purchased the threshing floor, located just outside the city of Jerusalem, concluding that it should be the site for the temple to be built by his son Solomon (1 Chr 21:28–22:1).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DavidsLastingInfluence\">David’s Lasting Influence<\/p>\n<h5>The Writer of Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>The OT book of Psalms became one of the most popular books in ancient Israel, and has remained so among countless millions of people throughout the centuries. These words of praise prepared by David were intended for use in the temple worship (2 Chr 29:30). The 73 psalms ascribed to David generally grew out of his own relationship to God and to other persons.<\/p>\n\n<p>David probably compiled Book I of the book of Psalms (1–41) and Book IV (90–106), since most of those psalms were written by David himself. Other psalms of his (Pss 51–71) are in Book II (42–72), which was probably compiled by Solomon. As those psalms were used for worship in later generations, various people added others until the time of Ezra.<\/p>\n<p>David’s psalms provided much of the poetry that was set to music for Israel’s worship. His organization of the priests and Levites and his provision of instruments for worship (2 Chr 7:6; 8:14) set the pattern for generations to come in the religious life of Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>David in the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\n<p>David, recognized as the greatest Israelite king, is often mentioned as a standard of comparison in the writings of the OT prophets. Isaiah (as in Is 7:2, 13; 22:22) and Jeremiah often referred to their contemporary kings as belonging to the “house” or “throne” of David. Contrasting David with some of his descendants who did not honor God, both Isaiah and Jeremiah predicted a messianic ruler who would establish justice and righteousness on the throne of David forever (Is 9:7; Jer 33:15). When Isaiah described the coming ruler, he identified him as being from the lineage of Jesse, David’s father (Is 11:1-10). Predicting a period of universal peace, Isaiah saw the capital in “Zion,” identified with the city of David (2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel promised the restoration of David as king in an eschatological and messianic sense (Ez 37:24-25), and of “my servant David” as Israel’s shepherd (34:23). Hosea likewise identified the future ruler as King David (Hos 3:5). Amos assured the people that God would restore the “tabernacle” of David (Am 9:11) so that they could again dwell in safety. Zechariah referred five times to the “house of David” (in Zec 12–13, <span>rsv<\/span>), encouraging the hope of a restoration of David’s glorious dynasty. The concept of the eternal throne promised to David during his reign was delineated in the message of the prophets even while they were announcing judgments to come on the rulers and people of their time.<\/p>\n<h5>David in the New Testament<\/h5>\n<p>David is frequently mentioned by the Gospel writers, who established Jesus’ identity as the “son of David.” The covenant God made with David was that an eternal king would come from David’s family (Mt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mk 10:48; 12:35; Lk 18:38-39; 20:41). According to Mark 11:10 and John 7:42, the Jews of Jesus’ day expected the Messiah (Christ) to be a descendant of David. While stating that Jesus came from the lineage of David, the Gospels also clearly teach that Jesus was the Son of God (Mt 22:41-45; Mk 12:35-37; Lk 20:41-44).<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Acts, David is recognized as the recipient of God’s promises that were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. David is also seen as a prophet whom the Holy Spirit inspired to write the psalms (Acts 1:16; 2:22-36; 4:25; 13:26-39).<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Revelation, Jesus is designated as having the “key of David” (Rv 3:7), and as being “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David” (5:5). Jesus is quoted as asserting that “I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star” (22:16).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Christology; Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Israel, History of; King; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven; Messiah.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DAVID Israel’s most important king. David’s kingdom represented the epitome of Israel’s power and influence during the nation’s OT history. The two books in the OT devoted to David’s reign are 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. His earlier years are recorded in 1 Samuel, beginning at chapter 16. Almost half of the biblical psalms are ascribed to David. His importance extends into the NT, where he is identified as an ancestor of Jesus Christ and forerunner of the messianic king. Preview • Early Years ...","summary_en":"DAVID Israel’s most important king. David’s kingdom represented the epitome of Israel’s power and influence during the nation’s OT history. The two books in the OT devoted to David’s reign are 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. His earlier years are recorded in 1 Samuel, beginning at chapter 16. Almost half of the biblical psalms are ascribed to David. His importance extends into the NT, where he is identified as an ancestor of Jesus Christ and forerunner of the messianic king. Preview • Early Years ...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24399,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of Mark","title_en":"Gospel of Mark","content_ro":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","summary_en":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":25036,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Melchizedek","title_en":"Melchizedek","content_ro":"<h3>MELCHIZEDEK<\/h3>\n<p>Mysterious biblical personality whose name means “king of righteousness.” The historical record about this priest-king is contained in Genesis 14:18-20, and he is spoken of in Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 5:10; 6:20; 7:1-17.<\/p>\n<h4>In Genesis 14:18-20<\/h4>\n<p>Kedorlaomer, king of Elam, with three other Mesopotamian kings, raided a vassal confederacy of five kings near the shores of the Dead Sea. In the ensuing massacre and rout by the Mesopotamian confederacy, Abraham’s nephew Lot and his family and possessions were captured (Gn 14:1-12). Abraham led an attacking force in pursuit of Lot’s captors, achieved victory, retrieved the plunder, and secured the release of Lot and his family (vv 13-16).<\/p>\n<p>Upon his return, Abraham was greeted not only by the grateful kings of the Dead Sea confederacy but also by Melchizedek, king of Salem, who gave Abraham bread and wine along with his blessing as “priest of the most high God” <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">’El ‘Elyon<\/span><em>)<\/em> (Gn 14:18). Salem is Jerusalem (cf. Ps 76:2). El Elyon is not the pagan deity of Canaanite worship by the same name but rather the title of the true God who created heaven and earth—an idea foreign to Canaanite religion (cf. Gn 14:22; Pss 7:17; 47:2; 57:2; 78:56). Melchizedek correctly viewed Abraham as worshiping this same God (Gn 14:22) and praised God for giving victory to Abraham. Abraham identified himself with the worship of the one true God represented by Melchizedek in that he received his gifts and blessing and gave him a tenth of everything, thus recognizing Melchizedek’s higher spiritual rank as a patriarchal priest. In contrast, Abraham disassociated himself from Canaanite polytheism by declining gifts from the king of Sodom.<\/p>\n<p>It is interesting to speculate whether Melchizedek’s knowledge of the true God was received by tradition from the past ages closer to the Flood, or whether he, like Abraham, had been uprooted from paganism to monotheism by direct divine revelation. It is at least clear from Hebrews 7:3 that his priesthood was isolated and not received through a priestly pedigree.<\/p>\n<h4>In Psalm 110:4<\/h4>\n<p>In this messianic psalm, David envisioned one greater than himself whom he called “Lord” (v 1; cf. Mk 12:35-37). Thus the perfect messianic king was not an idealization of the present ruler but someone to come. Also, he was to be not merely a man but more than this. The Messiah would be the Son of God as well as the son of David. The divine oracle of Psalm 110:4 is addressed to the Messiah: “You are a priest forever in the line of Melchizedek.” The significance of this statement is left for the inspired author of the letter to the Hebrews to develop.<\/p>\n<h4>In Hebrews 5:6-11; 6:20–7:28<\/h4>\n<p>The argument of the writer of Hebrews is that the priesthood of Aaron has been superseded by the superior priesthood of Christ and that the superiority of Christ’s priesthood is demonstrated by its Melchizedekian character. First, both Christ and Melchizedek are kings of righteousness and kings of peace (Heb 7:1-2). Second, both have a unique priesthood that does not depend on family pedigree (v 3). Third, both exist as priests continually (v 3).<\/p>\n<p>Melchizedek was superior to Abraham, the father of Levi, because Melchizedek gave gifts to and blessed Abraham, and received tithes from him (7:4-10); David predicted the succession of the Melchizedekian priesthood over the Levitical priesthood, showing the imperfection of the latter (vv 11-19); the Melchizedekian priesthood of the Messiah was confirmed by a divine oath, which was not true of the Levitical priesthood (vv 20-22); and the Melchizedekian priesthood possessed an unchangeable and permanent character (vv 23-25).<\/p>\n<p>Certain scholars have thought that Melchizedek was an appearance of the preincarnate Christ in the OT (technically called a Christophany). They argue this on the basis of Hebrews 7:3, which says that there is no record of his father or mother or any of his ancestors—no beginning or end to his life. However, this statement is simply to be understood in the sense that his priesthood was not connected to any priestly family line. Melchizedek had a priestly office by special divine appointment, and was thus a type of Jesus Christ in his priesthood. The writer of Hebrews says that Melchizedek was one “resembling the Son of God” (7:3); this clearly indicates that he was not himself the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Hebrews, Letter to the; Priests and Levites.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MELCHIZEDEK<\/h3>\n<p>Mysterious biblical personality whose name means “king of righteousness.” The historical record about this priest-king is contained in Genesis 14:18-20, and he is spoken of in Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 5:10; 6:20; 7:1-17.<\/p>\n<h4>In Genesis 14:18-20<\/h4>\n<p>Kedorlaomer, king of Elam, with three other Mesopotamian kings, raided a vassal confederacy of five kings near the shores of the Dead Sea. In the ensuing massacre and rout by the Mesopotamian confederacy, Abraham’s nephew Lot and his family and possessions were captured (Gn 14:1-12). Abraham led an attacking force in pursuit of Lot’s captors, achieved victory, retrieved the plunder, and secured the release of Lot and his family (vv 13-16).<\/p>\n<p>Upon his return, Abraham was greeted not only by the grateful kings of the Dead Sea confederacy but also by Melchizedek, king of Salem, who gave Abraham bread and wine along with his blessing as “priest of the most high God” <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">’El ‘Elyon<\/span><em>)<\/em> (Gn 14:18). Salem is Jerusalem (cf. Ps 76:2). El Elyon is not the pagan deity of Canaanite worship by the same name but rather the title of the true God who created heaven and earth—an idea foreign to Canaanite religion (cf. Gn 14:22; Pss 7:17; 47:2; 57:2; 78:56). Melchizedek correctly viewed Abraham as worshiping this same God (Gn 14:22) and praised God for giving victory to Abraham. Abraham identified himself with the worship of the one true God represented by Melchizedek in that he received his gifts and blessing and gave him a tenth of everything, thus recognizing Melchizedek’s higher spiritual rank as a patriarchal priest. In contrast, Abraham disassociated himself from Canaanite polytheism by declining gifts from the king of Sodom.<\/p>\n<p>It is interesting to speculate whether Melchizedek’s knowledge of the true God was received by tradition from the past ages closer to the Flood, or whether he, like Abraham, had been uprooted from paganism to monotheism by direct divine revelation. It is at least clear from Hebrews 7:3 that his priesthood was isolated and not received through a priestly pedigree.<\/p>\n<h4>In Psalm 110:4<\/h4>\n<p>In this messianic psalm, David envisioned one greater than himself whom he called “Lord” (v 1; cf. Mk 12:35-37). Thus the perfect messianic king was not an idealization of the present ruler but someone to come. Also, he was to be not merely a man but more than this. The Messiah would be the Son of God as well as the son of David. The divine oracle of Psalm 110:4 is addressed to the Messiah: “You are a priest forever in the line of Melchizedek.” The significance of this statement is left for the inspired author of the letter to the Hebrews to develop.<\/p>\n<h4>In Hebrews 5:6-11; 6:20–7:28<\/h4>\n<p>The argument of the writer of Hebrews is that the priesthood of Aaron has been superseded by the superior priesthood of Christ and that the superiority of Christ’s priesthood is demonstrated by its Melchizedekian character. First, both Christ and Melchizedek are kings of righteousness and kings of peace (Heb 7:1-2). Second, both have a unique priesthood that does not depend on family pedigree (v 3). Third, both exist as priests continually (v 3).<\/p>\n<p>Melchizedek was superior to Abraham, the father of Levi, because Melchizedek gave gifts to and blessed Abraham, and received tithes from him (7:4-10); David predicted the succession of the Melchizedekian priesthood over the Levitical priesthood, showing the imperfection of the latter (vv 11-19); the Melchizedekian priesthood of the Messiah was confirmed by a divine oath, which was not true of the Levitical priesthood (vv 20-22); and the Melchizedekian priesthood possessed an unchangeable and permanent character (vv 23-25).<\/p>\n<p>Certain scholars have thought that Melchizedek was an appearance of the preincarnate Christ in the OT (technically called a Christophany). They argue this on the basis of Hebrews 7:3, which says that there is no record of his father or mother or any of his ancestors—no beginning or end to his life. However, this statement is simply to be understood in the sense that his priesthood was not connected to any priestly family line. Melchizedek had a priestly office by special divine appointment, and was thus a type of Jesus Christ in his priesthood. The writer of Hebrews says that Melchizedek was one “resembling the Son of God” (7:3); this clearly indicates that he was not himself the Son of God.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Hebrews, Letter to the; Priests and Levites.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MELCHIZEDEK Mysterious biblical personality whose name means “king of righteousness.” The historical record about this priest-king is contained in Genesis 14:18-20, and he is spoken of in Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 5:10; 6:20; 7:1-17. In Genesis 14:18-20 Kedorlaomer, king of Elam, with three other Mesopotamian kings, raided a vassal confederacy of five kings near the shores of the Dead Sea. In the ensuing massacre and rout by the Mesopotamian confederacy, Abraham’s nephew Lot and his family and ...","summary_en":"MELCHIZEDEK Mysterious biblical personality whose name means “king of righteousness.” The historical record about this priest-king is contained in Genesis 14:18-20, and he is spoken of in Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 5:10; 6:20; 7:1-17. In Genesis 14:18-20 Kedorlaomer, king of Elam, with three other Mesopotamian kings, raided a vassal confederacy of five kings near the shores of the Dead Sea. In the ensuing massacre and rout by the Mesopotamian confederacy, Abraham’s nephew Lot and his family and ...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55467,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:35","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:35","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:35-37<\/strong> After having answered various questions, mostly from opponents, Jesus now asked a question (see 8:27; Matt 17:25; 21:31; Luke 10:36). The <em>Messiah<\/em> was considered <em>the son of David<\/em> because of such passages as Isa 9:2-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-28. With his question, Jesus did not deny that the Messiah was a descendant of David (Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; see Rom 1:3-4), but he demonstrated that this description, while correct, is inadequate. The Messiah is far more!<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:35-37<\/strong> After having answered various questions, mostly from opponents, Jesus now asked a question (see 8:27; Matt 17:25; 21:31; Luke 10:36). The <em>Messiah<\/em> was considered <em>the son of David<\/em> because of such passages as Isa 9:2-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-28. With his question, Jesus did not deny that the Messiah was a descendant of David (Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; see Rom 1:3-4), but he demonstrated that this description, while correct, is inadequate. The Messiah is far more!<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:35-37 After having answered various questions, mostly from opponents, Jesus now asked a question (see 8:27; Matt 17:25; 21:31; Luke 10:36). The Messiah was considered the son of David because of such passages as Isa 9:2-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-28. With his question, Jesus did not deny that the Messiah was a descendant of David (Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; see Rom 1:3-4), but he demonstrated that this description, while correct, is inadequate. The Messiah is far more!","summary_en":"12:35-37 After having answered various questions, mostly from opponents, Jesus now asked a question (see 8:27; Matt 17:25; 21:31; Luke 10:36). The Messiah was considered the son of David because of such passages as Isa 9:2-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-28. With his question, Jesus did not deny that the Messiah was a descendant of David (Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; see Rom 1:3-4), but he demonstrated that this description, while correct, is inadequate. The Messiah is far more!","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83093,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:35","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:35","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:35-37<\/strong> After having answered various questions, mostly from opponents, Jesus now asked a question (see 8:27; Matt 17:25; 21:31; Luke 10:36). The <em>Messiah<\/em> was considered <em>the son of David<\/em> because of such passages as Isa 9:2-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-28. With his question, Jesus did not deny that the Messiah was a descendant of David (Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; see Rom 1:3-4), but he demonstrated that this description, while correct, is inadequate. The Messiah is far more!<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:35-37<\/strong> After having answered various questions, mostly from opponents, Jesus now asked a question (see 8:27; Matt 17:25; 21:31; Luke 10:36). The <em>Messiah<\/em> was considered <em>the son of David<\/em> because of such passages as Isa 9:2-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-28. With his question, Jesus did not deny that the Messiah was a descendant of David (Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; see Rom 1:3-4), but he demonstrated that this description, while correct, is inadequate. The Messiah is far more!<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:35-37 After having answered various questions, mostly from opponents, Jesus now asked a question (see 8:27; Matt 17:25; 21:31; Luke 10:36). The Messiah was considered the son of David because of such passages as Isa 9:2-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-28. With his question, Jesus did not deny that the Messiah was a descendant of David (Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; see Rom 1:3-4), but he demonstrated that this description, while correct, is inadequate. The Messiah is far more!","summary_en":"12:35-37 After having answered various questions, mostly from opponents, Jesus now asked a question (see 8:27; Matt 17:25; 21:31; Luke 10:36). The Messiah was considered the son of David because of such passages as Isa 9:2-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-28. With his question, Jesus did not deny that the Messiah was a descendant of David (Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; see Rom 1:3-4), but he demonstrated that this description, while correct, is inadequate. The Messiah is far more!","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110719,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:35","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:35","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:35-37<\/strong> After having answered various questions, mostly from opponents, Jesus now asked a question (see 8:27; Matt 17:25; 21:31; Luke 10:36). The <em>Messiah<\/em> was considered <em>the son of David<\/em> because of such passages as Isa 9:2-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-28. With his question, Jesus did not deny that the Messiah was a descendant of David (Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; see Rom 1:3-4), but he demonstrated that this description, while correct, is inadequate. The Messiah is far more!<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:35-37<\/strong> After having answered various questions, mostly from opponents, Jesus now asked a question (see 8:27; Matt 17:25; 21:31; Luke 10:36). The <em>Messiah<\/em> was considered <em>the son of David<\/em> because of such passages as Isa 9:2-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-28. With his question, Jesus did not deny that the Messiah was a descendant of David (Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; see Rom 1:3-4), but he demonstrated that this description, while correct, is inadequate. The Messiah is far more!<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:35-37 After having answered various questions, mostly from opponents, Jesus now asked a question (see 8:27; Matt 17:25; 21:31; Luke 10:36). The Messiah was considered the son of David because of such passages as Isa 9:2-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-28. With his question, Jesus did not deny that the Messiah was a descendant of David (Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; see Rom 1:3-4), but he demonstrated that this description, while correct, is inadequate. The Messiah is far more!","summary_en":"12:35-37 After having answered various questions, mostly from opponents, Jesus now asked a question (see 8:27; Matt 17:25; 21:31; Luke 10:36). The Messiah was considered the son of David because of such passages as Isa 9:2-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-28. With his question, Jesus did not deny that the Messiah was a descendant of David (Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; see Rom 1:3-4), but he demonstrated that this description, while correct, is inadequate. The Messiah is far more!","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138345,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:35","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:35","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:35-37<\/strong> After having answered various questions, mostly from opponents, Jesus now asked a question (see 8:27; Matt 17:25; 21:31; Luke 10:36). The <em>Messiah<\/em> was considered <em>the son of David<\/em> because of such passages as Isa 9:2-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-28. With his question, Jesus did not deny that the Messiah was a descendant of David (Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; see Rom 1:3-4), but he demonstrated that this description, while correct, is inadequate. The Messiah is far more!<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:35-37<\/strong> After having answered various questions, mostly from opponents, Jesus now asked a question (see 8:27; Matt 17:25; 21:31; Luke 10:36). The <em>Messiah<\/em> was considered <em>the son of David<\/em> because of such passages as Isa 9:2-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-28. With his question, Jesus did not deny that the Messiah was a descendant of David (Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; see Rom 1:3-4), but he demonstrated that this description, while correct, is inadequate. The Messiah is far more!<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:35-37 After having answered various questions, mostly from opponents, Jesus now asked a question (see 8:27; Matt 17:25; 21:31; Luke 10:36). The Messiah was considered the son of David because of such passages as Isa 9:2-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-28. With his question, Jesus did not deny that the Messiah was a descendant of David (Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; see Rom 1:3-4), but he demonstrated that this description, while correct, is inadequate. The Messiah is far more!","summary_en":"12:35-37 After having answered various questions, mostly from opponents, Jesus now asked a question (see 8:27; Matt 17:25; 21:31; Luke 10:36). The Messiah was considered the son of David because of such passages as Isa 9:2-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-28. With his question, Jesus did not deny that the Messiah was a descendant of David (Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; see Rom 1:3-4), but he demonstrated that this description, while correct, is inadequate. The Messiah is far more!","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"36":[{"id":12573,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Footstool","title_en":"Footstool","content_ro":"<h3>FOOTSTOOL<\/h3>\n<p>Low stool used to support one’s feet. Part of King Solomon’s great revenue of gold was used to fashion a footstool for his ivory throne (2 Chr 9:18). The word is frequently used metaphorically. Both the ark of the covenant and the temple are referred to as God’s footstool because they were places where God rested (his glory resided there) and reigned (1 Chr 28:2; Pss 99:5; 132:7; Lam 2:1; cf. Is 60:13). The enemies of the Messiah were to become his footstool; that is, they would be fully subjected to him by the power of God (Ps 110:1). Many of the NT references to a footstool (lit. “something under the foot”) parallel the OT expectation of the final conquest of Messiah’s enemies (Mt 22:44; Mk 12:36; Lk 20:43; Acts 2:35; Heb 1:13; 10:13).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FOOTSTOOL<\/h3>\n<p>Low stool used to support one’s feet. Part of King Solomon’s great revenue of gold was used to fashion a footstool for his ivory throne (2 Chr 9:18). The word is frequently used metaphorically. Both the ark of the covenant and the temple are referred to as God’s footstool because they were places where God rested (his glory resided there) and reigned (1 Chr 28:2; Pss 99:5; 132:7; Lam 2:1; cf. Is 60:13). The enemies of the Messiah were to become his footstool; that is, they would be fully subjected to him by the power of God (Ps 110:1). Many of the NT references to a footstool (lit. “something under the foot”) parallel the OT expectation of the final conquest of Messiah’s enemies (Mt 22:44; Mk 12:36; Lk 20:43; Acts 2:35; Heb 1:13; 10:13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"FOOTSTOOL Low stool used to support one’s feet. Part of King Solomon’s great revenue of gold was used to fashion a footstool for his ivory throne (2 Chr 9:18). The word is frequently used metaphorically. Both the ark of the covenant and the temple are referred to as God’s footstool because they were places where God rested (his glory resided there) and reigned (1 Chr 28:2; Pss 99:5; 132:7; Lam 2:1; cf. Is 60:13). The enemies of the Messiah were to become his footstool; that is, they would be ...","summary_en":"FOOTSTOOL Low stool used to support one’s feet. Part of King Solomon’s great revenue of gold was used to fashion a footstool for his ivory throne (2 Chr 9:18). The word is frequently used metaphorically. Both the ark of the covenant and the temple are referred to as God’s footstool because they were places where God rested (his glory resided there) and reigned (1 Chr 28:2; Pss 99:5; 132:7; Lam 2:1; cf. Is 60:13). The enemies of the Messiah were to become his footstool; that is, they would be ...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19658,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Teachings of Jesus Christ","title_en":"Teachings of Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of<\/h3>\n<p>Because of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? What did he mean when he spoke about the kingdom? What light does his teaching throw on the meaning of his death? What did he say about the Holy Spirit? How did he describe human beings and their needs? Did he anticipate the Christian church? Did he teach anything about the end of the world? What were the main features of his moral teaching? The following sections will seek to answer these important questions.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about God<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Himself<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about His Own Death<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Humanity<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Church<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Future<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutGod\">Teachings about God<\/p>\n<p>Anyone who comes to the teachings of Jesus after reading the OT will at once recognize that much of his teaching about God is the same. Since Jesus, as all orthodox Jews of his day, accepted the testimony of the OT as inspired, it is not surprising that his approach to God was similar. This is especially true of his assumption that God was Creator. He taught a special providential care over the created order and affirmed that God watched over such small creatures as the sparrow (Mt 10:29). There is no support in the teachings of Jesus for the view that God is uninterested in the world he made.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most characteristic titles Jesus used for God was Father. This was not new, for the idea occurs in the OT, where God is seen as Father of his people Israel. This kind of fatherhood was national rather than personal. In the intertestamental period the Jews came to regard God as so holy that he was removed from direct contact with human affairs. There had to be mediators between God and people. This exalted notion of God was not conducive to the idea of God as Father, and it is against this background that the uniqueness of the personal fatherhood of God in the teaching of Jesus must be seen. There is some evidence in Judaism that prayer to God as “Our Father” was known, but what distinguishes Jesus’ teachings from that of his contemporaries is that the fatherhood of God was central to what he taught.<\/p>\n<p>The father-son relationship is particularly vivid in John’s Gospel, where Jesus as Son is seen to be in close communion with God as Father. This comes out strongly in Jesus’ prayer in John 17 and in the frequent assertions that the Father had sent the Son and that the Son was doing the will of the Father. It is this strong relationship between God and Jesus in terms of fatherhood and sonship that led Jesus to teach men to approach God in the same way. The Lord’s Prayer at once recognizes this in its opening words. It is particularly important to note that “Our Father” precedes “hallowed be thy name,” for the more intimate idea prepares the way for the more remote. Jesus never taught men to approach God with terror.<\/p>\n<p>Although there is a connection between the way in which Jesus addressed God as Father and the way in which he taught his disciples to approach God, there is also a distinction. Jesus spoke of “my Father and your Father” when he appeared to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection (Jn 20:17), but he did not say “our Father.” His sonship was unique, for he claimed that he and the Father were one (Jn 10:30).<\/p>\n<p>In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus assured his followers that their heavenly Father knows about their needs (Mt 6:32; Lk 12:30), on the strength of which they are exhorted not to be anxious. This gives some insight into the way in which Jesus’ teachings about God has a bearing on practical issues.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHimself\">Teachings about Himself<\/p>\n<p>What Jesus said about himself is of great importance, for this undoubtedly formed the basis of what the early church came to teach about him.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus used certain titles of himself or accepted them as descriptions of himself when they were used by others. The most widely used is Son of Man. This title was used by Jesus to refer to himself but was not used by anyone else. It was used, moreover, in several different kinds of sayings. Sometimes the sayings related directly to the public ministry of Jesus, like the saying that the Son of Man was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28), or that the Son of Man had authority to forgive sins (v 10). Sometimes the sayings had a direct bearing on the Passion, as when Jesus said that the Son of Man must suffer many things (Mk 8:31; note that Mt 16:21 has “he” instead of “Son of Man”). At other times the reference is to a future appearance, as when Jesus declared to the high priest that he would see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Mk 14:62). What did Jesus mean by the title, and why did he use it?<\/p>\n<p>The title “Son of Man” had been used before. The phrase occurs in Psalm 8:4, where it refers to man or humans. Again, the expression is used many times in Ezekiel as a mode of address to the prophet, but here also it means man. A rather different use occurs in Daniel 7:13, where one like a son of man comes with the clouds before the Ancient of Days. There is a strong similarity between this passage and the words of Jesus in Mark 14:62. But an important difference is that whereas Son of Man becomes a title in Mark, it is not so in Daniel. There is some evidence for the title in Jewish apocalyptic literature (e.g., in the Similitudes of Enoch), where it represents a preexistent being who will come to judge and overthrow the enemies of God. It seems evident from this that Jesus’ use of Son of Man as a title is unique.<\/p>\n<p>The Son of Man sayings are distributed throughout the four Gospels, and there are no appreciable differences in their uses. What is at first astonishing is that though the title is so widespread in the Gospels on the lips of Jesus, it never became a name by which Jesus was known by the early Christians. In fact, only in Acts 7:56 does the title appear, in this case used by Stephen. It is clear, therefore, that it had a special meaning for Jesus that it did not have for others. There is no doubt that he was referring to himself and not to someone else, as a careful study of all the Son of Man sayings shows. Those who think that Jesus was referring to someone else arrive at this conclusion only after first dispensing with some of the sayings. The most probable reason why he used the title Son of Man was because he wanted to avoid a term like Messiah, which carried with it too many political overtones. But what did Son of Man mean to Jesus? It is rich with the idea of humanness, possibly allusions to Daniel’s “son of man,” and perhaps a touch of the Suffering Servant idea from Isaiah 53. It is most likely that Jesus saw it in terms of his mission in a way that his hearers could not fully appreciate. It is also probable that the early church preferred Messiah because this title carried the meaning of a royal deliverer; also, after the death of Jesus, there would be no further fear of political misunderstanding.<\/p>\n<p>The term Messiah, or Christ, does not belong strictly to the teachings of Jesus, since he himself never used it. The most striking instance where he accepted the ascription of Messiah was in Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi. All the synoptic Gospels record the confession “You are the Christ,” while Matthew adds the significant comment by Jesus that flesh and blood had not revealed it but “my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17). He certainly accepted the confession and regarded it as revelation. One other case in the Synoptics where he does not specifically refute messiahship is his answer to the high priest’s question “Are you the Messiah?” (Mk 14:61). In John’s Gospel, Andrew tells Peter that he had found the Messiah (Jn 1:41); the woman at Samaria talks to Jesus, and he reveals that he is the Messiah (4:25-26). There was a widespread expectation among the Jews that a deliverer would come to overthrow their political enemies, the Romans. There were various ideas about his origin (a military leader or a heavenly warrior) and his methods (the Zealots believed that deliverance could come only through armed revolution). The reticence of Jesus concerning messiahship is therefore readily understandable.<\/p>\n<p>Another title of utmost importance is Son of God, although it occurs mainly in John’s Gospel. That both Mark and John regarded Jesus in this light is clear from explicit statements in their Gospels (cf. Mk 1:1; Jn 20:30-31). There are certainly passages where Messiah is linked with Son of God and where Jesus rejects neither title (cf. Mt 16:16). But in the teachings of Jesus one passage makes abundantly clear the special relationship that Jesus had with God as Son—namely, Matthew 11:27 (also Lk 10:22, a parallel passage), where Jesus implies that he is the Son of the Father.<\/p>\n<p>Many similar passages in John’s Gospel are, however, more explicit. The Son is unquestionably preexistent, because he knows he came from the Father and returns to the Father. It is not possible from the many references to sonship in John’s Gospel to come to any other conclusion than that Jesus regarded himself as divine. It is particularly important to note that it is also in this Gospel that Jesus is portrayed most clearly in his human nature with its attendant weaknesses. Nowhere in the teachings of Jesus did he explain how God could become man, but he assumed this as a fact. He taught with the authority of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheKingdomofGod\">Teachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\n<p>No one can read the synoptic Gospels without being impressed with the frequency with which the expression “kingdom of God” (or of heaven) occurs. It was clearly an important theme in the whole teaching of Jesus. It is less evident in John’s Gospel but is nevertheless still present. Many of the parables of Jesus are specifically called parables of the kingdom. Jesus’ concept of the kingdom provided a foundational idea to the Christian gospel.<\/p>\n<p>The main idea is the rule of God over people rather than a realm that belongs to God. In other words, the emphasis is on the active reigning of the King. This is important because it means that the kingdom is inextricably affected by relationships between the members and the King. It also means the kingdom will not be expressed in institutional terms.<\/p>\n<p>There is one problem with the kingdom teachings that must be faced: its timing. Some sayings imply that it is already present, while others suggest that it will not come until the future. Some scholars disavow the idea that present and future can be held together; therefore, they reject one and concentrate on the other. Those who maintain a present understanding of the kingdom developed the idea of a social gospel, since Christianity was defined as the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. According to this view, there is no place for a future arrival of the kingdom. On the other hand, some have denied altogether the present aspect and concentrate on the future. In this case, it is difficult to see in what sense the kingdom teachings are relevant.<\/p>\n<p>Yet others have insisted that since both present and future aspects are found in the Gospel records, no explanation is satisfying that denies one at the expense of the other. One possible solution is to regard the present aspects as applying to this age but as not reaching their fulfillment until the future establishment of the kingdom. A similar solution, expressed differently, is to maintain that the reality is a future kingdom but that it has spilled over into the present. Jesus intentionally included both present and future aspects.<\/p>\n<p>That the kingdom was a theme of common interest is clear from Luke 17:20-21, where the Pharisees asked Jesus when it was coming. His answer, that it was among them, shows unmistakably a present idea. This is equally true of the statement that in the exorcism of evil spirits the kingdom had arrived (Mt 12:28; Lk 11:20). Moreover, Jesus mentioned that the kingdom has been forcefully advancing (Mt 11:12), by which he did not mean by revolutionary methods, although he clearly implied that something dynamic was already happening. This idea of dynamic power is one of the most characteristic features of the kingdom. Jesus spoke of binding the strong, armed man (Lk 11:21-22), which shows that in his ministry he expected to give a powerful demonstration against the forces of darkness.<\/p>\n<p>It is evident that the kingdom Jesus proclaimed was a kingdom in which God was supreme. It was inseparably linked with his redemptive mission, in which God was bringing spiritual deliverance to his people. Moreover, the kingdom teachings of Jesus cannot be regarded in isolation. It is part of the total message; no part of that message can be divorced from any other part without distorting the whole.<\/p>\n<p>The clearest teachings on the future aspect of the kingdom are to be found in some of the parables (Mt 13) and in the discourse on the Mt of Olives (Mt 24–25; Mk 13; Lk 21). In the latter, Jesus spoke of the future using imagery drawn from Jewish literature, like the references to clouds, to glory, and to angels in relation to the coming of the Son of Man (Mk 13:26-27). In Matthew’s account there is reference to a trumpet call, another familiar feature (Mt 24:31).<\/p>\n<p>Various features from the kingdom parables give the clearest idea of the nature of the kingdom. Membership in the kingdom is not considered to be universal, for in the parable of the sower not all the soils are productive. The same separation is seen in the parable of the tares and the parable of the dragnet. The tares are destroyed and only the wheat is harvested, while the bad fish are discarded. The members of the kingdom are those who hear and understand the word of the kingdom (Mt 13:23). It is clear, therefore, that a response is necessary if the benefits of the kingdom are to be enjoyed.<\/p>\n<p>There is an emphasis on growth in the parable of the mustard seed, where rapid development occurs from small beginnings. The parables of the treasure and the pearl are intended to underline the value of the kingdom. The universal character of the kingdom comes out sharply in the parable of the vineyard, where the kingdom is said to be taken away from the Jews and given to another “nation,” presumably an allusion to the Gentiles (Mt 21:43). This is in line with the great commission Jesus gave to his disciples to preach to all nations (28:19). A universal kingdom would certainly be entirely different from the messianic kingdom idea of Judaism, in which Israel was to be the central unit. It is not easy to appreciate how revolutionary the idea was of a worldwide kingdom with Gentiles and Jews on the same footing.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHisOwnDeath\">Teachings about His Own Death<\/p>\n<p>The announcement of the kingdom must be linked with Jesus’ approach to his own death. Did Jesus see his death as an integral part of his mission? Some have maintained that he ended his life in disillusionment, but a brief survey of his teaching about his own destiny is sufficient to dispel such a theory. To the further question, “What meaning did Jesus attach to his forthcoming death?” he gave a series of passing indications that, when taken together, supply us with a basis on which to reconstruct some idea of the place of his death within the entire range of his mission.<\/p>\n<p>It is important to note that many times Jesus showed his awareness that details of his life were a fulfillment of Scripture (cf. Mt 26:24, 56; Mk 9:12; Lk 18:31; 24:25-27, 44-45). In all the instances cited, the suffering of Jesus is referred to as the subject of OT prophecy. This must mean that he had reflected on OT predictions and recognized that they could be fulfilled only through his own sufferings. In this case the Passion must be regarded as an indispensable part of Jesus’ consciousness of his own mission.<\/p>\n<p>This emphasis on fulfillment of Scripture is also seen in John’s Gospel. His statement that the Son of Man must be lifted up even as Moses lifted up the serpent (Jn 3:14) illustrates this point. Most of the passages where fulfillment of Scripture is mentioned are the comments of the Evangelist, John. But there can be no doubt that the fulfillment motive played a vital part both in Jesus’ own understanding of his mission and in the early Christians’ understanding of his death. In this connection, some hold that John puts more stress on the Incarnation as a means of salvation in that he sees it as an illumination of the mind. But this is only part of the truth, for there is more on the meaning of the death of Jesus in John’s Gospel than in the others.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospels emphasize the divine necessity of the death of Jesus. In addition to the fulfillment motive, the idea of necessity is strong in the first prediction by Jesus of his approaching death. In John’s Gospel Jesus speaks of his “hour” several times in the earlier stages of his ministry as “not yet,” but in the later stages as having arrived. There is a sense of definite movement toward a climax, the hour undoubtedly being the hour of the Passion (cf. Jn 17:1). There is not room for any disillusionment here. Jesus knew that only through the hour of death could the Father be glorified. The climax was according to an orderly plan.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus evidently regarded his death as in some ways a sacrifice. The clearest indication of this is in the words of institution at the Last Supper. The cup is connected with the blood of the new covenant, which is said to be for the “remission of sins” (Mt 26:26-28). No explanation is given of the way in which the coming death, signified by the broken bread and poured-out wine, would bring about forgiveness of sins. But the immediate realization by the early church that Christ died for our sins (cf. 1 Cor 15:3) shows that the importance of what Jesus said had been clearly grasped. The new covenant idea is parallel to the old covenant, which according to Exodus 24 was sealed with sacrificial blood; there can be little doubt that Jesus had this in mind when he spoke the words about the new covenant. It was also akin to the ideas expressed in Jeremiah 31, referring to a covenant written on the heart rather than graven in stone.<\/p>\n<p>Another aspect of the death of Christ seen especially in John’s Gospel is the sense of completion that went with it. In Jesus’ prayer in John 17, as he faces the cross, he declares that he has finished the work that the Father had given him to do (Jn 17:4). This is reinforced by the cry from the cross, “It is finished,” which only John records (19:30). This sense of accomplishment gives an air of triumph to what might otherwise have been considered a disaster.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheHolySpirit\">Teachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n<p>At several of the major events in the life of Jesus, the Evangelists note the activity of the Spirit (e.g., the Virgin Birth, the Baptism, the Temptation). It is to be expected, therefore, that Jesus would have instructed his disciples about the Spirit. However, there is surprisingly little in the synoptic Gospels on this theme. Most of the teachings come from John’s Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus began his preaching ministry in Nazareth, according to Luke, he read the statement in Isaiah 61:1-2 about the Spirit of God and applied it to himself. He saw his ministry as being inaugurated by the Spirit. This becomes clear in the way in which he responded to the charge that he cast out demons by means of Beelzebub, prince of the demons. He identified the reality of the coming of the kingdom by the fact that he was casting out evil spirits by the Spirit of God (Mt 12:28). He was, moreover, sensitive to the seriousness of blaspheming the Spirit, which he implies his accusers were in danger of doing. Whatever he did in his ministry he saw as an activity of the Spirit, and this was especially so in the contest with evil spirits.<\/p>\n<p>While warning his disciples that they would meet with opposition, Jesus assured them of the Spirit’s support when they were forced to appear before kings or governors (Mt 10:19-20; Mk 13:11). Indeed, he told them that the Spirit would speak through them, thus emphasizing that he expected a continuation of the Spirit’s activity in the future. Luke records one instance in which Jesus comments on what fathers will do for their children and asks whether God will not give the Holy Spirit to those who ask (Lk 11:13). The assumption is that God regards the Holy Spirit as the best gift to give his children. On yet another occasion, Jesus recognized that David was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote Psalm 110 (Mk 12:36), reflecting Jesus’ belief in the Spirit’s agency in the production of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of John provides a more detailed development of what Jesus taught about the Spirit. Teachings about the Spirit are usually linked to Jesus’ teachings about giving eternal life to those who believe in him and receive him. At the same time he spoke of the new birth and eternal life to Nicodemus, Jesus also spoke of the Spirit (Jn 3:3-8, 15-16). When he spoke of water of life to the Samaritan woman, he also spoke of the Spirit (4:14, 23-24). The same holds true for the discourses on the bread of life (6:48-63) and river of life (7:37-39). Throughout the Gospel, Jesus declares to various people that he can give them eternal life if they would believe in him. He promises them the water of life, the bread of life, and the light of life, but no one could really partake of these until after the Lord was resurrected. As a foretaste, as a sample, they could receive a certain measure of life via the Lord’s words, because his words were themselves spirit and life (6:63), but it was not until the Spirit would become available that the believers could actually become the recipients of the divine, eternal life.<\/p>\n<p>After the Lord’s discourse in John 6 (a discourse that was very troubling and offensive to most of his disciples), Jesus said, “It is the Spirit who gives eternal life” (6:63). When the Spirit became available, they could have life. Again, Jesus offered the water of life—even life flowing like rivers of living water—to the Jews assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles. He told them to come and drink of him. But no one could, then and there, come and drink of him. So John added a note: “This He spoke of the Spirit, . . . for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39, <span>nasb<\/span>). Once Jesus would be glorified through resurrection, the Spirit of the glorified Jesus would be available for men to drink. In John 6, Jesus offered himself as the bread of life to be eaten by men; and in John 7, he offered himself as the water of life to refresh men. But no one could eat of him or drink of him until the Spirit of the glorified Jesus was made available, as was intimated in John 6:63 and then stated plainly in John 7:39.<\/p>\n<p>In John 14:16-18, Jesus went one step further in identifying himself with the Spirit. He told the disciples that he would give them another Comforter. Then he told them that they should know who this Comforter was because he was, then and there, abiding with them and would, in the near future, be in them. Who else but Jesus was abiding with them at that time? Then after telling the disciples that the Comforter would come to them, he said, “I am coming to you.” First he said that the Comforter would come to them and abide in them, and then in the same breath he said that he would come to them and abide in them (see 14:20). In short, the coming of the Comforter to the disciples was one and the same as the coming of Jesus to the disciples. The Comforter who was dwelling with the disciples that night was the Spirit in Christ; the Comforter who would be in the disciples (after the resurrection) would be Christ in the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>On the evening of the resurrection, the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples and then breathed into them the Holy Spirit. This inbreathing, reminiscent of God’s breathing into Adam the breath of life (Gn 2:7), became the fulfillment of all that had been promised and anticipated earlier in John’s Gospel. Through this impartation, the disciples were regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This historical event marked the genesis of the new creation. Jesus could now be realized as the bread of life, the water of life, and the light of life. The believers now possessed his divine, eternal, risen life. From that time forward, Christ as Spirit indwelt his believers. Thus, in his first epistle John could say, “We know he lives in us because the Holy Spirit lives in us” (1 Jn 3:24).<\/p>\n<p>The indwelling Spirit helped the disciples remember Jesus’ words and actions (Jn 14:26) so that they could teach and write about them with acumen. This means that Jesus did not intend that the preservation of his teachings should be left to chance. All too often theories attempting to explain the way in which the traditions about Jesus and his teachings were transmitted in the period before there were any written Gospels are suggested without any reference to the Holy Spirit. It is not acceptable to concentrate on so-called laws of oral tradition and pay no attention to the unique factor in this case—the Holy Spirit. It is part of the Spirit’s mission to preserve and transmit the teaching of Jesus. What Jesus says in this passage about the Spirit has far-reaching significance for the formation of the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Another important function is the activity of the Spirit in the world. Jesus made it clear that the Spirit would convict of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment (Jn 16:8). Without the activity of the Spirit, there would be no possibility of the disciples making any impact on the world. Nevertheless, Jesus warned that the world could not receive the Spirit because it did not know him (14:17). The mystery of the Spirit is that he dwells in every believer. This indwelling aspect is of great importance and was particularly developed in the writings of Paul.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHumanity\">Teachings about Humanity<\/p>\n<p>Jesus taught about God’s providential care over all human beings. A person’s hairs are all numbered (Mt 10:30), which is a vivid way of saying that God is concerned about the details of human life. But God is far more concerned with the eternal soul. Jesus made it clear that it would be unprofitable for anyone to gain the world and to lose his or her soul (Mt 16:26; Mk 8:36; Lk 9:25). The focus falls on what a person is and not what he or she has. Jesus even said that a maimed body was preferable to a forfeited life (Mk 9:43-47). One’s total fulfillment depends more on one’s spiritual condition than on one’s environment or physical well-being. He was not, of course, unconcerned about people’s physical state, as his many healings show, but his major concern was with people’s relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus never viewed humans as isolated individuals. Within God’s community people were expected to have responsibility toward one another. The Sermon on the Mount illustrated this social emphasis in the teaching of Jesus. Those who are merciful to others will obtain mercy (Mt 5:7). There is special commendation for peacemakers (v 9). The disciples of Jesus are expected to bring light to others (v 16). They are expected to give more than expected (v 40). Jesus is clearly saying that people have responsibility beyond themselves.<\/p>\n<p>The relation of people to God is one of dependence. Jesus taught men and women to pray to God for daily bread (Mt 6:11) as a reminder that they cannot be wholly self-sufficient. He allowed no place in his teaching for humans to boast in their own achievements.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had some specific things to say about home life. He accepted the sanctity of the marriage contract (Mt 5:31-32; cf. 19:3-9) and therefore showed a high regard for the honor and rights of the wife. It was more in his actions and attitudes rather than his specific teachings that Jesus showed his regard for the status of women. When he spoke of men, he often used the term in the sense of people, including both men and women. There is no suggestion that in matters of faith women were in the least inferior to men. Moreover, Luke points out how many women supported Jesus and his disciples in their travels.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had a high view of the human potential but also acknowledged their present condition. The stress on repentance (Mt 4:17) shows a sinfulness of which people need to repent. This sense of need is implicit in the instances where Jesus pronounces forgiveness (e.g., to the paralytic, Mt 9:1-8; and to the woman who anointed him, Lk 7:47-48). In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus instructs his disciples to pray for forgiveness (Mt 6:12; Lk 11:4). He takes for granted that they need it and desire to obtain it.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus gives no support to any self-righteousness in men or women. This is the burden of his criticism of the religious leaders in various sayings, but particularly in Matthew 23. He was critical of Jewish teachers because they placed so much importance on works of merit as contributing to salvation. His whole approach depended on humans casting themselves on the mercy of God. This is vividly illustrated in the parable about the Pharisee and the tax collector at prayer (Lk 18:10-14). It was the latter who threw himself on the mercy of God and who was commended by Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Undoubtedly, Jesus regarded sin as universal. He never suggested that there was anyone who was exempt from it. The major concept of sin in his teachings was alienation from God. This comes out clearly in John’s Gospel, with its strong antithesis between light and darkness, life and death (cf. Jn 5:24). Indeed, the “world” in John’s Gospel represents the system that takes no account of God. But sin is also seen as enslavement to Satan. The life and teachings of Jesus are seen against the background of spiritual conflict. Jesus can even say to his opponents, “You are of your father the devil” (Jn 8:44). He assumes throughout that there are hostile forces bringing man into subjection.<\/p>\n<p>In the parable of the prodigal son, sin against God is linked with sin before the father. In other words, it is regarded in terms of rebellion and revolt (Lk 15:21). This is a different assessment of the son’s offense than the one arrived at by the elder brother, who could see it only in terms of property. The view that humans are essentially in a state of rebellion against God is a basic tenet of Paul’s theological position, and it is important to note that it finds its root in the teachings of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>There is no question that Jesus had much to say about condemnation. Those who did not believe and were therefore outside the provision of salvation that Jesus had made are declared to be already condemned (Jn 3:18). At various times Jesus mentioned judgment to come, which shows that a person’s destiny is related to his or her present spiritual condition. Against this background of humanity’s spiritual need, the whole mission of Jesus must be seen. A person, if left to himself or herself, would be totally unable to achieve salvation, but Jesus came to offer eternal life to those who believe in him (Jn 3:16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheChurch\">Teachings about the Church<\/p>\n<p>Some have supposed that Jesus did not predict that there would be a church. But on two occasions he used the word “church,” which means a people called out by God. On one of the occasions—at Caesarea Philippi—Jesus told Peter that he would build his church upon the rock (Mt 16:16-19). It seems most probable that “rock” was intended to link the foundation of the church to Peter’s particular confession about Jesus. It is certain that the later church was a community that affirmed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is important to note that it is Christ himself who is the builder of the church. He assured his disciples that it would be impregnable (the gates of hades would not overcome it). Moreover, one of the functions of the church was to proclaim forgiveness of sins, and this is implied in what Jesus said to Peter. That the words were not intended to refer exclusively to him is clear from Matthew 18:18, where similar words were addressed to all the disciples. The church, according to Matthew 18:17, was to be a community that could settle disputes between believers.