Matei 19
1 După ce a sfârşit Isus cuvântările acestea, a plecat din Galilea, şi a venit în ţinutul Iudeii, dincolo de Iordan.
2 După El au mers multe gloate; şi acolo a vindecat pe cei bolnavi.
3 Fariseii au venit la El, şi, ca să -L ispitească, I-au zis: ,,Oare este îngăduit unui bărbat să-şi lase nevasta pentru orice pricină?``
4 Drept răspuns, El le-a zis: ,,Oare n-aţi citit că Ziditorul, dela început i-a făcut parte bărbătească şi parte femeiască,
5 şi a zis: ,De aceea va lăsa omul pe tatăl său şi pe mama sa, şi se va lipi de nevastă-sa, şi cei doi vor fi un singur trup?`
6 Aşa că nu mai sânt doi, ci un singur trup. Deci, ce a împreunat Dumnezeu, omul să nu despartă.``
7 ,,Pentru ce dar``, I-au zis ei, ,,a poruncit Moise ca bărbatul să dea nevestei o carte de despărţire, şi s-o lase?``
8 Isus le-a răspuns: ,,Din pricina împietririi inimilor voastre a îngăduit Moise să vă lăsaţi nevestele; dar dela început n-a fost aşa.
9 Eu însă vă spun că oricine îşi lasă nevasta, afară de pricină de curvie, şi ia pe alta de nevastă, preacurveşte; şi cine ia de nevastă pe cea lăsată de bărbat, preacurveşte.``
10 Ucenicii Lui I-au zis: ,,Dacă astfel stă lucrul cu bărbatul şi nevasta lui, nu este de folos să se însoare.``
11 El le-a răspuns: ,,Nu toţi pot primi cuvântul acesta, ci numai aceia cărora le este dat.
12 Fiindcă sânt fameni, cari s-au născut aşa din pântecele maicii lor; sânt fameni, cari au fost făcuţi fameni de oameni; şi sânt fameni, cari singuri s-au făcut fameni pentru Împărăţia cerurilor. Cine poate să primească lucrul acesta, să-l primească.``
13 Atunci I-au adus nişte copilaşi, ca să-Şi pună mânile peste ei, şi să Se roage pentru ei. Dar ucenicii îi certau.
14 Şi Isus le-a zis: ,,Lăsaţi copilaşii să vină la Mine, şi nu-i opriţi, căci Împărăţia cerurilor este a celor ca ei.``
15 După ce Şi-a pus mânile peste ei, a plecat de acolo.
16 Atunci s-a apropiat de Isus un om, şi I-a zis: ,,Învăţătorule, ce bine să fac, ca să am viaţa vecinică?``
17 El i-a răspuns: ,,Dece mă întrebi: ,Ce bine?` Binele este Unul singur. Dar dacă vrei să intri în viaţă, păzeşte poruncile.``
18 ,,Cari?`` I-a zis el. Şi Isus i-a răspuns: ,,Să nu ucizi: să nu preacurveşti; să nu furi; să nu faci o mărturisire mincinoasă;
19 să cinsteşti pe tatăl tău şi pe mama ta``; şi: ,,Să iubeşti pe aproapele tău ca pe tine însuţi.``
20 Tânărul I-a zis: ,,Toate aceste porunci le-am păzit cu grijă din tinereţa mea; ce-mi mai lipseşte?``
21 ,,Dacă vrei să fii desăvârşit``, i-a zis Isus, ,,du-te de vinde ce ai, dă la săraci, şi vei avea o comoară în cer! Apoi vino, şi urmează-Mă.``
22 Când a auzit tânărul vorba aceasta, a plecat foarte întristat; pentrucă avea multe avuţii.
23 Isus a zis ucenicilor Săi: ,,Adevărat vă spun că greu va intra un bogat în Împărăţia cerurilor.
24 Vă mai spun iarăş că este mai uşor să treacă o cămilă prin urechea acului, decât să intre un bogat în împărăţia lui Dumnezeu.``
25 Ucenicii, când au auzit lucrul acesta, au rămas uimiţi de tot, şi au zis: ,,Cine poate, atunci să fie mântuit?``
26 Isus S-a uitat ţintă la ei, şi le-a zis: ,,La oameni lucrul acesta este cu neputinţă, dar la Dumnezeu toate lucrurile sânt cu putinţă.``
27 Atunci Petru a luat cuvântul şi I-a zis: ,,Iată că noi am lăsat tot, şi Te-am urmat; ce răsplată vom avea?``
28 Isus le-a răspuns: ,,Adevărat vă spun că, atunci când va sta Fiul omului pe scaunul de domnie al măririi Sale, la înoirea tuturor lucrurilor, voi, cari M-aţi urmat, veţi şedea şi voi pe douăsprezece scaune de domnie, şi veţi judeca pe cele douăsprezece seminţii ale lui Israel.
29 Şi ori şi cine a lăsat case, sau fraţi, sau surori, sau tată, sau mamă, sau nevastă, sau feciori, sau holde, pentru Numele Meu, va primi însutit, şi va moşteni viaţa vecinică.
30 Dar mulţi din cei dintâi vor fi cei din urmă, şi mulţi din cei din urmă vor fi cei dintâi.
{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":4878,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of the Old Testament in the New Testament Bible*, Quotations","title_en":"of the Old Testament in the New Testament Bible*, Quotations","content_ro":"<h3>BIBLE*, Q<span>uotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers.<\/p>\n<p>The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotations in distinctive print, this may not be easily seen, for the NT writers often weave the OT words into their own without indicating they are borrowing from the OT. There are over 400 passages of the OT that are explicitly cited in the NT. Almost half of these are introduced by a statement like “Scripture says” to draw attention to the fact that the authority and thought of the OT is being implemented. For the others, however, the OT words are woven into the fabric of the author’s own statement.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the over 400 passages cited explicitly, there are well over 1,000 places where there is an allusion to an OT text, event, or person. The difference between a quotation and an allusion is sometimes debated for particular texts, but usually the distinction is that in a quotation the author consciously uses the words of an OT passage, whereas with an allusion he has the texts in mind but is not consciously trying to use the words.<\/p>\n<p>Quotations are easy to identify if there is an introductory formula such as “the Scripture says” (as in Rom 10:11; cf. Is 28:16). Where there is no introductory formula, it is easy to overlook explicit quotations (Rom 10:13; cf. Jl 2:32). The allusions are, of course, harder still to recognize, but they often provide the key to interpretation. For example, John 1:14-18—with its mention of glory, grace and truth, Moses, and the fact that no one has seen God—is much more easily and profoundly understood when read in connection with Exodus 33:17–34:8. In the Exodus passage the glory of God and his grace and truth are revealed to Moses. The author was showing that a much more complete revelation of God was given in Jesus than was given Moses in the account recorded in Exodus.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, significant light is shed on many NT passages from OT passages with similar ideas and words even where the NT author may not have been consciously alluding to those texts (e.g. Mt 16:19; Is 22:22). What was behind the author’s thinking is not certain, but in such cases the NT reflects the thinking, the culture, and language of the OT period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DistributionofOldTestamentQuotations\">Distribution of Old Testament Quotations<\/p>\n<p>The books of the NT that show the most dependence on the OT are Matthew, John, Romans, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation. Such a statement can be misleading, however, because the writers have different methods.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew quotes or consciously reflects the wording of OT passages about 62 times, almost half of which have an introductory formula. The book of Revelation, on the other hand, never quotes the OT and never has an introductory formula but is probably more dependent on the OT than any other NT book. The book of Hebrews quotes or consciously reflects the OT about 59 times, again half of which have an introductory formula, but the Gospel of John does so only 18 times, nearly always with an introductory formula. However, the allusions to the OT are present on virtually every page of John’s Gospel, so much so that some scholars have argued that he has modeled his account on the exodus narrative, the Jewish feasts, or OT persons and images. Paul’s Letter to the Romans uses the OT 54 times (about three-fourths of which have introductory formulas), but nowhere else so frequently (e.g., 1 Cor 16 times, Gal 11 times, Phil one time, 1 Thes one time).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the indication that Philippians and 1 Thessalonians use the OT only once each, some other books make explicit use of the OT rarely or never. Colossians, Titus, Philemon, and the Johannine letters do not use the OT at all; 2 Timothy and Jude use the OT only once; while 2 Peter and 1 Timothy make use of it twice.<\/p>\n<p>The important point is to realize that the OT is used most frequently in circumstances where the audience is familiar with the OT or where the OT is essential for describing the events relating to Christ and the church. The books using the OT most frequently (Mt, Jn, Rom, Heb, 1 Pt, Rv) either stem from or are addressed to a Jewish context or, as in the case of Romans and John, deal specifically with the relation of Jews and Christians. The Gospels make rather extensive use of the OT because the language of the OT is necessary to convey the identity and importance of Jesus in the purposes of God. Similarly 1 Peter uses the OT frequently because the author is trying to convey to his persecuted audience that they are the people of God and the inheritors of the promises of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DifficultiesinInterpretation\">Difficulties in Interpretation<\/p>\n<p>Often when people think of quotations of the OT in the NT they think only in terms of prophecy. Some have been guilty of counting up the OT statements that the NT applies to Christ and the church and then claiming these OT texts as predictions that prove Jesus is the Messiah. Such a procedure is filled with problems because it is too simplistic and does not do justice to either the OT or to the way the NT uses it. Of course, the early church used the OT to show that Jesus fulfilled the promises of God and did God’s work, but the use the church made of the OT was quite varied and much of it cannot be classified as predictive prophecy. Prophecy itself is too complex to be limited to predictive thinking.<\/p>\n<p>Some of the most obvious examples of the difficulties appear in Matthew’s Gospel, although they are by no means confined there. Matthew 2:15—“Out of Egypt I called my son”—is a quotation of Hosea 11:1, but in Hosea these words do not refer to the Messiah. They refer to the nation of Israel. Similarly Matthew 2:18 quotes Jeremiah 31:15 (“A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more,” <span>niv<\/span>) as fulfilled in the slaughter of the innocent babies in Bethlehem, but in Jeremiah the weeping is over the destruction of Jerusalem. John 12:40 views Isaiah 6:10 as fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry, but this verse deals with the call of Isaiah and is not a prediction concerning the ministry of the Messiah. The examples could be multiplied but these should be sufficient to illustrate the problem. For this reason the NT writers have often been accused of twisting the Scriptures, but this charge is as simplistic as the thought that all prophecy is predictive and in fact springs from the same error. Therefore, any attempt to understand the use of the OT in the NT will have to deal with the variety of ways in which the OT is used and with the methods employed by the NT writers.<\/p>\n<p>There are other difficulties that are encountered as well. Sometimes the NT writer will indicate that some fact related to Christ is a fulfillment of the OT but the explicit text that he had in mind cannot be identified. For example, John 7:38 introduces the words “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water” with the statement “as Scripture has said.” No OT text reads this way. Possibly the allusion is to the rock that provided water in the wilderness (Ex 17:1), or to the waters that flowed from the new temple (Zec 14:8) or, more generally, it may be a reference to Isaiah 58:11. Similarly, the difficulty in determining the OT text behind the prophecy that Christ will be called a Nazarene (Mt 2:23) is notorious. Probably the reference is to Isaiah 11:1 and the Hebrew word there translated as “branch,” but the connection is not easily made and is not certain. A third example of this kind of difficulty is in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where Paul indicates that women should be in submission just as the Law says, but there is no OT text expressing this idea. His statement in probably to be understood as a summary rather than a quotation or allusion. Similarly on a few occasions an OT text is seemingly attributed to the wrong OT book. In Mark 1:2-3 an OT quotation is attributed to Isaiah but the quotation is really a conflation (or mixing) of Exodus 23:20, Malachi 3:1, and Isaiah 40:3. Matthew 27:9-10 quotes a passage that is said to be from Jeremiah, when really it is dependent on Zechariah 11:13 and might best be described as a summary of Zechariah 11:12-13, with certain words included from Jeremiah 32:6-9. These two examples do not create a major problem, however, for the determination of the origin of the words may be due to their use in collections of quotations from various prophets, in which case the more prominent prophets would be used to designate origin.<\/p>\n<p>The wording of the quotations of the OT text does not always conform to the modern form of the OT. Just as today there are numerous translations of the Bible, when the NT was being written there were various forms of the OT text. With regard to the Hebrew text (for the OT was written mostly in Hebrew), there were different traditions. Such differences in the Hebrew traditions would have been relatively small. Because of the increasing importance of Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity and of Greek after the conquests of Alexander the Great, the OT was also known and used in both these languages when the NT was being written. In fact, the Jews found it necessary in their synagogue services after reading the Hebrew OT to paraphrase the reading in Aramaic so that all could understand. These paraphrases were later written down and are known as Targums. The Greek translation of the OT that stems from the third century <span>BC<\/span> is known as the Septuagint, but there were also other Greek translations in use. This being the case, the wording of a NT quotation is not identical in every detail to the text of the Hebrew OT.<\/p>\n<p>Added to the fact that there were various forms of the text known in first-century <span>AD<\/span> Palestine is the complicating factor that NT writers often did not intend to quote the OT exactly. The use of formal quotation marks is a modern device, and ancient writers were not so taken by technical precision. They were more concerned with the intention of a text and consequently might copy or quote it verbatim, quote it from memory, use or adapt part of a verse, or even change certain words as they borrowed the verse to express their points. (The NT writers often use the OT words describing God’s actions in the past to explain what he has done in their time.) The importance of any differences between the NT quotation and the OT depends on the use to which the quotation is put and the degree to which the use is dependent on textual differences.<\/p>\n<p>Some examples should illustrate the nature of these difficulties. Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18. Whereas the Hebrew and Septuagint read, “You ascended to the heights, you lead captivity captive, you received gifts among mankind,” Ephesians records the verse as “After he ascended into the heights, <em>he<\/em> led captivity captive; he <em>gave<\/em> gifts to men.” Paul is stressing that Christ has given grace to people for ministry. He has either adapted the wording of the OT to make his point or he quoted a variant reading, <em>“he gave<\/em> gifts.” Some versions do have this reading. In fact, the Targum understands this verse as Moses giving the words of the law to the children of men, and Paul may well be adapting this understanding to the new revelation that has come in Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, but there are distinct differences between the Hebrew text and the wording in Matthew. The Hebrew reads, “Behold the young woman will become pregnant and will bear a son and you will call his name Immanuel,” whereas Matthew’s text records “Behold, the <em>virgin<\/em> will become pregnant and will bear a son, and <em>they<\/em> will call his name Immanuel.” The Septuagint does have the specific word “virgin,” like Matthew, but is not the source of Matthew’s quotation since other differences exist. Some have argued that the change from “you will call” to “they will call” was made by Matthew when he applied the words to Jesus. However, there are several traditions known for this part of the quotation and partial support for the reading in Matthew is provided by the text of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\n<p>Romans 11:26-27 is a conflation of Isaiah 59:20-21 and part of Isaiah 27:9, but there are important differences. One of these is that the OT has “the redeemer will come to Zion,” whereas Romans has “the deliverer will come <em>from<\/em> Zion.” The change to “from Zion” could indicate that Paul had a different textual tradition, could be the result of an intentional change by Paul, or more probably, could reflect the wording of Psalm 14:7.<\/p>\n<p>An awareness of the difficulties involved in the quotations of the OT by the NT writers will prohibit a simplistic approach and will prevent hasty conclusions. Care to ask not only which text was used but also which form of the text was used and how is obviously essential in any serious study. In addition it is necessary to allow for the possibility that the NT writers knew forms of a text that are now lost.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMethodsoftheNewTestamentWriters\">The Methods of the New Testament Writers<\/p>\n<p>The methods used by the NT writers were not unique to them. Many of these methods were also employed in first-century Judaism. In fact, both the technique used in quoting and the understanding of the OT text itself in many cases are paralleled in Judaism. For example, from the standpoint of technique used in quoting, the same kinds of formula introductions are used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the rabbinic writings, and elsewhere. The rabbinic technique of “pearl stringing,” that is, of applying verses from various parts of the OT (the Law, the Prophets, the Writings) to a subject, can be seen especially in Paul’s writings (note Rom 9:12-19 or 11:8-10). Somewhat related is the practice of using quotations that all contain a key word or key words (note 1 Pt 2:6-8, which draws together quotations using the word “stone,” or Rom 15:9-12, which joins OT verses referring to the “nations”).<\/p>\n<p>The methods used in the NT to interpret an OT text are also displayed in Judaism. Some passages interpret the OT “literally,” such as Jesus’ replies during temptation (see the quotations of Dt 8:3; 6:16; 6:13; in Mt 4:3-10), his teachings on marriage based on Genesis 2:24 (Mt 19:5), or Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom 1:17) or Genesis 15:6 (Rom 4:3-9). Many such examples could be given. With regard to prophecy, some of these statements are fulfilled in a “literal” or “direct” way in keeping with the intention of the OT (e.g., Mi 5:2, Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah; Mt 2:4-6). Jeremiah 31:31-34, the promise of the new covenant, is viewed as directly fulfilled in Christ (Heb 8:7-13). The prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 concerning the pouring out of the Spirit of the Lord is directly fulfilled in the Pentecost event (Acts 2:17-21), but the changing of the sun to darkness and the moon to blood are certainly not understood literally in connection with this event.<\/p>\n<p>A different method of interpretation is based on the concept of <em>corporate solidarity.<\/em> This technical expression is an attempt to convey the idea that the individuals among God’s people are not merely individuals; they are part of a larger whole. Consequently, what is said about the individual can apply to the whole and vice versa. This is the reason the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah is seen both as the nation (44:1) and as an individual (52:13–53:12). Also the king is sometimes viewed as representative of the nation. The easiest places to see the concept of corporate solidarity are in the effect of the sin of Achan on all the people (Jos 7) or the sin of David in numbering the people (1 Chr 21:3-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>Correspondence in history<\/em> is not so much a method of interpretation as it is a way of thinking about God. It assumes that the things that happen to God’s people are the things that have happened to previous generations and that God is faithful and operates in the present as he has in the past. Consequently, the trials and deliverance of God’s people are often expressed with words borrowed from the previous accounts of God’s people. Isaiah describes the anticipated deliverance in terms of a second exodus (11:15-16). Ezekiel describes the king set up over the people in terms of a second David (Ez 37:25). In the NT, Revelation 22 describes the new heavens and the new earth in terms of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2–3). Sometimes this technique is described as “typology,” but this term has been used for so many questionable interpretations that it is misleading. The most important thing about this concept is that it is a view of God and his working among his people.<\/p>\n<p>With these two concepts, the way that the OT is quoted in the NT can be understood. The conviction that Jesus was the promised deliverer and that the last days had dawned in his ministry are evident everywhere. The quotation of Hosea 11:1 can be used in Matthew 2:15 because of corporate solidarity and correspondence in history. What was said of the nation is true of the one who is its representative, and there is correspondence in their respective histories. Jeremiah 31:15 can be used in Matthew 2:18 because of correspondence in history and especially because Jeremiah looked forward to God’s intention for Israel and prophesied a new covenant (31:17, 31-34). Matthew saw not only the correspondence in history but believed that in Jesus this promised salvation had been granted. John 12:40 can quote Isaiah 6:10 of Jesus’ ministry, not because he twists the meaning of the OT text, but because he saw that what had happened with God’s messenger before happened again and even <em>ultimately<\/em> in Jesus’ ministry. The instances of such correspondences in history are numerous.<\/p>\n<p>There are other texts where there seems to be an <em>actualization<\/em> of the OT text. Some quotations seem to be “lived out” in the ministry of Jesus. Because of their conviction about Jesus and his kingdom, the NT writers often saw certain OT texts as appropriated and made alive by Jesus. Psalm 118:22 was not intended as a prophecy of the Messiah, but Jesus saw it as descriptive of his ministry (Mt 21:42), and the early church saw this verse as actualized in his death and resurrection (Acts 4:11). Isaiah 53 is another text that the NT views as actualized in Jesus’ ministry (see Acts 8:32-35 and 1 Pt 2:22-25). Some Christians would view Psalm 22 as a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus, but it seems instead to be the lament of a righteous OT sufferer. Through correspondence in history, and because Christians saw so much of the psalmist’s plight actualized in Jesus’ crucifixion, the psalm became the easiest way to describe what once again had happened to God’s righteous sufferer. The words of Isaiah 40:3 describe the ministry of John the Baptist (Mt 3:3). Jews had come to see this verse as a prophecy of God’s end-time salvation, and the early church saw John the Baptist fulfilling this forerunner’s task. Luke made this identification (Lk 3:4-6), but he applied the same role to Jesus’ disciples (9:52; 10:1). This seems to be a further example of actualization and correspondence in history. In other places the church has applied to Christians ideas that were previously understood of Christ (e.g., the stone in 1 Pt 2:4-5; the ministry of the Suffering Servant in Acts 13:46-47).<\/p>\n<p>The most convenient term to describe the way the OT is “fulfilled” in Christ is to say that the OT finds its climax in Jesus. Even where actual quotations are not involved, the OT ideas such as prophet, priest, or king are climaxed in him as the ideal and embodiment of all the OT models. He could tell religious authorities that “one greater than Solomon is here” (Mt 12:42) or “one greater than the temple is here” (Mt 12:6). Those passages involving correspondence in history or actualization also lead to the conviction that he is the climax of the OT Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePurposesoftheUseoftheOldTestament\">The Purposes of the Use of the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The variety of methods of interpretation and application of the OT parallels the fact that the OT was used for a variety of purposes. People tend to think only in terms of the use of the OT to show that Jesus was the Messiah, but there are a number of other uses with a variety of goals. Many OT texts are used to show Jesus is the Messiah, the fulfillment of the OT promises (Lk 4:16-21). Without lessening the fulfillment emphasis, however, other verses are applied to Jesus for other purposes: to evangelize (Acts 8:32-25); to demonstrate or convince (Acts 13:33-35); to rebuke (Mk 7:6-7; Rom 11:7-10); and to describe (Rv 1:12-15). On the other hand, many quotations of the OT in the NT are not directly related to the Messiah. OT passages are adapted to provide a word from God on some aspect of life or ethics. For example, Jesus used Genesis 2:24 to substantiate his teaching on divorce as he attempted to deal with the issues raised by the civil regulation of divorce (Dt 24:1; Mt 19:1-12). The stress on the OT commandments shows their importance for Christians (Mt 19:16-22; Rom 13:8-10). Often OT statements deal with specific problems. The problem of pride at Corinth is solved by the quotation of Jeremiah 9:24 (“Let the one boasting, boast in the Lord,” 1 Cor 1:31). First Peter 3:10-12 incorporates Psalm 34:12-16 as ethical instructions, and 3:14-15 borrows from Isaiah 8:12-13 to address the fear of suffering. The spiritual armor in Ephesians 6:14-17 is derived largely from OT passages. Such examples are so numerous that there can be no doubt that the OT is used to describe Christian existence. In fact, nearly every subject discussed in the NT is presented somewhere via OT terms and quotations. Frequently OT passages are used to describe the church as God’s end-time community. Hosea 2:23 is used to show that those who formerly were not God’s people now are (Rom 9:25-26; 1 Pt 2:10). Several OT texts contribute to the description of the church in 1 Peter 2:9. OT texts that speak of the word of God describe the apostles’ preaching (Rom 10:8; 1 Pt 1:24-25). OT quotations describe the sinful condition of humanity (Rom 3:10-20). Salvation is explained through OT concepts and symbols and is based on OT statements (Jn 6:31-33; Gal 3:6-13). The words of Daniel describe the Second Coming (7:13-14; cf. Mt 24:30). Even the worship of early Christians was expressed through use of the OT (see Acts 4:24; Rom 11:34-35).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BIBLE*, Q<span>uotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers.<\/p>\n<p>The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotations in distinctive print, this may not be easily seen, for the NT writers often weave the OT words into their own without indicating they are borrowing from the OT. There are over 400 passages of the OT that are explicitly cited in the NT. Almost half of these are introduced by a statement like “Scripture says” to draw attention to the fact that the authority and thought of the OT is being implemented. For the others, however, the OT words are woven into the fabric of the author’s own statement.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the over 400 passages cited explicitly, there are well over 1,000 places where there is an allusion to an OT text, event, or person. The difference between a quotation and an allusion is sometimes debated for particular texts, but usually the distinction is that in a quotation the author consciously uses the words of an OT passage, whereas with an allusion he has the texts in mind but is not consciously trying to use the words.<\/p>\n<p>Quotations are easy to identify if there is an introductory formula such as “the Scripture says” (as in Rom 10:11; cf. Is 28:16). Where there is no introductory formula, it is easy to overlook explicit quotations (Rom 10:13; cf. Jl 2:32). The allusions are, of course, harder still to recognize, but they often provide the key to interpretation. For example, John 1:14-18—with its mention of glory, grace and truth, Moses, and the fact that no one has seen God—is much more easily and profoundly understood when read in connection with Exodus 33:17–34:8. In the Exodus passage the glory of God and his grace and truth are revealed to Moses. The author was showing that a much more complete revelation of God was given in Jesus than was given Moses in the account recorded in Exodus.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, significant light is shed on many NT passages from OT passages with similar ideas and words even where the NT author may not have been consciously alluding to those texts (e.g. Mt 16:19; Is 22:22). What was behind the author’s thinking is not certain, but in such cases the NT reflects the thinking, the culture, and language of the OT period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DistributionofOldTestamentQuotations\">Distribution of Old Testament Quotations<\/p>\n<p>The books of the NT that show the most dependence on the OT are Matthew, John, Romans, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation. Such a statement can be misleading, however, because the writers have different methods.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew quotes or consciously reflects the wording of OT passages about 62 times, almost half of which have an introductory formula. The book of Revelation, on the other hand, never quotes the OT and never has an introductory formula but is probably more dependent on the OT than any other NT book. The book of Hebrews quotes or consciously reflects the OT about 59 times, again half of which have an introductory formula, but the Gospel of John does so only 18 times, nearly always with an introductory formula. However, the allusions to the OT are present on virtually every page of John’s Gospel, so much so that some scholars have argued that he has modeled his account on the exodus narrative, the Jewish feasts, or OT persons and images. Paul’s Letter to the Romans uses the OT 54 times (about three-fourths of which have introductory formulas), but nowhere else so frequently (e.g., 1 Cor 16 times, Gal 11 times, Phil one time, 1 Thes one time).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the indication that Philippians and 1 Thessalonians use the OT only once each, some other books make explicit use of the OT rarely or never. Colossians, Titus, Philemon, and the Johannine letters do not use the OT at all; 2 Timothy and Jude use the OT only once; while 2 Peter and 1 Timothy make use of it twice.<\/p>\n<p>The important point is to realize that the OT is used most frequently in circumstances where the audience is familiar with the OT or where the OT is essential for describing the events relating to Christ and the church. The books using the OT most frequently (Mt, Jn, Rom, Heb, 1 Pt, Rv) either stem from or are addressed to a Jewish context or, as in the case of Romans and John, deal specifically with the relation of Jews and Christians. The Gospels make rather extensive use of the OT because the language of the OT is necessary to convey the identity and importance of Jesus in the purposes of God. Similarly 1 Peter uses the OT frequently because the author is trying to convey to his persecuted audience that they are the people of God and the inheritors of the promises of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DifficultiesinInterpretation\">Difficulties in Interpretation<\/p>\n<p>Often when people think of quotations of the OT in the NT they think only in terms of prophecy. Some have been guilty of counting up the OT statements that the NT applies to Christ and the church and then claiming these OT texts as predictions that prove Jesus is the Messiah. Such a procedure is filled with problems because it is too simplistic and does not do justice to either the OT or to the way the NT uses it. Of course, the early church used the OT to show that Jesus fulfilled the promises of God and did God’s work, but the use the church made of the OT was quite varied and much of it cannot be classified as predictive prophecy. Prophecy itself is too complex to be limited to predictive thinking.<\/p>\n<p>Some of the most obvious examples of the difficulties appear in Matthew’s Gospel, although they are by no means confined there. Matthew 2:15—“Out of Egypt I called my son”—is a quotation of Hosea 11:1, but in Hosea these words do not refer to the Messiah. They refer to the nation of Israel. Similarly Matthew 2:18 quotes Jeremiah 31:15 (“A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more,” <span>niv<\/span>) as fulfilled in the slaughter of the innocent babies in Bethlehem, but in Jeremiah the weeping is over the destruction of Jerusalem. John 12:40 views Isaiah 6:10 as fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry, but this verse deals with the call of Isaiah and is not a prediction concerning the ministry of the Messiah. The examples could be multiplied but these should be sufficient to illustrate the problem. For this reason the NT writers have often been accused of twisting the Scriptures, but this charge is as simplistic as the thought that all prophecy is predictive and in fact springs from the same error. Therefore, any attempt to understand the use of the OT in the NT will have to deal with the variety of ways in which the OT is used and with the methods employed by the NT writers.<\/p>\n<p>There are other difficulties that are encountered as well. Sometimes the NT writer will indicate that some fact related to Christ is a fulfillment of the OT but the explicit text that he had in mind cannot be identified. For example, John 7:38 introduces the words “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water” with the statement “as Scripture has said.” No OT text reads this way. Possibly the allusion is to the rock that provided water in the wilderness (Ex 17:1), or to the waters that flowed from the new temple (Zec 14:8) or, more generally, it may be a reference to Isaiah 58:11. Similarly, the difficulty in determining the OT text behind the prophecy that Christ will be called a Nazarene (Mt 2:23) is notorious. Probably the reference is to Isaiah 11:1 and the Hebrew word there translated as “branch,” but the connection is not easily made and is not certain. A third example of this kind of difficulty is in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where Paul indicates that women should be in submission just as the Law says, but there is no OT text expressing this idea. His statement in probably to be understood as a summary rather than a quotation or allusion. Similarly on a few occasions an OT text is seemingly attributed to the wrong OT book. In Mark 1:2-3 an OT quotation is attributed to Isaiah but the quotation is really a conflation (or mixing) of Exodus 23:20, Malachi 3:1, and Isaiah 40:3. Matthew 27:9-10 quotes a passage that is said to be from Jeremiah, when really it is dependent on Zechariah 11:13 and might best be described as a summary of Zechariah 11:12-13, with certain words included from Jeremiah 32:6-9. These two examples do not create a major problem, however, for the determination of the origin of the words may be due to their use in collections of quotations from various prophets, in which case the more prominent prophets would be used to designate origin.<\/p>\n<p>The wording of the quotations of the OT text does not always conform to the modern form of the OT. Just as today there are numerous translations of the Bible, when the NT was being written there were various forms of the OT text. With regard to the Hebrew text (for the OT was written mostly in Hebrew), there were different traditions. Such differences in the Hebrew traditions would have been relatively small. Because of the increasing importance of Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity and of Greek after the conquests of Alexander the Great, the OT was also known and used in both these languages when the NT was being written. In fact, the Jews found it necessary in their synagogue services after reading the Hebrew OT to paraphrase the reading in Aramaic so that all could understand. These paraphrases were later written down and are known as Targums. The Greek translation of the OT that stems from the third century <span>BC<\/span> is known as the Septuagint, but there were also other Greek translations in use. This being the case, the wording of a NT quotation is not identical in every detail to the text of the Hebrew OT.<\/p>\n<p>Added to the fact that there were various forms of the text known in first-century <span>AD<\/span> Palestine is the complicating factor that NT writers often did not intend to quote the OT exactly. The use of formal quotation marks is a modern device, and ancient writers were not so taken by technical precision. They were more concerned with the intention of a text and consequently might copy or quote it verbatim, quote it from memory, use or adapt part of a verse, or even change certain words as they borrowed the verse to express their points. (The NT writers often use the OT words describing God’s actions in the past to explain what he has done in their time.) The importance of any differences between the NT quotation and the OT depends on the use to which the quotation is put and the degree to which the use is dependent on textual differences.<\/p>\n<p>Some examples should illustrate the nature of these difficulties. Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18. Whereas the Hebrew and Septuagint read, “You ascended to the heights, you lead captivity captive, you received gifts among mankind,” Ephesians records the verse as “After he ascended into the heights, <em>he<\/em> led captivity captive; he <em>gave<\/em> gifts to men.” Paul is stressing that Christ has given grace to people for ministry. He has either adapted the wording of the OT to make his point or he quoted a variant reading, <em>“he gave<\/em> gifts.” Some versions do have this reading. In fact, the Targum understands this verse as Moses giving the words of the law to the children of men, and Paul may well be adapting this understanding to the new revelation that has come in Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, but there are distinct differences between the Hebrew text and the wording in Matthew. The Hebrew reads, “Behold the young woman will become pregnant and will bear a son and you will call his name Immanuel,” whereas Matthew’s text records “Behold, the <em>virgin<\/em> will become pregnant and will bear a son, and <em>they<\/em> will call his name Immanuel.” The Septuagint does have the specific word “virgin,” like Matthew, but is not the source of Matthew’s quotation since other differences exist. Some have argued that the change from “you will call” to “they will call” was made by Matthew when he applied the words to Jesus. However, there are several traditions known for this part of the quotation and partial support for the reading in Matthew is provided by the text of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\n<p>Romans 11:26-27 is a conflation of Isaiah 59:20-21 and part of Isaiah 27:9, but there are important differences. One of these is that the OT has “the redeemer will come to Zion,” whereas Romans has “the deliverer will come <em>from<\/em> Zion.” The change to “from Zion” could indicate that Paul had a different textual tradition, could be the result of an intentional change by Paul, or more probably, could reflect the wording of Psalm 14:7.<\/p>\n<p>An awareness of the difficulties involved in the quotations of the OT by the NT writers will prohibit a simplistic approach and will prevent hasty conclusions. Care to ask not only which text was used but also which form of the text was used and how is obviously essential in any serious study. In addition it is necessary to allow for the possibility that the NT writers knew forms of a text that are now lost.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMethodsoftheNewTestamentWriters\">The Methods of the New Testament Writers<\/p>\n<p>The methods used by the NT writers were not unique to them. Many of these methods were also employed in first-century Judaism. In fact, both the technique used in quoting and the understanding of the OT text itself in many cases are paralleled in Judaism. For example, from the standpoint of technique used in quoting, the same kinds of formula introductions are used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the rabbinic writings, and elsewhere. The rabbinic technique of “pearl stringing,” that is, of applying verses from various parts of the OT (the Law, the Prophets, the Writings) to a subject, can be seen especially in Paul’s writings (note Rom 9:12-19 or 11:8-10). Somewhat related is the practice of using quotations that all contain a key word or key words (note 1 Pt 2:6-8, which draws together quotations using the word “stone,” or Rom 15:9-12, which joins OT verses referring to the “nations”).<\/p>\n<p>The methods used in the NT to interpret an OT text are also displayed in Judaism. Some passages interpret the OT “literally,” such as Jesus’ replies during temptation (see the quotations of Dt 8:3; 6:16; 6:13; in Mt 4:3-10), his teachings on marriage based on Genesis 2:24 (Mt 19:5), or Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom 1:17) or Genesis 15:6 (Rom 4:3-9). Many such examples could be given. With regard to prophecy, some of these statements are fulfilled in a “literal” or “direct” way in keeping with the intention of the OT (e.g., Mi 5:2, Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah; Mt 2:4-6). Jeremiah 31:31-34, the promise of the new covenant, is viewed as directly fulfilled in Christ (Heb 8:7-13). The prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 concerning the pouring out of the Spirit of the Lord is directly fulfilled in the Pentecost event (Acts 2:17-21), but the changing of the sun to darkness and the moon to blood are certainly not understood literally in connection with this event.<\/p>\n<p>A different method of interpretation is based on the concept of <em>corporate solidarity.<\/em> This technical expression is an attempt to convey the idea that the individuals among God’s people are not merely individuals; they are part of a larger whole. Consequently, what is said about the individual can apply to the whole and vice versa. This is the reason the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah is seen both as the nation (44:1) and as an individual (52:13–53:12). Also the king is sometimes viewed as representative of the nation. The easiest places to see the concept of corporate solidarity are in the effect of the sin of Achan on all the people (Jos 7) or the sin of David in numbering the people (1 Chr 21:3-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>Correspondence in history<\/em> is not so much a method of interpretation as it is a way of thinking about God. It assumes that the things that happen to God’s people are the things that have happened to previous generations and that God is faithful and operates in the present as he has in the past. Consequently, the trials and deliverance of God’s people are often expressed with words borrowed from the previous accounts of God’s people. Isaiah describes the anticipated deliverance in terms of a second exodus (11:15-16). Ezekiel describes the king set up over the people in terms of a second David (Ez 37:25). In the NT, Revelation 22 describes the new heavens and the new earth in terms of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2–3). Sometimes this technique is described as “typology,” but this term has been used for so many questionable interpretations that it is misleading. The most important thing about this concept is that it is a view of God and his working among his people.<\/p>\n<p>With these two concepts, the way that the OT is quoted in the NT can be understood. The conviction that Jesus was the promised deliverer and that the last days had dawned in his ministry are evident everywhere. The quotation of Hosea 11:1 can be used in Matthew 2:15 because of corporate solidarity and correspondence in history. What was said of the nation is true of the one who is its representative, and there is correspondence in their respective histories. Jeremiah 31:15 can be used in Matthew 2:18 because of correspondence in history and especially because Jeremiah looked forward to God’s intention for Israel and prophesied a new covenant (31:17, 31-34). Matthew saw not only the correspondence in history but believed that in Jesus this promised salvation had been granted. John 12:40 can quote Isaiah 6:10 of Jesus’ ministry, not because he twists the meaning of the OT text, but because he saw that what had happened with God’s messenger before happened again and even <em>ultimately<\/em> in Jesus’ ministry. The instances of such correspondences in history are numerous.<\/p>\n<p>There are other texts where there seems to be an <em>actualization<\/em> of the OT text. Some quotations seem to be “lived out” in the ministry of Jesus. Because of their conviction about Jesus and his kingdom, the NT writers often saw certain OT texts as appropriated and made alive by Jesus. Psalm 118:22 was not intended as a prophecy of the Messiah, but Jesus saw it as descriptive of his ministry (Mt 21:42), and the early church saw this verse as actualized in his death and resurrection (Acts 4:11). Isaiah 53 is another text that the NT views as actualized in Jesus’ ministry (see Acts 8:32-35 and 1 Pt 2:22-25). Some Christians would view Psalm 22 as a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus, but it seems instead to be the lament of a righteous OT sufferer. Through correspondence in history, and because Christians saw so much of the psalmist’s plight actualized in Jesus’ crucifixion, the psalm became the easiest way to describe what once again had happened to God’s righteous sufferer. The words of Isaiah 40:3 describe the ministry of John the Baptist (Mt 3:3). Jews had come to see this verse as a prophecy of God’s end-time salvation, and the early church saw John the Baptist fulfilling this forerunner’s task. Luke made this identification (Lk 3:4-6), but he applied the same role to Jesus’ disciples (9:52; 10:1). This seems to be a further example of actualization and correspondence in history. In other places the church has applied to Christians ideas that were previously understood of Christ (e.g., the stone in 1 Pt 2:4-5; the ministry of the Suffering Servant in Acts 13:46-47).<\/p>\n<p>The most convenient term to describe the way the OT is “fulfilled” in Christ is to say that the OT finds its climax in Jesus. Even where actual quotations are not involved, the OT ideas such as prophet, priest, or king are climaxed in him as the ideal and embodiment of all the OT models. He could tell religious authorities that “one greater than Solomon is here” (Mt 12:42) or “one greater than the temple is here” (Mt 12:6). Those passages involving correspondence in history or actualization also lead to the conviction that he is the climax of the OT Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePurposesoftheUseoftheOldTestament\">The Purposes of the Use of the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The variety of methods of interpretation and application of the OT parallels the fact that the OT was used for a variety of purposes. People tend to think only in terms of the use of the OT to show that Jesus was the Messiah, but there are a number of other uses with a variety of goals. Many OT texts are used to show Jesus is the Messiah, the fulfillment of the OT promises (Lk 4:16-21). Without lessening the fulfillment emphasis, however, other verses are applied to Jesus for other purposes: to evangelize (Acts 8:32-25); to demonstrate or convince (Acts 13:33-35); to rebuke (Mk 7:6-7; Rom 11:7-10); and to describe (Rv 1:12-15). On the other hand, many quotations of the OT in the NT are not directly related to the Messiah. OT passages are adapted to provide a word from God on some aspect of life or ethics. For example, Jesus used Genesis 2:24 to substantiate his teaching on divorce as he attempted to deal with the issues raised by the civil regulation of divorce (Dt 24:1; Mt 19:1-12). The stress on the OT commandments shows their importance for Christians (Mt 19:16-22; Rom 13:8-10). Often OT statements deal with specific problems. The problem of pride at Corinth is solved by the quotation of Jeremiah 9:24 (“Let the one boasting, boast in the Lord,” 1 Cor 1:31). First Peter 3:10-12 incorporates Psalm 34:12-16 as ethical instructions, and 3:14-15 borrows from Isaiah 8:12-13 to address the fear of suffering. The spiritual armor in Ephesians 6:14-17 is derived largely from OT passages. Such examples are so numerous that there can be no doubt that the OT is used to describe Christian existence. In fact, nearly every subject discussed in the NT is presented somewhere via OT terms and quotations. Frequently OT passages are used to describe the church as God’s end-time community. Hosea 2:23 is used to show that those who formerly were not God’s people now are (Rom 9:25-26; 1 Pt 2:10). Several OT texts contribute to the description of the church in 1 Peter 2:9. OT texts that speak of the word of God describe the apostles’ preaching (Rom 10:8; 1 Pt 1:24-25). OT quotations describe the sinful condition of humanity (Rom 3:10-20). Salvation is explained through OT concepts and symbols and is based on OT statements (Jn 6:31-33; Gal 3:6-13). The words of Daniel describe the Second Coming (7:13-14; cf. Mt 24:30). Even the worship of early Christians was expressed through use of the OT (see Acts 4:24; Rom 11:34-35).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings. One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers. The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotation...","summary_en":"BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings. One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers. The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotation...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":7373,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Concubinage*, Concubines","title_en":"Concubinage*, Concubines","content_ro":"<h3>CONCUBINAGE*, CONCUBINES<\/h3>\n<p>Practice of a man cohabiting with a woman (concubine) who is regarded only as his sexual partner or as a secondary wife in his household, of lower station than his primary wife. Concubinage was practiced in many ancient cultures, especially in Mesopotamia, where the king maintained a harem and where a private citizen might have one or two concubines in addition to his primary wife. Both types of concubinage are referred to in the Bible. A concubine was often a slave or part of the booty of war (Jgs 5:30).<\/p>\n<p>A man might have a concubine simply as an economical form of marriage, since no dowry, or bride-price, was required. A concubine could add to a man’s prestige by giving him two wives and thus an increased capacity for children. Such offspring were normally delivered onto the knees of the legal wife, thus establishing their legitimacy as family members. The concubine was also another servant to add to the man’s work force.<\/p>\n<p>In the patriarchal period, concubinage was customary (Gn 22:24; 35:22; 36:12), especially when the primary wife was childless (Gn 16:1-3; 25:5-6; 1 Chr 1:32). A concubine could exercise certain rights and secure recognition and inheritance for her offspring (note Gn 49:1-28, where the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah were included along with the sons of Leah and Rachel; cf. Gn 35:22-26). The custom was not suppressed by the Mosaic law, which must have included concubines in its treatment of multiple wives (Dt 17:17; 21:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>Concubinage continued through the period of the judges. Gideon had a concubine (Jgs 8:31), as did an unnamed man of Levi’s tribe (Jgs 19). Abuse of that man’s concubine by men from Benjamin’s tribe caused a bloody civil war (Jgs 20–21). During the period of Israel’s monarchy, the luxury of concubines could be afforded only by kings such as Saul (2 Sm 3:7), David (5:13; 15:16), Solomon (1 Kgs 11:3), and Rehoboam (2 Chr 11:21). Royal harems existed in many other cultures of that time, including Egypt, Persia (Est 2:14), and Babylon (Dn 5:2-3, 23).<\/p>\n<p>Concubines were thus a legitimate part of many ancient cultures, even when a society acknowledged the superiority of monogamous marriage. Concubinage was fostered by a desire for prestige and a large family, but could at times degenerate into a license for sexual freedom (cf. Eccl 2:8). Concubinage was part of the contemporary Greek and Roman cultures, but it was not in keeping with the teachings of Jesus (Mt 19:1-9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Family Life and Relations; Marriage, Marriage Customs.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CONCUBINAGE*, CONCUBINES<\/h3>\n<p>Practice of a man cohabiting with a woman (concubine) who is regarded only as his sexual partner or as a secondary wife in his household, of lower station than his primary wife. Concubinage was practiced in many ancient cultures, especially in Mesopotamia, where the king maintained a harem and where a private citizen might have one or two concubines in addition to his primary wife. Both types of concubinage are referred to in the Bible. A concubine was often a slave or part of the booty of war (Jgs 5:30).<\/p>\n<p>A man might have a concubine simply as an economical form of marriage, since no dowry, or bride-price, was required. A concubine could add to a man’s prestige by giving him two wives and thus an increased capacity for children. Such offspring were normally delivered onto the knees of the legal wife, thus establishing their legitimacy as family members. The concubine was also another servant to add to the man’s work force.<\/p>\n<p>In the patriarchal period, concubinage was customary (Gn 22:24; 35:22; 36:12), especially when the primary wife was childless (Gn 16:1-3; 25:5-6; 1 Chr 1:32). A concubine could exercise certain rights and secure recognition and inheritance for her offspring (note Gn 49:1-28, where the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah were included along with the sons of Leah and Rachel; cf. Gn 35:22-26). The custom was not suppressed by the Mosaic law, which must have included concubines in its treatment of multiple wives (Dt 17:17; 21:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>Concubinage continued through the period of the judges. Gideon had a concubine (Jgs 8:31), as did an unnamed man of Levi’s tribe (Jgs 19). Abuse of that man’s concubine by men from Benjamin’s tribe caused a bloody civil war (Jgs 20–21). During the period of Israel’s monarchy, the luxury of concubines could be afforded only by kings such as Saul (2 Sm 3:7), David (5:13; 15:16), Solomon (1 Kgs 11:3), and Rehoboam (2 Chr 11:21). Royal harems existed in many other cultures of that time, including Egypt, Persia (Est 2:14), and Babylon (Dn 5:2-3, 23).<\/p>\n<p>Concubines were thus a legitimate part of many ancient cultures, even when a society acknowledged the superiority of monogamous marriage. Concubinage was fostered by a desire for prestige and a large family, but could at times degenerate into a license for sexual freedom (cf. Eccl 2:8). Concubinage was part of the contemporary Greek and Roman cultures, but it was not in keeping with the teachings of Jesus (Mt 19:1-9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Family Life and Relations; Marriage, Marriage Customs.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CONCUBINAGE*, CONCUBINES Practice of a man cohabiting with a woman (concubine) who is regarded only as his sexual partner or as a secondary wife in his household, of lower station than his primary wife. Concubinage was practiced in many ancient cultures, especially in Mesopotamia, where the king maintained a harem and where a private citizen might have one or two concubines in addition to his primary wife. Both types of concubinage are referred to in the Bible. A concubine was often a slave o...","summary_en":"CONCUBINAGE*, CONCUBINES Practice of a man cohabiting with a woman (concubine) who is regarded only as his sexual partner or as a secondary wife in his household, of lower station than his primary wife. Concubinage was practiced in many ancient cultures, especially in Mesopotamia, where the king maintained a harem and where a private citizen might have one or two concubines in addition to his primary wife. Both types of concubinage are referred to in the Bible. A concubine was often a slave o...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24793,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of Matthew","title_en":"Gospel of Matthew","content_ro":"<h3>MATTHEW, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>First Gospel and first book of the NT.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date and Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Nowhere does the text of Matthew itself clearly identify the author. Yet, as did the ancient church, we may ascribe authorship to Matthew the apostle. He was otherwise known as Levi (see Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27, 29). Before Jesus called him, he was a tax collector (Mt 9:9ff.). It is interesting to note that Matthew called himself a tax collector, while none of the other Gospel writers did. Perhaps he did this to show how great an ascendancy he had been granted when the Lord called him, for tax collectors were despised and considered the lowest of people. The Gospel itself bears the impress of one knowledgeable of currency, for the Gospel writer speaks quite specifically about a two-drachma tax (Mt 17:24), a four-drachma coin (v 27), and the various talents (18:24; 25:15ff.).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateandProvenance\">Date and Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Scholars are divided about the date when Matthew was written primarily because there is still debate about which Gospel was first written: Matthew or Mark. If Mark was written before Matthew, then Matthew was very indebted to Mark for a great deal of material, and vice versa. Those who argue for Matthew’s priority do so on the basis that Matthew’s Gospel was (1) recognized in the early church as the first Gospel, (2) written to those who first needed a written account—the Jews, and (3) placed first in the NT canon. Whether it preceded or followed Mark, most scholars are certain that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (<span>AD<\/span> 70) because the temple is spoken of as still standing (Mt 24:15). Irenaeus indicated that Matthew wrote this Gospel while Peter and Paul were in Rome. This would make the time of writing in the 60s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<h5>Apologetics<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew wrote to a community of Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, located in a center such as Antioch in Syria. The community was surrounded and beset by Jews hostile to the claims of Jesus and the Christian community.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew wrote as a Jew for Jews. In Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew contends, the OT reached its appointed goal. Jesus is the Messiah of Israel’s expectation. In the opening chapter Matthew identifies him as “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (1:1), indeed as “God with us” (v 23). In later chapters Jesus is revealed as the Son of Man of Daniel 7 and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. Throughout the book (Mt 1:22–27:10) the events of Jesus’ life are represented as the “fulfillment” of OT prophecies. He comes to offer Israel salvation from sin (1:21). Nevertheless, the Jews have rejected him as their Messiah, and have thus placed themselves in the most perilous position (11:20-24; 21:33-46). One explanation for Israel’s rejection of Jesus is the failure of the Jewish religious leadership to prepare the people for his coming. In the strongest language, Matthew denounces the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. They have forsaken the Word of God in favor of their own traditions (ch 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Teaching the Church<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew also wrote as a Christian for Christians. He presents Jesus as a new Moses, indeed as Yahweh incarnate, expounding his own law for his people (ch 5), now newly constituted around his person under the leadership of the apostles (10:2-4; 16:18-19; 23:8-10). If the Christian church is to function properly, the teaching of the Messiah on a host of moral and spiritual issues must be taken with utmost seriousness (chs 5–7, 18). To aid this purpose, Matthew takes the form of a theological textbook or a handbook for the church, to instruct the people of God concerning the person and work of Jesus. That these teachings may be more readily and firmly grasped, Matthew presents them in a highly organized and memorable way. To facilitate the learning of the material, he arranges Jesus’ teachings in five major discourses (interlocked with narrative portions) in which teachings of the same kind are clustered together (e.g., ch 10 consists of a charge to missionaries, and ch 13 consists of seven parables of the kingdom). Matthew’s leading theological themes may be identified as the <em>Son<\/em> of God (Jesus is Yahweh incarnate, “God with us”), the <em>kingdom<\/em> of God (in Jesus, God is invading history to inaugurate his final rule), the <em>salvation<\/em> of God (as the servant-king, Jesus has come to “save his people from their sins,” 1:21), and the <em>people<\/em> of God (Jesus has come to build his church, a redeemed community consisting of both Jews and Gentiles).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the Savior (1:1–2:23)<\/h5>\n<p>His name reveals his mission: “Jesus” (1:1) means “Yahweh saves.” He is “the son of Abraham,” who comes to fulfill God’s ancient promises to Jews and Gentiles (Gn 12:1-3). He is “Christ [or Messiah],” the son of David (Mt 1:1), who comes to inaugurate the kingdom of God (4:17). More than that, as evidenced both by prophecy (1:22-23) and by the nature of his conception (vv 18-20), he is “God with us”—now come to “save his people from their sins” (v 21). As the son of David, and in accord with prophecy, he is born in Bethlehem (2:1-6). Drawn by the star of Israel’s Messiah (cf. Nm 24:17), Gentiles come to worship him (Mt 2:1-12). When Herod seeks to destroy him, Jesus finds sanctuary in a gentile land; God’s calling his Son from Egypt marks the beginning of a mighty saving work—nothing less than a new exodus under Jesus, the new Moses (vv 13-20). Having been born in the humblest of circumstances, Jesus now comes to live in Nazareth (vv 21-23).<\/p>\n<h5>The Beginnings of Ministry (3:1–4:25)<\/h5>\n<p>In face of the judgment that Jesus is about to execute (as evidence of the kingdom’s arrival), John the Baptist calls Israel to repentance (3:1-12). Jesus’ submission to John’s baptism, and the voice from heaven, show him to be a King who serves his subjects by taking their sins upon himself (vv 13-17). Like Israel at the exodus, Jesus is led into the wilderness for a period of testing (4:1). When the devil seeks to turn him away both from God and from his appointed mission, Jesus gains victory by depending upon God and his Word (vv 1-11). Returning to Galilee, Jesus deliberately settles in territory with both Jewish and Gentile inhabitants (vv 12-16) and begins a ministry of preaching (like John, he calls for repentance in face of the dawning kingdom), teaching (he calls his first disciples), and healing (vv 17-25).<\/p>\n\n<h5>The Sermon on the Mount (5:1–7:29)<\/h5>\n<p>Just as Moses ascended Sinai to receive God’s law for Israel, so Jesus—as both the new Moses and as God incarnate—ascends the mountain to set forth his instruction for the citizens of the kingdom of God (5:1-2). He begins with <em>gospel<\/em> (not law), declaring that God shall surely save those who—beset by sin—trust in God’s mercy, obey his commands, and long for him to establish his righteous rule in the earth (vv 3-12). Toward that end, disciples are a preservative (salt) and a witness (light) in a sinful society (vv 13-16). As the one who has come not to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to bring them to completion (i.e., to usher in the new age to which the OT pointed— v 17), Jesus calls his disciples to steadfast obedience to God’s law as now expounded by the Lawgiver himself (vv 18-20). God’s commands embrace inner desires as well as outward actions, must not be watered down or rationalized, and call for more radical obedience than ever before, now that the end has come (vv 21-48). In their giving, praying, and fasting, disciples are to combat hypocrisy by God-centeredness and self-forgetfulness (6:1-18). The Lord’s Prayer (vv 9-13) calls upon God to honor his name by establishing his rule on earth, and to pardon, protect, and provide for his children. Given this prayer, and given the disciples’ God-centered view of reality (vv 19-24), there is no cause for anxiety (vv 25-34). Disciples must be discerning without being judgmental (7:1-6), and depend on God for the power needed to love others (6:7-12). Having completed his exposition of the law (5:21–7:12), Jesus now calls would-be disciples to follow him (7:13-14), warns against false teachers (vv 15-20), and insists that true disciples do God’s will (vv 21-23).<\/p>\n<h5>The Authority of Jesus (8:1–9:38)<\/h5>\n<p>Having given his authority <em>verbal<\/em> expression in teaching (7:28-29), Jesus now gives it <em>visible<\/em> expression in a series of healing miracles, again revealing himself as the servant of Isaiah (8:17). He heals a leper, a centurion’s servant, and a bleeding woman by his word (8:1-13; 9:20-22). His touch dispels a fever and raises a dead person (8:14-15; 9:23-25). A combination of word and touch cures the blind (9:27-31). As “God with us,” Jesus calls for unqualified allegiance (8:18-22). Though lacking even the natural protection enjoyed by animals (v 20), he demonstrates his sovereignty over the natural world—and thus his deity—by calming the storm (vv 23-27). In direct confrontations with demons, he shows his superiority over them (8:28-34; 9:32-33). Exercising God’s own authority, he declares sins forgiven (9:1-8) and calls sinners to repentance and to discipleship (vv 9-13). Joy over the kingdom’s inauguration is mingled with longing for its consummation (vv 14-17). The summary of 9:35-38 echoes 4:23-25, recalls chapters 5–7, and prepares for the next major discourse.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Charge to the Missionaries (10:1-42)<\/h5>\n<p>In response to the prayers that he has commanded, Christ now invests 12 disciples with apostolic authority and sends them out into his harvest field (9:37–10:4). The discourse speaks both of the apostles’ immediate mission (10:5-15) and of the church’s broader mission (vv 16-42). For now, the apostles are to concentrate on evangelizing Jews (v 6), in preparation for the mission to Gentiles (28:19). The “worthy” are those who welcome the apostles and their message; the “unworthy,” those who reject them (10:11-15). In the broader mission, there is sure to be persecution (vv 16-19, 24-25), but this will actually aid the witness (vv 17-23). God will save his faithful missionaries (vv 19-23) but judge those who oppress them and who disown Christ (vv 26-39). A sure reward awaits both the herald and the recipient of the message (vv 37-42).<\/p>\n<h5>Christ the Lord (11:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The judgment John predicted is already under way; one’s stand in the last judgment would be determined by his response to the words and works of Jesus (11:2-6). Like his herald, Jesus meets with widespread hostility and indifference (vv 7-19). Given the finality of the grace attending his ministry, those who reject him will suffer the severest judgment (vv 20-24). Yet there are others—the lowly, the burdened, the teachable—who learn (by revelation from God the Father and God the Son) that the “Lord of heaven and earth” is also the “gentle and humble” God who comes to give rest to those who trust in him (vv 25-30). As the one who ushers in the new age (12:6), Jesus claims that he is the Lord of the Sabbath (vv 1-8). True rest (11:29) comes to those who come to Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Viewing Jesus as the destroyer of the Sabbath, the Pharisees ascribe his miraculous powers to Satan (12:22-24). On the contrary, says Jesus, the rule he is inaugurating is crushing Satan’s empire (vv 25-29). To reject this truth in the full awareness of what one is doing is to commit the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit (vv 30-32); the words of Jesus’ accusers expose them as persons destined for condemnation (vv 33-37). The requested sign from heaven will not be given. Jesus’ resurrection is the only sign they need.<\/p>\n<h5>The Parables of the Kingdom (13:1-58)<\/h5>\n<p>This, the third of Matthew’s five great discourses, contains seven parables. In the parable of the sower, four kinds of soil—hard, shallow, cluttered, and fruitful—illustrate the various responses to Jesus’ preaching (13:3-9, 18-23). As those who have received Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom (4:17), the disciples are given more light, but the crowds must accept that initial proclamation before further light is given (13:10-17, 34-35). In both the parable of the weeds (vv 24-30, 36-43) and the parable of the net (vv 47-50), Jesus assures his disciples that the final judgment will separate true believers from false, and warns against hasty, premature judgments (cf. 7:1-5). The parables of the mustard and the yeast (13:31-33) contrast the smallness of the kingdom’s inauguration with the fullness of its consummation. The parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl (vv 44-46) depict the kingdom as a value far surpassing all others (cf. 6:33). Thus illuminated by Jesus, disciples have new treasures to add to their old (13:51-52). The people of Nazareth, on the contrary, echo the crowds’ lack of understanding and the Pharisees’ hostility (vv 53-58).<\/p>\n<h5>Spiritual Conflict (14:1–16:12)<\/h5>\n<p>In 14:1-12 the preaching of John exposes the weakness of Herod, and the beheading of John anticipates the crucifixion of Jesus (cf. 17:12). The true king is not Herod but Jesus. He is sovereign over nature itself (14:13-36)—God incarnate, “God with us,” who feeds the hungry multitude in the wilderness (as God once provided manna) and walks upon and calms the sea (see Ps 89:9). Peter models Christians’ faith, fear, and utter dependence on Jesus (Mt 14:28-31). The Pharisees and teachers of the law appear to worship God but in fact are devoted to their own traditions, which they offer not as supplements but as <em>rivals<\/em> to the Word of God (15:1-9). In verses 10-20 Jesus teaches both that ceremonial law apart from moral law becomes empty ritual, and that the old distinction between clean and unclean foods (Lv 11) is now as obsolete as the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. To underscore the point, Jesus enters pagan territory, heals a Canaanite (15:21-28) and feeds a Gentile multitude (vv 29-39). Pharisees and Sadducees, for all their differences, are united in their opposition to Jesus (16:1-12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming Salvation (16:13–17:27)<\/h5>\n<p>Going beyond the crowds’ respectful but inadequate estimates, Peter confesses Jesus to be “the Christ, the Son of the living God”—a recognition of Jesus’ deity granted by divine revelation (16:13-17; cf. 11:25-26). As it is God the Son who possesses and builds the church, Satan and death are victims rather than victors. Jesus will build his church on Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. The apostles’ prohibiting and granting entry into the church (“binding” and “loosing,” respectively) depends upon the prior decision of heaven (i.e., God’s revelation of apostolic teaching). In face of Peter’s confession and the persistent false notions of messiahship (16:20, 23), Jesus now (for the first time) predicts his sufferings and coming glory (vv 21-28). In anticipation of that glory, Jesus is transfigured before certain disciples; Moses and Elijah join God the Father in bearing witness to the unique splendor of God the Son (17:1-8). Jesus then demonstrated his power by combating demonic powers (vv 14-18) and exhibited his authority by choosing to pay the temple tax using miraculous means (vv 24-27).<\/p>\n<h5>Greatness in the Kingdom (18:1-35)<\/h5>\n<p>In this, the fourth of Matthew’s five great discourses, Jesus concentrates on the character and attitudes of church members. He calls upon his followers both to <em>become<\/em> and to <em>welcome<\/em> the lowliest (18:1-5). Leaders especially are enjoined to deal harshly with themselves but gently with those under their care (vv 6-9). Remembering the Father’s love for sinners, Christians are to make every effort (both by prayer and by personal initiative) to restore offending brothers, with excommunication being the last resort (vv 10-20). Church members who really understand the Father’s amazing grace will never stop offering forgiveness and compassion to those who wrong them (vv 21-35).<\/p>\n<h5>Instructions on the Way to Jerusalem (19:1–20:34)<\/h5>\n<p>Given God’s creation ordinances, says Jesus, divorce itself is never <em>commanded;<\/em> it is only <em>permitted<\/em> in the case of sin—that is, where the marital bond has already been severed through infidelity (19:1-9). As in 5:17-48, Jesus calls his followers to radical obedience (19:10-12). Besides instructing disciples to become like children (18:1-4), Jesus embraces children themselves with his love (19:13-15). He appeals likewise to the rich young man (vv 16-22); but the man, while faithful to the commands about love of neighbor, is too bound by his wealth to give himself unreservedly to loving God. Yet those who abandon all to follow Jesus will receive wealth untold in the coming kingdom (vv 27-30). The basis for such blessings lies not in human merit but in the astonishing generosity of the gracious God (20:1-16). None—not even the rich—are beyond the power of his grace. But God offers free salvation at great cost to himself (vv 17-19). Confronting competitiveness and ambition among his followers, Jesus teaches them that true greatness lies not in lording it over others but in serving them (vv 20-34), as shall be supremely demonstrated in his death as “a ransom for many” (v 28).<\/p>\n<h5>Confrontations in Jerusalem (21:1–22:46)<\/h5>\n<p>As the Servant-King (cf. 3:17), and as the Messiah destined for suffering (cf. 16:16-21; 20:28), Jesus enters Jerusalem not upon a war horse but upon a donkey’s colt, for he purposes not to declare war on his enemies but to hand himself over to them—and thus achieve his triumph through defeat (21:1-11). As Lord of the temple, he demands that its commerce be halted and that it become (as God ordained) a place of worship for everyone, including the sick, the young, and the alien (21:12-17; cf. Mk 11:17). He outwits those who refuse to acknowledge the heavenly source of his and John’s authority (Mt 21:23-27). In dramatic and devastating fashion, first visibly (by cursing the fig tree—vv 18-22) and then verbally (in the three parables of 21:28–22:14), Jesus pronounces judgment upon those Jews who have refused to acknowledge him as Messiah and Son of God. Henceforth, the true people of God are those who believe in Jesus, whether Jews or Gentiles. He calls upon his people to pledge their supreme allegiance to God. In the resurrection what will matter most is one’s relationship to God (22:23-33). Indeed, he who loves God with his whole being and his neighbor as himself has kept the two foundational commandments of the OT (vv 34-40). Henceforth, submitting to God means rightly recognizing Jesus; he is indeed David’s son (Mt 1:1), but he is supremely David’s Lord—the exalted Son of God (22:41-46; cf. 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Woes upon the Scribes and Pharisees (23:1-39)<\/h5>\n<p>Five reasons are stated for Jesus’ denunciation of the Jewish religious leaders. First is their hypocrisy: their practice contradicts their teaching (23:1-4), their external purity conceals inner rottenness (vv 25-28), and they appear to champion God’s cause but are really enemies of God’s servants (vv 29-36). Second is the pride that prompts their hypocrisy (23:5-12). Third is their exploitation of, and their baleful influence upon, those under their charge (vv 13-15). Fourth is their preoccupation with the minutia of the law to the neglect of its weightier matters (vv 16-24). Fifth is their responsibility for the dreadful judgment that the whole nation is about to experience (vv 33-39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the End (24:1–25:46)<\/h5>\n<p>The introduction to this, the fifth and last of Matthew’s great discourses, makes it plain that there is the closest connection (for both Jesus and his disciples) between the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age (24:1-3). Jesus first characterizes the time between his first advent and his return: there will be natural catastrophes, international warfare, the rise of false messiahs, the persecution of God’s people, and the universal proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom (vv 4-14). Then Jesus speaks of the catastrophe that is soon to befall the Jewish nation in particular (as already foretold in 22:7; 23:38), culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70 (24:15-25). Sometime thereafter (but after an interval known only to God the Father—v 36), the Son of Man will return in great glory, amid apocalyptic signs, to gather his people (vv 26-31). The present generation will not pass away before judgment falls upon Israel (vv 15-25), so let listeners take heed (vv 32-35). The same warning applies to the more remote coming of the Son of Man (vv 36-51): both the certainty of the event and the uncertainty of its time call for vigilance and faithfulness in the interval, for that event will bring both salvation and judgment. To drive the lesson home, Jesus tells the parables of the wise and foolish virgins (25:1-13) and the talents (vv 14-30). The concluding parable of the sheep and the goats (vv 31-46) speaks of the urgent necessity of making the right response to the “brothers”—that is, the messengers—of Christ; those who feed, clothe, and otherwise care for the messengers of Christ thereby testify to their reception of the apostles’ message and their Lord (cf. 10:40-42).<\/p>\n<h5>The Road to Golgotha (26:1–27:26)<\/h5>\n<p>As though in response to Jesus’ own prediction, the chief priests and the elders hatch their murderous plot (26:1-5), soon to be aided by Judas (vv 14-16). The anointing at Bethany (vv 6-13) testifies to the extravagance of love and the imminence of death. At the Passover meal (vv 17-30), signaling at what sacrifice the new exodus comes about (cf. 2:15), Jesus interprets his forthcoming death as an atoning sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (26:26-28; cf. 1:21) and anticipates the day of final victory over sin and death in the consummated kingdom (26:29). Jesus’ agony in Gethsemane (vv 36-46) expresses his horror over taking his people’s sins upon himself. By a stupendous act of filial obedience, he submits his will to the Father, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled (26:54; cf. Is 53). As the servant of God destined to suffer, Jesus resists attempts to thwart his arrest (26:47-56). The Jews’ supreme court (the Sanhedrin) and their loftiest religious official (the high priest) condemn Jesus as a blasphemer because he dares to identify himself as “the Christ, the Son of God” (26:57-68; cf. 16:16). As though joining the court’s repudiation, Peter—in fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy (26:31-35)—disclaims knowledge of Jesus (vv 69-75). Judas’s disillusionment finds expression in suicide (27:3-10). The Jews hand Jesus over to Pilate the Roman governor (vv 1-2), he alone having the authority to pronounce the death sentence. Knowing that the charge of blasphemy will carry no weight with Pilate, the Jews now represent Jesus as a threat to Caesar. In the end, Pilate responds not to specific charges and evidence but to pressure from the crowd and the threat of riot (vv 11-25). He releases Barabbas and delivers Jesus to be crucified (v 26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Death of Jesus (27:27-66)<\/h5>\n<p>Following his humiliating treatment at the hands of the Roman soldiers, Jesus is led to the place of execution; weakened by the beatings, he requires assistance (27:27-32). He refuses the proffered narcotic so that he might keep his head clear (v 34). His being executed with malefactors (v 38) testifies to the purpose of his death (cf. 1:21). A steady stream of abuse is hurled at him, in blasphemous disregard of the truth of the superscription “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (27:37-44). Finally, out of the darkness Jesus utters the cry of dereliction; now is revealed the ultimate horror (that from which his soul shrank in Gethsemane), the sin-bearer’s supreme agony—the beloved Son’s abandonment by the Father (vv 45-49). Having cried out with a loud voice (cf. Jn 19:30), Jesus dies (27:50). Immediately, the saving effects of his death become evident (vv 51-53): sinners, now forgiven, have access to the holy God (the veil of the temple is rent asunder), and there is hope of resurrection for those who have died. As at the beginning (2:1-12), Gentiles instead of Jews confess Jesus (27:54; contrast 26:63-65). Joseph’s careful attentiveness to Jesus’ burial contrasts with the ongoing attempts of the chief priests and Pharisees to resist Jesus’ power (27:57-66).<\/p>\n<h5>The Triumph of the Savior (28:1-20)<\/h5>\n<p>Amid great glory and power and joy, the Savior’s victory over death is announced and attested (28:1-7). The risen Jesus appears first to the women who stayed with him during his crucifixion (28:8-10; cf. 27:61; 28:1). The Jews’ response to the guards’ report signals their growing desperation before irresistible reality (28:11-15). Meeting with the 11 disciples on the mountain in Galilee (vv 16-20), Jesus, the new Moses, continues his instructions. He now reveals the evangelistic purpose for which Matthew has been preparing readers from the very threshold of his Gospel. The apostles are to disciple all peoples by baptizing them into the name of the triune God and by teaching them to obey all that Jesus has commanded. The apostles go forth in the assurance that Jesus—as the Lord—stands over them, and that Jesus—as Immanuel—stands with them until the very end of the age.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Luke, Gospel of; Mark, Gospel of; Matthew (Person); Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MATTHEW, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>First Gospel and first book of the NT.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date and Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Nowhere does the text of Matthew itself clearly identify the author. Yet, as did the ancient church, we may ascribe authorship to Matthew the apostle. He was otherwise known as Levi (see Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27, 29). Before Jesus called him, he was a tax collector (Mt 9:9ff.). It is interesting to note that Matthew called himself a tax collector, while none of the other Gospel writers did. Perhaps he did this to show how great an ascendancy he had been granted when the Lord called him, for tax collectors were despised and considered the lowest of people. The Gospel itself bears the impress of one knowledgeable of currency, for the Gospel writer speaks quite specifically about a two-drachma tax (Mt 17:24), a four-drachma coin (v 27), and the various talents (18:24; 25:15ff.).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateandProvenance\">Date and Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Scholars are divided about the date when Matthew was written primarily because there is still debate about which Gospel was first written: Matthew or Mark. If Mark was written before Matthew, then Matthew was very indebted to Mark for a great deal of material, and vice versa. Those who argue for Matthew’s priority do so on the basis that Matthew’s Gospel was (1) recognized in the early church as the first Gospel, (2) written to those who first needed a written account—the Jews, and (3) placed first in the NT canon. Whether it preceded or followed Mark, most scholars are certain that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (<span>AD<\/span> 70) because the temple is spoken of as still standing (Mt 24:15). Irenaeus indicated that Matthew wrote this Gospel while Peter and Paul were in Rome. This would make the time of writing in the 60s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<h5>Apologetics<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew wrote to a community of Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, located in a center such as Antioch in Syria. The community was surrounded and beset by Jews hostile to the claims of Jesus and the Christian community.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew wrote as a Jew for Jews. In Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew contends, the OT reached its appointed goal. Jesus is the Messiah of Israel’s expectation. In the opening chapter Matthew identifies him as “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (1:1), indeed as “God with us” (v 23). In later chapters Jesus is revealed as the Son of Man of Daniel 7 and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. Throughout the book (Mt 1:22–27:10) the events of Jesus’ life are represented as the “fulfillment” of OT prophecies. He comes to offer Israel salvation from sin (1:21). Nevertheless, the Jews have rejected him as their Messiah, and have thus placed themselves in the most perilous position (11:20-24; 21:33-46). One explanation for Israel’s rejection of Jesus is the failure of the Jewish religious leadership to prepare the people for his coming. In the strongest language, Matthew denounces the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. They have forsaken the Word of God in favor of their own traditions (ch 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Teaching the Church<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew also wrote as a Christian for Christians. He presents Jesus as a new Moses, indeed as Yahweh incarnate, expounding his own law for his people (ch 5), now newly constituted around his person under the leadership of the apostles (10:2-4; 16:18-19; 23:8-10). If the Christian church is to function properly, the teaching of the Messiah on a host of moral and spiritual issues must be taken with utmost seriousness (chs 5–7, 18). To aid this purpose, Matthew takes the form of a theological textbook or a handbook for the church, to instruct the people of God concerning the person and work of Jesus. That these teachings may be more readily and firmly grasped, Matthew presents them in a highly organized and memorable way. To facilitate the learning of the material, he arranges Jesus’ teachings in five major discourses (interlocked with narrative portions) in which teachings of the same kind are clustered together (e.g., ch 10 consists of a charge to missionaries, and ch 13 consists of seven parables of the kingdom). Matthew’s leading theological themes may be identified as the <em>Son<\/em> of God (Jesus is Yahweh incarnate, “God with us”), the <em>kingdom<\/em> of God (in Jesus, God is invading history to inaugurate his final rule), the <em>salvation<\/em> of God (as the servant-king, Jesus has come to “save his people from their sins,” 1:21), and the <em>people<\/em> of God (Jesus has come to build his church, a redeemed community consisting of both Jews and Gentiles).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the Savior (1:1–2:23)<\/h5>\n<p>His name reveals his mission: “Jesus” (1:1) means “Yahweh saves.” He is “the son of Abraham,” who comes to fulfill God’s ancient promises to Jews and Gentiles (Gn 12:1-3). He is “Christ [or Messiah],” the son of David (Mt 1:1), who comes to inaugurate the kingdom of God (4:17). More than that, as evidenced both by prophecy (1:22-23) and by the nature of his conception (vv 18-20), he is “God with us”—now come to “save his people from their sins” (v 21). As the son of David, and in accord with prophecy, he is born in Bethlehem (2:1-6). Drawn by the star of Israel’s Messiah (cf. Nm 24:17), Gentiles come to worship him (Mt 2:1-12). When Herod seeks to destroy him, Jesus finds sanctuary in a gentile land; God’s calling his Son from Egypt marks the beginning of a mighty saving work—nothing less than a new exodus under Jesus, the new Moses (vv 13-20). Having been born in the humblest of circumstances, Jesus now comes to live in Nazareth (vv 21-23).<\/p>\n<h5>The Beginnings of Ministry (3:1–4:25)<\/h5>\n<p>In face of the judgment that Jesus is about to execute (as evidence of the kingdom’s arrival), John the Baptist calls Israel to repentance (3:1-12). Jesus’ submission to John’s baptism, and the voice from heaven, show him to be a King who serves his subjects by taking their sins upon himself (vv 13-17). Like Israel at the exodus, Jesus is led into the wilderness for a period of testing (4:1). When the devil seeks to turn him away both from God and from his appointed mission, Jesus gains victory by depending upon God and his Word (vv 1-11). Returning to Galilee, Jesus deliberately settles in territory with both Jewish and Gentile inhabitants (vv 12-16) and begins a ministry of preaching (like John, he calls for repentance in face of the dawning kingdom), teaching (he calls his first disciples), and healing (vv 17-25).<\/p>\n\n<h5>The Sermon on the Mount (5:1–7:29)<\/h5>\n<p>Just as Moses ascended Sinai to receive God’s law for Israel, so Jesus—as both the new Moses and as God incarnate—ascends the mountain to set forth his instruction for the citizens of the kingdom of God (5:1-2). He begins with <em>gospel<\/em> (not law), declaring that God shall surely save those who—beset by sin—trust in God’s mercy, obey his commands, and long for him to establish his righteous rule in the earth (vv 3-12). Toward that end, disciples are a preservative (salt) and a witness (light) in a sinful society (vv 13-16). As the one who has come not to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to bring them to completion (i.e., to usher in the new age to which the OT pointed— v 17), Jesus calls his disciples to steadfast obedience to God’s law as now expounded by the Lawgiver himself (vv 18-20). God’s commands embrace inner desires as well as outward actions, must not be watered down or rationalized, and call for more radical obedience than ever before, now that the end has come (vv 21-48). In their giving, praying, and fasting, disciples are to combat hypocrisy by God-centeredness and self-forgetfulness (6:1-18). The Lord’s Prayer (vv 9-13) calls upon God to honor his name by establishing his rule on earth, and to pardon, protect, and provide for his children. Given this prayer, and given the disciples’ God-centered view of reality (vv 19-24), there is no cause for anxiety (vv 25-34). Disciples must be discerning without being judgmental (7:1-6), and depend on God for the power needed to love others (6:7-12). Having completed his exposition of the law (5:21–7:12), Jesus now calls would-be disciples to follow him (7:13-14), warns against false teachers (vv 15-20), and insists that true disciples do God’s will (vv 21-23).<\/p>\n<h5>The Authority of Jesus (8:1–9:38)<\/h5>\n<p>Having given his authority <em>verbal<\/em> expression in teaching (7:28-29), Jesus now gives it <em>visible<\/em> expression in a series of healing miracles, again revealing himself as the servant of Isaiah (8:17). He heals a leper, a centurion’s servant, and a bleeding woman by his word (8:1-13; 9:20-22). His touch dispels a fever and raises a dead person (8:14-15; 9:23-25). A combination of word and touch cures the blind (9:27-31). As “God with us,” Jesus calls for unqualified allegiance (8:18-22). Though lacking even the natural protection enjoyed by animals (v 20), he demonstrates his sovereignty over the natural world—and thus his deity—by calming the storm (vv 23-27). In direct confrontations with demons, he shows his superiority over them (8:28-34; 9:32-33). Exercising God’s own authority, he declares sins forgiven (9:1-8) and calls sinners to repentance and to discipleship (vv 9-13). Joy over the kingdom’s inauguration is mingled with longing for its consummation (vv 14-17). The summary of 9:35-38 echoes 4:23-25, recalls chapters 5–7, and prepares for the next major discourse.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Charge to the Missionaries (10:1-42)<\/h5>\n<p>In response to the prayers that he has commanded, Christ now invests 12 disciples with apostolic authority and sends them out into his harvest field (9:37–10:4). The discourse speaks both of the apostles’ immediate mission (10:5-15) and of the church’s broader mission (vv 16-42). For now, the apostles are to concentrate on evangelizing Jews (v 6), in preparation for the mission to Gentiles (28:19). The “worthy” are those who welcome the apostles and their message; the “unworthy,” those who reject them (10:11-15). In the broader mission, there is sure to be persecution (vv 16-19, 24-25), but this will actually aid the witness (vv 17-23). God will save his faithful missionaries (vv 19-23) but judge those who oppress them and who disown Christ (vv 26-39). A sure reward awaits both the herald and the recipient of the message (vv 37-42).<\/p>\n<h5>Christ the Lord (11:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The judgment John predicted is already under way; one’s stand in the last judgment would be determined by his response to the words and works of Jesus (11:2-6). Like his herald, Jesus meets with widespread hostility and indifference (vv 7-19). Given the finality of the grace attending his ministry, those who reject him will suffer the severest judgment (vv 20-24). Yet there are others—the lowly, the burdened, the teachable—who learn (by revelation from God the Father and God the Son) that the “Lord of heaven and earth” is also the “gentle and humble” God who comes to give rest to those who trust in him (vv 25-30). As the one who ushers in the new age (12:6), Jesus claims that he is the Lord of the Sabbath (vv 1-8). True rest (11:29) comes to those who come to Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Viewing Jesus as the destroyer of the Sabbath, the Pharisees ascribe his miraculous powers to Satan (12:22-24). On the contrary, says Jesus, the rule he is inaugurating is crushing Satan’s empire (vv 25-29). To reject this truth in the full awareness of what one is doing is to commit the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit (vv 30-32); the words of Jesus’ accusers expose them as persons destined for condemnation (vv 33-37). The requested sign from heaven will not be given. Jesus’ resurrection is the only sign they need.<\/p>\n<h5>The Parables of the Kingdom (13:1-58)<\/h5>\n<p>This, the third of Matthew’s five great discourses, contains seven parables. In the parable of the sower, four kinds of soil—hard, shallow, cluttered, and fruitful—illustrate the various responses to Jesus’ preaching (13:3-9, 18-23). As those who have received Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom (4:17), the disciples are given more light, but the crowds must accept that initial proclamation before further light is given (13:10-17, 34-35). In both the parable of the weeds (vv 24-30, 36-43) and the parable of the net (vv 47-50), Jesus assures his disciples that the final judgment will separate true believers from false, and warns against hasty, premature judgments (cf. 7:1-5). The parables of the mustard and the yeast (13:31-33) contrast the smallness of the kingdom’s inauguration with the fullness of its consummation. The parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl (vv 44-46) depict the kingdom as a value far surpassing all others (cf. 6:33). Thus illuminated by Jesus, disciples have new treasures to add to their old (13:51-52). The people of Nazareth, on the contrary, echo the crowds’ lack of understanding and the Pharisees’ hostility (vv 53-58).<\/p>\n<h5>Spiritual Conflict (14:1–16:12)<\/h5>\n<p>In 14:1-12 the preaching of John exposes the weakness of Herod, and the beheading of John anticipates the crucifixion of Jesus (cf. 17:12). The true king is not Herod but Jesus. He is sovereign over nature itself (14:13-36)—God incarnate, “God with us,” who feeds the hungry multitude in the wilderness (as God once provided manna) and walks upon and calms the sea (see Ps 89:9). Peter models Christians’ faith, fear, and utter dependence on Jesus (Mt 14:28-31). The Pharisees and teachers of the law appear to worship God but in fact are devoted to their own traditions, which they offer not as supplements but as <em>rivals<\/em> to the Word of God (15:1-9). In verses 10-20 Jesus teaches both that ceremonial law apart from moral law becomes empty ritual, and that the old distinction between clean and unclean foods (Lv 11) is now as obsolete as the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. To underscore the point, Jesus enters pagan territory, heals a Canaanite (15:21-28) and feeds a Gentile multitude (vv 29-39). Pharisees and Sadducees, for all their differences, are united in their opposition to Jesus (16:1-12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming Salvation (16:13–17:27)<\/h5>\n<p>Going beyond the crowds’ respectful but inadequate estimates, Peter confesses Jesus to be “the Christ, the Son of the living God”—a recognition of Jesus’ deity granted by divine revelation (16:13-17; cf. 11:25-26). As it is God the Son who possesses and builds the church, Satan and death are victims rather than victors. Jesus will build his church on Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. The apostles’ prohibiting and granting entry into the church (“binding” and “loosing,” respectively) depends upon the prior decision of heaven (i.e., God’s revelation of apostolic teaching). In face of Peter’s confession and the persistent false notions of messiahship (16:20, 23), Jesus now (for the first time) predicts his sufferings and coming glory (vv 21-28). In anticipation of that glory, Jesus is transfigured before certain disciples; Moses and Elijah join God the Father in bearing witness to the unique splendor of God the Son (17:1-8). Jesus then demonstrated his power by combating demonic powers (vv 14-18) and exhibited his authority by choosing to pay the temple tax using miraculous means (vv 24-27).<\/p>\n<h5>Greatness in the Kingdom (18:1-35)<\/h5>\n<p>In this, the fourth of Matthew’s five great discourses, Jesus concentrates on the character and attitudes of church members. He calls upon his followers both to <em>become<\/em> and to <em>welcome<\/em> the lowliest (18:1-5). Leaders especially are enjoined to deal harshly with themselves but gently with those under their care (vv 6-9). Remembering the Father’s love for sinners, Christians are to make every effort (both by prayer and by personal initiative) to restore offending brothers, with excommunication being the last resort (vv 10-20). Church members who really understand the Father’s amazing grace will never stop offering forgiveness and compassion to those who wrong them (vv 21-35).<\/p>\n<h5>Instructions on the Way to Jerusalem (19:1–20:34)<\/h5>\n<p>Given God’s creation ordinances, says Jesus, divorce itself is never <em>commanded;<\/em> it is only <em>permitted<\/em> in the case of sin—that is, where the marital bond has already been severed through infidelity (19:1-9). As in 5:17-48, Jesus calls his followers to radical obedience (19:10-12). Besides instructing disciples to become like children (18:1-4), Jesus embraces children themselves with his love (19:13-15). He appeals likewise to the rich young man (vv 16-22); but the man, while faithful to the commands about love of neighbor, is too bound by his wealth to give himself unreservedly to loving God. Yet those who abandon all to follow Jesus will receive wealth untold in the coming kingdom (vv 27-30). The basis for such blessings lies not in human merit but in the astonishing generosity of the gracious God (20:1-16). None—not even the rich—are beyond the power of his grace. But God offers free salvation at great cost to himself (vv 17-19). Confronting competitiveness and ambition among his followers, Jesus teaches them that true greatness lies not in lording it over others but in serving them (vv 20-34), as shall be supremely demonstrated in his death as “a ransom for many” (v 28).<\/p>\n<h5>Confrontations in Jerusalem (21:1–22:46)<\/h5>\n<p>As the Servant-King (cf. 3:17), and as the Messiah destined for suffering (cf. 16:16-21; 20:28), Jesus enters Jerusalem not upon a war horse but upon a donkey’s colt, for he purposes not to declare war on his enemies but to hand himself over to them—and thus achieve his triumph through defeat (21:1-11). As Lord of the temple, he demands that its commerce be halted and that it become (as God ordained) a place of worship for everyone, including the sick, the young, and the alien (21:12-17; cf. Mk 11:17). He outwits those who refuse to acknowledge the heavenly source of his and John’s authority (Mt 21:23-27). In dramatic and devastating fashion, first visibly (by cursing the fig tree—vv 18-22) and then verbally (in the three parables of 21:28–22:14), Jesus pronounces judgment upon those Jews who have refused to acknowledge him as Messiah and Son of God. Henceforth, the true people of God are those who believe in Jesus, whether Jews or Gentiles. He calls upon his people to pledge their supreme allegiance to God. In the resurrection what will matter most is one’s relationship to God (22:23-33). Indeed, he who loves God with his whole being and his neighbor as himself has kept the two foundational commandments of the OT (vv 34-40). Henceforth, submitting to God means rightly recognizing Jesus; he is indeed David’s son (Mt 1:1), but he is supremely David’s Lord—the exalted Son of God (22:41-46; cf. 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Woes upon the Scribes and Pharisees (23:1-39)<\/h5>\n<p>Five reasons are stated for Jesus’ denunciation of the Jewish religious leaders. First is their hypocrisy: their practice contradicts their teaching (23:1-4), their external purity conceals inner rottenness (vv 25-28), and they appear to champion God’s cause but are really enemies of God’s servants (vv 29-36). Second is the pride that prompts their hypocrisy (23:5-12). Third is their exploitation of, and their baleful influence upon, those under their charge (vv 13-15). Fourth is their preoccupation with the minutia of the law to the neglect of its weightier matters (vv 16-24). Fifth is their responsibility for the dreadful judgment that the whole nation is about to experience (vv 33-39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the End (24:1–25:46)<\/h5>\n<p>The introduction to this, the fifth and last of Matthew’s great discourses, makes it plain that there is the closest connection (for both Jesus and his disciples) between the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age (24:1-3). Jesus first characterizes the time between his first advent and his return: there will be natural catastrophes, international warfare, the rise of false messiahs, the persecution of God’s people, and the universal proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom (vv 4-14). Then Jesus speaks of the catastrophe that is soon to befall the Jewish nation in particular (as already foretold in 22:7; 23:38), culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70 (24:15-25). Sometime thereafter (but after an interval known only to God the Father—v 36), the Son of Man will return in great glory, amid apocalyptic signs, to gather his people (vv 26-31). The present generation will not pass away before judgment falls upon Israel (vv 15-25), so let listeners take heed (vv 32-35). The same warning applies to the more remote coming of the Son of Man (vv 36-51): both the certainty of the event and the uncertainty of its time call for vigilance and faithfulness in the interval, for that event will bring both salvation and judgment. To drive the lesson home, Jesus tells the parables of the wise and foolish virgins (25:1-13) and the talents (vv 14-30). The concluding parable of the sheep and the goats (vv 31-46) speaks of the urgent necessity of making the right response to the “brothers”—that is, the messengers—of Christ; those who feed, clothe, and otherwise care for the messengers of Christ thereby testify to their reception of the apostles’ message and their Lord (cf. 10:40-42).<\/p>\n<h5>The Road to Golgotha (26:1–27:26)<\/h5>\n<p>As though in response to Jesus’ own prediction, the chief priests and the elders hatch their murderous plot (26:1-5), soon to be aided by Judas (vv 14-16). The anointing at Bethany (vv 6-13) testifies to the extravagance of love and the imminence of death. At the Passover meal (vv 17-30), signaling at what sacrifice the new exodus comes about (cf. 2:15), Jesus interprets his forthcoming death as an atoning sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (26:26-28; cf. 1:21) and anticipates the day of final victory over sin and death in the consummated kingdom (26:29). Jesus’ agony in Gethsemane (vv 36-46) expresses his horror over taking his people’s sins upon himself. By a stupendous act of filial obedience, he submits his will to the Father, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled (26:54; cf. Is 53). As the servant of God destined to suffer, Jesus resists attempts to thwart his arrest (26:47-56). The Jews’ supreme court (the Sanhedrin) and their loftiest religious official (the high priest) condemn Jesus as a blasphemer because he dares to identify himself as “the Christ, the Son of God” (26:57-68; cf. 16:16). As though joining the court’s repudiation, Peter—in fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy (26:31-35)—disclaims knowledge of Jesus (vv 69-75). Judas’s disillusionment finds expression in suicide (27:3-10). The Jews hand Jesus over to Pilate the Roman governor (vv 1-2), he alone having the authority to pronounce the death sentence. Knowing that the charge of blasphemy will carry no weight with Pilate, the Jews now represent Jesus as a threat to Caesar. In the end, Pilate responds not to specific charges and evidence but to pressure from the crowd and the threat of riot (vv 11-25). He releases Barabbas and delivers Jesus to be crucified (v 26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Death of Jesus (27:27-66)<\/h5>\n<p>Following his humiliating treatment at the hands of the Roman soldiers, Jesus is led to the place of execution; weakened by the beatings, he requires assistance (27:27-32). He refuses the proffered narcotic so that he might keep his head clear (v 34). His being executed with malefactors (v 38) testifies to the purpose of his death (cf. 1:21). A steady stream of abuse is hurled at him, in blasphemous disregard of the truth of the superscription “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (27:37-44). Finally, out of the darkness Jesus utters the cry of dereliction; now is revealed the ultimate horror (that from which his soul shrank in Gethsemane), the sin-bearer’s supreme agony—the beloved Son’s abandonment by the Father (vv 45-49). Having cried out with a loud voice (cf. Jn 19:30), Jesus dies (27:50). Immediately, the saving effects of his death become evident (vv 51-53): sinners, now forgiven, have access to the holy God (the veil of the temple is rent asunder), and there is hope of resurrection for those who have died. As at the beginning (2:1-12), Gentiles instead of Jews confess Jesus (27:54; contrast 26:63-65). Joseph’s careful attentiveness to Jesus’ burial contrasts with the ongoing attempts of the chief priests and Pharisees to resist Jesus’ power (27:57-66).<\/p>\n<h5>The Triumph of the Savior (28:1-20)<\/h5>\n<p>Amid great glory and power and joy, the Savior’s victory over death is announced and attested (28:1-7). The risen Jesus appears first to the women who stayed with him during his crucifixion (28:8-10; cf. 27:61; 28:1). The Jews’ response to the guards’ report signals their growing desperation before irresistible reality (28:11-15). Meeting with the 11 disciples on the mountain in Galilee (vv 16-20), Jesus, the new Moses, continues his instructions. He now reveals the evangelistic purpose for which Matthew has been preparing readers from the very threshold of his Gospel. The apostles are to disciple all peoples by baptizing them into the name of the triune God and by teaching them to obey all that Jesus has commanded. The apostles go forth in the assurance that Jesus—as the Lord—stands over them, and that Jesus—as Immanuel—stands with them until the very end of the age.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Luke, Gospel of; Mark, Gospel of; Matthew (Person); Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MATTHEW, Gospel of First Gospel and first book of the NT. Preview • Author • Date and Provenance • Purpose • Content Author Nowhere does the text of Matthew itself clearly identify the author. Yet, as did the ancient church, we may ascribe authorship to Matthew the apostle. He was otherwise known as Levi (see Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27, 29). Before Jesus called him, he was a tax collector (Mt 9:9ff.). It is interesting to note that Matthew called himself a tax collector, while none of the other Gospel ...","summary_en":"MATTHEW, Gospel of First Gospel and first book of the NT. Preview • Author • Date and Provenance • Purpose • Content Author Nowhere does the text of Matthew itself clearly identify the author. Yet, as did the ancient church, we may ascribe authorship to Matthew the apostle. He was otherwise known as Levi (see Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27, 29). Before Jesus called him, he was a tax collector (Mt 9:9ff.). It is interesting to note that Matthew called himself a tax collector, while none of the other Gospel ...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":29573,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Perea*","title_en":"Perea*","content_ro":"<h3>PEREA*<\/h3>\n<p>Term not occurring in the NT except in the fourth-century manuscript Codex Sinaiticus and the fifth-century manuscript Codex Washingtonianus, where it appears in Luke 6:17 and is treated as a variant reading by most editors of the Greek NT. It was used in the first century <span>AD<\/span> by Josephus to refer to the region “beyond the Jordan” (he derived the word Perea from the Greek for “beyond”). The geographical location of the area is therefore best understood from Josephus’s <em>War of the Jews<\/em> (3.3.3): “Now the length of Perea is from Machaerus to Pella, and its breadth from Philadelphia to Jordan; its northern parts are bounded by Pella, as we have already said, as well as its western with Jordan; the land of Moab is its southern border, and its eastern limits reach to Arabia, and Silbonitis, and besides to Philadelphene and Gerasa.” Gadara is called “the metropolis of Perea” by Josephus because it was a “place of strength” and because “many of the citizens of Gadara were rich men” (<em>War<\/em> 4.7.3). This Gadara is not to be confused with the Gadara of the Decapolis, modern Um Qeis, but is to be identified with Tell Gadura, about 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) northwest of modern Amman, Jordan.<\/p>\n<p>The Decapolis is separated from Perea in Matthew 4:25, where it is listed among the various sections of Palestine from which people came to hear Jesus. Perea is here called the region “beyond the Jordan,” and is so designated also in Mark 3:8. In one place Matthew referred to Perea as “the region of Judea beyond the Jordan” (Mt 19:1). This is perplexing because politically Perea was never a part of Judea, belonging to the jurisdiction not of Archelaus but of Herod Antipas, who also controlled Galilee. The parallel passage in Mark 10:1 reads, “the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan.” Perhaps Matthew was using the phrase to refer to that part of Perea that, though politically not a part of Judea, was Jewish in population. In his <em>Natural History<\/em> (<span>AD<\/span> 77) Pliny spoke of Perea as a place “separated from the <em>other parts<\/em> of Judea by the River Jordan” (5.70), and the <em>“rest<\/em> of Judea by the River Jordan” (5.70), and the <em>“rest<\/em> of Judea” as being divided into 10 local government areas, as though he considered Perea to be a part of Judea. However, this may be a mistaken assumption, since Pliny’s knowledge of the immediate area is somewhat questionable—in the same context he erroneously asserts that the Dead Sea is “more than 100 miles long and fully as wide at its widest part” (<em>Natural History<\/em> 5.72), whereas in reality it is less than 50 miles (80.5 kilometers) long and only 11 miles (17.7 kilometers) wide.<\/p>\n<p>The area was well known and often mentioned in the OT by the phrase “beyond the Jordan” (Nm 22:1; Dt 1:1, 5), and was occupied in its southern portion by the two Israelite tribes Gad and Reuben (Jos 1:12-14). Stretching from the brook Kerith in the north almost to the Arnon River in the south, Perea was virtually synonymous with OT Gilead (Jos 22:9; Jgs 5:17).<\/p>\n<p>It seems to have been an important district in the decades before the birth of Christ (Hellenistic period) when Jewish (Maccabean) leaders controlled it after 124 <span>BC<\/span>. Under Roman rule, it was given to Herod the Great until his death in 4 <span>BC<\/span>, when it passed (according to his will) into the hands of his son Herod Antipas, along with Galilee. Because the area was beautiful and productive and had trees noted for their medicinal balm (Jer 8:22; 46:11), it was always well populated and supported numerous well-known cities, such as Pella, Jabesh-gilead, Succoth, Penuel, and Gerasa (modern Jerash). Herod Antipas even had a fort named Machaerus in the southern extremities of Perea, where he imprisoned John the Baptist and had him put to death (see Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2).<\/p>\n<p>It was customary for Jews traveling back and forth from Galilee to Judea to cross the Jordan into Perea in order to avoid contact with the Samaritans. Before his death, John the Baptist had been baptizing in Bethany beyond the Jordan when he announced Jesus as the Lamb of God (Jn 1:28-29), and Jesus returned here during his ministry once when he was being severely persecuted (10:40).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PEREA*<\/h3>\n<p>Term not occurring in the NT except in the fourth-century manuscript Codex Sinaiticus and the fifth-century manuscript Codex Washingtonianus, where it appears in Luke 6:17 and is treated as a variant reading by most editors of the Greek NT. It was used in the first century <span>AD<\/span> by Josephus to refer to the region “beyond the Jordan” (he derived the word Perea from the Greek for “beyond”). The geographical location of the area is therefore best understood from Josephus’s <em>War of the Jews<\/em> (3.3.3): “Now the length of Perea is from Machaerus to Pella, and its breadth from Philadelphia to Jordan; its northern parts are bounded by Pella, as we have already said, as well as its western with Jordan; the land of Moab is its southern border, and its eastern limits reach to Arabia, and Silbonitis, and besides to Philadelphene and Gerasa.” Gadara is called “the metropolis of Perea” by Josephus because it was a “place of strength” and because “many of the citizens of Gadara were rich men” (<em>War<\/em> 4.7.3). This Gadara is not to be confused with the Gadara of the Decapolis, modern Um Qeis, but is to be identified with Tell Gadura, about 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) northwest of modern Amman, Jordan.<\/p>\n<p>The Decapolis is separated from Perea in Matthew 4:25, where it is listed among the various sections of Palestine from which people came to hear Jesus. Perea is here called the region “beyond the Jordan,” and is so designated also in Mark 3:8. In one place Matthew referred to Perea as “the region of Judea beyond the Jordan” (Mt 19:1). This is perplexing because politically Perea was never a part of Judea, belonging to the jurisdiction not of Archelaus but of Herod Antipas, who also controlled Galilee. The parallel passage in Mark 10:1 reads, “the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan.” Perhaps Matthew was using the phrase to refer to that part of Perea that, though politically not a part of Judea, was Jewish in population. In his <em>Natural History<\/em> (<span>AD<\/span> 77) Pliny spoke of Perea as a place “separated from the <em>other parts<\/em> of Judea by the River Jordan” (5.70), and the <em>“rest<\/em> of Judea by the River Jordan” (5.70), and the <em>“rest<\/em> of Judea” as being divided into 10 local government areas, as though he considered Perea to be a part of Judea. However, this may be a mistaken assumption, since Pliny’s knowledge of the immediate area is somewhat questionable—in the same context he erroneously asserts that the Dead Sea is “more than 100 miles long and fully as wide at its widest part” (<em>Natural History<\/em> 5.72), whereas in reality it is less than 50 miles (80.5 kilometers) long and only 11 miles (17.7 kilometers) wide.<\/p>\n<p>The area was well known and often mentioned in the OT by the phrase “beyond the Jordan” (Nm 22:1; Dt 1:1, 5), and was occupied in its southern portion by the two Israelite tribes Gad and Reuben (Jos 1:12-14). Stretching from the brook Kerith in the north almost to the Arnon River in the south, Perea was virtually synonymous with OT Gilead (Jos 22:9; Jgs 5:17).<\/p>\n<p>It seems to have been an important district in the decades before the birth of Christ (Hellenistic period) when Jewish (Maccabean) leaders controlled it after 124 <span>BC<\/span>. Under Roman rule, it was given to Herod the Great until his death in 4 <span>BC<\/span>, when it passed (according to his will) into the hands of his son Herod Antipas, along with Galilee. Because the area was beautiful and productive and had trees noted for their medicinal balm (Jer 8:22; 46:11), it was always well populated and supported numerous well-known cities, such as Pella, Jabesh-gilead, Succoth, Penuel, and Gerasa (modern Jerash). Herod Antipas even had a fort named Machaerus in the southern extremities of Perea, where he imprisoned John the Baptist and had him put to death (see Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2).<\/p>\n<p>It was customary for Jews traveling back and forth from Galilee to Judea to cross the Jordan into Perea in order to avoid contact with the Samaritans. Before his death, John the Baptist had been baptizing in Bethany beyond the Jordan when he announced Jesus as the Lamb of God (Jn 1:28-29), and Jesus returned here during his ministry once when he was being severely persecuted (10:40).<\/p>","summary_ro":"PEREA* Term not occurring in the NT except in the fourth-century manuscript Codex Sinaiticus and the fifth-century manuscript Codex Washingtonianus, where it appears in Luke 6:17 and is treated as a variant reading by most editors of the Greek NT. It was used in the first century AD by Josephus to refer to the region “beyond the Jordan” (he derived the word Perea from the Greek for “beyond”). The geographical location of the area is therefore best understood from Josephus’s War of the Jews (3...","summary_en":"PEREA* Term not occurring in the NT except in the fourth-century manuscript Codex Sinaiticus and the fifth-century manuscript Codex Washingtonianus, where it appears in Luke 6:17 and is treated as a variant reading by most editors of the Greek NT. It was used in the first century AD by Josephus to refer to the region “beyond the Jordan” (he derived the word Perea from the Greek for “beyond”). The geographical location of the area is therefore best understood from Josephus’s War of the Jews (3...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":54866,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:1","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:1–20:34<\/strong> Jesus was now on the move toward Jerusalem (19:1; 20:29; 21:1), with a further opportunity for instructing the disciples on various aspects of discipleship.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:1–20:34<\/strong> Jesus was now on the move toward Jerusalem (19:1; 20:29; 21:1), with a further opportunity for instructing the disciples on various aspects of discipleship.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:1–20:34 Jesus was now on the move toward Jerusalem (19:1; 20:29; 21:1), with a further opportunity for instructing the disciples on various aspects of discipleship.","summary_en":"19:1–20:34 Jesus was now on the move toward Jerusalem (19:1; 20:29; 21:1), with a further opportunity for instructing the disciples on various aspects of discipleship.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82492,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:1","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:1–20:34<\/strong> Jesus was now on the move toward Jerusalem (19:1; 20:29; 21:1), with a further opportunity for instructing the disciples on various aspects of discipleship.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:1–20:34<\/strong> Jesus was now on the move toward Jerusalem (19:1; 20:29; 21:1), with a further opportunity for instructing the disciples on various aspects of discipleship.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:1–20:34 Jesus was now on the move toward Jerusalem (19:1; 20:29; 21:1), with a further opportunity for instructing the disciples on various aspects of discipleship.","summary_en":"19:1–20:34 Jesus was now on the move toward Jerusalem (19:1; 20:29; 21:1), with a further opportunity for instructing the disciples on various aspects of discipleship.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110118,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:1","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:1–20:34<\/strong> Jesus was now on the move toward Jerusalem (19:1; 20:29; 21:1), with a further opportunity for instructing the disciples on various aspects of discipleship.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:1–20:34<\/strong> Jesus was now on the move toward Jerusalem (19:1; 20:29; 21:1), with a further opportunity for instructing the disciples on various aspects of discipleship.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:1–20:34 Jesus was now on the move toward Jerusalem (19:1; 20:29; 21:1), with a further opportunity for instructing the disciples on various aspects of discipleship.","summary_en":"19:1–20:34 Jesus was now on the move toward Jerusalem (19:1; 20:29; 21:1), with a further opportunity for instructing the disciples on various aspects of discipleship.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":137744,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:1","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:1–20:34<\/strong> Jesus was now on the move toward Jerusalem (19:1; 20:29; 21:1), with a further opportunity for instructing the disciples on various aspects of discipleship.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:1–20:34<\/strong> Jesus was now on the move toward Jerusalem (19:1; 20:29; 21:1), with a further opportunity for instructing the disciples on various aspects of discipleship.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:1–20:34 Jesus was now on the move toward Jerusalem (19:1; 20:29; 21:1), with a further opportunity for instructing the disciples on various aspects of discipleship.","summary_en":"19:1–20:34 Jesus was now on the move toward Jerusalem (19:1; 20:29; 21:1), with a further opportunity for instructing the disciples on various aspects of discipleship.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"3":[{"id":42044,"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":69670,"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":97296,"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":124922,"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":19685,"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":40023,"type":"textbox","type_label":"Notă explicativă","type_icon":"💡","type_color":"#8b5cf6","title_ro":"Did Jesus Side with Hillel or Shammai?","title_en":"Jesus Side with Hillel or Shammai?, Did","content_ro":"<h3>Did Jesus Side with Hillel or Shammai?<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>According to Matthew 19:3, it is said that some Pharisees approached Jesus and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any and every reason?” They wanted to see whether he would side with the school of Shammai or the school of Hillel. The Shammai school would allow divorce only for immorality, while the school of Hillel allowed a husband to divorce his wife for a variety of lesser reasons. Jesus’ response indicated that he did not affirm any kind of divorce, unless one partner had commited adultery (Mt 19:4-9).<\/p><\/blockquote>","content_en":"<h3>Did Jesus Side with Hillel or Shammai?<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>According to Matthew 19:3, it is said that some Pharisees approached Jesus and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any and every reason?” They wanted to see whether he would side with the school of Shammai or the school of Hillel. The Shammai school would allow divorce only for immorality, while the school of Hillel allowed a husband to divorce his wife for a variety of lesser reasons. Jesus’ response indicated that he did not affirm any kind of divorce, unless one partner had commited adultery (Mt 19:4-9).<\/p><\/blockquote>","summary_ro":"Did Jesus Side with Hillel or Shammai? According to Matthew 19:3, it is said that some Pharisees approached Jesus and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any and every reason?” They wanted to see whether he would side with the school of Shammai or the school of Hillel. The Shammai school would allow divorce only for immorality, while the school of Hillel allowed a husband to divorce his wife for a variety of lesser reasons. Jesus’ response indicated that he did not a...","summary_en":"Did Jesus Side with Hillel or Shammai? According to Matthew 19:3, it is said that some Pharisees approached Jesus and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any and every reason?” They wanted to see whether he would side with the school of Shammai or the school of Hillel. The Shammai school would allow divorce only for immorality, while the school of Hillel allowed a husband to divorce his wife for a variety of lesser reasons. Jesus’ response indicated that he did not a...","source":"Textboxes\/Textboxes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":54867,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:3","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:3<\/strong> There were two divergent views on when one was <em>allowed to divorce<\/em> one’s wife. One group of Pharisees, following Rabbi Shammai, argued that divorce was allowed only in the case of adultery or other grave sin, while the other group, following Rabbi Hillel, contended that a man could divorce his wife for <em>any reason<\/em>, such as if she burned his dinner.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:3<\/strong> There were two divergent views on when one was <em>allowed to divorce<\/em> one’s wife. One group of Pharisees, following Rabbi Shammai, argued that divorce was allowed only in the case of adultery or other grave sin, while the other group, following Rabbi Hillel, contended that a man could divorce his wife for <em>any reason<\/em>, such as if she burned his dinner.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:3 There were two divergent views on when one was allowed to divorce one’s wife. One group of Pharisees, following Rabbi Shammai, argued that divorce was allowed only in the case of adultery or other grave sin, while the other group, following Rabbi Hillel, contended that a man could divorce his wife for any reason, such as if she burned his dinner.","summary_en":"19:3 There were two divergent views on when one was allowed to divorce one’s wife. One group of Pharisees, following Rabbi Shammai, argued that divorce was allowed only in the case of adultery or other grave sin, while the other group, following Rabbi Hillel, contended that a man could divorce his wife for any reason, such as if she burned his dinner.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82493,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:3","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:3<\/strong> There were two divergent views on when one was <em>allowed to divorce<\/em> one’s wife. One group of Pharisees, following Rabbi Shammai, argued that divorce was allowed only in the case of adultery or other grave sin, while the other group, following Rabbi Hillel, contended that a man could divorce his wife for <em>any reason<\/em>, such as if she burned his dinner.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:3<\/strong> There were two divergent views on when one was <em>allowed to divorce<\/em> one’s wife. One group of Pharisees, following Rabbi Shammai, argued that divorce was allowed only in the case of adultery or other grave sin, while the other group, following Rabbi Hillel, contended that a man could divorce his wife for <em>any reason<\/em>, such as if she burned his dinner.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:3 There were two divergent views on when one was allowed to divorce one’s wife. One group of Pharisees, following Rabbi Shammai, argued that divorce was allowed only in the case of adultery or other grave sin, while the other group, following Rabbi Hillel, contended that a man could divorce his wife for any reason, such as if she burned his dinner.","summary_en":"19:3 There were two divergent views on when one was allowed to divorce one’s wife. One group of Pharisees, following Rabbi Shammai, argued that divorce was allowed only in the case of adultery or other grave sin, while the other group, following Rabbi Hillel, contended that a man could divorce his wife for any reason, such as if she burned his dinner.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110119,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:3","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:3<\/strong> There were two divergent views on when one was <em>allowed to divorce<\/em> one’s wife. One group of Pharisees, following Rabbi Shammai, argued that divorce was allowed only in the case of adultery or other grave sin, while the other group, following Rabbi Hillel, contended that a man could divorce his wife for <em>any reason<\/em>, such as if she burned his dinner.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:3<\/strong> There were two divergent views on when one was <em>allowed to divorce<\/em> one’s wife. One group of Pharisees, following Rabbi Shammai, argued that divorce was allowed only in the case of adultery or other grave sin, while the other group, following Rabbi Hillel, contended that a man could divorce his wife for <em>any reason<\/em>, such as if she burned his dinner.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:3 There were two divergent views on when one was allowed to divorce one’s wife. One group of Pharisees, following Rabbi Shammai, argued that divorce was allowed only in the case of adultery or other grave sin, while the other group, following Rabbi Hillel, contended that a man could divorce his wife for any reason, such as if she burned his dinner.","summary_en":"19:3 There were two divergent views on when one was allowed to divorce one’s wife. One group of Pharisees, following Rabbi Shammai, argued that divorce was allowed only in the case of adultery or other grave sin, while the other group, following Rabbi Hillel, contended that a man could divorce his wife for any reason, such as if she burned his dinner.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":137745,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:3","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:3<\/strong> There were two divergent views on when one was <em>allowed to divorce<\/em> one’s wife. One group of Pharisees, following Rabbi Shammai, argued that divorce was allowed only in the case of adultery or other grave sin, while the other group, following Rabbi Hillel, contended that a man could divorce his wife for <em>any reason<\/em>, such as if she burned his dinner.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:3<\/strong> There were two divergent views on when one was <em>allowed to divorce<\/em> one’s wife. One group of Pharisees, following Rabbi Shammai, argued that divorce was allowed only in the case of adultery or other grave sin, while the other group, following Rabbi Hillel, contended that a man could divorce his wife for <em>any reason<\/em>, such as if she burned his dinner.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:3 There were two divergent views on when one was allowed to divorce one’s wife. One group of Pharisees, following Rabbi Shammai, argued that divorce was allowed only in the case of adultery or other grave sin, while the other group, following Rabbi Hillel, contended that a man could divorce his wife for any reason, such as if she burned his dinner.","summary_en":"19:3 There were two divergent views on when one was allowed to divorce one’s wife. One group of Pharisees, following Rabbi Shammai, argued that divorce was allowed only in the case of adultery or other grave sin, while the other group, following Rabbi Hillel, contended that a man could divorce his wife for any reason, such as if she burned his dinner.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":59701,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Human Sexuality","title_en":"Human Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\n<p>Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\n<p>Although sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\n<p>Human sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\n<p>Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\n<p>Although sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\n<p>Human sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","summary_en":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":63462,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality","title_en":"Marriage and Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\n<p>In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>Although this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\n<p>The New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\n<p>In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>Although this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\n<p>The New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","summary_en":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65133,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Stone the Builders Rejected","title_en":"The Stone the Builders Rejected","content_ro":"<h3>The Stone the Builders Rejected<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus continually offended the Jewish leaders and those who followed them. Though he was born in David’s line, his mother’s reputation was tainted (Matt 1:18-25). Jesus himself was from Nazareth (Matt 2:23), a very unprestigious place (see Matt 13:53-58). His ministry was in Galilee, a backwater distant from official Judaism (see Matt 4:12-16). His closest associate was the inexplicable John, who baptized people and prophetically castigated the political leaders (Matt 11:2-19; 14:3-12). Jesus was evasive in his dialogues (e.g., Matt 13:10-15; 17:24-27; 19:3-12; 21:23-27), he refused to produce signs proving his messianic claims (12:38-42; 16:1-4), and he was accompanied by outcasts of society (9:9-13; 11:16-19). He offended Jewish sensibilities, disregarded Jewish traditions (5:17-20; 9:14-17; 12:1-14; 15:1-20; 21:12-13), and purposefully avoided recognition (8:4; 12:15-21). His revelations were reserved for the unlikely (11:25-27; 13:16-17; 16:13-20), and he often spoke of his own humiliating death (16:21; 17:22-23; 20:18-19; 26:2). Jesus did not come with the flash and spark of someone in need of attention, nor did he make his status and calling glowingly obvious. Instead, he chose the path of humility, privacy, and revelation recognized by faith.<\/p>\n<p>In the end, Jesus was vindicated: He won arguments (Luke 20:20-40), exorcized demons (Matt 8:28-34), healed wondrously (Matt 9:1-8), raised people from the dead (Matt 9:18-26), and ultimately rose from the dead himself (Matt 28:1-10). His divisive but effective ministry inaugurated God’s Kingdom (Matt 11:2-6).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 3:8; 8:14-15; 28:12-13; 59:9-10; Jer 13:16; 20:11; 31:7-9; 50:31-32; Hos 4:4-6; 5:5; 14:9; Mal 2:7-9; Matt 11:5-6; 13:54-58; 17:27; 21:42-46; Mark 6:3; Luke 20:17-19; John 6:60-69; Rom 9:30-33; 11:7-12; 14:12-13, 20-21; 1 Cor 1:21-23; 8:9-13; 10:31–11:1; 2 Cor 6:3; Gal 5:11; 1 Pet 2:5-8; 1 Jn 2:10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Stone the Builders Rejected<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus continually offended the Jewish leaders and those who followed them. Though he was born in David’s line, his mother’s reputation was tainted (Matt 1:18-25). Jesus himself was from Nazareth (Matt 2:23), a very unprestigious place (see Matt 13:53-58). His ministry was in Galilee, a backwater distant from official Judaism (see Matt 4:12-16). His closest associate was the inexplicable John, who baptized people and prophetically castigated the political leaders (Matt 11:2-19; 14:3-12). Jesus was evasive in his dialogues (e.g., Matt 13:10-15; 17:24-27; 19:3-12; 21:23-27), he refused to produce signs proving his messianic claims (12:38-42; 16:1-4), and he was accompanied by outcasts of society (9:9-13; 11:16-19). He offended Jewish sensibilities, disregarded Jewish traditions (5:17-20; 9:14-17; 12:1-14; 15:1-20; 21:12-13), and purposefully avoided recognition (8:4; 12:15-21). His revelations were reserved for the unlikely (11:25-27; 13:16-17; 16:13-20), and he often spoke of his own humiliating death (16:21; 17:22-23; 20:18-19; 26:2). Jesus did not come with the flash and spark of someone in need of attention, nor did he make his status and calling glowingly obvious. Instead, he chose the path of humility, privacy, and revelation recognized by faith.