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to these specific references to the church, Jesus assumed that his followers would meet together in his name (Mt 18:19-20). In his final words in Matthew’s account, he commissioned them to teach what he had taught them and to baptize new disciples (Mt 28:19-20). He promised his presence would be with them. The command to baptize was reinforced by Jesus’ own example in submitting to John’s baptism. One other special rite that Jesus expected his disciples to observe was the Lord’s Supper. His instructions about this presuppose a later community that could observe it. Since the form of words used in the institution point to the meaning of the death of Christ, it is clear that Jesus intended the future community to be frequently reminded of the center of the faith. The Christian church was to be a group of people who knew that through Christ they had entered into a new relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Although there are no references to the church in John’s Gospel, there are certainly hints that support the community idea. Jesus introduced himself as the Shepherd and spoke of his followers as forming a flock (Jn 10:16). The sheep imagery occurs again in this Gospel when Peter is instructed three times by the risen Lord to feed the sheep (Jn 21:15-17). Another figure of speech that Jesus used to bring out the group idea is that of the many branches that draw their life from the vine, and therefore belong to each other because of their common life in the vine.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus recognized that the future community would need the aid of the Spirit. His teachings on this subject laid the foundation for the evident dependence of the early church on the Spirit, as seen in the book of Acts. Finally, it should be noted that there is a close connection between the church and the kingdom, although they are not identical. The kingdom is more comprehensive than the church, which is included within it.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheFuture\">Teachings about the Future<\/p>\n<p>Jesus thought of the kingdom in terms of both present realization and future hope. The future aspect is related to the end of the age. Although he did not spell it out in specific terms, Jesus did not leave his disciples without any knowledge of how the present age would end. He gave firm assurance that he would return at some time in the future.<\/p>\n<p>He told the disciples that the Son of Man would come with his angels in his Father’s glory (Mt 16:27). In the discourse in which he answers the disciples’ question about the end of the world, he speaks again of the Son of Man coming in clouds with power and glory (Mk 13:26), probably drawn from the familiar language of Daniel 7. Jesus described various signs that would precede his own coming. He spoke of wars, conflicts, earthquakes, famines, and disturbances in the heavens. The gospel was to be preached to all nations. At the same time many false Christs would arise.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus gave such details about his return to encourage his disciples in the face of persecution. The future hope had a definitely practical purpose. The disciples were urged to watch. The coming would happen as unexpectedly as a thief in the night. Jesus said that even he himself did not know when the coming would take place (Mk 13:32).<\/p>\n<p>Another important theme affecting the future is emphasized in Jesus’ teachings about resurrection. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the body. They attempted to trap Jesus with a question about a woman who had been married seven times. They wanted to know whose husband she would be at the resurrection (Mk 12:18-27). Jesus pointed out that there would be no marriage when the dead rise. The Sadducees’ idea about resurrection was clearly wrong. Jesus’ teaching was that the resurrected would be like the angels. There is no doubt about the resurrection of the dead, although no information is given about the resurrection body. Jesus told a story about a rich man and a poor man who both died (Lk 16:19-31). In the afterlife the rich man cries out in torment, while the poor man enjoys a state of blessedness. What is most clear from this is the certainty of the afterlife and the fact of a distinction between the two men, although we are not told on what grounds the distinction is made. Elsewhere in his teachings, Jesus suggested that the most vital requirement is faith in himself. The conversation between Jesus and the dying thief on the cross suggests that paradise for the latter consisted in an awareness of the presence of Jesus (Lk 23:42-43).<\/p>\n<p>The theme of rewards and punishment occurs in many passages. In Matthew 16:27 Jesus says that the Son of Man will reward everyone according to what he or she has done. Those who are worthless are promised punishment in darkness (Mt 25:30). Moreover, Jesus spoke of a day of judgment on which men and women must give an account, even of all their careless words (12:36-37). In the parable of the sheep and the goats, he spoke of a separation that the Son of Man will make when he comes. Those commended are those who have shown concern for the believers (25:31-46).<\/p>\n<p>Among Jesus’ most solemn statements are those that speak of hell. There is no way of getting around his teachings about eternal punishment for the unrighteous (as in Mt 25:41, 46), which is opposite to the eternal life promised to the righteous. He taught that his disciples would have a place prepared for them in heaven (Jn 14:2), and spoke of a Book of Life in which the names of his disciples were written (Lk 10:20).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutMoralIssues\">Teachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\n<p>Much of the teaching of Jesus is concerned with moral issues—so much so that some scholars have concluded that this was the main burden of his teaching. But the moral teachings cannot be considered apart from the many facets of his teachings outlined above. It has been said that there are close parallels between the teachings of Jesus and the moral teachings of Judaism. What is distinctive about Jesus’ teachings about morality is that the motive and power behind moral conduct is not conceived in terms of laws that must be obeyed. Right conduct is seen to be the result of a right relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was himself the pattern for moral behavior. He made clear that his aim was to fulfill the will of God. There is no sense of legalism in his approach to ethical decisions. When—in the Sermon on the Mount—he compared his own teaching with that of Moses, he showed the importance of penetrating to the inner meaning (cf. Mt 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32). On the face of it, Jesus made more rigorous demands than the Mosaic law, because he was concerned with probing the motives as well as the actions. Many have dismissed the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount as entirely impractical, but Jesus never intended that his teaching would be easy; he set as a target nothing less than the perfection of God himself (Mt 5:48). Nevertheless, he called his yoke easy and his burden light (11:29-30), which suggests that he was not setting out an impossible ethical pattern. It must be remembered that he was not producing a manifesto for society. His concern was that each individual should have powerful motives for right decisions on matters of conduct. His reaction against a rigid application of Sabbath observance at the expense of the welfare of a needy person illustrates this point. Concern for others was rated higher than ritual correctness.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>No account of the life and teachings of Jesus would be complete without some indication of the place that Jesus Christ gained in the developing church. Such a quest naturally takes us outside the scope of the Gospels into the testimony of the book of Acts and Paul’s letters. There we can see whether the predictions of Jesus were fulfilled and whether in fact the early Christians took his teaching seriously. Although there can be no question that Jesus Christ became central to the faith of the early Christians, he was regarded from many points of view. He was seen as Messiah in the sense of a spiritual deliverer, as Lord in the sense of being sovereign over his people, as Servant in the sense of his obedience to suffering, as Son in his relation to his Father. In many ways the full understanding of what and who he was could not have occurred until after the resurrection. Therefore, we find that many facets of his teachings about himself were more fully developed in the reflections of his people. This is true in a special sense of the writings of the apostle Paul.<\/p>\n<p>Many have found a problem in linking the Gospels with their detailed presentation of the acts and teachings of Jesus with the Christ who is so central in Paul’s beliefs. The problem arises because the apostle does not refer to any specific incident in the life of Jesus and does not reflect in his epistles any acquaintance with the large amount of teaching material in the Gospels. Does this suggest that Paul had no interest in the historical Jesus? Or could it be maintained that he knew nothing about him? Those who have driven a wedge between Paul and Jesus have not given sufficient weight to those incidental indications that Paul knew a great deal more about the historical Jesus than he states in his letters. He writes, for instance, about the meekness and gentleness of Christ (2 Cor 10:1), suggesting that he knew that Jesus had said of himself that he was meek and lowly of heart (Mt 11:29). Moreover, Paul speaks of the poverty of Christ (2 Cor 8:9) and must have known that the Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head. He certainly knows the details of how Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:23-26), and he knows of his death by crucifixion. It seems reasonable to conclude that Paul assumes that his readers will be acquainted with the Gospel material.<\/p>\n<p>It is perhaps useful in this connection to inquire whether the life and teachings of Jesus played a significant part in the early Christian proclamation. One passage that is valuable in this respect is Acts 10:36-38. In Peter’s address to Cornelius, he spoke of God’s having anointed Jesus of Nazareth, and of Jesus’ having gone about doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil. It is clear that some account of the acts of Jesus was included in the early preaching, and there is no reason to suppose that this was not a regular procedure.<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that the example of Jesus was a powerful motive for promoting right behavior. Peter appeals to it in encouraging Christians who were suffering for their faith (1 Pt 2:21). Paul also knows the value of imitation (1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thes 1:6). Since Jesus was recognized as being a man who did not sin (cf. 2 Cor 5:21), his behavior patterns would have proved invaluable for those who needed a new standard for moral action. While this idea of example is unquestionably present in the Epistles, it would be quite wrong to suppose that it formed a major part of Christian doctrine.<\/p>\n<p>There are a few references to the teachings of Jesus in the non-Gospel portion of the NT. In the Letter of James, which is almost wholly practical, there are more allusions to the teachings of Jesus than anywhere else in the NT. This is especially true in echoes of the Sermon on the Mount, and it shows the strong contribution that the moral teaching of Jesus had on the ethical values of the early Christians. Most of the expositions of doctrine in the Epistles find their basis in some aspect of the teachings of Jesus. These teachings have an ongoing significance for the development of the church.<\/p>\n<p>To what extent is knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus relevant to the 21st century? Existential theologians have driven such a wedge between the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history that the latter has ceased to have any importance for them. Christians today, no less than their first-century predecessors, need to know that the object of their faith is the same one who lived and taught in Galilee and Judea.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Ascension of Christ; Christ; Christology; Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Incarnation; Jesus Christ; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven; Messiah; Parable; Savior; Son of God; Son of Man; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of<\/h3>\n<p>Because of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? What did he mean when he spoke about the kingdom? What light does his teaching throw on the meaning of his death? What did he say about the Holy Spirit? How did he describe human beings and their needs? Did he anticipate the Christian church? Did he teach anything about the end of the world? What were the main features of his moral teaching? The following sections will seek to answer these important questions.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about God<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Himself<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about His Own Death<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Humanity<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Church<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about the Future<\/p>\n<p>• Teachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutGod\">Teachings about God<\/p>\n<p>Anyone who comes to the teachings of Jesus after reading the OT will at once recognize that much of his teaching about God is the same. Since Jesus, as all orthodox Jews of his day, accepted the testimony of the OT as inspired, it is not surprising that his approach to God was similar. This is especially true of his assumption that God was Creator. He taught a special providential care over the created order and affirmed that God watched over such small creatures as the sparrow (Mt 10:29). There is no support in the teachings of Jesus for the view that God is uninterested in the world he made.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most characteristic titles Jesus used for God was Father. This was not new, for the idea occurs in the OT, where God is seen as Father of his people Israel. This kind of fatherhood was national rather than personal. In the intertestamental period the Jews came to regard God as so holy that he was removed from direct contact with human affairs. There had to be mediators between God and people. This exalted notion of God was not conducive to the idea of God as Father, and it is against this background that the uniqueness of the personal fatherhood of God in the teaching of Jesus must be seen. There is some evidence in Judaism that prayer to God as “Our Father” was known, but what distinguishes Jesus’ teachings from that of his contemporaries is that the fatherhood of God was central to what he taught.<\/p>\n<p>The father-son relationship is particularly vivid in John’s Gospel, where Jesus as Son is seen to be in close communion with God as Father. This comes out strongly in Jesus’ prayer in John 17 and in the frequent assertions that the Father had sent the Son and that the Son was doing the will of the Father. It is this strong relationship between God and Jesus in terms of fatherhood and sonship that led Jesus to teach men to approach God in the same way. The Lord’s Prayer at once recognizes this in its opening words. It is particularly important to note that “Our Father” precedes “hallowed be thy name,” for the more intimate idea prepares the way for the more remote. Jesus never taught men to approach God with terror.<\/p>\n<p>Although there is a connection between the way in which Jesus addressed God as Father and the way in which he taught his disciples to approach God, there is also a distinction. Jesus spoke of “my Father and your Father” when he appeared to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection (Jn 20:17), but he did not say “our Father.” His sonship was unique, for he claimed that he and the Father were one (Jn 10:30).<\/p>\n<p>In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus assured his followers that their heavenly Father knows about their needs (Mt 6:32; Lk 12:30), on the strength of which they are exhorted not to be anxious. This gives some insight into the way in which Jesus’ teachings about God has a bearing on practical issues.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHimself\">Teachings about Himself<\/p>\n<p>What Jesus said about himself is of great importance, for this undoubtedly formed the basis of what the early church came to teach about him.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus used certain titles of himself or accepted them as descriptions of himself when they were used by others. The most widely used is Son of Man. This title was used by Jesus to refer to himself but was not used by anyone else. It was used, moreover, in several different kinds of sayings. Sometimes the sayings related directly to the public ministry of Jesus, like the saying that the Son of Man was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28), or that the Son of Man had authority to forgive sins (v 10). Sometimes the sayings had a direct bearing on the Passion, as when Jesus said that the Son of Man must suffer many things (Mk 8:31; note that Mt 16:21 has “he” instead of “Son of Man”). At other times the reference is to a future appearance, as when Jesus declared to the high priest that he would see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Mk 14:62). What did Jesus mean by the title, and why did he use it?<\/p>\n<p>The title “Son of Man” had been used before. The phrase occurs in Psalm 8:4, where it refers to man or humans. Again, the expression is used many times in Ezekiel as a mode of address to the prophet, but here also it means man. A rather different use occurs in Daniel 7:13, where one like a son of man comes with the clouds before the Ancient of Days. There is a strong similarity between this passage and the words of Jesus in Mark 14:62. But an important difference is that whereas Son of Man becomes a title in Mark, it is not so in Daniel. There is some evidence for the title in Jewish apocalyptic literature (e.g., in the Similitudes of Enoch), where it represents a preexistent being who will come to judge and overthrow the enemies of God. It seems evident from this that Jesus’ use of Son of Man as a title is unique.<\/p>\n<p>The Son of Man sayings are distributed throughout the four Gospels, and there are no appreciable differences in their uses. What is at first astonishing is that though the title is so widespread in the Gospels on the lips of Jesus, it never became a name by which Jesus was known by the early Christians. In fact, only in Acts 7:56 does the title appear, in this case used by Stephen. It is clear, therefore, that it had a special meaning for Jesus that it did not have for others. There is no doubt that he was referring to himself and not to someone else, as a careful study of all the Son of Man sayings shows. Those who think that Jesus was referring to someone else arrive at this conclusion only after first dispensing with some of the sayings. The most probable reason why he used the title Son of Man was because he wanted to avoid a term like Messiah, which carried with it too many political overtones. But what did Son of Man mean to Jesus? It is rich with the idea of humanness, possibly allusions to Daniel’s “son of man,” and perhaps a touch of the Suffering Servant idea from Isaiah 53. It is most likely that Jesus saw it in terms of his mission in a way that his hearers could not fully appreciate. It is also probable that the early church preferred Messiah because this title carried the meaning of a royal deliverer; also, after the death of Jesus, there would be no further fear of political misunderstanding.<\/p>\n<p>The term Messiah, or Christ, does not belong strictly to the teachings of Jesus, since he himself never used it. The most striking instance where he accepted the ascription of Messiah was in Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi. All the synoptic Gospels record the confession “You are the Christ,” while Matthew adds the significant comment by Jesus that flesh and blood had not revealed it but “my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17). He certainly accepted the confession and regarded it as revelation. One other case in the Synoptics where he does not specifically refute messiahship is his answer to the high priest’s question “Are you the Messiah?” (Mk 14:61). In John’s Gospel, Andrew tells Peter that he had found the Messiah (Jn 1:41); the woman at Samaria talks to Jesus, and he reveals that he is the Messiah (4:25-26). There was a widespread expectation among the Jews that a deliverer would come to overthrow their political enemies, the Romans. There were various ideas about his origin (a military leader or a heavenly warrior) and his methods (the Zealots believed that deliverance could come only through armed revolution). The reticence of Jesus concerning messiahship is therefore readily understandable.<\/p>\n<p>Another title of utmost importance is Son of God, although it occurs mainly in John’s Gospel. That both Mark and John regarded Jesus in this light is clear from explicit statements in their Gospels (cf. Mk 1:1; Jn 20:30-31). There are certainly passages where Messiah is linked with Son of God and where Jesus rejects neither title (cf. Mt 16:16). But in the teachings of Jesus one passage makes abundantly clear the special relationship that Jesus had with God as Son—namely, Matthew 11:27 (also Lk 10:22, a parallel passage), where Jesus implies that he is the Son of the Father.<\/p>\n<p>Many similar passages in John’s Gospel are, however, more explicit. The Son is unquestionably preexistent, because he knows he came from the Father and returns to the Father. It is not possible from the many references to sonship in John’s Gospel to come to any other conclusion than that Jesus regarded himself as divine. It is particularly important to note that it is also in this Gospel that Jesus is portrayed most clearly in his human nature with its attendant weaknesses. Nowhere in the teachings of Jesus did he explain how God could become man, but he assumed this as a fact. He taught with the authority of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheKingdomofGod\">Teachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\n<p>No one can read the synoptic Gospels without being impressed with the frequency with which the expression “kingdom of God” (or of heaven) occurs. It was clearly an important theme in the whole teaching of Jesus. It is less evident in John’s Gospel but is nevertheless still present. Many of the parables of Jesus are specifically called parables of the kingdom. Jesus’ concept of the kingdom provided a foundational idea to the Christian gospel.<\/p>\n<p>The main idea is the rule of God over people rather than a realm that belongs to God. In other words, the emphasis is on the active reigning of the King. This is important because it means that the kingdom is inextricably affected by relationships between the members and the King. It also means the kingdom will not be expressed in institutional terms.<\/p>\n<p>There is one problem with the kingdom teachings that must be faced: its timing. Some sayings imply that it is already present, while others suggest that it will not come until the future. Some scholars disavow the idea that present and future can be held together; therefore, they reject one and concentrate on the other. Those who maintain a present understanding of the kingdom developed the idea of a social gospel, since Christianity was defined as the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. According to this view, there is no place for a future arrival of the kingdom. On the other hand, some have denied altogether the present aspect and concentrate on the future. In this case, it is difficult to see in what sense the kingdom teachings are relevant.<\/p>\n<p>Yet others have insisted that since both present and future aspects are found in the Gospel records, no explanation is satisfying that denies one at the expense of the other. One possible solution is to regard the present aspects as applying to this age but as not reaching their fulfillment until the future establishment of the kingdom. A similar solution, expressed differently, is to maintain that the reality is a future kingdom but that it has spilled over into the present. Jesus intentionally included both present and future aspects.<\/p>\n<p>That the kingdom was a theme of common interest is clear from Luke 17:20-21, where the Pharisees asked Jesus when it was coming. His answer, that it was among them, shows unmistakably a present idea. This is equally true of the statement that in the exorcism of evil spirits the kingdom had arrived (Mt 12:28; Lk 11:20). Moreover, Jesus mentioned that the kingdom has been forcefully advancing (Mt 11:12), by which he did not mean by revolutionary methods, although he clearly implied that something dynamic was already happening. This idea of dynamic power is one of the most characteristic features of the kingdom. Jesus spoke of binding the strong, armed man (Lk 11:21-22), which shows that in his ministry he expected to give a powerful demonstration against the forces of darkness.<\/p>\n<p>It is evident that the kingdom Jesus proclaimed was a kingdom in which God was supreme. It was inseparably linked with his redemptive mission, in which God was bringing spiritual deliverance to his people. Moreover, the kingdom teachings of Jesus cannot be regarded in isolation. It is part of the total message; no part of that message can be divorced from any other part without distorting the whole.<\/p>\n<p>The clearest teachings on the future aspect of the kingdom are to be found in some of the parables (Mt 13) and in the discourse on the Mt of Olives (Mt 24–25; Mk 13; Lk 21). In the latter, Jesus spoke of the future using imagery drawn from Jewish literature, like the references to clouds, to glory, and to angels in relation to the coming of the Son of Man (Mk 13:26-27). In Matthew’s account there is reference to a trumpet call, another familiar feature (Mt 24:31).<\/p>\n<p>Various features from the kingdom parables give the clearest idea of the nature of the kingdom. Membership in the kingdom is not considered to be universal, for in the parable of the sower not all the soils are productive. The same separation is seen in the parable of the tares and the parable of the dragnet. The tares are destroyed and only the wheat is harvested, while the bad fish are discarded. The members of the kingdom are those who hear and understand the word of the kingdom (Mt 13:23). It is clear, therefore, that a response is necessary if the benefits of the kingdom are to be enjoyed.<\/p>\n<p>There is an emphasis on growth in the parable of the mustard seed, where rapid development occurs from small beginnings. The parables of the treasure and the pearl are intended to underline the value of the kingdom. The universal character of the kingdom comes out sharply in the parable of the vineyard, where the kingdom is said to be taken away from the Jews and given to another “nation,” presumably an allusion to the Gentiles (Mt 21:43). This is in line with the great commission Jesus gave to his disciples to preach to all nations (28:19). A universal kingdom would certainly be entirely different from the messianic kingdom idea of Judaism, in which Israel was to be the central unit. It is not easy to appreciate how revolutionary the idea was of a worldwide kingdom with Gentiles and Jews on the same footing.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHisOwnDeath\">Teachings about His Own Death<\/p>\n<p>The announcement of the kingdom must be linked with Jesus’ approach to his own death. Did Jesus see his death as an integral part of his mission? Some have maintained that he ended his life in disillusionment, but a brief survey of his teaching about his own destiny is sufficient to dispel such a theory. To the further question, “What meaning did Jesus attach to his forthcoming death?” he gave a series of passing indications that, when taken together, supply us with a basis on which to reconstruct some idea of the place of his death within the entire range of his mission.<\/p>\n<p>It is important to note that many times Jesus showed his awareness that details of his life were a fulfillment of Scripture (cf. Mt 26:24, 56; Mk 9:12; Lk 18:31; 24:25-27, 44-45). In all the instances cited, the suffering of Jesus is referred to as the subject of OT prophecy. This must mean that he had reflected on OT predictions and recognized that they could be fulfilled only through his own sufferings. In this case the Passion must be regarded as an indispensable part of Jesus’ consciousness of his own mission.<\/p>\n<p>This emphasis on fulfillment of Scripture is also seen in John’s Gospel. His statement that the Son of Man must be lifted up even as Moses lifted up the serpent (Jn 3:14) illustrates this point. Most of the passages where fulfillment of Scripture is mentioned are the comments of the Evangelist, John. But there can be no doubt that the fulfillment motive played a vital part both in Jesus’ own understanding of his mission and in the early Christians’ understanding of his death. In this connection, some hold that John puts more stress on the Incarnation as a means of salvation in that he sees it as an illumination of the mind. But this is only part of the truth, for there is more on the meaning of the death of Jesus in John’s Gospel than in the others.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospels emphasize the divine necessity of the death of Jesus. In addition to the fulfillment motive, the idea of necessity is strong in the first prediction by Jesus of his approaching death. In John’s Gospel Jesus speaks of his “hour” several times in the earlier stages of his ministry as “not yet,” but in the later stages as having arrived. There is a sense of definite movement toward a climax, the hour undoubtedly being the hour of the Passion (cf. Jn 17:1). There is not room for any disillusionment here. Jesus knew that only through the hour of death could the Father be glorified. The climax was according to an orderly plan.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus evidently regarded his death as in some ways a sacrifice. The clearest indication of this is in the words of institution at the Last Supper. The cup is connected with the blood of the new covenant, which is said to be for the “remission of sins” (Mt 26:26-28). No explanation is given of the way in which the coming death, signified by the broken bread and poured-out wine, would bring about forgiveness of sins. But the immediate realization by the early church that Christ died for our sins (cf. 1 Cor 15:3) shows that the importance of what Jesus said had been clearly grasped. The new covenant idea is parallel to the old covenant, which according to Exodus 24 was sealed with sacrificial blood; there can be little doubt that Jesus had this in mind when he spoke the words about the new covenant. It was also akin to the ideas expressed in Jeremiah 31, referring to a covenant written on the heart rather than graven in stone.<\/p>\n<p>Another aspect of the death of Christ seen especially in John’s Gospel is the sense of completion that went with it. In Jesus’ prayer in John 17, as he faces the cross, he declares that he has finished the work that the Father had given him to do (Jn 17:4). This is reinforced by the cry from the cross, “It is finished,” which only John records (19:30). This sense of accomplishment gives an air of triumph to what might otherwise have been considered a disaster.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheHolySpirit\">Teachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n<p>At several of the major events in the life of Jesus, the Evangelists note the activity of the Spirit (e.g., the Virgin Birth, the Baptism, the Temptation). It is to be expected, therefore, that Jesus would have instructed his disciples about the Spirit. However, there is surprisingly little in the synoptic Gospels on this theme. Most of the teachings come from John’s Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus began his preaching ministry in Nazareth, according to Luke, he read the statement in Isaiah 61:1-2 about the Spirit of God and applied it to himself. He saw his ministry as being inaugurated by the Spirit. This becomes clear in the way in which he responded to the charge that he cast out demons by means of Beelzebub, prince of the demons. He identified the reality of the coming of the kingdom by the fact that he was casting out evil spirits by the Spirit of God (Mt 12:28). He was, moreover, sensitive to the seriousness of blaspheming the Spirit, which he implies his accusers were in danger of doing. Whatever he did in his ministry he saw as an activity of the Spirit, and this was especially so in the contest with evil spirits.<\/p>\n<p>While warning his disciples that they would meet with opposition, Jesus assured them of the Spirit’s support when they were forced to appear before kings or governors (Mt 10:19-20; Mk 13:11). Indeed, he told them that the Spirit would speak through them, thus emphasizing that he expected a continuation of the Spirit’s activity in the future. Luke records one instance in which Jesus comments on what fathers will do for their children and asks whether God will not give the Holy Spirit to those who ask (Lk 11:13). The assumption is that God regards the Holy Spirit as the best gift to give his children. On yet another occasion, Jesus recognized that David was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote Psalm 110 (Mk 12:36), reflecting Jesus’ belief in the Spirit’s agency in the production of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of John provides a more detailed development of what Jesus taught about the Spirit. Teachings about the Spirit are usually linked to Jesus’ teachings about giving eternal life to those who believe in him and receive him. At the same time he spoke of the new birth and eternal life to Nicodemus, Jesus also spoke of the Spirit (Jn 3:3-8, 15-16). When he spoke of water of life to the Samaritan woman, he also spoke of the Spirit (4:14, 23-24). The same holds true for the discourses on the bread of life (6:48-63) and river of life (7:37-39). Throughout the Gospel, Jesus declares to various people that he can give them eternal life if they would believe in him. He promises them the water of life, the bread of life, and the light of life, but no one could really partake of these until after the Lord was resurrected. As a foretaste, as a sample, they could receive a certain measure of life via the Lord’s words, because his words were themselves spirit and life (6:63), but it was not until the Spirit would become available that the believers could actually become the recipients of the divine, eternal life.<\/p>\n<p>After the Lord’s discourse in John 6 (a discourse that was very troubling and offensive to most of his disciples), Jesus said, “It is the Spirit who gives eternal life” (6:63). When the Spirit became available, they could have life. Again, Jesus offered the water of life—even life flowing like rivers of living water—to the Jews assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles. He told them to come and drink of him. But no one could, then and there, come and drink of him. So John added a note: “This He spoke of the Spirit, . . . for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39, <span>nasb<\/span>). Once Jesus would be glorified through resurrection, the Spirit of the glorified Jesus would be available for men to drink. In John 6, Jesus offered himself as the bread of life to be eaten by men; and in John 7, he offered himself as the water of life to refresh men. But no one could eat of him or drink of him until the Spirit of the glorified Jesus was made available, as was intimated in John 6:63 and then stated plainly in John 7:39.<\/p>\n<p>In John 14:16-18, Jesus went one step further in identifying himself with the Spirit. He told the disciples that he would give them another Comforter. Then he told them that they should know who this Comforter was because he was, then and there, abiding with them and would, in the near future, be in them. Who else but Jesus was abiding with them at that time? Then after telling the disciples that the Comforter would come to them, he said, “I am coming to you.” First he said that the Comforter would come to them and abide in them, and then in the same breath he said that he would come to them and abide in them (see 14:20). In short, the coming of the Comforter to the disciples was one and the same as the coming of Jesus to the disciples. The Comforter who was dwelling with the disciples that night was the Spirit in Christ; the Comforter who would be in the disciples (after the resurrection) would be Christ in the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>On the evening of the resurrection, the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples and then breathed into them the Holy Spirit. This inbreathing, reminiscent of God’s breathing into Adam the breath of life (Gn 2:7), became the fulfillment of all that had been promised and anticipated earlier in John’s Gospel. Through this impartation, the disciples were regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This historical event marked the genesis of the new creation. Jesus could now be realized as the bread of life, the water of life, and the light of life. The believers now possessed his divine, eternal, risen life. From that time forward, Christ as Spirit indwelt his believers. Thus, in his first epistle John could say, “We know he lives in us because the Holy Spirit lives in us” (1 Jn 3:24).<\/p>\n<p>The indwelling Spirit helped the disciples remember Jesus’ words and actions (Jn 14:26) so that they could teach and write about them with acumen. This means that Jesus did not intend that the preservation of his teachings should be left to chance. All too often theories attempting to explain the way in which the traditions about Jesus and his teachings were transmitted in the period before there were any written Gospels are suggested without any reference to the Holy Spirit. It is not acceptable to concentrate on so-called laws of oral tradition and pay no attention to the unique factor in this case—the Holy Spirit. It is part of the Spirit’s mission to preserve and transmit the teaching of Jesus. What Jesus says in this passage about the Spirit has far-reaching significance for the formation of the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Another important function is the activity of the Spirit in the world. Jesus made it clear that the Spirit would convict of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment (Jn 16:8). Without the activity of the Spirit, there would be no possibility of the disciples making any impact on the world. Nevertheless, Jesus warned that the world could not receive the Spirit because it did not know him (14:17). The mystery of the Spirit is that he dwells in every believer. This indwelling aspect is of great importance and was particularly developed in the writings of Paul.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutHumanity\">Teachings about Humanity<\/p>\n<p>Jesus taught about God’s providential care over all human beings. A person’s hairs are all numbered (Mt 10:30), which is a vivid way of saying that God is concerned about the details of human life. But God is far more concerned with the eternal soul. Jesus made it clear that it would be unprofitable for anyone to gain the world and to lose his or her soul (Mt 16:26; Mk 8:36; Lk 9:25). The focus falls on what a person is and not what he or she has. Jesus even said that a maimed body was preferable to a forfeited life (Mk 9:43-47). One’s total fulfillment depends more on one’s spiritual condition than on one’s environment or physical well-being. He was not, of course, unconcerned about people’s physical state, as his many healings show, but his major concern was with people’s relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus never viewed humans as isolated individuals. Within God’s community people were expected to have responsibility toward one another. The Sermon on the Mount illustrated this social emphasis in the teaching of Jesus. Those who are merciful to others will obtain mercy (Mt 5:7). There is special commendation for peacemakers (v 9). The disciples of Jesus are expected to bring light to others (v 16). They are expected to give more than expected (v 40). Jesus is clearly saying that people have responsibility beyond themselves.<\/p>\n<p>The relation of people to God is one of dependence. Jesus taught men and women to pray to God for daily bread (Mt 6:11) as a reminder that they cannot be wholly self-sufficient. He allowed no place in his teaching for humans to boast in their own achievements.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had some specific things to say about home life. He accepted the sanctity of the marriage contract (Mt 5:31-32; cf. 19:3-9) and therefore showed a high regard for the honor and rights of the wife. It was more in his actions and attitudes rather than his specific teachings that Jesus showed his regard for the status of women. When he spoke of men, he often used the term in the sense of people, including both men and women. There is no suggestion that in matters of faith women were in the least inferior to men. Moreover, Luke points out how many women supported Jesus and his disciples in their travels.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had a high view of the human potential but also acknowledged their present condition. The stress on repentance (Mt 4:17) shows a sinfulness of which people need to repent. This sense of need is implicit in the instances where Jesus pronounces forgiveness (e.g., to the paralytic, Mt 9:1-8; and to the woman who anointed him, Lk 7:47-48). In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus instructs his disciples to pray for forgiveness (Mt 6:12; Lk 11:4). He takes for granted that they need it and desire to obtain it.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus gives no support to any self-righteousness in men or women. This is the burden of his criticism of the religious leaders in various sayings, but particularly in Matthew 23. He was critical of Jewish teachers because they placed so much importance on works of merit as contributing to salvation. His whole approach depended on humans casting themselves on the mercy of God. This is vividly illustrated in the parable about the Pharisee and the tax collector at prayer (Lk 18:10-14). It was the latter who threw himself on the mercy of God and who was commended by Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Undoubtedly, Jesus regarded sin as universal. He never suggested that there was anyone who was exempt from it. The major concept of sin in his teachings was alienation from God. This comes out clearly in John’s Gospel, with its strong antithesis between light and darkness, life and death (cf. Jn 5:24). Indeed, the “world” in John’s Gospel represents the system that takes no account of God. But sin is also seen as enslavement to Satan. The life and teachings of Jesus are seen against the background of spiritual conflict. Jesus can even say to his opponents, “You are of your father the devil” (Jn 8:44). He assumes throughout that there are hostile forces bringing man into subjection.<\/p>\n<p>In the parable of the prodigal son, sin against God is linked with sin before the father. In other words, it is regarded in terms of rebellion and revolt (Lk 15:21). This is a different assessment of the son’s offense than the one arrived at by the elder brother, who could see it only in terms of property. The view that humans are essentially in a state of rebellion against God is a basic tenet of Paul’s theological position, and it is important to note that it finds its root in the teachings of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>There is no question that Jesus had much to say about condemnation. Those who did not believe and were therefore outside the provision of salvation that Jesus had made are declared to be already condemned (Jn 3:18). At various times Jesus mentioned judgment to come, which shows that a person’s destiny is related to his or her present spiritual condition. Against this background of humanity’s spiritual need, the whole mission of Jesus must be seen. A person, if left to himself or herself, would be totally unable to achieve salvation, but Jesus came to offer eternal life to those who believe in him (Jn 3:16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheChurch\">Teachings about the Church<\/p>\n<p>Some have supposed that Jesus did not predict that there would be a church. But on two occasions he used the word “church,” which means a people called out by God. On one of the occasions—at Caesarea Philippi—Jesus told Peter that he would build his church upon the rock (Mt 16:16-19). It seems most probable that “rock” was intended to link the foundation of the church to Peter’s particular confession about Jesus. It is certain that the later church was a community that affirmed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is important to note that it is Christ himself who is the builder of the church. He assured his disciples that it would be impregnable (the gates of hades would not overcome it). Moreover, one of the functions of the church was to proclaim forgiveness of sins, and this is implied in what Jesus said to Peter. That the words were not intended to refer exclusively to him is clear from Matthew 18:18, where similar words were addressed to all the disciples. The church, according to Matthew 18:17, was to be a community that could settle disputes between believers.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to these specific references to the church, Jesus assumed that his followers would meet together in his name (Mt 18:19-20). In his final words in Matthew’s account, he commissioned them to teach what he had taught them and to baptize new disciples (Mt 28:19-20). He promised his presence would be with them. The command to baptize was reinforced by Jesus’ own example in submitting to John’s baptism. One other special rite that Jesus expected his disciples to observe was the Lord’s Supper. His instructions about this presuppose a later community that could observe it. Since the form of words used in the institution point to the meaning of the death of Christ, it is clear that Jesus intended the future community to be frequently reminded of the center of the faith. The Christian church was to be a group of people who knew that through Christ they had entered into a new relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Although there are no references to the church in John’s Gospel, there are certainly hints that support the community idea. Jesus introduced himself as the Shepherd and spoke of his followers as forming a flock (Jn 10:16). The sheep imagery occurs again in this Gospel when Peter is instructed three times by the risen Lord to feed the sheep (Jn 21:15-17). Another figure of speech that Jesus used to bring out the group idea is that of the many branches that draw their life from the vine, and therefore belong to each other because of their common life in the vine.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus recognized that the future community would need the aid of the Spirit. His teachings on this subject laid the foundation for the evident dependence of the early church on the Spirit, as seen in the book of Acts. Finally, it should be noted that there is a close connection between the church and the kingdom, although they are not identical. The kingdom is more comprehensive than the church, which is included within it.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsabouttheFuture\">Teachings about the Future<\/p>\n<p>Jesus thought of the kingdom in terms of both present realization and future hope. The future aspect is related to the end of the age. Although he did not spell it out in specific terms, Jesus did not leave his disciples without any knowledge of how the present age would end. He gave firm assurance that he would return at some time in the future.<\/p>\n<p>He told the disciples that the Son of Man would come with his angels in his Father’s glory (Mt 16:27). In the discourse in which he answers the disciples’ question about the end of the world, he speaks again of the Son of Man coming in clouds with power and glory (Mk 13:26), probably drawn from the familiar language of Daniel 7. Jesus described various signs that would precede his own coming. He spoke of wars, conflicts, earthquakes, famines, and disturbances in the heavens. The gospel was to be preached to all nations. At the same time many false Christs would arise.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus gave such details about his return to encourage his disciples in the face of persecution. The future hope had a definitely practical purpose. The disciples were urged to watch. The coming would happen as unexpectedly as a thief in the night. Jesus said that even he himself did not know when the coming would take place (Mk 13:32).<\/p>\n<p>Another important theme affecting the future is emphasized in Jesus’ teachings about resurrection. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the body. They attempted to trap Jesus with a question about a woman who had been married seven times. They wanted to know whose husband she would be at the resurrection (Mk 12:18-27). Jesus pointed out that there would be no marriage when the dead rise. The Sadducees’ idea about resurrection was clearly wrong. Jesus’ teaching was that the resurrected would be like the angels. There is no doubt about the resurrection of the dead, although no information is given about the resurrection body. Jesus told a story about a rich man and a poor man who both died (Lk 16:19-31). In the afterlife the rich man cries out in torment, while the poor man enjoys a state of blessedness. What is most clear from this is the certainty of the afterlife and the fact of a distinction between the two men, although we are not told on what grounds the distinction is made. Elsewhere in his teachings, Jesus suggested that the most vital requirement is faith in himself. The conversation between Jesus and the dying thief on the cross suggests that paradise for the latter consisted in an awareness of the presence of Jesus (Lk 23:42-43).<\/p>\n<p>The theme of rewards and punishment occurs in many passages. In Matthew 16:27 Jesus says that the Son of Man will reward everyone according to what he or she has done. Those who are worthless are promised punishment in darkness (Mt 25:30). Moreover, Jesus spoke of a day of judgment on which men and women must give an account, even of all their careless words (12:36-37). In the parable of the sheep and the goats, he spoke of a separation that the Son of Man will make when he comes. Those commended are those who have shown concern for the believers (25:31-46).<\/p>\n<p>Among Jesus’ most solemn statements are those that speak of hell. There is no way of getting around his teachings about eternal punishment for the unrighteous (as in Mt 25:41, 46), which is opposite to the eternal life promised to the righteous. He taught that his disciples would have a place prepared for them in heaven (Jn 14:2), and spoke of a Book of Life in which the names of his disciples were written (Lk 10:20).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingsaboutMoralIssues\">Teachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\n<p>Much of the teaching of Jesus is concerned with moral issues—so much so that some scholars have concluded that this was the main burden of his teaching. But the moral teachings cannot be considered apart from the many facets of his teachings outlined above. It has been said that there are close parallels between the teachings of Jesus and the moral teachings of Judaism. What is distinctive about Jesus’ teachings about morality is that the motive and power behind moral conduct is not conceived in terms of laws that must be obeyed. Right conduct is seen to be the result of a right relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was himself the pattern for moral behavior. He made clear that his aim was to fulfill the will of God. There is no sense of legalism in his approach to ethical decisions. When—in the Sermon on the Mount—he compared his own teaching with that of Moses, he showed the importance of penetrating to the inner meaning (cf. Mt 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32). On the face of it, Jesus made more rigorous demands than the Mosaic law, because he was concerned with probing the motives as well as the actions. Many have dismissed the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount as entirely impractical, but Jesus never intended that his teaching would be easy; he set as a target nothing less than the perfection of God himself (Mt 5:48). Nevertheless, he called his yoke easy and his burden light (11:29-30), which suggests that he was not setting out an impossible ethical pattern. It must be remembered that he was not producing a manifesto for society. His concern was that each individual should have powerful motives for right decisions on matters of conduct. His reaction against a rigid application of Sabbath observance at the expense of the welfare of a needy person illustrates this point. Concern for others was rated higher than ritual correctness.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>No account of the life and teachings of Jesus would be complete without some indication of the place that Jesus Christ gained in the developing church. Such a quest naturally takes us outside the scope of the Gospels into the testimony of the book of Acts and Paul’s letters. There we can see whether the predictions of Jesus were fulfilled and whether in fact the early Christians took his teaching seriously. Although there can be no question that Jesus Christ became central to the faith of the early Christians, he was regarded from many points of view. He was seen as Messiah in the sense of a spiritual deliverer, as Lord in the sense of being sovereign over his people, as Servant in the sense of his obedience to suffering, as Son in his relation to his Father. In many ways the full understanding of what and who he was could not have occurred until after the resurrection. Therefore, we find that many facets of his teachings about himself were more fully developed in the reflections of his people. This is true in a special sense of the writings of the apostle Paul.<\/p>\n<p>Many have found a problem in linking the Gospels with their detailed presentation of the acts and teachings of Jesus with the Christ who is so central in Paul’s beliefs. The problem arises because the apostle does not refer to any specific incident in the life of Jesus and does not reflect in his epistles any acquaintance with the large amount of teaching material in the Gospels. Does this suggest that Paul had no interest in the historical Jesus? Or could it be maintained that he knew nothing about him? Those who have driven a wedge between Paul and Jesus have not given sufficient weight to those incidental indications that Paul knew a great deal more about the historical Jesus than he states in his letters. He writes, for instance, about the meekness and gentleness of Christ (2 Cor 10:1), suggesting that he knew that Jesus had said of himself that he was meek and lowly of heart (Mt 11:29). Moreover, Paul speaks of the poverty of Christ (2 Cor 8:9) and must have known that the Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head. He certainly knows the details of how Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:23-26), and he knows of his death by crucifixion. It seems reasonable to conclude that Paul assumes that his readers will be acquainted with the Gospel material.<\/p>\n<p>It is perhaps useful in this connection to inquire whether the life and teachings of Jesus played a significant part in the early Christian proclamation. One passage that is valuable in this respect is Acts 10:36-38. In Peter’s address to Cornelius, he spoke of God’s having anointed Jesus of Nazareth, and of Jesus’ having gone about doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil. It is clear that some account of the acts of Jesus was included in the early preaching, and there is no reason to suppose that this was not a regular procedure.<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that the example of Jesus was a powerful motive for promoting right behavior. Peter appeals to it in encouraging Christians who were suffering for their faith (1 Pt 2:21). Paul also knows the value of imitation (1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thes 1:6). Since Jesus was recognized as being a man who did not sin (cf. 2 Cor 5:21), his behavior patterns would have proved invaluable for those who needed a new standard for moral action. While this idea of example is unquestionably present in the Epistles, it would be quite wrong to suppose that it formed a major part of Christian doctrine.<\/p>\n<p>There are a few references to the teachings of Jesus in the non-Gospel portion of the NT. In the Letter of James, which is almost wholly practical, there are more allusions to the teachings of Jesus than anywhere else in the NT. This is especially true in echoes of the Sermon on the Mount, and it shows the strong contribution that the moral teaching of Jesus had on the ethical values of the early Christians. Most of the expositions of doctrine in the Epistles find their basis in some aspect of the teachings of Jesus. These teachings have an ongoing significance for the development of the church.<\/p>\n<p>To what extent is knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus relevant to the 21st century? Existential theologians have driven such a wedge between the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history that the latter has ceased to have any importance for them. Christians today, no less than their first-century predecessors, need to know that the object of their faith is the same one who lived and taught in Galilee and Judea.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Ascension of Christ; Christ; Christology; Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Incarnation; Jesus Christ; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven; Messiah; Parable; Savior; Son of God; Son of Man; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of Because of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? Wh...","summary_en":"JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of Because of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? Wh...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36092,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Spirit of God","title_en":"Spirit of God","content_ro":"<h3>SPIRIT OF GOD<\/h3>\n<p>Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ruach<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">pneuma<\/span>) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy.<\/p>\n<p>First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translated “Spirit” in Gn 1:2) that caused the waters of the Flood to subside (8:1). A wind from God blew locusts over Egypt (Ex 10:13) and quail over the camp of Israel. The blast of his nostrils separated the waters of the Red Sea at the exodus (14:21).<\/p>\n<p>Second, it was the breath of God that made man a living being (Gn 2:7). It is one of the earliest perceptions of Hebrew faith that humans live only because of the stirring of the divine breath or spirit within them (Gn 6:3; Jb 33:4; 34:14-15; Ps 104:29-30). Later, a clearer distinction was drawn between divine Spirit and human spirit, and between spirit and soul, but at the earliest stage these were all more or less perceived to be synonymous manifestations of the same divine power, the source of all life—animal as well as human (Gn 7:15, 22; see Eccl 3:19-21).<\/p>\n<p>Third, there were occasions when this divine power seemed to overtake and possess an individual fully, so that his or her words or actions far transcended those of normal behavior. Such a person was clearly marked as an agent of God’s purpose and given respect. This was apparently how leaders were recognized in the premonarchy period—Othniel (Jgs 3:10), Gideon (6:34), Jephthah (11:29), and the first king, Saul (1 Sm 11:6), as well. So, too, the earliest prophets were those whose inspiration came in ecstasy (1 Sm 19:20-24).<\/p>\n<p>In the earlier stages of Hebrew thought, ecstatic experience was seen as the direct effect of divine power. This was true even when the ecstasy was recognized as evil in character, as in the case of Saul’s seizure by the Spirit (1 Sm 16:14-16). A spirit from God could be for evil as well as for good (see Jgs 9:23; 1 Kgs 22:19-23).