<\/p>\n<p>In the end, Jesus was vindicated: He won arguments (Luke 20:20-40), exorcized demons (Matt 8:28-34), healed wondrously (Matt 9:1-8), raised people from the dead (Matt 9:18-26), and ultimately rose from the dead himself (Matt 28:1-10). His divisive but effective ministry inaugurated God’s Kingdom (Matt 11:2-6).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 3:8; 8:14-15; 28:12-13; 59:9-10; Jer 13:16; 20:11; 31:7-9; 50:31-32; Hos 4:4-6; 5:5; 14:9; Mal 2:7-9; Matt 11:5-6; 13:54-58; 17:27; 21:42-46; Mark 6:3; Luke 20:17-19; John 6:60-69; Rom 9:30-33; 11:7-12; 14:12-13, 20-21; 1 Cor 1:21-23; 8:9-13; 10:31–11:1; 2 Cor 6:3; Gal 5:11; 1 Pet 2:5-8; 1 Jn 2:10<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Stone the Builders Rejected Jesus continually offended the Jewish leaders and those who followed them. Though he was born in David’s line, his mother’s reputation was tainted (Matt 1:18-25). Jesus himself was from Nazareth (Matt 2:23), a very unprestigious place (see Matt 13:53-58). His ministry was in Galilee, a backwater distant from official Judaism (see Matt 4:12-16). His closest associate was the inexplicable John, who baptized people and prophetically castigated the political leader...","summary_en":"The Stone the Builders Rejected Jesus continually offended the Jewish leaders and those who followed them. Though he was born in David’s line, his mother’s reputation was tainted (Matt 1:18-25). Jesus himself was from Nazareth (Matt 2:23), a very unprestigious place (see Matt 13:53-58). His ministry was in Galilee, a backwater distant from official Judaism (see Matt 4:12-16). His closest associate was the inexplicable John, who baptized people and prophetically castigated the political leader...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":87327,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Human Sexuality","title_en":"Human Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\n<p>Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\n<p>Although sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\n<p>Human sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\n<p>Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\n<p>Although sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\n<p>Human sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","summary_en":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":91088,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality","title_en":"Marriage and Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\n<p>In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>Although this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\n<p>The New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\n<p>In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>Although this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\n<p>The New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","summary_en":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":92759,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Stone the Builders Rejected","title_en":"The Stone the Builders Rejected","content_ro":"<h3>The Stone the Builders Rejected<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus continually offended the Jewish leaders and those who followed them. Though he was born in David’s line, his mother’s reputation was tainted (Matt 1:18-25). Jesus himself was from Nazareth (Matt 2:23), a very unprestigious place (see Matt 13:53-58). His ministry was in Galilee, a backwater distant from official Judaism (see Matt 4:12-16). His closest associate was the inexplicable John, who baptized people and prophetically castigated the political leaders (Matt 11:2-19; 14:3-12). Jesus was evasive in his dialogues (e.g., Matt 13:10-15; 17:24-27; 19:3-12; 21:23-27), he refused to produce signs proving his messianic claims (12:38-42; 16:1-4), and he was accompanied by outcasts of society (9:9-13; 11:16-19). He offended Jewish sensibilities, disregarded Jewish traditions (5:17-20; 9:14-17; 12:1-14; 15:1-20; 21:12-13), and purposefully avoided recognition (8:4; 12:15-21). His revelations were reserved for the unlikely (11:25-27; 13:16-17; 16:13-20), and he often spoke of his own humiliating death (16:21; 17:22-23; 20:18-19; 26:2). Jesus did not come with the flash and spark of someone in need of attention, nor did he make his status and calling glowingly obvious. Instead, he chose the path of humility, privacy, and revelation recognized by faith.<\/p>\n<p>In the end, Jesus was vindicated: He won arguments (Luke 20:20-40), exorcized demons (Matt 8:28-34), healed wondrously (Matt 9:1-8), raised people from the dead (Matt 9:18-26), and ultimately rose from the dead himself (Matt 28:1-10). His divisive but effective ministry inaugurated God’s Kingdom (Matt 11:2-6).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 3:8; 8:14-15; 28:12-13; 59:9-10; Jer 13:16; 20:11; 31:7-9; 50:31-32; Hos 4:4-6; 5:5; 14:9; Mal 2:7-9; Matt 11:5-6; 13:54-58; 17:27; 21:42-46; Mark 6:3; Luke 20:17-19; John 6:60-69; Rom 9:30-33; 11:7-12; 14:12-13, 20-21; 1 Cor 1:21-23; 8:9-13; 10:31–11:1; 2 Cor 6:3; Gal 5:11; 1 Pet 2:5-8; 1 Jn 2:10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Stone the Builders Rejected<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus continually offended the Jewish leaders and those who followed them. Though he was born in David’s line, his mother’s reputation was tainted (Matt 1:18-25). Jesus himself was from Nazareth (Matt 2:23), a very unprestigious place (see Matt 13:53-58). His ministry was in Galilee, a backwater distant from official Judaism (see Matt 4:12-16). His closest associate was the inexplicable John, who baptized people and prophetically castigated the political leaders (Matt 11:2-19; 14:3-12). Jesus was evasive in his dialogues (e.g., Matt 13:10-15; 17:24-27; 19:3-12; 21:23-27), he refused to produce signs proving his messianic claims (12:38-42; 16:1-4), and he was accompanied by outcasts of society (9:9-13; 11:16-19). He offended Jewish sensibilities, disregarded Jewish traditions (5:17-20; 9:14-17; 12:1-14; 15:1-20; 21:12-13), and purposefully avoided recognition (8:4; 12:15-21). His revelations were reserved for the unlikely (11:25-27; 13:16-17; 16:13-20), and he often spoke of his own humiliating death (16:21; 17:22-23; 20:18-19; 26:2). Jesus did not come with the flash and spark of someone in need of attention, nor did he make his status and calling glowingly obvious. Instead, he chose the path of humility, privacy, and revelation recognized by faith.<\/p>\n<p>In the end, Jesus was vindicated: He won arguments (Luke 20:20-40), exorcized demons (Matt 8:28-34), healed wondrously (Matt 9:1-8), raised people from the dead (Matt 9:18-26), and ultimately rose from the dead himself (Matt 28:1-10). His divisive but effective ministry inaugurated God’s Kingdom (Matt 11:2-6).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 3:8; 8:14-15; 28:12-13; 59:9-10; Jer 13:16; 20:11; 31:7-9; 50:31-32; Hos 4:4-6; 5:5; 14:9; Mal 2:7-9; Matt 11:5-6; 13:54-58; 17:27; 21:42-46; Mark 6:3; Luke 20:17-19; John 6:60-69; Rom 9:30-33; 11:7-12; 14:12-13, 20-21; 1 Cor 1:21-23; 8:9-13; 10:31–11:1; 2 Cor 6:3; Gal 5:11; 1 Pet 2:5-8; 1 Jn 2:10<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Stone the Builders Rejected Jesus continually offended the Jewish leaders and those who followed them. Though he was born in David’s line, his mother’s reputation was tainted (Matt 1:18-25). Jesus himself was from Nazareth (Matt 2:23), a very unprestigious place (see Matt 13:53-58). His ministry was in Galilee, a backwater distant from official Judaism (see Matt 4:12-16). His closest associate was the inexplicable John, who baptized people and prophetically castigated the political leader...","summary_en":"The Stone the Builders Rejected Jesus continually offended the Jewish leaders and those who followed them. Though he was born in David’s line, his mother’s reputation was tainted (Matt 1:18-25). Jesus himself was from Nazareth (Matt 2:23), a very unprestigious place (see Matt 13:53-58). His ministry was in Galilee, a backwater distant from official Judaism (see Matt 4:12-16). His closest associate was the inexplicable John, who baptized people and prophetically castigated the political leader...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":114953,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Human Sexuality","title_en":"Human Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\n<p>Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\n<p>Although sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\n<p>Human sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\n<p>Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\n<p>Although sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\n<p>Human sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","summary_en":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":118714,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality","title_en":"Marriage and Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\n<p>In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>Although this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\n<p>The New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\n<p>In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>Although this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\n<p>The New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","summary_en":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":120385,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Stone the Builders Rejected","title_en":"The Stone the Builders Rejected","content_ro":"<h3>The Stone the Builders Rejected<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus continually offended the Jewish leaders and those who followed them. Though he was born in David’s line, his mother’s reputation was tainted (Matt 1:18-25). Jesus himself was from Nazareth (Matt 2:23), a very unprestigious place (see Matt 13:53-58). His ministry was in Galilee, a backwater distant from official Judaism (see Matt 4:12-16). His closest associate was the inexplicable John, who baptized people and prophetically castigated the political leaders (Matt 11:2-19; 14:3-12). Jesus was evasive in his dialogues (e.g., Matt 13:10-15; 17:24-27; 19:3-12; 21:23-27), he refused to produce signs proving his messianic claims (12:38-42; 16:1-4), and he was accompanied by outcasts of society (9:9-13; 11:16-19). He offended Jewish sensibilities, disregarded Jewish traditions (5:17-20; 9:14-17; 12:1-14; 15:1-20; 21:12-13), and purposefully avoided recognition (8:4; 12:15-21). His revelations were reserved for the unlikely (11:25-27; 13:16-17; 16:13-20), and he often spoke of his own humiliating death (16:21; 17:22-23; 20:18-19; 26:2). Jesus did not come with the flash and spark of someone in need of attention, nor did he make his status and calling glowingly obvious. Instead, he chose the path of humility, privacy, and revelation recognized by faith.<\/p>\n<p>In the end, Jesus was vindicated: He won arguments (Luke 20:20-40), exorcized demons (Matt 8:28-34), healed wondrously (Matt 9:1-8), raised people from the dead (Matt 9:18-26), and ultimately rose from the dead himself (Matt 28:1-10). His divisive but effective ministry inaugurated God’s Kingdom (Matt 11:2-6).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 3:8; 8:14-15; 28:12-13; 59:9-10; Jer 13:16; 20:11; 31:7-9; 50:31-32; Hos 4:4-6; 5:5; 14:9; Mal 2:7-9; Matt 11:5-6; 13:54-58; 17:27; 21:42-46; Mark 6:3; Luke 20:17-19; John 6:60-69; Rom 9:30-33; 11:7-12; 14:12-13, 20-21; 1 Cor 1:21-23; 8:9-13; 10:31–11:1; 2 Cor 6:3; Gal 5:11; 1 Pet 2:5-8; 1 Jn 2:10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Stone the Builders Rejected<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus continually offended the Jewish leaders and those who followed them. Though he was born in David’s line, his mother’s reputation was tainted (Matt 1:18-25). Jesus himself was from Nazareth (Matt 2:23), a very unprestigious place (see Matt 13:53-58). His ministry was in Galilee, a backwater distant from official Judaism (see Matt 4:12-16). His closest associate was the inexplicable John, who baptized people and prophetically castigated the political leaders (Matt 11:2-19; 14:3-12). Jesus was evasive in his dialogues (e.g., Matt 13:10-15; 17:24-27; 19:3-12; 21:23-27), he refused to produce signs proving his messianic claims (12:38-42; 16:1-4), and he was accompanied by outcasts of society (9:9-13; 11:16-19). He offended Jewish sensibilities, disregarded Jewish traditions (5:17-20; 9:14-17; 12:1-14; 15:1-20; 21:12-13), and purposefully avoided recognition (8:4; 12:15-21). His revelations were reserved for the unlikely (11:25-27; 13:16-17; 16:13-20), and he often spoke of his own humiliating death (16:21; 17:22-23; 20:18-19; 26:2). Jesus did not come with the flash and spark of someone in need of attention, nor did he make his status and calling glowingly obvious. Instead, he chose the path of humility, privacy, and revelation recognized by faith.<\/p>\n<p>In the end, Jesus was vindicated: He won arguments (Luke 20:20-40), exorcized demons (Matt 8:28-34), healed wondrously (Matt 9:1-8), raised people from the dead (Matt 9:18-26), and ultimately rose from the dead himself (Matt 28:1-10). His divisive but effective ministry inaugurated God’s Kingdom (Matt 11:2-6).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 3:8; 8:14-15; 28:12-13; 59:9-10; Jer 13:16; 20:11; 31:7-9; 50:31-32; Hos 4:4-6; 5:5; 14:9; Mal 2:7-9; Matt 11:5-6; 13:54-58; 17:27; 21:42-46; Mark 6:3; Luke 20:17-19; John 6:60-69; Rom 9:30-33; 11:7-12; 14:12-13, 20-21; 1 Cor 1:21-23; 8:9-13; 10:31–11:1; 2 Cor 6:3; Gal 5:11; 1 Pet 2:5-8; 1 Jn 2:10<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Stone the Builders Rejected Jesus continually offended the Jewish leaders and those who followed them. Though he was born in David’s line, his mother’s reputation was tainted (Matt 1:18-25). Jesus himself was from Nazareth (Matt 2:23), a very unprestigious place (see Matt 13:53-58). His ministry was in Galilee, a backwater distant from official Judaism (see Matt 4:12-16). His closest associate was the inexplicable John, who baptized people and prophetically castigated the political leader...","summary_en":"The Stone the Builders Rejected Jesus continually offended the Jewish leaders and those who followed them. Though he was born in David’s line, his mother’s reputation was tainted (Matt 1:18-25). Jesus himself was from Nazareth (Matt 2:23), a very unprestigious place (see Matt 13:53-58). His ministry was in Galilee, a backwater distant from official Judaism (see Matt 4:12-16). His closest associate was the inexplicable John, who baptized people and prophetically castigated the political leader...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":142579,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Human Sexuality","title_en":"Human Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\n<p>Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\n<p>Although sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\n<p>Human sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\n<p>Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\n<p>Although sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\n<p>Human sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","summary_en":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":146340,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality","title_en":"Marriage and Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\n<p>In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>Although this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\n<p>The New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\n<p>In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>Although this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\n<p>The New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","summary_en":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148011,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Stone the Builders Rejected","title_en":"The Stone the Builders Rejected","content_ro":"<h3>The Stone the Builders Rejected<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus continually offended the Jewish leaders and those who followed them. Though he was born in David’s line, his mother’s reputation was tainted (Matt 1:18-25). Jesus himself was from Nazareth (Matt 2:23), a very unprestigious place (see Matt 13:53-58). His ministry was in Galilee, a backwater distant from official Judaism (see Matt 4:12-16). His closest associate was the inexplicable John, who baptized people and prophetically castigated the political leaders (Matt 11:2-19; 14:3-12). Jesus was evasive in his dialogues (e.g., Matt 13:10-15; 17:24-27; 19:3-12; 21:23-27), he refused to produce signs proving his messianic claims (12:38-42; 16:1-4), and he was accompanied by outcasts of society (9:9-13; 11:16-19). He offended Jewish sensibilities, disregarded Jewish traditions (5:17-20; 9:14-17; 12:1-14; 15:1-20; 21:12-13), and purposefully avoided recognition (8:4; 12:15-21). His revelations were reserved for the unlikely (11:25-27; 13:16-17; 16:13-20), and he often spoke of his own humiliating death (16:21; 17:22-23; 20:18-19; 26:2). Jesus did not come with the flash and spark of someone in need of attention, nor did he make his status and calling glowingly obvious. Instead, he chose the path of humility, privacy, and revelation recognized by faith.<\/p>\n<p>In the end, Jesus was vindicated: He won arguments (Luke 20:20-40), exorcized demons (Matt 8:28-34), healed wondrously (Matt 9:1-8), raised people from the dead (Matt 9:18-26), and ultimately rose from the dead himself (Matt 28:1-10). His divisive but effective ministry inaugurated God’s Kingdom (Matt 11:2-6).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 3:8; 8:14-15; 28:12-13; 59:9-10; Jer 13:16; 20:11; 31:7-9; 50:31-32; Hos 4:4-6; 5:5; 14:9; Mal 2:7-9; Matt 11:5-6; 13:54-58; 17:27; 21:42-46; Mark 6:3; Luke 20:17-19; John 6:60-69; Rom 9:30-33; 11:7-12; 14:12-13, 20-21; 1 Cor 1:21-23; 8:9-13; 10:31–11:1; 2 Cor 6:3; Gal 5:11; 1 Pet 2:5-8; 1 Jn 2:10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Stone the Builders Rejected<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus continually offended the Jewish leaders and those who followed them. Though he was born in David’s line, his mother’s reputation was tainted (Matt 1:18-25). Jesus himself was from Nazareth (Matt 2:23), a very unprestigious place (see Matt 13:53-58). His ministry was in Galilee, a backwater distant from official Judaism (see Matt 4:12-16). His closest associate was the inexplicable John, who baptized people and prophetically castigated the political leaders (Matt 11:2-19; 14:3-12). Jesus was evasive in his dialogues (e.g., Matt 13:10-15; 17:24-27; 19:3-12; 21:23-27), he refused to produce signs proving his messianic claims (12:38-42; 16:1-4), and he was accompanied by outcasts of society (9:9-13; 11:16-19). He offended Jewish sensibilities, disregarded Jewish traditions (5:17-20; 9:14-17; 12:1-14; 15:1-20; 21:12-13), and purposefully avoided recognition (8:4; 12:15-21). His revelations were reserved for the unlikely (11:25-27; 13:16-17; 16:13-20), and he often spoke of his own humiliating death (16:21; 17:22-23; 20:18-19; 26:2). Jesus did not come with the flash and spark of someone in need of attention, nor did he make his status and calling glowingly obvious. Instead, he chose the path of humility, privacy, and revelation recognized by faith.<\/p>\n<p>In the end, Jesus was vindicated: He won arguments (Luke 20:20-40), exorcized demons (Matt 8:28-34), healed wondrously (Matt 9:1-8), raised people from the dead (Matt 9:18-26), and ultimately rose from the dead himself (Matt 28:1-10). His divisive but effective ministry inaugurated God’s Kingdom (Matt 11:2-6).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 3:8; 8:14-15; 28:12-13; 59:9-10; Jer 13:16; 20:11; 31:7-9; 50:31-32; Hos 4:4-6; 5:5; 14:9; Mal 2:7-9; Matt 11:5-6; 13:54-58; 17:27; 21:42-46; Mark 6:3; Luke 20:17-19; John 6:60-69; Rom 9:30-33; 11:7-12; 14:12-13, 20-21; 1 Cor 1:21-23; 8:9-13; 10:31–11:1; 2 Cor 6:3; Gal 5:11; 1 Pet 2:5-8; 1 Jn 2:10<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Stone the Builders Rejected Jesus continually offended the Jewish leaders and those who followed them. Though he was born in David’s line, his mother’s reputation was tainted (Matt 1:18-25). Jesus himself was from Nazareth (Matt 2:23), a very unprestigious place (see Matt 13:53-58). His ministry was in Galilee, a backwater distant from official Judaism (see Matt 4:12-16). His closest associate was the inexplicable John, who baptized people and prophetically castigated the political leader...","summary_en":"The Stone the Builders Rejected Jesus continually offended the Jewish leaders and those who followed them. Though he was born in David’s line, his mother’s reputation was tainted (Matt 1:18-25). Jesus himself was from Nazareth (Matt 2:23), a very unprestigious place (see Matt 13:53-58). His ministry was in Galilee, a backwater distant from official Judaism (see Matt 4:12-16). His closest associate was the inexplicable John, who baptized people and prophetically castigated the political leader...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"4":[{"id":40024,"type":"textbox","type_label":"Notă explicativă","type_icon":"💡","type_color":"#8b5cf6","title_ro":"Did Jesus Side with Hillel or Shammai?","title_en":"Jesus Side with Hillel or Shammai?, Did","content_ro":"<h3>Did Jesus Side with Hillel or Shammai?<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>According to Matthew 19:3, it is said that some Pharisees approached Jesus and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any and every reason?” They wanted to see whether he would side with the school of Shammai or the school of Hillel. The Shammai school would allow divorce only for immorality, while the school of Hillel allowed a husband to divorce his wife for a variety of lesser reasons. Jesus’ response indicated that he did not affirm any kind of divorce, unless one partner had commited adultery (Mt 19:4-9).<\/p><\/blockquote>","content_en":"<h3>Did Jesus Side with Hillel or Shammai?<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>According to Matthew 19:3, it is said that some Pharisees approached Jesus and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any and every reason?” They wanted to see whether he would side with the school of Shammai or the school of Hillel. The Shammai school would allow divorce only for immorality, while the school of Hillel allowed a husband to divorce his wife for a variety of lesser reasons. Jesus’ response indicated that he did not affirm any kind of divorce, unless one partner had commited adultery (Mt 19:4-9).<\/p><\/blockquote>","summary_ro":"Did Jesus Side with Hillel or Shammai? According to Matthew 19:3, it is said that some Pharisees approached Jesus and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any and every reason?” They wanted to see whether he would side with the school of Shammai or the school of Hillel. The Shammai school would allow divorce only for immorality, while the school of Hillel allowed a husband to divorce his wife for a variety of lesser reasons. Jesus’ response indicated that he did not a...","summary_en":"Did Jesus Side with Hillel or Shammai? According to Matthew 19:3, it is said that some Pharisees approached Jesus and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any and every reason?” They wanted to see whether he would side with the school of Shammai or the school of Hillel. The Shammai school would allow divorce only for immorality, while the school of Hillel allowed a husband to divorce his wife for a variety of lesser reasons. Jesus’ response indicated that he did not a...","source":"Textboxes\/Textboxes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":54868,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:4","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:4-5<\/strong> The Pharisees were not considering <em>all<\/em> of God’s word. The Creator had made marriage as a permanent union (see Gen 2:18-25; see also 1 Cor 7:10-16).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:4-5<\/strong> The Pharisees were not considering <em>all<\/em> of God’s word. The Creator had made marriage as a permanent union (see Gen 2:18-25; see also 1 Cor 7:10-16).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:4-5 The Pharisees were not considering all of God’s word. The Creator had made marriage as a permanent union (see Gen 2:18-25; see also 1 Cor 7:10-16).","summary_en":"19:4-5 The Pharisees were not considering all of God’s word. The Creator had made marriage as a permanent union (see Gen 2:18-25; see also 1 Cor 7:10-16).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82494,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:4","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:4-5<\/strong> The Pharisees were not considering <em>all<\/em> of God’s word. The Creator had made marriage as a permanent union (see Gen 2:18-25; see also 1 Cor 7:10-16).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:4-5<\/strong> The Pharisees were not considering <em>all<\/em> of God’s word. The Creator had made marriage as a permanent union (see Gen 2:18-25; see also 1 Cor 7:10-16).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:4-5 The Pharisees were not considering all of God’s word. The Creator had made marriage as a permanent union (see Gen 2:18-25; see also 1 Cor 7:10-16).","summary_en":"19:4-5 The Pharisees were not considering all of God’s word. The Creator had made marriage as a permanent union (see Gen 2:18-25; see also 1 Cor 7:10-16).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110120,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:4","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:4-5<\/strong> The Pharisees were not considering <em>all<\/em> of God’s word. The Creator had made marriage as a permanent union (see Gen 2:18-25; see also 1 Cor 7:10-16).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:4-5<\/strong> The Pharisees were not considering <em>all<\/em> of God’s word. The Creator had made marriage as a permanent union (see Gen 2:18-25; see also 1 Cor 7:10-16).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:4-5 The Pharisees were not considering all of God’s word. The Creator had made marriage as a permanent union (see Gen 2:18-25; see also 1 Cor 7:10-16).","summary_en":"19:4-5 The Pharisees were not considering all of God’s word. The Creator had made marriage as a permanent union (see Gen 2:18-25; see also 1 Cor 7:10-16).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":137746,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:4","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:4-5<\/strong> The Pharisees were not considering <em>all<\/em> of God’s word. The Creator had made marriage as a permanent union (see Gen 2:18-25; see also 1 Cor 7:10-16).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:4-5<\/strong> The Pharisees were not considering <em>all<\/em> of God’s word. The Creator had made marriage as a permanent union (see Gen 2:18-25; see also 1 Cor 7:10-16).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:4-5 The Pharisees were not considering all of God’s word. The Creator had made marriage as a permanent union (see Gen 2:18-25; see also 1 Cor 7:10-16).","summary_en":"19:4-5 The Pharisees were not considering all of God’s word. The Creator had made marriage as a permanent union (see Gen 2:18-25; see also 1 Cor 7:10-16).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":63470,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality","title_en":"Marriage and Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\n<p>In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>Although this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\n<p>The New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\n<p>In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>Although this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\n<p>The New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","summary_en":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":91096,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality","title_en":"Marriage and Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\n<p>In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>Although this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\n<p>The New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\n<p>In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>Although this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\n<p>The New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","summary_en":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":118722,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality","title_en":"Marriage and Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\n<p>In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>Although this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\n<p>The New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\n<p>In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>Although this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\n<p>The New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","summary_en":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":146348,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality","title_en":"Marriage and Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\n<p>In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>Although this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\n<p>The New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\n<p>From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\n<p>In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\n<p>Although this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\n<p>The New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","summary_en":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"5":[{"id":4837,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of the Old Testament in the New Testament Bible*, Quotations","title_en":"of the Old Testament in the New Testament Bible*, Quotations","content_ro":"<h3>BIBLE*, Q<span>uotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers.<\/p>\n<p>The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotations in distinctive print, this may not be easily seen, for the NT writers often weave the OT words into their own without indicating they are borrowing from the OT. There are over 400 passages of the OT that are explicitly cited in the NT. Almost half of these are introduced by a statement like “Scripture says” to draw attention to the fact that the authority and thought of the OT is being implemented. For the others, however, the OT words are woven into the fabric of the author’s own statement.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the over 400 passages cited explicitly, there are well over 1,000 places where there is an allusion to an OT text, event, or person. The difference between a quotation and an allusion is sometimes debated for particular texts, but usually the distinction is that in a quotation the author consciously uses the words of an OT passage, whereas with an allusion he has the texts in mind but is not consciously trying to use the words.<\/p>\n<p>Quotations are easy to identify if there is an introductory formula such as “the Scripture says” (as in Rom 10:11; cf. Is 28:16). Where there is no introductory formula, it is easy to overlook explicit quotations (Rom 10:13; cf. Jl 2:32). The allusions are, of course, harder still to recognize, but they often provide the key to interpretation. For example, John 1:14-18—with its mention of glory, grace and truth, Moses, and the fact that no one has seen God—is much more easily and profoundly understood when read in connection with Exodus 33:17–34:8. In the Exodus passage the glory of God and his grace and truth are revealed to Moses. The author was showing that a much more complete revelation of God was given in Jesus than was given Moses in the account recorded in Exodus.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, significant light is shed on many NT passages from OT passages with similar ideas and words even where the NT author may not have been consciously alluding to those texts (e.g. Mt 16:19; Is 22:22). What was behind the author’s thinking is not certain, but in such cases the NT reflects the thinking, the culture, and language of the OT period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DistributionofOldTestamentQuotations\">Distribution of Old Testament Quotations<\/p>\n<p>The books of the NT that show the most dependence on the OT are Matthew, John, Romans, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation. Such a statement can be misleading, however, because the writers have different methods.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew quotes or consciously reflects the wording of OT passages about 62 times, almost half of which have an introductory formula. The book of Revelation, on the other hand, never quotes the OT and never has an introductory formula but is probably more dependent on the OT than any other NT book. The book of Hebrews quotes or consciously reflects the OT about 59 times, again half of which have an introductory formula, but the Gospel of John does so only 18 times, nearly always with an introductory formula. However, the allusions to the OT are present on virtually every page of John’s Gospel, so much so that some scholars have argued that he has modeled his account on the exodus narrative, the Jewish feasts, or OT persons and images. Paul’s Letter to the Romans uses the OT 54 times (about three-fourths of which have introductory formulas), but nowhere else so frequently (e.g., 1 Cor 16 times, Gal 11 times, Phil one time, 1 Thes one time).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the indication that Philippians and 1 Thessalonians use the OT only once each, some other books make explicit use of the OT rarely or never. Colossians, Titus, Philemon, and the Johannine letters do not use the OT at all; 2 Timothy and Jude use the OT only once; while 2 Peter and 1 Timothy make use of it twice.<\/p>\n<p>The important point is to realize that the OT is used most frequently in circumstances where the audience is familiar with the OT or where the OT is essential for describing the events relating to Christ and the church. The books using the OT most frequently (Mt, Jn, Rom, Heb, 1 Pt, Rv) either stem from or are addressed to a Jewish context or, as in the case of Romans and John, deal specifically with the relation of Jews and Christians. The Gospels make rather extensive use of the OT because the language of the OT is necessary to convey the identity and importance of Jesus in the purposes of God. Similarly 1 Peter uses the OT frequently because the author is trying to convey to his persecuted audience that they are the people of God and the inheritors of the promises of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DifficultiesinInterpretation\">Difficulties in Interpretation<\/p>\n<p>Often when people think of quotations of the OT in the NT they think only in terms of prophecy. Some have been guilty of counting up the OT statements that the NT applies to Christ and the church and then claiming these OT texts as predictions that prove Jesus is the Messiah. Such a procedure is filled with problems because it is too simplistic and does not do justice to either the OT or to the way the NT uses it. Of course, the early church used the OT to show that Jesus fulfilled the promises of God and did God’s work, but the use the church made of the OT was quite varied and much of it cannot be classified as predictive prophecy. Prophecy itself is too complex to be limited to predictive thinking.<\/p>\n<p>Some of the most obvious examples of the difficulties appear in Matthew’s Gospel, although they are by no means confined there. Matthew 2:15—“Out of Egypt I called my son”—is a quotation of Hosea 11:1, but in Hosea these words do not refer to the Messiah. They refer to the nation of Israel. Similarly Matthew 2:18 quotes Jeremiah 31:15 (“A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more,” <span>niv<\/span>) as fulfilled in the slaughter of the innocent babies in Bethlehem, but in Jeremiah the weeping is over the destruction of Jerusalem. John 12:40 views Isaiah 6:10 as fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry, but this verse deals with the call of Isaiah and is not a prediction concerning the ministry of the Messiah. The examples could be multiplied but these should be sufficient to illustrate the problem. For this reason the NT writers have often been accused of twisting the Scriptures, but this charge is as simplistic as the thought that all prophecy is predictive and in fact springs from the same error. Therefore, any attempt to understand the use of the OT in the NT will have to deal with the variety of ways in which the OT is used and with the methods employed by the NT writers.<\/p>\n<p>There are other difficulties that are encountered as well. Sometimes the NT writer will indicate that some fact related to Christ is a fulfillment of the OT but the explicit text that he had in mind cannot be identified. For example, John 7:38 introduces the words “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water” with the statement “as Scripture has said.” No OT text reads this way. Possibly the allusion is to the rock that provided water in the wilderness (Ex 17:1), or to the waters that flowed from the new temple (Zec 14:8) or, more generally, it may be a reference to Isaiah 58:11. Similarly, the difficulty in determining the OT text behind the prophecy that Christ will be called a Nazarene (Mt 2:23) is notorious. Probably the reference is to Isaiah 11:1 and the Hebrew word there translated as “branch,” but the connection is not easily made and is not certain. A third example of this kind of difficulty is in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where Paul indicates that women should be in submission just as the Law says, but there is no OT text expressing this idea. His statement in probably to be understood as a summary rather than a quotation or allusion. Similarly on a few occasions an OT text is seemingly attributed to the wrong OT book. In Mark 1:2-3 an OT quotation is attributed to Isaiah but the quotation is really a conflation (or mixing) of Exodus 23:20, Malachi 3:1, and Isaiah 40:3. Matthew 27:9-10 quotes a passage that is said to be from Jeremiah, when really it is dependent on Zechariah 11:13 and might best be described as a summary of Zechariah 11:12-13, with certain words included from Jeremiah 32:6-9. These two examples do not create a major problem, however, for the determination of the origin of the words may be due to their use in collections of quotations from various prophets, in which case the more prominent prophets would be used to designate origin.<\/p>\n<p>The wording of the quotations of the OT text does not always conform to the modern form of the OT. Just as today there are numerous translations of the Bible, when the NT was being written there were various forms of the OT text. With regard to the Hebrew text (for the OT was written mostly in Hebrew), there were different traditions. Such differences in the Hebrew traditions would have been relatively small. Because of the increasing importance of Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity and of Greek after the conquests of Alexander the Great, the OT was also known and used in both these languages when the NT was being written. In fact, the Jews found it necessary in their synagogue services after reading the Hebrew OT to paraphrase the reading in Aramaic so that all could understand. These paraphrases were later written down and are known as Targums. The Greek translation of the OT that stems from the third century <span>BC<\/span> is known as the Septuagint, but there were also other Greek translations in use. This being the case, the wording of a NT quotation is not identical in every detail to the text of the Hebrew OT.<\/p>\n<p>Added to the fact that there were various forms of the text known in first-century <span>AD<\/span> Palestine is the complicating factor that NT writers often did not intend to quote the OT exactly. The use of formal quotation marks is a modern device, and ancient writers were not so taken by technical precision. They were more concerned with the intention of a text and consequently might copy or quote it verbatim, quote it from memory, use or adapt part of a verse, or even change certain words as they borrowed the verse to express their points. (The NT writers often use the OT words describing God’s actions in the past to explain what he has done in their time.) The importance of any differences between the NT quotation and the OT depends on the use to which the quotation is put and the degree to which the use is dependent on textual differences.<\/p>\n<p>Some examples should illustrate the nature of these difficulties. Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18. Whereas the Hebrew and Septuagint read, “You ascended to the heights, you lead captivity captive, you received gifts among mankind,” Ephesians records the verse as “After he ascended into the heights, <em>he<\/em> led captivity captive; he <em>gave<\/em> gifts to men.” Paul is stressing that Christ has given grace to people for ministry. He has either adapted the wording of the OT to make his point or he quoted a variant reading, <em>“he gave<\/em> gifts.” Some versions do have this reading. In fact, the Targum understands this verse as Moses giving the words of the law to the children of men, and Paul may well be adapting this understanding to the new revelation that has come in Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, but there are distinct differences between the Hebrew text and the wording in Matthew. The Hebrew reads, “Behold the young woman will become pregnant and will bear a son and you will call his name Immanuel,” whereas Matthew’s text records “Behold, the <em>virgin<\/em> will become pregnant and will bear a son, and <em>they<\/em> will call his name Immanuel.” The Septuagint does have the specific word “virgin,” like Matthew, but is not the source of Matthew’s quotation since other differences exist. Some have argued that the change from “you will call” to “they will call” was made by Matthew when he applied the words to Jesus. However, there are several traditions known for this part of the quotation and partial support for the reading in Matthew is provided by the text of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\n<p>Romans 11:26-27 is a conflation of Isaiah 59:20-21 and part of Isaiah 27:9, but there are important differences. One of these is that the OT has “the redeemer will come to Zion,” whereas Romans has “the deliverer will come <em>from<\/em> Zion.” The change to “from Zion” could indicate that Paul had a different textual tradition, could be the result of an intentional change by Paul, or more probably, could reflect the wording of Psalm 14:7.<\/p>\n<p>An awareness of the difficulties involved in the quotations of the OT by the NT writers will prohibit a simplistic approach and will prevent hasty conclusions. Care to ask not only which text was used but also which form of the text was used and how is obviously essential in any serious study. In addition it is necessary to allow for the possibility that the NT writers knew forms of a text that are now lost.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMethodsoftheNewTestamentWriters\">The Methods of the New Testament Writers<\/p>\n<p>The methods used by the NT writers were not unique to them. Many of these methods were also employed in first-century Judaism. In fact, both the technique used in quoting and the understanding of the OT text itself in many cases are paralleled in Judaism. For example, from the standpoint of technique used in quoting, the same kinds of formula introductions are used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the rabbinic writings, and elsewhere. The rabbinic technique of “pearl stringing,” that is, of applying verses from various parts of the OT (the Law, the Prophets, the Writings) to a subject, can be seen especially in Paul’s writings (note Rom 9:12-19 or 11:8-10). Somewhat related is the practice of using quotations that all contain a key word or key words (note 1 Pt 2:6-8, which draws together quotations using the word “stone,” or Rom 15:9-12, which joins OT verses referring to the “nations”).<\/p>\n<p>The methods used in the NT to interpret an OT text are also displayed in Judaism. Some passages interpret the OT “literally,” such as Jesus’ replies during temptation (see the quotations of Dt 8:3; 6:16; 6:13; in Mt 4:3-10), his teachings on marriage based on Genesis 2:24 (Mt 19:5), or Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom 1:17) or Genesis 15:6 (Rom 4:3-9). Many such examples could be given. With regard to prophecy, some of these statements are fulfilled in a “literal” or “direct” way in keeping with the intention of the OT (e.g., Mi 5:2, Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah; Mt 2:4-6). Jeremiah 31:31-34, the promise of the new covenant, is viewed as directly fulfilled in Christ (Heb 8:7-13). The prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 concerning the pouring out of the Spirit of the Lord is directly fulfilled in the Pentecost event (Acts 2:17-21), but the changing of the sun to darkness and the moon to blood are certainly not understood literally in connection with this event.<\/p>\n<p>A different method of interpretation is based on the concept of <em>corporate solidarity.<\/em> This technical expression is an attempt to convey the idea that the individuals among God’s people are not merely individuals; they are part of a larger whole. Consequently, what is said about the individual can apply to the whole and vice versa. This is the reason the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah is seen both as the nation (44:1) and as an individual (52:13–53:12). Also the king is sometimes viewed as representative of the nation. The easiest places to see the concept of corporate solidarity are in the effect of the sin of Achan on all the people (Jos 7) or the sin of David in numbering the people (1 Chr 21:3-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>Correspondence in history<\/em> is not so much a method of interpretation as it is a way of thinking about God. It assumes that the things that happen to God’s people are the things that have happened to previous generations and that God is faithful and operates in the present as he has in the past. Consequently, the trials and deliverance of God’s people are often expressed with words borrowed from the previous accounts of God’s people. Isaiah describes the anticipated deliverance in terms of a second exodus (11:15-16). Ezekiel describes the king set up over the people in terms of a second David (Ez 37:25). In the NT, Revelation 22 describes the new heavens and the new earth in terms of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2–3). Sometimes this technique is described as “typology,” but this term has been used for so many questionable interpretations that it is misleading. The most important thing about this concept is that it is a view of God and his working among his people.<\/p>\n<p>With these two concepts, the way that the OT is quoted in the NT can be understood. The conviction that Jesus was the promised deliverer and that the last days had dawned in his ministry are evident everywhere. The quotation of Hosea 11:1 can be used in Matthew 2:15 because of corporate solidarity and correspondence in history. What was said of the nation is true of the one who is its representative, and there is correspondence in their respective histories. Jeremiah 31:15 can be used in Matthew 2:18 because of correspondence in history and especially because Jeremiah looked forward to God’s intention for Israel and prophesied a new covenant (31:17, 31-34). Matthew saw not only the correspondence in history but believed that in Jesus this promised salvation had been granted. John 12:40 can quote Isaiah 6:10 of Jesus’ ministry, not because he twists the meaning of the OT text, but because he saw that what had happened with God’s messenger before happened again and even <em>ultimately<\/em> in Jesus’ ministry. The instances of such correspondences in history are numerous.<\/p>\n<p>There are other texts where there seems to be an <em>actualization<\/em> of the OT text. Some quotations seem to be “lived out” in the ministry of Jesus. Because of their conviction about Jesus and his kingdom, the NT writers often saw certain OT texts as appropriated and made alive by Jesus. Psalm 118:22 was not intended as a prophecy of the Messiah, but Jesus saw it as descriptive of his ministry (Mt 21:42), and the early church saw this verse as actualized in his death and resurrection (Acts 4:11). Isaiah 53 is another text that the NT views as actualized in Jesus’ ministry (see Acts 8:32-35 and 1 Pt 2:22-25). Some Christians would view Psalm 22 as a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus, but it seems instead to be the lament of a righteous OT sufferer. Through correspondence in history, and because Christians saw so much of the psalmist’s plight actualized in Jesus’ crucifixion, the psalm became the easiest way to describe what once again had happened to God’s righteous sufferer. The words of Isaiah 40:3 describe the ministry of John the Baptist (Mt 3:3). Jews had come to see this verse as a prophecy of God’s end-time salvation, and the early church saw John the Baptist fulfilling this forerunner’s task. Luke made this identification (Lk 3:4-6), but he applied the same role to Jesus’ disciples (9:52; 10:1). This seems to be a further example of actualization and correspondence in history. In other places the church has applied to Christians ideas that were previously understood of Christ (e.g., the stone in 1 Pt 2:4-5; the ministry of the Suffering Servant in Acts 13:46-47).<\/p>\n<p>The most convenient term to describe the way the OT is “fulfilled” in Christ is to say that the OT finds its climax in Jesus. Even where actual quotations are not involved, the OT ideas such as prophet, priest, or king are climaxed in him as the ideal and embodiment of all the OT models. He could tell religious authorities that “one greater than Solomon is here” (Mt 12:42) or “one greater than the temple is here” (Mt 12:6). Those passages involving correspondence in history or actualization also lead to the conviction that he is the climax of the OT Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePurposesoftheUseoftheOldTestament\">The Purposes of the Use of the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The variety of methods of interpretation and application of the OT parallels the fact that the OT was used for a variety of purposes. People tend to think only in terms of the use of the OT to show that Jesus was the Messiah, but there are a number of other uses with a variety of goals. Many OT texts are used to show Jesus is the Messiah, the fulfillment of the OT promises (Lk 4:16-21). Without lessening the fulfillment emphasis, however, other verses are applied to Jesus for other purposes: to evangelize (Acts 8:32-25); to demonstrate or convince (Acts 13:33-35); to rebuke (Mk 7:6-7; Rom 11:7-10); and to describe (Rv 1:12-15). On the other hand, many quotations of the OT in the NT are not directly related to the Messiah. OT passages are adapted to provide a word from God on some aspect of life or ethics. For example, Jesus used Genesis 2:24 to substantiate his teaching on divorce as he attempted to deal with the issues raised by the civil regulation of divorce (Dt 24:1; Mt 19:1-12). The stress on the OT commandments shows their importance for Christians (Mt 19:16-22; Rom 13:8-10). Often OT statements deal with specific problems. The problem of pride at Corinth is solved by the quotation of Jeremiah 9:24 (“Let the one boasting, boast in the Lord,” 1 Cor 1:31). First Peter 3:10-12 incorporates Psalm 34:12-16 as ethical instructions, and 3:14-15 borrows from Isaiah 8:12-13 to address the fear of suffering. The spiritual armor in Ephesians 6:14-17 is derived largely from OT passages. Such examples are so numerous that there can be no doubt that the OT is used to describe Christian existence. In fact, nearly every subject discussed in the NT is presented somewhere via OT terms and quotations. Frequently OT passages are used to describe the church as God’s end-time community. Hosea 2:23 is used to show that those who formerly were not God’s people now are (Rom 9:25-26; 1 Pt 2:10). Several OT texts contribute to the description of the church in 1 Peter 2:9. OT texts that speak of the word of God describe the apostles’ preaching (Rom 10:8; 1 Pt 1:24-25). OT quotations describe the sinful condition of humanity (Rom 3:10-20). Salvation is explained through OT concepts and symbols and is based on OT statements (Jn 6:31-33; Gal 3:6-13). The words of Daniel describe the Second Coming (7:13-14; cf. Mt 24:30). Even the worship of early Christians was expressed through use of the OT (see Acts 4:24; Rom 11:34-35).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BIBLE*, Q<span>uotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers.<\/p>\n<p>The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotations in distinctive print, this may not be easily seen, for the NT writers often weave the OT words into their own without indicating they are borrowing from the OT. There are over 400 passages of the OT that are explicitly cited in the NT. Almost half of these are introduced by a statement like “Scripture says” to draw attention to the fact that the authority and thought of the OT is being implemented. For the others, however, the OT words are woven into the fabric of the author’s own statement.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the over 400 passages cited explicitly, there are well over 1,000 places where there is an allusion to an OT text, event, or person. The difference between a quotation and an allusion is sometimes debated for particular texts, but usually the distinction is that in a quotation the author consciously uses the words of an OT passage, whereas with an allusion he has the texts in mind but is not consciously trying to use the words.<\/p>\n<p>Quotations are easy to identify if there is an introductory formula such as “the Scripture says” (as in Rom 10:11; cf. Is 28:16). Where there is no introductory formula, it is easy to overlook explicit quotations (Rom 10:13; cf. Jl 2:32). The allusions are, of course, harder still to recognize, but they often provide the key to interpretation. For example, John 1:14-18—with its mention of glory, grace and truth, Moses, and the fact that no one has seen God—is much more easily and profoundly understood when read in connection with Exodus 33:17–34:8. In the Exodus passage the glory of God and his grace and truth are revealed to Moses. The author was showing that a much more complete revelation of God was given in Jesus than was given Moses in the account recorded in Exodus.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, significant light is shed on many NT passages from OT passages with similar ideas and words even where the NT author may not have been consciously alluding to those texts (e.g. Mt 16:19; Is 22:22). What was behind the author’s thinking is not certain, but in such cases the NT reflects the thinking, the culture, and language of the OT period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DistributionofOldTestamentQuotations\">Distribution of Old Testament Quotations<\/p>\n<p>The books of the NT that show the most dependence on the OT are Matthew, John, Romans, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation. Such a statement can be misleading, however, because the writers have different methods.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew quotes or consciously reflects the wording of OT passages about 62 times, almost half of which have an introductory formula. The book of Revelation, on the other hand, never quotes the OT and never has an introductory formula but is probably more dependent on the OT than any other NT book. The book of Hebrews quotes or consciously reflects the OT about 59 times, again half of which have an introductory formula, but the Gospel of John does so only 18 times, nearly always with an introductory formula. However, the allusions to the OT are present on virtually every page of John’s Gospel, so much so that some scholars have argued that he has modeled his account on the exodus narrative, the Jewish feasts, or OT persons and images. Paul’s Letter to the Romans uses the OT 54 times (about three-fourths of which have introductory formulas), but nowhere else so frequently (e.g., 1 Cor 16 times, Gal 11 times, Phil one time, 1 Thes one time).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the indication that Philippians and 1 Thessalonians use the OT only once each, some other books make explicit use of the OT rarely or never. Colossians, Titus, Philemon, and the Johannine letters do not use the OT at all; 2 Timothy and Jude use the OT only once; while 2 Peter and 1 Timothy make use of it twice.<\/p>\n<p>The important point is to realize that the OT is used most frequently in circumstances where the audience is familiar with the OT or where the OT is essential for describing the events relating to Christ and the church. The books using the OT most frequently (Mt, Jn, Rom, Heb, 1 Pt, Rv) either stem from or are addressed to a Jewish context or, as in the case of Romans and John, deal specifically with the relation of Jews and Christians. The Gospels make rather extensive use of the OT because the language of the OT is necessary to convey the identity and importance of Jesus in the purposes of God. Similarly 1 Peter uses the OT frequently because the author is trying to convey to his persecuted audience that they are the people of God and the inheritors of the promises of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DifficultiesinInterpretation\">Difficulties in Interpretation<\/p>\n<p>Often when people think of quotations of the OT in the NT they think only in terms of prophecy. Some have been guilty of counting up the OT statements that the NT applies to Christ and the church and then claiming these OT texts as predictions that prove Jesus is the Messiah. Such a procedure is filled with problems because it is too simplistic and does not do justice to either the OT or to the way the NT uses it. Of course, the early church used the OT to show that Jesus fulfilled the promises of God and did God’s work, but the use the church made of the OT was quite varied and much of it cannot be classified as predictive prophecy. Prophecy itself is too complex to be limited to predictive thinking.<\/p>\n<p>Some of the most obvious examples of the difficulties appear in Matthew’s Gospel, although they are by no means confined there. Matthew 2:15—“Out of Egypt I called my son”—is a quotation of Hosea 11:1, but in Hosea these words do not refer to the Messiah. They refer to the nation of Israel. Similarly Matthew 2:18 quotes Jeremiah 31:15 (“A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more,” <span>niv<\/span>) as fulfilled in the slaughter of the innocent babies in Bethlehem, but in Jeremiah the weeping is over the destruction of Jerusalem. John 12:40 views Isaiah 6:10 as fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry, but this verse deals with the call of Isaiah and is not a prediction concerning the ministry of the Messiah. The examples could be multiplied but these should be sufficient to illustrate the problem. For this reason the NT writers have often been accused of twisting the Scriptures, but this charge is as simplistic as the thought that all prophecy is predictive and in fact springs from the same error. Therefore, any attempt to understand the use of the OT in the NT will have to deal with the variety of ways in which the OT is used and with the methods employed by the NT writers.<\/p>\n<p>There are other difficulties that are encountered as well. Sometimes the NT writer will indicate that some fact related to Christ is a fulfillment of the OT but the explicit text that he had in mind cannot be identified. For example, John 7:38 introduces the words “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water” with the statement “as Scripture has said.” No OT text reads this way. Possibly the allusion is to the rock that provided water in the wilderness (Ex 17:1), or to the waters that flowed from the new temple (Zec 14:8) or, more generally, it may be a reference to Isaiah 58:11. Similarly, the difficulty in determining the OT text behind the prophecy that Christ will be called a Nazarene (Mt 2:23) is notorious. Probably the reference is to Isaiah 11:1 and the Hebrew word there translated as “branch,” but the connection is not easily made and is not certain. A third example of this kind of difficulty is in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where Paul indicates that women should be in submission just as the Law says, but there is no OT text expressing this idea. His statement in probably to be understood as a summary rather than a quotation or allusion. Similarly on a few occasions an OT text is seemingly attributed to the wrong OT book. In Mark 1:2-3 an OT quotation is attributed to Isaiah but the quotation is really a conflation (or mixing) of Exodus 23:20, Malachi 3:1, and Isaiah 40:3. Matthew 27:9-10 quotes a passage that is said to be from Jeremiah, when really it is dependent on Zechariah 11:13 and might best be described as a summary of Zechariah 11:12-13, with certain words included from Jeremiah 32:6-9. These two examples do not create a major problem, however, for the determination of the origin of the words may be due to their use in collections of quotations from various prophets, in which case the more prominent prophets would be used to designate origin.<\/p>\n<p>The wording of the quotations of the OT text does not always conform to the modern form of the OT. Just as today there are numerous translations of the Bible, when the NT was being written there were various forms of the OT text. With regard to the Hebrew text (for the OT was written mostly in Hebrew), there were different traditions. Such differences in the Hebrew traditions would have been relatively small. Because of the increasing importance of Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity and of Greek after the conquests of Alexander the Great, the OT was also known and used in both these languages when the NT was being written. In fact, the Jews found it necessary in their synagogue services after reading the Hebrew OT to paraphrase the reading in Aramaic so that all could understand. These paraphrases were later written down and are known as Targums. The Greek translation of the OT that stems from the third century <span>BC<\/span> is known as the Septuagint, but there were also other Greek translations in use. This being the case, the wording of a NT quotation is not identical in every detail to the text of the Hebrew OT.<\/p>\n<p>Added to the fact that there were various forms of the text known in first-century <span>AD<\/span> Palestine is the complicating factor that NT writers often did not intend to quote the OT exactly. The use of formal quotation marks is a modern device, and ancient writers were not so taken by technical precision. They were more concerned with the intention of a text and consequently might copy or quote it verbatim, quote it from memory, use or adapt part of a verse, or even change certain words as they borrowed the verse to express their points. (The NT writers often use the OT words describing God’s actions in the past to explain what he has done in their time.) The importance of any differences between the NT quotation and the OT depends on the use to which the quotation is put and the degree to which the use is dependent on textual differences.<\/p>\n<p>Some examples should illustrate the nature of these difficulties. Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18. Whereas the Hebrew and Septuagint read, “You ascended to the heights, you lead captivity captive, you received gifts among mankind,” Ephesians records the verse as “After he ascended into the heights, <em>he<\/em> led captivity captive; he <em>gave<\/em> gifts to men.” Paul is stressing that Christ has given grace to people for ministry. He has either adapted the wording of the OT to make his point or he quoted a variant reading, <em>“he gave<\/em> gifts.” Some versions do have this reading. In fact, the Targum understands this verse as Moses giving the words of the law to the children of men, and Paul may well be adapting this understanding to the new revelation that has come in Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, but there are distinct differences between the Hebrew text and the wording in Matthew. The Hebrew reads, “Behold the young woman will become pregnant and will bear a son and you will call his name Immanuel,” whereas Matthew’s text records “Behold, the <em>virgin<\/em> will become pregnant and will bear a son, and <em>they<\/em> will call his name Immanuel.” The Septuagint does have the specific word “virgin,” like Matthew, but is not the source of Matthew’s quotation since other differences exist. Some have argued that the change from “you will call” to “they will call” was made by Matthew when he applied the words to Jesus. However, there are several traditions known for this part of the quotation and partial support for the reading in Matthew is provided by the text of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\n<p>Romans 11:26-27 is a conflation of Isaiah 59:20-21 and part of Isaiah 27:9, but there are important differences. One of these is that the OT has “the redeemer will come to Zion,” whereas Romans has “the deliverer will come <em>from<\/em> Zion.” The change to “from Zion” could indicate that Paul had a different textual tradition, could be the result of an intentional change by Paul, or more probably, could reflect the wording of Psalm 14:7.<\/p>\n<p>An awareness of the difficulties involved in the quotations of the OT by the NT writers will prohibit a simplistic approach and will prevent hasty conclusions. Care to ask not only which text was used but also which form of the text was used and how is obviously essential in any serious study. In addition it is necessary to allow for the possibility that the NT writers knew forms of a text that are now lost.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMethodsoftheNewTestamentWriters\">The Methods of the New Testament Writers<\/p>\n<p>The methods used by the NT writers were not unique to them. Many of these methods were also employed in first-century Judaism. In fact, both the technique used in quoting and the understanding of the OT text itself in many cases are paralleled in Judaism. For example, from the standpoint of technique used in quoting, the same kinds of formula introductions are used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the rabbinic writings, and elsewhere. The rabbinic technique of “pearl stringing,” that is, of applying verses from various parts of the OT (the Law, the Prophets, the Writings) to a subject, can be seen especially in Paul’s writings (note Rom 9:12-19 or 11:8-10). Somewhat related is the practice of using quotations that all contain a key word or key words (note 1 Pt 2:6-8, which draws together quotations using the word “stone,” or Rom 15:9-12, which joins OT verses referring to the “nations”).<\/p>\n<p>The methods used in the NT to interpret an OT text are also displayed in Judaism. Some passages interpret the OT “literally,” such as Jesus’ replies during temptation (see the quotations of Dt 8:3; 6:16; 6:13; in Mt 4:3-10), his teachings on marriage based on Genesis 2:24 (Mt 19:5), or Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom 1:17) or Genesis 15:6 (Rom 4:3-9). Many such examples could be given. With regard to prophecy, some of these statements are fulfilled in a “literal” or “direct” way in keeping with the intention of the OT (e.g., Mi 5:2, Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah; Mt 2:4-6). Jeremiah 31:31-34, the promise of the new covenant, is viewed as directly fulfilled in Christ (Heb 8:7-13). The prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 concerning the pouring out of the Spirit of the Lord is directly fulfilled in the Pentecost event (Acts 2:17-21), but the changing of the sun to darkness and the moon to blood are certainly not understood literally in connection with this event.<\/p>\n<p>A different method of interpretation is based on the concept of <em>corporate solidarity.<\/em> This technical expression is an attempt to convey the idea that the individuals among God’s people are not merely individuals; they are part of a larger whole. Consequently, what is said about the individual can apply to the whole and vice versa. This is the reason the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah is seen both as the nation (44:1) and as an individual (52:13–53:12). Also the king is sometimes viewed as representative of the nation. The easiest places to see the concept of corporate solidarity are in the effect of the sin of Achan on all the people (Jos 7) or the sin of David in numbering the people (1 Chr 21:3-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>Correspondence in history<\/em> is not so much a method of interpretation as it is a way of thinking about God. It assumes that the things that happen to God’s people are the things that have happened to previous generations and that God is faithful and operates in the present as he has in the past. Consequently, the trials and deliverance of God’s people are often expressed with words borrowed from the previous accounts of God’s people. Isaiah describes the anticipated deliverance in terms of a second exodus (11:15-16). Ezekiel describes the king set up over the people in terms of a second David (Ez 37:25). In the NT, Revelation 22 describes the new heavens and the new earth in terms of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2–3). Sometimes this technique is described as “typology,” but this term has been used for so many questionable interpretations that it is misleading. The most important thing about this concept is that it is a view of God and his working among his people.<\/p>\n<p>With these two concepts, the way that the OT is quoted in the NT can be understood. The conviction that Jesus was the promised deliverer and that the last days had dawned in his ministry are evident everywhere. The quotation of Hosea 11:1 can be used in Matthew 2:15 because of corporate solidarity and correspondence in history. What was said of the nation is true of the one who is its representative, and there is correspondence in their respective histories. Jeremiah 31:15 can be used in Matthew 2:18 because of correspondence in history and especially because Jeremiah looked forward to God’s intention for Israel and prophesied a new covenant (31:17, 31-34). Matthew saw not only the correspondence in history but believed that in Jesus this promised salvation had been granted. John 12:40 can quote Isaiah 6:10 of Jesus’ ministry, not because he twists the meaning of the OT text, but because he saw that what had happened with God’s messenger before happened again and even <em>ultimately<\/em> in Jesus’ ministry. The instances of such correspondences in history are numerous.<\/p>\n<p>There are other texts where there seems to be an <em>actualization<\/em> of the OT text. Some quotations seem to be “lived out” in the ministry of Jesus. Because of their conviction about Jesus and his kingdom, the NT writers often saw certain OT texts as appropriated and made alive by Jesus. Psalm 118:22 was not intended as a prophecy of the Messiah, but Jesus saw it as descriptive of his ministry (Mt 21:42), and the early church saw this verse as actualized in his death and resurrection (Acts 4:11). Isaiah 53 is another text that the NT views as actualized in Jesus’ ministry (see Acts 8:32-35 and 1 Pt 2:22-25). Some Christians would view Psalm 22 as a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus, but it seems instead to be the lament of a righteous OT sufferer. Through correspondence in history, and because Christians saw so much of the psalmist’s plight actualized in Jesus’ crucifixion, the psalm became the easiest way to describe what once again had happened to God’s righteous sufferer. The words of Isaiah 40:3 describe the ministry of John the Baptist (Mt 3:3). Jews had come to see this verse as a prophecy of God’s end-time salvation, and the early church saw John the Baptist fulfilling this forerunner’s task. Luke made this identification (Lk 3:4-6), but he applied the same role to Jesus’ disciples (9:52; 10:1). This seems to be a further example of actualization and correspondence in history. In other places the church has applied to Christians ideas that were previously understood of Christ (e.g., the stone in 1 Pt 2:4-5; the ministry of the Suffering Servant in Acts 13:46-47).<\/p>\n<p>The most convenient term to describe the way the OT is “fulfilled” in Christ is to say that the OT finds its climax in Jesus. Even where actual quotations are not involved, the OT ideas such as prophet, priest, or king are climaxed in him as the ideal and embodiment of all the OT models. He could tell religious authorities that “one greater than Solomon is here” (Mt 12:42) or “one greater than the temple is here” (Mt 12:6). Those passages involving correspondence in history or actualization also lead to the conviction that he is the climax of the OT Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePurposesoftheUseoftheOldTestament\">The Purposes of the Use of the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The variety of methods of interpretation and application of the OT parallels the fact that the OT was used for a variety of purposes. People tend to think only in terms of the use of the OT to show that Jesus was the Messiah, but there are a number of other uses with a variety of goals. Many OT texts are used to show Jesus is the Messiah, the fulfillment of the OT promises (Lk 4:16-21). Without lessening the fulfillment emphasis, however, other verses are applied to Jesus for other purposes: to evangelize (Acts 8:32-25); to demonstrate or convince (Acts 13:33-35); to rebuke (Mk 7:6-7; Rom 11:7-10); and to describe (Rv 1:12-15). On the other hand, many quotations of the OT in the NT are not directly related to the Messiah. OT passages are adapted to provide a word from God on some aspect of life or ethics. For example, Jesus used Genesis 2:24 to substantiate his teaching on divorce as he attempted to deal with the issues raised by the civil regulation of divorce (Dt 24:1; Mt 19:1-12). The stress on the OT commandments shows their importance for Christians (Mt 19:16-22; Rom 13:8-10). Often OT statements deal with specific problems. The problem of pride at Corinth is solved by the quotation of Jeremiah 9:24 (“Let the one boasting, boast in the Lord,” 1 Cor 1:31). First Peter 3:10-12 incorporates Psalm 34:12-16 as ethical instructions, and 3:14-15 borrows from Isaiah 8:12-13 to address the fear of suffering. The spiritual armor in Ephesians 6:14-17 is derived largely from OT passages. Such examples are so numerous that there can be no doubt that the OT is used to describe Christian existence. In fact, nearly every subject discussed in the NT is presented somewhere via OT terms and quotations. Frequently OT passages are used to describe the church as God’s end-time community. Hosea 2:23 is used to show that those who formerly were not God’s people now are (Rom 9:25-26; 1 Pt 2:10). Several OT texts contribute to the description of the church in 1 Peter 2:9. OT texts that speak of the word of God describe the apostles’ preaching (Rom 10:8; 1 Pt 1:24-25). OT quotations describe the sinful condition of humanity (Rom 3:10-20). Salvation is explained through OT concepts and symbols and is based on OT statements (Jn 6:31-33; Gal 3:6-13). The words of Daniel describe the Second Coming (7:13-14; cf. Mt 24:30). Even the worship of early Christians was expressed through use of the OT (see Acts 4:24; Rom 11:34-35).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings. One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers. The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotation...","summary_en":"BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings. One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers. The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotation...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":7587,"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}],"6":[{"id":9772,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Divorce","title_en":"Divorce","content_ro":"<h3>DIVORCE<\/h3>\n<p>Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history.<\/p>\n<p>In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design for marriage. He described the implications of the “one flesh” relationship as the abrogation of the separatedness of the spouses and the creation of an inviolable union (Mt 19:6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOldTestamentsViewonDivorce\">The Old Testament’s View on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>The disruptions brought about by the fall had grievous consequences for the male\/female relationship. Having allowed sin to sever their primary dependency on God, man and woman became respectively subject to the elements from which they had been originally made. Man became subject to the dust of the ground whence he had come (Gn 2:7; 3:19), and woman became subject to the man from whom she had been formed (2:22; 3:16). Prior to the fall, man and woman had enjoyed a relationship of equality as cosharers in the divine image (1:27) and as partners in the divine mandate to exercise dominion over creation (v 28). After the fall man became ruler over woman, and woman became subject to man (3:16).<\/p>\n<p>As a result of these new conditions, man assumed rights of disposition over woman that he did not possess prior to the fall. The “one flesh” relation was violated when the right of rulership opened the way for the male ruler to multiply the number of his female subjects. This disparity between male and female resulted in the practice of polygamy (Gn 4:19; 16:3; 29:30) and of serial monogamy, which required the termination of each successive marriage by an act of divorce (Dt 24:1-4). Thus, the emergence of the practice of divorce appeared as the inevitable consequence of the principle of male rulership. Neither rulership nor divorce was part of God’s original design for the marriage relationship. The Mosaic regulation on divorce was a concession made by God to the fallen condition of mankind (Mt 19:8). Characteristically, the option of divorce was a right available only to the male rulers. As subjects of their male rulers, wives became the victims of divorce. Men could divorce their wives; women could not divorce their husbands.<\/p>\n<p>As unfair as it may seem, the Deuteronomic provisions for divorce were actually intended to offer a modicum of protection for its female victims. A husband had to justify a divorce action against his wife by citing something indecent about her. He was to give his divorced wife a bill of divorce that accounted for her marriage to him (Dt 24:1). Moreover, a divorced husband was forbidden to remarry his ex-wife after her subsequent marriage, since his original divorce was viewed as a defilement of her (v 4).<\/p>\n<p>Although the Mosaic dispositions on divorce were granted as a divine concession to Israel’s hardness of heart, the OT emphatically states that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). The right of divorce was grudgingly granted as an accommodation to the principle of male rulership that had resulted from the fall. But God’s original design, reflected in the “one flesh” marital relation, remained the standard for the union of man and woman in marriage.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingonDivorce\">Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>Inasmuch as Christ’s ministry of redemption signaled a return to God’s original purposes in Creation, the old covenant regulations on divorce were abrogated in the Christian community. In order to justify the inviolability of the marriage bond among his followers, Jesus directed them to the creational model. Referring negatively to the intervening Mosaic allowance for divorce, Jesus upheld God’s original creation order by stating that “from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19:8). Christ repudiated the fall and affirmed the Creation design.<\/p>\n<p>In Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus explicitly abrogated the Mosaic legislation that allowed men to divorce their wives. He viewed the practice as a violation of the integrity of women. Adulterous men who divorce their wives reduce them to the status of whores, using them as commodities to be passed around through the expediency of easy divorce. By divorcing their wives, men treat them as adulteresses. By marrying a woman discarded from a previous marriage, a man perpetuates the demeaning process and becomes guilty of adultery.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus deliberately withdrew from men the ruler’s right of discarding a wife at will and reinstated the creational pattern of the lifelong “one flesh” union. His disciples understood his intent accurately. But the principle of male privilege was so deeply ingrained in their mentality that they declared the freedom available in celibacy preferable to a commitment to lifelong monogamous marriage (Mt 19:10).<\/p>\n<p>Not only did Jesus reaffirm the validity of the “one flesh” union for the community of redemption, but the NT reinforced the inviolability of the marriage bond by defining it as an earthly copy of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>Despite such strong sanctions for the permanency of the marriage bond, the NT permits divorce as an exception intended to protect the innocent spouse in the case of immorality and desertion. Jesus made exceptions that established the right of a spouse wronged by an unfaithful mate to press for divorce (Mt 5:32; 19:9). Obviously, the wronged spouse has the option of maintaining the marriage bond despite the breach of commitment by the unfaithful mate. But in view of the exception allowed by Scripture, the obligation to maintain or reinstate the disrupted marriage may not be imposed upon the innocent spouse.<\/p>\n<p>The other exception that justifies divorce, according to the NT, is desertion. Although the provisions of 1 Corinthians 7:15 refer primarily to desertion by an unbelieving spouse, it should be noted that a believer guilty of desertion is to be treated as an unbeliever (1 Tm 5:8). Behavior equivalent to the abandonment of the marriage relationship constitutes a breach of conjugal commitment and becomes subject to the provision stated in 1 Corinthians 7:15.<\/p>\n<p>In either case, adultery or desertion, the aggrieved party has the right to seek divorce from the offending spouse and, having obtained it, becomes again a single person. Should repentance and reconciliation fail to restore the violated union, the aggrieved spouse is not bound to the marriage. According to Scripture, a person who is not bound is free to remarry, but only “in the Lord,” meaning to another Christian (1 Cor 7:39). The injunction for a single person who does not have the gift of celibacy to marry (v 9) applies to a person formerly married but who has become single by a scripturally legitimate divorce. In keeping with Christ’s teaching in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, the remarriage of believers may not be approved when the divorce has been used as a means of changing mates, since such intent makes the divorce adulterous.<\/p>\n<p>Many factors usually combine to destroy a marriage; therefore, the church must deal with each case of divorce and remarriage on an individual basis, taking into account God’s inexhaustible capacity to forgive sin and to restore broken lives. Obviously, the scriptural restrictions on divorce do not apply to believers whose broken marriages predate their conversion, since God’s forgiveness wipes clean the sin of their pre-Christian past and makes them new creatures in Christ.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DIVORCE<\/h3>\n<p>Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history.<\/p>\n<p>In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design for marriage. He described the implications of the “one flesh” relationship as the abrogation of the separatedness of the spouses and the creation of an inviolable union (Mt 19:6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOldTestamentsViewonDivorce\">The Old Testament’s View on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>The disruptions brought about by the fall had grievous consequences for the male\/female relationship. Having allowed sin to sever their primary dependency on God, man and woman became respectively subject to the elements from which they had been originally made. Man became subject to the dust of the ground whence he had come (Gn 2:7; 3:19), and woman became subject to the man from whom she had been formed (2:22; 3:16). Prior to the fall, man and woman had enjoyed a relationship of equality as cosharers in the divine image (1:27) and as partners in the divine mandate to exercise dominion over creation (v 28). After the fall man became ruler over woman, and woman became subject to man (3:16).<\/p>\n<p>As a result of these new conditions, man assumed rights of disposition over woman that he did not possess prior to the fall. The “one flesh” relation was violated when the right of rulership opened the way for the male ruler to multiply the number of his female subjects. This disparity between male and female resulted in the practice of polygamy (Gn 4:19; 16:3; 29:30) and of serial monogamy, which required the termination of each successive marriage by an act of divorce (Dt 24:1-4). Thus, the emergence of the practice of divorce appeared as the inevitable consequence of the principle of male rulership. Neither rulership nor divorce was part of God’s original design for the marriage relationship. The Mosaic regulation on divorce was a concession made by God to the fallen condition of mankind (Mt 19:8). Characteristically, the option of divorce was a right available only to the male rulers. As subjects of their male rulers, wives became the victims of divorce. Men could divorce their wives; women could not divorce their husbands.<\/p>\n<p>As unfair as it may seem, the Deuteronomic provisions for divorce were actually intended to offer a modicum of protection for its female victims. A husband had to justify a divorce action against his wife by citing something indecent about her. He was to give his divorced wife a bill of divorce that accounted for her marriage to him (Dt 24:1). Moreover, a divorced husband was forbidden to remarry his ex-wife after her subsequent marriage, since his original divorce was viewed as a defilement of her (v 4).<\/p>\n<p>Although the Mosaic dispositions on divorce were granted as a divine concession to Israel’s hardness of heart, the OT emphatically states that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). The right of divorce was grudgingly granted as an accommodation to the principle of male rulership that had resulted from the fall. But God’s original design, reflected in the “one flesh” marital relation, remained the standard for the union of man and woman in marriage.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingonDivorce\">Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>Inasmuch as Christ’s ministry of redemption signaled a return to God’s original purposes in Creation, the old covenant regulations on divorce were abrogated in the Christian community. In order to justify the inviolability of the marriage bond among his followers, Jesus directed them to the creational model. Referring negatively to the intervening Mosaic allowance for divorce, Jesus upheld God’s original creation order by stating that “from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19:8). Christ repudiated the fall and affirmed the Creation design.<\/p>\n<p>In Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus explicitly abrogated the Mosaic legislation that allowed men to divorce their wives. He viewed the practice as a violation of the integrity of women. Adulterous men who divorce their wives reduce them to the status of whores, using them as commodities to be passed around through the expediency of easy divorce. By divorcing their wives, men treat them as adulteresses. By marrying a woman discarded from a previous marriage, a man perpetuates the demeaning process and becomes guilty of adultery.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus deliberately withdrew from men the ruler’s right of discarding a wife at will and reinstated the creational pattern of the lifelong “one flesh” union. His disciples understood his intent accurately. But the principle of male privilege was so deeply ingrained in their mentality that they declared the freedom available in celibacy preferable to a commitment to lifelong monogamous marriage (Mt 19:10).<\/p>\n<p>Not only did Jesus reaffirm the validity of the “one flesh” union for the community of redemption, but the NT reinforced the inviolability of the marriage bond by defining it as an earthly copy of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>Despite such strong sanctions for the permanency of the marriage bond, the NT permits divorce as an exception intended to protect the innocent spouse in the case of immorality and desertion. Jesus made exceptions that established the right of a spouse wronged by an unfaithful mate to press for divorce (Mt 5:32; 19:9). Obviously, the wronged spouse has the option of maintaining the marriage bond despite the breach of commitment by the unfaithful mate. But in view of the exception allowed by Scripture, the obligation to maintain or reinstate the disrupted marriage may not be imposed upon the innocent spouse.<\/p>\n<p>The other exception that justifies divorce, according to the NT, is desertion. Although the provisions of 1 Corinthians 7:15 refer primarily to desertion by an unbelieving spouse, it should be noted that a believer guilty of desertion is to be treated as an unbeliever (1 Tm 5:8). Behavior equivalent to the abandonment of the marriage relationship constitutes a breach of conjugal commitment and becomes subject to the provision stated in 1 Corinthians 7:15.<\/p>\n<p>In either case, adultery or desertion, the aggrieved party has the right to seek divorce from the offending spouse and, having obtained it, becomes again a single person. Should repentance and reconciliation fail to restore the violated union, the aggrieved spouse is not bound to the marriage. According to Scripture, a person who is not bound is free to remarry, but only “in the Lord,” meaning to another Christian (1 Cor 7:39). The injunction for a single person who does not have the gift of celibacy to marry (v 9) applies to a person formerly married but who has become single by a scripturally legitimate divorce. In keeping with Christ’s teaching in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, the remarriage of believers may not be approved when the divorce has been used as a means of changing mates, since such intent makes the divorce adulterous.<\/p>\n<p>Many factors usually combine to destroy a marriage; therefore, the church must deal with each case of divorce and remarriage on an individual basis, taking into account God’s inexhaustible capacity to forgive sin and to restore broken lives. Obviously, the scriptural restrictions on divorce do not apply to believers whose broken marriages predate their conversion, since God’s forgiveness wipes clean the sin of their pre-Christian past and makes them new creatures in Christ.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DIVORCE Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history. In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design f...","summary_en":"DIVORCE Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history. In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design f...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":54869,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:6","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:6<\/strong> Since God made marriage a union, humans do not have the right to break that union. Jesus affirmed the indissolubility of marriage.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:6<\/strong> Since God made marriage a union, humans do not have the right to break that union. Jesus affirmed the indissolubility of marriage.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:6 Since God made marriage a union, humans do not have the right to break that union. Jesus affirmed the indissolubility of marriage.","summary_en":"19:6 Since God made marriage a union, humans do not have the right to break that union. Jesus affirmed the indissolubility of marriage.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82495,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:6","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:6<\/strong> Since God made marriage a union, humans do not have the right to break that union. Jesus affirmed the indissolubility of marriage.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:6<\/strong> Since God made marriage a union, humans do not have the right to break that union. Jesus affirmed the indissolubility of marriage.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:6 Since God made marriage a union, humans do not have the right to break that union. Jesus affirmed the indissolubility of marriage.","summary_en":"19:6 Since God made marriage a union, humans do not have the right to break that union. Jesus affirmed the indissolubility of marriage.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110121,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:6","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:6<\/strong> Since God made marriage a union, humans do not have the right to break that union. Jesus affirmed the indissolubility of marriage.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:6<\/strong> Since God made marriage a union, humans do not have the right to break that union. Jesus affirmed the indissolubility of marriage.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:6 Since God made marriage a union, humans do not have the right to break that union. Jesus affirmed the indissolubility of marriage.","summary_en":"19:6 Since God made marriage a union, humans do not have the right to break that union. Jesus affirmed the indissolubility of marriage.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":137747,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:6","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:6<\/strong> Since God made marriage a union, humans do not have the right to break that union. Jesus affirmed the indissolubility of marriage.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:6<\/strong> Since God made marriage a union, humans do not have the right to break that union. Jesus affirmed the indissolubility of marriage.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:6 Since God made marriage a union, humans do not have the right to break that union. Jesus affirmed the indissolubility of marriage.","summary_en":"19:6 Since God made marriage a union, humans do not have the right to break that union. Jesus affirmed the indissolubility of marriage.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"7":[{"id":9799,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of Divorce*, Certificate","title_en":"of Divorce*, Certificate","content_ro":"<h3>DIVORCE*, Certificate of<\/h3>\n<p>A document declaring the separation of a husband and wife, mandated by Mosaic law (Dt 24:1-4; see Mt 5:31; 19:7; Mk 10:4). The certificate of divorce protected the woman’s rights, providing evidence of her freedom and ensuring that her husband could not claim her dowry. An example of the wording of such a document is Hosea 2:2: “She is no longer my wife, and I am no longer her husband” (<span>nlt<\/span>). The OT prophets used this statement figuratively to portray God’s desire to separate himself from his rebellious people (Is 50:1; Jer 3:8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Divorce; Marriage, Marriage Customs.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DIVORCE*, Certificate of<\/h3>\n<p>A document declaring the separation of a husband and wife, mandated by Mosaic law (Dt 24:1-4; see Mt 5:31; 19:7; Mk 10:4). The certificate of divorce protected the woman’s rights, providing evidence of her freedom and ensuring that her husband could not claim her dowry. An example of the wording of such a document is Hosea 2:2: “She is no longer my wife, and I am no longer her husband” (<span>nlt<\/span>). The OT prophets used this statement figuratively to portray God’s desire to separate himself from his rebellious people (Is 50:1; Jer 3:8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Divorce; Marriage, Marriage Customs.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DIVORCE*, Certificate of A document declaring the separation of a husband and wife, mandated by Mosaic law (Dt 24:1-4; see Mt 5:31; 19:7; Mk 10:4). The certificate of divorce protected the woman’s rights, providing evidence of her freedom and ensuring that her husband could not claim her dowry. An example of the wording of such a document is Hosea 2:2: “She is no longer my wife, and I am no longer her husband” (nlt). The OT prophets used this statement figuratively to portray God’s desire to ...","summary_en":"DIVORCE*, Certificate of A document declaring the separation of a husband and wife, mandated by Mosaic law (Dt 24:1-4; see Mt 5:31; 19:7; Mk 10:4). The certificate of divorce protected the woman’s rights, providing evidence of her freedom and ensuring that her husband could not claim her dowry. An example of the wording of such a document is Hosea 2:2: “She is no longer my wife, and I am no longer her husband” (nlt). The OT prophets used this statement figuratively to portray God’s desire to ...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":26399,"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":54870,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:7","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:7-8<\/strong> <em>why did Moses say<\/em> (literally <em>command<\/em>): The Pharisees thought Jesus had contradicted a command of the law (see Deut 24:1-4), but Moses <em>permitted divorce<\/em> <em>only as a concession<\/em> to their <em>hard hearts<\/em>. Jesus introduced the revolutionary principle that God’s permission is not necessarily his desire (see 1 Cor 6:12). Divorce is never God’s desire (Mal 2:14-16); it is an expression of human sin.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:7-8<\/strong> <em>why did Moses say<\/em> (literally <em>command<\/em>): The Pharisees thought Jesus had contradicted a command of the law (see Deut 24:1-4), but Moses <em>permitted divorce<\/em> <em>only as a concession<\/em> to their <em>hard hearts<\/em>. Jesus introduced the revolutionary principle that God’s permission is not necessarily his desire (see 1 Cor 6:12). Divorce is never God’s desire (Mal 2:14-16); it is an expression of human sin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:7-8 why did Moses say (literally command): The Pharisees thought Jesus had contradicted a command of the law (see Deut 24:1-4), but Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to their hard hearts. Jesus introduced the revolutionary principle that God’s permission is not necessarily his desire (see 1 Cor 6:12). Divorce is never God’s desire (Mal 2:14-16); it is an expression of human sin.","summary_en":"19:7-8 why did Moses say (literally command): The Pharisees thought Jesus had contradicted a command of the law (see Deut 24:1-4), but Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to their hard hearts. Jesus introduced the revolutionary principle that God’s permission is not necessarily his desire (see 1 Cor 6:12). Divorce is never God’s desire (Mal 2:14-16); it is an expression of human sin.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82496,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:7","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:7-8<\/strong> <em>why did Moses say<\/em> (literally <em>command<\/em>): The Pharisees thought Jesus had contradicted a command of the law (see Deut 24:1-4), but Moses <em>permitted divorce<\/em> <em>only as a concession<\/em> to their <em>hard hearts<\/em>. Jesus introduced the revolutionary principle that God’s permission is not necessarily his desire (see 1 Cor 6:12). Divorce is never God’s desire (Mal 2:14-16); it is an expression of human sin.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:7-8<\/strong> <em>why did Moses say<\/em> (literally <em>command<\/em>): The Pharisees thought Jesus had contradicted a command of the law (see Deut 24:1-4), but Moses <em>permitted divorce<\/em> <em>only as a concession<\/em> to their <em>hard hearts<\/em>. Jesus introduced the revolutionary principle that God’s permission is not necessarily his desire (see 1 Cor 6:12). Divorce is never God’s desire (Mal 2:14-16); it is an expression of human sin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:7-8 why did Moses say (literally command): The Pharisees thought Jesus had contradicted a command of the law (see Deut 24:1-4), but Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to their hard hearts. Jesus introduced the revolutionary principle that God’s permission is not necessarily his desire (see 1 Cor 6:12). Divorce is never God’s desire (Mal 2:14-16); it is an expression of human sin.","summary_en":"19:7-8 why did Moses say (literally command): The Pharisees thought Jesus had contradicted a command of the law (see Deut 24:1-4), but Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to their hard hearts. Jesus introduced the revolutionary principle that God’s permission is not necessarily his desire (see 1 Cor 6:12). Divorce is never God’s desire (Mal 2:14-16); it is an expression of human sin.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110122,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:7","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:7-8<\/strong> <em>why did Moses say<\/em> (literally <em>command<\/em>): The Pharisees thought Jesus had contradicted a command of the law (see Deut 24:1-4), but Moses <em>permitted divorce<\/em> <em>only as a concession<\/em> to their <em>hard hearts<\/em>. Jesus introduced the revolutionary principle that God’s permission is not necessarily his desire (see 1 Cor 6:12). Divorce is never God’s desire (Mal 2:14-16); it is an expression of human sin.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:7-8<\/strong> <em>why did Moses say<\/em> (literally <em>command<\/em>): The Pharisees thought Jesus had contradicted a command of the law (see Deut 24:1-4), but Moses <em>permitted divorce<\/em> <em>only as a concession<\/em> to their <em>hard hearts<\/em>. Jesus introduced the revolutionary principle that God’s permission is not necessarily his desire (see 1 Cor 6:12). Divorce is never God’s desire (Mal 2:14-16); it is an expression of human sin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:7-8 why did Moses say (literally command): The Pharisees thought Jesus had contradicted a command of the law (see Deut 24:1-4), but Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to their hard hearts. Jesus introduced the revolutionary principle that God’s permission is not necessarily his desire (see 1 Cor 6:12). Divorce is never God’s desire (Mal 2:14-16); it is an expression of human sin.","summary_en":"19:7-8 why did Moses say (literally command): The Pharisees thought Jesus had contradicted a command of the law (see Deut 24:1-4), but Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to their hard hearts. Jesus introduced the revolutionary principle that God’s permission is not necessarily his desire (see 1 Cor 6:12). Divorce is never God’s desire (Mal 2:14-16); it is an expression of human sin.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":137748,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:7","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:7-8<\/strong> <em>why did Moses say<\/em> (literally <em>command<\/em>): The Pharisees thought Jesus had contradicted a command of the law (see Deut 24:1-4), but Moses <em>permitted divorce<\/em> <em>only as a concession<\/em> to their <em>hard hearts<\/em>. Jesus introduced the revolutionary principle that God’s permission is not necessarily his desire (see 1 Cor 6:12). Divorce is never God’s desire (Mal 2:14-16); it is an expression of human sin.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:7-8<\/strong> <em>why did Moses say<\/em> (literally <em>command<\/em>): The Pharisees thought Jesus had contradicted a command of the law (see Deut 24:1-4), but Moses <em>permitted divorce<\/em> <em>only as a concession<\/em> to their <em>hard hearts<\/em>. Jesus introduced the revolutionary principle that God’s permission is not necessarily his desire (see 1 Cor 6:12). Divorce is never God’s desire (Mal 2:14-16); it is an expression of human sin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:7-8 why did Moses say (literally command): The Pharisees thought Jesus had contradicted a command of the law (see Deut 24:1-4), but Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to their hard hearts. Jesus introduced the revolutionary principle that God’s permission is not necessarily his desire (see 1 Cor 6:12). Divorce is never God’s desire (Mal 2:14-16); it is an expression of human sin.","summary_en":"19:7-8 why did Moses say (literally command): The Pharisees thought Jesus had contradicted a command of the law (see Deut 24:1-4), but Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to their hard hearts. Jesus introduced the revolutionary principle that God’s permission is not necessarily his desire (see 1 Cor 6:12). Divorce is never God’s desire (Mal 2:14-16); it is an expression of human sin.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"8":[{"id":9783,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Divorce","title_en":"Divorce","content_ro":"<h3>DIVORCE<\/h3>\n<p>Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history.<\/p>\n<p>In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design for marriage. He described the implications of the “one flesh” relationship as the abrogation of the separatedness of the spouses and the creation of an inviolable union (Mt 19:6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOldTestamentsViewonDivorce\">The Old Testament’s View on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>The disruptions brought about by the fall had grievous consequences for the male\/female relationship. Having allowed sin to sever their primary dependency on God, man and woman became respectively subject to the elements from which they had been originally made. Man became subject to the dust of the ground whence he had come (Gn 2:7; 3:19), and woman became subject to the man from whom she had been formed (2:22; 3:16). Prior to the fall, man and woman had enjoyed a relationship of equality as cosharers in the divine image (1:27) and as partners in the divine mandate to exercise dominion over creation (v 28). After the fall man became ruler over woman, and woman became subject to man (3:16).<\/p>\n<p>As a result of these new conditions, man assumed rights of disposition over woman that he did not possess prior to the fall. The “one flesh” relation was violated when the right of rulership opened the way for the male ruler to multiply the number of his female subjects. This disparity between male and female resulted in the practice of polygamy (Gn 4:19; 16:3; 29:30) and of serial monogamy, which required the termination of each successive marriage by an act of divorce (Dt 24:1-4). Thus, the emergence of the practice of divorce appeared as the inevitable consequence of the principle of male rulership. Neither rulership nor divorce was part of God’s original design for the marriage relationship. The Mosaic regulation on divorce was a concession made by God to the fallen condition of mankind (Mt 19:8). Characteristically, the option of divorce was a right available only to the male rulers. As subjects of their male rulers, wives became the victims of divorce. Men could divorce their wives; women could not divorce their husbands.<\/p>\n<p>As unfair as it may seem, the Deuteronomic provisions for divorce were actually intended to offer a modicum of protection for its female victims. A husband had to justify a divorce action against his wife by citing something indecent about her. He was to give his divorced wife a bill of divorce that accounted for her marriage to him (Dt 24:1). Moreover, a divorced husband was forbidden to remarry his ex-wife after her subsequent marriage, since his original divorce was viewed as a defilement of her (v 4).<\/p>\n<p>Although the Mosaic dispositions on divorce were granted as a divine concession to Israel’s hardness of heart, the OT emphatically states that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). The right of divorce was grudgingly granted as an accommodation to the principle of male rulership that had resulted from the fall. But God’s original design, reflected in the “one flesh” marital relation, remained the standard for the union of man and woman in marriage.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingonDivorce\">Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>Inasmuch as Christ’s ministry of redemption signaled a return to God’s original purposes in Creation, the old covenant regulations on divorce were abrogated in the Christian community. In order to justify the inviolability of the marriage bond among his followers, Jesus directed them to the creational model. Referring negatively to the intervening Mosaic allowance for divorce, Jesus upheld God’s original creation order by stating that “from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19:8). Christ repudiated the fall and affirmed the Creation design.<\/p>\n<p>In Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus explicitly abrogated the Mosaic legislation that allowed men to divorce their wives. He viewed the practice as a violation of the integrity of women. Adulterous men who divorce their wives reduce them to the status of whores, using them as commodities to be passed around through the expediency of easy divorce. By divorcing their wives, men treat them as adulteresses. By marrying a woman discarded from a previous marriage, a man perpetuates the demeaning process and becomes guilty of adultery.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus deliberately withdrew from men the ruler’s right of discarding a wife at will and reinstated the creational pattern of the lifelong “one flesh” union. His disciples understood his intent accurately. But the principle of male privilege was so deeply ingrained in their mentality that they declared the freedom available in celibacy preferable to a commitment to lifelong monogamous marriage (Mt 19:10).<\/p>\n<p>Not only did Jesus reaffirm the validity of the “one flesh” union for the community of redemption, but the NT reinforced the inviolability of the marriage bond by defining it as an earthly copy of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>Despite such strong sanctions for the permanency of the marriage bond, the NT permits divorce as an exception intended to protect the innocent spouse in the case of immorality and desertion. Jesus made exceptions that established the right of a spouse wronged by an unfaithful mate to press for divorce (Mt 5:32; 19:9). Obviously, the wronged spouse has the option of maintaining the marriage bond despite the breach of commitment by the unfaithful mate. But in view of the exception allowed by Scripture, the obligation to maintain or reinstate the disrupted marriage may not be imposed upon the innocent spouse.<\/p>\n<p>The other exception that justifies divorce, according to the NT, is desertion. Although the provisions of 1 Corinthians 7:15 refer primarily to desertion by an unbelieving spouse, it should be noted that a believer guilty of desertion is to be treated as an unbeliever (1 Tm 5:8). Behavior equivalent to the abandonment of the marriage relationship constitutes a breach of conjugal commitment and becomes subject to the provision stated in 1 Corinthians 7:15.<\/p>\n<p>In either case, adultery or desertion, the aggrieved party has the right to seek divorce from the offending spouse and, having obtained it, becomes again a single person. Should repentance and reconciliation fail to restore the violated union, the aggrieved spouse is not bound to the marriage. According to Scripture, a person who is not bound is free to remarry, but only “in the Lord,” meaning to another Christian (1 Cor 7:39). The injunction for a single person who does not have the gift of celibacy to marry (v 9) applies to a person formerly married but who has become single by a scripturally legitimate divorce. In keeping with Christ’s teaching in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, the remarriage of believers may not be approved when the divorce has been used as a means of changing mates, since such intent makes the divorce adulterous.<\/p>\n<p>Many factors usually combine to destroy a marriage; therefore, the church must deal with each case of divorce and remarriage on an individual basis, taking into account God’s inexhaustible capacity to forgive sin and to restore broken lives. Obviously, the scriptural restrictions on divorce do not apply to believers whose broken marriages predate their conversion, since God’s forgiveness wipes clean the sin of their pre-Christian past and makes them new creatures in Christ.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DIVORCE<\/h3>\n<p>Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history.<\/p>\n<p>In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design for marriage. He described the implications of the “one flesh” relationship as the abrogation of the separatedness of the spouses and the creation of an inviolable union (Mt 19:6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOldTestamentsViewonDivorce\">The Old Testament’s View on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>The disruptions brought about by the fall had grievous consequences for the male\/female relationship. Having allowed sin to sever their primary dependency on God, man and woman became respectively subject to the elements from which they had been originally made. Man became subject to the dust of the ground whence he had come (Gn 2:7; 3:19), and woman became subject to the man from whom she had been formed (2:22; 3:16). Prior to the fall, man and woman had enjoyed a relationship of equality as cosharers in the divine image (1:27) and as partners in the divine mandate to exercise dominion over creation (v 28). After the fall man became ruler over woman, and woman became subject to man (3:16).<\/p>\n<p>As a result of these new conditions, man assumed rights of disposition over woman that he did not possess prior to the fall. The “one flesh” relation was violated when the right of rulership opened the way for the male ruler to multiply the number of his female subjects. This disparity between male and female resulted in the practice of polygamy (Gn 4:19; 16:3; 29:30) and of serial monogamy, which required the termination of each successive marriage by an act of divorce (Dt 24:1-4). Thus, the emergence of the practice of divorce appeared as the inevitable consequence of the principle of male rulership. Neither rulership nor divorce was part of God’s original design for the marriage relationship. The Mosaic regulation on divorce was a concession made by God to the fallen condition of mankind (Mt 19:8). Characteristically, the option of divorce was a right available only to the male rulers. As subjects of their male rulers, wives became the victims of divorce. Men could divorce their wives; women could not divorce their husbands.<\/p>\n<p>As unfair as it may seem, the Deuteronomic provisions for divorce were actually intended to offer a modicum of protection for its female victims. A husband had to justify a divorce action against his wife by citing something indecent about her. He was to give his divorced wife a bill of divorce that accounted for her marriage to him (Dt 24:1). Moreover, a divorced husband was forbidden to remarry his ex-wife after her subsequent marriage, since his original divorce was viewed as a defilement of her (v 4).<\/p>\n<p>Although the Mosaic dispositions on divorce were granted as a divine concession to Israel’s hardness of heart, the OT emphatically states that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). The right of divorce was grudgingly granted as an accommodation to the principle of male rulership that had resulted from the fall. But God’s original design, reflected in the “one flesh” marital relation, remained the standard for the union of man and woman in marriage.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingonDivorce\">Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>Inasmuch as Christ’s ministry of redemption signaled a return to God’s original purposes in Creation, the old covenant regulations on divorce were abrogated in the Christian community. In order to justify the inviolability of the marriage bond among his followers, Jesus directed them to the creational model. Referring negatively to the intervening Mosaic allowance for divorce, Jesus upheld God’s original creation order by stating that “from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19:8). Christ repudiated the fall and affirmed the Creation design.<\/p>\n<p>In Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus explicitly abrogated the Mosaic legislation that allowed men to divorce their wives. He viewed the practice as a violation of the integrity of women. Adulterous men who divorce their wives reduce them to the status of whores, using them as commodities to be passed around through the expediency of easy divorce. By divorcing their wives, men treat them as adulteresses. By marrying a woman discarded from a previous marriage, a man perpetuates the demeaning process and becomes guilty of adultery.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus deliberately withdrew from men the ruler’s right of discarding a wife at will and reinstated the creational pattern of the lifelong “one flesh” union. His disciples understood his intent accurately. But the principle of male privilege was so deeply ingrained in their mentality that they declared the freedom available in celibacy preferable to a commitment to lifelong monogamous marriage (Mt 19:10).<\/p>\n<p>Not only did Jesus reaffirm the validity of the “one flesh” union for the community of redemption, but the NT reinforced the inviolability of the marriage bond by defining it as an earthly copy of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>Despite such strong sanctions for the permanency of the marriage bond, the NT permits divorce as an exception intended to protect the innocent spouse in the case of immorality and desertion. Jesus made exceptions that established the right of a spouse wronged by an unfaithful mate to press for divorce (Mt 5:32; 19:9). Obviously, the wronged spouse has the option of maintaining the marriage bond despite the breach of commitment by the unfaithful mate. But in view of the exception allowed by Scripture, the obligation to maintain or reinstate the disrupted marriage may not be imposed upon the innocent spouse.<\/p>\n<p>The other exception that justifies divorce, according to the NT, is desertion. Although the provisions of 1 Corinthians 7:15 refer primarily to desertion by an unbelieving spouse, it should be noted that a believer guilty of desertion is to be treated as an unbeliever (1 Tm 5:8). Behavior equivalent to the abandonment of the marriage relationship constitutes a breach of conjugal commitment and becomes subject to the provision stated in 1 Corinthians 7:15.<\/p>\n<p>In either case, adultery or desertion, the aggrieved party has the right to seek divorce from the offending spouse and, having obtained it, becomes again a single person. Should repentance and reconciliation fail to restore the violated union, the aggrieved spouse is not bound to the marriage. According to Scripture, a person who is not bound is free to remarry, but only “in the Lord,” meaning to another Christian (1 Cor 7:39). The injunction for a single person who does not have the gift of celibacy to marry (v 9) applies to a person formerly married but who has become single by a scripturally legitimate divorce. In keeping with Christ’s teaching in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, the remarriage of believers may not be approved when the divorce has been used as a means of changing mates, since such intent makes the divorce adulterous.<\/p>\n<p>Many factors usually combine to destroy a marriage; therefore, the church must deal with each case of divorce and remarriage on an individual basis, taking into account God’s inexhaustible capacity to forgive sin and to restore broken lives. Obviously, the scriptural restrictions on divorce do not apply to believers whose broken marriages predate their conversion, since God’s forgiveness wipes clean the sin of their pre-Christian past and makes them new creatures in Christ.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DIVORCE Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history. In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design f...","summary_en":"DIVORCE Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history. In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design f...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13498,"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":15352,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of Heart*, Hardness","title_en":"of Heart*, Hardness","content_ro":"<h3>HARDNESS OF HEART*<\/h3>\n<p>A phrase signifying spiritual obstinacy.<\/p>\n<p>The first references to the hardening of the heart exemplify the fundamental features of this doctrine in Scripture. The number of times it is referred to is surprising; there are at least 20 references to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in the OT alone, as well as Paul’s exposition of its significance in Romans 9:17-24.<\/p>\n<p>The first reference is Exodus 4:21, where God promises Moses that he will harden Pharaoh’s heart that he might not allow the Israelites to go. This promise is repeated (see Ex 7:3; 14:4, 17) and rapidly comes to pass (7:13-14), as revelation and miracle follow one another before the eyes of Pharaoh, followed by the actual occurrence of the events God warned about, including all the judgments of the 10 plagues.<\/p>\n<p>No doubt is left in the mind of the reader, either in the exodus account itself or later, that Pharaoh’s obstinacy was an act of divine judgment on God’s part for his own external ends and purposes (Ex 9:16; Jos 11:20; cf. Rom 9:17-18). Nevertheless, it is also stated that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex 8:15, 32; 9:34; 13:15), showing that the hardening process is a deliberate product of personal rebellion against revealed truth. This is a crucial aspect of the scriptural presentation of the matter; judicial hardening of the heart is not only an act of God upon the sinner’s nature but also a willful turning from the truth. The sinner is therefore responsible to God for his hardness of heart.<\/p>\n<p>The process of judicial hardening is described by Paul in Romans 1:18-32. All humans have an innate God-consciousness from which they deliberately turn away. They change the truth into a lie and suppress what truth they have. As a result, hardness of heart takes over. Paul’s expression for this is that “their foolish heart was darkened” because “God gave them up” to the results of their own sin. The results are both intellectual (“God gave them over to a reprobate mind”) and moral, as well as social or cultural. Paul uses the term “hardness of heart” in Romans 2:5 to describe the general result. It is important to note that it is not against God’s wrath or against the results of sin that the wicked are in revolt but against “truth” and against their own conscience (2:14-16).<\/p>\n<p>God often warns his people not to harden their hearts, for Scripture associates hardening with unbelief (Dt 15:7; Heb 3:8, 15; 4:7). Jesus was grieved at the callousness of his hearers’ hearts (Mk 3:5; 16:14). He referred to allowances God had made to the Jews concerning divorce because of the hardness of their hearts (Mt 19:8).<\/p>\n<p>On at least two occasions in the Gospels, judicial blindness is ascribed directly to God, and its purpose stated (Mt 13:13-15; Jn 12:39-41). Hardness of heart is therefore an aspect of the development of the fallen character, manifesting the root of rebellion (Ps 95:8; Jn 12:40; Heb 3:8, 15; 4:7). Throughout Scripture, Jewish apostasy is so described (2 Kgs 17:14; Neh 9:16-17; Heb 3:8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Blindness; Judgment; Regeneration.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HARDNESS OF HEART*<\/h3>\n<p>A phrase signifying spiritual obstinacy.<\/p>\n<p>The first references to the hardening of the heart exemplify the fundamental features of this doctrine in Scripture. The number of times it is referred to is surprising; there are at least 20 references to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in the OT alone, as well as Paul’s exposition of its significance in Romans 9:17-24.<\/p>\n<p>The first reference is Exodus 4:21, where God promises Moses that he will harden Pharaoh’s heart that he might not allow the Israelites to go. This promise is repeated (see Ex 7:3; 14:4, 17) and rapidly comes to pass (7:13-14), as revelation and miracle follow one another before the eyes of Pharaoh, followed by the actual occurrence of the events God warned about, including all the judgments of the 10 plagues.<\/p>\n<p>No doubt is left in the mind of the reader, either in the exodus account itself or later, that Pharaoh’s obstinacy was an act of divine judgment on God’s part for his own external ends and purposes (Ex 9:16; Jos 11:20; cf. Rom 9:17-18). Nevertheless, it is also stated that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex 8:15, 32; 9:34; 13:15), showing that the hardening process is a deliberate product of personal rebellion against revealed truth. This is a crucial aspect of the scriptural presentation of the matter; judicial hardening of the heart is not only an act of God upon the sinner’s nature but also a willful turning from the truth. The sinner is therefore responsible to God for his hardness of heart.<\/p>\n<p>The process of judicial hardening is described by Paul in Romans 1:18-32. All humans have an innate God-consciousness from which they deliberately turn away. They change the truth into a lie and suppress what truth they have. As a result, hardness of heart takes over. Paul’s expression for this is that “their foolish heart was darkened” because “God gave them up” to the results of their own sin. The results are both intellectual (“God gave them over to a reprobate mind”) and moral, as well as social or cultural. Paul uses the term “hardness of heart” in Romans 2:5 to describe the general result. It is important to note that it is not against God’s wrath or against the results of sin that the wicked are in revolt but against “truth” and against their own conscience (2:14-16).<\/p>\n<p>God often warns his people not to harden their hearts, for Scripture associates hardening with unbelief (Dt 15:7; Heb 3:8, 15; 4:7). Jesus was grieved at the callousness of his hearers’ hearts (Mk 3:5; 16:14). He referred to allowances God had made to the Jews concerning divorce because of the hardness of their hearts (Mt 19:8).<\/p>\n<p>On at least two occasions in the Gospels, judicial blindness is ascribed directly to God, and its purpose stated (Mt 13:13-15; Jn 12:39-41). Hardness of heart is therefore an aspect of the development of the fallen character, manifesting the root of rebellion (Ps 95:8; Jn 12:40; Heb 3:8, 15; 4:7). Throughout Scripture, Jewish apostasy is so described (2 Kgs 17:14; Neh 9:16-17; Heb 3:8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Blindness; Judgment; Regeneration.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HARDNESS OF HEART* A phrase signifying spiritual obstinacy. The first references to the hardening of the heart exemplify the fundamental features of this doctrine in Scripture. The number of times it is referred to is surprising; there are at least 20 references to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in the OT alone, as well as Paul’s exposition of its significance in Romans 9:17-24. The first reference is Exodus 4:21, where God promises Moses that he will harden Pharaoh’s heart that he might no...","summary_en":"HARDNESS OF HEART* A phrase signifying spiritual obstinacy. The first references to the hardening of the heart exemplify the fundamental features of this doctrine in Scripture. The number of times it is referred to is surprising; there are at least 20 references to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in the OT alone, as well as Paul’s exposition of its significance in Romans 9:17-24. The first reference is Exodus 4:21, where God promises Moses that he will harden Pharaoh’s heart that he might no...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"9":[{"id":675,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Adultery","title_en":"Adultery","content_ro":"<h3>ADULTERY<\/h3>\n<p>A breach of the unity of marriage. It describes any act of sexual intercourse between a married woman and a man other than her husband, and all sexual intercourse involving a married man and a woman other than his wife.<\/p>\n<p>In OT times, polygamous unions were not considered adulterous (cf. Dt 21:15). Nor was a husband branded as an adulterer if he had intercourse with a slave woman (Gn 16:1-4; 30:1-5) or a prostitute (Gn 38:15-18)—though the latter was, of course, condemned as immoral (1 Cor 6:15).<\/p>\n<p>Any imbalance between the sexes was dispelled by Jesus in his teaching on divorce and remarriage. While he did not rule out the possibility of divorce in cases of sexual unfaithfulness (Mt 5:32; 19:9), he warned that in all other circumstances remarriage involves both (ex-)husband and (ex-)wife in adultery. Paul added that the charge of adultery only applies if the remarried person’s original partner is still alive (Rom 7:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus also sharpened the OT’s definition of adultery by applying it to a man’s thought life. Any man who fantasizes in lust (as distinct from just being tempted) has committed adultery in mind and intention, even though there is no physical contact (Mt 5:27-28; cf. Jb 31:1, 9).<\/p>\n<p>The Bible’s condemnation of adultery is written into the heart of the OT law, prophecy, and wisdom literature. The Ten Commandments ban it unequivocally (Ex 20:14; Dt 5:18). The prophets list it among offenses that attract God’s anger and judgment (Jer 23:11-14; Ez 22:11; Mal 3:5). And the book of Proverbs scorns it as a senseless act by which a man destroys himself (Prv 6:23-35; cf. 7:6-27).<\/p>\n<p>The NT echoes that clear condemnation. Where there is no repentance, adultery excludes those who practice it from God’s kingdom (1 Cor 6:9). It is the very opposite of love of one’s neighbor (Rom 13:9-10), and it stands under the judgment of God himself (Heb 13:4).<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the penalty for adultery is death—for both the man and the woman (Lv 20:10; Dt 22:22). The same applies if the woman is single but engaged to another man, assuming she has not been raped (in which case only the man is to be executed—Dt 22:23-27). The refrain “You will cleanse the land from evil” (22:24) shows that adultery was considered a serious threat to society’s health, not simply an attack on the family lives of the two people involved.<\/p>\n<p>With such serious consequences, it was important to establish guilt beyond doubt. In cases of serious suspicion but insufficient evidence, the wife concerned was put through an elaborate ritual test that included taking an oath and drinking bitter water. The result was not a matter of chance because she stood in the Lord’s presence (Nm 5:11-31).<\/p>\n<p>In both the OT and NT, the language of adultery is used figuratively to describe human unfaithfulness to God. The OT prophets likened God’s covenant relationship with his people to marriage (Is 54:5-8; cf. Rv 21:2), so in their eyes the breaking of that relationship, especially by idolatry, was equivalent to spiritual adultery (Jer 5:7-8; 13:22-27; Ez 23:37).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus used the same imagery to characterize those who either rejected his claims or showed their lack of faith in him by demanding unnecessary extra signs of his deity (Mt 12:39; 16:4; Mk 8:38). And in another vivid NT passage, James describes God as a loving, jealous husband coming to deal with his adulterous people who have become good friends with the world and its false standards (Jas 4:4).<\/p>\n<p>This is the special theme of the prophet Hosea. God used the prophet’s own experience of a marriage broken by adultery to teach the seriousness of his people’s unfaithfulness to him (Hos 2:2-6) and his keen longing for a full reconciliation (3:1-5). Spiritual infidelity, like physical adultery, brings God’s judgment. But in both cases his overwhelming desire is for a mended relationship following sincere repentance (Jer 3:1-14; Ez 16:1-63).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Divorce; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Fornication.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ADULTERY<\/h3>\n<p>A breach of the unity of marriage. It describes any act of sexual intercourse between a married woman and a man other than her husband, and all sexual intercourse involving a married man and a woman other than his wife.<\/p>\n<p>In OT times, polygamous unions were not considered adulterous (cf. Dt 21:15). Nor was a husband branded as an adulterer if he had intercourse with a slave woman (Gn 16:1-4; 30:1-5) or a prostitute (Gn 38:15-18)—though the latter was, of course, condemned as immoral (1 Cor 6:15).<\/p>\n<p>Any imbalance between the sexes was dispelled by Jesus in his teaching on divorce and remarriage. While he did not rule out the possibility of divorce in cases of sexual unfaithfulness (Mt 5:32; 19:9), he warned that in all other circumstances remarriage involves both (ex-)husband and (ex-)wife in adultery. Paul added that the charge of adultery only applies if the remarried person’s original partner is still alive (Rom 7:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus also sharpened the OT’s definition of adultery by applying it to a man’s thought life. Any man who fantasizes in lust (as distinct from just being tempted) has committed adultery in mind and intention, even though there is no physical contact (Mt 5:27-28; cf. Jb 31:1, 9).<\/p>\n<p>The Bible’s condemnation of adultery is written into the heart of the OT law, prophecy, and wisdom literature. The Ten Commandments ban it unequivocally (Ex 20:14; Dt 5:18). The prophets list it among offenses that attract God’s anger and judgment (Jer 23:11-14; Ez 22:11; Mal 3:5). And the book of Proverbs scorns it as a senseless act by which a man destroys himself (Prv 6:23-35; cf. 7:6-27).<\/p>\n<p>The NT echoes that clear condemnation. Where there is no repentance, adultery excludes those who practice it from God’s kingdom (1 Cor 6:9). It is the very opposite of love of one’s neighbor (Rom 13:9-10), and it stands under the judgment of God himself (Heb 13:4).<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the penalty for adultery is death—for both the man and the woman (Lv 20:10; Dt 22:22). The same applies if the woman is single but engaged to another man, assuming she has not been raped (in which case only the man is to be executed—Dt 22:23-27). The refrain “You will cleanse the land from evil” (22:24) shows that adultery was considered a serious threat to society’s health, not simply an attack on the family lives of the two people involved.<\/p>\n<p>With such serious consequences, it was important to establish guilt beyond doubt. In cases of serious suspicion but insufficient evidence, the wife concerned was put through an elaborate ritual test that included taking an oath and drinking bitter water. The result was not a matter of chance because she stood in the Lord’s presence (Nm 5:11-31).<\/p>\n<p>In both the OT and NT, the language of adultery is used figuratively to describe human unfaithfulness to God. The OT prophets likened God’s covenant relationship with his people to marriage (Is 54:5-8; cf. Rv 21:2), so in their eyes the breaking of that relationship, especially by idolatry, was equivalent to spiritual adultery (Jer 5:7-8; 13:22-27; Ez 23:37).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus used the same imagery to characterize those who either rejected his claims or showed their lack of faith in him by demanding unnecessary extra signs of his deity (Mt 12:39; 16:4; Mk 8:38). And in another vivid NT passage, James describes God as a loving, jealous husband coming to deal with his adulterous people who have become good friends with the world and its false standards (Jas 4:4).<\/p>\n<p>This is the special theme of the prophet Hosea. God used the prophet’s own experience of a marriage broken by adultery to teach the seriousness of his people’s unfaithfulness to him (Hos 2:2-6) and his keen longing for a full reconciliation (3:1-5). Spiritual infidelity, like physical adultery, brings God’s judgment. But in both cases his overwhelming desire is for a mended relationship following sincere repentance (Jer 3:1-14; Ez 16:1-63).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Divorce; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Fornication.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ADULTERY A breach of the unity of marriage. It describes any act of sexual intercourse between a married woman and a man other than her husband, and all sexual intercourse involving a married man and a woman other than his wife. In OT times, polygamous unions were not considered adulterous (cf. Dt 21:15). Nor was a husband branded as an adulterer if he had intercourse with a slave woman (Gn 16:1-4; 30:1-5) or a prostitute (Gn 38:15-18)—though the latter was, of course, condemned as immoral (1...","summary_en":"ADULTERY A breach of the unity of marriage. It describes any act of sexual intercourse between a married woman and a man other than her husband, and all sexual intercourse involving a married man and a woman other than his wife. In OT times, polygamous unions were not considered adulterous (cf. Dt 21:15). Nor was a husband branded as an adulterer if he had intercourse with a slave woman (Gn 16:1-4; 30:1-5) or a prostitute (Gn 38:15-18)—though the latter was, of course, condemned as immoral (1...