<\/p>\n<h5>In the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\n<p>For Isaiah, the spirit was that which characterized God and distinguished him and his actions from human affairs (Is 31:3). Later, the adjective “holy” appeared as that which distinguished the Spirit of God from any other spirit, human or divine (Ps 51:11; Is 63:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>The problem of false prophecy emphasized the danger of assuming that every message delivered in ecstasy was the word of the Lord. Thus, tests of prophecy evaluated the content of the message delivered or the character of the prophet’s life, not the degree or quality of inspiration (see Dt 13:1-5; 18:22; Jer 23:14; Mi 3:5). This sense of a need to discriminate between true and false inspiration and to distinguish the word of God from the merely ecstatic oracle may help to explain the otherwise puzzling reluctance of the major eighth- and seventh-century <span>BC<\/span> prophets to attribute their inspiration to the Spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Exilic and Postexilic Writings<\/h5>\n<p>In exilic and postexilic literature, the role of the Spirit is narrowed to two major functions: that of the prophetic Spirit and that of the Spirit of the age to come.<\/p>\n<p>The later prophets again spoke of the Spirit in explicit terms as the inspirer of prophecy (see Ez 3:1-4, 22-24; Hg 2:5; Zec 4:6). As they looked back to the preexilic period, these prophets freely attributed the inspiration of “the former prophets” to the Spirit as well (Zec 7:12).<\/p>\n<p>This tendency to exalt the Spirit’s role as the inspirer of prophecy became steadily stronger in the period between the OT and NT, until in rabbinic Judaism the Spirit was almost exclusively the inspirer of the prophetic writings now regarded as Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The other understanding of the Spirit’s role during exilic and postexilic times was that the Spirit would be the manifestation of the power of God in the age to come. That eschatological hope of divine power effecting a final cleansing and a renewed creation is rooted principally in Isaiah’s prophecies (Is 4:4; 32:15; 44:3-4). Isaiah speaks of one anointed by the Spirit to accomplish complete and final salvation (11:2; 42:1; 61:1). Elsewhere, the same longing is expressed in terms of the Spirit being freely dispensed to all Israel (Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28-29; Zec 12:10) in the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34; Ez 36:26-27).<\/p>\n<p>In the period prior to Jesus, the understanding of the Spirit as the Spirit of prophecy and as the Spirit of the age to come had developed into the widespread dogma that the Spirit was no longer to be experienced in the present. The Spirit had been known in the past as the inspirer of prophetic writings, but after Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Spirit had withdrawn (1 Macc 4:44-46; 9:27; 2 Bar 85:1-3; see also Ps 74:9; Zec 13:2-6). The Spirit would be known again in the age of the Messiah, but in the interim the Spirit was absent from Israel. Even the great Hillel (learned Jewish leader and teacher, 60? <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 20?), a near contemporary of Jesus, had not received the Spirit—though if anyone was worthy of the Spirit, it was he. There is a tradition that at a meeting of Hillel and other wise men, a voice from heaven said, “Among those here present is one who would have deserved the Holy Spirit to rest upon him, if his time had been worthy of it.” The wise men all looked at Hillel.<\/p>\n<p>The consequence of this accepted dearth of the Spirit was that the Spirit in effect became subordinated to the law. The Spirit was the inspirer of the law, but since the Spirit could no longer be experienced directly, the law became the sole voice of the Spirit. It was this increasing dominance of the law and its authoritative interpreters that provided the background for the mission of Jesus and the initial spread of Christianity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>If we are to understand the NT’s teaching on the Spirit, we must recognize both its continuity and discontinuity with the OT. At many points NT usage cannot be fully understood except against the background of OT concepts or passages. For example, the ambiguity of John 3:8 (“wind,” “Spirit”), 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (“breath”), and Revelation 11:11 (“breath of life”) takes us back to the basic Hebrew meanings of “spirit.” Acts 8:39 and Revelation 17:3 and 21:10 reflect the same conception of the Spirit that we find in 1 Kings 18:12, 2 Kings 2:16, and Ezekiel 3:14. The NT writers generally share the rabbinic view that Scripture has the authority of the Spirit behind it (see Mk 12:36; Acts 28:25; Heb 3:7; 2 Pt 1:21). The principal continuity is that the NT brings the fulfillment of what the OT writers looked forward to. At the same time, Christianity is not simply fulfilled Judaism. Jesus’ coming and his giving of his Spirit to live within his believers marks off the new faith as something new and distinct.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of the New Age<\/h5>\n<p>The most striking feature of Jesus’ ministry and of the message of the earliest Christians was their conviction and proclamation that the blessings of the new age were already present, that the eschatological Spirit had already been poured out. With the exception of the Essenes at Qumran, no other group or individual within the Jewish religion of that time had dared to make such a bold claim. The prophets and the rabbis looked for a messianic age yet to come, and the apocalyptic writers warned of its imminent arrival, but none thought of it as already present. Even John the Baptist spoke only of one about to come and of the Spirit’s operation in the imminent future (Mk 1:8). But for Jesus and first-century Christians, the longed for hope was a living reality, and the claim carried with it the exciting sense of being in “the last days.” Without some recognition of that eschatological dimension of the Christians’ faith and life, we cannot understand this teaching on, and experience of, the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus clearly thought of his teachings and healings as fulfillment of the prophetic hope (Mt 12:41-42; 13:16-17; Lk 17:20-21). In particular, he saw himself as the one anointed by the Spirit to provide salvation (Mt 5:3-6; 11:5; Lk 4:17-19). So, too, Jesus understood his exorcisms as the effect of the power of God and as manifestations of the end-time rule of God (Mt 12:27-28; Mk 3:22-26). The Gospel writers, especially Luke, emphasize the eschatological character of Jesus’ life and ministry by stressing the role of the Spirit in his birth (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:35, 41, 67; 2:25-27), his baptism (Mk 1:9-10; Acts 10:38), and his ministry (Mt 4:1; 12:18; Mk 1:12; Lk 4:1, 14; 10:21; Jn 3:34).<\/p>\n<p>The Christian church began with the in-breathing of the Holy Spirit on the day of Christ’s resurrection (Jn 20:22), followed by the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost “in the last days.” The overwhelming experience of vision and inspired utterance was taken as proof positive that the new age prophesied by Joel had now arrived (Acts 2:2-5, 17-18). Similarly, in Hebrews the gift of the Spirit is spoken of as “the powers of the age to come” (Heb 6:4-5). More striking still is Paul’s understanding of the Spirit as the guarantee of God’s complete salvation (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14), and as the first installment of the believer’s inheritance of God’s kingdom (Rom 8:15-17; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 15:42-50; Gal 4:6-7; 5:16-18, 21-23; Eph 1:13-14). The Spirit is here again thought of as the power of the age to come, as that power (which will characterize God’s rule at the end of time) already shaping and transforming the lives of believers.<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, this means also that the gift of the Spirit is but the beginning of a lifelong process that will not end until the believer’s whole person is brought under the Spirit’s power (Rom 8:11, 23; 1 Cor 15:44-49; 2 Cor 3:18; 5:1-5). It also means that the present experience of faith is one of lifelong tension between what God has already begun to bring about in the believer’s life and what has not yet been brought under God’s grace (Phil 1:6). It is this tension between life “in the Spirit” and life “in the flesh” (see Gal 2:20) that comes to poignant expression in Romans 7:24 and 2 Corinthians 5:2-4.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of New Life<\/h5>\n<p>Since the Spirit is the mark of the new age, it is not surprising that the NT writers understood the gift of the Spirit to be that which brings an individual into the new age. John the Baptist described the way the coming one would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt 3:11). According to Acts 1:5 and 11:16, this imagery was taken up by Jesus, and the promise is seen as fulfilled at Pentecost—the outpouring of the Spirit here being understood as the risen Christ’s action in drawing his disciples into the new age (Acts 2:17, 33).<\/p>\n<p>It seems to be one of Luke’s aims in the book of Acts to highlight the central importance of the gift of the Spirit in conversion-initiation—it is that decisive “gift of the Holy Spirit” that makes one a Christian (Acts 2:38-39). People could have been followers of Jesus on earth, but it was only when they received the gift of the Spirit that they could be said to have “believed in the Lord Jesus Christ” (11:16-17). When the Spirit’s presence was manifested in and upon a person’s life, that was recognized by Peter as proof enough that God had accepted that person, even though he or she had not yet made any formal profession of faith or been baptized (10:44-48; 11:15-18; 15:7-9). So too Apollos, already aglow with the Spirit (18:25), even though his knowledge of “the way of God” was slightly defective (vv 24-26), apparently was not required to supplement his “baptism of John” with Christian baptism. However, the 12 so-called disciples at Ephesus proved by their very ignorance of the Spirit that they were not yet disciples of the Lord Jesus (19:1-6). Paul asked these 12 men, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (19:2).<\/p>\n<p>This accords with Paul’s emphasis in his letters. Belief and reception of the Spirit go together: to receive the Spirit is to begin the Christian life (Gal 3:2-3); to be baptized in the Spirit is to become a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13); to “have the Spirit of Christ” is to belong to Christ (Rom 8:9-11); to receive the Spirit is tantamount to becoming a child of God (Rom 8:14-17; Gal 4:6-7). The Spirit so characterizes the new age and the life of the new age that only the gift of the Spirit can bring a person into the new age to experience the life of the new age. For the Spirit is distinctively and peculiarly the life-giver; the Spirit indeed <em>is<\/em> the life of the new age (Rom 8:2, 6, 10; 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>In just the same way in John’s writings, the Spirit is characteristically the life-giving Spirit (Jn 6:63), the power from above, the seed of divine life that brings about the new birth (Jn 3:3-8; 1 Jn 3:9), and a river of living water that brings life when one believes in Christ (Jn 7:37-39; so also 4:10, 14). Or again, reception of the Spirit in John 20:22 is depicted as a new creation analogous to Genesis 2:7. Consequently, in 1 John 3:24 and 4:13, possession and experience of the Spirit count as one of the “tests of life” listed in that letter.<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It will be clear from what has already been said that when the first Christians, like the ancient Hebrews, spoke of the Spirit, they were thinking of experiences of divine power. In the NT, as in the OT, “Spirit” is the word used to explain the experience of new life and vitality (see above), of liberation from legalism (e.g., Rom 8:2; 2 Cor 3:17), of spiritual refreshing and renewal (cf. e.g., Is 32:15; Ez 39:29 with Jn 7:37-39; Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 12:13; 1 Tm 3:5-6). It is important to realize how wide a range of experiences were attributed to the Spirit: ecstatic experiences (Acts 2:24; 10:43-47; 19:6; cf. 10:10; 22:17—“in ecstasy”; 2 Cor 12:1-4; Rv 1:10), emotional experiences (e.g., love—Rom 5:5; joy—Acts 13:52; 1 Thes 1:6; see also Gal 5:22; Phil 2:1-2), experiences of illumination (2 Cor 3:14-17; Eph 1:17-18; Heb 6:4-5; 1 Jn 2:20-21), and experiences issuing in moral transformation (1 Cor 6:9-11). Likewise, when Paul speaks of spiritual gifts, called <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">charismata<\/span> (acts or words that bring divine grace to concrete expression), he evidently has a wide range of actual events in mind: inspired speech (1 Cor 12:8-10; 1 Thes 1:5), miracles and healings (1 Cor 12:9; Gal 3:5; cf. Heb 2:4), and various acts of service and help, of counsel and administration, and of aid and mercy (Rom 12:7-8; 1 Cor 12:28).<\/p>\n<p>In talking thus of the Spirit in terms of experience, we should not overemphasize particular experiences or manifestations, as though earliest Christianity consisted of a sequence of mountaintop experiences or spiritual highs. There clearly were such experiences, indeed a wide range of experiences, but no one experience is singled out to be sought by all (except prophecy). There is no distinctively second (or third) experience of the Spirit in the NT, and Paul warned against overvaluing particular manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor 14:6-19; 2 Cor 12:1-10; cf. Mk 8:11-13). Where particular experiences are valued, it is as manifestations of a more sustained experience, particular expressions of an underlying relationship (cf. Acts 6:3-5; 11:24—“full of the Spirit”; Eph 5:18). What we are in touch with here is the vigor of the experiential dimension of earliest Christianity. If the Spirit is the breath of the new life in Christ (cf. Ez 37:9-10, 14; Jn 20:22; 1 Cor 15:45), then presumably the analogy extends further, and the experience of the Spirit is like the experience of breathing: one is not conscious of it all the time, but if one is not conscious of it, at least sometimes, something is wrong.<\/p>\n<h5>The Fellowship of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It was out of this shared experience of the Spirit that the earliest Christian community grew and developed, for this is what “the fellowship [<span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">koinonia<\/span>] of the Spirit” properly means: common participation in the same Spirit (Phil 2:1; cf. Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 1:4-9). It was the gift of the Spirit that brought those in Samaria, Caesarea, and elsewhere effectively into the community of the Spirit (Act 8, 10). So also, it was the experience of the one Spirit that provided the unifying bond in the churches of Paul’s mission (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:3-4; Phil 2:1-2). Here we see the real importance of the divine manifestations of the Spirit for Paul: it is out of the diversity of these particular manifestations that the body of Christ grows in unity (Rom 12:4-8; 1 Cor 12:12-17; Eph 4:4-16).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SPIRIT OF GOD<\/h3>\n<p>Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ruach<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">pneuma<\/span>) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy.<\/p>\n<p>First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translated “Spirit” in Gn 1:2) that caused the waters of the Flood to subside (8:1). A wind from God blew locusts over Egypt (Ex 10:13) and quail over the camp of Israel. The blast of his nostrils separated the waters of the Red Sea at the exodus (14:21).<\/p>\n<p>Second, it was the breath of God that made man a living being (Gn 2:7). It is one of the earliest perceptions of Hebrew faith that humans live only because of the stirring of the divine breath or spirit within them (Gn 6:3; Jb 33:4; 34:14-15; Ps 104:29-30). Later, a clearer distinction was drawn between divine Spirit and human spirit, and between spirit and soul, but at the earliest stage these were all more or less perceived to be synonymous manifestations of the same divine power, the source of all life—animal as well as human (Gn 7:15, 22; see Eccl 3:19-21).<\/p>\n<p>Third, there were occasions when this divine power seemed to overtake and possess an individual fully, so that his or her words or actions far transcended those of normal behavior. Such a person was clearly marked as an agent of God’s purpose and given respect. This was apparently how leaders were recognized in the premonarchy period—Othniel (Jgs 3:10), Gideon (6:34), Jephthah (11:29), and the first king, Saul (1 Sm 11:6), as well. So, too, the earliest prophets were those whose inspiration came in ecstasy (1 Sm 19:20-24).<\/p>\n<p>In the earlier stages of Hebrew thought, ecstatic experience was seen as the direct effect of divine power. This was true even when the ecstasy was recognized as evil in character, as in the case of Saul’s seizure by the Spirit (1 Sm 16:14-16). A spirit from God could be for evil as well as for good (see Jgs 9:23; 1 Kgs 22:19-23).<\/p>\n<h5>In the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\n<p>For Isaiah, the spirit was that which characterized God and distinguished him and his actions from human affairs (Is 31:3). Later, the adjective “holy” appeared as that which distinguished the Spirit of God from any other spirit, human or divine (Ps 51:11; Is 63:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>The problem of false prophecy emphasized the danger of assuming that every message delivered in ecstasy was the word of the Lord. Thus, tests of prophecy evaluated the content of the message delivered or the character of the prophet’s life, not the degree or quality of inspiration (see Dt 13:1-5; 18:22; Jer 23:14; Mi 3:5). This sense of a need to discriminate between true and false inspiration and to distinguish the word of God from the merely ecstatic oracle may help to explain the otherwise puzzling reluctance of the major eighth- and seventh-century <span>BC<\/span> prophets to attribute their inspiration to the Spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Exilic and Postexilic Writings<\/h5>\n<p>In exilic and postexilic literature, the role of the Spirit is narrowed to two major functions: that of the prophetic Spirit and that of the Spirit of the age to come.<\/p>\n<p>The later prophets again spoke of the Spirit in explicit terms as the inspirer of prophecy (see Ez 3:1-4, 22-24; Hg 2:5; Zec 4:6). As they looked back to the preexilic period, these prophets freely attributed the inspiration of “the former prophets” to the Spirit as well (Zec 7:12).<\/p>\n<p>This tendency to exalt the Spirit’s role as the inspirer of prophecy became steadily stronger in the period between the OT and NT, until in rabbinic Judaism the Spirit was almost exclusively the inspirer of the prophetic writings now regarded as Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The other understanding of the Spirit’s role during exilic and postexilic times was that the Spirit would be the manifestation of the power of God in the age to come. That eschatological hope of divine power effecting a final cleansing and a renewed creation is rooted principally in Isaiah’s prophecies (Is 4:4; 32:15; 44:3-4). Isaiah speaks of one anointed by the Spirit to accomplish complete and final salvation (11:2; 42:1; 61:1). Elsewhere, the same longing is expressed in terms of the Spirit being freely dispensed to all Israel (Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28-29; Zec 12:10) in the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34; Ez 36:26-27).<\/p>\n<p>In the period prior to Jesus, the understanding of the Spirit as the Spirit of prophecy and as the Spirit of the age to come had developed into the widespread dogma that the Spirit was no longer to be experienced in the present. The Spirit had been known in the past as the inspirer of prophetic writings, but after Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Spirit had withdrawn (1 Macc 4:44-46; 9:27; 2 Bar 85:1-3; see also Ps 74:9; Zec 13:2-6). The Spirit would be known again in the age of the Messiah, but in the interim the Spirit was absent from Israel. Even the great Hillel (learned Jewish leader and teacher, 60? <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 20?), a near contemporary of Jesus, had not received the Spirit—though if anyone was worthy of the Spirit, it was he. There is a tradition that at a meeting of Hillel and other wise men, a voice from heaven said, “Among those here present is one who would have deserved the Holy Spirit to rest upon him, if his time had been worthy of it.” The wise men all looked at Hillel.<\/p>\n<p>The consequence of this accepted dearth of the Spirit was that the Spirit in effect became subordinated to the law. The Spirit was the inspirer of the law, but since the Spirit could no longer be experienced directly, the law became the sole voice of the Spirit. It was this increasing dominance of the law and its authoritative interpreters that provided the background for the mission of Jesus and the initial spread of Christianity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>If we are to understand the NT’s teaching on the Spirit, we must recognize both its continuity and discontinuity with the OT. At many points NT usage cannot be fully understood except against the background of OT concepts or passages. For example, the ambiguity of John 3:8 (“wind,” “Spirit”), 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (“breath”), and Revelation 11:11 (“breath of life”) takes us back to the basic Hebrew meanings of “spirit.” Acts 8:39 and Revelation 17:3 and 21:10 reflect the same conception of the Spirit that we find in 1 Kings 18:12, 2 Kings 2:16, and Ezekiel 3:14. The NT writers generally share the rabbinic view that Scripture has the authority of the Spirit behind it (see Mk 12:36; Acts 28:25; Heb 3:7; 2 Pt 1:21). The principal continuity is that the NT brings the fulfillment of what the OT writers looked forward to. At the same time, Christianity is not simply fulfilled Judaism. Jesus’ coming and his giving of his Spirit to live within his believers marks off the new faith as something new and distinct.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of the New Age<\/h5>\n<p>The most striking feature of Jesus’ ministry and of the message of the earliest Christians was their conviction and proclamation that the blessings of the new age were already present, that the eschatological Spirit had already been poured out. With the exception of the Essenes at Qumran, no other group or individual within the Jewish religion of that time had dared to make such a bold claim. The prophets and the rabbis looked for a messianic age yet to come, and the apocalyptic writers warned of its imminent arrival, but none thought of it as already present. Even John the Baptist spoke only of one about to come and of the Spirit’s operation in the imminent future (Mk 1:8). But for Jesus and first-century Christians, the longed for hope was a living reality, and the claim carried with it the exciting sense of being in “the last days.” Without some recognition of that eschatological dimension of the Christians’ faith and life, we cannot understand this teaching on, and experience of, the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus clearly thought of his teachings and healings as fulfillment of the prophetic hope (Mt 12:41-42; 13:16-17; Lk 17:20-21). In particular, he saw himself as the one anointed by the Spirit to provide salvation (Mt 5:3-6; 11:5; Lk 4:17-19). So, too, Jesus understood his exorcisms as the effect of the power of God and as manifestations of the end-time rule of God (Mt 12:27-28; Mk 3:22-26). The Gospel writers, especially Luke, emphasize the eschatological character of Jesus’ life and ministry by stressing the role of the Spirit in his birth (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:35, 41, 67; 2:25-27), his baptism (Mk 1:9-10; Acts 10:38), and his ministry (Mt 4:1; 12:18; Mk 1:12; Lk 4:1, 14; 10:21; Jn 3:34).<\/p>\n<p>The Christian church began with the in-breathing of the Holy Spirit on the day of Christ’s resurrection (Jn 20:22), followed by the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost “in the last days.” The overwhelming experience of vision and inspired utterance was taken as proof positive that the new age prophesied by Joel had now arrived (Acts 2:2-5, 17-18). Similarly, in Hebrews the gift of the Spirit is spoken of as “the powers of the age to come” (Heb 6:4-5). More striking still is Paul’s understanding of the Spirit as the guarantee of God’s complete salvation (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14), and as the first installment of the believer’s inheritance of God’s kingdom (Rom 8:15-17; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 15:42-50; Gal 4:6-7; 5:16-18, 21-23; Eph 1:13-14). The Spirit is here again thought of as the power of the age to come, as that power (which will characterize God’s rule at the end of time) already shaping and transforming the lives of believers.<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, this means also that the gift of the Spirit is but the beginning of a lifelong process that will not end until the believer’s whole person is brought under the Spirit’s power (Rom 8:11, 23; 1 Cor 15:44-49; 2 Cor 3:18; 5:1-5). It also means that the present experience of faith is one of lifelong tension between what God has already begun to bring about in the believer’s life and what has not yet been brought under God’s grace (Phil 1:6). It is this tension between life “in the Spirit” and life “in the flesh” (see Gal 2:20) that comes to poignant expression in Romans 7:24 and 2 Corinthians 5:2-4.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of New Life<\/h5>\n<p>Since the Spirit is the mark of the new age, it is not surprising that the NT writers understood the gift of the Spirit to be that which brings an individual into the new age. John the Baptist described the way the coming one would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt 3:11). According to Acts 1:5 and 11:16, this imagery was taken up by Jesus, and the promise is seen as fulfilled at Pentecost—the outpouring of the Spirit here being understood as the risen Christ’s action in drawing his disciples into the new age (Acts 2:17, 33).<\/p>\n<p>It seems to be one of Luke’s aims in the book of Acts to highlight the central importance of the gift of the Spirit in conversion-initiation—it is that decisive “gift of the Holy Spirit” that makes one a Christian (Acts 2:38-39). People could have been followers of Jesus on earth, but it was only when they received the gift of the Spirit that they could be said to have “believed in the Lord Jesus Christ” (11:16-17). When the Spirit’s presence was manifested in and upon a person’s life, that was recognized by Peter as proof enough that God had accepted that person, even though he or she had not yet made any formal profession of faith or been baptized (10:44-48; 11:15-18; 15:7-9). So too Apollos, already aglow with the Spirit (18:25), even though his knowledge of “the way of God” was slightly defective (vv 24-26), apparently was not required to supplement his “baptism of John” with Christian baptism. However, the 12 so-called disciples at Ephesus proved by their very ignorance of the Spirit that they were not yet disciples of the Lord Jesus (19:1-6). Paul asked these 12 men, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (19:2).<\/p>\n<p>This accords with Paul’s emphasis in his letters. Belief and reception of the Spirit go together: to receive the Spirit is to begin the Christian life (Gal 3:2-3); to be baptized in the Spirit is to become a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13); to “have the Spirit of Christ” is to belong to Christ (Rom 8:9-11); to receive the Spirit is tantamount to becoming a child of God (Rom 8:14-17; Gal 4:6-7). The Spirit so characterizes the new age and the life of the new age that only the gift of the Spirit can bring a person into the new age to experience the life of the new age. For the Spirit is distinctively and peculiarly the life-giver; the Spirit indeed <em>is<\/em> the life of the new age (Rom 8:2, 6, 10; 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>In just the same way in John’s writings, the Spirit is characteristically the life-giving Spirit (Jn 6:63), the power from above, the seed of divine life that brings about the new birth (Jn 3:3-8; 1 Jn 3:9), and a river of living water that brings life when one believes in Christ (Jn 7:37-39; so also 4:10, 14). Or again, reception of the Spirit in John 20:22 is depicted as a new creation analogous to Genesis 2:7. Consequently, in 1 John 3:24 and 4:13, possession and experience of the Spirit count as one of the “tests of life” listed in that letter.<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It will be clear from what has already been said that when the first Christians, like the ancient Hebrews, spoke of the Spirit, they were thinking of experiences of divine power. In the NT, as in the OT, “Spirit” is the word used to explain the experience of new life and vitality (see above), of liberation from legalism (e.g., Rom 8:2; 2 Cor 3:17), of spiritual refreshing and renewal (cf. e.g., Is 32:15; Ez 39:29 with Jn 7:37-39; Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 12:13; 1 Tm 3:5-6). It is important to realize how wide a range of experiences were attributed to the Spirit: ecstatic experiences (Acts 2:24; 10:43-47; 19:6; cf. 10:10; 22:17—“in ecstasy”; 2 Cor 12:1-4; Rv 1:10), emotional experiences (e.g., love—Rom 5:5; joy—Acts 13:52; 1 Thes 1:6; see also Gal 5:22; Phil 2:1-2), experiences of illumination (2 Cor 3:14-17; Eph 1:17-18; Heb 6:4-5; 1 Jn 2:20-21), and experiences issuing in moral transformation (1 Cor 6:9-11). Likewise, when Paul speaks of spiritual gifts, called <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">charismata<\/span> (acts or words that bring divine grace to concrete expression), he evidently has a wide range of actual events in mind: inspired speech (1 Cor 12:8-10; 1 Thes 1:5), miracles and healings (1 Cor 12:9; Gal 3:5; cf. Heb 2:4), and various acts of service and help, of counsel and administration, and of aid and mercy (Rom 12:7-8; 1 Cor 12:28).<\/p>\n<p>In talking thus of the Spirit in terms of experience, we should not overemphasize particular experiences or manifestations, as though earliest Christianity consisted of a sequence of mountaintop experiences or spiritual highs. There clearly were such experiences, indeed a wide range of experiences, but no one experience is singled out to be sought by all (except prophecy). There is no distinctively second (or third) experience of the Spirit in the NT, and Paul warned against overvaluing particular manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor 14:6-19; 2 Cor 12:1-10; cf. Mk 8:11-13). Where particular experiences are valued, it is as manifestations of a more sustained experience, particular expressions of an underlying relationship (cf. Acts 6:3-5; 11:24—“full of the Spirit”; Eph 5:18). What we are in touch with here is the vigor of the experiential dimension of earliest Christianity. If the Spirit is the breath of the new life in Christ (cf. Ez 37:9-10, 14; Jn 20:22; 1 Cor 15:45), then presumably the analogy extends further, and the experience of the Spirit is like the experience of breathing: one is not conscious of it all the time, but if one is not conscious of it, at least sometimes, something is wrong.<\/p>\n<h5>The Fellowship of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It was out of this shared experience of the Spirit that the earliest Christian community grew and developed, for this is what “the fellowship [<span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">koinonia<\/span>] of the Spirit” properly means: common participation in the same Spirit (Phil 2:1; cf. Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 1:4-9). It was the gift of the Spirit that brought those in Samaria, Caesarea, and elsewhere effectively into the community of the Spirit (Act 8, 10). So also, it was the experience of the one Spirit that provided the unifying bond in the churches of Paul’s mission (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:3-4; Phil 2:1-2). Here we see the real importance of the divine manifestations of the Spirit for Paul: it is out of the diversity of these particular manifestations that the body of Christ grows in unity (Rom 12:4-8; 1 Cor 12:12-17; Eph 4:4-16).<\/p>","summary_ro":"SPIRIT OF GOD Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, ruach; Greek, pneuma) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people. In the Old Testament There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy. First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translat...","summary_en":"SPIRIT OF GOD Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, ruach; Greek, pneuma) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people. In the Old Testament There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy. First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translat...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55468,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:36","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:36","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:36-37<\/strong> Psalm 110:1 is the Old Testament verse most quoted in the New Testament. Since David authored the psalm, the statement “<em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> [God] <em>said to my<\/em> [David’s] <em>Lord<\/em> [the Messiah]” indicates that the Messiah is David’s Lord. Thus, the Messiah could not simply be David’s <em>son<\/em>. He is the Son of God who sits at God’s right hand (Mark 14:62) and will come to judge the world (8:38; 13:24-27, 32-37).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:36-37<\/strong> Psalm 110:1 is the Old Testament verse most quoted in the New Testament. Since David authored the psalm, the statement “<em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> [God] <em>said to my<\/em> [David’s] <em>Lord<\/em> [the Messiah]” indicates that the Messiah is David’s Lord. Thus, the Messiah could not simply be David’s <em>son<\/em>. He is the Son of God who sits at God’s right hand (Mark 14:62) and will come to judge the world (8:38; 13:24-27, 32-37).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:36-37 Psalm 110:1 is the Old Testament verse most quoted in the New Testament. Since David authored the psalm, the statement “The Lord [God] said to my [David’s] Lord [the Messiah]” indicates that the Messiah is David’s Lord. Thus, the Messiah could not simply be David’s son. He is the Son of God who sits at God’s right hand (Mark 14:62) and will come to judge the world (8:38; 13:24-27, 32-37).","summary_en":"12:36-37 Psalm 110:1 is the Old Testament verse most quoted in the New Testament. Since David authored the psalm, the statement “The Lord [God] said to my [David’s] Lord [the Messiah]” indicates that the Messiah is David’s Lord. Thus, the Messiah could not simply be David’s son. He is the Son of God who sits at God’s right hand (Mark 14:62) and will come to judge the world (8:38; 13:24-27, 32-37).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83094,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:36","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:36","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:36-37<\/strong> Psalm 110:1 is the Old Testament verse most quoted in the New Testament. Since David authored the psalm, the statement “<em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> [God] <em>said to my<\/em> [David’s] <em>Lord<\/em> [the Messiah]” indicates that the Messiah is David’s Lord. Thus, the Messiah could not simply be David’s <em>son<\/em>. He is the Son of God who sits at God’s right hand (Mark 14:62) and will come to judge the world (8:38; 13:24-27, 32-37).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:36-37<\/strong> Psalm 110:1 is the Old Testament verse most quoted in the New Testament. Since David authored the psalm, the statement “<em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> [God] <em>said to my<\/em> [David’s] <em>Lord<\/em> [the Messiah]” indicates that the Messiah is David’s Lord. Thus, the Messiah could not simply be David’s <em>son<\/em>. He is the Son of God who sits at God’s right hand (Mark 14:62) and will come to judge the world (8:38; 13:24-27, 32-37).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:36-37 Psalm 110:1 is the Old Testament verse most quoted in the New Testament. Since David authored the psalm, the statement “The Lord [God] said to my [David’s] Lord [the Messiah]” indicates that the Messiah is David’s Lord. Thus, the Messiah could not simply be David’s son. He is the Son of God who sits at God’s right hand (Mark 14:62) and will come to judge the world (8:38; 13:24-27, 32-37).","summary_en":"12:36-37 Psalm 110:1 is the Old Testament verse most quoted in the New Testament. Since David authored the psalm, the statement “The Lord [God] said to my [David’s] Lord [the Messiah]” indicates that the Messiah is David’s Lord. Thus, the Messiah could not simply be David’s son. He is the Son of God who sits at God’s right hand (Mark 14:62) and will come to judge the world (8:38; 13:24-27, 32-37).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110720,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:36","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:36","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:36-37<\/strong> Psalm 110:1 is the Old Testament verse most quoted in the New Testament. Since David authored the psalm, the statement “<em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> [God] <em>said to my<\/em> [David’s] <em>Lord<\/em> [the Messiah]” indicates that the Messiah is David’s Lord. Thus, the Messiah could not simply be David’s <em>son<\/em>. He is the Son of God who sits at God’s right hand (Mark 14:62) and will come to judge the world (8:38; 13:24-27, 32-37).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:36-37<\/strong> Psalm 110:1 is the Old Testament verse most quoted in the New Testament. Since David authored the psalm, the statement “<em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> [God] <em>said to my<\/em> [David’s] <em>Lord<\/em> [the Messiah]” indicates that the Messiah is David’s Lord. Thus, the Messiah could not simply be David’s <em>son<\/em>. He is the Son of God who sits at God’s right hand (Mark 14:62) and will come to judge the world (8:38; 13:24-27, 32-37).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:36-37 Psalm 110:1 is the Old Testament verse most quoted in the New Testament. Since David authored the psalm, the statement “The Lord [God] said to my [David’s] Lord [the Messiah]” indicates that the Messiah is David’s Lord. Thus, the Messiah could not simply be David’s son. He is the Son of God who sits at God’s right hand (Mark 14:62) and will come to judge the world (8:38; 13:24-27, 32-37).","summary_en":"12:36-37 Psalm 110:1 is the Old Testament verse most quoted in the New Testament. Since David authored the psalm, the statement “The Lord [God] said to my [David’s] Lord [the Messiah]” indicates that the Messiah is David’s Lord. Thus, the Messiah could not simply be David’s son. He is the Son of God who sits at God’s right hand (Mark 14:62) and will come to judge the world (8:38; 13:24-27, 32-37).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138346,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:36","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:36","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:36-37<\/strong> Psalm 110:1 is the Old Testament verse most quoted in the New Testament. Since David authored the psalm, the statement “<em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> [God] <em>said to my<\/em> [David’s] <em>Lord<\/em> [the Messiah]” indicates that the Messiah is David’s Lord. Thus, the Messiah could not simply be David’s <em>son<\/em>. He is the Son of God who sits at God’s right hand (Mark 14:62) and will come to judge the world (8:38; 13:24-27, 32-37).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:36-37<\/strong> Psalm 110:1 is the Old Testament verse most quoted in the New Testament. Since David authored the psalm, the statement “<em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> [God] <em>said to my<\/em> [David’s] <em>Lord<\/em> [the Messiah]” indicates that the Messiah is David’s Lord. Thus, the Messiah could not simply be David’s <em>son<\/em>. He is the Son of God who sits at God’s right hand (Mark 14:62) and will come to judge the world (8:38; 13:24-27, 32-37).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:36-37 Psalm 110:1 is the Old Testament verse most quoted in the New Testament. Since David authored the psalm, the statement “The Lord [God] said to my [David’s] Lord [the Messiah]” indicates that the Messiah is David’s Lord. Thus, the Messiah could not simply be David’s son. He is the Son of God who sits at God’s right hand (Mark 14:62) and will come to judge the world (8:38; 13:24-27, 32-37).","summary_en":"12:36-37 Psalm 110:1 is the Old Testament verse most quoted in the New Testament. Since David authored the psalm, the statement “The Lord [God] said to my [David’s] Lord [the Messiah]” indicates that the Messiah is David’s Lord. Thus, the Messiah could not simply be David’s son. He is the Son of God who sits at God’s right hand (Mark 14:62) and will come to judge the world (8:38; 13:24-27, 32-37).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"38":[{"id":6951,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Clothing","title_en":"Clothing","content_ro":"<h3>CLOTHING<\/h3>\n<p>Clothing mentioned in the Bible is usually referred to in such general terms as “inner garment,” “outer garment,” or “tunic.” Few descriptions give specific details of costumes or clothing, and it is therefore necessary to rely on paintings, pottery, decorations, statues, and bas-reliefs to show the clothing styles of the period.<\/p>\n<p>Many ancient Near Eastern peoples (including the Israelites) kept flocks of sheep before the discovery of spinning and weaving and used the leather of their hides for clothing. Later, wool plucked from the sheep and from branches on which the fleece had accumulated as the animals brushed past was made into a feltlike fabric. Wool remained one of the most important fabrics for clothing throughout the biblical period.<\/p>\n<p>As the seminomadic Israelite tribes became more sedentary in nature, flax was cultivated. It was woven into linen, which became a commonly used fabric. At the beginning of the middle Bronze Age (c. 2000 <span>BC<\/span>), fine silks began to be imported from China, and wild silk was produced in some areas of the Near East. Cotton was known in Egypt, but it does not appear to have been produced anywhere in Palestine in the biblical period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MaleClothing\">Male Clothing<\/p>\n<p>Early in biblical times the loincloth formed an important item of male clothing that was worn by all levels of society. Prior to 2000 <span>BC<\/span>, a type of loincloth was also the customary piece of clothing for all Egyptians, from the lowliest laborer to the pharaoh. At a later period, however, it appeared only as part of military dress (Ez 23:15). The inner garment (a tunic or shirt) was made of wool or linen. It had openings for the neck and arms, and appears to have had long sleeves, although some styles had half sleeves. It was worn next to the skin and fell either to the knees or, more often, to the ankles, frequently being belted at the waist. The Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">chiton<\/span> (“coat”) and the Roman tunic would have been undergarments of a similar character. A man who was wearing nothing except this undergarment was considered “naked.” The young man who followed after Jesus at Gethsemane at his arrest was probably attired in this manner (Mk 14:51-52).<\/p>\n<p>Generally speaking, the outer garment, formed out of a square-shaped piece of cloth, was referred to as a cloak or mantle. It had openings for the arms and was draped over one or both shoulders.<\/p>\n<p>A Hebrew man was considered improperly dressed without his cloak, and one was forbidden to demand another’s mantle as a loan or pledge. At night, when the other items of clothing were removed, the cloak, which was often made of animal skin or wool, was used as a blanket (Ex 22:26-27; Dt 24:13). Cloaks made of goat’s hair or camel’s hair, such as John the Baptist wore (Mt 3:4; Mk 1:6), would have been particularly warm at night.<\/p>\n<p>The coat of many colors that Jacob gave to Joseph was probably a striped shirt or tunic made of leather or wool felt. The entire garment may have been bound with a woolen border (Gn 37:3). The garment Hannah made each year for the young Samuel was probably a coat or mantle (1 Sm 2:19).<\/p>\n<p>Cloaks were usually made with a hem; it was this that the woman touched when she came to Jesus for healing (Mt 9:20). The robe that Roman soldiers placed derisively upon Jesus to symbolize his kingship was probably a purple military cloak such as Roman officers commonly wore (Mt 27:28-31; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2).<\/p>\n<p>The Greeks used the term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">himation<\/span> for an outer garment, similar to the robe that was placed on the prodigal son (Lk 15:22) when his father celebrated the son’s return with his best food, clothing, and jewelry. The cloak that Paul wore (2 Tm 4:13) may well have been a circular style of cape that was popular in the first century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Garments were of different qualities and signified rank or office (Is 3:6). The scribes and prophets wore special mantles symbolic of their professions. Elijah wore a prophet’s mantle (1 Kgs 19:13, 19; 2 Kgs 2:8, 13-14). In NT times scribes wore special robes (Mk 12:38; Lk 20:46).<\/p>\n<p>Christ and his disciples probably wore tunics and sandals, and carried moneybags and staffs (Mt 10:9-10; Mk 6:8; Lk 9:3; 10:4). When Roman soldiers divided Jesus’ clothing after the Crucifixion (Jn 19:23-24), they cast lots for the inner garment, one woven without any seams and probably made of wool. This was the most valuable of Jesus’ items of clothing.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Footwear\">Footwear<\/p>\n<p>In Bible times footwear consisted of shoes and sandals, which were an essential part of a person’s wardrobe (2 Chr 28:15; Acts 12:8). Occasionally sandals had wooden soles, but usually they were leather. Sometimes they had an enclosed upper front and open back. The upper part was typically made of open strips of leather, and sometimes the sandal merely consisted of a sole with thongs laced around the leg or ankle. A woman’s sandals were considered an attractive and fashionable part of her wardrobe (Jdt 10:4; 16:9).<\/p>\n<p>On a long journey through the country, one’s sandals might be carried and saved for arrival in the next town, so that they would not be worn out. (Being barefoot in a town or city was a sign of abject poverty.) Since sandals were so open in design, one can easily understand the necessity for the ritual foot washing of a guest.<\/p>\n<p>Shoes were not worn in the temple or on any holy ground (Ex 3:5; Jos 5:15) and were also taken off when a person was in a house. It was customary to remove the sandals at a time of mourning. The shoes that the Israelites wore in their wilderness wanderings did not wear out (Dt 29:5).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cloth and Cloth Manufacturing.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CLOTHING<\/h3>\n<p>Clothing mentioned in the Bible is usually referred to in such general terms as “inner garment,” “outer garment,” or “tunic.” Few descriptions give specific details of costumes or clothing, and it is therefore necessary to rely on paintings, pottery, decorations, statues, and bas-reliefs to show the clothing styles of the period.<\/p>\n<p>Many ancient Near Eastern peoples (including the Israelites) kept flocks of sheep before the discovery of spinning and weaving and used the leather of their hides for clothing. Later, wool plucked from the sheep and from branches on which the fleece had accumulated as the animals brushed past was made into a feltlike fabric. Wool remained one of the most important fabrics for clothing throughout the biblical period.<\/p>\n<p>As the seminomadic Israelite tribes became more sedentary in nature, flax was cultivated. It was woven into linen, which became a commonly used fabric. At the beginning of the middle Bronze Age (c. 2000 <span>BC<\/span>), fine silks began to be imported from China, and wild silk was produced in some areas of the Near East. Cotton was known in Egypt, but it does not appear to have been produced anywhere in Palestine in the biblical period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MaleClothing\">Male Clothing<\/p>\n<p>Early in biblical times the loincloth formed an important item of male clothing that was worn by all levels of society. Prior to 2000 <span>BC<\/span>, a type of loincloth was also the customary piece of clothing for all Egyptians, from the lowliest laborer to the pharaoh. At a later period, however, it appeared only as part of military dress (Ez 23:15). The inner garment (a tunic or shirt) was made of wool or linen. It had openings for the neck and arms, and appears to have had long sleeves, although some styles had half sleeves. It was worn next to the skin and fell either to the knees or, more often, to the ankles, frequently being belted at the waist. The Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">chiton<\/span> (“coat”) and the Roman tunic would have been undergarments of a similar character. A man who was wearing nothing except this undergarment was considered “naked.” The young man who followed after Jesus at Gethsemane at his arrest was probably attired in this manner (Mk 14:51-52).<\/p>\n<p>Generally speaking, the outer garment, formed out of a square-shaped piece of cloth, was referred to as a cloak or mantle. It had openings for the arms and was draped over one or both shoulders.<\/p>\n<p>A Hebrew man was considered improperly dressed without his cloak, and one was forbidden to demand another’s mantle as a loan or pledge. At night, when the other items of clothing were removed, the cloak, which was often made of animal skin or wool, was used as a blanket (Ex 22:26-27; Dt 24:13). Cloaks made of goat’s hair or camel’s hair, such as John the Baptist wore (Mt 3:4; Mk 1:6), would have been particularly warm at night.<\/p>\n<p>The coat of many colors that Jacob gave to Joseph was probably a striped shirt or tunic made of leather or wool felt. The entire garment may have been bound with a woolen border (Gn 37:3). The garment Hannah made each year for the young Samuel was probably a coat or mantle (1 Sm 2:19).<\/p>\n<p>Cloaks were usually made with a hem; it was this that the woman touched when she came to Jesus for healing (Mt 9:20). The robe that Roman soldiers placed derisively upon Jesus to symbolize his kingship was probably a purple military cloak such as Roman officers commonly wore (Mt 27:28-31; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2).<\/p>\n<p>The Greeks used the term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">himation<\/span> for an outer garment, similar to the robe that was placed on the prodigal son (Lk 15:22) when his father celebrated the son’s return with his best food, clothing, and jewelry. The cloak that Paul wore (2 Tm 4:13) may well have been a circular style of cape that was popular in the first century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Garments were of different qualities and signified rank or office (Is 3:6). The scribes and prophets wore special mantles symbolic of their professions. Elijah wore a prophet’s mantle (1 Kgs 19:13, 19; 2 Kgs 2:8, 13-14). In NT times scribes wore special robes (Mk 12:38; Lk 20:46).<\/p>\n<p>Christ and his disciples probably wore tunics and sandals, and carried moneybags and staffs (Mt 10:9-10; Mk 6:8; Lk 9:3; 10:4). When Roman soldiers divided Jesus’ clothing after the Crucifixion (Jn 19:23-24), they cast lots for the inner garment, one woven without any seams and probably made of wool. This was the most valuable of Jesus’ items of clothing.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Footwear\">Footwear<\/p>\n<p>In Bible times footwear consisted of shoes and sandals, which were an essential part of a person’s wardrobe (2 Chr 28:15; Acts 12:8). Occasionally sandals had wooden soles, but usually they were leather. Sometimes they had an enclosed upper front and open back. The upper part was typically made of open strips of leather, and sometimes the sandal merely consisted of a sole with thongs laced around the leg or ankle. A woman’s sandals were considered an attractive and fashionable part of her wardrobe (Jdt 10:4; 16:9).<\/p>\n<p>On a long journey through the country, one’s sandals might be carried and saved for arrival in the next town, so that they would not be worn out. (Being barefoot in a town or city was a sign of abject poverty.) Since sandals were so open in design, one can easily understand the necessity for the ritual foot washing of a guest.<\/p>\n<p>Shoes were not worn in the temple or on any holy ground (Ex 3:5; Jos 5:15) and were also taken off when a person was in a house. It was customary to remove the sandals at a time of mourning. The shoes that the Israelites wore in their wilderness wanderings did not wear out (Dt 29:5).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cloth and Cloth Manufacturing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CLOTHING Clothing mentioned in the Bible is usually referred to in such general terms as “inner garment,” “outer garment,” or “tunic.” Few descriptions give specific details of costumes or clothing, and it is therefore necessary to rely on paintings, pottery, decorations, statues, and bas-reliefs to show the clothing styles of the period. Many ancient Near Eastern peoples (including the Israelites) kept flocks of sheep before the discovery of spinning and weaving and used the leather of their...","summary_en":"CLOTHING Clothing mentioned in the Bible is usually referred to in such general terms as “inner garment,” “outer garment,” or “tunic.” Few descriptions give specific details of costumes or clothing, and it is therefore necessary to rely on paintings, pottery, decorations, statues, and bas-reliefs to show the clothing styles of the period. Many ancient Near Eastern peoples (including the Israelites) kept flocks of sheep before the discovery of spinning and weaving and used the leather of their...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24400,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of Mark","title_en":"Gospel of Mark","content_ro":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MARK, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 60 and 68.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorDateProvenance\">Author, Date, Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, although this is by no means certain). At one point Papias states, “The Elder used to say this also: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that [Peter] remembered concerning the things both said and done by the Lord.” (This quotation was preserved by the fourth-century writer Eusebius of Caesarea in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.39.15.) One need not doubt the basic reliability of this statement. Mark—almost surely to be identified with the John Mark of Acts 12:12 (see also 1 Pt 5:13)—was a disciple of Peter, and the second Gospel owes its existence, at least in part, to the apostle’s reminiscences. It does not follow, however, that one has adequately characterized Mark’s work if that is all one says. For instance, Papias’s qualification, “though not in order,” indicates that Mark did not intend to write a chronological biography. Furthermore, Papias goes on to comment (according to one interpretation of his ambiguous words) that Mark (or Peter?) adapted the material to the teaching situation and that therefore Mark is absolved from any (implied) charges of inaccuracy. It appears that from the earliest times Christians appealed to the purposes and circumstances of Mark’s writing in order to account for difficulties in harmonizing the material found in the various Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Other statements from Christian writers in the second, third, and fourth centuries seem dependent on Papias’s testimony, but some additional data they provide may possess independent value. For example, a fairly early document (date uncertain) known as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel somewhere in Italy after Peter’s death (in the mid-60s), and this testimony is considered reliable by many scholars. Still, the possibility that Mark composed his work before Peter’s martyrdom cannot be ruled out completely.<\/p>\n<p>Papias says nothing specific about <em>when<\/em> the Gospel was written. A small minority of scholars date Mark shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Another minority suggest a date in the 40s or 50s on the basis of a papyrus fragment discovered in Qumran called 7Q5. (According to José O’Callaghan, the fragment, which has been dated about <span>AD<\/span> 50–68, should be identified as Mark 6:52-53.) This fragment contains only 20 letters on one side, making the Markan reconstruction very uncertain. Few scholars are convinced that the text is Mark; some think it is part of 1 Enoch or Zechariah. An impressive majority of scholars date Mark in the 60s, with conservatives usually preferring the early years of the decade. Why this preference? If the theory of Markan priority is accepted, then clearly Mark was written before Luke; and since Luke is normally dated by conservatives about <span>AD<\/span> 62, Mark can be no later than <span>AD<\/span> 60 or 61. This line of argument, though strong, is not decisive. In the first place, Luke cannot be dated with complete certainty. Second, the view that Matthew and Luke used Mark (the working assumption of most scholars) is only a hypothesis, and one that is vigorously opposed by some writers. Third, a tradition going back to the second century (see above) asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel <em>after<\/em> Peter’s death, no earlier than <span>AD<\/span> 64. Fourth, one persuasive view regarding the occasion of this Gospel assumes that the Neronian persecution (<span>AD<\/span> 64) had begun. (According to a different view of the occasion, Mark was written after the beginning of the Jewish revolt in <span>AD<\/span> 66.) Therefore, while a date in the early 60s remains possible, it does not require committal.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the authorship of the second Gospel, there seems to be no compelling reason to deny Papias’s report that Mark (no doubt the John Mark of Acts 12:12) took down Peter’s reminiscences and that these became the basis of his work. Some scholars argue that the Gospel contains geographical inaccuracies (e.g., we have no evidence of a region called Dalmanutha, Mk 8:10) and that a native of Jerusalem such as Mark would have been more reliable in his information. However, the topographical problems in Mark, though real, need not be interpreted as inaccuracies (present ignorance of a place named Dalmanutha is hardly conclusive proof that it did not exist). Furthermore, in other respects (e.g., 14:54, 66) the Gospel reveals an impressive knowledge of local details. Many writers also point out bits of information that support a Petrine background, such as the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:30-31). In short, the internal evidence, while falling short of proof, does not at all undermine the tradition preserved by Papias. A generation ago, the trustworthiness of Papias’s testimony was almost universally accepted. This situation has changed somewhat, but even those scholars who adopt a skeptical attitude toward this tradition concede that it <em>may<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>As attention turns to the provenance of the Gospel, the task becomes more difficult. Tradition going back to the second century asserts what may be already implied by Papias—namely, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Although some scholars have suggested other possibilities, such as Galilee and Antioch, these have not proved satisfactory. Mark did spend some time in Rome, and some characteristics in the Gospel (such as Latinisms in the Greek and the explanation of Jewish customs, as in 7:3-4), while proving nothing, are certainly consonant with a Roman origin. Furthermore, one persuasive view of the occasion that gave rise to the Gospel assumes a background of persecution in Rome.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Distinctives\">Distinctives<\/p>\n<p>A number of characteristics of Mark set it apart from the other Gospels. For example, a word usually translated “immediately” occurs more than 40 times in Mark and only a dozen times in the rest of the NT. While this feature could be interpreted as a simple “mannerism,” consonant with Mark’s unpretentious, colloquial style, it certainly adds to the rapid flow of his narrative, which, dwelling more on Jesus’ activity than on his discourses (in contrast to Matthew and Luke), shifts from scene to scene with hardly a pause. Since the Gospel is also quite brief (Luke is nearly twice as long), one may wonder whether the author intended for it to be read at a sitting; even if read aloud, this would take only about one and a half hours. At any rate, there can be little doubt that the work conveys a sense of urgency.<\/p>\n<p>Other characteristics, however, prove more significant. Someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus who happened to read Mark for the first time would no doubt be taken aback by its rather abrupt beginning. After a brief clause that stands as a sort of title (1:1), Mark moves on to describe in brief the ministry of John the Baptist. Then he introduces Jesus as coming from Nazareth without telling us anything whatever of his earlier life. Furthermore, over one-third of the book (including the so-called Passion narrative) is devoted to Jesus’ last week. These and other factors lend to the work a note of mystery, accentuated by the fact that at various points Mark calls attention to the fear or amazement gripping those who came in contact with Jesus (2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6; and several other passages, especially the strange words of 10:32). In addition, if one assumes that the Gospel originally ended with 16:8, Mark wished to leave his readers with the same sense of awe that the disciples experienced at Jesus’ resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>But how does one account for this fear and amazement? Mark’s clear answer is that Jesus, though truly a man, is also divine. While Mark’s Gospel exhibits the humanity of Jesus Christ (1:41; 3:5; 8:12; 10:14), his chief emphasis is on the Lord’s deity. Indeed, Mark introduces his book by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (a phrase omitted in some manuscripts, however), a position that is recognized both by the demons (3:11; 5:7) and by God himself (9:7). What may well be the true climax of the Gospel occurs at 15:39, where Mark writes that a Gentile, a Roman centurion, upon hearing Jesus’ death cry, exclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The author organized his Gospel according to a simple plan. The first eight chapters summarize the nature of Christ’s public ministry by alternating stories that show his growing popularity with stories that stress the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. This first half of the book, while indicating some of the tensions created by Jesus’ coming, gives the basic impression of success and general optimism. A significant shift then strikes the reader toward the end of chapter 8, particularly beginning with verse 31. At Caesarea Philippi, Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and now for the first time Jesus reveals that as Messiah he must die. The disciples become perplexed and discouraged and their pessimism mounts as this thought is brought home to them repeatedly (9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:17-25). In the end they desert their master (14:50).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, this pessimistic note is anticipated in the earlier part of the Gospel at three points: 3:6 (Jesus’ enemies plot his death); 6:6 (faithlessness in Nazareth); and 8:21 (lack of understanding in the disciples). Some scholars suggest that Mark used these three verses to indicate the first three divisions of his book. In addition, other scholars note that two healings of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52) seem to provide the opening and the conclusion of a section that emphasizes the spiritual blindness of the disciples. One more structural clue is 14:1, which clearly marks out the final section of the Gospel.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OccasionPurposeTheology\">Occasion, Purpose, Theology<\/p>\n<p>A few scholars think that Mark may have been combating a heretical sect that stressed the miracles of Jesus and viewed him purely as a divine wonder-worker. Although this view has not gained acceptance as originally formulated, a number of writers do see the Gospel as a theological corrective. Ralph Martin, who links Mark very closely with Paul, suggests that the evangelist is opposing some heretical groups who have distorted Paul’s message by placing exclusive stress on Christ as a <em>heavenly<\/em> figure (cf. the views that Paul himself opposes in Colossians). Mark responds to these aberrations by emphasizing, in Martin’s words, “the paradox of Jesus’ earthly life in which suffering and vindication form a two-beat rhythm.” Even if one decides that this reconstruction, too, is rather speculative, one may nevertheless retain certain elements in it as valid.<\/p>\n<p>Other scholars, such as H. Kee, place emphasis on the apocalyptic background of Mark. Kee and others tie this element to the Jewish revolt of <span>AD<\/span> 66, but commitment to this particular historical connection is unnecessary to appreciate the great significance of Mark 13 (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse) for those original readers of the Gospel who may have been undergoing persecution.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most satisfactory reconstruction links this Gospel to the Neronian persecution in the mid-60s. Mark, for example, is the only Gospel that records that Jesus, after being driven to the wilderness, found himself in the company of wild animals (1:13). This detail, according to William Lane, “was filled with special significance for those called to enter the arena where they stood helpless in the presence of wild beasts.” This interpretation, while not without difficulties, has the advantage of accounting for most of the available data. First, it is compatible with the strong tradition that assigns the origin of Mark’s work to Rome. Second, Mark speaks distinctly to those suffering persecution by introducing them quickly to John’s imprisonment and several other details. Third, related to this is Mark’s emphasis on discipleship. Christians facing persecution must have been tempted to relax the standards (4:17-19). Fourth, given this general situation, one can hardly doubt the significance of our Lord’s apocalyptic message in chapter 13, intended to encourage the disciples in the midst of their trials by reminding them of the glory to follow. Finally, Mark’s clear concern for the Gentile mission fits in with the needs of pagan Rome. The suffering Christians cannot afford to forget the unbelieving society in which they live. In the light of this particular responsibility, Mark assures his readers of what even the Roman centurion began to recognize—surely Jesus <em>is<\/em> the Son of God (15:39).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The development of Mark’s narrative can be presented in six major divisions within a twofold structure:<\/p>\n<li>Introduction (1:1-13)<\/li>\n<li>Part I: Popularity and Opposition (1:14–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>1. Jesus’ authority and the Pharisees’ enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/li>\n<li>2. The people’s response (3:7–6:6a)<\/li>\n<li>3. The disciples’ misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/li>\n<li>Part II: Darkness and Death (8:22–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>4. The Messiah’s mission and the disciples’ blind-ness (8:22–10:52)<\/li>\n<li>5. Final ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/li>\n<li>6. The Passion narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/li>\n<li>Conclusion (16:1-8)<\/li>\n<p>Although one can hardly claim that this outline corresponds exactly to the author’s original plan (Mark may not have consciously worked out a detailed outline), the sixfold division provides a useful starting point for an interpretive summary of the contents.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Authority and the Pharisees’ Enmity (1:14–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>Immediately after the introductory portion (1:1-13), which describes John the Baptist’s ministry as well as Jesus’ baptism and temptation, Mark opens the body of the work with a summary statement (vv 14-15). In these two verses he seems to suggest that Jesus’ public ministry, characterized by the proclamation that God’s kingdom is about to be inaugurated, was occasioned by John’s imprisonment. This is followed by the call of the first disciples (vv 16-20) and then by a complex of stories (vv 21-38), all of which report incidents that took place in Capernaum, apparently within a 24-hour period: synagogue instruction followed by the healing of a demoniac; the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law; numerous other healings in the evening; prayer in a lonely place. The statement that Jesus proceeded to expand his ministry throughout the province of Galilee (v 39) is followed by the story of a leper’s cure (vv 40-45). Next are found a very important group of incidents (2:1–3:6), all of them focusing on Jesus’ conflicts with Jewish leaders: the healing and forgiveness of a paralytic; the call of Levi, whose dinner (attended by Jesus as well as by the hated tax gatherers) occasioned some disputes, particularly on the issue of fasting; and two significant stories regarding proper behavior on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<h5>The People’s Response (3:7–6:6a)<\/h5>\n<p>Mark opens this second section as he opened the first: a summary statement (Jesus’ healings by the lake—3:7-12) followed by the official appointment of 12 apostles (vv 13-19). Then follows a section that focuses on the kinds of charges brought against Jesus by his own family and by the scribes (vv 20-22), leading to a response touching on Satan, on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and on what constitutes true membership in his family (vv 23-35). Most of chapter 4 is devoted to Jesus’ parables of the kingdom—the sower, the seed growing secretly, the mustard seed—and includes statements on the nature and purpose of his teachings (4:10-12, 21-25, 33-34). In the evening Jesus and his disciples set out to cross the Sea of Galilee, leading to the stilling of the storm (vv 35-41), the healing of the Gerasene demoniac on the other side of the lake (5:1-20), and, on their return to Capernaum, the healing of a hemorrhaging woman and the raising of Jairus’s daughter (vv 21-43). The section concludes with Jesus’ visit to his hometown, Nazareth, and the rejection he suffered there (6:1-6a).<\/p>\n<h5>The Disciples’ Misunderstanding (6:6b–8:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The third section begins with two introductory passages: the sending out of the 12 (6:6b-13) and the story of John the Baptist’s death (vv 14-29). When the disciples return, Jesus determines to seek some rest, but the crowds follow them; Jesus then teaches and feeds the 5,000 (vv 30-44) and, after crossing the lake (vv 45-52, which includes Jesus’ walk over the water), he performs numerous cures in and around Gennesaret (vv 53-56). Then follows a controversy with the Pharisees regarding the hand-washing ritual (7:1-8), and this incident leads to Christ’s assertion of the authority of God’s word over human tradition (vv 9-13) and to some general instructions on true purity (vv 14-23). The next several stories describe Jesus’ withdrawal from Galilee, first to Tyre, where a gentile woman’s daughter is healed (vv 24-30), then to the Decapolis, where he cures a deaf-mute (vv 31-37) and feeds a crowd of four thousand (8:1-10). The demand of the Pharisees for a sign (vv 11-12) leads to Jesus’ warning against the “leaven” of the Pharisees, a statement misunderstood by the disciples (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Messiah’s Mission and the Disciples’ Blindness (8:22–10:52)<\/h5>\n<p>Still away from Galilee, but now in the nearby town of Bethsaida, Jesus heals a blind man (8:22-26). He then leads his disciples north toward Caesarea Philippi, which sets the stage for Peter’s confession (vv 27-30). This recognition on the part of the disciples (of whom Peter is in effect a representative) leads Jesus to prophesy his death, but Peter’s refusal to accept the prophecy calls forth a rebuke and instruction on discipleship (vv 31-38). The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Christ’s death provides the background for the Transfiguration (9:1-8), which assures Peter, John, and James that God’s kingdom will indeed come (note v 1); further, the Father himself enjoins them to believe Jesus’ prophecy (v 7). After some words about the resurrection and about the coming of Elijah (vv 9-13), Mark relates the healing of a demoniac boy (vv 14-29). Back in Galilee, a second prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 30-32) is followed, sadly, by a trivial discussion among the disciples as to who is the greatest (vv 33-37). Appropriately, one finds some further instructions concerning discipleship (vv 38-50). Mark next writes that Jesus left Galilee for the last time and began his journey toward the south. During this journey, Jesus delivered teachings on divorce and on the spiritual privileges of children (10:1-16), then met the rich young ruler (vv 17-22), an incident that leads to further words on discipleship (vv 23-31). A third prophecy of Jesus’ death (vv 32-34) is again followed by selfish behavior on the part of the disciples, in this case an ambitious request from James and John (vv 35-40). The incident produces indignation among the rest of the disciples, thus necessitating another rebuke from their master, who himself came to serve and to die (vv 41-45). The section ends as it began—by reporting the cure of a blind man, Bartimaeus of Jericho in this story (vv 46-52).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Ministry (11:1–13:37)<\/h5>\n<p>This section seems naturally to divide into three balanced subsections. The first one (11:1-26) includes three events: the Triumphal Entry, the withering of the fig tree, and the cleansing of the temple. The second subsection (11:27–12:44) is particularly important, for here is found Jesus’ final series of controversies with the Jewish leaders. The topics covered are the source of Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), the parable of the wicked husbandmen (12:1-12), the legitimacy of Caesar’s tax (vv 13-17), the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection (vv 18-27), the chief commandment (vv 28-34), and the question regarding David’s son (vv 35-37). This subsection ends with a warning against the scribes and with the story of the widow’s mite (vv 38-44). The third subsection (ch 13) is devoted completely to the Olivet discourse, with its prophecies of destruction, calamities, persecutions, deceivers, and final vindication. The discourse ends with various admonitions to keep alert.<\/p>\n<h5>The Passion Narrative (14:1–15:47)<\/h5>\n<p>This final section, which is introduced by a report of the priests’ plot (14:1-2), may be divided into two subsections. The first one relates the events leading up to Jesus’ trial (vv 3-52). They include the anointing of Jesus (vv 3-9), Judas’s betrayal (vv 10-11), the incidents connected with the Last Supper (vv 12-31), the scene at Gethsemane (vv 32-42), and the arrest (vv 43-52). The second subsection relates Jesus’ trial before the Jews (vv 53-65), Peter’s denials (vv 66-72), the trial before Pilate (15:1-15), the crucifixion (vv 16-41), and the burial (vv 42-47).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel concludes somewhat mysteriously, but no less triumphantly, with the news that Jesus has risen from the dead (16:1-8). The earliest surviving Greek manuscripts, usually regarded as the most reliable, end at verse 8; the majority of manuscripts, however, include an additional 12 verses that report Jesus’ appearances to his disciples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Mark, John; Matthew, Gospel of; Luke, Gospel of; Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","summary_en":"MARK, Gospel of Second book of the NT, probably written by John Mark of Jerusalem sometime between AD 60 and 68. Preview • Author, Date, Provenance • Distinctives • Structure • Occasion, Purpose, Theology • Content Author, Date, Provenance Our most ancient testimony about who wrote the second Gospel comes from Papias (c. 60–130), author of several expositions of Jesus’ teachings, in which he reports various traditions from “the Elder John” (possibly to be identified with the apostle John, alt...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34122,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Scribe","title_en":"Scribe","content_ro":"<h3>SCRIBE<\/h3>\n<p>Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPreexilicTimes\">Scribes in Preexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion of the term “scribe” and has no particular religious connotation. Scribes were employed to keep accounts or transcribe legal information (Jer 32:12), military data (2 Chr 26:11), other public documents (Jgs 8:14; Is 50:1), or personal correspondence (Jer 36:18). These secretaries were essential to royal administrations, and there is frequent mention of a chief scribe who functioned as a court recorder (1 Kgs 4:3; 2 Chr 24:11), adviser (2 Sm 8:16-17; 2 Kgs 18:18; 22:12; 1 Chr 27:32; Is 36:3), and financial overseer (2 Kgs 22:3-4). Secretaries or scribes were associated with the priesthood as well, serving as recorders for temple affairs (1 Chr 24:6; 2 Chr 34:13-15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPostexilicTimes\">Scribes in Postexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>With the restoration of Judaism under Ezra and Nehemiah, the term “scribe” begins to be associated more narrowly with those who gathered together, studied, and interpreted the Torah (Jewish law). They became, in essence, a separate profession of teachers (although unpaid), able to preserve accurately the law of Moses and interpret it to meet conditions in postexilic times. In this initial period, Ezra himself appears as the ideal “scribe who studied and taught the commands and laws of the <span>Lord<\/span> to Israel” (Ezr 7:11, <span>nlt<\/span>). In Ecclesiasticus, the scribe is portrayed as one who, because of his diligent study of the Law, the Prophets, and Writings (Ecclus 38:24ff; 39:1), is able to penetrate the hidden meanings of texts (39:2-3) and thus is able to serve as judge and counsel for the affairs of the people and state (38:33; 39:4-8). Because of his invaluable place in a society governed by the Torah, the scribe is worthy of praise and veneration throughout succeeding generations (39:9). By the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the scribes were a fairly distinct class in Jewish society. They appear as such during the Maccabean wars, acting as a negotiating body with the rival Syrians (1 Macc 7:12). It is also significant that, from this time forward, the history of the scribe in Jewish life is closely linked with the rise of the Pharisees. Although there were apparently some scribes affiliated with the rival Sadducean party, the party of the Pharisees, with its absolute devotion to the law (including the oral law), became the primary religiopolitical affiliation for the scribes (see the close connection in the NT: Mt 5:20; 12:38; 15:1; Mk 7:5; Lk 6:7).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrainingandStatus\">Training and Status<\/p>\n<p>The training of scribes initially occurred within priestly family-based guilds that guaranteed the regulation and perpetuation of this position (1 Chr 2:55). Later, scribal training in the law became open to members of all classes, with the eventual result, by Jesus’ time, of scribes from nonpriestly families being far more numerous and influential. Training in the law began at an early age under the personal supervision of a teacher (rabbi), who gave instructions in all matters pertaining to the law and its interpretation for present needs. Because the written law of Moses could not possibly speak directly to conditions in postexilic times, the oral interpretation and application of the written law to meet such current needs was a significant contribution by the scribes. Such oral law promulgated by them was regarded as equal to the written law and equally binding for those desiring to please God (see Mk 7:6-13). This important function, lying at the heart of Jewish life, accounts for the participation of the scribes in the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin, in order to make legal decisions in keeping with the law, obviously needed the presence of those most knowledgeable about the minutest details of the Torah and the principles governing its application to new circumstances. The scribes, consequently, were the only members outside the aristocratic high priests and elders to be represented in this Jewish supreme court (Mt 26:57; Mk 14:43, 53; Lk 22:66; Acts 23:9). Being the authoritative instructors of the law both within the temple (Lk 2:46) and within the various synagogues of Judea and Galilee (5:17), as well as prominent members of the Sanhedrin, the scribes were greatly respected within the Jewish community. They wore special robes (Mk 12:38) with memorial fringes at the bottom and phylacteries, or “prayer boxes,” hanging from the arms (Mt 23:5). Such attire made their presence obvious and occasioned the rising or bowing of the common people when they passed (Mk 12:38). They were addressed with respect as “rabbi” or “master” (Mt 23:7) and were given the place of honor at worship as well as at social affairs (Mt 23:2; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46). Indeed, the high regard the Jews held for their scribes is testified by the fact that such teachers of the law were buried alongside the tombs of the patriarchs and prophets.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheScribesinJesusDay\">The Scribes in Jesus’ Day<\/p>\n<p>The scribes appear predominantly in the ministry of Jesus as those concerned with the circumspectness of legal observance. Luke refers to the scribes as “lawyers,” thereby describing their chief function as interpreters of the Jewish law in a way that communicated to his gentile audience. It is often found, therefore, that the scribes were critical members of Jesus’ audience, accusing him of violating the law on numerous occasions: in forgiving sins (Mt 9:1-3; Lk 5:17-26), in breaking their notion of Sabbath observance through work (Lk 6:1-2) and healing (vv 6-11), in not following their accepted ceremonial washings (Mk 7:2-5), and in ignoring their practice of fasting (Lk 5:33-39). Not surprisingly, they especially disapproved of Jesus’ practice of mingling with the unclean and outcasts of Jewish society (Mk 2:16-17; Lk 15:1-2). In a similar light, they are not unfrequently found presenting questions concerning the law for the purpose of tricking Jesus (Mk 7:5; 12:28, 35; Lk 11:53; Jn 8:3-4). In a similar fashion, they demanded that Jesus make his identity clear (Mt 12:38) and reveal the source of his authority to perform miracles (Mk 3:22; Lk 20:1-4). Although there is evidence that a minority of the scribes accepted Jesus (Mt 8:19; 13:52; Mk 12:32; Jn 3:1-2), their primary attitude toward Jesus was one of hostility. As previously suggested, this was partly due to Jesus’ differing expression of fidelity to the Mosaic law and his openness toward the outcasts. It was also partly due to the rising popularity of Jesus among the people, which posed a threat to their own authority (Mt 7:29) and to the safety of the city (Mt 21:15; Mk 11:18). Certainly, another major contributing factor of their opposition to Jesus was his exposure of their hypocrisy and corruption. In his rebukes of the scribes and the Pharisees, Jesus openly accused them of catering to public approval (Mt 23:5-7; Mk 12:38-39; Lk 11:43). While appearing to be outwardly correct and holy, they were inwardly corrupt (Mt 23:25-28; Lk 11:39-41). Jesus also attacked the principle of oral law taught by the scribes, which they demanded that the people follow. Jesus charged that the oral law was a “heavy burden” that the scribes themselves did not even bother to follow (Mt 23:2-4, 13-22; Lk 11:46). While emphasizing the minor points of the law, the scribes were also guilty of ignoring the weightier concerns of justice, mercy, and faith (Mt 23:23-24; Mk 12:40; Lk 11:42). Contrary to being the descendants of the prophets, as the scribes held themselves to be, the scribes (Jesus claimed) would have killed the prophets if they had lived in their day (Mt 23:29-36; Lk 20:9-19).<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising to find, therefore, the scribes anxious to get rid of Jesus (Mk 14:1; Lk 11:53). His more flexible interpretation of the law posed a clear threat to their position and authority within the community. The scribes joined forces with their normal opponents (the high priesthood) to engineer Jesus’ arrest (Mk 14:43). When Jesus appeared before them and the rest of the Sanhedrin, they worked with the other leaders to construct a case against him worthy of death (Mt 26:57-66). When taking Jesus before Herod, they stood by and shouted their accusations with the others (Lk 23:10). Finally, they participated with other members of the Sanhedrin in mocking Jesus on the cross, demanding that Jesus save himself by coming down from the cross (Mt 27:41-43). Prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the scribes continued with the other elements of the Sanhedrin to oppose the early Christian church, and they brought about Stephen’s martyrdom (Acts 6:12-14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Judaism; Pharisees; Writer.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SCRIBE<\/h3>\n<p>Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPreexilicTimes\">Scribes in Preexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion of the term “scribe” and has no particular religious connotation. Scribes were employed to keep accounts or transcribe legal information (Jer 32:12), military data (2 Chr 26:11), other public documents (Jgs 8:14; Is 50:1), or personal correspondence (Jer 36:18). These secretaries were essential to royal administrations, and there is frequent mention of a chief scribe who functioned as a court recorder (1 Kgs 4:3; 2 Chr 24:11), adviser (2 Sm 8:16-17; 2 Kgs 18:18; 22:12; 1 Chr 27:32; Is 36:3), and financial overseer (2 Kgs 22:3-4). Secretaries or scribes were associated with the priesthood as well, serving as recorders for temple affairs (1 Chr 24:6; 2 Chr 34:13-15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPostexilicTimes\">Scribes in Postexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>With the restoration of Judaism under Ezra and Nehemiah, the term “scribe” begins to be associated more narrowly with those who gathered together, studied, and interpreted the Torah (Jewish law). They became, in essence, a separate profession of teachers (although unpaid), able to preserve accurately the law of Moses and interpret it to meet conditions in postexilic times. In this initial period, Ezra himself appears as the ideal “scribe who studied and taught the commands and laws of the <span>Lord<\/span> to Israel” (Ezr 7:11, <span>nlt<\/span>). In Ecclesiasticus, the scribe is portrayed as one who, because of his diligent study of the Law, the Prophets, and Writings (Ecclus 38:24ff; 39:1), is able to penetrate the hidden meanings of texts (39:2-3) and thus is able to serve as judge and counsel for the affairs of the people and state (38:33; 39:4-8). Because of his invaluable place in a society governed by the Torah, the scribe is worthy of praise and veneration throughout succeeding generations (39:9). By the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the scribes were a fairly distinct class in Jewish society. They appear as such during the Maccabean wars, acting as a negotiating body with the rival Syrians (1 Macc 7:12). It is also significant that, from this time forward, the history of the scribe in Jewish life is closely linked with the rise of the Pharisees. Although there were apparently some scribes affiliated with the rival Sadducean party, the party of the Pharisees, with its absolute devotion to the law (including the oral law), became the primary religiopolitical affiliation for the scribes (see the close connection in the NT: Mt 5:20; 12:38; 15:1; Mk 7:5; Lk 6:7).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrainingandStatus\">Training and Status<\/p>\n<p>The training of scribes initially occurred within priestly family-based guilds that guaranteed the regulation and perpetuation of this position (1 Chr 2:55). Later, scribal training in the law became open to members of all classes, with the eventual result, by Jesus’ time, of scribes from nonpriestly families being far more numerous and influential. Training in the law began at an early age under the personal supervision of a teacher (rabbi), who gave instructions in all matters pertaining to the law and its interpretation for present needs. Because the written law of Moses could not possibly speak directly to conditions in postexilic times, the oral interpretation and application of the written law to meet such current needs was a significant contribution by the scribes. Such oral law promulgated by them was regarded as equal to the written law and equally binding for those desiring to please God (see Mk 7:6-13). This important function, lying at the heart of Jewish life, accounts for the participation of the scribes in the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin, in order to make legal decisions in keeping with the law, obviously needed the presence of those most knowledgeable about the minutest details of the Torah and the principles governing its application to new circumstances. The scribes, consequently, were the only members outside the aristocratic high priests and elders to be represented in this Jewish supreme court (Mt 26:57; Mk 14:43, 53; Lk 22:66; Acts 23:9). Being the authoritative instructors of the law both within the temple (Lk 2:46) and within the various synagogues of Judea and Galilee (5:17), as well as prominent members of the Sanhedrin, the scribes were greatly respected within the Jewish community. They wore special robes (Mk 12:38) with memorial fringes at the bottom and phylacteries, or “prayer boxes,” hanging from the arms (Mt 23:5). Such attire made their presence obvious and occasioned the rising or bowing of the common people when they passed (Mk 12:38). They were addressed with respect as “rabbi” or “master” (Mt 23:7) and were given the place of honor at worship as well as at social affairs (Mt 23:2; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46). Indeed, the high regard the Jews held for their scribes is testified by the fact that such teachers of the law were buried alongside the tombs of the patriarchs and prophets.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheScribesinJesusDay\">The Scribes in Jesus’ Day<\/p>\n<p>The scribes appear predominantly in the ministry of Jesus as those concerned with the circumspectness of legal observance. Luke refers to the scribes as “lawyers,” thereby describing their chief function as interpreters of the Jewish law in a way that communicated to his gentile audience. It is often found, therefore, that the scribes were critical members of Jesus’ audience, accusing him of violating the law on numerous occasions: in forgiving sins (Mt 9:1-3; Lk 5:17-26), in breaking their notion of Sabbath observance through work (Lk 6:1-2) and healing (vv 6-11), in not following their accepted ceremonial washings (Mk 7:2-5), and in ignoring their practice of fasting (Lk 5:33-39). Not surprisingly, they especially disapproved of Jesus’ practice of mingling with the unclean and outcasts of Jewish society (Mk 2:16-17; Lk 15:1-2). In a similar light, they are not unfrequently found presenting questions concerning the law for the purpose of tricking Jesus (Mk 7:5; 12:28, 35; Lk 11:53; Jn 8:3-4). In a similar fashion, they demanded that Jesus make his identity clear (Mt 12:38) and reveal the source of his authority to perform miracles (Mk 3:22; Lk 20:1-4). Although there is evidence that a minority of the scribes accepted Jesus (Mt 8:19; 13:52; Mk 12:32; Jn 3:1-2), their primary attitude toward Jesus was one of hostility. As previously suggested, this was partly due to Jesus’ differing expression of fidelity to the Mosaic law and his openness toward the outcasts. It was also partly due to the rising popularity of Jesus among the people, which posed a threat to their own authority (Mt 7:29) and to the safety of the city (Mt 21:15; Mk 11:18). Certainly, another major contributing factor of their opposition to Jesus was his exposure of their hypocrisy and corruption. In his rebukes of the scribes and the Pharisees, Jesus openly accused them of catering to public approval (Mt 23:5-7; Mk 12:38-39; Lk 11:43). While appearing to be outwardly correct and holy, they were inwardly corrupt (Mt 23:25-28; Lk 11:39-41). Jesus also attacked the principle of oral law taught by the scribes, which they demanded that the people follow. Jesus charged that the oral law was a “heavy burden” that the scribes themselves did not even bother to follow (Mt 23:2-4, 13-22; Lk 11:46). While emphasizing the minor points of the law, the scribes were also guilty of ignoring the weightier concerns of justice, mercy, and faith (Mt 23:23-24; Mk 12:40; Lk 11:42). Contrary to being the descendants of the prophets, as the scribes held themselves to be, the scribes (Jesus claimed) would have killed the prophets if they had lived in their day (Mt 23:29-36; Lk 20:9-19).<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising to find, therefore, the scribes anxious to get rid of Jesus (Mk 14:1; Lk 11:53). His more flexible interpretation of the law posed a clear threat to their position and authority within the community. The scribes joined forces with their normal opponents (the high priesthood) to engineer Jesus’ arrest (Mk 14:43). When Jesus appeared before them and the rest of the Sanhedrin, they worked with the other leaders to construct a case against him worthy of death (Mt 26:57-66). When taking Jesus before Herod, they stood by and shouted their accusations with the others (Lk 23:10). Finally, they participated with other members of the Sanhedrin in mocking Jesus on the cross, demanding that Jesus save himself by coming down from the cross (Mt 27:41-43). Prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the scribes continued with the other elements of the Sanhedrin to oppose the early Christian church, and they brought about Stephen’s martyrdom (Acts 6:12-14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Judaism; Pharisees; Writer.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SCRIBE Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus. Scribes in Preexilic Times The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion...","summary_en":"SCRIBE Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus. Scribes in Preexilic Times The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55469,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:38","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:38","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:38-39<\/strong> <em>teachers of religious law:<\/em> See 1:22. The warning here is similar to the one against the Pharisees and Herod in 8:15. The scribes broke the two greatest commands (12:30-31). They broke the first command by failing to love God and failing to reserve for him alone the reverence and adoration they sought for themselves. • <em>Flowing robes<\/em> were probably the garments worn by religious men; <em>respectful greetings<\/em> perhaps meant being called “Rabbi” (see Matt 23:7). The <em>seats of honor<\/em> were in the front of the synagogue facing the congregation.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:38-39<\/strong> <em>teachers of religious law:<\/em> See 1:22. The warning here is similar to the one against the Pharisees and Herod in 8:15. The scribes broke the two greatest commands (12:30-31). They broke the first command by failing to love God and failing to reserve for him alone the reverence and adoration they sought for themselves. • <em>Flowing robes<\/em> were probably the garments worn by religious men; <em>respectful greetings<\/em> perhaps meant being called “Rabbi” (see Matt 23:7). The <em>seats of honor<\/em> were in the front of the synagogue facing the congregation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:38-39 teachers of religious law: See 1:22. The warning here is similar to the one against the Pharisees and Herod in 8:15. The scribes broke the two greatest commands (12:30-31). They broke the first command by failing to love God and failing to reserve for him alone the reverence and adoration they sought for themselves. • Flowing robes were probably the garments worn by religious men; respectful greetings perhaps meant being called “Rabbi” (see Matt 23:7). The seats of honor were in the ...","summary_en":"12:38-39 teachers of religious law: See 1:22. The warning here is similar to the one against the Pharisees and Herod in 8:15. The scribes broke the two greatest commands (12:30-31). They broke the first command by failing to love God and failing to reserve for him alone the reverence and adoration they sought for themselves. • Flowing robes were probably the garments worn by religious men; respectful greetings perhaps meant being called “Rabbi” (see Matt 23:7). The seats of honor were in the ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83095,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:38","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:38","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:38-39<\/strong> <em>teachers of religious law:<\/em> See 1:22. The warning here is similar to the one against the Pharisees and Herod in 8:15. The scribes broke the two greatest commands (12:30-31). They broke the first command by failing to love God and failing to reserve for him alone the reverence and adoration they sought for themselves. • <em>Flowing robes<\/em> were probably the garments worn by religious men; <em>respectful greetings<\/em> perhaps meant being called “Rabbi” (see Matt 23:7). The <em>seats of honor<\/em> were in the front of the synagogue facing the congregation.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:38-39<\/strong> <em>teachers of religious law:<\/em> See 1:22. The warning here is similar to the one against the Pharisees and Herod in 8:15. The scribes broke the two greatest commands (12:30-31). They broke the first command by failing to love God and failing to reserve for him alone the reverence and adoration they sought for themselves. • <em>Flowing robes<\/em> were probably the garments worn by religious men; <em>respectful greetings<\/em> perhaps meant being called “Rabbi” (see Matt 23:7). The <em>seats of honor<\/em> were in the front of the synagogue facing the congregation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:38-39 teachers of religious law: See 1:22. The warning here is similar to the one against the Pharisees and Herod in 8:15. The scribes broke the two greatest commands (12:30-31). They broke the first command by failing to love God and failing to reserve for him alone the reverence and adoration they sought for themselves. • Flowing robes were probably the garments worn by religious men; respectful greetings perhaps meant being called “Rabbi” (see Matt 23:7). The seats of honor were in the ...","summary_en":"12:38-39 teachers of religious law: See 1:22. The warning here is similar to the one against the Pharisees and Herod in 8:15. The scribes broke the two greatest commands (12:30-31). They broke the first command by failing to love God and failing to reserve for him alone the reverence and adoration they sought for themselves. • Flowing robes were probably the garments worn by religious men; respectful greetings perhaps meant being called “Rabbi” (see Matt 23:7). The seats of honor were in the ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110721,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:38","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:38","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:38-39<\/strong> <em>teachers of religious law:<\/em> See 1:22. The warning here is similar to the one against the Pharisees and Herod in 8:15. The scribes broke the two greatest commands (12:30-31). They broke the first command by failing to love God and failing to reserve for him alone the reverence and adoration they sought for themselves. • <em>Flowing robes<\/em> were probably the garments worn by religious men; <em>respectful greetings<\/em> perhaps meant being called “Rabbi” (see Matt 23:7). The <em>seats of honor<\/em> were in the front of the synagogue facing the congregation.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:38-39<\/strong> <em>teachers of religious law:<\/em> See 1:22. The warning here is similar to the one against the Pharisees and Herod in 8:15. The scribes broke the two greatest commands (12:30-31). They broke the first command by failing to love God and failing to reserve for him alone the reverence and adoration they sought for themselves. • <em>Flowing robes<\/em> were probably the garments worn by religious men; <em>respectful greetings<\/em> perhaps meant being called “Rabbi” (see Matt 23:7). The <em>seats of honor<\/em> were in the front of the synagogue facing the congregation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:38-39 teachers of religious law: See 1:22. The warning here is similar to the one against the Pharisees and Herod in 8:15. The scribes broke the two greatest commands (12:30-31). They broke the first command by failing to love God and failing to reserve for him alone the reverence and adoration they sought for themselves. • Flowing robes were probably the garments worn by religious men; respectful greetings perhaps meant being called “Rabbi” (see Matt 23:7). The seats of honor were in the ...","summary_en":"12:38-39 teachers of religious law: See 1:22. The warning here is similar to the one against the Pharisees and Herod in 8:15. The scribes broke the two greatest commands (12:30-31). They broke the first command by failing to love God and failing to reserve for him alone the reverence and adoration they sought for themselves. • Flowing robes were probably the garments worn by religious men; respectful greetings perhaps meant being called “Rabbi” (see Matt 23:7). The seats of honor were in the ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138347,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:38","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:38","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:38-39<\/strong> <em>teachers of religious law:<\/em> See 1:22. The warning here is similar to the one against the Pharisees and Herod in 8:15. The scribes broke the two greatest commands (12:30-31). They broke the first command by failing to love God and failing to reserve for him alone the reverence and adoration they sought for themselves. • <em>Flowing robes<\/em> were probably the garments worn by religious men; <em>respectful greetings<\/em> perhaps meant being called “Rabbi” (see Matt 23:7). The <em>seats of honor<\/em> were in the front of the synagogue facing the congregation.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:38-39<\/strong> <em>teachers of religious law:<\/em> See 1:22. The warning here is similar to the one against the Pharisees and Herod in 8:15. The scribes broke the two greatest commands (12:30-31). They broke the first command by failing to love God and failing to reserve for him alone the reverence and adoration they sought for themselves. • <em>Flowing robes<\/em> were probably the garments worn by religious men; <em>respectful greetings<\/em> perhaps meant being called “Rabbi” (see Matt 23:7). The <em>seats of honor<\/em> were in the front of the synagogue facing the congregation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:38-39 teachers of religious law: See 1:22. The warning here is similar to the one against the Pharisees and Herod in 8:15. The scribes broke the two greatest commands (12:30-31). They broke the first command by failing to love God and failing to reserve for him alone the reverence and adoration they sought for themselves. • Flowing robes were probably the garments worn by religious men; respectful greetings perhaps meant being called “Rabbi” (see Matt 23:7). The seats of honor were in the ...","summary_en":"12:38-39 teachers of religious law: See 1:22. The warning here is similar to the one against the Pharisees and Herod in 8:15. The scribes broke the two greatest commands (12:30-31). They broke the first command by failing to love God and failing to reserve for him alone the reverence and adoration they sought for themselves. • Flowing robes were probably the garments worn by religious men; respectful greetings perhaps meant being called “Rabbi” (see Matt 23:7). The seats of honor were in the ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"39":[{"id":12228,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Feasts and Festivals of Israel","title_en":"Feasts and Festivals of Israel","content_ro":"<h3>FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL<\/h3>\n<p>Occasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion.<\/p>\n\n<p>In contemporary usage “festival” usually refers to activities extending over a period of time, while “feast” indicates one part of the celebration, often a meal. However, in religious usage, both ancient and modern, the two words are used interchangeably. The ancient Hebrews employed the words <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mo’ed<\/span> (“seasons”) and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hag<\/span> for their great public celebrations, while feasts of a more private nature were commonly described by the term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mishteh<\/span><em>.<\/em> The majority of English translations of Scripture do not differentiate between these words.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FeastsandTheirFunctions\">Feasts and Their Functions<\/p>\n<p>Each festival places great emphasis on community participation and on the continuity of social or religious tradition, especially where the celebrations are elements of a regular civil or religious calendar. Without community backing, even in a family celebration, no festival can be successful. When there is communal participation, a festival can reinforce the individual and community memory of specific occasions, and can perpetuate that store of recollection over years and generations. Such shared memory has a cohesive effect upon a cooperating community, large or small, and serves to establish the traditions by which the group lives. If the festival commemorates a particular event or celebrates some lofty ideal, that theme becomes more firmly embedded in the minds of the participants by being associated repeatedly with the rites and ceremonies performed. The feasts of the ancient Hebrews had this positive function. The great festivals of their religious calendar commemorated specific occasions when God had reached out in power to intervene for his people or had provided for them in their distress. By celebrating these feasts on a regular basis, the Hebrews continually affirmed that their God had directed their destiny. Their repeated rehearsal of God’s help and love for them reminded them that he was still able to sustain them. Especially in times of hardship, it pointed to the reality of God’s presence and activity among them. Faith sustained by this means furnished an invaluable spiritual dimension to the life of the nation and provided a sense of continuity under divine provision and guidance. Only when corrupt or pagan elements were introduced into festive occasions did this important ingredient of national life begin to lose its vitality.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentFestivals\">Old Testament Festivals<\/p>\n<h5>General Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>These occasions were surprisingly numerous in Israel, considering the rather austere mode of life reflected in much of the OT. No doubt such celebrations offset or compensated for the hardships and insecurities of existence in the ancient Near East, and the Israelites made the most of every opportunity. A wedding was one of the most obvious occasions for celebration, and it is not surprising that a feast was prepared for the marriage of Rachel and Jacob (Gn 29:22) in which the whole neighborhood participated. Just how long this particular feast lasted is unknown, but some marriage festivals continued for a week, as in the case of the marriage between Samson and the woman of Timnah (Jgs 14:17). Wine that makes glad man’s heart (Ps 104:15) was consumed freely on such occasions.<\/p>\n<p>Birthdays were often observed in a festive spirit, especially where a royal person was concerned (Gn 40:20). Solomon’s dream was commemorated with a feast provided for his servants (1 Kgs 3:15), and when the temple was dedicated, the occasion was celebrated for a full week (8:65). Kings and queens held feasts periodically to mark certain occasions or to express goodwill (cf. Est 1:3; 2:18; 5:4, 14; 7:2, 7; Dn 5:1). Herdsmen traditionally made a feast for the shearing of the first sheep (Dt 18:4).<\/p>\n<h5>Preexilic Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>In addition to the general festivals, which were frequently of a secular nature, communal feasts were prescribed for the Israelites that had a specifically spiritual significance. They were meant to emphasize the activity of God on behalf of his people and to remind them that continued divine blessing depended upon their obedience to his will. The catalog of festivals in Leviticus 23:2 began with an injunction to observe the Sabbath. The seventh day, in which God ceased from creating (Gn 2:3), was holy, though it is difficult to determine the extent to which it was kept until the time of Moses (Ex 20:8-11). From that time on, Sabbath observance stressed refraining from all work so as to commemorate properly God’s own rest from creative activity (31:17) and his deliverance of his people from bondage in Egypt (Dt 5:12-15). Sabbath celebration was the sign of a special relationship between God and the Israelites. During this 24-hour period, even trivial tasks like making a fire (Ex 35:3) or gathering wood (Nm 15:32-33) were prohibited on pain of death. Journeys of any distance also came under the Sabbath ban (Ex 16:29). Special offerings were part of the observance (Nm 28:9-10), and the bread of the Presence was replaced in the tabernacle (Lv 24:5-8). Despite the restrictions on activity, the Sabbath was meant to symbolize a time of happiness and security in the presence of God (cf. Is 58:13-14), since its observance would bring blessing to the individual and to the whole land.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the New Moon<\/h6>\n<p>The new moon was a monthly celebration based on the lunar calendar. It was especially appropriate for an agricultural people, since everyone could tell when the moon was new. Special offerings were prescribed for this festival, consisting of a burnt sacrifice, a grain offering, and a drink offering (Nm 28:11-15). In addition, a male goat was sacrificed to God as a sin offering, and trumpet blasts were sounded over the sacrificial offerings as a memorial before God (10:10). The sacrifices prescribed for the new moon festival were significantly greater than those required in Numbers 28:9-10 for the weekly Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>This lunar feast was popular throughout Israelite history. During the monarchy, the Levites were required to assist the Aaronic priests at the new moon festival, as well as on the Sabbath (1 Chr 23:29-31). The preexilic prophets may well have taken advantage of the large gatherings to give guidance to the people or proclaim prophetic oracles (cf. 2 Kgs 4:23), though to what extent this was done is uncertain. Not everyone found the period of rest and celebration valuable, however, and Amos (Am 8:5) complained about those avaricious Israelites who felt that such observances interfered with the business of making a living. The feast could not be observed when the Judeans were in exile in Babylonia (cf. Hos 2:11), but under Ezra and Nehemiah, its observance was restored (Neh 10:33). In Isaiah 66:22-23 it was related to Israel’s final destiny and was an accepted part of the ordinances for Ezekiel’s ideal temple (Ez 45:17).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the festival was to enhance the unity of national life by reminding the Israelites that God’s covenant with their ancestors was permanent and still binding upon the nation. It also stressed the loving nature and providence of a God who could begin such a relationship and carry out his promises with complete faithfulness (cf. Ps 104:19).<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Trumpets<\/h6>\n<p>The Festival of Trumpets was celebrated on the first day of the seventh new moon. This month, subsequently named Tishri, was especially holy, and for this reason was governed by certain regulations different from those of ordinary new moon festivals. The trumpets were blown on the first day (Lv 23:24) as the animal and cereal sacrifices were offered. From Numbers 29:2-6 it appears that the offerings required for this particular feast exceeded those prescribed for normal Sabbath sacrifice, but were somewhat less than those required for the regular new moon festival (cf. Nm 28:11). This feast was to be observed as a day of solemn rest and as a holy convocation, and the trumpets were sounded as a triumphant memorial to God’s great provision for his people through the Sinai covenant.<\/p>\n<p>The seventh month was particularly sacred, partly because of its place in the hallowed cycle of sevens, but also because the Day of Atonement (or Yom Kippur) and the Feast of Tabernacles, or Booths (Shelters), occurred during this period. The latter feast followed the Day of Atonement by some five days (Lv 23:33), and its joyful character served to offset somewhat the solemnity of the annual penitential occasion when the nation confessed its collective sins and saw them banished symbolically into the wilderness as the scapegoat was driven from the congregation.<\/p>\n<h6>The Sabbatical Year<\/h6>\n<p>Another festival closely connected with the institution of the Sabbath was the sabbatical year. At the end of each cycle of six years, the following 12 months were observed as a “sabbath of rest for the land.” During this interval, the ground was to lie fallow (Ex 23:11) without any form of cultivation, and whatever sprouted and grew from it naturally was assigned to the poor and needy (Lv 25:6). This provision for the land itself constituted one of the most important ecological principles of Scripture. Like God’s people, the land was holy, and just as they needed to have regular intervals of rest from daily work in order to regain their energy and spiritual vitality through worship, so the ground needed to rest and recuperate from the strain of constant cultivation. The festival reminded the Israelites that the land on which they lived had been given to them by God in fulfillment of his covenant undertaking to provide richly for their physical needs (cf. Dt 8:7-10). To keep the Israelites from experiencing any shortages or other hardships during the Year of Sabbath, God promised that in the year immediately preceding the sabbatical period, the land would bear fruit to suffice for the next three years (Lv 25:21). This assurance was based upon the experience of the wilderness wanderings, when on the sixth day of the week sufficient manna appeared to last through the Sabbath (Ex 16:5).<\/p>\n<p>In this festival period, God’s absolute claim over the land was reaffirmed (cf. Lv 25:23), and the faith of the nation in God’s ability to provide for future needs was reinforced. The provisions that freed the land for a year from agricultural bondage were paralleled in the seventh year of rest by those requiring liberation of slaves and debtors. These underprivileged members of society were to be released from their obligations of servitude. As a result, men and women who had become slaves for one reason or another were given personal liberty (Ex 21:2-6), and under proclamation of the Lord’s release, the provisions applying to debt were rescinded (Dt 15:1-6). The sabbatical year seems to have been a regular part of preexilic Israelite life, although some abuses were noted in Jeremiah 34:8-22. There the prophet took advantage of the opportunity presented to instruct the people in the nature and purpose of the sabbatical year ordinance. He also warned the wayward Judeans that because they had disobeyed the commands of God in denying proper liberty to their slaves, they would have their own freedom taken away in a far more serious manner by being carried captive to Babylonia after seeing their land destroyed. The lesson was not lost upon those who returned from exile, for under the administration of Nehemiah, the Jews bound themselves by a covenant to observe the principle of the sabbatical year (Neh 10:31). This undertaking evidently took its impetus from the reading of the law of Moses at the Feast of Booths (Shelters), which coincidentally occurred at the beginning of the sabbatical year (Neh 8:13-18).<\/p>\n<h6>Jubilee<\/h6>\n<p>Still another feast based on the principle of the sabbath was the Year of Jubilee, or Pentecostal year (Lv 25:8-55; 27:17-24). As the sabbatical year was related to the concept of the seventh day, so the Pentecostal (50th) year marked the completion of a cycle of seven sabbatical years. The commencement of a jubilee year was proclaimed on the Day of Atonement throughout the land by means of trumpet blasts (Lv 25:9). The activities that took place during the Pentecostal year were similar to those prescribed for the sabbatical year. A special feature was that land that had been sold during the preceding 49 years was returned to its original owners, a procedure that sometimes involved financial adjustments. To prevent abuse of the process through opportunism or speculation, the Hebrews were instructed to deal fairly and honestly with one another in the fear of God, who was the real owner of the land (Lv 25:14-17). As with the sabbatical year, God promised to make provision before the jubilee year so that no one would suffer hardship. It was during the Year of Jubilee that those who were slaves in Hebrew households were given their liberty, so that everyone in the land would commence a new cycle of sabbatical years on the same footing, as free persons under God.<\/p>\n<h5>Seasonal Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>Three annual festivals that followed the seasons of the year rather than phases of the moon furnished important occasions for commemorating God’s power and provision in national life. These festivals were designated by the term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hag<\/span><em>,<\/em> indicating a festival usually observed by some sort of pilgrimage. These three festivals were prescribed in Exodus 23:14-17 and Deuteronomy 16:16, and consisted of the Feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), and the Festival of Booths (Tabernacles). On these occasions, all the males of Israel were commanded to make pilgrimage to the sanctuary and celebrate these festivals (Ex 12:14). The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were originally separate ordinances, but since the latter always followed immediately upon the Passover rite, they naturally blended into a single festival.<\/p>\n<h6>Passover<\/h6>\n<p>The Passover was of supreme theological significance for the Israelites, since it marked one of the most momentous acts of divine intervention in their history, the beginning of their deliverance from bondage in Egypt when, in the final plague, God destroyed the firstborn of the Egyptians but spared those Israelites whose homes had blood smeared on the doorposts (Ex 12:11-30). God commanded that the day was to be observed as a memorial feast (v 14), and the next Passover celebration occurred in the Sinai Desert (Nm 9:1-5). In the Hebrew calendar the Passover festival came in the first month, called Abib in Deuteronomy 16:1, but known after the exile as Nisan (cf. Neh 2:1). The Passover rite took place the 14th evening (Lv 23:5), and this was followed by a seven-day period during which nothing leavened was to be eaten. The principle for removing all leaven from bread was similar to that underlying the draining of blood from animal flesh. Both leaven and blood had quickening power and were to be kept separate as an offering to God. The first and seventh days of this period were marked by a holy assembly, during which the only work permitted was the preparation of food (Ex 12:16). This period when unleavened bread was eaten was described as a festival because it opened the seven-week period of grain harvest (Dt 16:9). During this feast, special burnt sacrifices were offered, followed with a sheaf of newly harvested barley at the Feast of Firstfruits. By NT times the festivals of Passover and Unleavened Bread were well-attended celebrations and were known as the “days of unleavened bread” (Lk 22:1; Acts 12:3). The theme of Israel’s deliverance from the power of Egypt by divine intervention assured the Israelites that God was always ready to act on behalf of a faithful and obedient covenant people. It also reminded them that they had once been slaves (Dt 16:12). In Israelite life the early Passover and Unleavened Bread observances were comparatively simple in character, but during the monarchy more elaborate Passover rituals came into use (cf. 2 Kgs 23:21-23; 2 Chr 35:1-19).<\/p>\n<h6>Pentecost<\/h6>\n<p>The second great festival, Pentecost (or Weeks) lasted one day only and was observed on the 50th day after the newly harvested barley sheaf had been waved before the Lord at the end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Dt 16:9-12). The festival marked the end of the barley harvest and the beginning of the wheat harvest, the beginning of the period when firstfruits could be offered (cf. Ex 23:16; 34:22; Nm 28:26). The feast day was marked by the presentation of two wheat-flour loaves along with sacrifices of seven lambs, two rams, and a bull (Lv 23:15-20). Freewill gifts to God were presented to reflect gratitude for his blessings, and the entire occasion was one of communal rejoicing (Dt 16:10-11). Since Pentecost was essentially a harvest festival (Ex 23:16), the Israelites were called on to recognize that they depended entirely upon God for their material prosperity. In Deuteronomy 26, specific instructions were given for the ritual of presenting firstfruits from the harvest. It comprised a great confession of faith set within the framework of Israel’s history, and it recounted God’s deliverance of the nation from Egyptian oppression and his provision of a land that could amply supply the needs of his people.