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":7598,"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},{"id":9790,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Divorce","title_en":"Divorce","content_ro":"<h3>DIVORCE<\/h3>\n<p>Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history.<\/p>\n<p>In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design for marriage. He described the implications of the “one flesh” relationship as the abrogation of the separatedness of the spouses and the creation of an inviolable union (Mt 19:6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOldTestamentsViewonDivorce\">The Old Testament’s View on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>The disruptions brought about by the fall had grievous consequences for the male\/female relationship. Having allowed sin to sever their primary dependency on God, man and woman became respectively subject to the elements from which they had been originally made. Man became subject to the dust of the ground whence he had come (Gn 2:7; 3:19), and woman became subject to the man from whom she had been formed (2:22; 3:16). Prior to the fall, man and woman had enjoyed a relationship of equality as cosharers in the divine image (1:27) and as partners in the divine mandate to exercise dominion over creation (v 28). After the fall man became ruler over woman, and woman became subject to man (3:16).<\/p>\n<p>As a result of these new conditions, man assumed rights of disposition over woman that he did not possess prior to the fall. The “one flesh” relation was violated when the right of rulership opened the way for the male ruler to multiply the number of his female subjects. This disparity between male and female resulted in the practice of polygamy (Gn 4:19; 16:3; 29:30) and of serial monogamy, which required the termination of each successive marriage by an act of divorce (Dt 24:1-4). Thus, the emergence of the practice of divorce appeared as the inevitable consequence of the principle of male rulership. Neither rulership nor divorce was part of God’s original design for the marriage relationship. The Mosaic regulation on divorce was a concession made by God to the fallen condition of mankind (Mt 19:8). Characteristically, the option of divorce was a right available only to the male rulers. As subjects of their male rulers, wives became the victims of divorce. Men could divorce their wives; women could not divorce their husbands.<\/p>\n<p>As unfair as it may seem, the Deuteronomic provisions for divorce were actually intended to offer a modicum of protection for its female victims. A husband had to justify a divorce action against his wife by citing something indecent about her. He was to give his divorced wife a bill of divorce that accounted for her marriage to him (Dt 24:1). Moreover, a divorced husband was forbidden to remarry his ex-wife after her subsequent marriage, since his original divorce was viewed as a defilement of her (v 4).<\/p>\n<p>Although the Mosaic dispositions on divorce were granted as a divine concession to Israel’s hardness of heart, the OT emphatically states that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). The right of divorce was grudgingly granted as an accommodation to the principle of male rulership that had resulted from the fall. But God’s original design, reflected in the “one flesh” marital relation, remained the standard for the union of man and woman in marriage.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingonDivorce\">Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>Inasmuch as Christ’s ministry of redemption signaled a return to God’s original purposes in Creation, the old covenant regulations on divorce were abrogated in the Christian community. In order to justify the inviolability of the marriage bond among his followers, Jesus directed them to the creational model. Referring negatively to the intervening Mosaic allowance for divorce, Jesus upheld God’s original creation order by stating that “from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19:8). Christ repudiated the fall and affirmed the Creation design.<\/p>\n<p>In Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus explicitly abrogated the Mosaic legislation that allowed men to divorce their wives. He viewed the practice as a violation of the integrity of women. Adulterous men who divorce their wives reduce them to the status of whores, using them as commodities to be passed around through the expediency of easy divorce. By divorcing their wives, men treat them as adulteresses. By marrying a woman discarded from a previous marriage, a man perpetuates the demeaning process and becomes guilty of adultery.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus deliberately withdrew from men the ruler’s right of discarding a wife at will and reinstated the creational pattern of the lifelong “one flesh” union. His disciples understood his intent accurately. But the principle of male privilege was so deeply ingrained in their mentality that they declared the freedom available in celibacy preferable to a commitment to lifelong monogamous marriage (Mt 19:10).<\/p>\n<p>Not only did Jesus reaffirm the validity of the “one flesh” union for the community of redemption, but the NT reinforced the inviolability of the marriage bond by defining it as an earthly copy of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>Despite such strong sanctions for the permanency of the marriage bond, the NT permits divorce as an exception intended to protect the innocent spouse in the case of immorality and desertion. Jesus made exceptions that established the right of a spouse wronged by an unfaithful mate to press for divorce (Mt 5:32; 19:9). Obviously, the wronged spouse has the option of maintaining the marriage bond despite the breach of commitment by the unfaithful mate. But in view of the exception allowed by Scripture, the obligation to maintain or reinstate the disrupted marriage may not be imposed upon the innocent spouse.<\/p>\n<p>The other exception that justifies divorce, according to the NT, is desertion. Although the provisions of 1 Corinthians 7:15 refer primarily to desertion by an unbelieving spouse, it should be noted that a believer guilty of desertion is to be treated as an unbeliever (1 Tm 5:8). Behavior equivalent to the abandonment of the marriage relationship constitutes a breach of conjugal commitment and becomes subject to the provision stated in 1 Corinthians 7:15.<\/p>\n<p>In either case, adultery or desertion, the aggrieved party has the right to seek divorce from the offending spouse and, having obtained it, becomes again a single person. Should repentance and reconciliation fail to restore the violated union, the aggrieved spouse is not bound to the marriage. According to Scripture, a person who is not bound is free to remarry, but only “in the Lord,” meaning to another Christian (1 Cor 7:39). The injunction for a single person who does not have the gift of celibacy to marry (v 9) applies to a person formerly married but who has become single by a scripturally legitimate divorce. In keeping with Christ’s teaching in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, the remarriage of believers may not be approved when the divorce has been used as a means of changing mates, since such intent makes the divorce adulterous.<\/p>\n<p>Many factors usually combine to destroy a marriage; therefore, the church must deal with each case of divorce and remarriage on an individual basis, taking into account God’s inexhaustible capacity to forgive sin and to restore broken lives. Obviously, the scriptural restrictions on divorce do not apply to believers whose broken marriages predate their conversion, since God’s forgiveness wipes clean the sin of their pre-Christian past and makes them new creatures in Christ.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DIVORCE<\/h3>\n<p>Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history.<\/p>\n<p>In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design for marriage. He described the implications of the “one flesh” relationship as the abrogation of the separatedness of the spouses and the creation of an inviolable union (Mt 19:6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOldTestamentsViewonDivorce\">The Old Testament’s View on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>The disruptions brought about by the fall had grievous consequences for the male\/female relationship. Having allowed sin to sever their primary dependency on God, man and woman became respectively subject to the elements from which they had been originally made. Man became subject to the dust of the ground whence he had come (Gn 2:7; 3:19), and woman became subject to the man from whom she had been formed (2:22; 3:16). Prior to the fall, man and woman had enjoyed a relationship of equality as cosharers in the divine image (1:27) and as partners in the divine mandate to exercise dominion over creation (v 28). After the fall man became ruler over woman, and woman became subject to man (3:16).<\/p>\n<p>As a result of these new conditions, man assumed rights of disposition over woman that he did not possess prior to the fall. The “one flesh” relation was violated when the right of rulership opened the way for the male ruler to multiply the number of his female subjects. This disparity between male and female resulted in the practice of polygamy (Gn 4:19; 16:3; 29:30) and of serial monogamy, which required the termination of each successive marriage by an act of divorce (Dt 24:1-4). Thus, the emergence of the practice of divorce appeared as the inevitable consequence of the principle of male rulership. Neither rulership nor divorce was part of God’s original design for the marriage relationship. The Mosaic regulation on divorce was a concession made by God to the fallen condition of mankind (Mt 19:8). Characteristically, the option of divorce was a right available only to the male rulers. As subjects of their male rulers, wives became the victims of divorce. Men could divorce their wives; women could not divorce their husbands.<\/p>\n<p>As unfair as it may seem, the Deuteronomic provisions for divorce were actually intended to offer a modicum of protection for its female victims. A husband had to justify a divorce action against his wife by citing something indecent about her. He was to give his divorced wife a bill of divorce that accounted for her marriage to him (Dt 24:1). Moreover, a divorced husband was forbidden to remarry his ex-wife after her subsequent marriage, since his original divorce was viewed as a defilement of her (v 4).<\/p>\n<p>Although the Mosaic dispositions on divorce were granted as a divine concession to Israel’s hardness of heart, the OT emphatically states that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). The right of divorce was grudgingly granted as an accommodation to the principle of male rulership that had resulted from the fall. But God’s original design, reflected in the “one flesh” marital relation, remained the standard for the union of man and woman in marriage.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingonDivorce\">Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>Inasmuch as Christ’s ministry of redemption signaled a return to God’s original purposes in Creation, the old covenant regulations on divorce were abrogated in the Christian community. In order to justify the inviolability of the marriage bond among his followers, Jesus directed them to the creational model. Referring negatively to the intervening Mosaic allowance for divorce, Jesus upheld God’s original creation order by stating that “from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19:8). Christ repudiated the fall and affirmed the Creation design.<\/p>\n<p>In Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus explicitly abrogated the Mosaic legislation that allowed men to divorce their wives. He viewed the practice as a violation of the integrity of women. Adulterous men who divorce their wives reduce them to the status of whores, using them as commodities to be passed around through the expediency of easy divorce. By divorcing their wives, men treat them as adulteresses. By marrying a woman discarded from a previous marriage, a man perpetuates the demeaning process and becomes guilty of adultery.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus deliberately withdrew from men the ruler’s right of discarding a wife at will and reinstated the creational pattern of the lifelong “one flesh” union. His disciples understood his intent accurately. But the principle of male privilege was so deeply ingrained in their mentality that they declared the freedom available in celibacy preferable to a commitment to lifelong monogamous marriage (Mt 19:10).<\/p>\n<p>Not only did Jesus reaffirm the validity of the “one flesh” union for the community of redemption, but the NT reinforced the inviolability of the marriage bond by defining it as an earthly copy of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>Despite such strong sanctions for the permanency of the marriage bond, the NT permits divorce as an exception intended to protect the innocent spouse in the case of immorality and desertion. Jesus made exceptions that established the right of a spouse wronged by an unfaithful mate to press for divorce (Mt 5:32; 19:9). Obviously, the wronged spouse has the option of maintaining the marriage bond despite the breach of commitment by the unfaithful mate. But in view of the exception allowed by Scripture, the obligation to maintain or reinstate the disrupted marriage may not be imposed upon the innocent spouse.<\/p>\n<p>The other exception that justifies divorce, according to the NT, is desertion. Although the provisions of 1 Corinthians 7:15 refer primarily to desertion by an unbelieving spouse, it should be noted that a believer guilty of desertion is to be treated as an unbeliever (1 Tm 5:8). Behavior equivalent to the abandonment of the marriage relationship constitutes a breach of conjugal commitment and becomes subject to the provision stated in 1 Corinthians 7:15.<\/p>\n<p>In either case, adultery or desertion, the aggrieved party has the right to seek divorce from the offending spouse and, having obtained it, becomes again a single person. Should repentance and reconciliation fail to restore the violated union, the aggrieved spouse is not bound to the marriage. According to Scripture, a person who is not bound is free to remarry, but only “in the Lord,” meaning to another Christian (1 Cor 7:39). The injunction for a single person who does not have the gift of celibacy to marry (v 9) applies to a person formerly married but who has become single by a scripturally legitimate divorce. In keeping with Christ’s teaching in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, the remarriage of believers may not be approved when the divorce has been used as a means of changing mates, since such intent makes the divorce adulterous.<\/p>\n<p>Many factors usually combine to destroy a marriage; therefore, the church must deal with each case of divorce and remarriage on an individual basis, taking into account God’s inexhaustible capacity to forgive sin and to restore broken lives. Obviously, the scriptural restrictions on divorce do not apply to believers whose broken marriages predate their conversion, since God’s forgiveness wipes clean the sin of their pre-Christian past and makes them new creatures in Christ.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DIVORCE Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history. In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design f...","summary_en":"DIVORCE Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history. In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design f...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":12774,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Fornication*","title_en":"Fornication*","content_ro":"<h3>FORNICATION*<\/h3>\n<p>Unchastity, sexual immorality. The word “fornication” is used in the Scriptures to mean several different things.<\/p>\n<p>Its general meaning refers to every kind of illegal sexual intercourse, that is, any intercourse except that between a husband and wife. For example, in 1 Corinthians 5:1 (<span>kjv<\/span>) the word is used twice to refer to a sin that was being tolerated by the church: a man apparently was cohabitating with his stepmother. In a list of terrible sins in Romans 1:29, the apostle Paul included fornication, apparently intending the term to mean all acts of sexual immorality (<span>kjv<\/span>). In 1 Corinthians the context suggests that Paul used the word in reference to all sorts of illicit sexual activity (6:13, 18). In 1 Corinthians 7:2 (<span>kjv<\/span>) Paul used the plural Greek word for “fornications” to imply the various ways in which the sin may manifest itself. He thus gave a reason why people in Corinth should marry and live together properly. One of the sins included in the word’s general sense is adultery.<\/p>\n<p>“Fornication” also has a more limited sense of immoral sexual activity between unmarried people. Such a meaning is implied in those biblical lists where both fornication and adultery come together. Jesus’ list of the defiling sins that proceed out of a person’s heart includes “fornication” and “adultery” (Mt 15:19; Mk 7:21). Paul’s list of those sinners who will not inherit the kingdom of God also contains both fornicators and adulterers (1 Cor 6:9, <span>kjv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>“Fornication” in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 (as translated by the <span>kjv<\/span>) is usually taken by biblical students today to refer specifically to adultery (see <span>nlt<\/span>). The translation of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">porneia<\/span> has to do with interpretation rather than translation. Scholars disagree as to whether Jesus’ exceptive phrase relative to divorce has to do with fornication in a general or limited sense. He might have meant adultery alone, or he might have been including it generally with other sexual sins.<\/p>\n<p>A figurative use of the word “fornication” appears in both the OT and NT. Originating in descriptions of Israel and the church as the Lord’s wife or the bride, apostasy from God and idolatry are called fornication (see, e.g., Jer 2). Ezekiel 16 uses unfaithfulness to marriage vows as a symbol of Jerusalem’s wayward relationship with God. Jerusalem had become an “unfaithful wife” to him. The first three chapters of Hosea use the relationship of the prophet Hosea and his unfaithful wife, Gomer, as an illustration of how the nation of Israel had become guilty of fornication against its “husband,” the Lord, by going after other gods. In the book of Revelation the figurative use of “fornication” and “impure passion” is ascribed to Babylon the great, the mother of harlots (Rv 14:8; 17:2-4; 18:3; 19:2).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FORNICATION*<\/h3>\n<p>Unchastity, sexual immorality. The word “fornication” is used in the Scriptures to mean several different things.<\/p>\n<p>Its general meaning refers to every kind of illegal sexual intercourse, that is, any intercourse except that between a husband and wife. For example, in 1 Corinthians 5:1 (<span>kjv<\/span>) the word is used twice to refer to a sin that was being tolerated by the church: a man apparently was cohabitating with his stepmother. In a list of terrible sins in Romans 1:29, the apostle Paul included fornication, apparently intending the term to mean all acts of sexual immorality (<span>kjv<\/span>). In 1 Corinthians the context suggests that Paul used the word in reference to all sorts of illicit sexual activity (6:13, 18). In 1 Corinthians 7:2 (<span>kjv<\/span>) Paul used the plural Greek word for “fornications” to imply the various ways in which the sin may manifest itself. He thus gave a reason why people in Corinth should marry and live together properly. One of the sins included in the word’s general sense is adultery.<\/p>\n<p>“Fornication” also has a more limited sense of immoral sexual activity between unmarried people. Such a meaning is implied in those biblical lists where both fornication and adultery come together. Jesus’ list of the defiling sins that proceed out of a person’s heart includes “fornication” and “adultery” (Mt 15:19; Mk 7:21). Paul’s list of those sinners who will not inherit the kingdom of God also contains both fornicators and adulterers (1 Cor 6:9, <span>kjv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>“Fornication” in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 (as translated by the <span>kjv<\/span>) is usually taken by biblical students today to refer specifically to adultery (see <span>nlt<\/span>). The translation of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">porneia<\/span> has to do with interpretation rather than translation. Scholars disagree as to whether Jesus’ exceptive phrase relative to divorce has to do with fornication in a general or limited sense. He might have meant adultery alone, or he might have been including it generally with other sexual sins.<\/p>\n<p>A figurative use of the word “fornication” appears in both the OT and NT. Originating in descriptions of Israel and the church as the Lord’s wife or the bride, apostasy from God and idolatry are called fornication (see, e.g., Jer 2). Ezekiel 16 uses unfaithfulness to marriage vows as a symbol of Jerusalem’s wayward relationship with God. Jerusalem had become an “unfaithful wife” to him. The first three chapters of Hosea use the relationship of the prophet Hosea and his unfaithful wife, Gomer, as an illustration of how the nation of Israel had become guilty of fornication against its “husband,” the Lord, by going after other gods. In the book of Revelation the figurative use of “fornication” and “impure passion” is ascribed to Babylon the great, the mother of harlots (Rv 14:8; 17:2-4; 18:3; 19:2).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FORNICATION* Unchastity, sexual immorality. The word “fornication” is used in the Scriptures to mean several different things. Its general meaning refers to every kind of illegal sexual intercourse, that is, any intercourse except that between a husband and wife. For example, in 1 Corinthians 5:1 (kjv) the word is used twice to refer to a sin that was being tolerated by the church: a man apparently was cohabitating with his stepmother. In a list of terrible sins in Romans 1:29, the apostle Pa...","summary_en":"FORNICATION* Unchastity, sexual immorality. The word “fornication” is used in the Scriptures to mean several different things. Its general meaning refers to every kind of illegal sexual intercourse, that is, any intercourse except that between a husband and wife. For example, in 1 Corinthians 5:1 (kjv) the word is used twice to refer to a sin that was being tolerated by the church: a man apparently was cohabitating with his stepmother. In a list of terrible sins in Romans 1:29, the apostle Pa...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24547,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Marriage Customs Marriage","title_en":"Marriage Customs Marriage","content_ro":"<h3>MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS<\/h3>\n<p>The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures.<\/p>\n<p>The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24).<\/p>\n<p>Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the early monarchy, it is difficult to be certain about the matter, despite the importance in Egypt, and perhaps elsewhere, of the role of the mother in determining descent.<\/p>\n<p>Generally, the bride left her parents when she married and went to live with her husband’s clan, as Rebekah did (Gn 24:58-59). The phrase “to marry a wife” is from a root meaning to “become master” (Dt 21:13), and the wife frequently treated her husband as, and referred to him as, master.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew genealogical lists indicate that descent was reckoned through the male line (Gn 5:10; 36:9-43; Nm 1:1-15; Ru 4:18-22; 1 Chr 1:1-9). The important right of naming a child, indicating power and authority over that child, was exercised almost equally between father and mother in biblical references (cf. Gn 4:1, 25-26; 5:29; 35:18; 1 Sm 1:20; 4:21; Is 8:3; Hos 1:4-9). Sons were frequently named after their fathers and were identified with them.<\/p>\n<p>The father was the authority figure in the home in a patriarchal society. His wife and children were regarded as his possessions in somewhat the same way as his fields and livestock (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). He had the right to sell his daughters (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5), and even had the power of life and death over his children.<\/p>\n<p>The ease with which a man could terminate a marriage by divorcing his wife also shows the measure of his authority in the family (Dt 24:1-4; cf. 22:13-21).<\/p>\n<p>A levirate marriage was instituted to preserve a family name and inheritance. When a man died, the responsibility for maintaining his widow and any children that she might have fell upon her husband’s closest male relative. The order of responsibility is set out in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Normally, the brother of the deceased husband living with the clan was expected to enter into a levirate marriage with the widow. If she was childless, the firstborn of the new marriage was regarded as a child of the deceased. Levirate marriage was also known to the Canaanites, Assyrians, and Hittites.<\/p>\n<p>The most familiar levirate situation in the OT, although not conforming strictly to the law of Deuteronomy 25, is described in the book of Ruth. It was essential for Ruth to find some close male relative to marry her so that the family name and property could be preserved. The closest male relative declined the responsibility, feeling that it was a double imposition, first, to have to purchase the land and support Ruth, and second, to know that the first son would be regarded as her dead husband’s child, bearing his name and inheriting the land. Boaz agreed to undertake the responsibility (Ru 2:20–4:10).<\/p>\n<p>Despite numerous examples of polygamy cited in the OT, there is no doubt that the vast majority of the Israelites were monogamous. There are no examples given of large polygamous marriages in the families of commoners.<\/p>\n<p>The original instruction to Adam was that a “man . . . cleaves to his wife” (Gn 2:24). Hebrew laws generally imply that a marriage with one wife is the most acceptable form of marriage (Ex 20:17; 21:5; Lv 18:8, 16-20; 20:10; Nm 5:12; Dt 5:21). Although this seems to have become the norm by the time of the monarchy, a king such as Solomon did not follow Hebrew traditions in this matter. In the postexilic period marriages were predominantly monogamous, although they were being terminated increasingly by divorce. In the NT period monogamy seems to have been the rule, although persons such as Herod the Great were polygamous. Christ taught that marriage should last the lifetime of the partners, and if a man divorced his wife and married another woman during his previous spouse’s lifetime, he committed adultery (Mt 5:31-32).<\/p>\n<p>Marriage generally took place with those who were close to the immediate family circle, and it was imperative, therefore, that limits on acceptable consanguinity should be imposed. In patriarchal times a man could marry his half sister on his father’s side (Gn 20:12), and this continued to be the case even under David (2 Sm 13:13), although it was specifically forbidden in Leviticus 20:17. As there is some contradiction between the marriage laws of Deuteronomy and those in the Law of Holiness (Dt 25:5; Lv 18:16), it is possible that there was some modification of the stricter Levitical regulations. Marriages between cousins, such as Isaac with Rebekah, and Jacob with Rachel and Leah, were common. When a close relative was interested in marriage, it was almost impossible to refuse (Tb 6:13; 7:11-12). Moses was the offspring of a marriage between nephew and aunt (Ex 6:20; Nm 26:59), which would have been forbidden in Leviticus 18:12-13 and 20:19, as would Jacob’s marriage with two sisters at the same time (Gn 29:30).<\/p>\n<p>When the Israelites settled in Canaan, many of them married Canaanite women, much to the consternation of those who desired to maintain the purity of the Hebrew religion (1 Kgs 11:4). Such intermarriage was prohibited under Mosaic law (Ex 34:15-16; Dt 7:3-4), although many Israelites ignored these regulations and continued to indulge in mixed marriages. If a woman was captured in war and was prepared to abandon her native country, an exception could be made (Dt 21:10-14). By contrast, Samson married a Philistine woman who remained with her own people, but who received conjugal visits from her husband periodically (Jgs 14:8–15:2).<\/p>\n<p>The danger of intermarriage affecting the purity of Hebrew religion was considered so great that in the postexilic period wholesale divorce was ordered where Jews had married foreign wives (Ezr 9:2; 10:3, 16-17). The intent was that the national religion should remain pure, even though homes and families were destroyed. Even in NT times, Paul denounced marriage with non-Christians (2 Cor 6:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to estimate at what age young people married. A boy was considered to be a man by his early teens, and late in Jewish tradition this transition was celebrated by the bar mitzvah, which generally occurred when the boy was 13.<\/p>\n<p>Normally the young man’s parents chose the bride. The resulting discussion about the marriage occurred between the groom’s parents and the bride’s parents, and often neither of the young people was consulted. It was not essential for the eldest in the family to be married first (Gn 29:26). When Abraham decided that Isaac should be married, a servant was sent to choose a bride from among Abraham’s relatives in Mesopotamia. The servant made contact with the bride’s brother and mother (24:33-53), and it was only afterward that Rebekah was asked to give her consent (vv 57-58). Her father was possibly incapacitated; otherwise, it would have been unlikely that her consent would have been asked at all.<\/p>\n<p>One of the reasons why the average young man would not have been able to afford more than one wife was the practice of the bride-price, which had to be paid to the bride’s father. It was possible to substitute service for the bride-price (Gn 29:15-30), or the completion of an appointed task (1 Sm 18:25-27). A specific sum is mentioned for the bride-price in the case of a virgin who had been raped and who had to be purchased by her seducer. The price was set at 50 shekels, but this was considered to be a punishment; it is probable that the normal amount was between 10 and 320 shekels (Lv 27:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>At the time of the second temple, a virgin bride was considered to be worth 50 shekels, and a widow or divorced woman about half that sum. During this period, a virgin bride was normally married in midweek so that, if her husband found her not to be a virgin, he could bring proof to the court the following day, which would still be in advance of the Sabbath. A widow or a divorced woman normally married on the equivalent of a Thursday, giving her a full day with her husband before the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>Marriage was a covenant or alliance between two families. It thus united them, and by extending the kinship, the overall size of the group was increased. This was important in a society where responsibilities for relatives, however distant, were accepted unhesitatingly. The covenant concept also could have political overtones, as with the marriage between Solomon and the Egyptian princess (1 Kgs 11:1) or Ahab of Israel and Jezebel of Tyre (16:31).<\/p>\n<p>The sealing of the covenant included the transfer of gifts, which would establish the wealth and status of the donor and of the bride (Gn 34:12). In the ancient Near East, the giving of a gift was thought to include a part of the donor, so that the giver was actually offering a portion of himself. The gift that sealed the covenant also established the donor’s authority over the bride.<\/p>\n<p>The next stage in the marriage procedure was the betrothal. First mentioned in Exodus 22:16, the term is used several times in Deuteronomy (Dt 20:7; 22:23-24). The betrothal had the legal status of a marriage (Dt 28:30; 2 Sm 3:14), and anyone violating a betrothed virgin would be stoned, according to the law of Deuteronomy, for violating his neighbor’s “wife” (Dt 22:23-24). The meaning of a betrothal involved taking possession, in a manner similar to that of receiving tribute. Nevertheless, there remained a distinction between betrothing a woman and taking her as a wife (20:7). During the period of betrothal, the prospective groom was exempt from military service. It was assumed that the betrothal was a formal part of a permanent relationship (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27; 2:5).<\/p>\n<p>A man who was to marry another’s daughter was already regarded as a son-in-law at the time of betrothal (Gn 19:14). Mary, as Joseph’s betrothed, was actually considered his wife, although he did not have intercourse with her until after the birth of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The first biblical record of a wedding being celebrated by a feast is in the story of Jacob (Gn 29:22). There was no actual marriage contract recorded until its mention in the book of Tobit (Tb 7:12). This contract was not considered valid until the couple had cohabited for a week (Gn 29:27; Jgs 14:12, 18). When Samson left his bride before the end of the seven-day period, the bride’s parents considered the marriage void and gave her to another man (Jgs 14:20).<\/p>\n<p>The wedding was an occasion of great family rejoicing. The special clothing of the bride and groom (Is 61:10; Ez 16:9-13) included for the bride a fine dress often adorned with jewels (Ps 45:14-15; Is 61:10) and other ornaments, while the bridegroom had fine clothing and wore a diadem (Sg 3:11; Is 61:10). The bride wore a veil (Gn 24:65; Sg 4:3), which was removed in the bridal chamber. This would account for Rebekah’s need to veil herself in the presence of Isaac, her fiancé (Gn 24:65), and also for the ease with which Laban was able to replace Rachel with Leah on Jacob’s wedding night (29:23-25).<\/p>\n<p>Symbolic ceremonies may sometimes have been included as part of the betrothal or wedding ceremonies, such as Ruth’s request that Boaz spread his skirt over her to indicate that he was taking her to wife (Ru 3:9). Another ritual may have been the ceremonial removal of the bride’s girdle by the groom in the nuptial chamber, which was a room or tent specially prepared for the newly married couple. The marriage was normally consummated on the first night (Gn 29:23; Tb 8:1), and the stained linen would be retained as evidence of the bride’s virginity.<\/p>\n<p>In a contrast to the elaborate procession and feasting of the marriage, divorce was simple. A man could divorce his wife if he found fault with her in any particular matter, and this right was not abolished until the 11th century <span>AD<\/span>. Divorce was discouraged, however, and gradually the procedure became more complex, being hedged about with a number of deterrents.<\/p>\n<p>As the laws regarding divorce became more complex, so the procedure became increasingly expensive. At a later time a lawyer, or sometimes a rabbi, would give advice, especially on such matters as the return of property rightly belonging to the bride or her family.<\/p>\n<p>If a bride was found to have committed adultery, the husband was thought to be entitled to a divorce. This was also the case if he even suspected her of infidelity. He could also divorce his wife if he felt that she had violated normal morality, had become apostate, or had been less than efficient in the management of her household. If a woman refused her husband his conjugal rights for a period of at least one year, she could be divorced. Other grounds for divorcing a wife included insulting behavior to a husband or his relatives, contracting an incurable disease, or refusing to accompany her husband when he moved the domicile to a new area.<\/p>\n<p>In general, the status of the wife was low. Despite the fact that she gave advice, managed the household, educated the young children, and worked alongside her husband when necessary, he was still her master, and her role was to obey. She was little more than a servant, although better than a slave, for she could not be sold even though she could be divorced.<\/p>\n<p>In the frequent figurative uses of marriage in the OT, the Hebrew people and God are referred to in terms of bride and bridegroom (Is 62:4-5; Jer 2:2). The desolation that is about to overtake Judah is contrasted by Jeremiah with the celebration of a wedding feast (Jer 7:34; 16:9; 25:10). Figurative forms are used again in Hosea, where God rejects the relationship with his wife, Israel (Hos 2:2), but is prepared to accept her again if she resumes her faithful practices (vv 19-20).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, John the Baptist compares his sense of joy with that of a friend of the groom at a wedding (Jn 3:29), while Jesus himself made reference to the wedding preparations in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Mt 25:1-12). In the story of the marriage feast (22:1-14) Christ mentions quite incidentally the fact that wedding robes were provided for the guests at such ceremonies. The theme of the Christian church as the bride of Christ occurs in such books as 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingsonMarriageandAdultery\">Jesus’ Teachings on Marriage and Adultery<\/p>\n<p>In the realm of civil law there are changes of emphasis in Jesus’ teaching over against the OT. For example, the OT did not regard infidelity by a husband as adultery against his wife. When challenged by the Jews, Jesus said that originally God had made one wife for a man; therefore, there should be no divorce (Mk 10:2-9). Further, he stated if a man does divorce his wife and marry again, he “commits adultery against her” (v 11). Thus, Jesus made man and woman equal as regards adultery. An unfaithful husband is just as adulterous as an unfaithful wife. This revolutionary teaching struck the disciples as severe (see Mt 19:10), but it illustrates what Jesus meant when he said their righteousness must be greater than that of the Jewish leaders (5:20).<\/p>\n<p>There is a slight difference in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ teaching, which has led some scholars to argue that Jesus was not quite as strict as the above summary suggests. According to Matthew 19:9, a wife’s “unchastity” (probably some sexual misconduct) allows an aggrieved husband to divorce her and marry again. If this remark concluded the passage, this interpretation would be the simplest. However, from the context it is more likely that Jesus allowed innocent spouses to separate from their wives but not to remarry. This explains why the disciples were so shocked and why Jesus went on to speak about some who refuse to marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:12). This was also the way the church interpreted the passage for the first five centuries. They allowed Christians to separate but not to remarry (cf. 1 Cor 7:11).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Concubinage, Concubines; Divorce; Family Life and Relations; Sex, Sexuality; Virgin.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS<\/h3>\n<p>The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures.<\/p>\n<p>The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24).<\/p>\n<p>Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the early monarchy, it is difficult to be certain about the matter, despite the importance in Egypt, and perhaps elsewhere, of the role of the mother in determining descent.<\/p>\n<p>Generally, the bride left her parents when she married and went to live with her husband’s clan, as Rebekah did (Gn 24:58-59). The phrase “to marry a wife” is from a root meaning to “become master” (Dt 21:13), and the wife frequently treated her husband as, and referred to him as, master.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew genealogical lists indicate that descent was reckoned through the male line (Gn 5:10; 36:9-43; Nm 1:1-15; Ru 4:18-22; 1 Chr 1:1-9). The important right of naming a child, indicating power and authority over that child, was exercised almost equally between father and mother in biblical references (cf. Gn 4:1, 25-26; 5:29; 35:18; 1 Sm 1:20; 4:21; Is 8:3; Hos 1:4-9). Sons were frequently named after their fathers and were identified with them.<\/p>\n<p>The father was the authority figure in the home in a patriarchal society. His wife and children were regarded as his possessions in somewhat the same way as his fields and livestock (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). He had the right to sell his daughters (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5), and even had the power of life and death over his children.<\/p>\n<p>The ease with which a man could terminate a marriage by divorcing his wife also shows the measure of his authority in the family (Dt 24:1-4; cf. 22:13-21).<\/p>\n<p>A levirate marriage was instituted to preserve a family name and inheritance. When a man died, the responsibility for maintaining his widow and any children that she might have fell upon her husband’s closest male relative. The order of responsibility is set out in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Normally, the brother of the deceased husband living with the clan was expected to enter into a levirate marriage with the widow. If she was childless, the firstborn of the new marriage was regarded as a child of the deceased. Levirate marriage was also known to the Canaanites, Assyrians, and Hittites.<\/p>\n<p>The most familiar levirate situation in the OT, although not conforming strictly to the law of Deuteronomy 25, is described in the book of Ruth. It was essential for Ruth to find some close male relative to marry her so that the family name and property could be preserved. The closest male relative declined the responsibility, feeling that it was a double imposition, first, to have to purchase the land and support Ruth, and second, to know that the first son would be regarded as her dead husband’s child, bearing his name and inheriting the land. Boaz agreed to undertake the responsibility (Ru 2:20–4:10).<\/p>\n<p>Despite numerous examples of polygamy cited in the OT, there is no doubt that the vast majority of the Israelites were monogamous. There are no examples given of large polygamous marriages in the families of commoners.<\/p>\n<p>The original instruction to Adam was that a “man . . . cleaves to his wife” (Gn 2:24). Hebrew laws generally imply that a marriage with one wife is the most acceptable form of marriage (Ex 20:17; 21:5; Lv 18:8, 16-20; 20:10; Nm 5:12; Dt 5:21). Although this seems to have become the norm by the time of the monarchy, a king such as Solomon did not follow Hebrew traditions in this matter. In the postexilic period marriages were predominantly monogamous, although they were being terminated increasingly by divorce. In the NT period monogamy seems to have been the rule, although persons such as Herod the Great were polygamous. Christ taught that marriage should last the lifetime of the partners, and if a man divorced his wife and married another woman during his previous spouse’s lifetime, he committed adultery (Mt 5:31-32).<\/p>\n<p>Marriage generally took place with those who were close to the immediate family circle, and it was imperative, therefore, that limits on acceptable consanguinity should be imposed. In patriarchal times a man could marry his half sister on his father’s side (Gn 20:12), and this continued to be the case even under David (2 Sm 13:13), although it was specifically forbidden in Leviticus 20:17. As there is some contradiction between the marriage laws of Deuteronomy and those in the Law of Holiness (Dt 25:5; Lv 18:16), it is possible that there was some modification of the stricter Levitical regulations. Marriages between cousins, such as Isaac with Rebekah, and Jacob with Rachel and Leah, were common. When a close relative was interested in marriage, it was almost impossible to refuse (Tb 6:13; 7:11-12). Moses was the offspring of a marriage between nephew and aunt (Ex 6:20; Nm 26:59), which would have been forbidden in Leviticus 18:12-13 and 20:19, as would Jacob’s marriage with two sisters at the same time (Gn 29:30).<\/p>\n<p>When the Israelites settled in Canaan, many of them married Canaanite women, much to the consternation of those who desired to maintain the purity of the Hebrew religion (1 Kgs 11:4). Such intermarriage was prohibited under Mosaic law (Ex 34:15-16; Dt 7:3-4), although many Israelites ignored these regulations and continued to indulge in mixed marriages. If a woman was captured in war and was prepared to abandon her native country, an exception could be made (Dt 21:10-14). By contrast, Samson married a Philistine woman who remained with her own people, but who received conjugal visits from her husband periodically (Jgs 14:8–15:2).<\/p>\n<p>The danger of intermarriage affecting the purity of Hebrew religion was considered so great that in the postexilic period wholesale divorce was ordered where Jews had married foreign wives (Ezr 9:2; 10:3, 16-17). The intent was that the national religion should remain pure, even though homes and families were destroyed. Even in NT times, Paul denounced marriage with non-Christians (2 Cor 6:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to estimate at what age young people married. A boy was considered to be a man by his early teens, and late in Jewish tradition this transition was celebrated by the bar mitzvah, which generally occurred when the boy was 13.<\/p>\n<p>Normally the young man’s parents chose the bride. The resulting discussion about the marriage occurred between the groom’s parents and the bride’s parents, and often neither of the young people was consulted. It was not essential for the eldest in the family to be married first (Gn 29:26). When Abraham decided that Isaac should be married, a servant was sent to choose a bride from among Abraham’s relatives in Mesopotamia. The servant made contact with the bride’s brother and mother (24:33-53), and it was only afterward that Rebekah was asked to give her consent (vv 57-58). Her father was possibly incapacitated; otherwise, it would have been unlikely that her consent would have been asked at all.<\/p>\n<p>One of the reasons why the average young man would not have been able to afford more than one wife was the practice of the bride-price, which had to be paid to the bride’s father. It was possible to substitute service for the bride-price (Gn 29:15-30), or the completion of an appointed task (1 Sm 18:25-27). A specific sum is mentioned for the bride-price in the case of a virgin who had been raped and who had to be purchased by her seducer. The price was set at 50 shekels, but this was considered to be a punishment; it is probable that the normal amount was between 10 and 320 shekels (Lv 27:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>At the time of the second temple, a virgin bride was considered to be worth 50 shekels, and a widow or divorced woman about half that sum. During this period, a virgin bride was normally married in midweek so that, if her husband found her not to be a virgin, he could bring proof to the court the following day, which would still be in advance of the Sabbath. A widow or a divorced woman normally married on the equivalent of a Thursday, giving her a full day with her husband before the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>Marriage was a covenant or alliance between two families. It thus united them, and by extending the kinship, the overall size of the group was increased. This was important in a society where responsibilities for relatives, however distant, were accepted unhesitatingly. The covenant concept also could have political overtones, as with the marriage between Solomon and the Egyptian princess (1 Kgs 11:1) or Ahab of Israel and Jezebel of Tyre (16:31).<\/p>\n<p>The sealing of the covenant included the transfer of gifts, which would establish the wealth and status of the donor and of the bride (Gn 34:12). In the ancient Near East, the giving of a gift was thought to include a part of the donor, so that the giver was actually offering a portion of himself. The gift that sealed the covenant also established the donor’s authority over the bride.<\/p>\n<p>The next stage in the marriage procedure was the betrothal. First mentioned in Exodus 22:16, the term is used several times in Deuteronomy (Dt 20:7; 22:23-24). The betrothal had the legal status of a marriage (Dt 28:30; 2 Sm 3:14), and anyone violating a betrothed virgin would be stoned, according to the law of Deuteronomy, for violating his neighbor’s “wife” (Dt 22:23-24). The meaning of a betrothal involved taking possession, in a manner similar to that of receiving tribute. Nevertheless, there remained a distinction between betrothing a woman and taking her as a wife (20:7). During the period of betrothal, the prospective groom was exempt from military service. It was assumed that the betrothal was a formal part of a permanent relationship (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27; 2:5).<\/p>\n<p>A man who was to marry another’s daughter was already regarded as a son-in-law at the time of betrothal (Gn 19:14). Mary, as Joseph’s betrothed, was actually considered his wife, although he did not have intercourse with her until after the birth of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The first biblical record of a wedding being celebrated by a feast is in the story of Jacob (Gn 29:22). There was no actual marriage contract recorded until its mention in the book of Tobit (Tb 7:12). This contract was not considered valid until the couple had cohabited for a week (Gn 29:27; Jgs 14:12, 18). When Samson left his bride before the end of the seven-day period, the bride’s parents considered the marriage void and gave her to another man (Jgs 14:20).<\/p>\n<p>The wedding was an occasion of great family rejoicing. The special clothing of the bride and groom (Is 61:10; Ez 16:9-13) included for the bride a fine dress often adorned with jewels (Ps 45:14-15; Is 61:10) and other ornaments, while the bridegroom had fine clothing and wore a diadem (Sg 3:11; Is 61:10). The bride wore a veil (Gn 24:65; Sg 4:3), which was removed in the bridal chamber. This would account for Rebekah’s need to veil herself in the presence of Isaac, her fiancé (Gn 24:65), and also for the ease with which Laban was able to replace Rachel with Leah on Jacob’s wedding night (29:23-25).<\/p>\n<p>Symbolic ceremonies may sometimes have been included as part of the betrothal or wedding ceremonies, such as Ruth’s request that Boaz spread his skirt over her to indicate that he was taking her to wife (Ru 3:9). Another ritual may have been the ceremonial removal of the bride’s girdle by the groom in the nuptial chamber, which was a room or tent specially prepared for the newly married couple. The marriage was normally consummated on the first night (Gn 29:23; Tb 8:1), and the stained linen would be retained as evidence of the bride’s virginity.<\/p>\n<p>In a contrast to the elaborate procession and feasting of the marriage, divorce was simple. A man could divorce his wife if he found fault with her in any particular matter, and this right was not abolished until the 11th century <span>AD<\/span>. Divorce was discouraged, however, and gradually the procedure became more complex, being hedged about with a number of deterrents.<\/p>\n<p>As the laws regarding divorce became more complex, so the procedure became increasingly expensive. At a later time a lawyer, or sometimes a rabbi, would give advice, especially on such matters as the return of property rightly belonging to the bride or her family.<\/p>\n<p>If a bride was found to have committed adultery, the husband was thought to be entitled to a divorce. This was also the case if he even suspected her of infidelity. He could also divorce his wife if he felt that she had violated normal morality, had become apostate, or had been less than efficient in the management of her household. If a woman refused her husband his conjugal rights for a period of at least one year, she could be divorced. Other grounds for divorcing a wife included insulting behavior to a husband or his relatives, contracting an incurable disease, or refusing to accompany her husband when he moved the domicile to a new area.<\/p>\n<p>In general, the status of the wife was low. Despite the fact that she gave advice, managed the household, educated the young children, and worked alongside her husband when necessary, he was still her master, and her role was to obey. She was little more than a servant, although better than a slave, for she could not be sold even though she could be divorced.<\/p>\n<p>In the frequent figurative uses of marriage in the OT, the Hebrew people and God are referred to in terms of bride and bridegroom (Is 62:4-5; Jer 2:2). The desolation that is about to overtake Judah is contrasted by Jeremiah with the celebration of a wedding feast (Jer 7:34; 16:9; 25:10). Figurative forms are used again in Hosea, where God rejects the relationship with his wife, Israel (Hos 2:2), but is prepared to accept her again if she resumes her faithful practices (vv 19-20).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, John the Baptist compares his sense of joy with that of a friend of the groom at a wedding (Jn 3:29), while Jesus himself made reference to the wedding preparations in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Mt 25:1-12). In the story of the marriage feast (22:1-14) Christ mentions quite incidentally the fact that wedding robes were provided for the guests at such ceremonies. The theme of the Christian church as the bride of Christ occurs in such books as 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingsonMarriageandAdultery\">Jesus’ Teachings on Marriage and Adultery<\/p>\n<p>In the realm of civil law there are changes of emphasis in Jesus’ teaching over against the OT. For example, the OT did not regard infidelity by a husband as adultery against his wife. When challenged by the Jews, Jesus said that originally God had made one wife for a man; therefore, there should be no divorce (Mk 10:2-9). Further, he stated if a man does divorce his wife and marry again, he “commits adultery against her” (v 11). Thus, Jesus made man and woman equal as regards adultery. An unfaithful husband is just as adulterous as an unfaithful wife. This revolutionary teaching struck the disciples as severe (see Mt 19:10), but it illustrates what Jesus meant when he said their righteousness must be greater than that of the Jewish leaders (5:20).<\/p>\n<p>There is a slight difference in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ teaching, which has led some scholars to argue that Jesus was not quite as strict as the above summary suggests. According to Matthew 19:9, a wife’s “unchastity” (probably some sexual misconduct) allows an aggrieved husband to divorce her and marry again. If this remark concluded the passage, this interpretation would be the simplest. However, from the context it is more likely that Jesus allowed innocent spouses to separate from their wives but not to remarry. This explains why the disciples were so shocked and why Jesus went on to speak about some who refuse to marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:12). This was also the way the church interpreted the passage for the first five centuries. They allowed Christians to separate but not to remarry (cf. 1 Cor 7:11).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Concubinage, Concubines; Divorce; Family Life and Relations; Sex, Sexuality; Virgin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures. The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24). Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the...","summary_en":"MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures. The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24). Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":54871,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:9","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:9<\/strong> Jesus permits only one legitimate reason for a man to divorce: if <em>his wife has been unfaithful<\/em> (see 5:32). In the face of those who thought divorce could be taken lightly, Jesus affirms God’s created order: Marriage was designed to be permanent (see Mark 10:11-12). • <em>commits adultery:<\/em> This speaks only of the man who divorces his wife unlawfully. In such a case, his remarriage is adulterous. Jesus’ motivation is to reestablish the permanency of marriage.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:9<\/strong> Jesus permits only one legitimate reason for a man to divorce: if <em>his wife has been unfaithful<\/em> (see 5:32). In the face of those who thought divorce could be taken lightly, Jesus affirms God’s created order: Marriage was designed to be permanent (see Mark 10:11-12). • <em>commits adultery:<\/em> This speaks only of the man who divorces his wife unlawfully. In such a case, his remarriage is adulterous. Jesus’ motivation is to reestablish the permanency of marriage.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:9 Jesus permits only one legitimate reason for a man to divorce: if his wife has been unfaithful (see 5:32). In the face of those who thought divorce could be taken lightly, Jesus affirms God’s created order: Marriage was designed to be permanent (see Mark 10:11-12). • commits adultery: This speaks only of the man who divorces his wife unlawfully. In such a case, his remarriage is adulterous. Jesus’ motivation is to reestablish the permanency of marriage.","summary_en":"19:9 Jesus permits only one legitimate reason for a man to divorce: if his wife has been unfaithful (see 5:32). In the face of those who thought divorce could be taken lightly, Jesus affirms God’s created order: Marriage was designed to be permanent (see Mark 10:11-12). • commits adultery: This speaks only of the man who divorces his wife unlawfully. In such a case, his remarriage is adulterous. Jesus’ motivation is to reestablish the permanency of marriage.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82497,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:9","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:9<\/strong> Jesus permits only one legitimate reason for a man to divorce: if <em>his wife has been unfaithful<\/em> (see 5:32). In the face of those who thought divorce could be taken lightly, Jesus affirms God’s created order: Marriage was designed to be permanent (see Mark 10:11-12). • <em>commits adultery:<\/em> This speaks only of the man who divorces his wife unlawfully. In such a case, his remarriage is adulterous. Jesus’ motivation is to reestablish the permanency of marriage.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:9<\/strong> Jesus permits only one legitimate reason for a man to divorce: if <em>his wife has been unfaithful<\/em> (see 5:32). In the face of those who thought divorce could be taken lightly, Jesus affirms God’s created order: Marriage was designed to be permanent (see Mark 10:11-12). • <em>commits adultery:<\/em> This speaks only of the man who divorces his wife unlawfully. In such a case, his remarriage is adulterous. Jesus’ motivation is to reestablish the permanency of marriage.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:9 Jesus permits only one legitimate reason for a man to divorce: if his wife has been unfaithful (see 5:32). In the face of those who thought divorce could be taken lightly, Jesus affirms God’s created order: Marriage was designed to be permanent (see Mark 10:11-12). • commits adultery: This speaks only of the man who divorces his wife unlawfully. In such a case, his remarriage is adulterous. Jesus’ motivation is to reestablish the permanency of marriage.","summary_en":"19:9 Jesus permits only one legitimate reason for a man to divorce: if his wife has been unfaithful (see 5:32). In the face of those who thought divorce could be taken lightly, Jesus affirms God’s created order: Marriage was designed to be permanent (see Mark 10:11-12). • commits adultery: This speaks only of the man who divorces his wife unlawfully. In such a case, his remarriage is adulterous. Jesus’ motivation is to reestablish the permanency of marriage.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110123,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:9","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:9<\/strong> Jesus permits only one legitimate reason for a man to divorce: if <em>his wife has been unfaithful<\/em> (see 5:32). In the face of those who thought divorce could be taken lightly, Jesus affirms God’s created order: Marriage was designed to be permanent (see Mark 10:11-12). • <em>commits adultery:<\/em> This speaks only of the man who divorces his wife unlawfully. In such a case, his remarriage is adulterous. Jesus’ motivation is to reestablish the permanency of marriage.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:9<\/strong> Jesus permits only one legitimate reason for a man to divorce: if <em>his wife has been unfaithful<\/em> (see 5:32). In the face of those who thought divorce could be taken lightly, Jesus affirms God’s created order: Marriage was designed to be permanent (see Mark 10:11-12). • <em>commits adultery:<\/em> This speaks only of the man who divorces his wife unlawfully. In such a case, his remarriage is adulterous. Jesus’ motivation is to reestablish the permanency of marriage.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:9 Jesus permits only one legitimate reason for a man to divorce: if his wife has been unfaithful (see 5:32). In the face of those who thought divorce could be taken lightly, Jesus affirms God’s created order: Marriage was designed to be permanent (see Mark 10:11-12). • commits adultery: This speaks only of the man who divorces his wife unlawfully. In such a case, his remarriage is adulterous. Jesus’ motivation is to reestablish the permanency of marriage.","summary_en":"19:9 Jesus permits only one legitimate reason for a man to divorce: if his wife has been unfaithful (see 5:32). In the face of those who thought divorce could be taken lightly, Jesus affirms God’s created order: Marriage was designed to be permanent (see Mark 10:11-12). • commits adultery: This speaks only of the man who divorces his wife unlawfully. In such a case, his remarriage is adulterous. Jesus’ motivation is to reestablish the permanency of marriage.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":137749,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:9","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:9<\/strong> Jesus permits only one legitimate reason for a man to divorce: if <em>his wife has been unfaithful<\/em> (see 5:32). In the face of those who thought divorce could be taken lightly, Jesus affirms God’s created order: Marriage was designed to be permanent (see Mark 10:11-12). • <em>commits adultery:<\/em> This speaks only of the man who divorces his wife unlawfully. In such a case, his remarriage is adulterous. Jesus’ motivation is to reestablish the permanency of marriage.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:9<\/strong> Jesus permits only one legitimate reason for a man to divorce: if <em>his wife has been unfaithful<\/em> (see 5:32). In the face of those who thought divorce could be taken lightly, Jesus affirms God’s created order: Marriage was designed to be permanent (see Mark 10:11-12). • <em>commits adultery:<\/em> This speaks only of the man who divorces his wife unlawfully. In such a case, his remarriage is adulterous. Jesus’ motivation is to reestablish the permanency of marriage.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:9 Jesus permits only one legitimate reason for a man to divorce: if his wife has been unfaithful (see 5:32). In the face of those who thought divorce could be taken lightly, Jesus affirms God’s created order: Marriage was designed to be permanent (see Mark 10:11-12). • commits adultery: This speaks only of the man who divorces his wife unlawfully. In such a case, his remarriage is adulterous. Jesus’ motivation is to reestablish the permanency of marriage.","summary_en":"19:9 Jesus permits only one legitimate reason for a man to divorce: if his wife has been unfaithful (see 5:32). In the face of those who thought divorce could be taken lightly, Jesus affirms God’s created order: Marriage was designed to be permanent (see Mark 10:11-12). • commits adultery: This speaks only of the man who divorces his wife unlawfully. In such a case, his remarriage is adulterous. Jesus’ motivation is to reestablish the permanency of marriage.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"10":[{"id":9787,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Divorce","title_en":"Divorce","content_ro":"<h3>DIVORCE<\/h3>\n<p>Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history.<\/p>\n<p>In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design for marriage. He described the implications of the “one flesh” relationship as the abrogation of the separatedness of the spouses and the creation of an inviolable union (Mt 19:6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOldTestamentsViewonDivorce\">The Old Testament’s View on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>The disruptions brought about by the fall had grievous consequences for the male\/female relationship. Having allowed sin to sever their primary dependency on God, man and woman became respectively subject to the elements from which they had been originally made. Man became subject to the dust of the ground whence he had come (Gn 2:7; 3:19), and woman became subject to the man from whom she had been formed (2:22; 3:16). Prior to the fall, man and woman had enjoyed a relationship of equality as cosharers in the divine image (1:27) and as partners in the divine mandate to exercise dominion over creation (v 28). After the fall man became ruler over woman, and woman became subject to man (3:16).<\/p>\n<p>As a result of these new conditions, man assumed rights of disposition over woman that he did not possess prior to the fall. The “one flesh” relation was violated when the right of rulership opened the way for the male ruler to multiply the number of his female subjects. This disparity between male and female resulted in the practice of polygamy (Gn 4:19; 16:3; 29:30) and of serial monogamy, which required the termination of each successive marriage by an act of divorce (Dt 24:1-4). Thus, the emergence of the practice of divorce appeared as the inevitable consequence of the principle of male rulership. Neither rulership nor divorce was part of God’s original design for the marriage relationship. The Mosaic regulation on divorce was a concession made by God to the fallen condition of mankind (Mt 19:8). Characteristically, the option of divorce was a right available only to the male rulers. As subjects of their male rulers, wives became the victims of divorce. Men could divorce their wives; women could not divorce their husbands.<\/p>\n<p>As unfair as it may seem, the Deuteronomic provisions for divorce were actually intended to offer a modicum of protection for its female victims. A husband had to justify a divorce action against his wife by citing something indecent about her. He was to give his divorced wife a bill of divorce that accounted for her marriage to him (Dt 24:1). Moreover, a divorced husband was forbidden to remarry his ex-wife after her subsequent marriage, since his original divorce was viewed as a defilement of her (v 4).<\/p>\n<p>Although the Mosaic dispositions on divorce were granted as a divine concession to Israel’s hardness of heart, the OT emphatically states that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). The right of divorce was grudgingly granted as an accommodation to the principle of male rulership that had resulted from the fall. But God’s original design, reflected in the “one flesh” marital relation, remained the standard for the union of man and woman in marriage.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingonDivorce\">Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>Inasmuch as Christ’s ministry of redemption signaled a return to God’s original purposes in Creation, the old covenant regulations on divorce were abrogated in the Christian community. In order to justify the inviolability of the marriage bond among his followers, Jesus directed them to the creational model. Referring negatively to the intervening Mosaic allowance for divorce, Jesus upheld God’s original creation order by stating that “from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19:8). Christ repudiated the fall and affirmed the Creation design.<\/p>\n<p>In Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus explicitly abrogated the Mosaic legislation that allowed men to divorce their wives. He viewed the practice as a violation of the integrity of women. Adulterous men who divorce their wives reduce them to the status of whores, using them as commodities to be passed around through the expediency of easy divorce. By divorcing their wives, men treat them as adulteresses. By marrying a woman discarded from a previous marriage, a man perpetuates the demeaning process and becomes guilty of adultery.