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of Tabernacles<\/h6>\n<p>This festival, known variously as the Feast of Booths, Tabernacles, Shelters (Lv 23:34; Dt 16:13), or Ingathering (Ex 34:22), was the third great occasion that all Hebrew males were required to observe annually. It began on the 15th day of the seventh month (Tishri), shortly after the observance of the Day of Atonement, which fell on the 10th day. The Feast of Booths lasted for one week and involved pilgrimage. It was associated initially with the end of the year (Ex 34:22), when the agricultural work had been completed. The first day was marked by a symbolic cessation from all activity, after which burnt offerings were presented to the Lord. The eighth day was also one on which the congregation of Israel abstained from manual work and again offered burnt sacrifices. Leviticus 23:39-43 furnished details for the rituals that gave the festival its special name of booths or shelters or tabernacles. The fruit of “goodly trees” was to be gathered on the first day of the feast, along with palm fronds, willow branches, and boughs from trees in full leaf. From these, rough shelters or booths were to be constructed in which the people lived for the week of the feast. Every seventh year the observances were marked by a public recital of the covenant provisions to which the Israelites under Moses had committed themselves, a procedure designed to keep fresh in their minds the obligations as well as the blessings of the covenant relationship. A particularly significant observance of the Feast of Tabernacles took place in the time of Ezra, when the Judean community returned from Babylon—a celebration of a kind unknown for centuries (Neh 8:13-18). From the context it appears that observance of the feast had lapsed during the monarchy. The feast at Shiloh where Hannah was mistaken for a drunken woman and the feast referred to in Judges 21:19 were evidently the Feast of Booths. In a prophetic vision in which he saw all nations coming to Jerusalem to observe the Festival of Booths, Zechariah warned that those who did not continue this tradition could expect hardship and shortages of food (Zec 14:16-19).<\/p>\n<h5>Postexilic Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>There are a few minor festivals that were created in the period after the Jews returned from exile; some of these festivals had their origin in specific historical occasions.<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Purim<\/h6>\n<p>The Festival of Purim, also known as the Festival of Lots, was a joyful occasion occurring on the 14th day of the 12th month (Adar). It celebrated the way in which Esther and Mordecai were used by God to deliver his people in the Persian Empire from extermination by Haman (Est 9:21, 24-28). The feast was observed on the 14th day of Adar by those living in villages, and on the 15th by the inhabitants of walled towns and cities. The explanation of the name of the festival is given in Esther 9:24-26, and its observance reminded the Hebrews of God’s ability to save them during a time of anti-Semitic activity in Persia. The deliverance memorialized in this festival has consoled the Jews on other occasions when they have suffered persecution. Traditionally the scroll of Esther was read aloud in the synagogue on the evening before the feast, and there was a great outcry, especially among the children present, whenever the names of the hated Haman and his sons were mentioned.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the Dedication of the Temple<\/h6>\n<p>Another joyous festival that lasted for eight days was the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple (1 Macc 4:52-59; 2 Macc 10:6-8), familiar to modern readers as Hanukkah, or the Festival of Lights. The specific dedication that prompted the feast occurred in 164 <span>BC<\/span>, when Judas Maccabeus reconsecrated the temple in Jerusalem after it had been defiled by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The celebrations commenced on the 25th day of the ninth month (Kislev) and were marked at night by blazing lights and lanterns. The stories of brave opposition by the Maccabees to the crushing forces of paganism were recounted, and the feast was one of praise to God for his marvelous deliverance of the Jews during the Maccabean period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentFestivals\">New Testament Festivals<\/p>\n<p>In Christ’s time the Sabbath was observed rigorously and was the occasion for synagogue worship (cf. Lk 4:16; Acts 13:14; 18:4). Pharisaic law prohibited all work, and Jesus came into conflict with the authorities periodically for breaches of the Sabbath regulations (cf. Mt 12:1-4; Mk 3:1-5; Lk 13:10-17). In the primitive church, worship occurred on “the first day of the week” (i.e., Sunday) to commemorate Christ’s resurrection. The early Christians initially participated in Jewish ceremonies (cf. Acts 20:16; 1 Cor 16:8). It was during the Feast of Pentecost, after Christ’s resurrection and ascension, that the Spirit was poured out (Acts 2:1-4), fulfilling Joel 2:28-32 and commencing the history of the Christian church as such.<\/p>\n<p>The Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread were of great significance in the life of Christ (cf. Jn 4:45; 5:1; 6:4; 12:1-26), for the occasion was a very popular one in NT times (cf. 12:20). On the Passover, Pilate had instituted the custom of clemency to a prisoner nominated by the populace (Mt 27:15; Mk 15:6). Jesus participated actively in the Passover rituals (cf. Lk 2:42; Jn 2:13; 6:4). The Last Supper with his disciples occurred just prior to the Passover (Jn 13:1), when Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus to the Pharisees (Lk 22:4-6). The breaking of bread and the drinking of wine at that Passover celebration (Mk 14:22-25) were related directly to Christ’s forthcoming death on the cross in a sacramental manner. Christ’s disciples were instructed to observe this rite as a memorial of his suffering and death for human sin (1 Cor 11:24-26) and as a proclamation of the power of the cross until the Lord returns in glory. Some scholars have suggested that Christ was actually hanging on the cross when the Passover lamb was being slaughtered, and if that chronology is correct, it would represent Jesus graphically as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29, <span>rsv<\/span>). Jesus was also present once when the Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated (7:10). In his day water was carried in procession from the pool of Siloam as an offering to God, and the ceremony most probably prompted Christ’s discourse on living water and eternal life (vv 37-39). On at least one occasion Jesus was in Jerusalem when the Festival of Lights occurred (Jn 10:22) and narrowly missed death by stoning.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was entertained occasionally at private feasts (cf. Lk 5:29), and once remedied an emergency situation when the wine ran out at a wedding ceremony (Jn 2:8-10). He was critical of the Pharisees for securing the chief seats at feasts (Mt 23:6; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46) and taught that festivals ought to benefit the poor (Lk 14:13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SymbolismofFeasts\">Symbolism of Feasts<\/p>\n<p>Many aspects of the ancient Hebrew feasts were interpreted symbolically in the early church. Paul regarded the earliest Hebrew Christians as the firstfruits of the Israel of God (Rom 11:16). In Romans 8:23, the Holy Spirit as possessed by Christians was regarded as only a token of what was to come, and as such was the firstfruit of the Spirit. Christians themselves were described in James 1:18 as the firstfruits of God’s creatures who were brought forth by the Word of Truth. The resurrection of Jesus was considered by Paul to be the firstfruits of those who slept (1 Cor 15:20, 23). In an allusion to OT festivals, Paul spoke of the Sabbaths, new moons, and feasts as merely being a shadow of good things to come (Col 2:16-17). The Passover was used figuratively to emphasize that Christ our Passover Lamb had been sacrificed for us. Believers were urged to keep the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, and not with the old leaven of malice and evil (1 Cor 5:7-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Calendars, Ancient and Modern; Offerings and Sacrifices; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL<\/h3>\n<p>Occasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion.<\/p>\n\n<p>In contemporary usage “festival” usually refers to activities extending over a period of time, while “feast” indicates one part of the celebration, often a meal. However, in religious usage, both ancient and modern, the two words are used interchangeably. The ancient Hebrews employed the words <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mo’ed<\/span> (“seasons”) and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hag<\/span> for their great public celebrations, while feasts of a more private nature were commonly described by the term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mishteh<\/span><em>.<\/em> The majority of English translations of Scripture do not differentiate between these words.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FeastsandTheirFunctions\">Feasts and Their Functions<\/p>\n<p>Each festival places great emphasis on community participation and on the continuity of social or religious tradition, especially where the celebrations are elements of a regular civil or religious calendar. Without community backing, even in a family celebration, no festival can be successful. When there is communal participation, a festival can reinforce the individual and community memory of specific occasions, and can perpetuate that store of recollection over years and generations. Such shared memory has a cohesive effect upon a cooperating community, large or small, and serves to establish the traditions by which the group lives. If the festival commemorates a particular event or celebrates some lofty ideal, that theme becomes more firmly embedded in the minds of the participants by being associated repeatedly with the rites and ceremonies performed. The feasts of the ancient Hebrews had this positive function. The great festivals of their religious calendar commemorated specific occasions when God had reached out in power to intervene for his people or had provided for them in their distress. By celebrating these feasts on a regular basis, the Hebrews continually affirmed that their God had directed their destiny. Their repeated rehearsal of God’s help and love for them reminded them that he was still able to sustain them. Especially in times of hardship, it pointed to the reality of God’s presence and activity among them. Faith sustained by this means furnished an invaluable spiritual dimension to the life of the nation and provided a sense of continuity under divine provision and guidance. Only when corrupt or pagan elements were introduced into festive occasions did this important ingredient of national life begin to lose its vitality.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentFestivals\">Old Testament Festivals<\/p>\n<h5>General Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>These occasions were surprisingly numerous in Israel, considering the rather austere mode of life reflected in much of the OT. No doubt such celebrations offset or compensated for the hardships and insecurities of existence in the ancient Near East, and the Israelites made the most of every opportunity. A wedding was one of the most obvious occasions for celebration, and it is not surprising that a feast was prepared for the marriage of Rachel and Jacob (Gn 29:22) in which the whole neighborhood participated. Just how long this particular feast lasted is unknown, but some marriage festivals continued for a week, as in the case of the marriage between Samson and the woman of Timnah (Jgs 14:17). Wine that makes glad man’s heart (Ps 104:15) was consumed freely on such occasions.<\/p>\n<p>Birthdays were often observed in a festive spirit, especially where a royal person was concerned (Gn 40:20). Solomon’s dream was commemorated with a feast provided for his servants (1 Kgs 3:15), and when the temple was dedicated, the occasion was celebrated for a full week (8:65). Kings and queens held feasts periodically to mark certain occasions or to express goodwill (cf. Est 1:3; 2:18; 5:4, 14; 7:2, 7; Dn 5:1). Herdsmen traditionally made a feast for the shearing of the first sheep (Dt 18:4).<\/p>\n<h5>Preexilic Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>In addition to the general festivals, which were frequently of a secular nature, communal feasts were prescribed for the Israelites that had a specifically spiritual significance. They were meant to emphasize the activity of God on behalf of his people and to remind them that continued divine blessing depended upon their obedience to his will. The catalog of festivals in Leviticus 23:2 began with an injunction to observe the Sabbath. The seventh day, in which God ceased from creating (Gn 2:3), was holy, though it is difficult to determine the extent to which it was kept until the time of Moses (Ex 20:8-11). From that time on, Sabbath observance stressed refraining from all work so as to commemorate properly God’s own rest from creative activity (31:17) and his deliverance of his people from bondage in Egypt (Dt 5:12-15). Sabbath celebration was the sign of a special relationship between God and the Israelites. During this 24-hour period, even trivial tasks like making a fire (Ex 35:3) or gathering wood (Nm 15:32-33) were prohibited on pain of death. Journeys of any distance also came under the Sabbath ban (Ex 16:29). Special offerings were part of the observance (Nm 28:9-10), and the bread of the Presence was replaced in the tabernacle (Lv 24:5-8). Despite the restrictions on activity, the Sabbath was meant to symbolize a time of happiness and security in the presence of God (cf. Is 58:13-14), since its observance would bring blessing to the individual and to the whole land.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the New Moon<\/h6>\n<p>The new moon was a monthly celebration based on the lunar calendar. It was especially appropriate for an agricultural people, since everyone could tell when the moon was new. Special offerings were prescribed for this festival, consisting of a burnt sacrifice, a grain offering, and a drink offering (Nm 28:11-15). In addition, a male goat was sacrificed to God as a sin offering, and trumpet blasts were sounded over the sacrificial offerings as a memorial before God (10:10). The sacrifices prescribed for the new moon festival were significantly greater than those required in Numbers 28:9-10 for the weekly Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>This lunar feast was popular throughout Israelite history. During the monarchy, the Levites were required to assist the Aaronic priests at the new moon festival, as well as on the Sabbath (1 Chr 23:29-31). The preexilic prophets may well have taken advantage of the large gatherings to give guidance to the people or proclaim prophetic oracles (cf. 2 Kgs 4:23), though to what extent this was done is uncertain. Not everyone found the period of rest and celebration valuable, however, and Amos (Am 8:5) complained about those avaricious Israelites who felt that such observances interfered with the business of making a living. The feast could not be observed when the Judeans were in exile in Babylonia (cf. Hos 2:11), but under Ezra and Nehemiah, its observance was restored (Neh 10:33). In Isaiah 66:22-23 it was related to Israel’s final destiny and was an accepted part of the ordinances for Ezekiel’s ideal temple (Ez 45:17).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the festival was to enhance the unity of national life by reminding the Israelites that God’s covenant with their ancestors was permanent and still binding upon the nation. It also stressed the loving nature and providence of a God who could begin such a relationship and carry out his promises with complete faithfulness (cf. Ps 104:19).<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Trumpets<\/h6>\n<p>The Festival of Trumpets was celebrated on the first day of the seventh new moon. This month, subsequently named Tishri, was especially holy, and for this reason was governed by certain regulations different from those of ordinary new moon festivals. The trumpets were blown on the first day (Lv 23:24) as the animal and cereal sacrifices were offered. From Numbers 29:2-6 it appears that the offerings required for this particular feast exceeded those prescribed for normal Sabbath sacrifice, but were somewhat less than those required for the regular new moon festival (cf. Nm 28:11). This feast was to be observed as a day of solemn rest and as a holy convocation, and the trumpets were sounded as a triumphant memorial to God’s great provision for his people through the Sinai covenant.<\/p>\n<p>The seventh month was particularly sacred, partly because of its place in the hallowed cycle of sevens, but also because the Day of Atonement (or Yom Kippur) and the Feast of Tabernacles, or Booths (Shelters), occurred during this period. The latter feast followed the Day of Atonement by some five days (Lv 23:33), and its joyful character served to offset somewhat the solemnity of the annual penitential occasion when the nation confessed its collective sins and saw them banished symbolically into the wilderness as the scapegoat was driven from the congregation.<\/p>\n<h6>The Sabbatical Year<\/h6>\n<p>Another festival closely connected with the institution of the Sabbath was the sabbatical year. At the end of each cycle of six years, the following 12 months were observed as a “sabbath of rest for the land.” During this interval, the ground was to lie fallow (Ex 23:11) without any form of cultivation, and whatever sprouted and grew from it naturally was assigned to the poor and needy (Lv 25:6). This provision for the land itself constituted one of the most important ecological principles of Scripture. Like God’s people, the land was holy, and just as they needed to have regular intervals of rest from daily work in order to regain their energy and spiritual vitality through worship, so the ground needed to rest and recuperate from the strain of constant cultivation. The festival reminded the Israelites that the land on which they lived had been given to them by God in fulfillment of his covenant undertaking to provide richly for their physical needs (cf. Dt 8:7-10). To keep the Israelites from experiencing any shortages or other hardships during the Year of Sabbath, God promised that in the year immediately preceding the sabbatical period, the land would bear fruit to suffice for the next three years (Lv 25:21). This assurance was based upon the experience of the wilderness wanderings, when on the sixth day of the week sufficient manna appeared to last through the Sabbath (Ex 16:5).<\/p>\n<p>In this festival period, God’s absolute claim over the land was reaffirmed (cf. Lv 25:23), and the faith of the nation in God’s ability to provide for future needs was reinforced. The provisions that freed the land for a year from agricultural bondage were paralleled in the seventh year of rest by those requiring liberation of slaves and debtors. These underprivileged members of society were to be released from their obligations of servitude. As a result, men and women who had become slaves for one reason or another were given personal liberty (Ex 21:2-6), and under proclamation of the Lord’s release, the provisions applying to debt were rescinded (Dt 15:1-6). The sabbatical year seems to have been a regular part of preexilic Israelite life, although some abuses were noted in Jeremiah 34:8-22. There the prophet took advantage of the opportunity presented to instruct the people in the nature and purpose of the sabbatical year ordinance. He also warned the wayward Judeans that because they had disobeyed the commands of God in denying proper liberty to their slaves, they would have their own freedom taken away in a far more serious manner by being carried captive to Babylonia after seeing their land destroyed. The lesson was not lost upon those who returned from exile, for under the administration of Nehemiah, the Jews bound themselves by a covenant to observe the principle of the sabbatical year (Neh 10:31). This undertaking evidently took its impetus from the reading of the law of Moses at the Feast of Booths (Shelters), which coincidentally occurred at the beginning of the sabbatical year (Neh 8:13-18).<\/p>\n<h6>Jubilee<\/h6>\n<p>Still another feast based on the principle of the sabbath was the Year of Jubilee, or Pentecostal year (Lv 25:8-55; 27:17-24). As the sabbatical year was related to the concept of the seventh day, so the Pentecostal (50th) year marked the completion of a cycle of seven sabbatical years. The commencement of a jubilee year was proclaimed on the Day of Atonement throughout the land by means of trumpet blasts (Lv 25:9). The activities that took place during the Pentecostal year were similar to those prescribed for the sabbatical year. A special feature was that land that had been sold during the preceding 49 years was returned to its original owners, a procedure that sometimes involved financial adjustments. To prevent abuse of the process through opportunism or speculation, the Hebrews were instructed to deal fairly and honestly with one another in the fear of God, who was the real owner of the land (Lv 25:14-17). As with the sabbatical year, God promised to make provision before the jubilee year so that no one would suffer hardship. It was during the Year of Jubilee that those who were slaves in Hebrew households were given their liberty, so that everyone in the land would commence a new cycle of sabbatical years on the same footing, as free persons under God.<\/p>\n<h5>Seasonal Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>Three annual festivals that followed the seasons of the year rather than phases of the moon furnished important occasions for commemorating God’s power and provision in national life. These festivals were designated by the term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hag<\/span><em>,<\/em> indicating a festival usually observed by some sort of pilgrimage. These three festivals were prescribed in Exodus 23:14-17 and Deuteronomy 16:16, and consisted of the Feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), and the Festival of Booths (Tabernacles). On these occasions, all the males of Israel were commanded to make pilgrimage to the sanctuary and celebrate these festivals (Ex 12:14). The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were originally separate ordinances, but since the latter always followed immediately upon the Passover rite, they naturally blended into a single festival.<\/p>\n<h6>Passover<\/h6>\n<p>The Passover was of supreme theological significance for the Israelites, since it marked one of the most momentous acts of divine intervention in their history, the beginning of their deliverance from bondage in Egypt when, in the final plague, God destroyed the firstborn of the Egyptians but spared those Israelites whose homes had blood smeared on the doorposts (Ex 12:11-30). God commanded that the day was to be observed as a memorial feast (v 14), and the next Passover celebration occurred in the Sinai Desert (Nm 9:1-5). In the Hebrew calendar the Passover festival came in the first month, called Abib in Deuteronomy 16:1, but known after the exile as Nisan (cf. Neh 2:1). The Passover rite took place the 14th evening (Lv 23:5), and this was followed by a seven-day period during which nothing leavened was to be eaten. The principle for removing all leaven from bread was similar to that underlying the draining of blood from animal flesh. Both leaven and blood had quickening power and were to be kept separate as an offering to God. The first and seventh days of this period were marked by a holy assembly, during which the only work permitted was the preparation of food (Ex 12:16). This period when unleavened bread was eaten was described as a festival because it opened the seven-week period of grain harvest (Dt 16:9). During this feast, special burnt sacrifices were offered, followed with a sheaf of newly harvested barley at the Feast of Firstfruits. By NT times the festivals of Passover and Unleavened Bread were well-attended celebrations and were known as the “days of unleavened bread” (Lk 22:1; Acts 12:3). The theme of Israel’s deliverance from the power of Egypt by divine intervention assured the Israelites that God was always ready to act on behalf of a faithful and obedient covenant people. It also reminded them that they had once been slaves (Dt 16:12). In Israelite life the early Passover and Unleavened Bread observances were comparatively simple in character, but during the monarchy more elaborate Passover rituals came into use (cf. 2 Kgs 23:21-23; 2 Chr 35:1-19).<\/p>\n<h6>Pentecost<\/h6>\n<p>The second great festival, Pentecost (or Weeks) lasted one day only and was observed on the 50th day after the newly harvested barley sheaf had been waved before the Lord at the end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Dt 16:9-12). The festival marked the end of the barley harvest and the beginning of the wheat harvest, the beginning of the period when firstfruits could be offered (cf. Ex 23:16; 34:22; Nm 28:26). The feast day was marked by the presentation of two wheat-flour loaves along with sacrifices of seven lambs, two rams, and a bull (Lv 23:15-20). Freewill gifts to God were presented to reflect gratitude for his blessings, and the entire occasion was one of communal rejoicing (Dt 16:10-11). Since Pentecost was essentially a harvest festival (Ex 23:16), the Israelites were called on to recognize that they depended entirely upon God for their material prosperity. In Deuteronomy 26, specific instructions were given for the ritual of presenting firstfruits from the harvest. It comprised a great confession of faith set within the framework of Israel’s history, and it recounted God’s deliverance of the nation from Egyptian oppression and his provision of a land that could amply supply the needs of his people.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of Tabernacles<\/h6>\n<p>This festival, known variously as the Feast of Booths, Tabernacles, Shelters (Lv 23:34; Dt 16:13), or Ingathering (Ex 34:22), was the third great occasion that all Hebrew males were required to observe annually. It began on the 15th day of the seventh month (Tishri), shortly after the observance of the Day of Atonement, which fell on the 10th day. The Feast of Booths lasted for one week and involved pilgrimage. It was associated initially with the end of the year (Ex 34:22), when the agricultural work had been completed. The first day was marked by a symbolic cessation from all activity, after which burnt offerings were presented to the Lord. The eighth day was also one on which the congregation of Israel abstained from manual work and again offered burnt sacrifices. Leviticus 23:39-43 furnished details for the rituals that gave the festival its special name of booths or shelters or tabernacles. The fruit of “goodly trees” was to be gathered on the first day of the feast, along with palm fronds, willow branches, and boughs from trees in full leaf. From these, rough shelters or booths were to be constructed in which the people lived for the week of the feast. Every seventh year the observances were marked by a public recital of the covenant provisions to which the Israelites under Moses had committed themselves, a procedure designed to keep fresh in their minds the obligations as well as the blessings of the covenant relationship. A particularly significant observance of the Feast of Tabernacles took place in the time of Ezra, when the Judean community returned from Babylon—a celebration of a kind unknown for centuries (Neh 8:13-18). From the context it appears that observance of the feast had lapsed during the monarchy. The feast at Shiloh where Hannah was mistaken for a drunken woman and the feast referred to in Judges 21:19 were evidently the Feast of Booths. In a prophetic vision in which he saw all nations coming to Jerusalem to observe the Festival of Booths, Zechariah warned that those who did not continue this tradition could expect hardship and shortages of food (Zec 14:16-19).<\/p>\n<h5>Postexilic Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>There are a few minor festivals that were created in the period after the Jews returned from exile; some of these festivals had their origin in specific historical occasions.<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Purim<\/h6>\n<p>The Festival of Purim, also known as the Festival of Lots, was a joyful occasion occurring on the 14th day of the 12th month (Adar). It celebrated the way in which Esther and Mordecai were used by God to deliver his people in the Persian Empire from extermination by Haman (Est 9:21, 24-28). The feast was observed on the 14th day of Adar by those living in villages, and on the 15th by the inhabitants of walled towns and cities. The explanation of the name of the festival is given in Esther 9:24-26, and its observance reminded the Hebrews of God’s ability to save them during a time of anti-Semitic activity in Persia. The deliverance memorialized in this festival has consoled the Jews on other occasions when they have suffered persecution. Traditionally the scroll of Esther was read aloud in the synagogue on the evening before the feast, and there was a great outcry, especially among the children present, whenever the names of the hated Haman and his sons were mentioned.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the Dedication of the Temple<\/h6>\n<p>Another joyous festival that lasted for eight days was the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple (1 Macc 4:52-59; 2 Macc 10:6-8), familiar to modern readers as Hanukkah, or the Festival of Lights. The specific dedication that prompted the feast occurred in 164 <span>BC<\/span>, when Judas Maccabeus reconsecrated the temple in Jerusalem after it had been defiled by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The celebrations commenced on the 25th day of the ninth month (Kislev) and were marked at night by blazing lights and lanterns. The stories of brave opposition by the Maccabees to the crushing forces of paganism were recounted, and the feast was one of praise to God for his marvelous deliverance of the Jews during the Maccabean period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentFestivals\">New Testament Festivals<\/p>\n<p>In Christ’s time the Sabbath was observed rigorously and was the occasion for synagogue worship (cf. Lk 4:16; Acts 13:14; 18:4). Pharisaic law prohibited all work, and Jesus came into conflict with the authorities periodically for breaches of the Sabbath regulations (cf. Mt 12:1-4; Mk 3:1-5; Lk 13:10-17). In the primitive church, worship occurred on “the first day of the week” (i.e., Sunday) to commemorate Christ’s resurrection. The early Christians initially participated in Jewish ceremonies (cf. Acts 20:16; 1 Cor 16:8). It was during the Feast of Pentecost, after Christ’s resurrection and ascension, that the Spirit was poured out (Acts 2:1-4), fulfilling Joel 2:28-32 and commencing the history of the Christian church as such.<\/p>\n<p>The Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread were of great significance in the life of Christ (cf. Jn 4:45; 5:1; 6:4; 12:1-26), for the occasion was a very popular one in NT times (cf. 12:20). On the Passover, Pilate had instituted the custom of clemency to a prisoner nominated by the populace (Mt 27:15; Mk 15:6). Jesus participated actively in the Passover rituals (cf. Lk 2:42; Jn 2:13; 6:4). The Last Supper with his disciples occurred just prior to the Passover (Jn 13:1), when Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus to the Pharisees (Lk 22:4-6). The breaking of bread and the drinking of wine at that Passover celebration (Mk 14:22-25) were related directly to Christ’s forthcoming death on the cross in a sacramental manner. Christ’s disciples were instructed to observe this rite as a memorial of his suffering and death for human sin (1 Cor 11:24-26) and as a proclamation of the power of the cross until the Lord returns in glory. Some scholars have suggested that Christ was actually hanging on the cross when the Passover lamb was being slaughtered, and if that chronology is correct, it would represent Jesus graphically as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29, <span>rsv<\/span>). Jesus was also present once when the Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated (7:10). In his day water was carried in procession from the pool of Siloam as an offering to God, and the ceremony most probably prompted Christ’s discourse on living water and eternal life (vv 37-39). On at least one occasion Jesus was in Jerusalem when the Festival of Lights occurred (Jn 10:22) and narrowly missed death by stoning.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was entertained occasionally at private feasts (cf. Lk 5:29), and once remedied an emergency situation when the wine ran out at a wedding ceremony (Jn 2:8-10). He was critical of the Pharisees for securing the chief seats at feasts (Mt 23:6; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46) and taught that festivals ought to benefit the poor (Lk 14:13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SymbolismofFeasts\">Symbolism of Feasts<\/p>\n<p>Many aspects of the ancient Hebrew feasts were interpreted symbolically in the early church. Paul regarded the earliest Hebrew Christians as the firstfruits of the Israel of God (Rom 11:16). In Romans 8:23, the Holy Spirit as possessed by Christians was regarded as only a token of what was to come, and as such was the firstfruit of the Spirit. Christians themselves were described in James 1:18 as the firstfruits of God’s creatures who were brought forth by the Word of Truth. The resurrection of Jesus was considered by Paul to be the firstfruits of those who slept (1 Cor 15:20, 23). In an allusion to OT festivals, Paul spoke of the Sabbaths, new moons, and feasts as merely being a shadow of good things to come (Col 2:16-17). The Passover was used figuratively to emphasize that Christ our Passover Lamb had been sacrificed for us. Believers were urged to keep the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, and not with the old leaven of malice and evil (1 Cor 5:7-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Calendars, Ancient and Modern; Offerings and Sacrifices; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL Occasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion. In contemporary usag...","summary_en":"FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL Occasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion. In contemporary usag...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24887,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Significance of Meals","title_en":"Significance of Meals","content_ro":"<h3>MEALS, Significance of<\/h3>\n<p>The meal played a significant role in family, social, and religious life. The evening meal was the time when all family members normally were gathered together, and was thus an important time of fellowship. Providing food for the traveler was both a social and a religious responsibility, while the ideal of a quiet social life was realized by having friends break bread with the family and discuss the problems of the day by the light of small oil lamps. The significance of the meal retains its central focus both in the Jewish religion with the Passover meal and in Christianity with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.<\/p>\n<p>In the ancient Near East two meals were normally eaten during the day. The first was the noonday meal, usually consumed by laborers in the field and consisting of such items as small cakes or flat loaves, figs or olives, and possibly cheese or curds of goats’ milk. This was considered a small meal, eaten for sustenance and refreshment at a time of relaxation and respite from the heat of the sun and the labor of the day (Ru 2:14). Breakfast was considered unnecessary, and biblical references to any such form of early morning meal are very few (Jgs 19:5; Jn 21:12).<\/p>\n<p>Whereas in Egypt the main meal was served at noon, among the Hebrews the evening meal was the most important social occasion of the day. Then the exhausted field workers could return home to relax after their day’s work and enjoy the feeling of communal warmth as the family gathered together for their principal meal. This occasion coincided with the arrival of darkness, a time when there was insufficient light for fieldwork to continue.<\/p>\n<p>The laborer’s meal consisted of bread or cakes made of hand-ground grain, goats’ cheese or curds, vegetables (especially beans, lentils, leeks, and peas, which were popular for the sake of variety although not always plentiful), and figs, olives, raisins, and dates. Meat was usually available, but for the majority was a luxury item. Food was cooked in olive oil, and honey was used for sweetening.<\/p>\n<p>The meal was eaten together by the entire family. There was no separate dining room in the average house, and during the patriarchal period, meals were consumed while the family was seated on the floor, a mat often serving as a table (Gn 37:25). Canaanite seating habits were adopted subsequently, and chairs and small tables were used (1 Kgs 13:20; Ps 23:5; Ez 23:41). Eating in the Egyptian fashion in a reclining position became popular and continued throughout the Roman period. Musical entertainment, dancing, and riddles were sometimes provided on festive occasions for family and guests, since the meal period was the normal time for entertainment in Near Eastern society.<\/p>\n<p>By NT times, a separate upper room often served as a dining room. Guests reclined by leaning on the left elbow so that they were close enough together on their couches to facilitate easy conversation. There was a strict hierarchy to the seating arrangements (cf. Gn 43:33; 1 Sm 9:22; Mt 23:6; Mk 12:39; Lk 14:8) at all formal meals, the “highest” place being that to the right of the servants as they entered the room and the lowest to their left.<\/p>\n<p>Guests washed their hands before and after meals, and normally partook of a form of meat and\/or vegetable stew from a common bowl placed in the center of the table. Instead of cutlery, pieces of bread held in the fingers were made into the shape of a small scoop and dipped into the bowl. There would usually be only one main dish requiring preparation, so that the woman who had cooked the meal could partake of it with her guests, thus fulfilling the ideals of community at mealtimes.<\/p>\n<p>On several occasions in the NT Jesus is mentioned as eating meals with disciples and friends. He and his followers were guests at the wedding feast held in Cana of Galilee (Jn 2:1-10), and also at a dinner given by Matthew (Mt 9:10), as well as at another given by Simon the Pharisee (Lk 7:36-50). Jesus also was entertained at dinner somewhat unexpectedly by Zacchaeus (19:6-7). On several occasions Jesus was a guest at a family gathering held at the home of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus in Bethany (Lk 10:38-42; Jn 12:2). Following the customs of smaller towns and villages, passersby may well have called into the house to greet Jesus and perhaps converse with other guests.<\/p>\n<p>There are two important meals described in Scripture, one involving the old covenant and the other the new, in which meals had a redemptive meaning for the people of God. The first was the institution of the Passover at the time of Israel’s departure from Egypt under Moses (Ex 12). The second was the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Both are discussed in detail in separate articles.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Food and Food Preparation; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Lord’s Supper, The; Passover.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MEALS, Significance of<\/h3>\n<p>The meal played a significant role in family, social, and religious life. The evening meal was the time when all family members normally were gathered together, and was thus an important time of fellowship. Providing food for the traveler was both a social and a religious responsibility, while the ideal of a quiet social life was realized by having friends break bread with the family and discuss the problems of the day by the light of small oil lamps. The significance of the meal retains its central focus both in the Jewish religion with the Passover meal and in Christianity with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.<\/p>\n<p>In the ancient Near East two meals were normally eaten during the day. The first was the noonday meal, usually consumed by laborers in the field and consisting of such items as small cakes or flat loaves, figs or olives, and possibly cheese or curds of goats’ milk. This was considered a small meal, eaten for sustenance and refreshment at a time of relaxation and respite from the heat of the sun and the labor of the day (Ru 2:14). Breakfast was considered unnecessary, and biblical references to any such form of early morning meal are very few (Jgs 19:5; Jn 21:12).<\/p>\n<p>Whereas in Egypt the main meal was served at noon, among the Hebrews the evening meal was the most important social occasion of the day. Then the exhausted field workers could return home to relax after their day’s work and enjoy the feeling of communal warmth as the family gathered together for their principal meal. This occasion coincided with the arrival of darkness, a time when there was insufficient light for fieldwork to continue.<\/p>\n<p>The laborer’s meal consisted of bread or cakes made of hand-ground grain, goats’ cheese or curds, vegetables (especially beans, lentils, leeks, and peas, which were popular for the sake of variety although not always plentiful), and figs, olives, raisins, and dates. Meat was usually available, but for the majority was a luxury item. Food was cooked in olive oil, and honey was used for sweetening.<\/p>\n<p>The meal was eaten together by the entire family. There was no separate dining room in the average house, and during the patriarchal period, meals were consumed while the family was seated on the floor, a mat often serving as a table (Gn 37:25). Canaanite seating habits were adopted subsequently, and chairs and small tables were used (1 Kgs 13:20; Ps 23:5; Ez 23:41). Eating in the Egyptian fashion in a reclining position became popular and continued throughout the Roman period. Musical entertainment, dancing, and riddles were sometimes provided on festive occasions for family and guests, since the meal period was the normal time for entertainment in Near Eastern society.<\/p>\n<p>By NT times, a separate upper room often served as a dining room. Guests reclined by leaning on the left elbow so that they were close enough together on their couches to facilitate easy conversation. There was a strict hierarchy to the seating arrangements (cf. Gn 43:33; 1 Sm 9:22; Mt 23:6; Mk 12:39; Lk 14:8) at all formal meals, the “highest” place being that to the right of the servants as they entered the room and the lowest to their left.<\/p>\n<p>Guests washed their hands before and after meals, and normally partook of a form of meat and\/or vegetable stew from a common bowl placed in the center of the table. Instead of cutlery, pieces of bread held in the fingers were made into the shape of a small scoop and dipped into the bowl. There would usually be only one main dish requiring preparation, so that the woman who had cooked the meal could partake of it with her guests, thus fulfilling the ideals of community at mealtimes.<\/p>\n<p>On several occasions in the NT Jesus is mentioned as eating meals with disciples and friends. He and his followers were guests at the wedding feast held in Cana of Galilee (Jn 2:1-10), and also at a dinner given by Matthew (Mt 9:10), as well as at another given by Simon the Pharisee (Lk 7:36-50). Jesus also was entertained at dinner somewhat unexpectedly by Zacchaeus (19:6-7). On several occasions Jesus was a guest at a family gathering held at the home of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus in Bethany (Lk 10:38-42; Jn 12:2). Following the customs of smaller towns and villages, passersby may well have called into the house to greet Jesus and perhaps converse with other guests.<\/p>\n<p>There are two important meals described in Scripture, one involving the old covenant and the other the new, in which meals had a redemptive meaning for the people of God. The first was the institution of the Passover at the time of Israel’s departure from Egypt under Moses (Ex 12). The second was the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Both are discussed in detail in separate articles.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Food and Food Preparation; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Lord’s Supper, The; Passover.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MEALS, Significance of The meal played a significant role in family, social, and religious life. The evening meal was the time when all family members normally were gathered together, and was thus an important time of fellowship. Providing food for the traveler was both a social and a religious responsibility, while the ideal of a quiet social life was realized by having friends break bread with the family and discuss the problems of the day by the light of small oil lamps. The significance o...","summary_en":"MEALS, Significance of The meal played a significant role in family, social, and religious life. The evening meal was the time when all family members normally were gathered together, and was thus an important time of fellowship. Providing food for the traveler was both a social and a religious responsibility, while the ideal of a quiet social life was realized by having friends break bread with the family and discuss the problems of the day by the light of small oil lamps. The significance o...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34126,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Scribe","title_en":"Scribe","content_ro":"<h3>SCRIBE<\/h3>\n<p>Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPreexilicTimes\">Scribes in Preexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion of the term “scribe” and has no particular religious connotation. Scribes were employed to keep accounts or transcribe legal information (Jer 32:12), military data (2 Chr 26:11), other public documents (Jgs 8:14; Is 50:1), or personal correspondence (Jer 36:18). These secretaries were essential to royal administrations, and there is frequent mention of a chief scribe who functioned as a court recorder (1 Kgs 4:3; 2 Chr 24:11), adviser (2 Sm 8:16-17; 2 Kgs 18:18; 22:12; 1 Chr 27:32; Is 36:3), and financial overseer (2 Kgs 22:3-4). Secretaries or scribes were associated with the priesthood as well, serving as recorders for temple affairs (1 Chr 24:6; 2 Chr 34:13-15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPostexilicTimes\">Scribes in Postexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>With the restoration of Judaism under Ezra and Nehemiah, the term “scribe” begins to be associated more narrowly with those who gathered together, studied, and interpreted the Torah (Jewish law). They became, in essence, a separate profession of teachers (although unpaid), able to preserve accurately the law of Moses and interpret it to meet conditions in postexilic times. In this initial period, Ezra himself appears as the ideal “scribe who studied and taught the commands and laws of the <span>Lord<\/span> to Israel” (Ezr 7:11, <span>nlt<\/span>). In Ecclesiasticus, the scribe is portrayed as one who, because of his diligent study of the Law, the Prophets, and Writings (Ecclus 38:24ff; 39:1), is able to penetrate the hidden meanings of texts (39:2-3) and thus is able to serve as judge and counsel for the affairs of the people and state (38:33; 39:4-8). Because of his invaluable place in a society governed by the Torah, the scribe is worthy of praise and veneration throughout succeeding generations (39:9). By the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the scribes were a fairly distinct class in Jewish society. They appear as such during the Maccabean wars, acting as a negotiating body with the rival Syrians (1 Macc 7:12). It is also significant that, from this time forward, the history of the scribe in Jewish life is closely linked with the rise of the Pharisees. Although there were apparently some scribes affiliated with the rival Sadducean party, the party of the Pharisees, with its absolute devotion to the law (including the oral law), became the primary religiopolitical affiliation for the scribes (see the close connection in the NT: Mt 5:20; 12:38; 15:1; Mk 7:5; Lk 6:7).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrainingandStatus\">Training and Status<\/p>\n<p>The training of scribes initially occurred within priestly family-based guilds that guaranteed the regulation and perpetuation of this position (1 Chr 2:55). Later, scribal training in the law became open to members of all classes, with the eventual result, by Jesus’ time, of scribes from nonpriestly families being far more numerous and influential. Training in the law began at an early age under the personal supervision of a teacher (rabbi), who gave instructions in all matters pertaining to the law and its interpretation for present needs. Because the written law of Moses could not possibly speak directly to conditions in postexilic times, the oral interpretation and application of the written law to meet such current needs was a significant contribution by the scribes. Such oral law promulgated by them was regarded as equal to the written law and equally binding for those desiring to please God (see Mk 7:6-13). This important function, lying at the heart of Jewish life, accounts for the participation of the scribes in the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin, in order to make legal decisions in keeping with the law, obviously needed the presence of those most knowledgeable about the minutest details of the Torah and the principles governing its application to new circumstances. The scribes, consequently, were the only members outside the aristocratic high priests and elders to be represented in this Jewish supreme court (Mt 26:57; Mk 14:43, 53; Lk 22:66; Acts 23:9). Being the authoritative instructors of the law both within the temple (Lk 2:46) and within the various synagogues of Judea and Galilee (5:17), as well as prominent members of the Sanhedrin, the scribes were greatly respected within the Jewish community. They wore special robes (Mk 12:38) with memorial fringes at the bottom and phylacteries, or “prayer boxes,” hanging from the arms (Mt 23:5). Such attire made their presence obvious and occasioned the rising or bowing of the common people when they passed (Mk 12:38). They were addressed with respect as “rabbi” or “master” (Mt 23:7) and were given the place of honor at worship as well as at social affairs (Mt 23:2; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46). Indeed, the high regard the Jews held for their scribes is testified by the fact that such teachers of the law were buried alongside the tombs of the patriarchs and prophets.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheScribesinJesusDay\">The Scribes in Jesus’ Day<\/p>\n<p>The scribes appear predominantly in the ministry of Jesus as those concerned with the circumspectness of legal observance. Luke refers to the scribes as “lawyers,” thereby describing their chief function as interpreters of the Jewish law in a way that communicated to his gentile audience. It is often found, therefore, that the scribes were critical members of Jesus’ audience, accusing him of violating the law on numerous occasions: in forgiving sins (Mt 9:1-3; Lk 5:17-26), in breaking their notion of Sabbath observance through work (Lk 6:1-2) and healing (vv 6-11), in not following their accepted ceremonial washings (Mk 7:2-5), and in ignoring their practice of fasting (Lk 5:33-39). Not surprisingly, they especially disapproved of Jesus’ practice of mingling with the unclean and outcasts of Jewish society (Mk 2:16-17; Lk 15:1-2). In a similar light, they are not unfrequently found presenting questions concerning the law for the purpose of tricking Jesus (Mk 7:5; 12:28, 35; Lk 11:53; Jn 8:3-4). In a similar fashion, they demanded that Jesus make his identity clear (Mt 12:38) and reveal the source of his authority to perform miracles (Mk 3:22; Lk 20:1-4). Although there is evidence that a minority of the scribes accepted Jesus (Mt 8:19; 13:52; Mk 12:32; Jn 3:1-2), their primary attitude toward Jesus was one of hostility. As previously suggested, this was partly due to Jesus’ differing expression of fidelity to the Mosaic law and his openness toward the outcasts. It was also partly due to the rising popularity of Jesus among the people, which posed a threat to their own authority (Mt 7:29) and to the safety of the city (Mt 21:15; Mk 11:18). Certainly, another major contributing factor of their opposition to Jesus was his exposure of their hypocrisy and corruption. In his rebukes of the scribes and the Pharisees, Jesus openly accused them of catering to public approval (Mt 23:5-7; Mk 12:38-39; Lk 11:43). While appearing to be outwardly correct and holy, they were inwardly corrupt (Mt 23:25-28; Lk 11:39-41). Jesus also attacked the principle of oral law taught by the scribes, which they demanded that the people follow. Jesus charged that the oral law was a “heavy burden” that the scribes themselves did not even bother to follow (Mt 23:2-4, 13-22; Lk 11:46). While emphasizing the minor points of the law, the scribes were also guilty of ignoring the weightier concerns of justice, mercy, and faith (Mt 23:23-24; Mk 12:40; Lk 11:42). Contrary to being the descendants of the prophets, as the scribes held themselves to be, the scribes (Jesus claimed) would have killed the prophets if they had lived in their day (Mt 23:29-36; Lk 20:9-19).<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising to find, therefore, the scribes anxious to get rid of Jesus (Mk 14:1; Lk 11:53). His more flexible interpretation of the law posed a clear threat to their position and authority within the community. The scribes joined forces with their normal opponents (the high priesthood) to engineer Jesus’ arrest (Mk 14:43). When Jesus appeared before them and the rest of the Sanhedrin, they worked with the other leaders to construct a case against him worthy of death (Mt 26:57-66). When taking Jesus before Herod, they stood by and shouted their accusations with the others (Lk 23:10). Finally, they participated with other members of the Sanhedrin in mocking Jesus on the cross, demanding that Jesus save himself by coming down from the cross (Mt 27:41-43). Prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the scribes continued with the other elements of the Sanhedrin to oppose the early Christian church, and they brought about Stephen’s martyrdom (Acts 6:12-14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Judaism; Pharisees; Writer.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SCRIBE<\/h3>\n<p>Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPreexilicTimes\">Scribes in Preexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion of the term “scribe” and has no particular religious connotation. Scribes were employed to keep accounts or transcribe legal information (Jer 32:12), military data (2 Chr 26:11), other public documents (Jgs 8:14; Is 50:1), or personal correspondence (Jer 36:18). These secretaries were essential to royal administrations, and there is frequent mention of a chief scribe who functioned as a court recorder (1 Kgs 4:3; 2 Chr 24:11), adviser (2 Sm 8:16-17; 2 Kgs 18:18; 22:12; 1 Chr 27:32; Is 36:3), and financial overseer (2 Kgs 22:3-4). Secretaries or scribes were associated with the priesthood as well, serving as recorders for temple affairs (1 Chr 24:6; 2 Chr 34:13-15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPostexilicTimes\">Scribes in Postexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>With the restoration of Judaism under Ezra and Nehemiah, the term “scribe” begins to be associated more narrowly with those who gathered together, studied, and interpreted the Torah (Jewish law). They became, in essence, a separate profession of teachers (although unpaid), able to preserve accurately the law of Moses and interpret it to meet conditions in postexilic times. In this initial period, Ezra himself appears as the ideal “scribe who studied and taught the commands and laws of the <span>Lord<\/span> to Israel” (Ezr 7:11, <span>nlt<\/span>). In Ecclesiasticus, the scribe is portrayed as one who, because of his diligent study of the Law, the Prophets, and Writings (Ecclus 38:24ff; 39:1), is able to penetrate the hidden meanings of texts (39:2-3) and thus is able to serve as judge and counsel for the affairs of the people and state (38:33; 39:4-8). Because of his invaluable place in a society governed by the Torah, the scribe is worthy of praise and veneration throughout succeeding generations (39:9). By the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the scribes were a fairly distinct class in Jewish society. They appear as such during the Maccabean wars, acting as a negotiating body with the rival Syrians (1 Macc 7:12). It is also significant that, from this time forward, the history of the scribe in Jewish life is closely linked with the rise of the Pharisees. Although there were apparently some scribes affiliated with the rival Sadducean party, the party of the Pharisees, with its absolute devotion to the law (including the oral law), became the primary religiopolitical affiliation for the scribes (see the close connection in the NT: Mt 5:20; 12:38; 15:1; Mk 7:5; Lk 6:7).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrainingandStatus\">Training and Status<\/p>\n<p>The training of scribes initially occurred within priestly family-based guilds that guaranteed the regulation and perpetuation of this position (1 Chr 2:55). Later, scribal training in the law became open to members of all classes, with the eventual result, by Jesus’ time, of scribes from nonpriestly families being far more numerous and influential. Training in the law began at an early age under the personal supervision of a teacher (rabbi), who gave instructions in all matters pertaining to the law and its interpretation for present needs. Because the written law of Moses could not possibly speak directly to conditions in postexilic times, the oral interpretation and application of the written law to meet such current needs was a significant contribution by the scribes. Such oral law promulgated by them was regarded as equal to the written law and equally binding for those desiring to please God (see Mk 7:6-13). This important function, lying at the heart of Jewish life, accounts for the participation of the scribes in the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin, in order to make legal decisions in keeping with the law, obviously needed the presence of those most knowledgeable about the minutest details of the Torah and the principles governing its application to new circumstances. The scribes, consequently, were the only members outside the aristocratic high priests and elders to be represented in this Jewish supreme court (Mt 26:57; Mk 14:43, 53; Lk 22:66; Acts 23:9). Being the authoritative instructors of the law both within the temple (Lk 2:46) and within the various synagogues of Judea and Galilee (5:17), as well as prominent members of the Sanhedrin, the scribes were greatly respected within the Jewish community. They wore special robes (Mk 12:38) with memorial fringes at the bottom and phylacteries, or “prayer boxes,” hanging from the arms (Mt 23:5). Such attire made their presence obvious and occasioned the rising or bowing of the common people when they passed (Mk 12:38). They were addressed with respect as “rabbi” or “master” (Mt 23:7) and were given the place of honor at worship as well as at social affairs (Mt 23:2; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46). Indeed, the high regard the Jews held for their scribes is testified by the fact that such teachers of the law were buried alongside the tombs of the patriarchs and prophets.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheScribesinJesusDay\">The Scribes in Jesus’ Day<\/p>\n<p>The scribes appear predominantly in the ministry of Jesus as those concerned with the circumspectness of legal observance. Luke refers to the scribes as “lawyers,” thereby describing their chief function as interpreters of the Jewish law in a way that communicated to his gentile audience. It is often found, therefore, that the scribes were critical members of Jesus’ audience, accusing him of violating the law on numerous occasions: in forgiving sins (Mt 9:1-3; Lk 5:17-26), in breaking their notion of Sabbath observance through work (Lk 6:1-2) and healing (vv 6-11), in not following their accepted ceremonial washings (Mk 7:2-5), and in ignoring their practice of fasting (Lk 5:33-39). Not surprisingly, they especially disapproved of Jesus’ practice of mingling with the unclean and outcasts of Jewish society (Mk 2:16-17; Lk 15:1-2). In a similar light, they are not unfrequently found presenting questions concerning the law for the purpose of tricking Jesus (Mk 7:5; 12:28, 35; Lk 11:53; Jn 8:3-4). In a similar fashion, they demanded that Jesus make his identity clear (Mt 12:38) and reveal the source of his authority to perform miracles (Mk 3:22; Lk 20:1-4). Although there is evidence that a minority of the scribes accepted Jesus (Mt 8:19; 13:52; Mk 12:32; Jn 3:1-2), their primary attitude toward Jesus was one of hostility. As previously suggested, this was partly due to Jesus’ differing expression of fidelity to the Mosaic law and his openness toward the outcasts. It was also partly due to the rising popularity of Jesus among the people, which posed a threat to their own authority (Mt 7:29) and to the safety of the city (Mt 21:15; Mk 11:18). Certainly, another major contributing factor of their opposition to Jesus was his exposure of their hypocrisy and corruption. In his rebukes of the scribes and the Pharisees, Jesus openly accused them of catering to public approval (Mt 23:5-7; Mk 12:38-39; Lk 11:43). While appearing to be outwardly correct and holy, they were inwardly corrupt (Mt 23:25-28; Lk 11:39-41). Jesus also attacked the principle of oral law taught by the scribes, which they demanded that the people follow. Jesus charged that the oral law was a “heavy burden” that the scribes themselves did not even bother to follow (Mt 23:2-4, 13-22; Lk 11:46). While emphasizing the minor points of the law, the scribes were also guilty of ignoring the weightier concerns of justice, mercy, and faith (Mt 23:23-24; Mk 12:40; Lk 11:42). Contrary to being the descendants of the prophets, as the scribes held themselves to be, the scribes (Jesus claimed) would have killed the prophets if they had lived in their day (Mt 23:29-36; Lk 20:9-19).<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising to find, therefore, the scribes anxious to get rid of Jesus (Mk 14:1; Lk 11:53). His more flexible interpretation of the law posed a clear threat to their position and authority within the community. The scribes joined forces with their normal opponents (the high priesthood) to engineer Jesus’ arrest (Mk 14:43). When Jesus appeared before them and the rest of the Sanhedrin, they worked with the other leaders to construct a case against him worthy of death (Mt 26:57-66). When taking Jesus before Herod, they stood by and shouted their accusations with the others (Lk 23:10). Finally, they participated with other members of the Sanhedrin in mocking Jesus on the cross, demanding that Jesus save himself by coming down from the cross (Mt 27:41-43). Prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the scribes continued with the other elements of the Sanhedrin to oppose the early Christian church, and they brought about Stephen’s martyrdom (Acts 6:12-14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Judaism; Pharisees; Writer.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SCRIBE Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus. Scribes in Preexilic Times The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion...","summary_en":"SCRIBE Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus. Scribes in Preexilic Times The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36541,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Synagogue","title_en":"Synagogue","content_ro":"<h3>SYNAGOGUE<\/h3>\n<p>Transliteration of the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sunagoge<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning “a gathering together.” It is used more than 50 times in the NT, mostly for the religious gathering places of Jewish communities in Palestine and throughout the Dispersion. The word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sunagoge<\/span> is usually the Greek rendering of Hebrew words in the OT that speak of the assembling or assembly of the people.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginsandEarlyHistory\">Origins and Early History<\/p>\n<p>It is unknown just how or when the synagogue as an institution first began. One can imagine the situation in Jerusalem after the destruction of the temple by the Babylonians in 586 <span>BC<\/span>. The people who remained in and around the city who wanted to keep true to their faith would have felt the need to meet for worship, where they would continue to teach the law and the message of the prophets. Some think, therefore, that synagogues may have had their origin in such a situation. Jewish people in the various places of the Dispersion would have been aware of a similar need. Jewish elders met together with Ezekiel in exile in Babylon (Ez 8:1; 14:1; 20:1). Yet there is no positive evidence of actual synagogues at this early stage. In Nehemiah 8:1-8 the postexilic community gathered in Jerusalem, and Ezra the scribe brought the law, read it from a wooden pulpit, and gave an interpretation so that the people understood the reading. When Ezra blessed the Lord, the people bowed their heads and worshiped. These were the basic elements of what came to be synagogue worship. The first undisputed evidence of a synagogue comes from Egypt in the third century <span>BC<\/span>. From the first century <span>BC<\/span> onward, the evidence of synagogues is abundant.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SynagoguesinNTTimes\">Synagogues in NT Times<\/p>\n<p>The Gospels give the impression of many synagogues existing throughout Palestine. Jesus frequently taught in synagogues (e.g., Mt 4:23; 9:35), especially during his Galilean ministry, but probably in Judea as well. In John 18:20 are the words of Jesus in his trial before the high priest: “I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The Acts of the Apostles refers to synagogues in Jerusalem (Acts 6:9), Damascus (9:2), Cyprus (13:5), the Roman province of Galatia (13:14; 14:1), Macedonia and Greece (17:1, 10, 17; 18:4), and Ephesus in the Roman province of Asia (19:8). Paul made it his practice to go directly to the synagogue and to preach there as long as he was given freedom to do so.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SynagogueWorship\">Synagogue Worship<\/p>\n<p>The Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles give abundant evidence for the meeting of Jewish people on the Sabbath to worship in the synagogue. People also met for worship on the second and fifth days of the week. Luke provides us with the earliest description of a synagogue service. The Mishnah describes the pattern of the synagogue service: the confession of faith, the Shema (which included reciting Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 11:13-21; and Numbers 15:37-41); prayer (such as the 18 Benedictions); Scripture reading (the reading of the Law was basic, see Acts 15:21, and was read according to a three-year cycle; the Prophets were also read, but more at random); interpretation (as the knowledge of biblical Hebrew diminished in Palestine, an Aramaic translation of the Scriptures was presented after the reading in Hebrew, and in the Dispersion, a Greek translation); address (following the reading, anyone suitably qualified might address the people, as Jesus and the apostle Paul often did); and blessing.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JudicialFunctions\">Judicial Functions<\/p>\n<p>Administration of justice was also part of the work of the synagogue. Offenders against the law and those whose actions were held to be contrary to Jewish religion were brought before the elders of the synagogue. They might, under extreme circumstances, excommunicate an offender (see Jn 9:22, 34-35; 12:42) or have him scourged. Jesus warned his disciples to be prepared to face either possibility (Mt 10:17; Jn 16:2). Saul, as persecutor of the Christians, had letters addressed to the synagogues at Damascus, giving authority to arrest Christians and bring them bound to Jerusalem (Acts 9:2). In Acts 22:19 he speaks of causing them to be both beaten and imprisoned. Paul himself received the 39 lashes that were administered in the synagogues (2 Cor 11:24).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingoftheLaw\">Teaching of the Law<\/p>\n<p>The reading of the Law was of central significance in synagogue worship. The teaching of the Law to people generally, and especially to children, was intimately associated with the synagogue. Either the synagogue building or a school was used.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Organization\">Organization<\/p>\n<p>The NT refers in particular (e.g., Mk 5:22; Lk 13:14; Acts 18:8,17) to two appointments in the synagogue: the “ruler of the synagogue,” who was responsible for order and for selection of the Scripture reader; and an attendant (Lk 4:20), who brought out and put away the Scripture scrolls and also administered corporal punishment to unruly students. Later on, there was a person appointed as leader of the prayers.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Architecture\">Architecture<\/p>\n<p>In structure the synagogue was modeled after the temple. It was built, when possible, on high ground and often constructed so that the people could sit facing the direction of Jerusalem. There was a portable chest for the scrolls of the Law and the Prophets, and a platform for the reading of the Scriptures and for preaching. Men and women sat apart. The scribes loved the “chief seats” facing the people (Mk 12:39). Many synagogues had ornamentations of vine leaves, seven-branched candlesticks, the paschal lamb, and the pot of manna. Early synagogues also had a genizah, which was a cellar or attic where worn scrolls were put, because, as they bore the name of God, they were too sacred to be destroyed.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Judaism; Ruler of the Synagogue.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SYNAGOGUE<\/h3>\n<p>Transliteration of the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sunagoge<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning “a gathering together.” It is used more than 50 times in the NT, mostly for the religious gathering places of Jewish communities in Palestine and throughout the Dispersion. The word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sunagoge<\/span> is usually the Greek rendering of Hebrew words in the OT that speak of the assembling or assembly of the people.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginsandEarlyHistory\">Origins and Early History<\/p>\n<p>It is unknown just how or when the synagogue as an institution first began. One can imagine the situation in Jerusalem after the destruction of the temple by the Babylonians in 586 <span>BC<\/span>. The people who remained in and around the city who wanted to keep true to their faith would have felt the need to meet for worship, where they would continue to teach the law and the message of the prophets. Some think, therefore, that synagogues may have had their origin in such a situation. Jewish people in the various places of the Dispersion would have been aware of a similar need. Jewish elders met together with Ezekiel in exile in Babylon (Ez 8:1; 14:1; 20:1). Yet there is no positive evidence of actual synagogues at this early stage. In Nehemiah 8:1-8 the postexilic community gathered in Jerusalem, and Ezra the scribe brought the law, read it from a wooden pulpit, and gave an interpretation so that the people understood the reading. When Ezra blessed the Lord, the people bowed their heads and worshiped. These were the basic elements of what came to be synagogue worship. The first undisputed evidence of a synagogue comes from Egypt in the third century <span>BC<\/span>. From the first century <span>BC<\/span> onward, the evidence of synagogues is abundant.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SynagoguesinNTTimes\">Synagogues in NT Times<\/p>\n<p>The Gospels give the impression of many synagogues existing throughout Palestine. Jesus frequently taught in synagogues (e.g., Mt 4:23; 9:35), especially during his Galilean ministry, but probably in Judea as well. In John 18:20 are the words of Jesus in his trial before the high priest: “I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The Acts of the Apostles refers to synagogues in Jerusalem (Acts 6:9), Damascus (9:2), Cyprus (13:5), the Roman province of Galatia (13:14; 14:1), Macedonia and Greece (17:1, 10, 17; 18:4), and Ephesus in the Roman province of Asia (19:8). Paul made it his practice to go directly to the synagogue and to preach there as long as he was given freedom to do so.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SynagogueWorship\">Synagogue Worship<\/p>\n<p>The Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles give abundant evidence for the meeting of Jewish people on the Sabbath to worship in the synagogue. People also met for worship on the second and fifth days of the week. Luke provides us with the earliest description of a synagogue service. The Mishnah describes the pattern of the synagogue service: the confession of faith, the Shema (which included reciting Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 11:13-21; and Numbers 15:37-41); prayer (such as the 18 Benedictions); Scripture reading (the reading of the Law was basic, see Acts 15:21, and was read according to a three-year cycle; the Prophets were also read, but more at random); interpretation (as the knowledge of biblical Hebrew diminished in Palestine, an Aramaic translation of the Scriptures was presented after the reading in Hebrew, and in the Dispersion, a Greek translation); address (following the reading, anyone suitably qualified might address the people, as Jesus and the apostle Paul often did); and blessing.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JudicialFunctions\">Judicial Functions<\/p>\n<p>Administration of justice was also part of the work of the synagogue. Offenders against the law and those whose actions were held to be contrary to Jewish religion were brought before the elders of the synagogue. They might, under extreme circumstances, excommunicate an offender (see Jn 9:22, 34-35; 12:42) or have him scourged. Jesus warned his disciples to be prepared to face either possibility (Mt 10:17; Jn 16:2). Saul, as persecutor of the Christians, had letters addressed to the synagogues at Damascus, giving authority to arrest Christians and bring them bound to Jerusalem (Acts 9:2). In Acts 22:19 he speaks of causing them to be both beaten and imprisoned. Paul himself received the 39 lashes that were administered in the synagogues (2 Cor 11:24).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TeachingoftheLaw\">Teaching of the Law<\/p>\n<p>The reading of the Law was of central significance in synagogue worship. The teaching of the Law to people generally, and especially to children, was intimately associated with the synagogue. Either the synagogue building or a school was used.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Organization\">Organization<\/p>\n<p>The NT refers in particular (e.g., Mk 5:22; Lk 13:14; Acts 18:8,17) to two appointments in the synagogue: the “ruler of the synagogue,” who was responsible for order and for selection of the Scripture reader; and an attendant (Lk 4:20), who brought out and put away the Scripture scrolls and also administered corporal punishment to unruly students. Later on, there was a person appointed as leader of the prayers.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Architecture\">Architecture<\/p>\n<p>In structure the synagogue was modeled after the temple. It was built, when possible, on high ground and often constructed so that the people could sit facing the direction of Jerusalem. There was a portable chest for the scrolls of the Law and the Prophets, and a platform for the reading of the Scriptures and for preaching. Men and women sat apart. The scribes loved the “chief seats” facing the people (Mk 12:39). Many synagogues had ornamentations of vine leaves, seven-branched candlesticks, the paschal lamb, and the pot of manna. Early synagogues also had a genizah, which was a cellar or attic where worn scrolls were put, because, as they bore the name of God, they were too sacred to be destroyed.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Judaism; Ruler of the Synagogue.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SYNAGOGUE Transliteration of the Greek word sunagoge, meaning “a gathering together.” It is used more than 50 times in the NT, mostly for the religious gathering places of Jewish communities in Palestine and throughout the Dispersion. The word sunagoge is usually the Greek rendering of Hebrew words in the OT that speak of the assembling or assembly of the people. Origins and Early History It is unknown just how or when the synagogue as an institution first began. One can imagine the situation...","summary_en":"SYNAGOGUE Transliteration of the Greek word sunagoge, meaning “a gathering together.” It is used more than 50 times in the NT, mostly for the religious gathering places of Jewish communities in Palestine and throughout the Dispersion. The word sunagoge is usually the Greek rendering of Hebrew words in the OT that speak of the assembling or assembly of the people. Origins and Early History It is unknown just how or when the synagogue as an institution first began. One can imagine the situation...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"40":[{"id":34152,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Scribe","title_en":"Scribe","content_ro":"<h3>SCRIBE<\/h3>\n<p>Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPreexilicTimes\">Scribes in Preexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion of the term “scribe” and has no particular religious connotation. Scribes were employed to keep accounts or transcribe legal information (Jer 32:12), military data (2 Chr 26:11), other public documents (Jgs 8:14; Is 50:1), or personal correspondence (Jer 36:18). These secretaries were essential to royal administrations, and there is frequent mention of a chief scribe who functioned as a court recorder (1 Kgs 4:3; 2 Chr 24:11), adviser (2 Sm 8:16-17; 2 Kgs 18:18; 22:12; 1 Chr 27:32; Is 36:3), and financial overseer (2 Kgs 22:3-4). Secretaries or scribes were associated with the priesthood as well, serving as recorders for temple affairs (1 Chr 24:6; 2 Chr 34:13-15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPostexilicTimes\">Scribes in Postexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>With the restoration of Judaism under Ezra and Nehemiah, the term “scribe” begins to be associated more narrowly with those who gathered together, studied, and interpreted the Torah (Jewish law). They became, in essence, a separate profession of teachers (although unpaid), able to preserve accurately the law of Moses and interpret it to meet conditions in postexilic times. In this initial period, Ezra himself appears as the ideal “scribe who studied and taught the commands and laws of the <span>Lord<\/span> to Israel” (Ezr 7:11, <span>nlt<\/span>). In Ecclesiasticus, the scribe is portrayed as one who, because of his diligent study of the Law, the Prophets, and Writings (Ecclus 38:24ff; 39:1), is able to penetrate the hidden meanings of texts (39:2-3) and thus is able to serve as judge and counsel for the affairs of the people and state (38:33; 39:4-8). Because of his invaluable place in a society governed by the Torah, the scribe is worthy of praise and veneration throughout succeeding generations (39:9). By the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the scribes were a fairly distinct class in Jewish society. They appear as such during the Maccabean wars, acting as a negotiating body with the rival Syrians (1 Macc 7:12). It is also significant that, from this time forward, the history of the scribe in Jewish life is closely linked with the rise of the Pharisees. Although there were apparently some scribes affiliated with the rival Sadducean party, the party of the Pharisees, with its absolute devotion to the law (including the oral law), became the primary religiopolitical affiliation for the scribes (see the close connection in the NT: Mt 5:20; 12:38; 15:1; Mk 7:5; Lk 6:7).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrainingandStatus\">Training and Status<\/p>\n<p>The training of scribes initially occurred within priestly family-based guilds that guaranteed the regulation and perpetuation of this position (1 Chr 2:55). Later, scribal training in the law became open to members of all classes, with the eventual result, by Jesus’ time, of scribes from nonpriestly families being far more numerous and influential. Training in the law began at an early age under the personal supervision of a teacher (rabbi), who gave instructions in all matters pertaining to the law and its interpretation for present needs. Because the written law of Moses could not possibly speak directly to conditions in postexilic times, the oral interpretation and application of the written law to meet such current needs was a significant contribution by the scribes. Such oral law promulgated by them was regarded as equal to the written law and equally binding for those desiring to please God (see Mk 7:6-13). This important function, lying at the heart of Jewish life, accounts for the participation of the scribes in the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin, in order to make legal decisions in keeping with the law, obviously needed the presence of those most knowledgeable about the minutest details of the Torah and the principles governing its application to new circumstances. The scribes, consequently, were the only members outside the aristocratic high priests and elders to be represented in this Jewish supreme court (Mt 26:57; Mk 14:43, 53; Lk 22:66; Acts 23:9). Being the authoritative instructors of the law both within the temple (Lk 2:46) and within the various synagogues of Judea and Galilee (5:17), as well as prominent members of the Sanhedrin, the scribes were greatly respected within the Jewish community. They wore special robes (Mk 12:38) with memorial fringes at the bottom and phylacteries, or “prayer boxes,” hanging from the arms (Mt 23:5). Such attire made their presence obvious and occasioned the rising or bowing of the common people when they passed (Mk 12:38). They were addressed with respect as “rabbi” or “master” (Mt 23:7) and were given the place of honor at worship as well as at social affairs (Mt 23:2; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46). Indeed, the high regard the Jews held for their scribes is testified by the fact that such teachers of the law were buried alongside the tombs of the patriarchs and prophets.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheScribesinJesusDay\">The Scribes in Jesus’ Day<\/p>\n<p>The scribes appear predominantly in the ministry of Jesus as those concerned with the circumspectness of legal observance. Luke refers to the scribes as “lawyers,” thereby describing their chief function as interpreters of the Jewish law in a way that communicated to his gentile audience. It is often found, therefore, that the scribes were critical members of Jesus’ audience, accusing him of violating the law on numerous occasions: in forgiving sins (Mt 9:1-3; Lk 5:17-26), in breaking their notion of Sabbath observance through work (Lk 6:1-2) and healing (vv 6-11), in not following their accepted ceremonial washings (Mk 7:2-5), and in ignoring their practice of fasting (Lk 5:33-39). Not surprisingly, they especially disapproved of Jesus’ practice of mingling with the unclean and outcasts of Jewish society (Mk 2:16-17; Lk 15:1-2). In a similar light, they are not unfrequently found presenting questions concerning the law for the purpose of tricking Jesus (Mk 7:5; 12:28, 35; Lk 11:53; Jn 8:3-4). In a similar fashion, they demanded that Jesus make his identity clear (Mt 12:38) and reveal the source of his authority to perform miracles (Mk 3:22; Lk 20:1-4). Although there is evidence that a minority of the scribes accepted Jesus (Mt 8:19; 13:52; Mk 12:32; Jn 3:1-2), their primary attitude toward Jesus was one of hostility. As previously suggested, this was partly due to Jesus’ differing expression of fidelity to the Mosaic law and his openness toward the outcasts. It was also partly due to the rising popularity of Jesus among the people, which posed a threat to their own authority (Mt 7:29) and to the safety of the city (Mt 21:15; Mk 11:18). Certainly, another major contributing factor of their opposition to Jesus was his exposure of their hypocrisy and corruption. In his rebukes of the scribes and the Pharisees, Jesus openly accused them of catering to public approval (Mt 23:5-7; Mk 12:38-39; Lk 11:43). While appearing to be outwardly correct and holy, they were inwardly corrupt (Mt 23:25-28; Lk 11:39-41). Jesus also attacked the principle of oral law taught by the scribes, which they demanded that the people follow. Jesus charged that the oral law was a “heavy burden” that the scribes themselves did not even bother to follow (Mt 23:2-4, 13-22; Lk 11:46). While emphasizing the minor points of the law, the scribes were also guilty of ignoring the weightier concerns of justice, mercy, and faith (Mt 23:23-24; Mk 12:40; Lk 11:42). Contrary to being the descendants of the prophets, as the scribes held themselves to be, the scribes (Jesus claimed) would have killed the prophets if they had lived in their day (Mt 23:29-36; Lk 20:9-19).<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising to find, therefore, the scribes anxious to get rid of Jesus (Mk 14:1; Lk 11:53). His more flexible interpretation of the law posed a clear threat to their position and authority within the community. The scribes joined forces with their normal opponents (the high priesthood) to engineer Jesus’ arrest (Mk 14:43). When Jesus appeared before them and the rest of the Sanhedrin, they worked with the other leaders to construct a case against him worthy of death (Mt 26:57-66). When taking Jesus before Herod, they stood by and shouted their accusations with the others (Lk 23:10). Finally, they participated with other members of the Sanhedrin in mocking Jesus on the cross, demanding that Jesus save himself by coming down from the cross (Mt 27:41-43). Prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the scribes continued with the other elements of the Sanhedrin to oppose the early Christian church, and they brought about Stephen’s martyrdom (Acts 6:12-14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Judaism; Pharisees; Writer.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SCRIBE<\/h3>\n<p>Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPreexilicTimes\">Scribes in Preexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion of the term “scribe” and has no particular religious connotation. Scribes were employed to keep accounts or transcribe legal information (Jer 32:12), military data (2 Chr 26:11), other public documents (Jgs 8:14; Is 50:1), or personal correspondence (Jer 36:18). These secretaries were essential to royal administrations, and there is frequent mention of a chief scribe who functioned as a court recorder (1 Kgs 4:3; 2 Chr 24:11), adviser (2 Sm 8:16-17; 2 Kgs 18:18; 22:12; 1 Chr 27:32; Is 36:3), and financial overseer (2 Kgs 22:3-4). Secretaries or scribes were associated with the priesthood as well, serving as recorders for temple affairs (1 Chr 24:6; 2 Chr 34:13-15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ScribesinPostexilicTimes\">Scribes in Postexilic Times<\/p>\n<p>With the restoration of Judaism under Ezra and Nehemiah, the term “scribe” begins to be associated more narrowly with those who gathered together, studied, and interpreted the Torah (Jewish law). They became, in essence, a separate profession of teachers (although unpaid), able to preserve accurately the law of Moses and interpret it to meet conditions in postexilic times. In this initial period, Ezra himself appears as the ideal “scribe who studied and taught the commands and laws of the <span>Lord<\/span> to Israel” (Ezr 7:11, <span>nlt<\/span>). In Ecclesiasticus, the scribe is portrayed as one who, because of his diligent study of the Law, the Prophets, and Writings (Ecclus 38:24ff; 39:1), is able to penetrate the hidden meanings of texts (39:2-3) and thus is able to serve as judge and counsel for the affairs of the people and state (38:33; 39:4-8). Because of his invaluable place in a society governed by the Torah, the scribe is worthy of praise and veneration throughout succeeding generations (39:9). By the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the scribes were a fairly distinct class in Jewish society. They appear as such during the Maccabean wars, acting as a negotiating body with the rival Syrians (1 Macc 7:12). It is also significant that, from this time forward, the history of the scribe in Jewish life is closely linked with the rise of the Pharisees. Although there were apparently some scribes affiliated with the rival Sadducean party, the party of the Pharisees, with its absolute devotion to the law (including the oral law), became the primary religiopolitical affiliation for the scribes (see the close connection in the NT: Mt 5:20; 12:38; 15:1; Mk 7:5; Lk 6:7).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrainingandStatus\">Training and Status<\/p>\n<p>The training of scribes initially occurred within priestly family-based guilds that guaranteed the regulation and perpetuation of this position (1 Chr 2:55). Later, scribal training in the law became open to members of all classes, with the eventual result, by Jesus’ time, of scribes from nonpriestly families being far more numerous and influential. Training in the law began at an early age under the personal supervision of a teacher (rabbi), who gave instructions in all matters pertaining to the law and its interpretation for present needs. Because the written law of Moses could not possibly speak directly to conditions in postexilic times, the oral interpretation and application of the written law to meet such current needs was a significant contribution by the scribes. Such oral law promulgated by them was regarded as equal to the written law and equally binding for those desiring to please God (see Mk 7:6-13). This important function, lying at the heart of Jewish life, accounts for the participation of the scribes in the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin, in order to make legal decisions in keeping with the law, obviously needed the presence of those most knowledgeable about the minutest details of the Torah and the principles governing its application to new circumstances. The scribes, consequently, were the only members outside the aristocratic high priests and elders to be represented in this Jewish supreme court (Mt 26:57; Mk 14:43, 53; Lk 22:66; Acts 23:9). Being the authoritative instructors of the law both within the temple (Lk 2:46) and within the various synagogues of Judea and Galilee (5:17), as well as prominent members of the Sanhedrin, the scribes were greatly respected within the Jewish community. They wore special robes (Mk 12:38) with memorial fringes at the bottom and phylacteries, or “prayer boxes,” hanging from the arms (Mt 23:5). Such attire made their presence obvious and occasioned the rising or bowing of the common people when they passed (Mk 12:38). They were addressed with respect as “rabbi” or “master” (Mt 23:7) and were given the place of honor at worship as well as at social affairs (Mt 23:2; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46). Indeed, the high regard the Jews held for their scribes is testified by the fact that such teachers of the law were buried alongside the tombs of the patriarchs and prophets.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheScribesinJesusDay\">The Scribes in Jesus’ Day<\/p>\n<p>The scribes appear predominantly in the ministry of Jesus as those concerned with the circumspectness of legal observance. Luke refers to the scribes as “lawyers,” thereby describing their chief function as interpreters of the Jewish law in a way that communicated to his gentile audience. It is often found, therefore, that the scribes were critical members of Jesus’ audience, accusing him of violating the law on numerous occasions: in forgiving sins (Mt 9:1-3; Lk 5:17-26), in breaking their notion of Sabbath observance through work (Lk 6:1-2) and healing (vv 6-11), in not following their accepted ceremonial washings (Mk 7:2-5), and in ignoring their practice of fasting (Lk 5:33-39). Not surprisingly, they especially disapproved of Jesus’ practice of mingling with the unclean and outcasts of Jewish society (Mk 2:16-17; Lk 15:1-2). In a similar light, they are not unfrequently found presenting questions concerning the law for the purpose of tricking Jesus (Mk 7:5; 12:28, 35; Lk 11:53; Jn 8:3-4). In a similar fashion, they demanded that Jesus make his identity clear (Mt 12:38) and reveal the source of his authority to perform miracles (Mk 3:22; Lk 20:1-4). Although there is evidence that a minority of the scribes accepted Jesus (Mt 8:19; 13:52; Mk 12:32; Jn 3:1-2), their primary attitude toward Jesus was one of hostility. As previously suggested, this was partly due to Jesus’ differing expression of fidelity to the Mosaic law and his openness toward the outcasts. It was also partly due to the rising popularity of Jesus among the people, which posed a threat to their own authority (Mt 7:29) and to the safety of the city (Mt 21:15; Mk 11:18). Certainly, another major contributing factor of their opposition to Jesus was his exposure of their hypocrisy and corruption. In his rebukes of the scribes and the Pharisees, Jesus openly accused them of catering to public approval (Mt 23:5-7; Mk 12:38-39; Lk 11:43). While appearing to be outwardly correct and holy, they were inwardly corrupt (Mt 23:25-28; Lk 11:39-41). Jesus also attacked the principle of oral law taught by the scribes, which they demanded that the people follow. Jesus charged that the oral law was a “heavy burden” that the scribes themselves did not even bother to follow (Mt 23:2-4, 13-22; Lk 11:46). While emphasizing the minor points of the law, the scribes were also guilty of ignoring the weightier concerns of justice, mercy, and faith (Mt 23:23-24; Mk 12:40; Lk 11:42). Contrary to being the descendants of the prophets, as the scribes held themselves to be, the scribes (Jesus claimed) would have killed the prophets if they had lived in their day (Mt 23:29-36; Lk 20:9-19).<\/p>\n<p>It is not surprising to find, therefore, the scribes anxious to get rid of Jesus (Mk 14:1; Lk 11:53). His more flexible interpretation of the law posed a clear threat to their position and authority within the community. The scribes joined forces with their normal opponents (the high priesthood) to engineer Jesus’ arrest (Mk 14:43). When Jesus appeared before them and the rest of the Sanhedrin, they worked with the other leaders to construct a case against him worthy of death (Mt 26:57-66). When taking Jesus before Herod, they stood by and shouted their accusations with the others (Lk 23:10). Finally, they participated with other members of the Sanhedrin in mocking Jesus on the cross, demanding that Jesus save himself by coming down from the cross (Mt 27:41-43). Prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the scribes continued with the other elements of the Sanhedrin to oppose the early Christian church, and they brought about Stephen’s martyrdom (Acts 6:12-14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Judaism; Pharisees; Writer.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SCRIBE Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus. Scribes in Preexilic Times The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion...","summary_en":"SCRIBE Reference in early OT times to those employed for their ability to transcribe information. After the exile, scribes were a class of scholars who taught, copied, and interpreted the Jewish law for the people. They appear in the Gospels primarily as opponents of Jesus. Scribes in Preexilic Times The ability to read and write was not widespread in ancient Israel, and professional secretaries were needed in the various aspects of public life. This appears to be the earliest biblical notion...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55470,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:40","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:40","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:40<\/strong> The teachers of religious law broke the second command by failing to love their neighbors, as was seen in their cheating widows <em>of their property<\/em>. They clearly were cheating the most vulnerable and needy people despite God’s concern for <em>widows<\/em> (Deut 14:29; Pss 68:5; 146:9; Isa 1:17; Jer 7:6; 49:11) and his condemnation of those who mistreat them (Isa 1:23; Ezek 22:7; Zech 7:10; Mal 3:5). The scribes wore a hypocritical cloak of false piety (see Matt 6:5-6; Luke 18:11-12). • <em>they will be more severely punished:<\/em> In the final judgment (Mark 9:42-48; see Luke 14:11).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:40<\/strong> The teachers of religious law broke the second command by failing to love their neighbors, as was seen in their cheating widows <em>of their property<\/em>. They clearly were cheating the most vulnerable and needy people despite God’s concern for <em>widows<\/em> (Deut 14:29; Pss 68:5; 146:9; Isa 1:17; Jer 7:6; 49:11) and his condemnation of those who mistreat them (Isa 1:23; Ezek 22:7; Zech 7:10; Mal 3:5). The scribes wore a hypocritical cloak of false piety (see Matt 6:5-6; Luke 18:11-12). • <em>they will be more severely punished:<\/em> In the final judgment (Mark 9:42-48; see Luke 14:11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:40 The teachers of religious law broke the second command by failing to love their neighbors, as was seen in their cheating widows of their property. They clearly were cheating the most vulnerable and needy people despite God’s concern for widows (Deut 14:29; Pss 68:5; 146:9; Isa 1:17; Jer 7:6; 49:11) and his condemnation of those who mistreat them (Isa 1:23; Ezek 22:7; Zech 7:10; Mal 3:5). The scribes wore a hypocritical cloak of false piety (see Matt 6:5-6; Luke 18:11-12). • they will be...","summary_en":"12:40 The teachers of religious law broke the second command by failing to love their neighbors, as was seen in their cheating widows of their property. They clearly were cheating the most vulnerable and needy people despite God’s concern for widows (Deut 14:29; Pss 68:5; 146:9; Isa 1:17; Jer 7:6; 49:11) and his condemnation of those who mistreat them (Isa 1:23; Ezek 22:7; Zech 7:10; Mal 3:5). The scribes wore a hypocritical cloak of false piety (see Matt 6:5-6; Luke 18:11-12). • they will be...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83096,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:40","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:40","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:40<\/strong> The teachers of religious law broke the second command by failing to love their neighbors, as was seen in their cheating widows <em>of their property<\/em>. They clearly were cheating the most vulnerable and needy people despite God’s concern for <em>widows<\/em> (Deut 14:29; Pss 68:5; 146:9; Isa 1:17; Jer 7:6; 49:11) and his condemnation of those who mistreat them (Isa 1:23; Ezek 22:7; Zech 7:10; Mal 3:5). The scribes wore a hypocritical cloak of false piety (see Matt 6:5-6; Luke 18:11-12). • <em>they will be more severely punished:<\/em> In the final judgment (Mark 9:42-48; see Luke 14:11).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:40<\/strong> The teachers of religious law broke the second command by failing to love their neighbors, as was seen in their cheating widows <em>of their property<\/em>. They clearly were cheating the most vulnerable and needy people despite God’s concern for <em>widows<\/em> (Deut 14:29; Pss 68:5; 146:9; Isa 1:17; Jer 7:6; 49:11) and his condemnation of those who mistreat them (Isa 1:23; Ezek 22:7; Zech 7:10; Mal 3:5). The scribes wore a hypocritical cloak of false piety (see Matt 6:5-6; Luke 18:11-12). • <em>they will be more severely punished:<\/em> In the final judgment (Mark 9:42-48; see Luke 14:11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:40 The teachers of religious law broke the second command by failing to love their neighbors, as was seen in their cheating widows of their property. They clearly were cheating the most vulnerable and needy people despite God’s concern for widows (Deut 14:29; Pss 68:5; 146:9; Isa 1:17; Jer 7:6; 49:11) and his condemnation of those who mistreat them (Isa 1:23; Ezek 22:7; Zech 7:10; Mal 3:5). The scribes wore a hypocritical cloak of false piety (see Matt 6:5-6; Luke 18:11-12). • they will be...","summary_en":"12:40 The teachers of religious law broke the second command by failing to love their neighbors, as was seen in their cheating widows of their property. They clearly were cheating the most vulnerable and needy people despite God’s concern for widows (Deut 14:29; Pss 68:5; 146:9; Isa 1:17; Jer 7:6; 49:11) and his condemnation of those who mistreat them (Isa 1:23; Ezek 22:7; Zech 7:10; Mal 3:5). The scribes wore a hypocritical cloak of false piety (see Matt 6:5-6; Luke 18:11-12). • they will be...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110722,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:40","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:40","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:40<\/strong> The teachers of religious law broke the second command by failing to love their neighbors, as was seen in their cheating widows <em>of their property<\/em>. They clearly were cheating the most vulnerable and needy people despite God’s concern for <em>widows<\/em> (Deut 14:29; Pss 68:5; 146:9; Isa 1:17; Jer 7:6; 49:11) and his condemnation of those who mistreat them (Isa 1:23; Ezek 22:7; Zech 7:10; Mal 3:5). The scribes wore a hypocritical cloak of false piety (see Matt 6:5-6; Luke 18:11-12). • <em>they will be more severely punished:<\/em> In the final judgment (Mark 9:42-48; see Luke 14:11).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:40<\/strong> The teachers of religious law broke the second command by failing to love their neighbors, as was seen in their cheating widows <em>of their property<\/em>. They clearly were cheating the most vulnerable and needy people despite God’s concern for <em>widows<\/em> (Deut 14:29; Pss 68:5; 146:9; Isa 1:17; Jer 7:6; 49:11) and his condemnation of those who mistreat them (Isa 1:23; Ezek 22:7; Zech 7:10; Mal 3:5). The scribes wore a hypocritical cloak of false piety (see Matt 6:5-6; Luke 18:11-12). • <em>they will be more severely punished:<\/em> In the final judgment (Mark 9:42-48; see Luke 14:11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:40 The teachers of religious law broke the second command by failing to love their neighbors, as was seen in their cheating widows of their property. They clearly were cheating the most vulnerable and needy people despite God’s concern for widows (Deut 14:29; Pss 68:5; 146:9; Isa 1:17; Jer 7:6; 49:11) and his condemnation of those who mistreat them (Isa 1:23; Ezek 22:7; Zech 7:10; Mal 3:5). The scribes wore a hypocritical cloak of false piety (see Matt 6:5-6; Luke 18:11-12). • they will be...","summary_en":"12:40 The teachers of religious law broke the second command by failing to love their neighbors, as was seen in their cheating widows of their property. They clearly were cheating the most vulnerable and needy people despite God’s concern for widows (Deut 14:29; Pss 68:5; 146:9; Isa 1:17; Jer 7:6; 49:11) and his condemnation of those who mistreat them (Isa 1:23; Ezek 22:7; Zech 7:10; Mal 3:5). The scribes wore a hypocritical cloak of false piety (see Matt 6:5-6; Luke 18:11-12). • they will be...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138348,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:40","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:40","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:40<\/strong> The teachers of religious law broke the second command by failing to love their neighbors, as was seen in their cheating widows <em>of their property<\/em>. They clearly were cheating the most vulnerable and needy people despite God’s concern for <em>widows<\/em> (Deut 14:29; Pss 68:5; 146:9; Isa 1:17; Jer 7:6; 49:11) and his condemnation of those who mistreat them (Isa 1:23; Ezek 22:7; Zech 7:10; Mal 3:5). The scribes wore a hypocritical cloak of false piety (see Matt 6:5-6; Luke 18:11-12). • <em>they will be more severely punished:<\/em> In the final judgment (Mark 9:42-48; see Luke 14:11).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:40<\/strong> The teachers of religious law broke the second command by failing to love their neighbors, as was seen in their cheating widows <em>of their property<\/em>. They clearly were cheating the most vulnerable and needy people despite God’s concern for <em>widows<\/em> (Deut 14:29; Pss 68:5; 146:9; Isa 1:17; Jer 7:6; 49:11) and his condemnation of those who mistreat them (Isa 1:23; Ezek 22:7; Zech 7:10; Mal 3:5). The scribes wore a hypocritical cloak of false piety (see Matt 6:5-6; Luke 18:11-12). • <em>they will be more severely punished:<\/em> In the final judgment (Mark 9:42-48; see Luke 14:11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:40 The teachers of religious law broke the second command by failing to love their neighbors, as was seen in their cheating widows of their property. They clearly were cheating the most vulnerable and needy people despite God’s concern for widows (Deut 14:29; Pss 68:5; 146:9; Isa 1:17; Jer 7:6; 49:11) and his condemnation of those who mistreat them (Isa 1:23; Ezek 22:7; Zech 7:10; Mal 3:5). The scribes wore a hypocritical cloak of false piety (see Matt 6:5-6; Luke 18:11-12). • they will be...","summary_en":"12:40 The teachers of religious law broke the second command by failing to love their neighbors, as was seen in their cheating widows of their property. They clearly were cheating the most vulnerable and needy people despite God’s concern for widows (Deut 14:29; Pss 68:5; 146:9; Isa 1:17; Jer 7:6; 49:11) and his condemnation of those who mistreat them (Isa 1:23; Ezek 22:7; Zech 7:10; Mal 3:5). The scribes wore a hypocritical cloak of false piety (see Matt 6:5-6; Luke 18:11-12). • they will be...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"41":[{"id":37039,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Temple","title_en":"Temple","content_ro":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","summary_en":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55471,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:41","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:41","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:41-44<\/strong> This account of a poor widow highlights the contrast between the falsely pious religious leaders (12:38-40) and those who truly love God. The emphasis of the passage falls on Jesus’ pronouncement, <em>I tell you the truth<\/em>, in which the widow is described as having given <em>more than<\/em> the rich.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:41-44<\/strong> This account of a poor widow highlights the contrast between the falsely pious religious leaders (12:38-40) and those who truly love God. The emphasis of the passage falls on Jesus’ pronouncement, <em>I tell you the truth<\/em>, in which the widow is described as having given <em>more than<\/em> the rich.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:41-44 This account of a poor widow highlights the contrast between the falsely pious religious leaders (12:38-40) and those who truly love God. The emphasis of the passage falls on Jesus’ pronouncement, I tell you the truth, in which the widow is described as having given more than the rich.","summary_en":"12:41-44 This account of a poor widow highlights the contrast between the falsely pious religious leaders (12:38-40) and those who truly love God. The emphasis of the passage falls on Jesus’ pronouncement, I tell you the truth, in which the widow is described as having given more than the rich.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":55472,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:41","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:41","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:41-42<\/strong> The word translated <em>collection box<\/em> can refer to a building within the Temple compound in which Temple money was stored, but here it refers to one of thirteen money chests into which gifts were placed. As Jesus watched, many rich people put in large sums. Then he noticed a poor widow put in <em>two small coins.<\/em> (The use of the Roman term <em>quadrans<\/em> supports the view that Mark wrote his Gospel for the church in Rome; see Mark Book Introduction, “Audience.”) These two coins were worth one sixty-fourth of a <em>denarius<\/em>, a normal day’s pay (Matt 20:1-2).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:41-42<\/strong> The word translated <em>collection box<\/em> can refer to a building within the Temple compound in which Temple money was stored, but here it refers to one of thirteen money chests into which gifts were placed. As Jesus watched, many rich people put in large sums. Then he noticed a poor widow put in <em>two small coins.<\/em> (The use of the Roman term <em>quadrans<\/em> supports the view that Mark wrote his Gospel for the church in Rome; see Mark Book Introduction, “Audience.”) These two coins were worth one sixty-fourth of a <em>denarius<\/em>, a normal day’s pay (Matt 20:1-2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:41-42 The word translated collection box can refer to a building within the Temple compound in which Temple money was stored, but here it refers to one of thirteen money chests into which gifts were placed. As Jesus watched, many rich people put in large sums. Then he noticed a poor widow put in two small coins. (The use of the Roman term quadrans supports the view that Mark wrote his Gospel for the church in Rome; see Mark Book Introduction, “Audience.”) These two coins were worth one six...","summary_en":"12:41-42 The word translated collection box can refer to a building within the Temple compound in which Temple money was stored, but here it refers to one of thirteen money chests into which gifts were placed. As Jesus watched, many rich people put in large sums. Then he noticed a poor widow put in two small coins. (The use of the Roman term quadrans supports the view that Mark wrote his Gospel for the church in Rome; see Mark Book Introduction, “Audience.”) These two coins were worth one six...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83097,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:41","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:41","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:41-44<\/strong> This account of a poor widow highlights the contrast between the falsely pious religious leaders (12:38-40) and those who truly love God. The emphasis of the passage falls on Jesus’ pronouncement, <em>I tell you the truth<\/em>, in which the widow is described as having given <em>more than<\/em> the rich.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:41-44<\/strong> This account of a poor widow highlights the contrast between the falsely pious religious leaders (12:38-40) and those who truly love God. The emphasis of the passage falls on Jesus’ pronouncement, <em>I tell you the truth<\/em>, in which the widow is described as having given <em>more than<\/em> the rich.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:41-44 This account of a poor widow highlights the contrast between the falsely pious religious leaders (12:38-40) and those who truly love God. The emphasis of the passage falls on Jesus’ pronouncement, I tell you the truth, in which the widow is described as having given more than the rich.","summary_en":"12:41-44 This account of a poor widow highlights the contrast between the falsely pious religious leaders (12:38-40) and those who truly love God. The emphasis of the passage falls on Jesus’ pronouncement, I tell you the truth, in which the widow is described as having given more than the rich.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83098,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:41","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:41","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:41-42<\/strong> The word translated <em>collection box<\/em> can refer to a building within the Temple compound in which Temple money was stored, but here it refers to one of thirteen money chests into which gifts were placed. As Jesus watched, many rich people put in large sums. Then he noticed a poor widow put in <em>two small coins.<\/em> (The use of the Roman term <em>quadrans<\/em> supports the view that Mark wrote his Gospel for the church in Rome; see Mark Book Introduction, “Audience.”) These two coins were worth one sixty-fourth of a <em>denarius<\/em>, a normal day’s pay (Matt 20:1-2).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:41-42<\/strong> The word translated <em>collection box<\/em> can refer to a building within the Temple compound in which Temple money was stored, but here it refers to one of thirteen money chests into which gifts were placed. As Jesus watched, many rich people put in large sums. Then he noticed a poor widow put in <em>two small coins.<\/em> (The use of the Roman term <em>quadrans<\/em> supports the view that Mark wrote his Gospel for the church in Rome; see Mark Book Introduction, “Audience.”) These two coins were worth one sixty-fourth of a <em>denarius<\/em>, a normal day’s pay (Matt 20:1-2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:41-42 The word translated collection box can refer to a building within the Temple compound in which Temple money was stored, but here it refers to one of thirteen money chests into which gifts were placed. As Jesus watched, many rich people put in large sums. Then he noticed a poor widow put in two small coins. (The use of the Roman term quadrans supports the view that Mark wrote his Gospel for the church in Rome; see Mark Book Introduction, “Audience.”) These two coins were worth one six...","summary_en":"12:41-42 The word translated collection box can refer to a building within the Temple compound in which Temple money was stored, but here it refers to one of thirteen money chests into which gifts were placed. As Jesus watched, many rich people put in large sums. Then he noticed a poor widow put in two small coins. (The use of the Roman term quadrans supports the view that Mark wrote his Gospel for the church in Rome; see Mark Book Introduction, “Audience.”) These two coins were worth one six...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110723,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:41","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:41","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:41-44<\/strong> This account of a poor widow highlights the contrast between the falsely pious religious leaders (12:38-40) and those who truly love God. The emphasis of the passage falls on Jesus’ pronouncement, <em>I tell you the truth<\/em>, in which the widow is described as having given <em>more than<\/em> the rich.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:41-44<\/strong> This account of a poor widow highlights the contrast between the falsely pious religious leaders (12:38-40) and those who truly love God. The emphasis of the passage falls on Jesus’ pronouncement, <em>I tell you the truth<\/em>, in which the widow is described as having given <em>more than<\/em> the rich.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:41-44 This account of a poor widow highlights the contrast between the falsely pious religious leaders (12:38-40) and those who truly love God. The emphasis of the passage falls on Jesus’ pronouncement, I tell you the truth, in which the widow is described as having given more than the rich.","summary_en":"12:41-44 This account of a poor widow highlights the contrast between the falsely pious religious leaders (12:38-40) and those who truly love God. The emphasis of the passage falls on Jesus’ pronouncement, I tell you the truth, in which the widow is described as having given more than the rich.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110724,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:41","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:41","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:41-42<\/strong> The word translated <em>collection box<\/em> can refer to a building within the Temple compound in which Temple money was stored, but here it refers to one of thirteen money chests into which gifts were placed. As Jesus watched, many rich people put in large sums. Then he noticed a poor widow put in <em>two small coins.<\/em> (The use of the Roman term <em>quadrans<\/em> supports the view that Mark wrote his Gospel for the church in Rome; see Mark Book Introduction, “Audience.”) These two coins were worth one sixty-fourth of a <em>denarius<\/em>, a normal day’s pay (Matt 20:1-2).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:41-42<\/strong> The word translated <em>collection box<\/em> can refer to a building within the Temple compound in which Temple money was stored, but here it refers to one of thirteen money chests into which gifts were placed. As Jesus watched, many rich people put in large sums. Then he noticed a poor widow put in <em>two small coins.<\/em> (The use of the Roman term <em>quadrans<\/em> supports the view that Mark wrote his Gospel for the church in Rome; see Mark Book Introduction, “Audience.”) These two coins were worth one sixty-fourth of a <em>denarius<\/em>, a normal day’s pay (Matt 20:1-2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:41-42 The word translated collection box can refer to a building within the Temple compound in which Temple money was stored, but here it refers to one of thirteen money chests into which gifts were placed. As Jesus watched, many rich people put in large sums. Then he noticed a poor widow put in two small coins. (The use of the Roman term quadrans supports the view that Mark wrote his Gospel for the church in Rome; see Mark Book Introduction, “Audience.”) These two coins were worth one six...","summary_en":"12:41-42 The word translated collection box can refer to a building within the Temple compound in which Temple money was stored, but here it refers to one of thirteen money chests into which gifts were placed. As Jesus watched, many rich people put in large sums. Then he noticed a poor widow put in two small coins. (The use of the Roman term quadrans supports the view that Mark wrote his Gospel for the church in Rome; see Mark Book Introduction, “Audience.”) These two coins were worth one six...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138349,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:41","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:41","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:41-44<\/strong> This account of a poor widow highlights the contrast between the falsely pious religious leaders (12:38-40) and those who truly love God. The emphasis of the passage falls on Jesus’ pronouncement, <em>I tell you the truth<\/em>, in which the widow is described as having given <em>more than<\/em> the rich.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:41-44<\/strong> This account of a poor widow highlights the contrast between the falsely pious religious leaders (12:38-40) and those who truly love God. The emphasis of the passage falls on Jesus’ pronouncement, <em>I tell you the truth<\/em>, in which the widow is described as having given <em>more than<\/em> the rich.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:41-44 This account of a poor widow highlights the contrast between the falsely pious religious leaders (12:38-40) and those who truly love God. The emphasis of the passage falls on Jesus’ pronouncement, I tell you the truth, in which the widow is described as having given more than the rich.","summary_en":"12:41-44 This account of a poor widow highlights the contrast between the falsely pious religious leaders (12:38-40) and those who truly love God. The emphasis of the passage falls on Jesus’ pronouncement, I tell you the truth, in which the widow is described as having given more than the rich.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138350,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:41","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:41","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:41-42<\/strong> The word translated <em>collection box<\/em> can refer to a building within the Temple compound in which Temple money was stored, but here it refers to one of thirteen money chests into which gifts were placed. As Jesus watched, many rich people put in large sums. Then he noticed a poor widow put in <em>two small coins.<\/em> (The use of the Roman term <em>quadrans<\/em> supports the view that Mark wrote his Gospel for the church in Rome; see Mark Book Introduction, “Audience.”) These two coins were worth one sixty-fourth of a <em>denarius<\/em>, a normal day’s pay (Matt 20:1-2).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:41-42<\/strong> The word translated <em>collection box<\/em> can refer to a building within the Temple compound in which Temple money was stored, but here it refers to one of thirteen money chests into which gifts were placed. As Jesus watched, many rich people put in large sums. Then he noticed a poor widow put in <em>two small coins.<\/em> (The use of the Roman term <em>quadrans<\/em> supports the view that Mark wrote his Gospel for the church in Rome; see Mark Book Introduction, “Audience.”) These two coins were worth one sixty-fourth of a <em>denarius<\/em>, a normal day’s pay (Matt 20:1-2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:41-42 The word translated collection box can refer to a building within the Temple compound in which Temple money was stored, but here it refers to one of thirteen money chests into which gifts were placed. As Jesus watched, many rich people put in large sums. Then he noticed a poor widow put in two small coins. (The use of the Roman term quadrans supports the view that Mark wrote his Gospel for the church in Rome; see Mark Book Introduction, “Audience.”) These two coins were worth one six...","summary_en":"12:41-42 The word translated collection box can refer to a building within the Temple compound in which Temple money was stored, but here it refers to one of thirteen money chests into which gifts were placed. As Jesus watched, many rich people put in large sums. Then he noticed a poor widow put in two small coins. (The use of the Roman term quadrans supports the view that Mark wrote his Gospel for the church in Rome; see Mark Book Introduction, “Audience.”) These two coins were worth one six...