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus deliberately withdrew from men the ruler’s right of discarding a wife at will and reinstated the creational pattern of the lifelong “one flesh” union. His disciples understood his intent accurately. But the principle of male privilege was so deeply ingrained in their mentality that they declared the freedom available in celibacy preferable to a commitment to lifelong monogamous marriage (Mt 19:10).<\/p>\n<p>Not only did Jesus reaffirm the validity of the “one flesh” union for the community of redemption, but the NT reinforced the inviolability of the marriage bond by defining it as an earthly copy of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>Despite such strong sanctions for the permanency of the marriage bond, the NT permits divorce as an exception intended to protect the innocent spouse in the case of immorality and desertion. Jesus made exceptions that established the right of a spouse wronged by an unfaithful mate to press for divorce (Mt 5:32; 19:9). Obviously, the wronged spouse has the option of maintaining the marriage bond despite the breach of commitment by the unfaithful mate. But in view of the exception allowed by Scripture, the obligation to maintain or reinstate the disrupted marriage may not be imposed upon the innocent spouse.<\/p>\n<p>The other exception that justifies divorce, according to the NT, is desertion. Although the provisions of 1 Corinthians 7:15 refer primarily to desertion by an unbelieving spouse, it should be noted that a believer guilty of desertion is to be treated as an unbeliever (1 Tm 5:8). Behavior equivalent to the abandonment of the marriage relationship constitutes a breach of conjugal commitment and becomes subject to the provision stated in 1 Corinthians 7:15.<\/p>\n<p>In either case, adultery or desertion, the aggrieved party has the right to seek divorce from the offending spouse and, having obtained it, becomes again a single person. Should repentance and reconciliation fail to restore the violated union, the aggrieved spouse is not bound to the marriage. According to Scripture, a person who is not bound is free to remarry, but only “in the Lord,” meaning to another Christian (1 Cor 7:39). The injunction for a single person who does not have the gift of celibacy to marry (v 9) applies to a person formerly married but who has become single by a scripturally legitimate divorce. In keeping with Christ’s teaching in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, the remarriage of believers may not be approved when the divorce has been used as a means of changing mates, since such intent makes the divorce adulterous.<\/p>\n<p>Many factors usually combine to destroy a marriage; therefore, the church must deal with each case of divorce and remarriage on an individual basis, taking into account God’s inexhaustible capacity to forgive sin and to restore broken lives. Obviously, the scriptural restrictions on divorce do not apply to believers whose broken marriages predate their conversion, since God’s forgiveness wipes clean the sin of their pre-Christian past and makes them new creatures in Christ.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DIVORCE<\/h3>\n<p>Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history.<\/p>\n<p>In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design for marriage. He described the implications of the “one flesh” relationship as the abrogation of the separatedness of the spouses and the creation of an inviolable union (Mt 19:6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOldTestamentsViewonDivorce\">The Old Testament’s View on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>The disruptions brought about by the fall had grievous consequences for the male\/female relationship. Having allowed sin to sever their primary dependency on God, man and woman became respectively subject to the elements from which they had been originally made. Man became subject to the dust of the ground whence he had come (Gn 2:7; 3:19), and woman became subject to the man from whom she had been formed (2:22; 3:16). Prior to the fall, man and woman had enjoyed a relationship of equality as cosharers in the divine image (1:27) and as partners in the divine mandate to exercise dominion over creation (v 28). After the fall man became ruler over woman, and woman became subject to man (3:16).<\/p>\n<p>As a result of these new conditions, man assumed rights of disposition over woman that he did not possess prior to the fall. The “one flesh” relation was violated when the right of rulership opened the way for the male ruler to multiply the number of his female subjects. This disparity between male and female resulted in the practice of polygamy (Gn 4:19; 16:3; 29:30) and of serial monogamy, which required the termination of each successive marriage by an act of divorce (Dt 24:1-4). Thus, the emergence of the practice of divorce appeared as the inevitable consequence of the principle of male rulership. Neither rulership nor divorce was part of God’s original design for the marriage relationship. The Mosaic regulation on divorce was a concession made by God to the fallen condition of mankind (Mt 19:8). Characteristically, the option of divorce was a right available only to the male rulers. As subjects of their male rulers, wives became the victims of divorce. Men could divorce their wives; women could not divorce their husbands.<\/p>\n<p>As unfair as it may seem, the Deuteronomic provisions for divorce were actually intended to offer a modicum of protection for its female victims. A husband had to justify a divorce action against his wife by citing something indecent about her. He was to give his divorced wife a bill of divorce that accounted for her marriage to him (Dt 24:1). Moreover, a divorced husband was forbidden to remarry his ex-wife after her subsequent marriage, since his original divorce was viewed as a defilement of her (v 4).<\/p>\n<p>Although the Mosaic dispositions on divorce were granted as a divine concession to Israel’s hardness of heart, the OT emphatically states that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). The right of divorce was grudgingly granted as an accommodation to the principle of male rulership that had resulted from the fall. But God’s original design, reflected in the “one flesh” marital relation, remained the standard for the union of man and woman in marriage.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingonDivorce\">Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>Inasmuch as Christ’s ministry of redemption signaled a return to God’s original purposes in Creation, the old covenant regulations on divorce were abrogated in the Christian community. In order to justify the inviolability of the marriage bond among his followers, Jesus directed them to the creational model. Referring negatively to the intervening Mosaic allowance for divorce, Jesus upheld God’s original creation order by stating that “from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19:8). Christ repudiated the fall and affirmed the Creation design.<\/p>\n<p>In Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus explicitly abrogated the Mosaic legislation that allowed men to divorce their wives. He viewed the practice as a violation of the integrity of women. Adulterous men who divorce their wives reduce them to the status of whores, using them as commodities to be passed around through the expediency of easy divorce. By divorcing their wives, men treat them as adulteresses. By marrying a woman discarded from a previous marriage, a man perpetuates the demeaning process and becomes guilty of adultery.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus deliberately withdrew from men the ruler’s right of discarding a wife at will and reinstated the creational pattern of the lifelong “one flesh” union. His disciples understood his intent accurately. But the principle of male privilege was so deeply ingrained in their mentality that they declared the freedom available in celibacy preferable to a commitment to lifelong monogamous marriage (Mt 19:10).<\/p>\n<p>Not only did Jesus reaffirm the validity of the “one flesh” union for the community of redemption, but the NT reinforced the inviolability of the marriage bond by defining it as an earthly copy of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>Despite such strong sanctions for the permanency of the marriage bond, the NT permits divorce as an exception intended to protect the innocent spouse in the case of immorality and desertion. Jesus made exceptions that established the right of a spouse wronged by an unfaithful mate to press for divorce (Mt 5:32; 19:9). Obviously, the wronged spouse has the option of maintaining the marriage bond despite the breach of commitment by the unfaithful mate. But in view of the exception allowed by Scripture, the obligation to maintain or reinstate the disrupted marriage may not be imposed upon the innocent spouse.<\/p>\n<p>The other exception that justifies divorce, according to the NT, is desertion. Although the provisions of 1 Corinthians 7:15 refer primarily to desertion by an unbelieving spouse, it should be noted that a believer guilty of desertion is to be treated as an unbeliever (1 Tm 5:8). Behavior equivalent to the abandonment of the marriage relationship constitutes a breach of conjugal commitment and becomes subject to the provision stated in 1 Corinthians 7:15.<\/p>\n<p>In either case, adultery or desertion, the aggrieved party has the right to seek divorce from the offending spouse and, having obtained it, becomes again a single person. Should repentance and reconciliation fail to restore the violated union, the aggrieved spouse is not bound to the marriage. According to Scripture, a person who is not bound is free to remarry, but only “in the Lord,” meaning to another Christian (1 Cor 7:39). The injunction for a single person who does not have the gift of celibacy to marry (v 9) applies to a person formerly married but who has become single by a scripturally legitimate divorce. In keeping with Christ’s teaching in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, the remarriage of believers may not be approved when the divorce has been used as a means of changing mates, since such intent makes the divorce adulterous.<\/p>\n<p>Many factors usually combine to destroy a marriage; therefore, the church must deal with each case of divorce and remarriage on an individual basis, taking into account God’s inexhaustible capacity to forgive sin and to restore broken lives. Obviously, the scriptural restrictions on divorce do not apply to believers whose broken marriages predate their conversion, since God’s forgiveness wipes clean the sin of their pre-Christian past and makes them new creatures in Christ.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DIVORCE Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history. In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design f...","summary_en":"DIVORCE Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history. In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design f...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24545,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Marriage Customs Marriage","title_en":"Marriage Customs Marriage","content_ro":"<h3>MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS<\/h3>\n<p>The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures.<\/p>\n<p>The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24).<\/p>\n<p>Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the early monarchy, it is difficult to be certain about the matter, despite the importance in Egypt, and perhaps elsewhere, of the role of the mother in determining descent.<\/p>\n<p>Generally, the bride left her parents when she married and went to live with her husband’s clan, as Rebekah did (Gn 24:58-59). The phrase “to marry a wife” is from a root meaning to “become master” (Dt 21:13), and the wife frequently treated her husband as, and referred to him as, master.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew genealogical lists indicate that descent was reckoned through the male line (Gn 5:10; 36:9-43; Nm 1:1-15; Ru 4:18-22; 1 Chr 1:1-9). The important right of naming a child, indicating power and authority over that child, was exercised almost equally between father and mother in biblical references (cf. Gn 4:1, 25-26; 5:29; 35:18; 1 Sm 1:20; 4:21; Is 8:3; Hos 1:4-9). Sons were frequently named after their fathers and were identified with them.<\/p>\n<p>The father was the authority figure in the home in a patriarchal society. His wife and children were regarded as his possessions in somewhat the same way as his fields and livestock (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). He had the right to sell his daughters (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5), and even had the power of life and death over his children.<\/p>\n<p>The ease with which a man could terminate a marriage by divorcing his wife also shows the measure of his authority in the family (Dt 24:1-4; cf. 22:13-21).<\/p>\n<p>A levirate marriage was instituted to preserve a family name and inheritance. When a man died, the responsibility for maintaining his widow and any children that she might have fell upon her husband’s closest male relative. The order of responsibility is set out in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Normally, the brother of the deceased husband living with the clan was expected to enter into a levirate marriage with the widow. If she was childless, the firstborn of the new marriage was regarded as a child of the deceased. Levirate marriage was also known to the Canaanites, Assyrians, and Hittites.<\/p>\n<p>The most familiar levirate situation in the OT, although not conforming strictly to the law of Deuteronomy 25, is described in the book of Ruth. It was essential for Ruth to find some close male relative to marry her so that the family name and property could be preserved. The closest male relative declined the responsibility, feeling that it was a double imposition, first, to have to purchase the land and support Ruth, and second, to know that the first son would be regarded as her dead husband’s child, bearing his name and inheriting the land. Boaz agreed to undertake the responsibility (Ru 2:20–4:10).<\/p>\n<p>Despite numerous examples of polygamy cited in the OT, there is no doubt that the vast majority of the Israelites were monogamous. There are no examples given of large polygamous marriages in the families of commoners.<\/p>\n<p>The original instruction to Adam was that a “man . . . cleaves to his wife” (Gn 2:24). Hebrew laws generally imply that a marriage with one wife is the most acceptable form of marriage (Ex 20:17; 21:5; Lv 18:8, 16-20; 20:10; Nm 5:12; Dt 5:21). Although this seems to have become the norm by the time of the monarchy, a king such as Solomon did not follow Hebrew traditions in this matter. In the postexilic period marriages were predominantly monogamous, although they were being terminated increasingly by divorce. In the NT period monogamy seems to have been the rule, although persons such as Herod the Great were polygamous. Christ taught that marriage should last the lifetime of the partners, and if a man divorced his wife and married another woman during his previous spouse’s lifetime, he committed adultery (Mt 5:31-32).<\/p>\n<p>Marriage generally took place with those who were close to the immediate family circle, and it was imperative, therefore, that limits on acceptable consanguinity should be imposed. In patriarchal times a man could marry his half sister on his father’s side (Gn 20:12), and this continued to be the case even under David (2 Sm 13:13), although it was specifically forbidden in Leviticus 20:17. As there is some contradiction between the marriage laws of Deuteronomy and those in the Law of Holiness (Dt 25:5; Lv 18:16), it is possible that there was some modification of the stricter Levitical regulations. Marriages between cousins, such as Isaac with Rebekah, and Jacob with Rachel and Leah, were common. When a close relative was interested in marriage, it was almost impossible to refuse (Tb 6:13; 7:11-12). Moses was the offspring of a marriage between nephew and aunt (Ex 6:20; Nm 26:59), which would have been forbidden in Leviticus 18:12-13 and 20:19, as would Jacob’s marriage with two sisters at the same time (Gn 29:30).<\/p>\n<p>When the Israelites settled in Canaan, many of them married Canaanite women, much to the consternation of those who desired to maintain the purity of the Hebrew religion (1 Kgs 11:4). Such intermarriage was prohibited under Mosaic law (Ex 34:15-16; Dt 7:3-4), although many Israelites ignored these regulations and continued to indulge in mixed marriages. If a woman was captured in war and was prepared to abandon her native country, an exception could be made (Dt 21:10-14). By contrast, Samson married a Philistine woman who remained with her own people, but who received conjugal visits from her husband periodically (Jgs 14:8–15:2).<\/p>\n<p>The danger of intermarriage affecting the purity of Hebrew religion was considered so great that in the postexilic period wholesale divorce was ordered where Jews had married foreign wives (Ezr 9:2; 10:3, 16-17). The intent was that the national religion should remain pure, even though homes and families were destroyed. Even in NT times, Paul denounced marriage with non-Christians (2 Cor 6:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to estimate at what age young people married. A boy was considered to be a man by his early teens, and late in Jewish tradition this transition was celebrated by the bar mitzvah, which generally occurred when the boy was 13.<\/p>\n<p>Normally the young man’s parents chose the bride. The resulting discussion about the marriage occurred between the groom’s parents and the bride’s parents, and often neither of the young people was consulted. It was not essential for the eldest in the family to be married first (Gn 29:26). When Abraham decided that Isaac should be married, a servant was sent to choose a bride from among Abraham’s relatives in Mesopotamia. The servant made contact with the bride’s brother and mother (24:33-53), and it was only afterward that Rebekah was asked to give her consent (vv 57-58). Her father was possibly incapacitated; otherwise, it would have been unlikely that her consent would have been asked at all.<\/p>\n<p>One of the reasons why the average young man would not have been able to afford more than one wife was the practice of the bride-price, which had to be paid to the bride’s father. It was possible to substitute service for the bride-price (Gn 29:15-30), or the completion of an appointed task (1 Sm 18:25-27). A specific sum is mentioned for the bride-price in the case of a virgin who had been raped and who had to be purchased by her seducer. The price was set at 50 shekels, but this was considered to be a punishment; it is probable that the normal amount was between 10 and 320 shekels (Lv 27:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>At the time of the second temple, a virgin bride was considered to be worth 50 shekels, and a widow or divorced woman about half that sum. During this period, a virgin bride was normally married in midweek so that, if her husband found her not to be a virgin, he could bring proof to the court the following day, which would still be in advance of the Sabbath. A widow or a divorced woman normally married on the equivalent of a Thursday, giving her a full day with her husband before the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>Marriage was a covenant or alliance between two families. It thus united them, and by extending the kinship, the overall size of the group was increased. This was important in a society where responsibilities for relatives, however distant, were accepted unhesitatingly. The covenant concept also could have political overtones, as with the marriage between Solomon and the Egyptian princess (1 Kgs 11:1) or Ahab of Israel and Jezebel of Tyre (16:31).<\/p>\n<p>The sealing of the covenant included the transfer of gifts, which would establish the wealth and status of the donor and of the bride (Gn 34:12). In the ancient Near East, the giving of a gift was thought to include a part of the donor, so that the giver was actually offering a portion of himself. The gift that sealed the covenant also established the donor’s authority over the bride.<\/p>\n<p>The next stage in the marriage procedure was the betrothal. First mentioned in Exodus 22:16, the term is used several times in Deuteronomy (Dt 20:7; 22:23-24). The betrothal had the legal status of a marriage (Dt 28:30; 2 Sm 3:14), and anyone violating a betrothed virgin would be stoned, according to the law of Deuteronomy, for violating his neighbor’s “wife” (Dt 22:23-24). The meaning of a betrothal involved taking possession, in a manner similar to that of receiving tribute. Nevertheless, there remained a distinction between betrothing a woman and taking her as a wife (20:7). During the period of betrothal, the prospective groom was exempt from military service. It was assumed that the betrothal was a formal part of a permanent relationship (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27; 2:5).<\/p>\n<p>A man who was to marry another’s daughter was already regarded as a son-in-law at the time of betrothal (Gn 19:14). Mary, as Joseph’s betrothed, was actually considered his wife, although he did not have intercourse with her until after the birth of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The first biblical record of a wedding being celebrated by a feast is in the story of Jacob (Gn 29:22). There was no actual marriage contract recorded until its mention in the book of Tobit (Tb 7:12). This contract was not considered valid until the couple had cohabited for a week (Gn 29:27; Jgs 14:12, 18). When Samson left his bride before the end of the seven-day period, the bride’s parents considered the marriage void and gave her to another man (Jgs 14:20).<\/p>\n<p>The wedding was an occasion of great family rejoicing. The special clothing of the bride and groom (Is 61:10; Ez 16:9-13) included for the bride a fine dress often adorned with jewels (Ps 45:14-15; Is 61:10) and other ornaments, while the bridegroom had fine clothing and wore a diadem (Sg 3:11; Is 61:10). The bride wore a veil (Gn 24:65; Sg 4:3), which was removed in the bridal chamber. This would account for Rebekah’s need to veil herself in the presence of Isaac, her fiancé (Gn 24:65), and also for the ease with which Laban was able to replace Rachel with Leah on Jacob’s wedding night (29:23-25).<\/p>\n<p>Symbolic ceremonies may sometimes have been included as part of the betrothal or wedding ceremonies, such as Ruth’s request that Boaz spread his skirt over her to indicate that he was taking her to wife (Ru 3:9). Another ritual may have been the ceremonial removal of the bride’s girdle by the groom in the nuptial chamber, which was a room or tent specially prepared for the newly married couple. The marriage was normally consummated on the first night (Gn 29:23; Tb 8:1), and the stained linen would be retained as evidence of the bride’s virginity.<\/p>\n<p>In a contrast to the elaborate procession and feasting of the marriage, divorce was simple. A man could divorce his wife if he found fault with her in any particular matter, and this right was not abolished until the 11th century <span>AD<\/span>. Divorce was discouraged, however, and gradually the procedure became more complex, being hedged about with a number of deterrents.<\/p>\n<p>As the laws regarding divorce became more complex, so the procedure became increasingly expensive. At a later time a lawyer, or sometimes a rabbi, would give advice, especially on such matters as the return of property rightly belonging to the bride or her family.<\/p>\n<p>If a bride was found to have committed adultery, the husband was thought to be entitled to a divorce. This was also the case if he even suspected her of infidelity. He could also divorce his wife if he felt that she had violated normal morality, had become apostate, or had been less than efficient in the management of her household. If a woman refused her husband his conjugal rights for a period of at least one year, she could be divorced. Other grounds for divorcing a wife included insulting behavior to a husband or his relatives, contracting an incurable disease, or refusing to accompany her husband when he moved the domicile to a new area.<\/p>\n<p>In general, the status of the wife was low. Despite the fact that she gave advice, managed the household, educated the young children, and worked alongside her husband when necessary, he was still her master, and her role was to obey. She was little more than a servant, although better than a slave, for she could not be sold even though she could be divorced.<\/p>\n<p>In the frequent figurative uses of marriage in the OT, the Hebrew people and God are referred to in terms of bride and bridegroom (Is 62:4-5; Jer 2:2). The desolation that is about to overtake Judah is contrasted by Jeremiah with the celebration of a wedding feast (Jer 7:34; 16:9; 25:10). Figurative forms are used again in Hosea, where God rejects the relationship with his wife, Israel (Hos 2:2), but is prepared to accept her again if she resumes her faithful practices (vv 19-20).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, John the Baptist compares his sense of joy with that of a friend of the groom at a wedding (Jn 3:29), while Jesus himself made reference to the wedding preparations in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Mt 25:1-12). In the story of the marriage feast (22:1-14) Christ mentions quite incidentally the fact that wedding robes were provided for the guests at such ceremonies. The theme of the Christian church as the bride of Christ occurs in such books as 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingsonMarriageandAdultery\">Jesus’ Teachings on Marriage and Adultery<\/p>\n<p>In the realm of civil law there are changes of emphasis in Jesus’ teaching over against the OT. For example, the OT did not regard infidelity by a husband as adultery against his wife. When challenged by the Jews, Jesus said that originally God had made one wife for a man; therefore, there should be no divorce (Mk 10:2-9). Further, he stated if a man does divorce his wife and marry again, he “commits adultery against her” (v 11). Thus, Jesus made man and woman equal as regards adultery. An unfaithful husband is just as adulterous as an unfaithful wife. This revolutionary teaching struck the disciples as severe (see Mt 19:10), but it illustrates what Jesus meant when he said their righteousness must be greater than that of the Jewish leaders (5:20).<\/p>\n<p>There is a slight difference in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ teaching, which has led some scholars to argue that Jesus was not quite as strict as the above summary suggests. According to Matthew 19:9, a wife’s “unchastity” (probably some sexual misconduct) allows an aggrieved husband to divorce her and marry again. If this remark concluded the passage, this interpretation would be the simplest. However, from the context it is more likely that Jesus allowed innocent spouses to separate from their wives but not to remarry. This explains why the disciples were so shocked and why Jesus went on to speak about some who refuse to marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:12). This was also the way the church interpreted the passage for the first five centuries. They allowed Christians to separate but not to remarry (cf. 1 Cor 7:11).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Concubinage, Concubines; Divorce; Family Life and Relations; Sex, Sexuality; Virgin.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS<\/h3>\n<p>The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures.<\/p>\n<p>The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24).<\/p>\n<p>Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the early monarchy, it is difficult to be certain about the matter, despite the importance in Egypt, and perhaps elsewhere, of the role of the mother in determining descent.<\/p>\n<p>Generally, the bride left her parents when she married and went to live with her husband’s clan, as Rebekah did (Gn 24:58-59). The phrase “to marry a wife” is from a root meaning to “become master” (Dt 21:13), and the wife frequently treated her husband as, and referred to him as, master.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew genealogical lists indicate that descent was reckoned through the male line (Gn 5:10; 36:9-43; Nm 1:1-15; Ru 4:18-22; 1 Chr 1:1-9). The important right of naming a child, indicating power and authority over that child, was exercised almost equally between father and mother in biblical references (cf. Gn 4:1, 25-26; 5:29; 35:18; 1 Sm 1:20; 4:21; Is 8:3; Hos 1:4-9). Sons were frequently named after their fathers and were identified with them.<\/p>\n<p>The father was the authority figure in the home in a patriarchal society. His wife and children were regarded as his possessions in somewhat the same way as his fields and livestock (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). He had the right to sell his daughters (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5), and even had the power of life and death over his children.<\/p>\n<p>The ease with which a man could terminate a marriage by divorcing his wife also shows the measure of his authority in the family (Dt 24:1-4; cf. 22:13-21).<\/p>\n<p>A levirate marriage was instituted to preserve a family name and inheritance. When a man died, the responsibility for maintaining his widow and any children that she might have fell upon her husband’s closest male relative. The order of responsibility is set out in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Normally, the brother of the deceased husband living with the clan was expected to enter into a levirate marriage with the widow. If she was childless, the firstborn of the new marriage was regarded as a child of the deceased. Levirate marriage was also known to the Canaanites, Assyrians, and Hittites.<\/p>\n<p>The most familiar levirate situation in the OT, although not conforming strictly to the law of Deuteronomy 25, is described in the book of Ruth. It was essential for Ruth to find some close male relative to marry her so that the family name and property could be preserved. The closest male relative declined the responsibility, feeling that it was a double imposition, first, to have to purchase the land and support Ruth, and second, to know that the first son would be regarded as her dead husband’s child, bearing his name and inheriting the land. Boaz agreed to undertake the responsibility (Ru 2:20–4:10).<\/p>\n<p>Despite numerous examples of polygamy cited in the OT, there is no doubt that the vast majority of the Israelites were monogamous. There are no examples given of large polygamous marriages in the families of commoners.<\/p>\n<p>The original instruction to Adam was that a “man . . . cleaves to his wife” (Gn 2:24). Hebrew laws generally imply that a marriage with one wife is the most acceptable form of marriage (Ex 20:17; 21:5; Lv 18:8, 16-20; 20:10; Nm 5:12; Dt 5:21). Although this seems to have become the norm by the time of the monarchy, a king such as Solomon did not follow Hebrew traditions in this matter. In the postexilic period marriages were predominantly monogamous, although they were being terminated increasingly by divorce. In the NT period monogamy seems to have been the rule, although persons such as Herod the Great were polygamous. Christ taught that marriage should last the lifetime of the partners, and if a man divorced his wife and married another woman during his previous spouse’s lifetime, he committed adultery (Mt 5:31-32).<\/p>\n<p>Marriage generally took place with those who were close to the immediate family circle, and it was imperative, therefore, that limits on acceptable consanguinity should be imposed. In patriarchal times a man could marry his half sister on his father’s side (Gn 20:12), and this continued to be the case even under David (2 Sm 13:13), although it was specifically forbidden in Leviticus 20:17. As there is some contradiction between the marriage laws of Deuteronomy and those in the Law of Holiness (Dt 25:5; Lv 18:16), it is possible that there was some modification of the stricter Levitical regulations. Marriages between cousins, such as Isaac with Rebekah, and Jacob with Rachel and Leah, were common. When a close relative was interested in marriage, it was almost impossible to refuse (Tb 6:13; 7:11-12). Moses was the offspring of a marriage between nephew and aunt (Ex 6:20; Nm 26:59), which would have been forbidden in Leviticus 18:12-13 and 20:19, as would Jacob’s marriage with two sisters at the same time (Gn 29:30).<\/p>\n<p>When the Israelites settled in Canaan, many of them married Canaanite women, much to the consternation of those who desired to maintain the purity of the Hebrew religion (1 Kgs 11:4). Such intermarriage was prohibited under Mosaic law (Ex 34:15-16; Dt 7:3-4), although many Israelites ignored these regulations and continued to indulge in mixed marriages. If a woman was captured in war and was prepared to abandon her native country, an exception could be made (Dt 21:10-14). By contrast, Samson married a Philistine woman who remained with her own people, but who received conjugal visits from her husband periodically (Jgs 14:8–15:2).<\/p>\n<p>The danger of intermarriage affecting the purity of Hebrew religion was considered so great that in the postexilic period wholesale divorce was ordered where Jews had married foreign wives (Ezr 9:2; 10:3, 16-17). The intent was that the national religion should remain pure, even though homes and families were destroyed. Even in NT times, Paul denounced marriage with non-Christians (2 Cor 6:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to estimate at what age young people married. A boy was considered to be a man by his early teens, and late in Jewish tradition this transition was celebrated by the bar mitzvah, which generally occurred when the boy was 13.<\/p>\n<p>Normally the young man’s parents chose the bride. The resulting discussion about the marriage occurred between the groom’s parents and the bride’s parents, and often neither of the young people was consulted. It was not essential for the eldest in the family to be married first (Gn 29:26). When Abraham decided that Isaac should be married, a servant was sent to choose a bride from among Abraham’s relatives in Mesopotamia. The servant made contact with the bride’s brother and mother (24:33-53), and it was only afterward that Rebekah was asked to give her consent (vv 57-58). Her father was possibly incapacitated; otherwise, it would have been unlikely that her consent would have been asked at all.<\/p>\n<p>One of the reasons why the average young man would not have been able to afford more than one wife was the practice of the bride-price, which had to be paid to the bride’s father. It was possible to substitute service for the bride-price (Gn 29:15-30), or the completion of an appointed task (1 Sm 18:25-27). A specific sum is mentioned for the bride-price in the case of a virgin who had been raped and who had to be purchased by her seducer. The price was set at 50 shekels, but this was considered to be a punishment; it is probable that the normal amount was between 10 and 320 shekels (Lv 27:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>At the time of the second temple, a virgin bride was considered to be worth 50 shekels, and a widow or divorced woman about half that sum. During this period, a virgin bride was normally married in midweek so that, if her husband found her not to be a virgin, he could bring proof to the court the following day, which would still be in advance of the Sabbath. A widow or a divorced woman normally married on the equivalent of a Thursday, giving her a full day with her husband before the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>Marriage was a covenant or alliance between two families. It thus united them, and by extending the kinship, the overall size of the group was increased. This was important in a society where responsibilities for relatives, however distant, were accepted unhesitatingly. The covenant concept also could have political overtones, as with the marriage between Solomon and the Egyptian princess (1 Kgs 11:1) or Ahab of Israel and Jezebel of Tyre (16:31).<\/p>\n<p>The sealing of the covenant included the transfer of gifts, which would establish the wealth and status of the donor and of the bride (Gn 34:12). In the ancient Near East, the giving of a gift was thought to include a part of the donor, so that the giver was actually offering a portion of himself. The gift that sealed the covenant also established the donor’s authority over the bride.<\/p>\n<p>The next stage in the marriage procedure was the betrothal. First mentioned in Exodus 22:16, the term is used several times in Deuteronomy (Dt 20:7; 22:23-24). The betrothal had the legal status of a marriage (Dt 28:30; 2 Sm 3:14), and anyone violating a betrothed virgin would be stoned, according to the law of Deuteronomy, for violating his neighbor’s “wife” (Dt 22:23-24). The meaning of a betrothal involved taking possession, in a manner similar to that of receiving tribute. Nevertheless, there remained a distinction between betrothing a woman and taking her as a wife (20:7). During the period of betrothal, the prospective groom was exempt from military service. It was assumed that the betrothal was a formal part of a permanent relationship (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27; 2:5).<\/p>\n<p>A man who was to marry another’s daughter was already regarded as a son-in-law at the time of betrothal (Gn 19:14). Mary, as Joseph’s betrothed, was actually considered his wife, although he did not have intercourse with her until after the birth of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The first biblical record of a wedding being celebrated by a feast is in the story of Jacob (Gn 29:22). There was no actual marriage contract recorded until its mention in the book of Tobit (Tb 7:12). This contract was not considered valid until the couple had cohabited for a week (Gn 29:27; Jgs 14:12, 18). When Samson left his bride before the end of the seven-day period, the bride’s parents considered the marriage void and gave her to another man (Jgs 14:20).<\/p>\n<p>The wedding was an occasion of great family rejoicing. The special clothing of the bride and groom (Is 61:10; Ez 16:9-13) included for the bride a fine dress often adorned with jewels (Ps 45:14-15; Is 61:10) and other ornaments, while the bridegroom had fine clothing and wore a diadem (Sg 3:11; Is 61:10). The bride wore a veil (Gn 24:65; Sg 4:3), which was removed in the bridal chamber. This would account for Rebekah’s need to veil herself in the presence of Isaac, her fiancé (Gn 24:65), and also for the ease with which Laban was able to replace Rachel with Leah on Jacob’s wedding night (29:23-25).<\/p>\n<p>Symbolic ceremonies may sometimes have been included as part of the betrothal or wedding ceremonies, such as Ruth’s request that Boaz spread his skirt over her to indicate that he was taking her to wife (Ru 3:9). Another ritual may have been the ceremonial removal of the bride’s girdle by the groom in the nuptial chamber, which was a room or tent specially prepared for the newly married couple. The marriage was normally consummated on the first night (Gn 29:23; Tb 8:1), and the stained linen would be retained as evidence of the bride’s virginity.<\/p>\n<p>In a contrast to the elaborate procession and feasting of the marriage, divorce was simple. A man could divorce his wife if he found fault with her in any particular matter, and this right was not abolished until the 11th century <span>AD<\/span>. Divorce was discouraged, however, and gradually the procedure became more complex, being hedged about with a number of deterrents.<\/p>\n<p>As the laws regarding divorce became more complex, so the procedure became increasingly expensive. At a later time a lawyer, or sometimes a rabbi, would give advice, especially on such matters as the return of property rightly belonging to the bride or her family.<\/p>\n<p>If a bride was found to have committed adultery, the husband was thought to be entitled to a divorce. This was also the case if he even suspected her of infidelity. He could also divorce his wife if he felt that she had violated normal morality, had become apostate, or had been less than efficient in the management of her household. If a woman refused her husband his conjugal rights for a period of at least one year, she could be divorced. Other grounds for divorcing a wife included insulting behavior to a husband or his relatives, contracting an incurable disease, or refusing to accompany her husband when he moved the domicile to a new area.<\/p>\n<p>In general, the status of the wife was low. Despite the fact that she gave advice, managed the household, educated the young children, and worked alongside her husband when necessary, he was still her master, and her role was to obey. She was little more than a servant, although better than a slave, for she could not be sold even though she could be divorced.<\/p>\n<p>In the frequent figurative uses of marriage in the OT, the Hebrew people and God are referred to in terms of bride and bridegroom (Is 62:4-5; Jer 2:2). The desolation that is about to overtake Judah is contrasted by Jeremiah with the celebration of a wedding feast (Jer 7:34; 16:9; 25:10). Figurative forms are used again in Hosea, where God rejects the relationship with his wife, Israel (Hos 2:2), but is prepared to accept her again if she resumes her faithful practices (vv 19-20).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, John the Baptist compares his sense of joy with that of a friend of the groom at a wedding (Jn 3:29), while Jesus himself made reference to the wedding preparations in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Mt 25:1-12). In the story of the marriage feast (22:1-14) Christ mentions quite incidentally the fact that wedding robes were provided for the guests at such ceremonies. The theme of the Christian church as the bride of Christ occurs in such books as 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingsonMarriageandAdultery\">Jesus’ Teachings on Marriage and Adultery<\/p>\n<p>In the realm of civil law there are changes of emphasis in Jesus’ teaching over against the OT. For example, the OT did not regard infidelity by a husband as adultery against his wife. When challenged by the Jews, Jesus said that originally God had made one wife for a man; therefore, there should be no divorce (Mk 10:2-9). Further, he stated if a man does divorce his wife and marry again, he “commits adultery against her” (v 11). Thus, Jesus made man and woman equal as regards adultery. An unfaithful husband is just as adulterous as an unfaithful wife. This revolutionary teaching struck the disciples as severe (see Mt 19:10), but it illustrates what Jesus meant when he said their righteousness must be greater than that of the Jewish leaders (5:20).<\/p>\n<p>There is a slight difference in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ teaching, which has led some scholars to argue that Jesus was not quite as strict as the above summary suggests. According to Matthew 19:9, a wife’s “unchastity” (probably some sexual misconduct) allows an aggrieved husband to divorce her and marry again. If this remark concluded the passage, this interpretation would be the simplest. However, from the context it is more likely that Jesus allowed innocent spouses to separate from their wives but not to remarry. This explains why the disciples were so shocked and why Jesus went on to speak about some who refuse to marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:12). This was also the way the church interpreted the passage for the first five centuries. They allowed Christians to separate but not to remarry (cf. 1 Cor 7:11).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Concubinage, Concubines; Divorce; Family Life and Relations; Sex, Sexuality; Virgin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures. The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24). Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the...","summary_en":"MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures. The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24). Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24794,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of Matthew","title_en":"Gospel of Matthew","content_ro":"<h3>MATTHEW, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>First Gospel and first book of the NT.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date and Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Nowhere does the text of Matthew itself clearly identify the author. Yet, as did the ancient church, we may ascribe authorship to Matthew the apostle. He was otherwise known as Levi (see Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27, 29). Before Jesus called him, he was a tax collector (Mt 9:9ff.). It is interesting to note that Matthew called himself a tax collector, while none of the other Gospel writers did. Perhaps he did this to show how great an ascendancy he had been granted when the Lord called him, for tax collectors were despised and considered the lowest of people. The Gospel itself bears the impress of one knowledgeable of currency, for the Gospel writer speaks quite specifically about a two-drachma tax (Mt 17:24), a four-drachma coin (v 27), and the various talents (18:24; 25:15ff.).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateandProvenance\">Date and Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Scholars are divided about the date when Matthew was written primarily because there is still debate about which Gospel was first written: Matthew or Mark. If Mark was written before Matthew, then Matthew was very indebted to Mark for a great deal of material, and vice versa. Those who argue for Matthew’s priority do so on the basis that Matthew’s Gospel was (1) recognized in the early church as the first Gospel, (2) written to those who first needed a written account—the Jews, and (3) placed first in the NT canon. Whether it preceded or followed Mark, most scholars are certain that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (<span>AD<\/span> 70) because the temple is spoken of as still standing (Mt 24:15). Irenaeus indicated that Matthew wrote this Gospel while Peter and Paul were in Rome. This would make the time of writing in the 60s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<h5>Apologetics<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew wrote to a community of Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, located in a center such as Antioch in Syria. The community was surrounded and beset by Jews hostile to the claims of Jesus and the Christian community.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew wrote as a Jew for Jews. In Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew contends, the OT reached its appointed goal. Jesus is the Messiah of Israel’s expectation. In the opening chapter Matthew identifies him as “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (1:1), indeed as “God with us” (v 23). In later chapters Jesus is revealed as the Son of Man of Daniel 7 and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. Throughout the book (Mt 1:22–27:10) the events of Jesus’ life are represented as the “fulfillment” of OT prophecies. He comes to offer Israel salvation from sin (1:21). Nevertheless, the Jews have rejected him as their Messiah, and have thus placed themselves in the most perilous position (11:20-24; 21:33-46). One explanation for Israel’s rejection of Jesus is the failure of the Jewish religious leadership to prepare the people for his coming. In the strongest language, Matthew denounces the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. They have forsaken the Word of God in favor of their own traditions (ch 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Teaching the Church<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew also wrote as a Christian for Christians. He presents Jesus as a new Moses, indeed as Yahweh incarnate, expounding his own law for his people (ch 5), now newly constituted around his person under the leadership of the apostles (10:2-4; 16:18-19; 23:8-10). If the Christian church is to function properly, the teaching of the Messiah on a host of moral and spiritual issues must be taken with utmost seriousness (chs 5–7, 18). To aid this purpose, Matthew takes the form of a theological textbook or a handbook for the church, to instruct the people of God concerning the person and work of Jesus. That these teachings may be more readily and firmly grasped, Matthew presents them in a highly organized and memorable way. To facilitate the learning of the material, he arranges Jesus’ teachings in five major discourses (interlocked with narrative portions) in which teachings of the same kind are clustered together (e.g., ch 10 consists of a charge to missionaries, and ch 13 consists of seven parables of the kingdom). Matthew’s leading theological themes may be identified as the <em>Son<\/em> of God (Jesus is Yahweh incarnate, “God with us”), the <em>kingdom<\/em> of God (in Jesus, God is invading history to inaugurate his final rule), the <em>salvation<\/em> of God (as the servant-king, Jesus has come to “save his people from their sins,” 1:21), and the <em>people<\/em> of God (Jesus has come to build his church, a redeemed community consisting of both Jews and Gentiles).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the Savior (1:1–2:23)<\/h5>\n<p>His name reveals his mission: “Jesus” (1:1) means “Yahweh saves.” He is “the son of Abraham,” who comes to fulfill God’s ancient promises to Jews and Gentiles (Gn 12:1-3). He is “Christ [or Messiah],” the son of David (Mt 1:1), who comes to inaugurate the kingdom of God (4:17). More than that, as evidenced both by prophecy (1:22-23) and by the nature of his conception (vv 18-20), he is “God with us”—now come to “save his people from their sins” (v 21). As the son of David, and in accord with prophecy, he is born in Bethlehem (2:1-6). Drawn by the star of Israel’s Messiah (cf. Nm 24:17), Gentiles come to worship him (Mt 2:1-12). When Herod seeks to destroy him, Jesus finds sanctuary in a gentile land; God’s calling his Son from Egypt marks the beginning of a mighty saving work—nothing less than a new exodus under Jesus, the new Moses (vv 13-20). Having been born in the humblest of circumstances, Jesus now comes to live in Nazareth (vv 21-23).<\/p>\n<h5>The Beginnings of Ministry (3:1–4:25)<\/h5>\n<p>In face of the judgment that Jesus is about to execute (as evidence of the kingdom’s arrival), John the Baptist calls Israel to repentance (3:1-12). Jesus’ submission to John’s baptism, and the voice from heaven, show him to be a King who serves his subjects by taking their sins upon himself (vv 13-17). Like Israel at the exodus, Jesus is led into the wilderness for a period of testing (4:1). When the devil seeks to turn him away both from God and from his appointed mission, Jesus gains victory by depending upon God and his Word (vv 1-11). Returning to Galilee, Jesus deliberately settles in territory with both Jewish and Gentile inhabitants (vv 12-16) and begins a ministry of preaching (like John, he calls for repentance in face of the dawning kingdom), teaching (he calls his first disciples), and healing (vv 17-25).<\/p>\n\n<h5>The Sermon on the Mount (5:1–7:29)<\/h5>\n<p>Just as Moses ascended Sinai to receive God’s law for Israel, so Jesus—as both the new Moses and as God incarnate—ascends the mountain to set forth his instruction for the citizens of the kingdom of God (5:1-2). He begins with <em>gospel<\/em> (not law), declaring that God shall surely save those who—beset by sin—trust in God’s mercy, obey his commands, and long for him to establish his righteous rule in the earth (vv 3-12). Toward that end, disciples are a preservative (salt) and a witness (light) in a sinful society (vv 13-16). As the one who has come not to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to bring them to completion (i.e., to usher in the new age to which the OT pointed— v 17), Jesus calls his disciples to steadfast obedience to God’s law as now expounded by the Lawgiver himself (vv 18-20). God’s commands embrace inner desires as well as outward actions, must not be watered down or rationalized, and call for more radical obedience than ever before, now that the end has come (vv 21-48). In their giving, praying, and fasting, disciples are to combat hypocrisy by God-centeredness and self-forgetfulness (6:1-18). The Lord’s Prayer (vv 9-13) calls upon God to honor his name by establishing his rule on earth, and to pardon, protect, and provide for his children. Given this prayer, and given the disciples’ God-centered view of reality (vv 19-24), there is no cause for anxiety (vv 25-34). Disciples must be discerning without being judgmental (7:1-6), and depend on God for the power needed to love others (6:7-12). Having completed his exposition of the law (5:21–7:12), Jesus now calls would-be disciples to follow him (7:13-14), warns against false teachers (vv 15-20), and insists that true disciples do God’s will (vv 21-23).<\/p>\n<h5>The Authority of Jesus (8:1–9:38)<\/h5>\n<p>Having given his authority <em>verbal<\/em> expression in teaching (7:28-29), Jesus now gives it <em>visible<\/em> expression in a series of healing miracles, again revealing himself as the servant of Isaiah (8:17). He heals a leper, a centurion’s servant, and a bleeding woman by his word (8:1-13; 9:20-22). His touch dispels a fever and raises a dead person (8:14-15; 9:23-25). A combination of word and touch cures the blind (9:27-31). As “God with us,” Jesus calls for unqualified allegiance (8:18-22). Though lacking even the natural protection enjoyed by animals (v 20), he demonstrates his sovereignty over the natural world—and thus his deity—by calming the storm (vv 23-27). In direct confrontations with demons, he shows his superiority over them (8:28-34; 9:32-33). Exercising God’s own authority, he declares sins forgiven (9:1-8) and calls sinners to repentance and to discipleship (vv 9-13). Joy over the kingdom’s inauguration is mingled with longing for its consummation (vv 14-17). The summary of 9:35-38 echoes 4:23-25, recalls chapters 5–7, and prepares for the next major discourse.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Charge to the Missionaries (10:1-42)<\/h5>\n<p>In response to the prayers that he has commanded, Christ now invests 12 disciples with apostolic authority and sends them out into his harvest field (9:37–10:4). The discourse speaks both of the apostles’ immediate mission (10:5-15) and of the church’s broader mission (vv 16-42). For now, the apostles are to concentrate on evangelizing Jews (v 6), in preparation for the mission to Gentiles (28:19). The “worthy” are those who welcome the apostles and their message; the “unworthy,” those who reject them (10:11-15). In the broader mission, there is sure to be persecution (vv 16-19, 24-25), but this will actually aid the witness (vv 17-23). God will save his faithful missionaries (vv 19-23) but judge those who oppress them and who disown Christ (vv 26-39). A sure reward awaits both the herald and the recipient of the message (vv 37-42).<\/p>\n<h5>Christ the Lord (11:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The judgment John predicted is already under way; one’s stand in the last judgment would be determined by his response to the words and works of Jesus (11:2-6). Like his herald, Jesus meets with widespread hostility and indifference (vv 7-19). Given the finality of the grace attending his ministry, those who reject him will suffer the severest judgment (vv 20-24). Yet there are others—the lowly, the burdened, the teachable—who learn (by revelation from God the Father and God the Son) that the “Lord of heaven and earth” is also the “gentle and humble” God who comes to give rest to those who trust in him (vv 25-30). As the one who ushers in the new age (12:6), Jesus claims that he is the Lord of the Sabbath (vv 1-8). True rest (11:29) comes to those who come to Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Viewing Jesus as the destroyer of the Sabbath, the Pharisees ascribe his miraculous powers to Satan (12:22-24). On the contrary, says Jesus, the rule he is inaugurating is crushing Satan’s empire (vv 25-29). To reject this truth in the full awareness of what one is doing is to commit the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit (vv 30-32); the words of Jesus’ accusers expose them as persons destined for condemnation (vv 33-37). The requested sign from heaven will not be given. Jesus’ resurrection is the only sign they need.<\/p>\n<h5>The Parables of the Kingdom (13:1-58)<\/h5>\n<p>This, the third of Matthew’s five great discourses, contains seven parables. In the parable of the sower, four kinds of soil—hard, shallow, cluttered, and fruitful—illustrate the various responses to Jesus’ preaching (13:3-9, 18-23). As those who have received Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom (4:17), the disciples are given more light, but the crowds must accept that initial proclamation before further light is given (13:10-17, 34-35). In both the parable of the weeds (vv 24-30, 36-43) and the parable of the net (vv 47-50), Jesus assures his disciples that the final judgment will separate true believers from false, and warns against hasty, premature judgments (cf. 7:1-5). The parables of the mustard and the yeast (13:31-33) contrast the smallness of the kingdom’s inauguration with the fullness of its consummation. The parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl (vv 44-46) depict the kingdom as a value far surpassing all others (cf. 6:33). Thus illuminated by Jesus, disciples have new treasures to add to their old (13:51-52). The people of Nazareth, on the contrary, echo the crowds’ lack of understanding and the Pharisees’ hostility (vv 53-58).<\/p>\n<h5>Spiritual Conflict (14:1–16:12)<\/h5>\n<p>In 14:1-12 the preaching of John exposes the weakness of Herod, and the beheading of John anticipates the crucifixion of Jesus (cf. 17:12). The true king is not Herod but Jesus. He is sovereign over nature itself (14:13-36)—God incarnate, “God with us,” who feeds the hungry multitude in the wilderness (as God once provided manna) and walks upon and calms the sea (see Ps 89:9). Peter models Christians’ faith, fear, and utter dependence on Jesus (Mt 14:28-31). The Pharisees and teachers of the law appear to worship God but in fact are devoted to their own traditions, which they offer not as supplements but as <em>rivals<\/em> to the Word of God (15:1-9). In verses 10-20 Jesus teaches both that ceremonial law apart from moral law becomes empty ritual, and that the old distinction between clean and unclean foods (Lv 11) is now as obsolete as the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. To underscore the point, Jesus enters pagan territory, heals a Canaanite (15:21-28) and feeds a Gentile multitude (vv 29-39). Pharisees and Sadducees, for all their differences, are united in their opposition to Jesus (16:1-12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming Salvation (16:13–17:27)<\/h5>\n<p>Going beyond the crowds’ respectful but inadequate estimates, Peter confesses Jesus to be “the Christ, the Son of the living God”—a recognition of Jesus’ deity granted by divine revelation (16:13-17; cf. 11:25-26). As it is God the Son who possesses and builds the church, Satan and death are victims rather than victors. Jesus will build his church on Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. The apostles’ prohibiting and granting entry into the church (“binding” and “loosing,” respectively) depends upon the prior decision of heaven (i.e., God’s revelation of apostolic teaching). In face of Peter’s confession and the persistent false notions of messiahship (16:20, 23), Jesus now (for the first time) predicts his sufferings and coming glory (vv 21-28). In anticipation of that glory, Jesus is transfigured before certain disciples; Moses and Elijah join God the Father in bearing witness to the unique splendor of God the Son (17:1-8). Jesus then demonstrated his power by combating demonic powers (vv 14-18) and exhibited his authority by choosing to pay the temple tax using miraculous means (vv 24-27).<\/p>\n<h5>Greatness in the Kingdom (18:1-35)<\/h5>\n<p>In this, the fourth of Matthew’s five great discourses, Jesus concentrates on the character and attitudes of church members. He calls upon his followers both to <em>become<\/em> and to <em>welcome<\/em> the lowliest (18:1-5). Leaders especially are enjoined to deal harshly with themselves but gently with those under their care (vv 6-9). Remembering the Father’s love for sinners, Christians are to make every effort (both by prayer and by personal initiative) to restore offending brothers, with excommunication being the last resort (vv 10-20). Church members who really understand the Father’s amazing grace will never stop offering forgiveness and compassion to those who wrong them (vv 21-35).<\/p>\n<h5>Instructions on the Way to Jerusalem (19:1–20:34)<\/h5>\n<p>Given God’s creation ordinances, says Jesus, divorce itself is never <em>commanded;<\/em> it is only <em>permitted<\/em> in the case of sin—that is, where the marital bond has already been severed through infidelity (19:1-9). As in 5:17-48, Jesus calls his followers to radical obedience (19:10-12). Besides instructing disciples to become like children (18:1-4), Jesus embraces children themselves with his love (19:13-15). He appeals likewise to the rich young man (vv 16-22); but the man, while faithful to the commands about love of neighbor, is too bound by his wealth to give himself unreservedly to loving God. Yet those who abandon all to follow Jesus will receive wealth untold in the coming kingdom (vv 27-30). The basis for such blessings lies not in human merit but in the astonishing generosity of the gracious God (20:1-16). None—not even the rich—are beyond the power of his grace. But God offers free salvation at great cost to himself (vv 17-19). Confronting competitiveness and ambition among his followers, Jesus teaches them that true greatness lies not in lording it over others but in serving them (vv 20-34), as shall be supremely demonstrated in his death as “a ransom for many” (v 28).<\/p>\n<h5>Confrontations in Jerusalem (21:1–22:46)<\/h5>\n<p>As the Servant-King (cf. 3:17), and as the Messiah destined for suffering (cf. 16:16-21; 20:28), Jesus enters Jerusalem not upon a war horse but upon a donkey’s colt, for he purposes not to declare war on his enemies but to hand himself over to them—and thus achieve his triumph through defeat (21:1-11). As Lord of the temple, he demands that its commerce be halted and that it become (as God ordained) a place of worship for everyone, including the sick, the young, and the alien (21:12-17; cf. Mk 11:17). He outwits those who refuse to acknowledge the heavenly source of his and John’s authority (Mt 21:23-27). In dramatic and devastating fashion, first visibly (by cursing the fig tree—vv 18-22) and then verbally (in the three parables of 21:28–22:14), Jesus pronounces judgment upon those Jews who have refused to acknowledge him as Messiah and Son of God. Henceforth, the true people of God are those who believe in Jesus, whether Jews or Gentiles. He calls upon his people to pledge their supreme allegiance to God. In the resurrection what will matter most is one’s relationship to God (22:23-33). Indeed, he who loves God with his whole being and his neighbor as himself has kept the two foundational commandments of the OT (vv 34-40). Henceforth, submitting to God means rightly recognizing Jesus; he is indeed David’s son (Mt 1:1), but he is supremely David’s Lord—the exalted Son of God (22:41-46; cf. 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Woes upon the Scribes and Pharisees (23:1-39)<\/h5>\n<p>Five reasons are stated for Jesus’ denunciation of the Jewish religious leaders. First is their hypocrisy: their practice contradicts their teaching (23:1-4), their external purity conceals inner rottenness (vv 25-28), and they appear to champion God’s cause but are really enemies of God’s servants (vv 29-36). Second is the pride that prompts their hypocrisy (23:5-12). Third is their exploitation of, and their baleful influence upon, those under their charge (vv 13-15). Fourth is their preoccupation with the minutia of the law to the neglect of its weightier matters (vv 16-24). Fifth is their responsibility for the dreadful judgment that the whole nation is about to experience (vv 33-39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the End (24:1–25:46)<\/h5>\n<p>The introduction to this, the fifth and last of Matthew’s great discourses, makes it plain that there is the closest connection (for both Jesus and his disciples) between the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age (24:1-3). Jesus first characterizes the time between his first advent and his return: there will be natural catastrophes, international warfare, the rise of false messiahs, the persecution of God’s people, and the universal proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom (vv 4-14). Then Jesus speaks of the catastrophe that is soon to befall the Jewish nation in particular (as already foretold in 22:7; 23:38), culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70 (24:15-25). Sometime thereafter (but after an interval known only to God the Father—v 36), the Son of Man will return in great glory, amid apocalyptic signs, to gather his people (vv 26-31). The present generation will not pass away before judgment falls upon Israel (vv 15-25), so let listeners take heed (vv 32-35). The same warning applies to the more remote coming of the Son of Man (vv 36-51): both the certainty of the event and the uncertainty of its time call for vigilance and faithfulness in the interval, for that event will bring both salvation and judgment. To drive the lesson home, Jesus tells the parables of the wise and foolish virgins (25:1-13) and the talents (vv 14-30). The concluding parable of the sheep and the goats (vv 31-46) speaks of the urgent necessity of making the right response to the “brothers”—that is, the messengers—of Christ; those who feed, clothe, and otherwise care for the messengers of Christ thereby testify to their reception of the apostles’ message and their Lord (cf. 10:40-42).<\/p>\n<h5>The Road to Golgotha (26:1–27:26)<\/h5>\n<p>As though in response to Jesus’ own prediction, the chief priests and the elders hatch their murderous plot (26:1-5), soon to be aided by Judas (vv 14-16). The anointing at Bethany (vv 6-13) testifies to the extravagance of love and the imminence of death. At the Passover meal (vv 17-30), signaling at what sacrifice the new exodus comes about (cf. 2:15), Jesus interprets his forthcoming death as an atoning sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (26:26-28; cf. 1:21) and anticipates the day of final victory over sin and death in the consummated kingdom (26:29). Jesus’ agony in Gethsemane (vv 36-46) expresses his horror over taking his people’s sins upon himself. By a stupendous act of filial obedience, he submits his will to the Father, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled (26:54; cf. Is 53). As the servant of God destined to suffer, Jesus resists attempts to thwart his arrest (26:47-56). The Jews’ supreme court (the Sanhedrin) and their loftiest religious official (the high priest) condemn Jesus as a blasphemer because he dares to identify himself as “the Christ, the Son of God” (26:57-68; cf. 16:16). As though joining the court’s repudiation, Peter—in fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy (26:31-35)—disclaims knowledge of Jesus (vv 69-75). Judas’s disillusionment finds expression in suicide (27:3-10). The Jews hand Jesus over to Pilate the Roman governor (vv 1-2), he alone having the authority to pronounce the death sentence. Knowing that the charge of blasphemy will carry no weight with Pilate, the Jews now represent Jesus as a threat to Caesar. In the end, Pilate responds not to specific charges and evidence but to pressure from the crowd and the threat of riot (vv 11-25). He releases Barabbas and delivers Jesus to be crucified (v 26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Death of Jesus (27:27-66)<\/h5>\n<p>Following his humiliating treatment at the hands of the Roman soldiers, Jesus is led to the place of execution; weakened by the beatings, he requires assistance (27:27-32). He refuses the proffered narcotic so that he might keep his head clear (v 34). His being executed with malefactors (v 38) testifies to the purpose of his death (cf. 1:21). A steady stream of abuse is hurled at him, in blasphemous disregard of the truth of the superscription “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (27:37-44). Finally, out of the darkness Jesus utters the cry of dereliction; now is revealed the ultimate horror (that from which his soul shrank in Gethsemane), the sin-bearer’s supreme agony—the beloved Son’s abandonment by the Father (vv 45-49). Having cried out with a loud voice (cf. Jn 19:30), Jesus dies (27:50). Immediately, the saving effects of his death become evident (vv 51-53): sinners, now forgiven, have access to the holy God (the veil of the temple is rent asunder), and there is hope of resurrection for those who have died. As at the beginning (2:1-12), Gentiles instead of Jews confess Jesus (27:54; contrast 26:63-65). Joseph’s careful attentiveness to Jesus’ burial contrasts with the ongoing attempts of the chief priests and Pharisees to resist Jesus’ power (27:57-66).