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":60507,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Concern for the Poor","title_en":"Concern for the Poor","content_ro":"<h3>Concern for the Poor<\/h3>\n<p>God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left for the needy (see Lev 23:22). Those who were destitute were not to be victimized. Instead, loans were to be made without interest, or the debtor was to be allowed to work off his debt with dignity as a bondservant (25:35-42). These positive steps ensured that the poor had food to eat.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible first mentions concern for the poor in the radical accommodations of the offering system to those unable to afford more costly offerings. Birds could be substituted for lambs in the whole burnt offering (1:14-17) and the sin offering (5:7-10), and there were other such concessions in the cleansing rituals (14:21-22). Perhaps the most striking is in the substitution of flour for the sin offering (5:11-13). The life-for-a-life symbolism is forfeited for economic reasons, showing clearly God’s desire that the poor who cannot afford a lamb should nonetheless be able to experience forgiveness of sins.<\/p>\n<p>This theme is continued in the prophets’ concern for the poor and helpless and their pleas for social justice and compassion (e.g., Isa 1:17; Amos 2:6). The prophets had some strong words for those responsible for oppressing the needy (see e.g., 4:1-3; 8:4-8). The worship practices of the people—no matter how lavish—were not accepted by God if, at the same time, those worshiping were guilty of injustice and oppression (see Isa 1:15-20; Mic 6:6-8). This notion that proper attitudes and actions toward God and others are more important than the practice of worship rituals is reflected in the story in the Gospels of the poor widow’s offering. Her offering receives praise from Jesus, not because of its monetary value, but because of the devotion it represented (Mark 12:41-44). Religious practices could even inhibit helping those in need (see Mark 7:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>Both Jesus and the early church exhibited concern for the poor. Jesus indicated that a major component of his mission was to bring hope to the poor and release for the oppressed (Luke 4:16-21). He warned strongly against neglecting the poor (Luke 16:19-31) and indicated that a willingness to provide for the poor was necessary for those desiring to be his followers (see Luke 18:18-23). Reflecting the teaching of Christ, the early church sought to ensure that the needy among them were well cared for (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-37; 1 Tim 5:3-16). As in the prophets, the mistreatment of the marginalized made a farce of religious practice (1 Cor 11:17-29; Jas 1:27–2:17).<\/p>\n<p>God’s concern for the poor is thus a theme that runs throughout Scripture, and believers must take up a similar perspective toward those in need.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:22-27; 23:6-11; Lev 5:7, 11; 14:21-22; 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut 10:17-19; 15:4-11; 16:9-12; 24:6-22; 26:12-13; 27:17-19; 1 Sam 2:8; Ps 10:13-18; 35:10; 68:5; Prov 14:31; Isa 1:15-17; Amos 2:6; 4:1; 8:4-7; Mic 6:6-8, 12; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 6:20; 14:12-14; Jas 2:1-17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Concern for the Poor<\/h3>\n<p>God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left for the needy (see Lev 23:22). Those who were destitute were not to be victimized. Instead, loans were to be made without interest, or the debtor was to be allowed to work off his debt with dignity as a bondservant (25:35-42). These positive steps ensured that the poor had food to eat.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible first mentions concern for the poor in the radical accommodations of the offering system to those unable to afford more costly offerings. Birds could be substituted for lambs in the whole burnt offering (1:14-17) and the sin offering (5:7-10), and there were other such concessions in the cleansing rituals (14:21-22). Perhaps the most striking is in the substitution of flour for the sin offering (5:11-13). The life-for-a-life symbolism is forfeited for economic reasons, showing clearly God’s desire that the poor who cannot afford a lamb should nonetheless be able to experience forgiveness of sins.<\/p>\n<p>This theme is continued in the prophets’ concern for the poor and helpless and their pleas for social justice and compassion (e.g., Isa 1:17; Amos 2:6). The prophets had some strong words for those responsible for oppressing the needy (see e.g., 4:1-3; 8:4-8). The worship practices of the people—no matter how lavish—were not accepted by God if, at the same time, those worshiping were guilty of injustice and oppression (see Isa 1:15-20; Mic 6:6-8). This notion that proper attitudes and actions toward God and others are more important than the practice of worship rituals is reflected in the story in the Gospels of the poor widow’s offering. Her offering receives praise from Jesus, not because of its monetary value, but because of the devotion it represented (Mark 12:41-44). Religious practices could even inhibit helping those in need (see Mark 7:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>Both Jesus and the early church exhibited concern for the poor. Jesus indicated that a major component of his mission was to bring hope to the poor and release for the oppressed (Luke 4:16-21). He warned strongly against neglecting the poor (Luke 16:19-31) and indicated that a willingness to provide for the poor was necessary for those desiring to be his followers (see Luke 18:18-23). Reflecting the teaching of Christ, the early church sought to ensure that the needy among them were well cared for (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-37; 1 Tim 5:3-16). As in the prophets, the mistreatment of the marginalized made a farce of religious practice (1 Cor 11:17-29; Jas 1:27–2:17).<\/p>\n<p>God’s concern for the poor is thus a theme that runs throughout Scripture, and believers must take up a similar perspective toward those in need.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:22-27; 23:6-11; Lev 5:7, 11; 14:21-22; 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut 10:17-19; 15:4-11; 16:9-12; 24:6-22; 26:12-13; 27:17-19; 1 Sam 2:8; Ps 10:13-18; 35:10; 68:5; Prov 14:31; Isa 1:15-17; Amos 2:6; 4:1; 8:4-7; Mic 6:6-8, 12; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 6:20; 14:12-14; Jas 2:1-17<\/p>","summary_ro":"Concern for the Poor God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left f...","summary_en":"Concern for the Poor God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left f...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":67236,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Christian Giving","title_en":"Christian Giving","content_ro":"<h3>Christian Giving<\/h3>\n<p>Bountiful giving is a mark of true grace. We see its sublime expression in the Lord of glory, who by his poverty became one with us and made us rich (2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:5-8). We have received his unmerited favor in salvation, and we give sacrificially in response to “this gift too wonderful for words!” (9:15).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus taught that generosity would be one evidence of those who follow him (Matt 25:34-36), and he stressed the importance of a person’s intentions and attitude, not simply the amount given (Mark 12:41-44).<\/p>\n<p>Paul dedicates a lot of his attention in 2 Corinthians to the theme of giving. The church at Corinth was encouraged to give generously in response to human need, specifically the needs of the poor Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (2 Cor 8:6-7; 9:1-5). It would be a sign that the Gentile Christians were one body with the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s teaching on Christian giving in can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n<p>(1) Our giving should spring from a willing mind and heart (2 Cor 8:12; 9:7). Paul emphasizes motives because all giving should hinge on why we give.<\/p>\n<p>(2) True giving is a joy, in contrast with grudging gifts (9:5). There is joy in sowing seed, like a farmer who anticipates a crop (9:6-10); and there is joy in sharing with others in need (9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>(3) Christian giving is marked by generosity and may entail sacrifice, as it did for the Macedonians (8:1-5).<\/p>\n<p>(4) The handling of financial gifts calls for honesty, integrity, and care. Paul was careful to deflect any suspicion of his colleagues who were sent to collect gifts from the churches (8:20-21). Those who handle monetary gifts in the church should be persons of proven reputation and responsibility.<\/p>\n<p>Christian living is to be marked by a generous concern for those in need, and Paul instructs believers to please God, not themselves (5:15). Believers are called to live under Christ’s lordship and be motivated by his love (5:14). We can demonstrate his love tangibly in our giving.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:2; 35:5; Lev 25:35; Deut 15:7-11; 16:17; 1 Chr 29:9; Prov 3:9-10; 11:24-26; 21:13; 28:27; Mal 3:8; Matt 5:42; 6:3-4; 10:8; 19:21; Luke 6:38; 11:41; 12:33-34; 18:22; Acts 11:29; 1 Cor 13:3; 16:2-3; 2 Cor 5:17-18; 2 Cor 8:1–9:15; Phil 2:3-11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Christian Giving<\/h3>\n<p>Bountiful giving is a mark of true grace. We see its sublime expression in the Lord of glory, who by his poverty became one with us and made us rich (2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:5-8). We have received his unmerited favor in salvation, and we give sacrificially in response to “this gift too wonderful for words!” (9:15).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus taught that generosity would be one evidence of those who follow him (Matt 25:34-36), and he stressed the importance of a person’s intentions and attitude, not simply the amount given (Mark 12:41-44).<\/p>\n<p>Paul dedicates a lot of his attention in 2 Corinthians to the theme of giving. The church at Corinth was encouraged to give generously in response to human need, specifically the needs of the poor Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (2 Cor 8:6-7; 9:1-5). It would be a sign that the Gentile Christians were one body with the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s teaching on Christian giving in can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n<p>(1) Our giving should spring from a willing mind and heart (2 Cor 8:12; 9:7). Paul emphasizes motives because all giving should hinge on why we give.<\/p>\n<p>(2) True giving is a joy, in contrast with grudging gifts (9:5). There is joy in sowing seed, like a farmer who anticipates a crop (9:6-10); and there is joy in sharing with others in need (9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>(3) Christian giving is marked by generosity and may entail sacrifice, as it did for the Macedonians (8:1-5).<\/p>\n<p>(4) The handling of financial gifts calls for honesty, integrity, and care. Paul was careful to deflect any suspicion of his colleagues who were sent to collect gifts from the churches (8:20-21). Those who handle monetary gifts in the church should be persons of proven reputation and responsibility.<\/p>\n<p>Christian living is to be marked by a generous concern for those in need, and Paul instructs believers to please God, not themselves (5:15). Believers are called to live under Christ’s lordship and be motivated by his love (5:14). We can demonstrate his love tangibly in our giving.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:2; 35:5; Lev 25:35; Deut 15:7-11; 16:17; 1 Chr 29:9; Prov 3:9-10; 11:24-26; 21:13; 28:27; Mal 3:8; Matt 5:42; 6:3-4; 10:8; 19:21; Luke 6:38; 11:41; 12:33-34; 18:22; Acts 11:29; 1 Cor 13:3; 16:2-3; 2 Cor 5:17-18; 2 Cor 8:1–9:15; Phil 2:3-11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Christian Giving Bountiful giving is a mark of true grace. We see its sublime expression in the Lord of glory, who by his poverty became one with us and made us rich (2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:5-8). We have received his unmerited favor in salvation, and we give sacrificially in response to “this gift too wonderful for words!” (9:15). Jesus taught that generosity would be one evidence of those who follow him (Matt 25:34-36), and he stressed the importance of a person’s intentions and attitude, not sim...","summary_en":"Christian Giving Bountiful giving is a mark of true grace. We see its sublime expression in the Lord of glory, who by his poverty became one with us and made us rich (2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:5-8). We have received his unmerited favor in salvation, and we give sacrificially in response to “this gift too wonderful for words!” (9:15). Jesus taught that generosity would be one evidence of those who follow him (Matt 25:34-36), and he stressed the importance of a person’s intentions and attitude, not sim...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":88133,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Concern for the Poor","title_en":"Concern for the Poor","content_ro":"<h3>Concern for the Poor<\/h3>\n<p>God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left for the needy (see Lev 23:22). Those who were destitute were not to be victimized. Instead, loans were to be made without interest, or the debtor was to be allowed to work off his debt with dignity as a bondservant (25:35-42). These positive steps ensured that the poor had food to eat.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible first mentions concern for the poor in the radical accommodations of the offering system to those unable to afford more costly offerings. Birds could be substituted for lambs in the whole burnt offering (1:14-17) and the sin offering (5:7-10), and there were other such concessions in the cleansing rituals (14:21-22). Perhaps the most striking is in the substitution of flour for the sin offering (5:11-13). The life-for-a-life symbolism is forfeited for economic reasons, showing clearly God’s desire that the poor who cannot afford a lamb should nonetheless be able to experience forgiveness of sins.<\/p>\n<p>This theme is continued in the prophets’ concern for the poor and helpless and their pleas for social justice and compassion (e.g., Isa 1:17; Amos 2:6). The prophets had some strong words for those responsible for oppressing the needy (see e.g., 4:1-3; 8:4-8). The worship practices of the people—no matter how lavish—were not accepted by God if, at the same time, those worshiping were guilty of injustice and oppression (see Isa 1:15-20; Mic 6:6-8). This notion that proper attitudes and actions toward God and others are more important than the practice of worship rituals is reflected in the story in the Gospels of the poor widow’s offering. Her offering receives praise from Jesus, not because of its monetary value, but because of the devotion it represented (Mark 12:41-44). Religious practices could even inhibit helping those in need (see Mark 7:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>Both Jesus and the early church exhibited concern for the poor. Jesus indicated that a major component of his mission was to bring hope to the poor and release for the oppressed (Luke 4:16-21). He warned strongly against neglecting the poor (Luke 16:19-31) and indicated that a willingness to provide for the poor was necessary for those desiring to be his followers (see Luke 18:18-23). Reflecting the teaching of Christ, the early church sought to ensure that the needy among them were well cared for (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-37; 1 Tim 5:3-16). As in the prophets, the mistreatment of the marginalized made a farce of religious practice (1 Cor 11:17-29; Jas 1:27–2:17).<\/p>\n<p>God’s concern for the poor is thus a theme that runs throughout Scripture, and believers must take up a similar perspective toward those in need.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:22-27; 23:6-11; Lev 5:7, 11; 14:21-22; 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut 10:17-19; 15:4-11; 16:9-12; 24:6-22; 26:12-13; 27:17-19; 1 Sam 2:8; Ps 10:13-18; 35:10; 68:5; Prov 14:31; Isa 1:15-17; Amos 2:6; 4:1; 8:4-7; Mic 6:6-8, 12; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 6:20; 14:12-14; Jas 2:1-17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Concern for the Poor<\/h3>\n<p>God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left for the needy (see Lev 23:22). Those who were destitute were not to be victimized. Instead, loans were to be made without interest, or the debtor was to be allowed to work off his debt with dignity as a bondservant (25:35-42). These positive steps ensured that the poor had food to eat.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible first mentions concern for the poor in the radical accommodations of the offering system to those unable to afford more costly offerings. Birds could be substituted for lambs in the whole burnt offering (1:14-17) and the sin offering (5:7-10), and there were other such concessions in the cleansing rituals (14:21-22). Perhaps the most striking is in the substitution of flour for the sin offering (5:11-13). The life-for-a-life symbolism is forfeited for economic reasons, showing clearly God’s desire that the poor who cannot afford a lamb should nonetheless be able to experience forgiveness of sins.<\/p>\n<p>This theme is continued in the prophets’ concern for the poor and helpless and their pleas for social justice and compassion (e.g., Isa 1:17; Amos 2:6). The prophets had some strong words for those responsible for oppressing the needy (see e.g., 4:1-3; 8:4-8). The worship practices of the people—no matter how lavish—were not accepted by God if, at the same time, those worshiping were guilty of injustice and oppression (see Isa 1:15-20; Mic 6:6-8). This notion that proper attitudes and actions toward God and others are more important than the practice of worship rituals is reflected in the story in the Gospels of the poor widow’s offering. Her offering receives praise from Jesus, not because of its monetary value, but because of the devotion it represented (Mark 12:41-44). Religious practices could even inhibit helping those in need (see Mark 7:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>Both Jesus and the early church exhibited concern for the poor. Jesus indicated that a major component of his mission was to bring hope to the poor and release for the oppressed (Luke 4:16-21). He warned strongly against neglecting the poor (Luke 16:19-31) and indicated that a willingness to provide for the poor was necessary for those desiring to be his followers (see Luke 18:18-23). Reflecting the teaching of Christ, the early church sought to ensure that the needy among them were well cared for (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-37; 1 Tim 5:3-16). As in the prophets, the mistreatment of the marginalized made a farce of religious practice (1 Cor 11:17-29; Jas 1:27–2:17).<\/p>\n<p>God’s concern for the poor is thus a theme that runs throughout Scripture, and believers must take up a similar perspective toward those in need.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:22-27; 23:6-11; Lev 5:7, 11; 14:21-22; 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut 10:17-19; 15:4-11; 16:9-12; 24:6-22; 26:12-13; 27:17-19; 1 Sam 2:8; Ps 10:13-18; 35:10; 68:5; Prov 14:31; Isa 1:15-17; Amos 2:6; 4:1; 8:4-7; Mic 6:6-8, 12; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 6:20; 14:12-14; Jas 2:1-17<\/p>","summary_ro":"Concern for the Poor God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left f...","summary_en":"Concern for the Poor God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left f...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":94862,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Christian Giving","title_en":"Christian Giving","content_ro":"<h3>Christian Giving<\/h3>\n<p>Bountiful giving is a mark of true grace. We see its sublime expression in the Lord of glory, who by his poverty became one with us and made us rich (2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:5-8). We have received his unmerited favor in salvation, and we give sacrificially in response to “this gift too wonderful for words!” (9:15).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus taught that generosity would be one evidence of those who follow him (Matt 25:34-36), and he stressed the importance of a person’s intentions and attitude, not simply the amount given (Mark 12:41-44).<\/p>\n<p>Paul dedicates a lot of his attention in 2 Corinthians to the theme of giving. The church at Corinth was encouraged to give generously in response to human need, specifically the needs of the poor Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (2 Cor 8:6-7; 9:1-5). It would be a sign that the Gentile Christians were one body with the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s teaching on Christian giving in can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n<p>(1) Our giving should spring from a willing mind and heart (2 Cor 8:12; 9:7). Paul emphasizes motives because all giving should hinge on why we give.<\/p>\n<p>(2) True giving is a joy, in contrast with grudging gifts (9:5). There is joy in sowing seed, like a farmer who anticipates a crop (9:6-10); and there is joy in sharing with others in need (9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>(3) Christian giving is marked by generosity and may entail sacrifice, as it did for the Macedonians (8:1-5).<\/p>\n<p>(4) The handling of financial gifts calls for honesty, integrity, and care. Paul was careful to deflect any suspicion of his colleagues who were sent to collect gifts from the churches (8:20-21). Those who handle monetary gifts in the church should be persons of proven reputation and responsibility.<\/p>\n<p>Christian living is to be marked by a generous concern for those in need, and Paul instructs believers to please God, not themselves (5:15). Believers are called to live under Christ’s lordship and be motivated by his love (5:14). We can demonstrate his love tangibly in our giving.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:2; 35:5; Lev 25:35; Deut 15:7-11; 16:17; 1 Chr 29:9; Prov 3:9-10; 11:24-26; 21:13; 28:27; Mal 3:8; Matt 5:42; 6:3-4; 10:8; 19:21; Luke 6:38; 11:41; 12:33-34; 18:22; Acts 11:29; 1 Cor 13:3; 16:2-3; 2 Cor 5:17-18; 2 Cor 8:1–9:15; Phil 2:3-11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Christian Giving<\/h3>\n<p>Bountiful giving is a mark of true grace. We see its sublime expression in the Lord of glory, who by his poverty became one with us and made us rich (2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:5-8). We have received his unmerited favor in salvation, and we give sacrificially in response to “this gift too wonderful for words!” (9:15).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus taught that generosity would be one evidence of those who follow him (Matt 25:34-36), and he stressed the importance of a person’s intentions and attitude, not simply the amount given (Mark 12:41-44).<\/p>\n<p>Paul dedicates a lot of his attention in 2 Corinthians to the theme of giving. The church at Corinth was encouraged to give generously in response to human need, specifically the needs of the poor Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (2 Cor 8:6-7; 9:1-5). It would be a sign that the Gentile Christians were one body with the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s teaching on Christian giving in can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n<p>(1) Our giving should spring from a willing mind and heart (2 Cor 8:12; 9:7). Paul emphasizes motives because all giving should hinge on why we give.<\/p>\n<p>(2) True giving is a joy, in contrast with grudging gifts (9:5). There is joy in sowing seed, like a farmer who anticipates a crop (9:6-10); and there is joy in sharing with others in need (9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>(3) Christian giving is marked by generosity and may entail sacrifice, as it did for the Macedonians (8:1-5).<\/p>\n<p>(4) The handling of financial gifts calls for honesty, integrity, and care. Paul was careful to deflect any suspicion of his colleagues who were sent to collect gifts from the churches (8:20-21). Those who handle monetary gifts in the church should be persons of proven reputation and responsibility.<\/p>\n<p>Christian living is to be marked by a generous concern for those in need, and Paul instructs believers to please God, not themselves (5:15). Believers are called to live under Christ’s lordship and be motivated by his love (5:14). We can demonstrate his love tangibly in our giving.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:2; 35:5; Lev 25:35; Deut 15:7-11; 16:17; 1 Chr 29:9; Prov 3:9-10; 11:24-26; 21:13; 28:27; Mal 3:8; Matt 5:42; 6:3-4; 10:8; 19:21; Luke 6:38; 11:41; 12:33-34; 18:22; Acts 11:29; 1 Cor 13:3; 16:2-3; 2 Cor 5:17-18; 2 Cor 8:1–9:15; Phil 2:3-11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Christian Giving Bountiful giving is a mark of true grace. We see its sublime expression in the Lord of glory, who by his poverty became one with us and made us rich (2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:5-8). We have received his unmerited favor in salvation, and we give sacrificially in response to “this gift too wonderful for words!” (9:15). Jesus taught that generosity would be one evidence of those who follow him (Matt 25:34-36), and he stressed the importance of a person’s intentions and attitude, not sim...","summary_en":"Christian Giving Bountiful giving is a mark of true grace. We see its sublime expression in the Lord of glory, who by his poverty became one with us and made us rich (2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:5-8). We have received his unmerited favor in salvation, and we give sacrificially in response to “this gift too wonderful for words!” (9:15). Jesus taught that generosity would be one evidence of those who follow him (Matt 25:34-36), and he stressed the importance of a person’s intentions and attitude, not sim...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":115759,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Concern for the Poor","title_en":"Concern for the Poor","content_ro":"<h3>Concern for the Poor<\/h3>\n<p>God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left for the needy (see Lev 23:22). Those who were destitute were not to be victimized. Instead, loans were to be made without interest, or the debtor was to be allowed to work off his debt with dignity as a bondservant (25:35-42). These positive steps ensured that the poor had food to eat.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible first mentions concern for the poor in the radical accommodations of the offering system to those unable to afford more costly offerings. Birds could be substituted for lambs in the whole burnt offering (1:14-17) and the sin offering (5:7-10), and there were other such concessions in the cleansing rituals (14:21-22). Perhaps the most striking is in the substitution of flour for the sin offering (5:11-13). The life-for-a-life symbolism is forfeited for economic reasons, showing clearly God’s desire that the poor who cannot afford a lamb should nonetheless be able to experience forgiveness of sins.<\/p>\n<p>This theme is continued in the prophets’ concern for the poor and helpless and their pleas for social justice and compassion (e.g., Isa 1:17; Amos 2:6). The prophets had some strong words for those responsible for oppressing the needy (see e.g., 4:1-3; 8:4-8). The worship practices of the people—no matter how lavish—were not accepted by God if, at the same time, those worshiping were guilty of injustice and oppression (see Isa 1:15-20; Mic 6:6-8). This notion that proper attitudes and actions toward God and others are more important than the practice of worship rituals is reflected in the story in the Gospels of the poor widow’s offering. Her offering receives praise from Jesus, not because of its monetary value, but because of the devotion it represented (Mark 12:41-44). Religious practices could even inhibit helping those in need (see Mark 7:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>Both Jesus and the early church exhibited concern for the poor. Jesus indicated that a major component of his mission was to bring hope to the poor and release for the oppressed (Luke 4:16-21). He warned strongly against neglecting the poor (Luke 16:19-31) and indicated that a willingness to provide for the poor was necessary for those desiring to be his followers (see Luke 18:18-23). Reflecting the teaching of Christ, the early church sought to ensure that the needy among them were well cared for (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-37; 1 Tim 5:3-16). As in the prophets, the mistreatment of the marginalized made a farce of religious practice (1 Cor 11:17-29; Jas 1:27–2:17).<\/p>\n<p>God’s concern for the poor is thus a theme that runs throughout Scripture, and believers must take up a similar perspective toward those in need.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:22-27; 23:6-11; Lev 5:7, 11; 14:21-22; 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut 10:17-19; 15:4-11; 16:9-12; 24:6-22; 26:12-13; 27:17-19; 1 Sam 2:8; Ps 10:13-18; 35:10; 68:5; Prov 14:31; Isa 1:15-17; Amos 2:6; 4:1; 8:4-7; Mic 6:6-8, 12; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 6:20; 14:12-14; Jas 2:1-17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Concern for the Poor<\/h3>\n<p>God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left for the needy (see Lev 23:22). Those who were destitute were not to be victimized. Instead, loans were to be made without interest, or the debtor was to be allowed to work off his debt with dignity as a bondservant (25:35-42). These positive steps ensured that the poor had food to eat.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible first mentions concern for the poor in the radical accommodations of the offering system to those unable to afford more costly offerings. Birds could be substituted for lambs in the whole burnt offering (1:14-17) and the sin offering (5:7-10), and there were other such concessions in the cleansing rituals (14:21-22). Perhaps the most striking is in the substitution of flour for the sin offering (5:11-13). The life-for-a-life symbolism is forfeited for economic reasons, showing clearly God’s desire that the poor who cannot afford a lamb should nonetheless be able to experience forgiveness of sins.<\/p>\n<p>This theme is continued in the prophets’ concern for the poor and helpless and their pleas for social justice and compassion (e.g., Isa 1:17; Amos 2:6). The prophets had some strong words for those responsible for oppressing the needy (see e.g., 4:1-3; 8:4-8). The worship practices of the people—no matter how lavish—were not accepted by God if, at the same time, those worshiping were guilty of injustice and oppression (see Isa 1:15-20; Mic 6:6-8). This notion that proper attitudes and actions toward God and others are more important than the practice of worship rituals is reflected in the story in the Gospels of the poor widow’s offering. Her offering receives praise from Jesus, not because of its monetary value, but because of the devotion it represented (Mark 12:41-44). Religious practices could even inhibit helping those in need (see Mark 7:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>Both Jesus and the early church exhibited concern for the poor. Jesus indicated that a major component of his mission was to bring hope to the poor and release for the oppressed (Luke 4:16-21). He warned strongly against neglecting the poor (Luke 16:19-31) and indicated that a willingness to provide for the poor was necessary for those desiring to be his followers (see Luke 18:18-23). Reflecting the teaching of Christ, the early church sought to ensure that the needy among them were well cared for (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-37; 1 Tim 5:3-16). As in the prophets, the mistreatment of the marginalized made a farce of religious practice (1 Cor 11:17-29; Jas 1:27–2:17).<\/p>\n<p>God’s concern for the poor is thus a theme that runs throughout Scripture, and believers must take up a similar perspective toward those in need.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:22-27; 23:6-11; Lev 5:7, 11; 14:21-22; 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut 10:17-19; 15:4-11; 16:9-12; 24:6-22; 26:12-13; 27:17-19; 1 Sam 2:8; Ps 10:13-18; 35:10; 68:5; Prov 14:31; Isa 1:15-17; Amos 2:6; 4:1; 8:4-7; Mic 6:6-8, 12; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 6:20; 14:12-14; Jas 2:1-17<\/p>","summary_ro":"Concern for the Poor God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left f...","summary_en":"Concern for the Poor God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left f...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":122488,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Christian Giving","title_en":"Christian Giving","content_ro":"<h3>Christian Giving<\/h3>\n<p>Bountiful giving is a mark of true grace. We see its sublime expression in the Lord of glory, who by his poverty became one with us and made us rich (2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:5-8). We have received his unmerited favor in salvation, and we give sacrificially in response to “this gift too wonderful for words!” (9:15).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus taught that generosity would be one evidence of those who follow him (Matt 25:34-36), and he stressed the importance of a person’s intentions and attitude, not simply the amount given (Mark 12:41-44).<\/p>\n<p>Paul dedicates a lot of his attention in 2 Corinthians to the theme of giving. The church at Corinth was encouraged to give generously in response to human need, specifically the needs of the poor Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (2 Cor 8:6-7; 9:1-5). It would be a sign that the Gentile Christians were one body with the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s teaching on Christian giving in can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n<p>(1) Our giving should spring from a willing mind and heart (2 Cor 8:12; 9:7). Paul emphasizes motives because all giving should hinge on why we give.<\/p>\n<p>(2) True giving is a joy, in contrast with grudging gifts (9:5). There is joy in sowing seed, like a farmer who anticipates a crop (9:6-10); and there is joy in sharing with others in need (9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>(3) Christian giving is marked by generosity and may entail sacrifice, as it did for the Macedonians (8:1-5).<\/p>\n<p>(4) The handling of financial gifts calls for honesty, integrity, and care. Paul was careful to deflect any suspicion of his colleagues who were sent to collect gifts from the churches (8:20-21). Those who handle monetary gifts in the church should be persons of proven reputation and responsibility.<\/p>\n<p>Christian living is to be marked by a generous concern for those in need, and Paul instructs believers to please God, not themselves (5:15). Believers are called to live under Christ’s lordship and be motivated by his love (5:14). We can demonstrate his love tangibly in our giving.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:2; 35:5; Lev 25:35; Deut 15:7-11; 16:17; 1 Chr 29:9; Prov 3:9-10; 11:24-26; 21:13; 28:27; Mal 3:8; Matt 5:42; 6:3-4; 10:8; 19:21; Luke 6:38; 11:41; 12:33-34; 18:22; Acts 11:29; 1 Cor 13:3; 16:2-3; 2 Cor 5:17-18; 2 Cor 8:1–9:15; Phil 2:3-11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Christian Giving<\/h3>\n<p>Bountiful giving is a mark of true grace. We see its sublime expression in the Lord of glory, who by his poverty became one with us and made us rich (2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:5-8). We have received his unmerited favor in salvation, and we give sacrificially in response to “this gift too wonderful for words!” (9:15).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus taught that generosity would be one evidence of those who follow him (Matt 25:34-36), and he stressed the importance of a person’s intentions and attitude, not simply the amount given (Mark 12:41-44).<\/p>\n<p>Paul dedicates a lot of his attention in 2 Corinthians to the theme of giving. The church at Corinth was encouraged to give generously in response to human need, specifically the needs of the poor Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (2 Cor 8:6-7; 9:1-5). It would be a sign that the Gentile Christians were one body with the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s teaching on Christian giving in can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n<p>(1) Our giving should spring from a willing mind and heart (2 Cor 8:12; 9:7). Paul emphasizes motives because all giving should hinge on why we give.<\/p>\n<p>(2) True giving is a joy, in contrast with grudging gifts (9:5). There is joy in sowing seed, like a farmer who anticipates a crop (9:6-10); and there is joy in sharing with others in need (9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>(3) Christian giving is marked by generosity and may entail sacrifice, as it did for the Macedonians (8:1-5).<\/p>\n<p>(4) The handling of financial gifts calls for honesty, integrity, and care. Paul was careful to deflect any suspicion of his colleagues who were sent to collect gifts from the churches (8:20-21). Those who handle monetary gifts in the church should be persons of proven reputation and responsibility.<\/p>\n<p>Christian living is to be marked by a generous concern for those in need, and Paul instructs believers to please God, not themselves (5:15). Believers are called to live under Christ’s lordship and be motivated by his love (5:14). We can demonstrate his love tangibly in our giving.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:2; 35:5; Lev 25:35; Deut 15:7-11; 16:17; 1 Chr 29:9; Prov 3:9-10; 11:24-26; 21:13; 28:27; Mal 3:8; Matt 5:42; 6:3-4; 10:8; 19:21; Luke 6:38; 11:41; 12:33-34; 18:22; Acts 11:29; 1 Cor 13:3; 16:2-3; 2 Cor 5:17-18; 2 Cor 8:1–9:15; Phil 2:3-11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Christian Giving Bountiful giving is a mark of true grace. We see its sublime expression in the Lord of glory, who by his poverty became one with us and made us rich (2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:5-8). We have received his unmerited favor in salvation, and we give sacrificially in response to “this gift too wonderful for words!” (9:15). Jesus taught that generosity would be one evidence of those who follow him (Matt 25:34-36), and he stressed the importance of a person’s intentions and attitude, not sim...","summary_en":"Christian Giving Bountiful giving is a mark of true grace. We see its sublime expression in the Lord of glory, who by his poverty became one with us and made us rich (2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:5-8). We have received his unmerited favor in salvation, and we give sacrificially in response to “this gift too wonderful for words!” (9:15). Jesus taught that generosity would be one evidence of those who follow him (Matt 25:34-36), and he stressed the importance of a person’s intentions and attitude, not sim...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":143385,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Concern for the Poor","title_en":"Concern for the Poor","content_ro":"<h3>Concern for the Poor<\/h3>\n<p>God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left for the needy (see Lev 23:22). Those who were destitute were not to be victimized. Instead, loans were to be made without interest, or the debtor was to be allowed to work off his debt with dignity as a bondservant (25:35-42). These positive steps ensured that the poor had food to eat.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible first mentions concern for the poor in the radical accommodations of the offering system to those unable to afford more costly offerings. Birds could be substituted for lambs in the whole burnt offering (1:14-17) and the sin offering (5:7-10), and there were other such concessions in the cleansing rituals (14:21-22). Perhaps the most striking is in the substitution of flour for the sin offering (5:11-13). The life-for-a-life symbolism is forfeited for economic reasons, showing clearly God’s desire that the poor who cannot afford a lamb should nonetheless be able to experience forgiveness of sins.<\/p>\n<p>This theme is continued in the prophets’ concern for the poor and helpless and their pleas for social justice and compassion (e.g., Isa 1:17; Amos 2:6). The prophets had some strong words for those responsible for oppressing the needy (see e.g., 4:1-3; 8:4-8). The worship practices of the people—no matter how lavish—were not accepted by God if, at the same time, those worshiping were guilty of injustice and oppression (see Isa 1:15-20; Mic 6:6-8). This notion that proper attitudes and actions toward God and others are more important than the practice of worship rituals is reflected in the story in the Gospels of the poor widow’s offering. Her offering receives praise from Jesus, not because of its monetary value, but because of the devotion it represented (Mark 12:41-44). Religious practices could even inhibit helping those in need (see Mark 7:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>Both Jesus and the early church exhibited concern for the poor. Jesus indicated that a major component of his mission was to bring hope to the poor and release for the oppressed (Luke 4:16-21). He warned strongly against neglecting the poor (Luke 16:19-31) and indicated that a willingness to provide for the poor was necessary for those desiring to be his followers (see Luke 18:18-23). Reflecting the teaching of Christ, the early church sought to ensure that the needy among them were well cared for (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-37; 1 Tim 5:3-16). As in the prophets, the mistreatment of the marginalized made a farce of religious practice (1 Cor 11:17-29; Jas 1:27–2:17).<\/p>\n<p>God’s concern for the poor is thus a theme that runs throughout Scripture, and believers must take up a similar perspective toward those in need.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:22-27; 23:6-11; Lev 5:7, 11; 14:21-22; 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut 10:17-19; 15:4-11; 16:9-12; 24:6-22; 26:12-13; 27:17-19; 1 Sam 2:8; Ps 10:13-18; 35:10; 68:5; Prov 14:31; Isa 1:15-17; Amos 2:6; 4:1; 8:4-7; Mic 6:6-8, 12; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 6:20; 14:12-14; Jas 2:1-17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Concern for the Poor<\/h3>\n<p>God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left for the needy (see Lev 23:22). Those who were destitute were not to be victimized. Instead, loans were to be made without interest, or the debtor was to be allowed to work off his debt with dignity as a bondservant (25:35-42). These positive steps ensured that the poor had food to eat.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible first mentions concern for the poor in the radical accommodations of the offering system to those unable to afford more costly offerings. Birds could be substituted for lambs in the whole burnt offering (1:14-17) and the sin offering (5:7-10), and there were other such concessions in the cleansing rituals (14:21-22). Perhaps the most striking is in the substitution of flour for the sin offering (5:11-13). The life-for-a-life symbolism is forfeited for economic reasons, showing clearly God’s desire that the poor who cannot afford a lamb should nonetheless be able to experience forgiveness of sins.<\/p>\n<p>This theme is continued in the prophets’ concern for the poor and helpless and their pleas for social justice and compassion (e.g., Isa 1:17; Amos 2:6). The prophets had some strong words for those responsible for oppressing the needy (see e.g., 4:1-3; 8:4-8). The worship practices of the people—no matter how lavish—were not accepted by God if, at the same time, those worshiping were guilty of injustice and oppression (see Isa 1:15-20; Mic 6:6-8). This notion that proper attitudes and actions toward God and others are more important than the practice of worship rituals is reflected in the story in the Gospels of the poor widow’s offering. Her offering receives praise from Jesus, not because of its monetary value, but because of the devotion it represented (Mark 12:41-44). Religious practices could even inhibit helping those in need (see Mark 7:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>Both Jesus and the early church exhibited concern for the poor. Jesus indicated that a major component of his mission was to bring hope to the poor and release for the oppressed (Luke 4:16-21). He warned strongly against neglecting the poor (Luke 16:19-31) and indicated that a willingness to provide for the poor was necessary for those desiring to be his followers (see Luke 18:18-23). Reflecting the teaching of Christ, the early church sought to ensure that the needy among them were well cared for (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-37; 1 Tim 5:3-16). As in the prophets, the mistreatment of the marginalized made a farce of religious practice (1 Cor 11:17-29; Jas 1:27–2:17).<\/p>\n<p>God’s concern for the poor is thus a theme that runs throughout Scripture, and believers must take up a similar perspective toward those in need.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:22-27; 23:6-11; Lev 5:7, 11; 14:21-22; 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut 10:17-19; 15:4-11; 16:9-12; 24:6-22; 26:12-13; 27:17-19; 1 Sam 2:8; Ps 10:13-18; 35:10; 68:5; Prov 14:31; Isa 1:15-17; Amos 2:6; 4:1; 8:4-7; Mic 6:6-8, 12; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 6:20; 14:12-14; Jas 2:1-17<\/p>","summary_ro":"Concern for the Poor God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left f...","summary_en":"Concern for the Poor God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left f...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":150114,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Christian Giving","title_en":"Christian Giving","content_ro":"<h3>Christian Giving<\/h3>\n<p>Bountiful giving is a mark of true grace. We see its sublime expression in the Lord of glory, who by his poverty became one with us and made us rich (2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:5-8). We have received his unmerited favor in salvation, and we give sacrificially in response to “this gift too wonderful for words!” (9:15).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus taught that generosity would be one evidence of those who follow him (Matt 25:34-36), and he stressed the importance of a person’s intentions and attitude, not simply the amount given (Mark 12:41-44).<\/p>\n<p>Paul dedicates a lot of his attention in 2 Corinthians to the theme of giving. The church at Corinth was encouraged to give generously in response to human need, specifically the needs of the poor Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (2 Cor 8:6-7; 9:1-5). It would be a sign that the Gentile Christians were one body with the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s teaching on Christian giving in can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n<p>(1) Our giving should spring from a willing mind and heart (2 Cor 8:12; 9:7). Paul emphasizes motives because all giving should hinge on why we give.<\/p>\n<p>(2) True giving is a joy, in contrast with grudging gifts (9:5). There is joy in sowing seed, like a farmer who anticipates a crop (9:6-10); and there is joy in sharing with others in need (9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>(3) Christian giving is marked by generosity and may entail sacrifice, as it did for the Macedonians (8:1-5).<\/p>\n<p>(4) The handling of financial gifts calls for honesty, integrity, and care. Paul was careful to deflect any suspicion of his colleagues who were sent to collect gifts from the churches (8:20-21). Those who handle monetary gifts in the church should be persons of proven reputation and responsibility.<\/p>\n<p>Christian living is to be marked by a generous concern for those in need, and Paul instructs believers to please God, not themselves (5:15). Believers are called to live under Christ’s lordship and be motivated by his love (5:14). We can demonstrate his love tangibly in our giving.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:2; 35:5; Lev 25:35; Deut 15:7-11; 16:17; 1 Chr 29:9; Prov 3:9-10; 11:24-26; 21:13; 28:27; Mal 3:8; Matt 5:42; 6:3-4; 10:8; 19:21; Luke 6:38; 11:41; 12:33-34; 18:22; Acts 11:29; 1 Cor 13:3; 16:2-3; 2 Cor 5:17-18; 2 Cor 8:1–9:15; Phil 2:3-11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Christian Giving<\/h3>\n<p>Bountiful giving is a mark of true grace. We see its sublime expression in the Lord of glory, who by his poverty became one with us and made us rich (2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:5-8). We have received his unmerited favor in salvation, and we give sacrificially in response to “this gift too wonderful for words!” (9:15).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus taught that generosity would be one evidence of those who follow him (Matt 25:34-36), and he stressed the importance of a person’s intentions and attitude, not simply the amount given (Mark 12:41-44).<\/p>\n<p>Paul dedicates a lot of his attention in 2 Corinthians to the theme of giving. The church at Corinth was encouraged to give generously in response to human need, specifically the needs of the poor Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (2 Cor 8:6-7; 9:1-5). It would be a sign that the Gentile Christians were one body with the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s teaching on Christian giving in can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n<p>(1) Our giving should spring from a willing mind and heart (2 Cor 8:12; 9:7). Paul emphasizes motives because all giving should hinge on why we give.<\/p>\n<p>(2) True giving is a joy, in contrast with grudging gifts (9:5). There is joy in sowing seed, like a farmer who anticipates a crop (9:6-10); and there is joy in sharing with others in need (9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>(3) Christian giving is marked by generosity and may entail sacrifice, as it did for the Macedonians (8:1-5).<\/p>\n<p>(4) The handling of financial gifts calls for honesty, integrity, and care. Paul was careful to deflect any suspicion of his colleagues who were sent to collect gifts from the churches (8:20-21). Those who handle monetary gifts in the church should be persons of proven reputation and responsibility.<\/p>\n<p>Christian living is to be marked by a generous concern for those in need, and Paul instructs believers to please God, not themselves (5:15). Believers are called to live under Christ’s lordship and be motivated by his love (5:14). We can demonstrate his love tangibly in our giving.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:2; 35:5; Lev 25:35; Deut 15:7-11; 16:17; 1 Chr 29:9; Prov 3:9-10; 11:24-26; 21:13; 28:27; Mal 3:8; Matt 5:42; 6:3-4; 10:8; 19:21; Luke 6:38; 11:41; 12:33-34; 18:22; Acts 11:29; 1 Cor 13:3; 16:2-3; 2 Cor 5:17-18; 2 Cor 8:1–9:15; Phil 2:3-11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Christian Giving Bountiful giving is a mark of true grace. We see its sublime expression in the Lord of glory, who by his poverty became one with us and made us rich (2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:5-8). We have received his unmerited favor in salvation, and we give sacrificially in response to “this gift too wonderful for words!” (9:15). Jesus taught that generosity would be one evidence of those who follow him (Matt 25:34-36), and he stressed the importance of a person’s intentions and attitude, not sim...","summary_en":"Christian Giving Bountiful giving is a mark of true grace. We see its sublime expression in the Lord of glory, who by his poverty became one with us and made us rich (2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:5-8). We have received his unmerited favor in salvation, and we give sacrificially in response to “this gift too wonderful for words!” (9:15). Jesus taught that generosity would be one evidence of those who follow him (Matt 25:34-36), and he stressed the importance of a person’s intentions and attitude, not sim...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"42":[{"id":7006,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Coins","title_en":"Coins","content_ro":"<h3>COINS<\/h3>\n<p>Pieces of metal used and accepted as a medium of exchange. A coin has a specific weight and bears some type of authentication to make it easily recognizable. The word “coin” originally referred to a wedge-shaped die or stamp used to “strike” the metal blank. The first coins may have been minted in the late eighth century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Earliest Coins in Palestine<\/p>\n<p>• Coinage from the Maccabees to Herod Agrippa I<\/p>\n<p>• Roman Coins in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"EarliestCoinsinPalestine\">Earliest Coins in Palestine<\/p>\n<p>Not until the time of Darius the Great (Darius I of Persia, 521–486 <span>BC<\/span>) did an official government-sponsored coinage become current in Palestine. Those earliest coins were oval-shaped gold darics, along with some silver coins.<\/p>\n<p>“Dram” is another term for the Persian gold daric. It is mentioned in Ezra 2:68-69 (<span>kjv<\/span>), where Zerubbabel’s caravan offered gold darics amounting to $30,000 toward rebuilding the temple. This passage is the first mention of an actual coin in the Bible.<\/p>\n<p>Almost at the same time that the Persian coins became current in Palestine, the widely popular silver tetradrachmas (four-drachma pieces) of Athens began to find their way to the mercantile centers of the Phoenician, Israelite, and Philistine coasts. Archaeologists have unearthed them in hoards throughout the eastern Mediterranean region. They continued to be used through the Persian period, which lasted until the Persian Empire was conquered by Alexander the Great in 334–330 <span>BC<\/span>. The coin was thick and heavy in appearance, but being of high-quality silver, it was in great demand for international commerce. Presumably Greek merchants found they could obtain the most desirable Asiatic imports in exchange for that particular form of currency.<\/p>\n<p>The silver didrachma, or half-drachma, in general use in the Greek Empire from the fourth century <span>BC<\/span>, continued through Roman times. After Alexander’s conquests, of course, Greek coins were used throughout the Macedonian Empire from present-day Yugoslavia to Pakistan. They were almost certainly employed for business purposes in Judea, for example.<\/p>\n<p>The shekels of the Phoenician trade centers of Tyre and Sidon, which had contributed substantially to the money supply in the Persian period, continued to be accepted in Judea even after the Alexandrian conquest. Typical of Sidon was a silver shekel portraying the battlements and walls of Sidon’s harbor, with a ship lying at anchor and two prancing lions in the foreground. A typical Tyrian shekel showed the god Baal robed and wearing a tiara. He was riding a hippocamp (winged horse with the tail of a fish) on the sea, with a fish or dolphin beneath. The reverse showed an Egyptian-type owl facing right, plus a shepherd’s crook and flail, both royal insignia in Egypt. The stater (or tetradrachma) found by the disciple Peter in a fish’s mouth and used to pay the temple tax for himself and Jesus may have been a Tyrian coin (Mt 17:27; <span>rsv<\/span> “shekel”).<\/p>\n<p>The talent, which represented a certain weight of gold or silver, was a common medium of exchange before the development of coinage. During the Maccabean period, John Hyrcanus saved the city of Jerusalem from destruction in 133 <span>BC<\/span> by paying a ransom from a 900-year-old hoard stored in David’s sepulcher. Three thousand talents of silver were sent to the Seleucid king Antiochus VII Sidetes in return for his promise to withdraw his troops. Treasure plundered from the temple by the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 66 is recorded as amounting to 17 talents. In gold talents that sum would represent the equivalent of the purchase price of about 15 large houses in a modern Western city.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CoinagefromtheMaccabeestoHerodAgrippaI\">Coinage from the Maccabees to Herod Agrippa I<\/p>\n<p>Even though a native Jewish dynasty assumed the government of the Holy Land, it was many years before any indigenous Jewish coinage was minted. Presumably the inhabitants continued to use the coinage of Tyre and Egypt and of the Seleucid Empire for their commercial transactions. It was formerly supposed that silver shekels bearing images of the chalice and pomegranate cluster dated from the reign of Simon Maccabeus (142–134 <span>BC<\/span>); more recent archaeological discoveries prove that those coins date from the first Jewish revolt (<span>AD<\/span> 66–70).<\/p>\n<p>When the time came to issue the first Jewish coins, the die makers faced several problems. No mint was available, and no local people were skilled in design or die sinking. Coins current in the Near East at that time, which showed a high degree of design and craftsmanship, each bore the portrait head of a ruler or a god. For the Jews to make such coins would have meant contravening the second commandment, “You shall not make for yourself a graven image” (Ex 20:4, <span>rsv<\/span>). Not until well into Roman times was a coin struck in Palestine bearing a portrait head of a Roman emperor.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest coinage of the Hasmonean dynasty (the regnal name of the Maccabees) was the small bronze lepton (plural, lepta) of John Hyrcanus I (134–104 <span>BC<\/span>), son of Simon Maccabeus. The obverse showed two cornucopias with a pomegranate between them. That image symbolized the fertility that God had granted to the land. The reverse contained an inscription within a wreath, “John the high priest and the community of the Jews.” Small bronze lepta from the reign of Alexander Janneus, son of Hyrcanus I, have been found in great numbers. They were evidently much in demand for transactions at the temple, where money changers converted the gentile currency of visiting worshipers into the more acceptable Jewish money. Undoubtedly Hasmonean lepta were the coins Jesus scattered over the pavement of the Court of the Gentiles when he overturned the tables of the money changers (Mt 21:12; Jn 2:15). The lepton, or “mite,” of bronze or copper, worth <span>1<\/span>\/<span>400<\/span> of a shekel, was mentioned by Jesus on another occasion. He praised a widow’s gift of two mites to the temple treasury with the comment that the rich “contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, her whole living” (Mk 12:44, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Herod I came to power in Judea under the patronage of Mark Antony and secured the allegiance of the pro-Hasmonean Jews by marrying Mariamne, granddaughter of Hyrcanus II, in 38 <span>BC<\/span>. Herod was empowered to strike his own bronze coins. Although he had a free hand to introduce innovations, Herod’s lepta followed tradition quite faithfully. The lepta carried an anchor with letters meaning “Of King Herod.” The reverse bore the double cornucopias with a pomegranate (or poppy) between them. Herod also minted a large bronze coin with what appears to be a Macedonian helmet on the obverse and a slender tripod on the reverse, along with an inscription of Herod’s name. Other designs he employed included wheat, eagles, and wreaths. He issued no silver coinage, relying instead on the available supplies of silver coins from Tyre, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome.<\/p>\n<p>After Herod’s death in 4 <span>BC<\/span>, his son Herod Archelaus assumed control. Lepta from that period bore a hanging cluster of grapes with a Greek inscription, and on the reverse a two-plumed Macedonian helmet. Grapes were an allusion to Israel as the Lord’s vine (Is 5).<\/p>\n<p>When Herod Antipas began his rule, also in 4 <span>BC<\/span>, he had no authority in Judea or Samaria. That portion of the former Jewish kingdom was placed under the control of Roman governors, or procurators, appointed directly by the emperor himself. Most familiar of the Roman procurators of Judea was Pontius Pilate (<span>AD<\/span> 26–36). His bronze coinage showed some bold innovations; his designs included representations of instruments used in the Roman religion such as the augur’s wand (resembling a shepherd’s crook in shape) and a ladle used in connection with broth prepared at sacrifices. The reverse bore a wreath enclosing the regnal date of <span>AD<\/span> 30–31. The two lepta put into the temple treasury (Lk 21:2) could have been lepta issued by Pilate or his predecessor. More likely, however, they were the Hasmonean lepta of Hyrcanus or Janneus, which were free of any taint of pagan Roman influence.<\/p>\n<p>Herod Agrippa I (<span>AD<\/span> 37–44), grandson of Herod the Great, continued the family tradition of ingratiating himself with the Roman overlords. Many of Herod Agrippa’s lepta have been found, showing a conical tasseled umbrella (perhaps symbolizing his royal protection of the people of Palestine) plus a Greek inscription indicating his reign. The reverse showed a bound cluster of three wheat ears and bore the regnal year as the legend.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"RomanCoinsinNewTestamentTimes\">Roman Coins in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>The Roman “as” came into circulation about 348 <span>BC<\/span> as a bronze coin bearing the figure of an animal. The coin was named after the Roman one-pound weight, equivalent to 12 ounces (340 grams) in our modern system. At the time of Christ’s birth, the Roman “as” minted for use in the Asiatic provinces bore the head of the emperor Augustus, with a laurel wreath on the reverse. A smaller bronze quadrans, or quarter “as,” was also minted by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Another bronze coin found in Greek and Roman currency was the assarion, first minted in the first century <span>BC<\/span> but still in use in the Christian period. One type was stamped with a winged sphinx, with an amphora on the reverse. It is still debated whether the coin described as a “farthing” in the <span>kjv<\/span> was in fact a Greek assarion or a Roman “as” or quadrans. The coin is mentioned four times in the NT, most familiarly in the question “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?” (see Mt 5:26; 10:29; Mk 12:42; Lk 12:6, <span>rsv<\/span> “penny”). There is no doubt that the <span>kjv<\/span> translators decided to make the coin seem more familiar to their readers by using the name of the smallest copper coin in circulation in England at that time.<\/p>\n<p>The word translated “penny” in the <span>kjv<\/span> is the Greek form of “denarius,” the normal daily wage for a laborer in NT times. In the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, for example, the master agreed to pay each man “a penny” for his day’s work (Mt 20:2, <span>kjv<\/span>; <span>rsv<\/span> “a denarius”). “Two pence” was the amount paid to the innkeeper by the good Samaritan (Lk 10:35, <span>kjv<\/span>). Because of the influence of the Roman denarius on British currency, the English penny has always been represented by the initial letter of its Roman equivalent.<\/p>\n<p>When the denarius, or “penny,” is recognized as a normal day’s wage, the astonishment of Jesus’ disciples when they were expected to find food for 5,000 people is better understood. They exclaimed that “two hundred pennyworth” of food would not feed such a crowd (Jn 6:7, <span>kjv<\/span>); that sum represented more than six months’ work.<\/p>\n<p>As might be expected, the silver and gold coinage current in Palestine during the time of Christ and for the remainder of the first century <span>AD<\/span> came primarily from Rome. The larger silver coins, however, that are referred to as tetradrachmas or staters in the NT came from Egypt, Phoenicia, or Antioch. The silver coin most frequently mentioned in the NT was the Roman denarius or the Greek drachma. Since few drachmas have been found in excavations dating from the first century, it is possible that the term was used in popular speech to refer to the denarius (plural, denarii), which was approximately the same size as the average Greek drachma. Actually, few Greek cities were permitted by their Roman overlords to continue minting drachmas.<\/p>\n<p>Caesar Augustus issued a decree for all the Roman world to be enrolled (Lk 2:1-2) in an empire-wide census just about the time that Jesus was born (6 or 5 <span>BC<\/span>). During his long reign (27 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 14), Augustus authorized a large variety of denarii. They generally carried his likeness on their obverse with the inscription “Augustus, son of the divine one” (that is, son of Julius Caesar, who had been voted divine honors by the Roman Senate).<\/p>\n<p>In Matthew 22:19 Jesus asked those trying to trick him with a question to show him a coin used to pay the government tax. They handed him a denarius bearing the portrait and inscription of Caesar (Mt 22:21). That coin could have been a denarius of Augustus, who had died some 16 years before, or of Tiberius (<span>AD<\/span> 14–37), who was then on the throne. The silver denarius of Tiberius read “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of the divine Augustus.” The reverse showed the high priestess of the vestal order, flaming torch in hand, seated on her throne facing right. The title “pontif(ex) maxim(us)” referred to Tiberius rather than to the priestess.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Minerals and Metals; Money; Money Changer.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>COINS<\/h3>\n<p>Pieces of metal used and accepted as a medium of exchange. A coin has a specific weight and bears some type of authentication to make it easily recognizable. The word “coin” originally referred to a wedge-shaped die or stamp used to “strike” the metal blank. The first coins may have been minted in the late eighth century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Earliest Coins in Palestine<\/p>\n<p>• Coinage from the Maccabees to Herod Agrippa I<\/p>\n<p>• Roman Coins in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"EarliestCoinsinPalestine\">Earliest Coins in Palestine<\/p>\n<p>Not until the time of Darius the Great (Darius I of Persia, 521–486 <span>BC<\/span>) did an official government-sponsored coinage become current in Palestine. Those earliest coins were oval-shaped gold darics, along with some silver coins.<\/p>\n<p>“Dram” is another term for the Persian gold daric. It is mentioned in Ezra 2:68-69 (<span>kjv<\/span>), where Zerubbabel’s caravan offered gold darics amounting to $30,000 toward rebuilding the temple. This passage is the first mention of an actual coin in the Bible.<\/p>\n<p>Almost at the same time that the Persian coins became current in Palestine, the widely popular silver tetradrachmas (four-drachma pieces) of Athens began to find their way to the mercantile centers of the Phoenician, Israelite, and Philistine coasts. Archaeologists have unearthed them in hoards throughout the eastern Mediterranean region. They continued to be used through the Persian period, which lasted until the Persian Empire was conquered by Alexander the Great in 334–330 <span>BC<\/span>. The coin was thick and heavy in appearance, but being of high-quality silver, it was in great demand for international commerce. Presumably Greek merchants found they could obtain the most desirable Asiatic imports in exchange for that particular form of currency.<\/p>\n<p>The silver didrachma, or half-drachma, in general use in the Greek Empire from the fourth century <span>BC<\/span>, continued through Roman times. After Alexander’s conquests, of course, Greek coins were used throughout the Macedonian Empire from present-day Yugoslavia to Pakistan. They were almost certainly employed for business purposes in Judea, for example.<\/p>\n<p>The shekels of the Phoenician trade centers of Tyre and Sidon, which had contributed substantially to the money supply in the Persian period, continued to be accepted in Judea even after the Alexandrian conquest. Typical of Sidon was a silver shekel portraying the battlements and walls of Sidon’s harbor, with a ship lying at anchor and two prancing lions in the foreground. A typical Tyrian shekel showed the god Baal robed and wearing a tiara. He was riding a hippocamp (winged horse with the tail of a fish) on the sea, with a fish or dolphin beneath. The reverse showed an Egyptian-type owl facing right, plus a shepherd’s crook and flail, both royal insignia in Egypt. The stater (or tetradrachma) found by the disciple Peter in a fish’s mouth and used to pay the temple tax for himself and Jesus may have been a Tyrian coin (Mt 17:27; <span>rsv<\/span> “shekel”).<\/p>\n<p>The talent, which represented a certain weight of gold or silver, was a common medium of exchange before the development of coinage. During the Maccabean period, John Hyrcanus saved the city of Jerusalem from destruction in 133 <span>BC<\/span> by paying a ransom from a 900-year-old hoard stored in David’s sepulcher. Three thousand talents of silver were sent to the Seleucid king Antiochus VII Sidetes in return for his promise to withdraw his troops. Treasure plundered from the temple by the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 66 is recorded as amounting to 17 talents. In gold talents that sum would represent the equivalent of the purchase price of about 15 large houses in a modern Western city.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CoinagefromtheMaccabeestoHerodAgrippaI\">Coinage from the Maccabees to Herod Agrippa I<\/p>\n<p>Even though a native Jewish dynasty assumed the government of the Holy Land, it was many years before any indigenous Jewish coinage was minted. Presumably the inhabitants continued to use the coinage of Tyre and Egypt and of the Seleucid Empire for their commercial transactions. It was formerly supposed that silver shekels bearing images of the chalice and pomegranate cluster dated from the reign of Simon Maccabeus (142–134 <span>BC<\/span>); more recent archaeological discoveries prove that those coins date from the first Jewish revolt (<span>AD<\/span> 66–70).<\/p>\n<p>When the time came to issue the first Jewish coins, the die makers faced several problems. No mint was available, and no local people were skilled in design or die sinking. Coins current in the Near East at that time, which showed a high degree of design and craftsmanship, each bore the portrait head of a ruler or a god. For the Jews to make such coins would have meant contravening the second commandment, “You shall not make for yourself a graven image” (Ex 20:4, <span>rsv<\/span>). Not until well into Roman times was a coin struck in Palestine bearing a portrait head of a Roman emperor.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest coinage of the Hasmonean dynasty (the regnal name of the Maccabees) was the small bronze lepton (plural, lepta) of John Hyrcanus I (134–104 <span>BC<\/span>), son of Simon Maccabeus. The obverse showed two cornucopias with a pomegranate between them. That image symbolized the fertility that God had granted to the land. The reverse contained an inscription within a wreath, “John the high priest and the community of the Jews.” Small bronze lepta from the reign of Alexander Janneus, son of Hyrcanus I, have been found in great numbers. They were evidently much in demand for transactions at the temple, where money changers converted the gentile currency of visiting worshipers into the more acceptable Jewish money. Undoubtedly Hasmonean lepta were the coins Jesus scattered over the pavement of the Court of the Gentiles when he overturned the tables of the money changers (Mt 21:12; Jn 2:15). The lepton, or “mite,” of bronze or copper, worth <span>1<\/span>\/<span>400<\/span> of a shekel, was mentioned by Jesus on another occasion. He praised a widow’s gift of two mites to the temple treasury with the comment that the rich “contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, her whole living” (Mk 12:44, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Herod I came to power in Judea under the patronage of Mark Antony and secured the allegiance of the pro-Hasmonean Jews by marrying Mariamne, granddaughter of Hyrcanus II, in 38 <span>BC<\/span>. Herod was empowered to strike his own bronze coins. Although he had a free hand to introduce innovations, Herod’s lepta followed tradition quite faithfully. The lepta carried an anchor with letters meaning “Of King Herod.” The reverse bore the double cornucopias with a pomegranate (or poppy) between them. Herod also minted a large bronze coin with what appears to be a Macedonian helmet on the obverse and a slender tripod on the reverse, along with an inscription of Herod’s name. Other designs he employed included wheat, eagles, and wreaths. He issued no silver coinage, relying instead on the available supplies of silver coins from Tyre, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome.<\/p>\n<p>After Herod’s death in 4 <span>BC<\/span>, his son Herod Archelaus assumed control. Lepta from that period bore a hanging cluster of grapes with a Greek inscription, and on the reverse a two-plumed Macedonian helmet. Grapes were an allusion to Israel as the Lord’s vine (Is 5).<\/p>\n<p>When Herod Antipas began his rule, also in 4 <span>BC<\/span>, he had no authority in Judea or Samaria. That portion of the former Jewish kingdom was placed under the control of Roman governors, or procurators, appointed directly by the emperor himself. Most familiar of the Roman procurators of Judea was Pontius Pilate (<span>AD<\/span> 26–36). His bronze coinage showed some bold innovations; his designs included representations of instruments used in the Roman religion such as the augur’s wand (resembling a shepherd’s crook in shape) and a ladle used in connection with broth prepared at sacrifices. The reverse bore a wreath enclosing the regnal date of <span>AD<\/span> 30–31. The two lepta put into the temple treasury (Lk 21:2) could have been lepta issued by Pilate or his predecessor. More likely, however, they were the Hasmonean lepta of Hyrcanus or Janneus, which were free of any taint of pagan Roman influence.<\/p>\n<p>Herod Agrippa I (<span>AD<\/span> 37–44), grandson of Herod the Great, continued the family tradition of ingratiating himself with the Roman overlords. Many of Herod Agrippa’s lepta have been found, showing a conical tasseled umbrella (perhaps symbolizing his royal protection of the people of Palestine) plus a Greek inscription indicating his reign. The reverse showed a bound cluster of three wheat ears and bore the regnal year as the legend.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"RomanCoinsinNewTestamentTimes\">Roman Coins in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>The Roman “as” came into circulation about 348 <span>BC<\/span> as a bronze coin bearing the figure of an animal. The coin was named after the Roman one-pound weight, equivalent to 12 ounces (340 grams) in our modern system. At the time of Christ’s birth, the Roman “as” minted for use in the Asiatic provinces bore the head of the emperor Augustus, with a laurel wreath on the reverse. A smaller bronze quadrans, or quarter “as,” was also minted by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Another bronze coin found in Greek and Roman currency was the assarion, first minted in the first century <span>BC<\/span> but still in use in the Christian period. One type was stamped with a winged sphinx, with an amphora on the reverse. It is still debated whether the coin described as a “farthing” in the <span>kjv<\/span> was in fact a Greek assarion or a Roman “as” or quadrans. The coin is mentioned four times in the NT, most familiarly in the question “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?” (see Mt 5:26; 10:29; Mk 12:42; Lk 12:6, <span>rsv<\/span> “penny”). There is no doubt that the <span>kjv<\/span> translators decided to make the coin seem more familiar to their readers by using the name of the smallest copper coin in circulation in England at that time.<\/p>\n<p>The word translated “penny” in the <span>kjv<\/span> is the Greek form of “denarius,” the normal daily wage for a laborer in NT times. In the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, for example, the master agreed to pay each man “a penny” for his day’s work (Mt 20:2, <span>kjv<\/span>; <span>rsv<\/span> “a denarius”). “Two pence” was the amount paid to the innkeeper by the good Samaritan (Lk 10:35, <span>kjv<\/span>). Because of the influence of the Roman denarius on British currency, the English penny has always been represented by the initial letter of its Roman equivalent.<\/p>\n<p>When the denarius, or “penny,” is recognized as a normal day’s wage, the astonishment of Jesus’ disciples when they were expected to find food for 5,000 people is better understood. They exclaimed that “two hundred pennyworth” of food would not feed such a crowd (Jn 6:7, <span>kjv<\/span>); that sum represented more than six months’ work.<\/p>\n<p>As might be expected, the silver and gold coinage current in Palestine during the time of Christ and for the remainder of the first century <span>AD<\/span> came primarily from Rome. The larger silver coins, however, that are referred to as tetradrachmas or staters in the NT came from Egypt, Phoenicia, or Antioch. The silver coin most frequently mentioned in the NT was the Roman denarius or the Greek drachma. Since few drachmas have been found in excavations dating from the first century, it is possible that the term was used in popular speech to refer to the denarius (plural, denarii), which was approximately the same size as the average Greek drachma. Actually, few Greek cities were permitted by their Roman overlords to continue minting drachmas.<\/p>\n<p>Caesar Augustus issued a decree for all the Roman world to be enrolled (Lk 2:1-2) in an empire-wide census just about the time that Jesus was born (6 or 5 <span>BC<\/span>). During his long reign (27 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 14), Augustus authorized a large variety of denarii. They generally carried his likeness on their obverse with the inscription “Augustus, son of the divine one” (that is, son of Julius Caesar, who had been voted divine honors by the Roman Senate).<\/p>\n<p>In Matthew 22:19 Jesus asked those trying to trick him with a question to show him a coin used to pay the government tax. They handed him a denarius bearing the portrait and inscription of Caesar (Mt 22:21). That coin could have been a denarius of Augustus, who had died some 16 years before, or of Tiberius (<span>AD<\/span> 14–37), who was then on the throne. The silver denarius of Tiberius read “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of the divine Augustus.” The reverse showed the high priestess of the vestal order, flaming torch in hand, seated on her throne facing right. The title “pontif(ex) maxim(us)” referred to Tiberius rather than to the priestess.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Minerals and Metals; Money; Money Changer.<\/p>","summary_ro":"COINS Pieces of metal used and accepted as a medium of exchange. A coin has a specific weight and bears some type of authentication to make it easily recognizable. The word “coin” originally referred to a wedge-shaped die or stamp used to “strike” the metal blank. The first coins may have been minted in the late eighth century BC. Preview • Earliest Coins in Palestine • Coinage from the Maccabees to Herod Agrippa I • Roman Coins in New Testament Times Earliest Coins in Palestine Not until the...","summary_en":"COINS Pieces of metal used and accepted as a medium of exchange. A coin has a specific weight and bears some type of authentication to make it easily recognizable. The word “coin” originally referred to a wedge-shaped die or stamp used to “strike” the metal blank. The first coins may have been minted in the late eighth century BC. Preview • Earliest Coins in Palestine • Coinage from the Maccabees to Herod Agrippa I • Roman Coins in New Testament Times Earliest Coins in Palestine Not until the...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":12040,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Farthing*","title_en":"Farthing*","content_ro":"<h3>FARTHING*<\/h3>\n<li>1. KJV translation for penny, a copper coin equivalent to one-sixteenth of the silver denarius (Mt 10:29; Lk 12:6).<\/li>\n<li>2. KJV translation for another word translated “penny” (<span>rsv<\/span>), a coin equivalent to one-fourth of #1 above, or one-sixty-fourth of the denarius (Mt 5:26; Mk 12:42).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Coins; Money.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FARTHING*<\/h3>\n<li>1. KJV translation for penny, a copper coin equivalent to one-sixteenth of the silver denarius (Mt 10:29; Lk 12:6).<\/li>\n<li>2. KJV translation for another word translated “penny” (<span>rsv<\/span>), a coin equivalent to one-fourth of #1 above, or one-sixty-fourth of the denarius (Mt 5:26; Mk 12:42).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Coins; Money.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FARTHING* 1. KJV translation for penny, a copper coin equivalent to one-sixteenth of the silver denarius (Mt 10:29; Lk 12:6). 2. KJV translation for another word translated “penny” (rsv), a coin equivalent to one-fourth of #1 above, or one-sixty-fourth of the denarius (Mt 5:26; Mk 12:42). See also Coins; Money.","summary_en":"FARTHING* 1. KJV translation for penny, a copper coin equivalent to one-sixteenth of the silver denarius (Mt 10:29; Lk 12:6). 2. KJV translation for another word translated “penny” (rsv), a coin equivalent to one-fourth of #1 above, or one-sixty-fourth of the denarius (Mt 5:26; Mk 12:42). See also Coins; Money.","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":26091,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Mite*","title_en":"Mite*","content_ro":"<h3>MITE*<\/h3>\n<p>Small bronze or copper coin worth only a fraction of a cent (Mk 12:42, <span>kjv<\/span>). <em>See<\/em> Coins; Money.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MITE*<\/h3>\n<p>Small bronze or copper coin worth only a fraction of a cent (Mk 12:42, <span>kjv<\/span>). <em>See<\/em> Coins; Money.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MITE* Small bronze or copper coin worth only a fraction of a cent (Mk 12:42, kjv). See Coins; Money.","summary_en":"MITE* Small bronze or copper coin worth only a fraction of a cent (Mk 12:42, kjv). See Coins; Money.","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":29488,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Penny","title_en":"Penny","content_ro":"<h3>PENNY<\/h3>\n<li>1. KJV translation of denarius (Mt 20:2, 9-10, 13; 22:19; Mk 12:15; Lk 20:24; Rv 6:6).<\/li>\n<li>2. The <span>rsv<\/span> and <span>nlt<\/span> translation of the Roman assarion, equivalent to one-sixteenth of the denarius (Mt 10:29; Lk 12:6).<\/li>\n<li>3. The <span>rsv<\/span> and <span>nlt<\/span> translation of the Roman quadrans, equivalent to one-fourth of the assarion or one sixty-fourth of the denarius (Mt 5:26; Mk 12:42).<\/li>\n<li><em>See also<\/em> Coins; Money.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>PENNY<\/h3>\n<li>1. KJV translation of denarius (Mt 20:2, 9-10, 13; 22:19; Mk 12:15; Lk 20:24; Rv 6:6).<\/li>\n<li>2. The <span>rsv<\/span> and <span>nlt<\/span> translation of the Roman assarion, equivalent to one-sixteenth of the denarius (Mt 10:29; Lk 12:6).<\/li>\n<li>3. The <span>rsv<\/span> and <span>nlt<\/span> translation of the Roman quadrans, equivalent to one-fourth of the assarion or one sixty-fourth of the denarius (Mt 5:26; Mk 12:42).<\/li>\n<li><em>See also<\/em> Coins; Money.<\/li>","summary_ro":"PENNY 1. KJV translation of denarius (Mt 20:2, 9-10, 13; 22:19; Mk 12:15; Lk 20:24; Rv 6:6). 2. The rsv and nlt translation of the Roman assarion, equivalent to one-sixteenth of the denarius (Mt 10:29; Lk 12:6). 3. The rsv and nlt translation of the Roman quadrans, equivalent to one-fourth of the assarion or one sixty-fourth of the denarius (Mt 5:26; Mk 12:42). See also Coins; Money.","summary_en":"PENNY 1. KJV translation of denarius (Mt 20:2, 9-10, 13; 22:19; Mk 12:15; Lk 20:24; Rv 6:6). 2. The rsv and nlt translation of the Roman assarion, equivalent to one-sixteenth of the denarius (Mt 10:29; Lk 12:6). 3. The rsv and nlt translation of the Roman quadrans, equivalent to one-fourth of the assarion or one sixty-fourth of the denarius (Mt 5:26; Mk 12:42). See also Coins; Money.","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"43":[{"id":55473,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:43","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:43","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:43-44<\/strong> <em>Jesus called his disciples<\/em> to hear his teaching (see 3:23; 6:7; 8:1; 10:42; see also 7:14; 8:34). Jesus’ pronouncement in 12:43 revealed a radical difference between his thinking and that of the world. No one would have named a building after the widow for her gift of two small coins, but Jesus and his Father look at a person’s heart (1 Sam 16:7). The widow was doing exactly what Jesus told the rich young ruler to do (Mark 10:21) and what he taught his disciples (1:18, 20; 8:34-37; 10:28-29). Like the woman of 14:3-9, the poor widow loved God with all her heart, soul, mind, and strength (12:30).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:43-44<\/strong> <em>Jesus called his disciples<\/em> to hear his teaching (see 3:23; 6:7; 8:1; 10:42; see also 7:14; 8:34). Jesus’ pronouncement in 12:43 revealed a radical difference between his thinking and that of the world. No one would have named a building after the widow for her gift of two small coins, but Jesus and his Father look at a person’s heart (1 Sam 16:7). The widow was doing exactly what Jesus told the rich young ruler to do (Mark 10:21) and what he taught his disciples (1:18, 20; 8:34-37; 10:28-29). Like the woman of 14:3-9, the poor widow loved God with all her heart, soul, mind, and strength (12:30).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:43-44 Jesus called his disciples to hear his teaching (see 3:23; 6:7; 8:1; 10:42; see also 7:14; 8:34). Jesus’ pronouncement in 12:43 revealed a radical difference between his thinking and that of the world. No one would have named a building after the widow for her gift of two small coins, but Jesus and his Father look at a person’s heart (1 Sam 16:7). The widow was doing exactly what Jesus told the rich young ruler to do (Mark 10:21) and what he taught his disciples (1:18, 20; 8:34-37; 1...","summary_en":"12:43-44 Jesus called his disciples to hear his teaching (see 3:23; 6:7; 8:1; 10:42; see also 7:14; 8:34). Jesus’ pronouncement in 12:43 revealed a radical difference between his thinking and that of the world. No one would have named a building after the widow for her gift of two small coins, but Jesus and his Father look at a person’s heart (1 Sam 16:7). The widow was doing exactly what Jesus told the rich young ruler to do (Mark 10:21) and what he taught his disciples (1:18, 20; 8:34-37; 1...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":83099,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:43","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:43","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:43-44<\/strong> <em>Jesus called his disciples<\/em> to hear his teaching (see 3:23; 6:7; 8:1; 10:42; see also 7:14; 8:34). Jesus’ pronouncement in 12:43 revealed a radical difference between his thinking and that of the world. No one would have named a building after the widow for her gift of two small coins, but Jesus and his Father look at a person’s heart (1 Sam 16:7). The widow was doing exactly what Jesus told the rich young ruler to do (Mark 10:21) and what he taught his disciples (1:18, 20; 8:34-37; 10:28-29). Like the woman of 14:3-9, the poor widow loved God with all her heart, soul, mind, and strength (12:30).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:43-44<\/strong> <em>Jesus called his disciples<\/em> to hear his teaching (see 3:23; 6:7; 8:1; 10:42; see also 7:14; 8:34). Jesus’ pronouncement in 12:43 revealed a radical difference between his thinking and that of the world. No one would have named a building after the widow for her gift of two small coins, but Jesus and his Father look at a person’s heart (1 Sam 16:7). The widow was doing exactly what Jesus told the rich young ruler to do (Mark 10:21) and what he taught his disciples (1:18, 20; 8:34-37; 10:28-29). Like the woman of 14:3-9, the poor widow loved God with all her heart, soul, mind, and strength (12:30).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:43-44 Jesus called his disciples to hear his teaching (see 3:23; 6:7; 8:1; 10:42; see also 7:14; 8:34). Jesus’ pronouncement in 12:43 revealed a radical difference between his thinking and that of the world. No one would have named a building after the widow for her gift of two small coins, but Jesus and his Father look at a person’s heart (1 Sam 16:7). The widow was doing exactly what Jesus told the rich young ruler to do (Mark 10:21) and what he taught his disciples (1:18, 20; 8:34-37; 1...","summary_en":"12:43-44 Jesus called his disciples to hear his teaching (see 3:23; 6:7; 8:1; 10:42; see also 7:14; 8:34). Jesus’ pronouncement in 12:43 revealed a radical difference between his thinking and that of the world. No one would have named a building after the widow for her gift of two small coins, but Jesus and his Father look at a person’s heart (1 Sam 16:7). The widow was doing exactly what Jesus told the rich young ruler to do (Mark 10:21) and what he taught his disciples (1:18, 20; 8:34-37; 1...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110725,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:43","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:43","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:43-44<\/strong> <em>Jesus called his disciples<\/em> to hear his teaching (see 3:23; 6:7; 8:1; 10:42; see also 7:14; 8:34). Jesus’ pronouncement in 12:43 revealed a radical difference between his thinking and that of the world. No one would have named a building after the widow for her gift of two small coins, but Jesus and his Father look at a person’s heart (1 Sam 16:7). The widow was doing exactly what Jesus told the rich young ruler to do (Mark 10:21) and what he taught his disciples (1:18, 20; 8:34-37; 10:28-29). Like the woman of 14:3-9, the poor widow loved God with all her heart, soul, mind, and strength (12:30).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:43-44<\/strong> <em>Jesus called his disciples<\/em> to hear his teaching (see 3:23; 6:7; 8:1; 10:42; see also 7:14; 8:34). Jesus’ pronouncement in 12:43 revealed a radical difference between his thinking and that of the world. No one would have named a building after the widow for her gift of two small coins, but Jesus and his Father look at a person’s heart (1 Sam 16:7). The widow was doing exactly what Jesus told the rich young ruler to do (Mark 10:21) and what he taught his disciples (1:18, 20; 8:34-37; 10:28-29). Like the woman of 14:3-9, the poor widow loved God with all her heart, soul, mind, and strength (12:30).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:43-44 Jesus called his disciples to hear his teaching (see 3:23; 6:7; 8:1; 10:42; see also 7:14; 8:34). Jesus’ pronouncement in 12:43 revealed a radical difference between his thinking and that of the world. No one would have named a building after the widow for her gift of two small coins, but Jesus and his Father look at a person’s heart (1 Sam 16:7). The widow was doing exactly what Jesus told the rich young ruler to do (Mark 10:21) and what he taught his disciples (1:18, 20; 8:34-37; 1...","summary_en":"12:43-44 Jesus called his disciples to hear his teaching (see 3:23; 6:7; 8:1; 10:42; see also 7:14; 8:34). Jesus’ pronouncement in 12:43 revealed a radical difference between his thinking and that of the world. No one would have named a building after the widow for her gift of two small coins, but Jesus and his Father look at a person’s heart (1 Sam 16:7). The widow was doing exactly what Jesus told the rich young ruler to do (Mark 10:21) and what he taught his disciples (1:18, 20; 8:34-37; 1...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":138351,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Marcu 12:43","title_en":"Study Note: Marcu 12:43","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:43-44<\/strong> <em>Jesus called his disciples<\/em> to hear his teaching (see 3:23; 6:7; 8:1; 10:42; see also 7:14; 8:34). Jesus’ pronouncement in 12:43 revealed a radical difference between his thinking and that of the world. No one would have named a building after the widow for her gift of two small coins, but Jesus and his Father look at a person’s heart (1 Sam 16:7). The widow was doing exactly what Jesus told the rich young ruler to do (Mark 10:21) and what he taught his disciples (1:18, 20; 8:34-37; 10:28-29). Like the woman of 14:3-9, the poor widow loved God with all her heart, soul, mind, and strength (12:30).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:43-44<\/strong> <em>Jesus called his disciples<\/em> to hear his teaching (see 3:23; 6:7; 8:1; 10:42; see also 7:14; 8:34). Jesus’ pronouncement in 12:43 revealed a radical difference between his thinking and that of the world. No one would have named a building after the widow for her gift of two small coins, but Jesus and his Father look at a person’s heart (1 Sam 16:7). The widow was doing exactly what Jesus told the rich young ruler to do (Mark 10:21) and what he taught his disciples (1:18, 20; 8:34-37; 10:28-29). Like the woman of 14:3-9, the poor widow loved God with all her heart, soul, mind, and strength (12:30).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:43-44 Jesus called his disciples to hear his teaching (see 3:23; 6:7; 8:1; 10:42; see also 7:14; 8:34). Jesus’ pronouncement in 12:43 revealed a radical difference between his thinking and that of the world. No one would have named a building after the widow for her gift of two small coins, but Jesus and his Father look at a person’s heart (1 Sam 16:7). The widow was doing exactly what Jesus told the rich young ruler to do (Mark 10:21) and what he taught his disciples (1:18, 20; 8:34-37; 1...","summary_en":"12:43-44 Jesus called his disciples to hear his teaching (see 3:23; 6:7; 8:1; 10:42; see also 7:14; 8:34). Jesus’ pronouncement in 12:43 revealed a radical difference between his thinking and that of the world. No one would have named a building after the widow for her gift of two small coins, but Jesus and his Father look at a person’s heart (1 Sam 16:7). The widow was doing exactly what Jesus told the rich young ruler to do (Mark 10:21) and what he taught his disciples (1:18, 20; 8:34-37; 1...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"44":[{"id":7001,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Coins","title_en":"Coins","content_ro":"<h3>COINS<\/h3>\n<p>Pieces of metal used and accepted as a medium of exchange. A coin has a specific weight and bears some type of authentication to make it easily recognizable. The word “coin” originally referred to a wedge-shaped die or stamp used to “strike” the metal blank. The first coins may have been minted in the late eighth century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Earliest Coins in Palestine<\/p>\n<p>• Coinage from the Maccabees to Herod Agrippa I<\/p>\n<p>• Roman Coins in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"EarliestCoinsinPalestine\">Earliest Coins in Palestine<\/p>\n<p>Not until the time of Darius the Great (Darius I of Persia, 521–486 <span>BC<\/span>) did an official government-sponsored coinage become current in Palestine. Those earliest coins were oval-shaped gold darics, along with some silver coins.<\/p>\n<p>“Dram” is another term for the Persian gold daric. It is mentioned in Ezra 2:68-69 (<span>kjv<\/span>), where Zerubbabel’s caravan offered gold darics amounting to $30,000 toward rebuilding the temple. This passage is the first mention of an actual coin in the Bible.<\/p>\n<p>Almost at the same time that the Persian coins became current in Palestine, the widely popular silver tetradrachmas (four-drachma pieces) of Athens began to find their way to the mercantile centers of the Phoenician, Israelite, and Philistine coasts. Archaeologists have unearthed them in hoards throughout the eastern Mediterranean region. They continued to be used through the Persian period, which lasted until the Persian Empire was conquered by Alexander the Great in 334–330 <span>BC<\/span>. The coin was thick and heavy in appearance, but being of high-quality silver, it was in great demand for international commerce. Presumably Greek merchants found they could obtain the most desirable Asiatic imports in exchange for that particular form of currency.<\/p>\n<p>The silver didrachma, or half-drachma, in general use in the Greek Empire from the fourth century <span>BC<\/span>, continued through Roman times. After Alexander’s conquests, of course, Greek coins were used throughout the Macedonian Empire from present-day Yugoslavia to Pakistan. They were almost certainly employed for business purposes in Judea, for example.<\/p>\n<p>The shekels of the Phoenician trade centers of Tyre and Sidon, which had contributed substantially to the money supply in the Persian period, continued to be accepted in Judea even after the Alexandrian conquest. Typical of Sidon was a silver shekel portraying the battlements and walls of Sidon’s harbor, with a ship lying at anchor and two prancing lions in the foreground. A typical Tyrian shekel showed the god Baal robed and wearing a tiara. He was riding a hippocamp (winged horse with the tail of a fish) on the sea, with a fish or dolphin beneath. The reverse showed an Egyptian-type owl facing right, plus a shepherd’s crook and flail, both royal insignia in Egypt. The stater (or tetradrachma) found by the disciple Peter in a fish’s mouth and used to pay the temple tax for himself and Jesus may have been a Tyrian coin (Mt 17:27; <span>rsv<\/span> “shekel”).<\/p>\n<p>The talent, which represented a certain weight of gold or silver, was a common medium of exchange before the development of coinage. During the Maccabean period, John Hyrcanus saved the city of Jerusalem from destruction in 133 <span>BC<\/span> by paying a ransom from a 900-year-old hoard stored in David’s sepulcher. Three thousand talents of silver were sent to the Seleucid king Antiochus VII Sidetes in return for his promise to withdraw his troops. Treasure plundered from the temple by the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 66 is recorded as amounting to 17 talents. In gold talents that sum would represent the equivalent of the purchase price of about 15 large houses in a modern Western city.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CoinagefromtheMaccabeestoHerodAgrippaI\">Coinage from the Maccabees to Herod Agrippa I<\/p>\n<p>Even though a native Jewish dynasty assumed the government of the Holy Land, it was many years before any indigenous Jewish coinage was minted. Presumably the inhabitants continued to use the coinage of Tyre and Egypt and of the Seleucid Empire for their commercial transactions. It was formerly supposed that silver shekels bearing images of the chalice and pomegranate cluster dated from the reign of Simon Maccabeus (142–134 <span>BC<\/span>); more recent archaeological discoveries prove that those coins date from the first Jewish revolt (<span>AD<\/span> 66–70).<\/p>\n<p>When the time came to issue the first Jewish coins, the die makers faced several problems. No mint was available, and no local people were skilled in design or die sinking. Coins current in the Near East at that time, which showed a high degree of design and craftsmanship, each bore the portrait head of a ruler or a god. For the Jews to make such coins would have meant contravening the second commandment, “You shall not make for yourself a graven image” (Ex 20:4, <span>rsv<\/span>). Not until well into Roman times was a coin struck in Palestine bearing a portrait head of a Roman emperor.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest coinage of the Hasmonean dynasty (the regnal name of the Maccabees) was the small bronze lepton (plural, lepta) of John Hyrcanus I (134–104 <span>BC<\/span>), son of Simon Maccabeus. The obverse showed two cornucopias with a pomegranate between them. That image symbolized the fertility that God had granted to the land. The reverse contained an inscription within a wreath, “John the high priest and the community of the Jews.” Small bronze lepta from the reign of Alexander Janneus, son of Hyrcanus I, have been found in great numbers. They were evidently much in demand for transactions at the temple, where money changers converted the gentile currency of visiting worshipers into the more acceptable Jewish money. Undoubtedly Hasmonean lepta were the coins Jesus scattered over the pavement of the Court of the Gentiles when he overturned the tables of the money changers (Mt 21:12; Jn 2:15). The lepton, or “mite,” of bronze or copper, worth <span>1<\/span>\/<span>400<\/span> of a shekel, was mentioned by Jesus on another occasion. He praised a widow’s gift of two mites to the temple treasury with the comment that the rich “contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, her whole living” (Mk 12:44, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Herod I came to power in Judea under the patronage of Mark Antony and secured the allegiance of the pro-Hasmonean Jews by marrying Mariamne, granddaughter of Hyrcanus II, in 38 <span>BC<\/span>. Herod was empowered to strike his own bronze coins. Although he had a free hand to introduce innovations, Herod’s lepta followed tradition quite faithfully. The lepta carried an anchor with letters meaning “Of King Herod.” The reverse bore the double cornucopias with a pomegranate (or poppy) between them. Herod also minted a large bronze coin with what appears to be a Macedonian helmet on the obverse and a slender tripod on the reverse, along with an inscription of Herod’s name. Other designs he employed included wheat, eagles, and wreaths. He issued no silver coinage, relying instead on the available supplies of silver coins from Tyre, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome.<\/p>\n<p>After Herod’s death in 4 <span>BC<\/span>, his son Herod Archelaus assumed control. Lepta from that period bore a hanging cluster of grapes with a Greek inscription, and on the reverse a two-plumed Macedonian helmet. Grapes were an allusion to Israel as the Lord’s vine (Is 5).<\/p>\n<p>When Herod Antipas began his rule, also in 4 <span>BC<\/span>, he had no authority in Judea or Samaria. That portion of the former Jewish kingdom was placed under the control of Roman governors, or procurators, appointed directly by the emperor himself. Most familiar of the Roman procurators of Judea was Pontius Pilate (<span>AD<\/span> 26–36). His bronze coinage showed some bold innovations; his designs included representations of instruments used in the Roman religion such as the augur’s wand (resembling a shepherd’s crook in shape) and a ladle used in connection with broth prepared at sacrifices. The reverse bore a wreath enclosing the regnal date of <span>AD<\/span> 30–31. The two lepta put into the temple treasury (Lk 21:2) could have been lepta issued by Pilate or his predecessor. More likely, however, they were the Hasmonean lepta of Hyrcanus or Janneus, which were free of any taint of pagan Roman influence.<\/p>\n<p>Herod Agrippa I (<span>AD<\/span> 37–44), grandson of Herod the Great, continued the family tradition of ingratiating himself with the Roman overlords. Many of Herod Agrippa’s lepta have been found, showing a conical tasseled umbrella (perhaps symbolizing his royal protection of the people of Palestine) plus a Greek inscription indicating his reign. The reverse showed a bound cluster of three wheat ears and bore the regnal year as the legend.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"RomanCoinsinNewTestamentTimes\">Roman Coins in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>The Roman “as” came into circulation about 348 <span>BC<\/span> as a bronze coin bearing the figure of an animal. The coin was named after the Roman one-pound weight, equivalent to 12 ounces (340 grams) in our modern system. At the time of Christ’s birth, the Roman “as” minted for use in the Asiatic provinces bore the head of the emperor Augustus, with a laurel wreath on the reverse. A smaller bronze quadrans, or quarter “as,” was also minted by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Another bronze coin found in Greek and Roman currency was the assarion, first minted in the first century <span>BC<\/span> but still in use in the Christian period. One type was stamped with a winged sphinx, with an amphora on the reverse. It is still debated whether the coin described as a “farthing” in the <span>kjv<\/span> was in fact a Greek assarion or a Roman “as” or quadrans. The coin is mentioned four times in the NT, most familiarly in the question “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?” (see Mt 5:26; 10:29; Mk 12:42; Lk 12:6, <span>rsv<\/span> “penny”). There is no doubt that the <span>kjv<\/span> translators decided to make the coin seem more familiar to their readers by using the name of the smallest copper coin in circulation in England at that time.<\/p>\n<p>The word translated “penny” in the <span>kjv<\/span> is the Greek form of “denarius,” the normal daily wage for a laborer in NT times. In the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, for example, the master agreed to pay each man “a penny” for his day’s work (Mt 20:2, <span>kjv<\/span>; <span>rsv<\/span> “a denarius”). “Two pence” was the amount paid to the innkeeper by the good Samaritan (Lk 10:35, <span>kjv<\/span>). Because of the influence of the Roman denarius on British currency, the English penny has always been represented by the initial letter of its Roman equivalent.<\/p>\n<p>When the denarius, or “penny,” is recognized as a normal day’s wage, the astonishment of Jesus’ disciples when they were expected to find food for 5,000 people is better understood. They exclaimed that “two hundred pennyworth” of food would not feed such a crowd (Jn 6:7, <span>kjv<\/span>); that sum represented more than six months’ work.<\/p>\n<p>As might be expected, the silver and gold coinage current in Palestine during the time of Christ and for the remainder of the first century <span>AD<\/span> came primarily from Rome. The larger silver coins, however, that are referred to as tetradrachmas or staters in the NT came from Egypt, Phoenicia, or Antioch. The silver coin most frequently mentioned in the NT was the Roman denarius or the Greek drachma. Since few drachmas have been found in excavations dating from the first century, it is possible that the term was used in popular speech to refer to the denarius (plural, denarii), which was approximately the same size as the average Greek drachma. Actually, few Greek cities were permitted by their Roman overlords to continue minting drachmas.<\/p>\n<p>Caesar Augustus issued a decree for all the Roman world to be enrolled (Lk 2:1-2) in an empire-wide census just about the time that Jesus was born (6 or 5 <span>BC<\/span>). During his long reign (27 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 14), Augustus authorized a large variety of denarii. They generally carried his likeness on their obverse with the inscription “Augustus, son of the divine one” (that is, son of Julius Caesar, who had been voted divine honors by the Roman Senate).<\/p>\n<p>In Matthew 22:19 Jesus asked those trying to trick him with a question to show him a coin used to pay the government tax. They handed him a denarius bearing the portrait and inscription of Caesar (Mt 22:21). That coin could have been a denarius of Augustus, who had died some 16 years before, or of Tiberius (<span>AD<\/span> 14–37), who was then on the throne. The silver denarius of Tiberius read “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of the divine Augustus.” The reverse showed the high priestess of the vestal order, flaming torch in hand, seated on her throne facing right. The title “pontif(ex) maxim(us)” referred to Tiberius rather than to the priestess.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Minerals and Metals; Money; Money Changer.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>COINS<\/h3>\n<p>Pieces of metal used and accepted as a medium of exchange. A coin has a specific weight and bears some type of authentication to make it easily recognizable. The word “coin” originally referred to a wedge-shaped die or stamp used to “strike” the metal blank. The first coins may have been minted in the late eighth century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Earliest Coins in Palestine<\/p>\n<p>• Coinage from the Maccabees to Herod Agrippa I<\/p>\n<p>• Roman Coins in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"EarliestCoinsinPalestine\">Earliest Coins in Palestine<\/p>\n<p>Not until the time of Darius the Great (Darius I of Persia, 521–486 <span>BC<\/span>) did an official government-sponsored coinage become current in Palestine. Those earliest coins were oval-shaped gold darics, along with some silver coins.<\/p>\n<p>“Dram” is another term for the Persian gold daric. It is mentioned in Ezra 2:68-69 (<span>kjv<\/span>), where Zerubbabel’s caravan offered gold darics amounting to $30,000 toward rebuilding the temple. This passage is the first mention of an actual coin in the Bible.<\/p>\n<p>Almost at the same time that the Persian coins became current in Palestine, the widely popular silver tetradrachmas (four-drachma pieces) of Athens began to find their way to the mercantile centers of the Phoenician, Israelite, and Philistine coasts. Archaeologists have unearthed them in hoards throughout the eastern Mediterranean region. They continued to be used through the Persian period, which lasted until the Persian Empire was conquered by Alexander the Great in 334–330 <span>BC<\/span>. The coin was thick and heavy in appearance, but being of high-quality silver, it was in great demand for international commerce. Presumably Greek merchants found they could obtain the most desirable Asiatic imports in exchange for that particular form of currency.<\/p>\n<p>The silver didrachma, or half-drachma, in general use in the Greek Empire from the fourth century <span>BC<\/span>, continued through Roman times. After Alexander’s conquests, of course, Greek coins were used throughout the Macedonian Empire from present-day Yugoslavia to Pakistan. They were almost certainly employed for business purposes in Judea, for example.<\/p>\n<p>The shekels of the Phoenician trade centers of Tyre and Sidon, which had contributed substantially to the money supply in the Persian period, continued to be accepted in Judea even after the Alexandrian conquest. Typical of Sidon was a silver shekel portraying the battlements and walls of Sidon’s harbor, with a ship lying at anchor and two prancing lions in the foreground. A typical Tyrian shekel showed the god Baal robed and wearing a tiara. He was riding a hippocamp (winged horse with the tail of a fish) on the sea, with a fish or dolphin beneath. The reverse showed an Egyptian-type owl facing right, plus a shepherd’s crook and flail, both royal insignia in Egypt. The stater (or tetradrachma) found by the disciple Peter in a fish’s mouth and used to pay the temple tax for himself and Jesus may have been a Tyrian coin (Mt 17:27; <span>rsv<\/span> “shekel”).<\/p>\n<p>The talent, which represented a certain weight of gold or silver, was a common medium of exchange before the development of coinage. During the Maccabean period, John Hyrcanus saved the city of Jerusalem from destruction in 133 <span>BC<\/span> by paying a ransom from a 900-year-old hoard stored in David’s sepulcher. Three thousand talents of silver were sent to the Seleucid king Antiochus VII Sidetes in return for his promise to withdraw his troops. Treasure plundered from the temple by the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 66 is recorded as amounting to 17 talents. In gold talents that sum would represent the equivalent of the purchase price of about 15 large houses in a modern Western city.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CoinagefromtheMaccabeestoHerodAgrippaI\">Coinage from the Maccabees to Herod Agrippa I<\/p>\n<p>Even though a native Jewish dynasty assumed the government of the Holy Land, it was many years before any indigenous Jewish coinage was minted. Presumably the inhabitants continued to use the coinage of Tyre and Egypt and of the Seleucid Empire for their commercial transactions. It was formerly supposed that silver shekels bearing images of the chalice and pomegranate cluster dated from the reign of Simon Maccabeus (142–134 <span>BC<\/span>); more recent archaeological discoveries prove that those coins date from the first Jewish revolt (<span>AD<\/span> 66–70).<\/p>\n<p>When the time came to issue the first Jewish coins, the die makers faced several problems. No mint was available, and no local people were skilled in design or die sinking. Coins current in the Near East at that time, which showed a high degree of design and craftsmanship, each bore the portrait head of a ruler or a god. For the Jews to make such coins would have meant contravening the second commandment, “You shall not make for yourself a graven image” (Ex 20:4, <span>rsv<\/span>). Not until well into Roman times was a coin struck in Palestine bearing a portrait head of a Roman emperor.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest coinage of the Hasmonean dynasty (the regnal name of the Maccabees) was the small bronze lepton (plural, lepta) of John Hyrcanus I (134–104 <span>BC<\/span>), son of Simon Maccabeus. The obverse showed two cornucopias with a pomegranate between them. That image symbolized the fertility that God had granted to the land. The reverse contained an inscription within a wreath, “John the high priest and the community of the Jews.” Small bronze lepta from the reign of Alexander Janneus, son of Hyrcanus I, have been found in great numbers. They were evidently much in demand for transactions at the temple, where money changers converted the gentile currency of visiting worshipers into the more acceptable Jewish money. Undoubtedly Hasmonean lepta were the coins Jesus scattered over the pavement of the Court of the Gentiles when he overturned the tables of the money changers (Mt 21:12; Jn 2:15). The lepton, or “mite,” of bronze or copper, worth <span>1<\/span>\/<span>400<\/span> of a shekel, was mentioned by Jesus on another occasion. He praised a widow’s gift of two mites to the temple treasury with the comment that the rich “contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, her whole living” (Mk 12:44, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Herod I came to power in Judea under the patronage of Mark Antony and secured the allegiance of the pro-Hasmonean Jews by marrying Mariamne, granddaughter of Hyrcanus II, in 38 <span>BC<\/span>. Herod was empowered to strike his own bronze coins. Although he had a free hand to introduce innovations, Herod’s lepta followed tradition quite faithfully. The lepta carried an anchor with letters meaning “Of King Herod.” The reverse bore the double cornucopias with a pomegranate (or poppy) between them. Herod also minted a large bronze coin with what appears to be a Macedonian helmet on the obverse and a slender tripod on the reverse, along with an inscription of Herod’s name. Other designs he employed included wheat, eagles, and wreaths. He issued no silver coinage, relying instead on the available supplies of silver coins from Tyre, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome.<\/p>\n<p>After Herod’s death in 4 <span>BC<\/span>, his son Herod Archelaus assumed control. Lepta from that period bore a hanging cluster of grapes with a Greek inscription, and on the reverse a two-plumed Macedonian helmet. Grapes were an allusion to Israel as the Lord’s vine (Is 5).<\/p>\n<p>When Herod Antipas began his rule, also in 4 <span>BC<\/span>, he had no authority in Judea or Samaria. That portion of the former Jewish kingdom was placed under the control of Roman governors, or procurators, appointed directly by the emperor himself. Most familiar of the Roman procurators of Judea was Pontius Pilate (<span>AD<\/span> 26–36). His bronze coinage showed some bold innovations; his designs included representations of instruments used in the Roman religion such as the augur’s wand (resembling a shepherd’s crook in shape) and a ladle used in connection with broth prepared at sacrifices. The reverse bore a wreath enclosing the regnal date of <span>AD<\/span> 30–31. The two lepta put into the temple treasury (Lk 21:2) could have been lepta issued by Pilate or his predecessor. More likely, however, they were the Hasmonean lepta of Hyrcanus or Janneus, which were free of any taint of pagan Roman influence.<\/p>\n<p>Herod Agrippa I (<span>AD<\/span> 37–44), grandson of Herod the Great, continued the family tradition of ingratiating himself with the Roman overlords. Many of Herod Agrippa’s lepta have been found, showing a conical tasseled umbrella (perhaps symbolizing his royal protection of the people of Palestine) plus a Greek inscription indicating his reign. The reverse showed a bound cluster of three wheat ears and bore the regnal year as the legend.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"RomanCoinsinNewTestamentTimes\">Roman Coins in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>The Roman “as” came into circulation about 348 <span>BC<\/span> as a bronze coin bearing the figure of an animal. The coin was named after the Roman one-pound weight, equivalent to 12 ounces (340 grams) in our modern system. At the time of Christ’s birth, the Roman “as” minted for use in the Asiatic provinces bore the head of the emperor Augustus, with a laurel wreath on the reverse. A smaller bronze quadrans, or quarter “as,” was also minted by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Another bronze coin found in Greek and Roman currency was the assarion, first minted in the first century <span>BC<\/span> but still in use in the Christian period. One type was stamped with a winged sphinx, with an amphora on the reverse. It is still debated whether the coin described as a “farthing” in the <span>kjv<\/span> was in fact a Greek assarion or a Roman “as” or quadrans. The coin is mentioned four times in the NT, most familiarly in the question “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?” (see Mt 5:26; 10:29; Mk 12:42; Lk 12:6, <span>rsv<\/span> “penny”). There is no doubt that the <span>kjv<\/span> translators decided to make the coin seem more familiar to their readers by using the name of the smallest copper coin in circulation in England at that time.<\/p>\n<p>The word translated “penny” in the <span>kjv<\/span> is the Greek form of “denarius,” the normal daily wage for a laborer in NT times. In the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, for example, the master agreed to pay each man “a penny” for his day’s work (Mt 20:2, <span>kjv<\/span>; <span>rsv<\/span> “a denarius”). “Two pence” was the amount paid to the innkeeper by the good Samaritan (Lk 10:35, <span>kjv<\/span>). Because of the influence of the Roman denarius on British currency, the English penny has always been represented by the initial letter of its Roman equivalent.<\/p>\n<p>When the denarius, or “penny,” is recognized as a normal day’s wage, the astonishment of Jesus’ disciples when they were expected to find food for 5,000 people is better understood. They exclaimed that “two hundred pennyworth” of food would not feed such a crowd (Jn 6:7, <span>kjv<\/span>); that sum represented more than six months’ work.<\/p>\n<p>As might be expected, the silver and gold coinage current in Palestine during the time of Christ and for the remainder of the first century <span>AD<\/span> came primarily from Rome. The larger silver coins, however, that are referred to as tetradrachmas or staters in the NT came from Egypt, Phoenicia, or Antioch. The silver coin most frequently mentioned in the NT was the Roman denarius or the Greek drachma. Since few drachmas have been found in excavations dating from the first century, it is possible that the term was used in popular speech to refer to the denarius (plural, denarii), which was approximately the same size as the average Greek drachma. Actually, few Greek cities were permitted by their Roman overlords to continue minting drachmas.<\/p>\n<p>Caesar Augustus issued a decree for all the Roman world to be enrolled (Lk 2:1-2) in an empire-wide census just about the time that Jesus was born (6 or 5 <span>BC<\/span>). During his long reign (27 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 14), Augustus authorized a large variety of denarii. They generally carried his likeness on their obverse with the inscription “Augustus, son of the divine one” (that is, son of Julius Caesar, who had been voted divine honors by the Roman Senate).<\/p>\n<p>In Matthew 22:19 Jesus asked those trying to trick him with a question to show him a coin used to pay the government tax. They handed him a denarius bearing the portrait and inscription of Caesar (Mt 22:21). That coin could have been a denarius of Augustus, who had died some 16 years before, or of Tiberius (<span>AD<\/span> 14–37), who was then on the throne. The silver denarius of Tiberius read “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of the divine Augustus.” The reverse showed the high priestess of the vestal order, flaming torch in hand, seated on her throne facing right. The title “pontif(ex) maxim(us)” referred to Tiberius rather than to the priestess.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Minerals and Metals; Money; Money Changer.<\/p>","summary_ro":"COINS Pieces of metal used and accepted as a medium of exchange. A coin has a specific weight and bears some type of authentication to make it easily recognizable. The word “coin” originally referred to a wedge-shaped die or stamp used to “strike” the metal blank. The first coins may have been minted in the late eighth century BC. Preview • Earliest Coins in Palestine • Coinage from the Maccabees to Herod Agrippa I • Roman Coins in New Testament Times Earliest Coins in Palestine Not until the...","summary_en":"COINS Pieces of metal used and accepted as a medium of exchange. A coin has a specific weight and bears some type of authentication to make it easily recognizable. The word “coin” originally referred to a wedge-shaped die or stamp used to “strike” the metal blank. The first coins may have been minted in the late eighth century BC. Preview • Earliest Coins in Palestine • Coinage from the Maccabees to Herod Agrippa I • Roman Coins in New Testament Times Earliest Coins in Palestine Not until the...","source":"Articles\/C.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.
Marcu 12
— 44 versete
Marcu 12
📘 Info carte
Se încarcă...
📖 Resurse