<\/p>\n<h5>The Triumph of the Savior (28:1-20)<\/h5>\n<p>Amid great glory and power and joy, the Savior’s victory over death is announced and attested (28:1-7). The risen Jesus appears first to the women who stayed with him during his crucifixion (28:8-10; cf. 27:61; 28:1). The Jews’ response to the guards’ report signals their growing desperation before irresistible reality (28:11-15). Meeting with the 11 disciples on the mountain in Galilee (vv 16-20), Jesus, the new Moses, continues his instructions. He now reveals the evangelistic purpose for which Matthew has been preparing readers from the very threshold of his Gospel. The apostles are to disciple all peoples by baptizing them into the name of the triune God and by teaching them to obey all that Jesus has commanded. The apostles go forth in the assurance that Jesus—as the Lord—stands over them, and that Jesus—as Immanuel—stands with them until the very end of the age.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Luke, Gospel of; Mark, Gospel of; Matthew (Person); Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MATTHEW, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>First Gospel and first book of the NT.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date and Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Nowhere does the text of Matthew itself clearly identify the author. Yet, as did the ancient church, we may ascribe authorship to Matthew the apostle. He was otherwise known as Levi (see Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27, 29). Before Jesus called him, he was a tax collector (Mt 9:9ff.). It is interesting to note that Matthew called himself a tax collector, while none of the other Gospel writers did. Perhaps he did this to show how great an ascendancy he had been granted when the Lord called him, for tax collectors were despised and considered the lowest of people. The Gospel itself bears the impress of one knowledgeable of currency, for the Gospel writer speaks quite specifically about a two-drachma tax (Mt 17:24), a four-drachma coin (v 27), and the various talents (18:24; 25:15ff.).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateandProvenance\">Date and Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Scholars are divided about the date when Matthew was written primarily because there is still debate about which Gospel was first written: Matthew or Mark. If Mark was written before Matthew, then Matthew was very indebted to Mark for a great deal of material, and vice versa. Those who argue for Matthew’s priority do so on the basis that Matthew’s Gospel was (1) recognized in the early church as the first Gospel, (2) written to those who first needed a written account—the Jews, and (3) placed first in the NT canon. Whether it preceded or followed Mark, most scholars are certain that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (<span>AD<\/span> 70) because the temple is spoken of as still standing (Mt 24:15). Irenaeus indicated that Matthew wrote this Gospel while Peter and Paul were in Rome. This would make the time of writing in the 60s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<h5>Apologetics<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew wrote to a community of Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, located in a center such as Antioch in Syria. The community was surrounded and beset by Jews hostile to the claims of Jesus and the Christian community.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew wrote as a Jew for Jews. In Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew contends, the OT reached its appointed goal. Jesus is the Messiah of Israel’s expectation. In the opening chapter Matthew identifies him as “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (1:1), indeed as “God with us” (v 23). In later chapters Jesus is revealed as the Son of Man of Daniel 7 and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. Throughout the book (Mt 1:22–27:10) the events of Jesus’ life are represented as the “fulfillment” of OT prophecies. He comes to offer Israel salvation from sin (1:21). Nevertheless, the Jews have rejected him as their Messiah, and have thus placed themselves in the most perilous position (11:20-24; 21:33-46). One explanation for Israel’s rejection of Jesus is the failure of the Jewish religious leadership to prepare the people for his coming. In the strongest language, Matthew denounces the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. They have forsaken the Word of God in favor of their own traditions (ch 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Teaching the Church<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew also wrote as a Christian for Christians. He presents Jesus as a new Moses, indeed as Yahweh incarnate, expounding his own law for his people (ch 5), now newly constituted around his person under the leadership of the apostles (10:2-4; 16:18-19; 23:8-10). If the Christian church is to function properly, the teaching of the Messiah on a host of moral and spiritual issues must be taken with utmost seriousness (chs 5–7, 18). To aid this purpose, Matthew takes the form of a theological textbook or a handbook for the church, to instruct the people of God concerning the person and work of Jesus. That these teachings may be more readily and firmly grasped, Matthew presents them in a highly organized and memorable way. To facilitate the learning of the material, he arranges Jesus’ teachings in five major discourses (interlocked with narrative portions) in which teachings of the same kind are clustered together (e.g., ch 10 consists of a charge to missionaries, and ch 13 consists of seven parables of the kingdom). Matthew’s leading theological themes may be identified as the <em>Son<\/em> of God (Jesus is Yahweh incarnate, “God with us”), the <em>kingdom<\/em> of God (in Jesus, God is invading history to inaugurate his final rule), the <em>salvation<\/em> of God (as the servant-king, Jesus has come to “save his people from their sins,” 1:21), and the <em>people<\/em> of God (Jesus has come to build his church, a redeemed community consisting of both Jews and Gentiles).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the Savior (1:1–2:23)<\/h5>\n<p>His name reveals his mission: “Jesus” (1:1) means “Yahweh saves.” He is “the son of Abraham,” who comes to fulfill God’s ancient promises to Jews and Gentiles (Gn 12:1-3). He is “Christ [or Messiah],” the son of David (Mt 1:1), who comes to inaugurate the kingdom of God (4:17). More than that, as evidenced both by prophecy (1:22-23) and by the nature of his conception (vv 18-20), he is “God with us”—now come to “save his people from their sins” (v 21). As the son of David, and in accord with prophecy, he is born in Bethlehem (2:1-6). Drawn by the star of Israel’s Messiah (cf. Nm 24:17), Gentiles come to worship him (Mt 2:1-12). When Herod seeks to destroy him, Jesus finds sanctuary in a gentile land; God’s calling his Son from Egypt marks the beginning of a mighty saving work—nothing less than a new exodus under Jesus, the new Moses (vv 13-20). Having been born in the humblest of circumstances, Jesus now comes to live in Nazareth (vv 21-23).<\/p>\n<h5>The Beginnings of Ministry (3:1–4:25)<\/h5>\n<p>In face of the judgment that Jesus is about to execute (as evidence of the kingdom’s arrival), John the Baptist calls Israel to repentance (3:1-12). Jesus’ submission to John’s baptism, and the voice from heaven, show him to be a King who serves his subjects by taking their sins upon himself (vv 13-17). Like Israel at the exodus, Jesus is led into the wilderness for a period of testing (4:1). When the devil seeks to turn him away both from God and from his appointed mission, Jesus gains victory by depending upon God and his Word (vv 1-11). Returning to Galilee, Jesus deliberately settles in territory with both Jewish and Gentile inhabitants (vv 12-16) and begins a ministry of preaching (like John, he calls for repentance in face of the dawning kingdom), teaching (he calls his first disciples), and healing (vv 17-25).<\/p>\n\n<h5>The Sermon on the Mount (5:1–7:29)<\/h5>\n<p>Just as Moses ascended Sinai to receive God’s law for Israel, so Jesus—as both the new Moses and as God incarnate—ascends the mountain to set forth his instruction for the citizens of the kingdom of God (5:1-2). He begins with <em>gospel<\/em> (not law), declaring that God shall surely save those who—beset by sin—trust in God’s mercy, obey his commands, and long for him to establish his righteous rule in the earth (vv 3-12). Toward that end, disciples are a preservative (salt) and a witness (light) in a sinful society (vv 13-16). As the one who has come not to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to bring them to completion (i.e., to usher in the new age to which the OT pointed— v 17), Jesus calls his disciples to steadfast obedience to God’s law as now expounded by the Lawgiver himself (vv 18-20). God’s commands embrace inner desires as well as outward actions, must not be watered down or rationalized, and call for more radical obedience than ever before, now that the end has come (vv 21-48). In their giving, praying, and fasting, disciples are to combat hypocrisy by God-centeredness and self-forgetfulness (6:1-18). The Lord’s Prayer (vv 9-13) calls upon God to honor his name by establishing his rule on earth, and to pardon, protect, and provide for his children. Given this prayer, and given the disciples’ God-centered view of reality (vv 19-24), there is no cause for anxiety (vv 25-34). Disciples must be discerning without being judgmental (7:1-6), and depend on God for the power needed to love others (6:7-12). Having completed his exposition of the law (5:21–7:12), Jesus now calls would-be disciples to follow him (7:13-14), warns against false teachers (vv 15-20), and insists that true disciples do God’s will (vv 21-23).<\/p>\n<h5>The Authority of Jesus (8:1–9:38)<\/h5>\n<p>Having given his authority <em>verbal<\/em> expression in teaching (7:28-29), Jesus now gives it <em>visible<\/em> expression in a series of healing miracles, again revealing himself as the servant of Isaiah (8:17). He heals a leper, a centurion’s servant, and a bleeding woman by his word (8:1-13; 9:20-22). His touch dispels a fever and raises a dead person (8:14-15; 9:23-25). A combination of word and touch cures the blind (9:27-31). As “God with us,” Jesus calls for unqualified allegiance (8:18-22). Though lacking even the natural protection enjoyed by animals (v 20), he demonstrates his sovereignty over the natural world—and thus his deity—by calming the storm (vv 23-27). In direct confrontations with demons, he shows his superiority over them (8:28-34; 9:32-33). Exercising God’s own authority, he declares sins forgiven (9:1-8) and calls sinners to repentance and to discipleship (vv 9-13). Joy over the kingdom’s inauguration is mingled with longing for its consummation (vv 14-17). The summary of 9:35-38 echoes 4:23-25, recalls chapters 5–7, and prepares for the next major discourse.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Charge to the Missionaries (10:1-42)<\/h5>\n<p>In response to the prayers that he has commanded, Christ now invests 12 disciples with apostolic authority and sends them out into his harvest field (9:37–10:4). The discourse speaks both of the apostles’ immediate mission (10:5-15) and of the church’s broader mission (vv 16-42). For now, the apostles are to concentrate on evangelizing Jews (v 6), in preparation for the mission to Gentiles (28:19). The “worthy” are those who welcome the apostles and their message; the “unworthy,” those who reject them (10:11-15). In the broader mission, there is sure to be persecution (vv 16-19, 24-25), but this will actually aid the witness (vv 17-23). God will save his faithful missionaries (vv 19-23) but judge those who oppress them and who disown Christ (vv 26-39). A sure reward awaits both the herald and the recipient of the message (vv 37-42).<\/p>\n<h5>Christ the Lord (11:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The judgment John predicted is already under way; one’s stand in the last judgment would be determined by his response to the words and works of Jesus (11:2-6). Like his herald, Jesus meets with widespread hostility and indifference (vv 7-19). Given the finality of the grace attending his ministry, those who reject him will suffer the severest judgment (vv 20-24). Yet there are others—the lowly, the burdened, the teachable—who learn (by revelation from God the Father and God the Son) that the “Lord of heaven and earth” is also the “gentle and humble” God who comes to give rest to those who trust in him (vv 25-30). As the one who ushers in the new age (12:6), Jesus claims that he is the Lord of the Sabbath (vv 1-8). True rest (11:29) comes to those who come to Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Viewing Jesus as the destroyer of the Sabbath, the Pharisees ascribe his miraculous powers to Satan (12:22-24). On the contrary, says Jesus, the rule he is inaugurating is crushing Satan’s empire (vv 25-29). To reject this truth in the full awareness of what one is doing is to commit the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit (vv 30-32); the words of Jesus’ accusers expose them as persons destined for condemnation (vv 33-37). The requested sign from heaven will not be given. Jesus’ resurrection is the only sign they need.<\/p>\n<h5>The Parables of the Kingdom (13:1-58)<\/h5>\n<p>This, the third of Matthew’s five great discourses, contains seven parables. In the parable of the sower, four kinds of soil—hard, shallow, cluttered, and fruitful—illustrate the various responses to Jesus’ preaching (13:3-9, 18-23). As those who have received Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom (4:17), the disciples are given more light, but the crowds must accept that initial proclamation before further light is given (13:10-17, 34-35). In both the parable of the weeds (vv 24-30, 36-43) and the parable of the net (vv 47-50), Jesus assures his disciples that the final judgment will separate true believers from false, and warns against hasty, premature judgments (cf. 7:1-5). The parables of the mustard and the yeast (13:31-33) contrast the smallness of the kingdom’s inauguration with the fullness of its consummation. The parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl (vv 44-46) depict the kingdom as a value far surpassing all others (cf. 6:33). Thus illuminated by Jesus, disciples have new treasures to add to their old (13:51-52). The people of Nazareth, on the contrary, echo the crowds’ lack of understanding and the Pharisees’ hostility (vv 53-58).<\/p>\n<h5>Spiritual Conflict (14:1–16:12)<\/h5>\n<p>In 14:1-12 the preaching of John exposes the weakness of Herod, and the beheading of John anticipates the crucifixion of Jesus (cf. 17:12). The true king is not Herod but Jesus. He is sovereign over nature itself (14:13-36)—God incarnate, “God with us,” who feeds the hungry multitude in the wilderness (as God once provided manna) and walks upon and calms the sea (see Ps 89:9). Peter models Christians’ faith, fear, and utter dependence on Jesus (Mt 14:28-31). The Pharisees and teachers of the law appear to worship God but in fact are devoted to their own traditions, which they offer not as supplements but as <em>rivals<\/em> to the Word of God (15:1-9). In verses 10-20 Jesus teaches both that ceremonial law apart from moral law becomes empty ritual, and that the old distinction between clean and unclean foods (Lv 11) is now as obsolete as the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. To underscore the point, Jesus enters pagan territory, heals a Canaanite (15:21-28) and feeds a Gentile multitude (vv 29-39). Pharisees and Sadducees, for all their differences, are united in their opposition to Jesus (16:1-12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming Salvation (16:13–17:27)<\/h5>\n<p>Going beyond the crowds’ respectful but inadequate estimates, Peter confesses Jesus to be “the Christ, the Son of the living God”—a recognition of Jesus’ deity granted by divine revelation (16:13-17; cf. 11:25-26). As it is God the Son who possesses and builds the church, Satan and death are victims rather than victors. Jesus will build his church on Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. The apostles’ prohibiting and granting entry into the church (“binding” and “loosing,” respectively) depends upon the prior decision of heaven (i.e., God’s revelation of apostolic teaching). In face of Peter’s confession and the persistent false notions of messiahship (16:20, 23), Jesus now (for the first time) predicts his sufferings and coming glory (vv 21-28). In anticipation of that glory, Jesus is transfigured before certain disciples; Moses and Elijah join God the Father in bearing witness to the unique splendor of God the Son (17:1-8). Jesus then demonstrated his power by combating demonic powers (vv 14-18) and exhibited his authority by choosing to pay the temple tax using miraculous means (vv 24-27).<\/p>\n<h5>Greatness in the Kingdom (18:1-35)<\/h5>\n<p>In this, the fourth of Matthew’s five great discourses, Jesus concentrates on the character and attitudes of church members. He calls upon his followers both to <em>become<\/em> and to <em>welcome<\/em> the lowliest (18:1-5). Leaders especially are enjoined to deal harshly with themselves but gently with those under their care (vv 6-9). Remembering the Father’s love for sinners, Christians are to make every effort (both by prayer and by personal initiative) to restore offending brothers, with excommunication being the last resort (vv 10-20). Church members who really understand the Father’s amazing grace will never stop offering forgiveness and compassion to those who wrong them (vv 21-35).<\/p>\n<h5>Instructions on the Way to Jerusalem (19:1–20:34)<\/h5>\n<p>Given God’s creation ordinances, says Jesus, divorce itself is never <em>commanded;<\/em> it is only <em>permitted<\/em> in the case of sin—that is, where the marital bond has already been severed through infidelity (19:1-9). As in 5:17-48, Jesus calls his followers to radical obedience (19:10-12). Besides instructing disciples to become like children (18:1-4), Jesus embraces children themselves with his love (19:13-15). He appeals likewise to the rich young man (vv 16-22); but the man, while faithful to the commands about love of neighbor, is too bound by his wealth to give himself unreservedly to loving God. Yet those who abandon all to follow Jesus will receive wealth untold in the coming kingdom (vv 27-30). The basis for such blessings lies not in human merit but in the astonishing generosity of the gracious God (20:1-16). None—not even the rich—are beyond the power of his grace. But God offers free salvation at great cost to himself (vv 17-19). Confronting competitiveness and ambition among his followers, Jesus teaches them that true greatness lies not in lording it over others but in serving them (vv 20-34), as shall be supremely demonstrated in his death as “a ransom for many” (v 28).<\/p>\n<h5>Confrontations in Jerusalem (21:1–22:46)<\/h5>\n<p>As the Servant-King (cf. 3:17), and as the Messiah destined for suffering (cf. 16:16-21; 20:28), Jesus enters Jerusalem not upon a war horse but upon a donkey’s colt, for he purposes not to declare war on his enemies but to hand himself over to them—and thus achieve his triumph through defeat (21:1-11). As Lord of the temple, he demands that its commerce be halted and that it become (as God ordained) a place of worship for everyone, including the sick, the young, and the alien (21:12-17; cf. Mk 11:17). He outwits those who refuse to acknowledge the heavenly source of his and John’s authority (Mt 21:23-27). In dramatic and devastating fashion, first visibly (by cursing the fig tree—vv 18-22) and then verbally (in the three parables of 21:28–22:14), Jesus pronounces judgment upon those Jews who have refused to acknowledge him as Messiah and Son of God. Henceforth, the true people of God are those who believe in Jesus, whether Jews or Gentiles. He calls upon his people to pledge their supreme allegiance to God. In the resurrection what will matter most is one’s relationship to God (22:23-33). Indeed, he who loves God with his whole being and his neighbor as himself has kept the two foundational commandments of the OT (vv 34-40). Henceforth, submitting to God means rightly recognizing Jesus; he is indeed David’s son (Mt 1:1), but he is supremely David’s Lord—the exalted Son of God (22:41-46; cf. 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Woes upon the Scribes and Pharisees (23:1-39)<\/h5>\n<p>Five reasons are stated for Jesus’ denunciation of the Jewish religious leaders. First is their hypocrisy: their practice contradicts their teaching (23:1-4), their external purity conceals inner rottenness (vv 25-28), and they appear to champion God’s cause but are really enemies of God’s servants (vv 29-36). Second is the pride that prompts their hypocrisy (23:5-12). Third is their exploitation of, and their baleful influence upon, those under their charge (vv 13-15). Fourth is their preoccupation with the minutia of the law to the neglect of its weightier matters (vv 16-24). Fifth is their responsibility for the dreadful judgment that the whole nation is about to experience (vv 33-39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the End (24:1–25:46)<\/h5>\n<p>The introduction to this, the fifth and last of Matthew’s great discourses, makes it plain that there is the closest connection (for both Jesus and his disciples) between the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age (24:1-3). Jesus first characterizes the time between his first advent and his return: there will be natural catastrophes, international warfare, the rise of false messiahs, the persecution of God’s people, and the universal proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom (vv 4-14). Then Jesus speaks of the catastrophe that is soon to befall the Jewish nation in particular (as already foretold in 22:7; 23:38), culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70 (24:15-25). Sometime thereafter (but after an interval known only to God the Father—v 36), the Son of Man will return in great glory, amid apocalyptic signs, to gather his people (vv 26-31). The present generation will not pass away before judgment falls upon Israel (vv 15-25), so let listeners take heed (vv 32-35). The same warning applies to the more remote coming of the Son of Man (vv 36-51): both the certainty of the event and the uncertainty of its time call for vigilance and faithfulness in the interval, for that event will bring both salvation and judgment. To drive the lesson home, Jesus tells the parables of the wise and foolish virgins (25:1-13) and the talents (vv 14-30). The concluding parable of the sheep and the goats (vv 31-46) speaks of the urgent necessity of making the right response to the “brothers”—that is, the messengers—of Christ; those who feed, clothe, and otherwise care for the messengers of Christ thereby testify to their reception of the apostles’ message and their Lord (cf. 10:40-42).<\/p>\n<h5>The Road to Golgotha (26:1–27:26)<\/h5>\n<p>As though in response to Jesus’ own prediction, the chief priests and the elders hatch their murderous plot (26:1-5), soon to be aided by Judas (vv 14-16). The anointing at Bethany (vv 6-13) testifies to the extravagance of love and the imminence of death. At the Passover meal (vv 17-30), signaling at what sacrifice the new exodus comes about (cf. 2:15), Jesus interprets his forthcoming death as an atoning sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (26:26-28; cf. 1:21) and anticipates the day of final victory over sin and death in the consummated kingdom (26:29). Jesus’ agony in Gethsemane (vv 36-46) expresses his horror over taking his people’s sins upon himself. By a stupendous act of filial obedience, he submits his will to the Father, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled (26:54; cf. Is 53). As the servant of God destined to suffer, Jesus resists attempts to thwart his arrest (26:47-56). The Jews’ supreme court (the Sanhedrin) and their loftiest religious official (the high priest) condemn Jesus as a blasphemer because he dares to identify himself as “the Christ, the Son of God” (26:57-68; cf. 16:16). As though joining the court’s repudiation, Peter—in fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy (26:31-35)—disclaims knowledge of Jesus (vv 69-75). Judas’s disillusionment finds expression in suicide (27:3-10). The Jews hand Jesus over to Pilate the Roman governor (vv 1-2), he alone having the authority to pronounce the death sentence. Knowing that the charge of blasphemy will carry no weight with Pilate, the Jews now represent Jesus as a threat to Caesar. In the end, Pilate responds not to specific charges and evidence but to pressure from the crowd and the threat of riot (vv 11-25). He releases Barabbas and delivers Jesus to be crucified (v 26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Death of Jesus (27:27-66)<\/h5>\n<p>Following his humiliating treatment at the hands of the Roman soldiers, Jesus is led to the place of execution; weakened by the beatings, he requires assistance (27:27-32). He refuses the proffered narcotic so that he might keep his head clear (v 34). His being executed with malefactors (v 38) testifies to the purpose of his death (cf. 1:21). A steady stream of abuse is hurled at him, in blasphemous disregard of the truth of the superscription “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (27:37-44). Finally, out of the darkness Jesus utters the cry of dereliction; now is revealed the ultimate horror (that from which his soul shrank in Gethsemane), the sin-bearer’s supreme agony—the beloved Son’s abandonment by the Father (vv 45-49). Having cried out with a loud voice (cf. Jn 19:30), Jesus dies (27:50). Immediately, the saving effects of his death become evident (vv 51-53): sinners, now forgiven, have access to the holy God (the veil of the temple is rent asunder), and there is hope of resurrection for those who have died. As at the beginning (2:1-12), Gentiles instead of Jews confess Jesus (27:54; contrast 26:63-65). Joseph’s careful attentiveness to Jesus’ burial contrasts with the ongoing attempts of the chief priests and Pharisees to resist Jesus’ power (27:57-66).<\/p>\n<h5>The Triumph of the Savior (28:1-20)<\/h5>\n<p>Amid great glory and power and joy, the Savior’s victory over death is announced and attested (28:1-7). The risen Jesus appears first to the women who stayed with him during his crucifixion (28:8-10; cf. 27:61; 28:1). The Jews’ response to the guards’ report signals their growing desperation before irresistible reality (28:11-15). Meeting with the 11 disciples on the mountain in Galilee (vv 16-20), Jesus, the new Moses, continues his instructions. He now reveals the evangelistic purpose for which Matthew has been preparing readers from the very threshold of his Gospel. The apostles are to disciple all peoples by baptizing them into the name of the triune God and by teaching them to obey all that Jesus has commanded. The apostles go forth in the assurance that Jesus—as the Lord—stands over them, and that Jesus—as Immanuel—stands with them until the very end of the age.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Luke, Gospel of; Mark, Gospel of; Matthew (Person); Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MATTHEW, Gospel of First Gospel and first book of the NT. Preview • Author • Date and Provenance • Purpose • Content Author Nowhere does the text of Matthew itself clearly identify the author. Yet, as did the ancient church, we may ascribe authorship to Matthew the apostle. He was otherwise known as Levi (see Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27, 29). Before Jesus called him, he was a tax collector (Mt 9:9ff.). It is interesting to note that Matthew called himself a tax collector, while none of the other Gospel ...","summary_en":"MATTHEW, Gospel of First Gospel and first book of the NT. Preview • Author • Date and Provenance • Purpose • Content Author Nowhere does the text of Matthew itself clearly identify the author. Yet, as did the ancient church, we may ascribe authorship to Matthew the apostle. He was otherwise known as Levi (see Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27, 29). Before Jesus called him, he was a tax collector (Mt 9:9ff.). It is interesting to note that Matthew called himself a tax collector, while none of the other Gospel ...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"11":[{"id":54872,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:11","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:11<\/strong> <em>This statement<\/em> refers to the disciples’ comment (19:10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:11<\/strong> <em>This statement<\/em> refers to the disciples’ comment (19:10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:11 This statement refers to the disciples’ comment (19:10).","summary_en":"19:11 This statement refers to the disciples’ comment (19:10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82498,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:11","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:11<\/strong> <em>This statement<\/em> refers to the disciples’ comment (19:10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:11<\/strong> <em>This statement<\/em> refers to the disciples’ comment (19:10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:11 This statement refers to the disciples’ comment (19:10).","summary_en":"19:11 This statement refers to the disciples’ comment (19:10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110124,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:11","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:11<\/strong> <em>This statement<\/em> refers to the disciples’ comment (19:10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:11<\/strong> <em>This statement<\/em> refers to the disciples’ comment (19:10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:11 This statement refers to the disciples’ comment (19:10).","summary_en":"19:11 This statement refers to the disciples’ comment (19:10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":137750,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:11","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:11<\/strong> <em>This statement<\/em> refers to the disciples’ comment (19:10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:11<\/strong> <em>This statement<\/em> refers to the disciples’ comment (19:10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:11 This statement refers to the disciples’ comment (19:10).","summary_en":"19:11 This statement refers to the disciples’ comment (19:10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":67486,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","title_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","content_ro":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\n<p>Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\n<p><em>Universal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\n<p><em>Polemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\n<p><em>Cultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\n<p>Christians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\n<p>Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\n<p><em>Universal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\n<p><em>Polemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\n<p><em>Cultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\n<p>Christians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","summary_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":95112,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","title_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","content_ro":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\n<p>Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\n<p><em>Universal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\n<p><em>Polemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\n<p><em>Cultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\n<p>Christians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\n<p>Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\n<p><em>Universal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\n<p><em>Polemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\n<p><em>Cultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\n<p>Christians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","summary_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":122738,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","title_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","content_ro":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\n<p>Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\n<p><em>Universal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\n<p><em>Polemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\n<p><em>Cultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\n<p>Christians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\n<p>Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\n<p><em>Universal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\n<p><em>Polemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\n<p><em>Cultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\n<p>Christians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","summary_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":150364,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","title_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","content_ro":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\n<p>Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\n<p><em>Universal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\n<p><em>Polemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\n<p><em>Cultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\n<p>Christians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\n<p>Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\n<p><em>Universal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\n<p><em>Polemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\n<p><em>Cultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\n<p>Christians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","summary_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"12":[{"id":11287,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Eunuch","title_en":"Eunuch","content_ro":"<h3>EUNUCH<\/h3>\n<p>Officer or chamberlain in the court or household of a ruler, often assigned to the women’s quarters. Many of these men were emasculated, though not always (cf. Gn 39:1, <span>neb<\/span>). Eunuchs were public officials in Israel (1 Sm 8:15, <span>neb<\/span>; 1 Chr 28:1, <span>neb<\/span>), Persia (Est 2:3), Ethiopia (Jer 38:7; Acts 8:27), and Babylon (Dn 1:3). Eunuchs were not included in public worship in Israel (Dt 23:1), but the prophet Isaiah referred to their restoration in the messianic kingdom (Is 56:3-5; see Acts 8).<\/p>\n<p>The Ethiopian eunuch of Acts 8:27-39 was probably minister of the treasury and has been credited with founding Christianity in Ethiopia.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus mentioned three classes of eunuchs (Mt 19:12), including those who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom. This is generally understood in a metaphorical sense of voluntarily forgoing marriage in order to serve the kingdom (e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostle Paul).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EUNUCH<\/h3>\n<p>Officer or chamberlain in the court or household of a ruler, often assigned to the women’s quarters. Many of these men were emasculated, though not always (cf. Gn 39:1, <span>neb<\/span>). Eunuchs were public officials in Israel (1 Sm 8:15, <span>neb<\/span>; 1 Chr 28:1, <span>neb<\/span>), Persia (Est 2:3), Ethiopia (Jer 38:7; Acts 8:27), and Babylon (Dn 1:3). Eunuchs were not included in public worship in Israel (Dt 23:1), but the prophet Isaiah referred to their restoration in the messianic kingdom (Is 56:3-5; see Acts 8).<\/p>\n<p>The Ethiopian eunuch of Acts 8:27-39 was probably minister of the treasury and has been credited with founding Christianity in Ethiopia.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus mentioned three classes of eunuchs (Mt 19:12), including those who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom. This is generally understood in a metaphorical sense of voluntarily forgoing marriage in order to serve the kingdom (e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostle Paul).<\/p>","summary_ro":"EUNUCH Officer or chamberlain in the court or household of a ruler, often assigned to the women’s quarters. Many of these men were emasculated, though not always (cf. Gn 39:1, neb). Eunuchs were public officials in Israel (1 Sm 8:15, neb; 1 Chr 28:1, neb), Persia (Est 2:3), Ethiopia (Jer 38:7; Acts 8:27), and Babylon (Dn 1:3). Eunuchs were not included in public worship in Israel (Dt 23:1), but the prophet Isaiah referred to their restoration in the messianic kingdom (Is 56:3-5; see Acts 8). ...","summary_en":"EUNUCH Officer or chamberlain in the court or household of a ruler, often assigned to the women’s quarters. Many of these men were emasculated, though not always (cf. Gn 39:1, neb). Eunuchs were public officials in Israel (1 Sm 8:15, neb; 1 Chr 28:1, neb), Persia (Est 2:3), Ethiopia (Jer 38:7; Acts 8:27), and Babylon (Dn 1:3). Eunuchs were not included in public worship in Israel (Dt 23:1), but the prophet Isaiah referred to their restoration in the messianic kingdom (Is 56:3-5; see Acts 8). ...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24548,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Marriage Customs Marriage","title_en":"Marriage Customs Marriage","content_ro":"<h3>MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS<\/h3>\n<p>The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures.<\/p>\n<p>The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24).<\/p>\n<p>Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the early monarchy, it is difficult to be certain about the matter, despite the importance in Egypt, and perhaps elsewhere, of the role of the mother in determining descent.<\/p>\n<p>Generally, the bride left her parents when she married and went to live with her husband’s clan, as Rebekah did (Gn 24:58-59). The phrase “to marry a wife” is from a root meaning to “become master” (Dt 21:13), and the wife frequently treated her husband as, and referred to him as, master.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew genealogical lists indicate that descent was reckoned through the male line (Gn 5:10; 36:9-43; Nm 1:1-15; Ru 4:18-22; 1 Chr 1:1-9). The important right of naming a child, indicating power and authority over that child, was exercised almost equally between father and mother in biblical references (cf. Gn 4:1, 25-26; 5:29; 35:18; 1 Sm 1:20; 4:21; Is 8:3; Hos 1:4-9). Sons were frequently named after their fathers and were identified with them.<\/p>\n<p>The father was the authority figure in the home in a patriarchal society. His wife and children were regarded as his possessions in somewhat the same way as his fields and livestock (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). He had the right to sell his daughters (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5), and even had the power of life and death over his children.<\/p>\n<p>The ease with which a man could terminate a marriage by divorcing his wife also shows the measure of his authority in the family (Dt 24:1-4; cf. 22:13-21).<\/p>\n<p>A levirate marriage was instituted to preserve a family name and inheritance. When a man died, the responsibility for maintaining his widow and any children that she might have fell upon her husband’s closest male relative. The order of responsibility is set out in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Normally, the brother of the deceased husband living with the clan was expected to enter into a levirate marriage with the widow. If she was childless, the firstborn of the new marriage was regarded as a child of the deceased. Levirate marriage was also known to the Canaanites, Assyrians, and Hittites.<\/p>\n<p>The most familiar levirate situation in the OT, although not conforming strictly to the law of Deuteronomy 25, is described in the book of Ruth. It was essential for Ruth to find some close male relative to marry her so that the family name and property could be preserved. The closest male relative declined the responsibility, feeling that it was a double imposition, first, to have to purchase the land and support Ruth, and second, to know that the first son would be regarded as her dead husband’s child, bearing his name and inheriting the land. Boaz agreed to undertake the responsibility (Ru 2:20–4:10).<\/p>\n<p>Despite numerous examples of polygamy cited in the OT, there is no doubt that the vast majority of the Israelites were monogamous. There are no examples given of large polygamous marriages in the families of commoners.<\/p>\n<p>The original instruction to Adam was that a “man . . . cleaves to his wife” (Gn 2:24). Hebrew laws generally imply that a marriage with one wife is the most acceptable form of marriage (Ex 20:17; 21:5; Lv 18:8, 16-20; 20:10; Nm 5:12; Dt 5:21). Although this seems to have become the norm by the time of the monarchy, a king such as Solomon did not follow Hebrew traditions in this matter. In the postexilic period marriages were predominantly monogamous, although they were being terminated increasingly by divorce. In the NT period monogamy seems to have been the rule, although persons such as Herod the Great were polygamous. Christ taught that marriage should last the lifetime of the partners, and if a man divorced his wife and married another woman during his previous spouse’s lifetime, he committed adultery (Mt 5:31-32).<\/p>\n<p>Marriage generally took place with those who were close to the immediate family circle, and it was imperative, therefore, that limits on acceptable consanguinity should be imposed. In patriarchal times a man could marry his half sister on his father’s side (Gn 20:12), and this continued to be the case even under David (2 Sm 13:13), although it was specifically forbidden in Leviticus 20:17. As there is some contradiction between the marriage laws of Deuteronomy and those in the Law of Holiness (Dt 25:5; Lv 18:16), it is possible that there was some modification of the stricter Levitical regulations. Marriages between cousins, such as Isaac with Rebekah, and Jacob with Rachel and Leah, were common. When a close relative was interested in marriage, it was almost impossible to refuse (Tb 6:13; 7:11-12). Moses was the offspring of a marriage between nephew and aunt (Ex 6:20; Nm 26:59), which would have been forbidden in Leviticus 18:12-13 and 20:19, as would Jacob’s marriage with two sisters at the same time (Gn 29:30).<\/p>\n<p>When the Israelites settled in Canaan, many of them married Canaanite women, much to the consternation of those who desired to maintain the purity of the Hebrew religion (1 Kgs 11:4). Such intermarriage was prohibited under Mosaic law (Ex 34:15-16; Dt 7:3-4), although many Israelites ignored these regulations and continued to indulge in mixed marriages. If a woman was captured in war and was prepared to abandon her native country, an exception could be made (Dt 21:10-14). By contrast, Samson married a Philistine woman who remained with her own people, but who received conjugal visits from her husband periodically (Jgs 14:8–15:2).<\/p>\n<p>The danger of intermarriage affecting the purity of Hebrew religion was considered so great that in the postexilic period wholesale divorce was ordered where Jews had married foreign wives (Ezr 9:2; 10:3, 16-17). The intent was that the national religion should remain pure, even though homes and families were destroyed. Even in NT times, Paul denounced marriage with non-Christians (2 Cor 6:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to estimate at what age young people married. A boy was considered to be a man by his early teens, and late in Jewish tradition this transition was celebrated by the bar mitzvah, which generally occurred when the boy was 13.<\/p>\n<p>Normally the young man’s parents chose the bride. The resulting discussion about the marriage occurred between the groom’s parents and the bride’s parents, and often neither of the young people was consulted. It was not essential for the eldest in the family to be married first (Gn 29:26). When Abraham decided that Isaac should be married, a servant was sent to choose a bride from among Abraham’s relatives in Mesopotamia. The servant made contact with the bride’s brother and mother (24:33-53), and it was only afterward that Rebekah was asked to give her consent (vv 57-58). Her father was possibly incapacitated; otherwise, it would have been unlikely that her consent would have been asked at all.<\/p>\n<p>One of the reasons why the average young man would not have been able to afford more than one wife was the practice of the bride-price, which had to be paid to the bride’s father. It was possible to substitute service for the bride-price (Gn 29:15-30), or the completion of an appointed task (1 Sm 18:25-27). A specific sum is mentioned for the bride-price in the case of a virgin who had been raped and who had to be purchased by her seducer. The price was set at 50 shekels, but this was considered to be a punishment; it is probable that the normal amount was between 10 and 320 shekels (Lv 27:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>At the time of the second temple, a virgin bride was considered to be worth 50 shekels, and a widow or divorced woman about half that sum. During this period, a virgin bride was normally married in midweek so that, if her husband found her not to be a virgin, he could bring proof to the court the following day, which would still be in advance of the Sabbath. A widow or a divorced woman normally married on the equivalent of a Thursday, giving her a full day with her husband before the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>Marriage was a covenant or alliance between two families. It thus united them, and by extending the kinship, the overall size of the group was increased. This was important in a society where responsibilities for relatives, however distant, were accepted unhesitatingly. The covenant concept also could have political overtones, as with the marriage between Solomon and the Egyptian princess (1 Kgs 11:1) or Ahab of Israel and Jezebel of Tyre (16:31).<\/p>\n<p>The sealing of the covenant included the transfer of gifts, which would establish the wealth and status of the donor and of the bride (Gn 34:12). In the ancient Near East, the giving of a gift was thought to include a part of the donor, so that the giver was actually offering a portion of himself. The gift that sealed the covenant also established the donor’s authority over the bride.<\/p>\n<p>The next stage in the marriage procedure was the betrothal. First mentioned in Exodus 22:16, the term is used several times in Deuteronomy (Dt 20:7; 22:23-24). The betrothal had the legal status of a marriage (Dt 28:30; 2 Sm 3:14), and anyone violating a betrothed virgin would be stoned, according to the law of Deuteronomy, for violating his neighbor’s “wife” (Dt 22:23-24). The meaning of a betrothal involved taking possession, in a manner similar to that of receiving tribute. Nevertheless, there remained a distinction between betrothing a woman and taking her as a wife (20:7). During the period of betrothal, the prospective groom was exempt from military service. It was assumed that the betrothal was a formal part of a permanent relationship (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27; 2:5).<\/p>\n<p>A man who was to marry another’s daughter was already regarded as a son-in-law at the time of betrothal (Gn 19:14). Mary, as Joseph’s betrothed, was actually considered his wife, although he did not have intercourse with her until after the birth of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The first biblical record of a wedding being celebrated by a feast is in the story of Jacob (Gn 29:22). There was no actual marriage contract recorded until its mention in the book of Tobit (Tb 7:12). This contract was not considered valid until the couple had cohabited for a week (Gn 29:27; Jgs 14:12, 18). When Samson left his bride before the end of the seven-day period, the bride’s parents considered the marriage void and gave her to another man (Jgs 14:20).<\/p>\n<p>The wedding was an occasion of great family rejoicing. The special clothing of the bride and groom (Is 61:10; Ez 16:9-13) included for the bride a fine dress often adorned with jewels (Ps 45:14-15; Is 61:10) and other ornaments, while the bridegroom had fine clothing and wore a diadem (Sg 3:11; Is 61:10). The bride wore a veil (Gn 24:65; Sg 4:3), which was removed in the bridal chamber. This would account for Rebekah’s need to veil herself in the presence of Isaac, her fiancé (Gn 24:65), and also for the ease with which Laban was able to replace Rachel with Leah on Jacob’s wedding night (29:23-25).<\/p>\n<p>Symbolic ceremonies may sometimes have been included as part of the betrothal or wedding ceremonies, such as Ruth’s request that Boaz spread his skirt over her to indicate that he was taking her to wife (Ru 3:9). Another ritual may have been the ceremonial removal of the bride’s girdle by the groom in the nuptial chamber, which was a room or tent specially prepared for the newly married couple. The marriage was normally consummated on the first night (Gn 29:23; Tb 8:1), and the stained linen would be retained as evidence of the bride’s virginity.<\/p>\n<p>In a contrast to the elaborate procession and feasting of the marriage, divorce was simple. A man could divorce his wife if he found fault with her in any particular matter, and this right was not abolished until the 11th century <span>AD<\/span>. Divorce was discouraged, however, and gradually the procedure became more complex, being hedged about with a number of deterrents.<\/p>\n<p>As the laws regarding divorce became more complex, so the procedure became increasingly expensive. At a later time a lawyer, or sometimes a rabbi, would give advice, especially on such matters as the return of property rightly belonging to the bride or her family.<\/p>\n<p>If a bride was found to have committed adultery, the husband was thought to be entitled to a divorce. This was also the case if he even suspected her of infidelity. He could also divorce his wife if he felt that she had violated normal morality, had become apostate, or had been less than efficient in the management of her household. If a woman refused her husband his conjugal rights for a period of at least one year, she could be divorced. Other grounds for divorcing a wife included insulting behavior to a husband or his relatives, contracting an incurable disease, or refusing to accompany her husband when he moved the domicile to a new area.<\/p>\n<p>In general, the status of the wife was low. Despite the fact that she gave advice, managed the household, educated the young children, and worked alongside her husband when necessary, he was still her master, and her role was to obey. She was little more than a servant, although better than a slave, for she could not be sold even though she could be divorced.<\/p>\n<p>In the frequent figurative uses of marriage in the OT, the Hebrew people and God are referred to in terms of bride and bridegroom (Is 62:4-5; Jer 2:2). The desolation that is about to overtake Judah is contrasted by Jeremiah with the celebration of a wedding feast (Jer 7:34; 16:9; 25:10). Figurative forms are used again in Hosea, where God rejects the relationship with his wife, Israel (Hos 2:2), but is prepared to accept her again if she resumes her faithful practices (vv 19-20).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, John the Baptist compares his sense of joy with that of a friend of the groom at a wedding (Jn 3:29), while Jesus himself made reference to the wedding preparations in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Mt 25:1-12). In the story of the marriage feast (22:1-14) Christ mentions quite incidentally the fact that wedding robes were provided for the guests at such ceremonies. The theme of the Christian church as the bride of Christ occurs in such books as 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingsonMarriageandAdultery\">Jesus’ Teachings on Marriage and Adultery<\/p>\n<p>In the realm of civil law there are changes of emphasis in Jesus’ teaching over against the OT. For example, the OT did not regard infidelity by a husband as adultery against his wife. When challenged by the Jews, Jesus said that originally God had made one wife for a man; therefore, there should be no divorce (Mk 10:2-9). Further, he stated if a man does divorce his wife and marry again, he “commits adultery against her” (v 11). Thus, Jesus made man and woman equal as regards adultery. An unfaithful husband is just as adulterous as an unfaithful wife. This revolutionary teaching struck the disciples as severe (see Mt 19:10), but it illustrates what Jesus meant when he said their righteousness must be greater than that of the Jewish leaders (5:20).<\/p>\n<p>There is a slight difference in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ teaching, which has led some scholars to argue that Jesus was not quite as strict as the above summary suggests. According to Matthew 19:9, a wife’s “unchastity” (probably some sexual misconduct) allows an aggrieved husband to divorce her and marry again. If this remark concluded the passage, this interpretation would be the simplest. However, from the context it is more likely that Jesus allowed innocent spouses to separate from their wives but not to remarry. This explains why the disciples were so shocked and why Jesus went on to speak about some who refuse to marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:12). This was also the way the church interpreted the passage for the first five centuries. They allowed Christians to separate but not to remarry (cf. 1 Cor 7:11).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Concubinage, Concubines; Divorce; Family Life and Relations; Sex, Sexuality; Virgin.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS<\/h3>\n<p>The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures.<\/p>\n<p>The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24).<\/p>\n<p>Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the early monarchy, it is difficult to be certain about the matter, despite the importance in Egypt, and perhaps elsewhere, of the role of the mother in determining descent.<\/p>\n<p>Generally, the bride left her parents when she married and went to live with her husband’s clan, as Rebekah did (Gn 24:58-59). The phrase “to marry a wife” is from a root meaning to “become master” (Dt 21:13), and the wife frequently treated her husband as, and referred to him as, master.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew genealogical lists indicate that descent was reckoned through the male line (Gn 5:10; 36:9-43; Nm 1:1-15; Ru 4:18-22; 1 Chr 1:1-9). The important right of naming a child, indicating power and authority over that child, was exercised almost equally between father and mother in biblical references (cf. Gn 4:1, 25-26; 5:29; 35:18; 1 Sm 1:20; 4:21; Is 8:3; Hos 1:4-9). Sons were frequently named after their fathers and were identified with them.<\/p>\n<p>The father was the authority figure in the home in a patriarchal society. His wife and children were regarded as his possessions in somewhat the same way as his fields and livestock (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). He had the right to sell his daughters (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5), and even had the power of life and death over his children.<\/p>\n<p>The ease with which a man could terminate a marriage by divorcing his wife also shows the measure of his authority in the family (Dt 24:1-4; cf. 22:13-21).<\/p>\n<p>A levirate marriage was instituted to preserve a family name and inheritance. When a man died, the responsibility for maintaining his widow and any children that she might have fell upon her husband’s closest male relative. The order of responsibility is set out in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Normally, the brother of the deceased husband living with the clan was expected to enter into a levirate marriage with the widow. If she was childless, the firstborn of the new marriage was regarded as a child of the deceased. Levirate marriage was also known to the Canaanites, Assyrians, and Hittites.<\/p>\n<p>The most familiar levirate situation in the OT, although not conforming strictly to the law of Deuteronomy 25, is described in the book of Ruth. It was essential for Ruth to find some close male relative to marry her so that the family name and property could be preserved. The closest male relative declined the responsibility, feeling that it was a double imposition, first, to have to purchase the land and support Ruth, and second, to know that the first son would be regarded as her dead husband’s child, bearing his name and inheriting the land. Boaz agreed to undertake the responsibility (Ru 2:20–4:10).<\/p>\n<p>Despite numerous examples of polygamy cited in the OT, there is no doubt that the vast majority of the Israelites were monogamous. There are no examples given of large polygamous marriages in the families of commoners.<\/p>\n<p>The original instruction to Adam was that a “man . . . cleaves to his wife” (Gn 2:24). Hebrew laws generally imply that a marriage with one wife is the most acceptable form of marriage (Ex 20:17; 21:5; Lv 18:8, 16-20; 20:10; Nm 5:12; Dt 5:21). Although this seems to have become the norm by the time of the monarchy, a king such as Solomon did not follow Hebrew traditions in this matter. In the postexilic period marriages were predominantly monogamous, although they were being terminated increasingly by divorce. In the NT period monogamy seems to have been the rule, although persons such as Herod the Great were polygamous. Christ taught that marriage should last the lifetime of the partners, and if a man divorced his wife and married another woman during his previous spouse’s lifetime, he committed adultery (Mt 5:31-32).<\/p>\n<p>Marriage generally took place with those who were close to the immediate family circle, and it was imperative, therefore, that limits on acceptable consanguinity should be imposed. In patriarchal times a man could marry his half sister on his father’s side (Gn 20:12), and this continued to be the case even under David (2 Sm 13:13), although it was specifically forbidden in Leviticus 20:17. As there is some contradiction between the marriage laws of Deuteronomy and those in the Law of Holiness (Dt 25:5; Lv 18:16), it is possible that there was some modification of the stricter Levitical regulations. Marriages between cousins, such as Isaac with Rebekah, and Jacob with Rachel and Leah, were common. When a close relative was interested in marriage, it was almost impossible to refuse (Tb 6:13; 7:11-12). Moses was the offspring of a marriage between nephew and aunt (Ex 6:20; Nm 26:59), which would have been forbidden in Leviticus 18:12-13 and 20:19, as would Jacob’s marriage with two sisters at the same time (Gn 29:30).<\/p>\n<p>When the Israelites settled in Canaan, many of them married Canaanite women, much to the consternation of those who desired to maintain the purity of the Hebrew religion (1 Kgs 11:4). Such intermarriage was prohibited under Mosaic law (Ex 34:15-16; Dt 7:3-4), although many Israelites ignored these regulations and continued to indulge in mixed marriages. If a woman was captured in war and was prepared to abandon her native country, an exception could be made (Dt 21:10-14). By contrast, Samson married a Philistine woman who remained with her own people, but who received conjugal visits from her husband periodically (Jgs 14:8–15:2).<\/p>\n<p>The danger of intermarriage affecting the purity of Hebrew religion was considered so great that in the postexilic period wholesale divorce was ordered where Jews had married foreign wives (Ezr 9:2; 10:3, 16-17). The intent was that the national religion should remain pure, even though homes and families were destroyed. Even in NT times, Paul denounced marriage with non-Christians (2 Cor 6:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to estimate at what age young people married. A boy was considered to be a man by his early teens, and late in Jewish tradition this transition was celebrated by the bar mitzvah, which generally occurred when the boy was 13.<\/p>\n<p>Normally the young man’s parents chose the bride. The resulting discussion about the marriage occurred between the groom’s parents and the bride’s parents, and often neither of the young people was consulted. It was not essential for the eldest in the family to be married first (Gn 29:26). When Abraham decided that Isaac should be married, a servant was sent to choose a bride from among Abraham’s relatives in Mesopotamia. The servant made contact with the bride’s brother and mother (24:33-53), and it was only afterward that Rebekah was asked to give her consent (vv 57-58). Her father was possibly incapacitated; otherwise, it would have been unlikely that her consent would have been asked at all.<\/p>\n<p>One of the reasons why the average young man would not have been able to afford more than one wife was the practice of the bride-price, which had to be paid to the bride’s father. It was possible to substitute service for the bride-price (Gn 29:15-30), or the completion of an appointed task (1 Sm 18:25-27). A specific sum is mentioned for the bride-price in the case of a virgin who had been raped and who had to be purchased by her seducer. The price was set at 50 shekels, but this was considered to be a punishment; it is probable that the normal amount was between 10 and 320 shekels (Lv 27:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>At the time of the second temple, a virgin bride was considered to be worth 50 shekels, and a widow or divorced woman about half that sum. During this period, a virgin bride was normally married in midweek so that, if her husband found her not to be a virgin, he could bring proof to the court the following day, which would still be in advance of the Sabbath. A widow or a divorced woman normally married on the equivalent of a Thursday, giving her a full day with her husband before the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>Marriage was a covenant or alliance between two families. It thus united them, and by extending the kinship, the overall size of the group was increased. This was important in a society where responsibilities for relatives, however distant, were accepted unhesitatingly. The covenant concept also could have political overtones, as with the marriage between Solomon and the Egyptian princess (1 Kgs 11:1) or Ahab of Israel and Jezebel of Tyre (16:31).<\/p>\n<p>The sealing of the covenant included the transfer of gifts, which would establish the wealth and status of the donor and of the bride (Gn 34:12). In the ancient Near East, the giving of a gift was thought to include a part of the donor, so that the giver was actually offering a portion of himself. The gift that sealed the covenant also established the donor’s authority over the bride.<\/p>\n<p>The next stage in the marriage procedure was the betrothal. First mentioned in Exodus 22:16, the term is used several times in Deuteronomy (Dt 20:7; 22:23-24). The betrothal had the legal status of a marriage (Dt 28:30; 2 Sm 3:14), and anyone violating a betrothed virgin would be stoned, according to the law of Deuteronomy, for violating his neighbor’s “wife” (Dt 22:23-24). The meaning of a betrothal involved taking possession, in a manner similar to that of receiving tribute. Nevertheless, there remained a distinction between betrothing a woman and taking her as a wife (20:7). During the period of betrothal, the prospective groom was exempt from military service. It was assumed that the betrothal was a formal part of a permanent relationship (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27; 2:5).<\/p>\n<p>A man who was to marry another’s daughter was already regarded as a son-in-law at the time of betrothal (Gn 19:14). Mary, as Joseph’s betrothed, was actually considered his wife, although he did not have intercourse with her until after the birth of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The first biblical record of a wedding being celebrated by a feast is in the story of Jacob (Gn 29:22). There was no actual marriage contract recorded until its mention in the book of Tobit (Tb 7:12). This contract was not considered valid until the couple had cohabited for a week (Gn 29:27; Jgs 14:12, 18). When Samson left his bride before the end of the seven-day period, the bride’s parents considered the marriage void and gave her to another man (Jgs 14:20).<\/p>\n<p>The wedding was an occasion of great family rejoicing. The special clothing of the bride and groom (Is 61:10; Ez 16:9-13) included for the bride a fine dress often adorned with jewels (Ps 45:14-15; Is 61:10) and other ornaments, while the bridegroom had fine clothing and wore a diadem (Sg 3:11; Is 61:10). The bride wore a veil (Gn 24:65; Sg 4:3), which was removed in the bridal chamber. This would account for Rebekah’s need to veil herself in the presence of Isaac, her fiancé (Gn 24:65), and also for the ease with which Laban was able to replace Rachel with Leah on Jacob’s wedding night (29:23-25).<\/p>\n<p>Symbolic ceremonies may sometimes have been included as part of the betrothal or wedding ceremonies, such as Ruth’s request that Boaz spread his skirt over her to indicate that he was taking her to wife (Ru 3:9). Another ritual may have been the ceremonial removal of the bride’s girdle by the groom in the nuptial chamber, which was a room or tent specially prepared for the newly married couple. The marriage was normally consummated on the first night (Gn 29:23; Tb 8:1), and the stained linen would be retained as evidence of the bride’s virginity.<\/p>\n<p>In a contrast to the elaborate procession and feasting of the marriage, divorce was simple. A man could divorce his wife if he found fault with her in any particular matter, and this right was not abolished until the 11th century <span>AD<\/span>. Divorce was discouraged, however, and gradually the procedure became more complex, being hedged about with a number of deterrents.<\/p>\n<p>As the laws regarding divorce became more complex, so the procedure became increasingly expensive. At a later time a lawyer, or sometimes a rabbi, would give advice, especially on such matters as the return of property rightly belonging to the bride or her family.<\/p>\n<p>If a bride was found to have committed adultery, the husband was thought to be entitled to a divorce. This was also the case if he even suspected her of infidelity. He could also divorce his wife if he felt that she had violated normal morality, had become apostate, or had been less than efficient in the management of her household. If a woman refused her husband his conjugal rights for a period of at least one year, she could be divorced. Other grounds for divorcing a wife included insulting behavior to a husband or his relatives, contracting an incurable disease, or refusing to accompany her husband when he moved the domicile to a new area.<\/p>\n<p>In general, the status of the wife was low. Despite the fact that she gave advice, managed the household, educated the young children, and worked alongside her husband when necessary, he was still her master, and her role was to obey. She was little more than a servant, although better than a slave, for she could not be sold even though she could be divorced.<\/p>\n<p>In the frequent figurative uses of marriage in the OT, the Hebrew people and God are referred to in terms of bride and bridegroom (Is 62:4-5; Jer 2:2). The desolation that is about to overtake Judah is contrasted by Jeremiah with the celebration of a wedding feast (Jer 7:34; 16:9; 25:10). Figurative forms are used again in Hosea, where God rejects the relationship with his wife, Israel (Hos 2:2), but is prepared to accept her again if she resumes her faithful practices (vv 19-20).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, John the Baptist compares his sense of joy with that of a friend of the groom at a wedding (Jn 3:29), while Jesus himself made reference to the wedding preparations in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Mt 25:1-12). In the story of the marriage feast (22:1-14) Christ mentions quite incidentally the fact that wedding robes were provided for the guests at such ceremonies. The theme of the Christian church as the bride of Christ occurs in such books as 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingsonMarriageandAdultery\">Jesus’ Teachings on Marriage and Adultery<\/p>\n<p>In the realm of civil law there are changes of emphasis in Jesus’ teaching over against the OT. For example, the OT did not regard infidelity by a husband as adultery against his wife. When challenged by the Jews, Jesus said that originally God had made one wife for a man; therefore, there should be no divorce (Mk 10:2-9). Further, he stated if a man does divorce his wife and marry again, he “commits adultery against her” (v 11). Thus, Jesus made man and woman equal as regards adultery. An unfaithful husband is just as adulterous as an unfaithful wife. This revolutionary teaching struck the disciples as severe (see Mt 19:10), but it illustrates what Jesus meant when he said their righteousness must be greater than that of the Jewish leaders (5:20).<\/p>\n<p>There is a slight difference in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ teaching, which has led some scholars to argue that Jesus was not quite as strict as the above summary suggests. According to Matthew 19:9, a wife’s “unchastity” (probably some sexual misconduct) allows an aggrieved husband to divorce her and marry again. If this remark concluded the passage, this interpretation would be the simplest. However, from the context it is more likely that Jesus allowed innocent spouses to separate from their wives but not to remarry. This explains why the disciples were so shocked and why Jesus went on to speak about some who refuse to marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:12). This was also the way the church interpreted the passage for the first five centuries. They allowed Christians to separate but not to remarry (cf. 1 Cor 7:11).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Concubinage, Concubines; Divorce; Family Life and Relations; Sex, Sexuality; Virgin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures. The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24). Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the...","summary_en":"MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures. The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24). Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38035,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Virgin","title_en":"Virgin","content_ro":"<h3>VIRGIN<\/h3>\n<p>Word used only of women and (metaphorically) of places, nations, and the church. Literally, it describes a woman who has reached physical maturity but has not experienced sexual intercourse. Mary, mother of Jesus, is an obvious example (Mt 1:18-25).<\/p>\n<p>The OT puts a high value on premarital virginity. One of Rebekah’s qualities that made her a suitable bride for Isaac was her virginity (Gn 24:16). The law prescribed that priests, as men whose lives should conform most closely to God’s standards, must marry only virgins (Lv 21:7, 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>Undoubtedly this reflects the whole Bible’s teaching on marriage, with its ideal of exclusive faithfulness. The NT expresses that ideal by its ban on premarital intercourse (1 Cor 6:13, 18), and by its use of “virgin” language to describe Christians who remain faithful to their Lord (Rv 14:4; cf. 2 Cor 11:2).<\/p>\n<p>Negatively, the OT highlights the same principle in the penalties it lays down for the loss of a woman’s virginity. If the man is morally responsible, he must either marry her or compensate her father (Ex 22:16-17). If the woman herself is to blame, the punishment is death (Dt 22:20-21). The OT says little, however, to commend lifelong virginity. Jeremiah was told not to marry, only to reinforce God’s warning of coming judgment (Jer 16:2). From the woman’s point of view, it was a tragedy to remain an unmarried virgin and therefore childless for life (cf. Jgs 11:37).<\/p>\n<p>The NT echoes the value of marriage but brings out more clearly the advantages of a commitment to virginity for Christian men as well as women. Celibacy for some is God’s gift, declared Paul, because it has positive gains for Christian service (1 Cor 7:7, 25-38). Jesus commended those who “make themselves eunuchs” for the kingdom of heaven’s sake (Mt 19:12).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Family Life and Relations; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality; Virgin Birth of Jesus; Woman.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>VIRGIN<\/h3>\n<p>Word used only of women and (metaphorically) of places, nations, and the church. Literally, it describes a woman who has reached physical maturity but has not experienced sexual intercourse. Mary, mother of Jesus, is an obvious example (Mt 1:18-25).<\/p>\n<p>The OT puts a high value on premarital virginity. One of Rebekah’s qualities that made her a suitable bride for Isaac was her virginity (Gn 24:16). The law prescribed that priests, as men whose lives should conform most closely to God’s standards, must marry only virgins (Lv 21:7, 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>Undoubtedly this reflects the whole Bible’s teaching on marriage, with its ideal of exclusive faithfulness. The NT expresses that ideal by its ban on premarital intercourse (1 Cor 6:13, 18), and by its use of “virgin” language to describe Christians who remain faithful to their Lord (Rv 14:4; cf. 2 Cor 11:2).<\/p>\n<p>Negatively, the OT highlights the same principle in the penalties it lays down for the loss of a woman’s virginity. If the man is morally responsible, he must either marry her or compensate her father (Ex 22:16-17). If the woman herself is to blame, the punishment is death (Dt 22:20-21). The OT says little, however, to commend lifelong virginity. Jeremiah was told not to marry, only to reinforce God’s warning of coming judgment (Jer 16:2). From the woman’s point of view, it was a tragedy to remain an unmarried virgin and therefore childless for life (cf. Jgs 11:37).<\/p>\n<p>The NT echoes the value of marriage but brings out more clearly the advantages of a commitment to virginity for Christian men as well as women. Celibacy for some is God’s gift, declared Paul, because it has positive gains for Christian service (1 Cor 7:7, 25-38). Jesus commended those who “make themselves eunuchs” for the kingdom of heaven’s sake (Mt 19:12).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Family Life and Relations; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality; Virgin Birth of Jesus; Woman.<\/p>","summary_ro":"VIRGIN Word used only of women and (metaphorically) of places, nations, and the church. Literally, it describes a woman who has reached physical maturity but has not experienced sexual intercourse. Mary, mother of Jesus, is an obvious example (Mt 1:18-25). The OT puts a high value on premarital virginity. One of Rebekah’s qualities that made her a suitable bride for Isaac was her virginity (Gn 24:16). The law prescribed that priests, as men whose lives should conform most closely to God’s sta...","summary_en":"VIRGIN Word used only of women and (metaphorically) of places, nations, and the church. Literally, it describes a woman who has reached physical maturity but has not experienced sexual intercourse. Mary, mother of Jesus, is an obvious example (Mt 1:18-25). The OT puts a high value on premarital virginity. One of Rebekah’s qualities that made her a suitable bride for Isaac was her virginity (Gn 24:16). The law prescribed that priests, as men whose lives should conform most closely to God’s sta...","source":"Articles\/V.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":54873,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:12","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:12<\/strong> <em>Eunuchs<\/em> are males castrated either by a birth defect or by a surgical operation. Jesus also uses the term metaphorically for those who <em>choose not to marry<\/em> (see Luke 14:26; 18:29; 1 Cor 7:7-8). • <em>for the sake of the Kingdom:<\/em> Jesus was not denigrating marriage; he was simply indicating that the unmarried often have greater potential for ministry (see 1 Cor 7:25-35).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:12<\/strong> <em>Eunuchs<\/em> are males castrated either by a birth defect or by a surgical operation. Jesus also uses the term metaphorically for those who <em>choose not to marry<\/em> (see Luke 14:26; 18:29; 1 Cor 7:7-8). • <em>for the sake of the Kingdom:<\/em> Jesus was not denigrating marriage; he was simply indicating that the unmarried often have greater potential for ministry (see 1 Cor 7:25-35).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:12 Eunuchs are males castrated either by a birth defect or by a surgical operation. Jesus also uses the term metaphorically for those who choose not to marry (see Luke 14:26; 18:29; 1 Cor 7:7-8). • for the sake of the Kingdom: Jesus was not denigrating marriage; he was simply indicating that the unmarried often have greater potential for ministry (see 1 Cor 7:25-35).","summary_en":"19:12 Eunuchs are males castrated either by a birth defect or by a surgical operation. Jesus also uses the term metaphorically for those who choose not to marry (see Luke 14:26; 18:29; 1 Cor 7:7-8). • for the sake of the Kingdom: Jesus was not denigrating marriage; he was simply indicating that the unmarried often have greater potential for ministry (see 1 Cor 7:25-35).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82499,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:12","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:12<\/strong> <em>Eunuchs<\/em> are males castrated either by a birth defect or by a surgical operation. Jesus also uses the term metaphorically for those who <em>choose not to marry<\/em> (see Luke 14:26; 18:29; 1 Cor 7:7-8). • <em>for the sake of the Kingdom:<\/em> Jesus was not denigrating marriage; he was simply indicating that the unmarried often have greater potential for ministry (see 1 Cor 7:25-35).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:12<\/strong> <em>Eunuchs<\/em> are males castrated either by a birth defect or by a surgical operation. Jesus also uses the term metaphorically for those who <em>choose not to marry<\/em> (see Luke 14:26; 18:29; 1 Cor 7:7-8). • <em>for the sake of the Kingdom:<\/em> Jesus was not denigrating marriage; he was simply indicating that the unmarried often have greater potential for ministry (see 1 Cor 7:25-35).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:12 Eunuchs are males castrated either by a birth defect or by a surgical operation. Jesus also uses the term metaphorically for those who choose not to marry (see Luke 14:26; 18:29; 1 Cor 7:7-8). • for the sake of the Kingdom: Jesus was not denigrating marriage; he was simply indicating that the unmarried often have greater potential for ministry (see 1 Cor 7:25-35).","summary_en":"19:12 Eunuchs are males castrated either by a birth defect or by a surgical operation. Jesus also uses the term metaphorically for those who choose not to marry (see Luke 14:26; 18:29; 1 Cor 7:7-8). • for the sake of the Kingdom: Jesus was not denigrating marriage; he was simply indicating that the unmarried often have greater potential for ministry (see 1 Cor 7:25-35).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110125,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:12","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:12<\/strong> <em>Eunuchs<\/em> are males castrated either by a birth defect or by a surgical operation. Jesus also uses the term metaphorically for those who <em>choose not to marry<\/em> (see Luke 14:26; 18:29; 1 Cor 7:7-8). • <em>for the sake of the Kingdom:<\/em> Jesus was not denigrating marriage; he was simply indicating that the unmarried often have greater potential for ministry (see 1 Cor 7:25-35).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:12<\/strong> <em>Eunuchs<\/em> are males castrated either by a birth defect or by a surgical operation. Jesus also uses the term metaphorically for those who <em>choose not to marry<\/em> (see Luke 14:26; 18:29; 1 Cor 7:7-8). • <em>for the sake of the Kingdom:<\/em> Jesus was not denigrating marriage; he was simply indicating that the unmarried often have greater potential for ministry (see 1 Cor 7:25-35).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:12 Eunuchs are males castrated either by a birth defect or by a surgical operation. Jesus also uses the term metaphorically for those who choose not to marry (see Luke 14:26; 18:29; 1 Cor 7:7-8). • for the sake of the Kingdom: Jesus was not denigrating marriage; he was simply indicating that the unmarried often have greater potential for ministry (see 1 Cor 7:25-35).","summary_en":"19:12 Eunuchs are males castrated either by a birth defect or by a surgical operation. Jesus also uses the term metaphorically for those who choose not to marry (see Luke 14:26; 18:29; 1 Cor 7:7-8). • for the sake of the Kingdom: Jesus was not denigrating marriage; he was simply indicating that the unmarried often have greater potential for ministry (see 1 Cor 7:25-35).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":137751,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:12","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:12<\/strong> <em>Eunuchs<\/em> are males castrated either by a birth defect or by a surgical operation. Jesus also uses the term metaphorically for those who <em>choose not to marry<\/em> (see Luke 14:26; 18:29; 1 Cor 7:7-8). • <em>for the sake of the Kingdom:<\/em> Jesus was not denigrating marriage; he was simply indicating that the unmarried often have greater potential for ministry (see 1 Cor 7:25-35).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:12<\/strong> <em>Eunuchs<\/em> are males castrated either by a birth defect or by a surgical operation. Jesus also uses the term metaphorically for those who <em>choose not to marry<\/em> (see Luke 14:26; 18:29; 1 Cor 7:7-8). • <em>for the sake of the Kingdom:<\/em> Jesus was not denigrating marriage; he was simply indicating that the unmarried often have greater potential for ministry (see 1 Cor 7:25-35).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:12 Eunuchs are males castrated either by a birth defect or by a surgical operation. Jesus also uses the term metaphorically for those who choose not to marry (see Luke 14:26; 18:29; 1 Cor 7:7-8). • for the sake of the Kingdom: Jesus was not denigrating marriage; he was simply indicating that the unmarried often have greater potential for ministry (see 1 Cor 7:25-35).","summary_en":"19:12 Eunuchs are males castrated either by a birth defect or by a surgical operation. Jesus also uses the term metaphorically for those who choose not to marry (see Luke 14:26; 18:29; 1 Cor 7:7-8). • for the sake of the Kingdom: Jesus was not denigrating marriage; he was simply indicating that the unmarried often have greater potential for ministry (see 1 Cor 7:25-35).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"13":[{"id":24795,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of Matthew","title_en":"Gospel of Matthew","content_ro":"<h3>MATTHEW, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>First Gospel and first book of the NT.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date and Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Nowhere does the text of Matthew itself clearly identify the author. Yet, as did the ancient church, we may ascribe authorship to Matthew the apostle. He was otherwise known as Levi (see Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27, 29). Before Jesus called him, he was a tax collector (Mt 9:9ff.). It is interesting to note that Matthew called himself a tax collector, while none of the other Gospel writers did. Perhaps he did this to show how great an ascendancy he had been granted when the Lord called him, for tax collectors were despised and considered the lowest of people. The Gospel itself bears the impress of one knowledgeable of currency, for the Gospel writer speaks quite specifically about a two-drachma tax (Mt 17:24), a four-drachma coin (v 27), and the various talents (18:24; 25:15ff.).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateandProvenance\">Date and Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Scholars are divided about the date when Matthew was written primarily because there is still debate about which Gospel was first written: Matthew or Mark. If Mark was written before Matthew, then Matthew was very indebted to Mark for a great deal of material, and vice versa. Those who argue for Matthew’s priority do so on the basis that Matthew’s Gospel was (1) recognized in the early church as the first Gospel, (2) written to those who first needed a written account—the Jews, and (3) placed first in the NT canon. Whether it preceded or followed Mark, most scholars are certain that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (<span>AD<\/span> 70) because the temple is spoken of as still standing (Mt 24:15). Irenaeus indicated that Matthew wrote this Gospel while Peter and Paul were in Rome. This would make the time of writing in the 60s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<h5>Apologetics<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew wrote to a community of Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, located in a center such as Antioch in Syria. The community was surrounded and beset by Jews hostile to the claims of Jesus and the Christian community.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew wrote as a Jew for Jews. In Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew contends, the OT reached its appointed goal. Jesus is the Messiah of Israel’s expectation. In the opening chapter Matthew identifies him as “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (1:1), indeed as “God with us” (v 23). In later chapters Jesus is revealed as the Son of Man of Daniel 7 and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. Throughout the book (Mt 1:22–27:10) the events of Jesus’ life are represented as the “fulfillment” of OT prophecies. He comes to offer Israel salvation from sin (1:21). Nevertheless, the Jews have rejected him as their Messiah, and have thus placed themselves in the most perilous position (11:20-24; 21:33-46). One explanation for Israel’s rejection of Jesus is the failure of the Jewish religious leadership to prepare the people for his coming. In the strongest language, Matthew denounces the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. They have forsaken the Word of God in favor of their own traditions (ch 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Teaching the Church<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew also wrote as a Christian for Christians. He presents Jesus as a new Moses, indeed as Yahweh incarnate, expounding his own law for his people (ch 5), now newly constituted around his person under the leadership of the apostles (10:2-4; 16:18-19; 23:8-10). If the Christian church is to function properly, the teaching of the Messiah on a host of moral and spiritual issues must be taken with utmost seriousness (chs 5–7, 18). To aid this purpose, Matthew takes the form of a theological textbook or a handbook for the church, to instruct the people of God concerning the person and work of Jesus. That these teachings may be more readily and firmly grasped, Matthew presents them in a highly organized and memorable way. To facilitate the learning of the material, he arranges Jesus’ teachings in five major discourses (interlocked with narrative portions) in which teachings of the same kind are clustered together (e.g., ch 10 consists of a charge to missionaries, and ch 13 consists of seven parables of the kingdom). Matthew’s leading theological themes may be identified as the <em>Son<\/em> of God (Jesus is Yahweh incarnate, “God with us”), the <em>kingdom<\/em> of God (in Jesus, God is invading history to inaugurate his final rule), the <em>salvation<\/em> of God (as the servant-king, Jesus has come to “save his people from their sins,” 1:21), and the <em>people<\/em> of God (Jesus has come to build his church, a redeemed community consisting of both Jews and Gentiles).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the Savior (1:1–2:23)<\/h5>\n<p>His name reveals his mission: “Jesus” (1:1) means “Yahweh saves.” He is “the son of Abraham,” who comes to fulfill God’s ancient promises to Jews and Gentiles (Gn 12:1-3). He is “Christ [or Messiah],” the son of David (Mt 1:1), who comes to inaugurate the kingdom of God (4:17). More than that, as evidenced both by prophecy (1:22-23) and by the nature of his conception (vv 18-20), he is “God with us”—now come to “save his people from their sins” (v 21). As the son of David, and in accord with prophecy, he is born in Bethlehem (2:1-6). Drawn by the star of Israel’s Messiah (cf. Nm 24:17), Gentiles come to worship him (Mt 2:1-12). When Herod seeks to destroy him, Jesus finds sanctuary in a gentile land; God’s calling his Son from Egypt marks the beginning of a mighty saving work—nothing less than a new exodus under Jesus, the new Moses (vv 13-20). Having been born in the humblest of circumstances, Jesus now comes to live in Nazareth (vv 21-23).<\/p>\n<h5>The Beginnings of Ministry (3:1–4:25)<\/h5>\n<p>In face of the judgment that Jesus is about to execute (as evidence of the kingdom’s arrival), John the Baptist calls Israel to repentance (3:1-12). Jesus’ submission to John’s baptism, and the voice from heaven, show him to be a King who serves his subjects by taking their sins upon himself (vv 13-17). Like Israel at the exodus, Jesus is led into the wilderness for a period of testing (4:1). When the devil seeks to turn him away both from God and from his appointed mission, Jesus gains victory by depending upon God and his Word (vv 1-11). Returning to Galilee, Jesus deliberately settles in territory with both Jewish and Gentile inhabitants (vv 12-16) and begins a ministry of preaching (like John, he calls for repentance in face of the dawning kingdom), teaching (he calls his first disciples), and healing (vv 17-25).<\/p>\n\n<h5>The Sermon on the Mount (5:1–7:29)<\/h5>\n<p>Just as Moses ascended Sinai to receive God’s law for Israel, so Jesus—as both the new Moses and as God incarnate—ascends the mountain to set forth his instruction for the citizens of the kingdom of God (5:1-2). He begins with <em>gospel<\/em> (not law), declaring that God shall surely save those who—beset by sin—trust in God’s mercy, obey his commands, and long for him to establish his righteous rule in the earth (vv 3-12). Toward that end, disciples are a preservative (salt) and a witness (light) in a sinful society (vv 13-16). As the one who has come not to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to bring them to completion (i.e., to usher in the new age to which the OT pointed— v 17), Jesus calls his disciples to steadfast obedience to God’s law as now expounded by the Lawgiver himself (vv 18-20). God’s commands embrace inner desires as well as outward actions, must not be watered down or rationalized, and call for more radical obedience than ever before, now that the end has come (vv 21-48). In their giving, praying, and fasting, disciples are to combat hypocrisy by God-centeredness and self-forgetfulness (6:1-18). The Lord’s Prayer (vv 9-13) calls upon God to honor his name by establishing his rule on earth, and to pardon, protect, and provide for his children. Given this prayer, and given the disciples’ God-centered view of reality (vv 19-24), there is no cause for anxiety (vv 25-34). Disciples must be discerning without being judgmental (7:1-6), and depend on God for the power needed to love others (6:7-12). Having completed his exposition of the law (5:21–7:12), Jesus now calls would-be disciples to follow him (7:13-14), warns against false teachers (vv 15-20), and insists that true disciples do God’s will (vv 21-23).<\/p>\n<h5>The Authority of Jesus (8:1–9:38)<\/h5>\n<p>Having given his authority <em>verbal<\/em> expression in teaching (7:28-29), Jesus now gives it <em>visible<\/em> expression in a series of healing miracles, again revealing himself as the servant of Isaiah (8:17). He heals a leper, a centurion’s servant, and a bleeding woman by his word (8:1-13; 9:20-22). His touch dispels a fever and raises a dead person (8:14-15; 9:23-25). A combination of word and touch cures the blind (9:27-31). As “God with us,” Jesus calls for unqualified allegiance (8:18-22). Though lacking even the natural protection enjoyed by animals (v 20), he demonstrates his sovereignty over the natural world—and thus his deity—by calming the storm (vv 23-27). In direct confrontations with demons, he shows his superiority over them (8:28-34; 9:32-33). Exercising God’s own authority, he declares sins forgiven (9:1-8) and calls sinners to repentance and to discipleship (vv 9-13). Joy over the kingdom’s inauguration is mingled with longing for its consummation (vv 14-17). The summary of 9:35-38 echoes 4:23-25, recalls chapters 5–7, and prepares for the next major discourse.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Charge to the Missionaries (10:1-42)<\/h5>\n<p>In response to the prayers that he has commanded, Christ now invests 12 disciples with apostolic authority and sends them out into his harvest field (9:37–10:4). The discourse speaks both of the apostles’ immediate mission (10:5-15) and of the church’s broader mission (vv 16-42). For now, the apostles are to concentrate on evangelizing Jews (v 6), in preparation for the mission to Gentiles (28:19). The “worthy” are those who welcome the apostles and their message; the “unworthy,” those who reject them (10:11-15). In the broader mission, there is sure to be persecution (vv 16-19, 24-25), but this will actually aid the witness (vv 17-23). God will save his faithful missionaries (vv 19-23) but judge those who oppress them and who disown Christ (vv 26-39). A sure reward awaits both the herald and the recipient of the message (vv 37-42).<\/p>\n<h5>Christ the Lord (11:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The judgment John predicted is already under way; one’s stand in the last judgment would be determined by his response to the words and works of Jesus (11:2-6). Like his herald, Jesus meets with widespread hostility and indifference (vv 7-19). Given the finality of the grace attending his ministry, those who reject him will suffer the severest judgment (vv 20-24). Yet there are others—the lowly, the burdened, the teachable—who learn (by revelation from God the Father and God the Son) that the “Lord of heaven and earth” is also the “gentle and humble” God who comes to give rest to those who trust in him (vv 25-30). As the one who ushers in the new age (12:6), Jesus claims that he is the Lord of the Sabbath (vv 1-8). True rest (11:29) comes to those who come to Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Viewing Jesus as the destroyer of the Sabbath, the Pharisees ascribe his miraculous powers to Satan (12:22-24). On the contrary, says Jesus, the rule he is inaugurating is crushing Satan’s empire (vv 25-29). To reject this truth in the full awareness of what one is doing is to commit the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit (vv 30-32); the words of Jesus’ accusers expose them as persons destined for condemnation (vv 33-37). The requested sign from heaven will not be given. Jesus’ resurrection is the only sign they need.<\/p>\n<h5>The Parables of the Kingdom (13:1-58)<\/h5>\n<p>This, the third of Matthew’s five great discourses, contains seven parables. In the parable of the sower, four kinds of soil—hard, shallow, cluttered, and fruitful—illustrate the various responses to Jesus’ preaching (13:3-9, 18-23). As those who have received Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom (4:17), the disciples are given more light, but the crowds must accept that initial proclamation before further light is given (13:10-17, 34-35). In both the parable of the weeds (vv 24-30, 36-43) and the parable of the net (vv 47-50), Jesus assures his disciples that the final judgment will separate true believers from false, and warns against hasty, premature judgments (cf. 7:1-5). The parables of the mustard and the yeast (13:31-33) contrast the smallness of the kingdom’s inauguration with the fullness of its consummation. The parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl (vv 44-46) depict the kingdom as a value far surpassing all others (cf. 6:33). Thus illuminated by Jesus, disciples have new treasures to add to their old (13:51-52). The people of Nazareth, on the contrary, echo the crowds’ lack of understanding and the Pharisees’ hostility (vv 53-58).<\/p>\n<h5>Spiritual Conflict (14:1–16:12)<\/h5>\n<p>In 14:1-12 the preaching of John exposes the weakness of Herod, and the beheading of John anticipates the crucifixion of Jesus (cf. 17:12). The true king is not Herod but Jesus. He is sovereign over nature itself (14:13-36)—God incarnate, “God with us,” who feeds the hungry multitude in the wilderness (as God once provided manna) and walks upon and calms the sea (see Ps 89:9). Peter models Christians’ faith, fear, and utter dependence on Jesus (Mt 14:28-31). The Pharisees and teachers of the law appear to worship God but in fact are devoted to their own traditions, which they offer not as supplements but as <em>rivals<\/em> to the Word of God (15:1-9). In verses 10-20 Jesus teaches both that ceremonial law apart from moral law becomes empty ritual, and that the old distinction between clean and unclean foods (Lv 11) is now as obsolete as the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. To underscore the point, Jesus enters pagan territory, heals a Canaanite (15:21-28) and feeds a Gentile multitude (vv 29-39). Pharisees and Sadducees, for all their differences, are united in their opposition to Jesus (16:1-12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming Salvation (16:13–17:27)<\/h5>\n<p>Going beyond the crowds’ respectful but inadequate estimates, Peter confesses Jesus to be “the Christ, the Son of the living God”—a recognition of Jesus’ deity granted by divine revelation (16:13-17; cf. 11:25-26). As it is God the Son who possesses and builds the church, Satan and death are victims rather than victors. Jesus will build his church on Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. The apostles’ prohibiting and granting entry into the church (“binding” and “loosing,” respectively) depends upon the prior decision of heaven (i.e., God’s revelation of apostolic teaching). In face of Peter’s confession and the persistent false notions of messiahship (16:20, 23), Jesus now (for the first time) predicts his sufferings and coming glory (vv 21-28). In anticipation of that glory, Jesus is transfigured before certain disciples; Moses and Elijah join God the Father in bearing witness to the unique splendor of God the Son (17:1-8). Jesus then demonstrated his power by combating demonic powers (vv 14-18) and exhibited his authority by choosing to pay the temple tax using miraculous means (vv 24-27).<\/p>\n<h5>Greatness in the Kingdom (18:1-35)<\/h5>\n<p>In this, the fourth of Matthew’s five great discourses, Jesus concentrates on the character and attitudes of church members. He calls upon his followers both to <em>become<\/em> and to <em>welcome<\/em> the lowliest (18:1-5). Leaders especially are enjoined to deal harshly with themselves but gently with those under their care (vv 6-9). Remembering the Father’s love for sinners, Christians are to make every effort (both by prayer and by personal initiative) to restore offending brothers, with excommunication being the last resort (vv 10-20). Church members who really understand the Father’s amazing grace will never stop offering forgiveness and compassion to those who wrong them (vv 21-35).<\/p>\n<h5>Instructions on the Way to Jerusalem (19:1–20:34)<\/h5>\n<p>Given God’s creation ordinances, says Jesus, divorce itself is never <em>commanded;<\/em> it is only <em>permitted<\/em> in the case of sin—that is, where the marital bond has already been severed through infidelity (19:1-9). As in 5:17-48, Jesus calls his followers to radical obedience (19:10-12). Besides instructing disciples to become like children (18:1-4), Jesus embraces children themselves with his love (19:13-15). He appeals likewise to the rich young man (vv 16-22); but the man, while faithful to the commands about love of neighbor, is too bound by his wealth to give himself unreservedly to loving God. Yet those who abandon all to follow Jesus will receive wealth untold in the coming kingdom (vv 27-30). The basis for such blessings lies not in human merit but in the astonishing generosity of the gracious God (20:1-16). None—not even the rich—are beyond the power of his grace. But God offers free salvation at great cost to himself (vv 17-19). Confronting competitiveness and ambition among his followers, Jesus teaches them that true greatness lies not in lording it over others but in serving them (vv 20-34), as shall be supremely demonstrated in his death as “a ransom for many” (v 28).<\/p>\n<h5>Confrontations in Jerusalem (21:1–22:46)<\/h5>\n<p>As the Servant-King (cf. 3:17), and as the Messiah destined for suffering (cf. 16:16-21; 20:28), Jesus enters Jerusalem not upon a war horse but upon a donkey’s colt, for he purposes not to declare war on his enemies but to hand himself over to them—and thus achieve his triumph through defeat (21:1-11). As Lord of the temple, he demands that its commerce be halted and that it become (as God ordained) a place of worship for everyone, including the sick, the young, and the alien (21:12-17; cf. Mk 11:17). He outwits those who refuse to acknowledge the heavenly source of his and John’s authority (Mt 21:23-27). In dramatic and devastating fashion, first visibly (by cursing the fig tree—vv 18-22) and then verbally (in the three parables of 21:28–22:14), Jesus pronounces judgment upon those Jews who have refused to acknowledge him as Messiah and Son of God. Henceforth, the true people of God are those who believe in Jesus, whether Jews or Gentiles. He calls upon his people to pledge their supreme allegiance to God. In the resurrection what will matter most is one’s relationship to God (22:23-33). Indeed, he who loves God with his whole being and his neighbor as himself has kept the two foundational commandments of the OT (vv 34-40). Henceforth, submitting to God means rightly recognizing Jesus; he is indeed David’s son (Mt 1:1), but he is supremely David’s Lord—the exalted Son of God (22:41-46; cf. 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Woes upon the Scribes and Pharisees (23:1-39)<\/h5>\n<p>Five reasons are stated for Jesus’ denunciation of the Jewish religious leaders. First is their hypocrisy: their practice contradicts their teaching (23:1-4), their external purity conceals inner rottenness (vv 25-28), and they appear to champion God’s cause but are really enemies of God’s servants (vv 29-36). Second is the pride that prompts their hypocrisy (23:5-12). Third is their exploitation of, and their baleful influence upon, those under their charge (vv 13-15). Fourth is their preoccupation with the minutia of the law to the neglect of its weightier matters (vv 16-24). Fifth is their responsibility for the dreadful judgment that the whole nation is about to experience (vv 33-39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the End (24:1–25:46)<\/h5>\n<p>The introduction to this, the fifth and last of Matthew’s great discourses, makes it plain that there is the closest connection (for both Jesus and his disciples) between the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age (24:1-3). Jesus first characterizes the time between his first advent and his return: there will be natural catastrophes, international warfare, the rise of false messiahs, the persecution of God’s people, and the universal proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom (vv 4-14). Then Jesus speaks of the catastrophe that is soon to befall the Jewish nation in particular (as already foretold in 22:7; 23:38), culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70 (24:15-25). Sometime thereafter (but after an interval known only to God the Father—v 36), the Son of Man will return in great glory, amid apocalyptic signs, to gather his people (vv 26-31). The present generation will not pass away before judgment falls upon Israel (vv 15-25), so let listeners take heed (vv 32-35). The same warning applies to the more remote coming of the Son of Man (vv 36-51): both the certainty of the event and the uncertainty of its time call for vigilance and faithfulness in the interval, for that event will bring both salvation and judgment. To drive the lesson home, Jesus tells the parables of the wise and foolish virgins (25:1-13) and the talents (vv 14-30). The concluding parable of the sheep and the goats (vv 31-46) speaks of the urgent necessity of making the right response to the “brothers”—that is, the messengers—of Christ; those who feed, clothe, and otherwise care for the messengers of Christ thereby testify to their reception of the apostles’ message and their Lord (cf. 10:40-42).<\/p>\n<h5>The Road to Golgotha (26:1–27:26)<\/h5>\n<p>As though in response to Jesus’ own prediction, the chief priests and the elders hatch their murderous plot (26:1-5), soon to be aided by Judas (vv 14-16). The anointing at Bethany (vv 6-13) testifies to the extravagance of love and the imminence of death. At the Passover meal (vv 17-30), signaling at what sacrifice the new exodus comes about (cf. 2:15), Jesus interprets his forthcoming death as an atoning sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (26:26-28; cf. 1:21) and anticipates the day of final victory over sin and death in the consummated kingdom (26:29). Jesus’ agony in Gethsemane (vv 36-46) expresses his horror over taking his people’s sins upon himself. By a stupendous act of filial obedience, he submits his will to the Father, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled (26:54; cf. Is 53). As the servant of God destined to suffer, Jesus resists attempts to thwart his arrest (26:47-56). The Jews’ supreme court (the Sanhedrin) and their loftiest religious official (the high priest) condemn Jesus as a blasphemer because he dares to identify himself as “the Christ, the Son of God” (26:57-68; cf. 16:16). As though joining the court’s repudiation, Peter—in fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy (26:31-35)—disclaims knowledge of Jesus (vv 69-75). Judas’s disillusionment finds expression in suicide (27:3-10). The Jews hand Jesus over to Pilate the Roman governor (vv 1-2), he alone having the authority to pronounce the death sentence. Knowing that the charge of blasphemy will carry no weight with Pilate, the Jews now represent Jesus as a threat to Caesar. In the end, Pilate responds not to specific charges and evidence but to pressure from the crowd and the threat of riot (vv 11-25). He releases Barabbas and delivers Jesus to be crucified (v 26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Death of Jesus (27:27-66)<\/h5>\n<p>Following his humiliating treatment at the hands of the Roman soldiers, Jesus is led to the place of execution; weakened by the beatings, he requires assistance (27:27-32). He refuses the proffered narcotic so that he might keep his head clear (v 34). His being executed with malefactors (v 38) testifies to the purpose of his death (cf. 1:21). A steady stream of abuse is hurled at him, in blasphemous disregard of the truth of the superscription “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (27:37-44). Finally, out of the darkness Jesus utters the cry of dereliction; now is revealed the ultimate horror (that from which his soul shrank in Gethsemane), the sin-bearer’s supreme agony—the beloved Son’s abandonment by the Father (vv 45-49). Having cried out with a loud voice (cf. Jn 19:30), Jesus dies (27:50). Immediately, the saving effects of his death become evident (vv 51-53): sinners, now forgiven, have access to the holy God (the veil of the temple is rent asunder), and there is hope of resurrection for those who have died. As at the beginning (2:1-12), Gentiles instead of Jews confess Jesus (27:54; contrast 26:63-65). Joseph’s careful attentiveness to Jesus’ burial contrasts with the ongoing attempts of the chief priests and Pharisees to resist Jesus’ power (27:57-66).<\/p>\n<h5>The Triumph of the Savior (28:1-20)<\/h5>\n<p>Amid great glory and power and joy, the Savior’s victory over death is announced and attested (28:1-7). The risen Jesus appears first to the women who stayed with him during his crucifixion (28:8-10; cf. 27:61; 28:1). The Jews’ response to the guards’ report signals their growing desperation before irresistible reality (28:11-15). Meeting with the 11 disciples on the mountain in Galilee (vv 16-20), Jesus, the new Moses, continues his instructions. He now reveals the evangelistic purpose for which Matthew has been preparing readers from the very threshold of his Gospel. The apostles are to disciple all peoples by baptizing them into the name of the triune God and by teaching them to obey all that Jesus has commanded. The apostles go forth in the assurance that Jesus—as the Lord—stands over them, and that Jesus—as Immanuel—stands with them until the very end of the age.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Luke, Gospel of; Mark, Gospel of; Matthew (Person); Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MATTHEW, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>First Gospel and first book of the NT.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date and Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Nowhere does the text of Matthew itself clearly identify the author. Yet, as did the ancient church, we may ascribe authorship to Matthew the apostle. He was otherwise known as Levi (see Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27, 29). Before Jesus called him, he was a tax collector (Mt 9:9ff.). It is interesting to note that Matthew called himself a tax collector, while none of the other Gospel writers did. Perhaps he did this to show how great an ascendancy he had been granted when the Lord called him, for tax collectors were despised and considered the lowest of people. The Gospel itself bears the impress of one knowledgeable of currency, for the Gospel writer speaks quite specifically about a two-drachma tax (Mt 17:24), a four-drachma coin (v 27), and the various talents (18:24; 25:15ff.).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateandProvenance\">Date and Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Scholars are divided about the date when Matthew was written primarily because there is still debate about which Gospel was first written: Matthew or Mark. If Mark was written before Matthew, then Matthew was very indebted to Mark for a great deal of material, and vice versa. Those who argue for Matthew’s priority do so on the basis that Matthew’s Gospel was (1) recognized in the early church as the first Gospel, (2) written to those who first needed a written account—the Jews, and (3) placed first in the NT canon. Whether it preceded or followed Mark, most scholars are certain that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (<span>AD<\/span> 70) because the temple is spoken of as still standing (Mt 24:15). Irenaeus indicated that Matthew wrote this Gospel while Peter and Paul were in Rome. This would make the time of writing in the 60s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<h5>Apologetics<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew wrote to a community of Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, located in a center such as Antioch in Syria. The community was surrounded and beset by Jews hostile to the claims of Jesus and the Christian community.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew wrote as a Jew for Jews. In Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew contends, the OT reached its appointed goal. Jesus is the Messiah of Israel’s expectation. In the opening chapter Matthew identifies him as “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (1:1), indeed as “God with us” (v 23). In later chapters Jesus is revealed as the Son of Man of Daniel 7 and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. Throughout the book (Mt 1:22–27:10) the events of Jesus’ life are represented as the “fulfillment” of OT prophecies. He comes to offer Israel salvation from sin (1:21). Nevertheless, the Jews have rejected him as their Messiah, and have thus placed themselves in the most perilous position (11:20-24; 21:33-46). One explanation for Israel’s rejection of Jesus is the failure of the Jewish religious leadership to prepare the people for his coming. In the strongest language, Matthew denounces the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. They have forsaken the Word of God in favor of their own traditions (ch 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Teaching the Church<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew also wrote as a Christian for Christians. He presents Jesus as a new Moses, indeed as Yahweh incarnate, expounding his own law for his people (ch 5), now newly constituted around his person under the leadership of the apostles (10:2-4; 16:18-19; 23:8-10). If the Christian church is to function properly, the teaching of the Messiah on a host of moral and spiritual issues must be taken with utmost seriousness (chs 5–7, 18). To aid this purpose, Matthew takes the form of a theological textbook or a handbook for the church, to instruct the people of God concerning the person and work of Jesus. That these teachings may be more readily and firmly grasped, Matthew presents them in a highly organized and memorable way. To facilitate the learning of the material, he arranges Jesus’ teachings in five major discourses (interlocked with narrative portions) in which teachings of the same kind are clustered together (e.g., ch 10 consists of a charge to missionaries, and ch 13 consists of seven parables of the kingdom). Matthew’s leading theological themes may be identified as the <em>Son<\/em> of God (Jesus is Yahweh incarnate, “God with us”), the <em>kingdom<\/em> of God (in Jesus, God is invading history to inaugurate his final rule), the <em>salvation<\/em> of God (as the servant-king, Jesus has come to “save his people from their sins,” 1:21), and the <em>people<\/em> of God (Jesus has come to build his church, a redeemed community consisting of both Jews and Gentiles).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the Savior (1:1–2:23)<\/h5>\n<p>His name reveals his mission: “Jesus” (1:1) means “Yahweh saves.” He is “the son of Abraham,” who comes to fulfill God’s ancient promises to Jews and Gentiles (Gn 12:1-3). He is “Christ [or Messiah],” the son of David (Mt 1:1), who comes to inaugurate the kingdom of God (4:17). More than that, as evidenced both by prophecy (1:22-23) and by the nature of his conception (vv 18-20), he is “God with us”—now come to “save his people from their sins” (v 21). As the son of David, and in accord with prophecy, he is born in Bethlehem (2:1-6). Drawn by the star of Israel’s Messiah (cf. Nm 24:17), Gentiles come to worship him (Mt 2:1-12). When Herod seeks to destroy him, Jesus finds sanctuary in a gentile land; God’s calling his Son from Egypt marks the beginning of a mighty saving work—nothing less than a new exodus under Jesus, the new Moses (vv 13-20). Having been born in the humblest of circumstances, Jesus now comes to live in Nazareth (vv 21-23).<\/p>\n<h5>The Beginnings of Ministry (3:1–4:25)<\/h5>\n<p>In face of the judgment that Jesus is about to execute (as evidence of the kingdom’s arrival), John the Baptist calls Israel to repentance (3:1-12). Jesus’ submission to John’s baptism, and the voice from heaven, show him to be a King who serves his subjects by taking their sins upon himself (vv 13-17). Like Israel at the exodus, Jesus is led into the wilderness for a period of testing (4:1). When the devil seeks to turn him away both from God and from his appointed mission, Jesus gains victory by depending upon God and his Word (vv 1-11). Returning to Galilee, Jesus deliberately settles in territory with both Jewish and Gentile inhabitants (vv 12-16) and begins a ministry of preaching (like John, he calls for repentance in face of the dawning kingdom), teaching (he calls his first disciples), and healing (vv 17-25).<\/p>\n\n<h5>The Sermon on the Mount (5:1–7:29)<\/h5>\n<p>Just as Moses ascended Sinai to receive God’s law for Israel, so Jesus—as both the new Moses and as God incarnate—ascends the mountain to set forth his instruction for the citizens of the kingdom of God (5:1-2). He begins with <em>gospel<\/em> (not law), declaring that God shall surely save those who—beset by sin—trust in God’s mercy, obey his commands, and long for him to establish his righteous rule in the earth (vv 3-12). Toward that end, disciples are a preservative (salt) and a witness (light) in a sinful society (vv 13-16). As the one who has come not to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to bring them to completion (i.e., to usher in the new age to which the OT pointed— v 17), Jesus calls his disciples to steadfast obedience to God’s law as now expounded by the Lawgiver himself (vv 18-20). God’s commands embrace inner desires as well as outward actions, must not be watered down or rationalized, and call for more radical obedience than ever before, now that the end has come (vv 21-48). In their giving, praying, and fasting, disciples are to combat hypocrisy by God-centeredness and self-forgetfulness (6:1-18). The Lord’s Prayer (vv 9-13) calls upon God to honor his name by establishing his rule on earth, and to pardon, protect, and provide for his children. Given this prayer, and given the disciples’ God-centered view of reality (vv 19-24), there is no cause for anxiety (vv 25-34). Disciples must be discerning without being judgmental (7:1-6), and depend on God for the power needed to love others (6:7-12). Having completed his exposition of the law (5:21–7:12), Jesus now calls would-be disciples to follow him (7:13-14), warns against false teachers (vv 15-20), and insists that true disciples do God’s will (vv 21-23).<\/p>\n<h5>The Authority of Jesus (8:1–9:38)<\/h5>\n<p>Having given his authority <em>verbal<\/em> expression in teaching (7:28-29), Jesus now gives it <em>visible<\/em> expression in a series of healing miracles, again revealing himself as the servant of Isaiah (8:17). He heals a leper, a centurion’s servant, and a bleeding woman by his word (8:1-13; 9:20-22). His touch dispels a fever and raises a dead person (8:14-15; 9:23-25). A combination of word and touch cures the blind (9:27-31). As “God with us,” Jesus calls for unqualified allegiance (8:18-22). Though lacking even the natural protection enjoyed by animals (v 20), he demonstrates his sovereignty over the natural world—and thus his deity—by calming the storm (vv 23-27). In direct confrontations with demons, he shows his superiority over them (8:28-34; 9:32-33). Exercising God’s own authority, he declares sins forgiven (9:1-8) and calls sinners to repentance and to discipleship (vv 9-13). Joy over the kingdom’s inauguration is mingled with longing for its consummation (vv 14-17). The summary of 9:35-38 echoes 4:23-25, recalls chapters 5–7, and prepares for the next major discourse.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Charge to the Missionaries (10:1-42)<\/h5>\n<p>In response to the prayers that he has commanded, Christ now invests 12 disciples with apostolic authority and sends them out into his harvest field (9:37–10:4). The discourse speaks both of the apostles’ immediate mission (10:5-15) and of the church’s broader mission (vv 16-42). For now, the apostles are to concentrate on evangelizing Jews (v 6), in preparation for the mission to Gentiles (28:19). The “worthy” are those who welcome the apostles and their message; the “unworthy,” those who reject them (10:11-15). In the broader mission, there is sure to be persecution (vv 16-19, 24-25), but this will actually aid the witness (vv 17-23). God will save his faithful missionaries (vv 19-23) but judge those who oppress them and who disown Christ (vv 26-39). A sure reward awaits both the herald and the recipient of the message (vv 37-42).<\/p>\n<h5>Christ the Lord (11:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The judgment John predicted is already under way; one’s stand in the last judgment would be determined by his response to the words and works of Jesus (11:2-6). Like his herald, Jesus meets with widespread hostility and indifference (vv 7-19). Given the finality of the grace attending his ministry, those who reject him will suffer the severest judgment (vv 20-24). Yet there are others—the lowly, the burdened, the teachable—who learn (by revelation from God the Father and God the Son) that the “Lord of heaven and earth” is also the “gentle and humble” God who comes to give rest to those who trust in him (vv 25-30). As the one who ushers in the new age (12:6), Jesus claims that he is the Lord of the Sabbath (vv 1-8). True rest (11:29) comes to those who come to Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Viewing Jesus as the destroyer of the Sabbath, the Pharisees ascribe his miraculous powers to Satan (12:22-24). On the contrary, says Jesus, the rule he is inaugurating is crushing Satan’s empire (vv 25-29). To reject this truth in the full awareness of what one is doing is to commit the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit (vv 30-32); the words of Jesus’ accusers expose them as persons destined for condemnation (vv 33-37). The requested sign from heaven will not be given. Jesus’ resurrection is the only sign they need.<\/p>\n<h5>The Parables of the Kingdom (13:1-58)<\/h5>\n<p>This, the third of Matthew’s five great discourses, contains seven parables. In the parable of the sower, four kinds of soil—hard, shallow, cluttered, and fruitful—illustrate the various responses to Jesus’ preaching (13:3-9, 18-23). As those who have received Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom (4:17), the disciples are given more light, but the crowds must accept that initial proclamation before further light is given (13:10-17, 34-35). In both the parable of the weeds (vv 24-30, 36-43) and the parable of the net (vv 47-50), Jesus assures his disciples that the final judgment will separate true believers from false, and warns against hasty, premature judgments (cf. 7:1-5). The parables of the mustard and the yeast (13:31-33) contrast the smallness of the kingdom’s inauguration with the fullness of its consummation. The parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl (vv 44-46) depict the kingdom as a value far surpassing all others (cf. 6:33). Thus illuminated by Jesus, disciples have new treasures to add to their old (13:51-52). The people of Nazareth, on the contrary, echo the crowds’ lack of understanding and the Pharisees’ hostility (vv 53-58).<\/p>\n<h5>Spiritual Conflict (14:1–16:12)<\/h5>\n<p>In 14:1-12 the preaching of John exposes the weakness of Herod, and the beheading of John anticipates the crucifixion of Jesus (cf. 17:12). The true king is not Herod but Jesus. He is sovereign over nature itself (14:13-36)—God incarnate, “God with us,” who feeds the hungry multitude in the wilderness (as God once provided manna) and walks upon and calms the sea (see Ps 89:9). Peter models Christians’ faith, fear, and utter dependence on Jesus (Mt 14:28-31). The Pharisees and teachers of the law appear to worship God but in fact are devoted to their own traditions, which they offer not as supplements but as <em>rivals<\/em> to the Word of God (15:1-9). In verses 10-20 Jesus teaches both that ceremonial law apart from moral law becomes empty ritual, and that the old distinction between clean and unclean foods (Lv 11) is now as obsolete as the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. To underscore the point, Jesus enters pagan territory, heals a Canaanite (15:21-28) and feeds a Gentile multitude (vv 29-39). Pharisees and Sadducees, for all their differences, are united in their opposition to Jesus (16:1-12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming Salvation (16:13–17:27)<\/h5>\n<p>Going beyond the crowds’ respectful but inadequate estimates, Peter confesses Jesus to be “the Christ, the Son of the living God”—a recognition of Jesus’ deity granted by divine revelation (16:13-17; cf. 11:25-26). As it is God the Son who possesses and builds the church, Satan and death are victims rather than victors. Jesus will build his church on Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. The apostles’ prohibiting and granting entry into the church (“binding” and “loosing,” respectively) depends upon the prior decision of heaven (i.e., God’s revelation of apostolic teaching). In face of Peter’s confession and the persistent false notions of messiahship (16:20, 23), Jesus now (for the first time) predicts his sufferings and coming glory (vv 21-28). In anticipation of that glory, Jesus is transfigured before certain disciples; Moses and Elijah join God the Father in bearing witness to the unique splendor of God the Son (17:1-8). Jesus then demonstrated his power by combating demonic powers (vv 14-18) and exhibited his authority by choosing to pay the temple tax using miraculous means (vv 24-27).<\/p>\n<h5>Greatness in the Kingdom (18:1-35)<\/h5>\n<p>In this, the fourth of Matthew’s five great discourses, Jesus concentrates on the character and attitudes of church members. He calls upon his followers both to <em>become<\/em> and to <em>welcome<\/em> the lowliest (18:1-5). Leaders especially are enjoined to deal harshly with themselves but gently with those under their care (vv 6-9). Remembering the Father’s love for sinners, Christians are to make every effort (both by prayer and by personal initiative) to restore offending brothers, with excommunication being the last resort (vv 10-20). Church members who really understand the Father’s amazing grace will never stop offering forgiveness and compassion to those who wrong them (vv 21-35).<\/p>\n<h5>Instructions on the Way to Jerusalem (19:1–20:34)<\/h5>\n<p>Given God’s creation ordinances, says Jesus, divorce itself is never <em>commanded;<\/em> it is only <em>permitted<\/em> in the case of sin—that is, where the marital bond has already been severed through infidelity (19:1-9). As in 5:17-48, Jesus calls his followers to radical obedience (19:10-12). Besides instructing disciples to become like children (18:1-4), Jesus embraces children themselves with his love (19:13-15). He appeals likewise to the rich young man (vv 16-22); but the man, while faithful to the commands about love of neighbor, is too bound by his wealth to give himself unreservedly to loving God. Yet those who abandon all to follow Jesus will receive wealth untold in the coming kingdom (vv 27-30). The basis for such blessings lies not in human merit but in the astonishing generosity of the gracious God (20:1-16). None—not even the rich—are beyond the power of his grace. But God offers free salvation at great cost to himself (vv 17-19). Confronting competitiveness and ambition among his followers, Jesus teaches them that true greatness lies not in lording it over others but in serving them (vv 20-34), as shall be supremely demonstrated in his death as “a ransom for many” (v 28).<\/p>\n<h5>Confrontations in Jerusalem (21:1–22:46)<\/h5>\n<p>As the Servant-King (cf. 3:17), and as the Messiah destined for suffering (cf. 16:16-21; 20:28), Jesus enters Jerusalem not upon a war horse but upon a donkey’s colt, for he purposes not to declare war on his enemies but to hand himself over to them—and thus achieve his triumph through defeat (21:1-11). As Lord of the temple, he demands that its commerce be halted and that it become (as God ordained) a place of worship for everyone, including the sick, the young, and the alien (21:12-17; cf. Mk 11:17). He outwits those who refuse to acknowledge the heavenly source of his and John’s authority (Mt 21:23-27). In dramatic and devastating fashion, first visibly (by cursing the fig tree—vv 18-22) and then verbally (in the three parables of 21:28–22:14), Jesus pronounces judgment upon those Jews who have refused to acknowledge him as Messiah and Son of God. Henceforth, the true people of God are those who believe in Jesus, whether Jews or Gentiles. He calls upon his people to pledge their supreme allegiance to God. In the resurrection what will matter most is one’s relationship to God (22:23-33). Indeed, he who loves God with his whole being and his neighbor as himself has kept the two foundational commandments of the OT (vv 34-40). Henceforth, submitting to God means rightly recognizing Jesus; he is indeed David’s son (Mt 1:1), but he is supremely David’s Lord—the exalted Son of God (22:41-46; cf. 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Woes upon the Scribes and Pharisees (23:1-39)<\/h5>\n<p>Five reasons are stated for Jesus’ denunciation of the Jewish religious leaders. First is their hypocrisy: their practice contradicts their teaching (23:1-4), their external purity conceals inner rottenness (vv 25-28), and they appear to champion God’s cause but are really enemies of God’s servants (vv 29-36). Second is the pride that prompts their hypocrisy (23:5-12). Third is their exploitation of, and their baleful influence upon, those under their charge (vv 13-15). Fourth is their preoccupation with the minutia of the law to the neglect of its weightier matters (vv 16-24). Fifth is their responsibility for the dreadful judgment that the whole nation is about to experience (vv 33-39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the End (24:1–25:46)<\/h5>\n<p>The introduction to this, the fifth and last of Matthew’s great discourses, makes it plain that there is the closest connection (for both Jesus and his disciples) between the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age (24:1-3). Jesus first characterizes the time between his first advent and his return: there will be natural catastrophes, international warfare, the rise of false messiahs, the persecution of God’s people, and the universal proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom (vv 4-14). Then Jesus speaks of the catastrophe that is soon to befall the Jewish nation in particular (as already foretold in 22:7; 23:38), culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70 (24:15-25). Sometime thereafter (but after an interval known only to God the Father—v 36), the Son of Man will return in great glory, amid apocalyptic signs, to gather his people (vv 26-31). The present generation will not pass away before judgment falls upon Israel (vv 15-25), so let listeners take heed (vv 32-35). The same warning applies to the more remote coming of the Son of Man (vv 36-51): both the certainty of the event and the uncertainty of its time call for vigilance and faithfulness in the interval, for that event will bring both salvation and judgment. To drive the lesson home, Jesus tells the parables of the wise and foolish virgins (25:1-13) and the talents (vv 14-30). The concluding parable of the sheep and the goats (vv 31-46) speaks of the urgent necessity of making the right response to the “brothers”—that is, the messengers—of Christ; those who feed, clothe, and otherwise care for the messengers of Christ thereby testify to their reception of the apostles’ message and their Lord (cf. 10:40-42).<\/p>\n<h5>The Road to Golgotha (26:1–27:26)<\/h5>\n<p>As though in response to Jesus’ own prediction, the chief priests and the elders hatch their murderous plot (26:1-5), soon to be aided by Judas (vv 14-16). The anointing at Bethany (vv 6-13) testifies to the extravagance of love and the imminence of death. At the Passover meal (vv 17-30), signaling at what sacrifice the new exodus comes about (cf. 2:15), Jesus interprets his forthcoming death as an atoning sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (26:26-28; cf. 1:21) and anticipates the day of final victory over sin and death in the consummated kingdom (26:29). Jesus’ agony in Gethsemane (vv 36-46) expresses his horror over taking his people’s sins upon himself. By a stupendous act of filial obedience, he submits his will to the Father, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled (26:54; cf. Is 53). As the servant of God destined to suffer, Jesus resists attempts to thwart his arrest (26:47-56). The Jews’ supreme court (the Sanhedrin) and their loftiest religious official (the high priest) condemn Jesus as a blasphemer because he dares to identify himself as “the Christ, the Son of God” (26:57-68; cf. 16:16). As though joining the court’s repudiation, Peter—in fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy (26:31-35)—disclaims knowledge of Jesus (vv 69-75). Judas’s disillusionment finds expression in suicide (27:3-10). The Jews hand Jesus over to Pilate the Roman governor (vv 1-2), he alone having the authority to pronounce the death sentence. Knowing that the charge of blasphemy will carry no weight with Pilate, the Jews now represent Jesus as a threat to Caesar. In the end, Pilate responds not to specific charges and evidence but to pressure from the crowd and the threat of riot (vv 11-25). He releases Barabbas and delivers Jesus to be crucified (v 26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Death of Jesus (27:27-66)<\/h5>\n<p>Following his humiliating treatment at the hands of the Roman soldiers, Jesus is led to the place of execution; weakened by the beatings, he requires assistance (27:27-32). He refuses the proffered narcotic so that he might keep his head clear (v 34). His being executed with malefactors (v 38) testifies to the purpose of his death (cf. 1:21). A steady stream of abuse is hurled at him, in blasphemous disregard of the truth of the superscription “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (27:37-44). Finally, out of the darkness Jesus utters the cry of dereliction; now is revealed the ultimate horror (that from which his soul shrank in Gethsemane), the sin-bearer’s supreme agony—the beloved Son’s abandonment by the Father (vv 45-49). Having cried out with a loud voice (cf. Jn 19:30), Jesus dies (27:50). Immediately, the saving effects of his death become evident (vv 51-53): sinners, now forgiven, have access to the holy God (the veil of the temple is rent asunder), and there is hope of resurrection for those who have died. As at the beginning (2:1-12), Gentiles instead of Jews confess Jesus (27:54; contrast 26:63-65). Joseph’s careful attentiveness to Jesus’ burial contrasts with the ongoing attempts of the chief priests and Pharisees to resist Jesus’ power (27:57-66).<\/p>\n<h5>The Triumph of the Savior (28:1-20)<\/h5>\n<p>Amid great glory and power and joy, the Savior’s victory over death is announced and attested (28:1-7). The risen Jesus appears first to the women who stayed with him during his crucifixion (28:8-10; cf. 27:61; 28:1). The Jews’ response to the guards’ report signals their growing desperation before irresistible reality (28:11-15). Meeting with the 11 disciples on the mountain in Galilee (vv 16-20), Jesus, the new Moses, continues his instructions. He now reveals the evangelistic purpose for which Matthew has been preparing readers from the very threshold of his Gospel. The apostles are to disciple all peoples by baptizing them into the name of the triune God and by teaching them to obey all that Jesus has commanded. The apostles go forth in the assurance that Jesus—as the Lord—stands over them, and that Jesus—as Immanuel—stands with them until the very end of the age.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Luke, Gospel of; Mark, Gospel of; Matthew (Person); Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MATTHEW, Gospel of First Gospel and first book of the NT. Preview • Author • Date and Provenance • Purpose • Content Author Nowhere does the text of Matthew itself clearly identify the author. Yet, as did the ancient church, we may ascribe authorship to Matthew the apostle. He was otherwise known as Levi (see Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27, 29). Before Jesus called him, he was a tax collector (Mt 9:9ff.). It is interesting to note that Matthew called himself a tax collector, while none of the other Gospel ...","summary_en":"MATTHEW, Gospel of First Gospel and first book of the NT. Preview • Author • Date and Provenance • Purpose • Content Author Nowhere does the text of Matthew itself clearly identify the author. Yet, as did the ancient church, we may ascribe authorship to Matthew the apostle. He was otherwise known as Levi (see Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27, 29). Before Jesus called him, he was a tax collector (Mt 9:9ff.). It is interesting to note that Matthew called himself a tax collector, while none of the other Gospel ...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":54874,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:13","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> Jesus would <em>lay his hands<\/em> on others to bless them (see Luke 4:40; 13:13; see also Gen 48:14-15; Acts 19:6). • <em>The disciples<\/em><em>,<\/em> motivated to protect Jesus, <em>scolded the parents<\/em><em>,<\/em> demonstrating a wrong attitude toward children (see Matt 18:5-6, 10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> Jesus would <em>lay his hands<\/em> on others to bless them (see Luke 4:40; 13:13; see also Gen 48:14-15; Acts 19:6). • <em>The disciples<\/em><em>,<\/em> motivated to protect Jesus, <em>scolded the parents<\/em><em>,<\/em> demonstrating a wrong attitude toward children (see Matt 18:5-6, 10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:13 Jesus would lay his hands on others to bless them (see Luke 4:40; 13:13; see also Gen 48:14-15; Acts 19:6). • The disciples, motivated to protect Jesus, scolded the parents, demonstrating a wrong attitude toward children (see Matt 18:5-6, 10).","summary_en":"19:13 Jesus would lay his hands on others to bless them (see Luke 4:40; 13:13; see also Gen 48:14-15; Acts 19:6). • The disciples, motivated to protect Jesus, scolded the parents, demonstrating a wrong attitude toward children (see Matt 18:5-6, 10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82500,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:13","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> Jesus would <em>lay his hands<\/em> on others to bless them (see Luke 4:40; 13:13; see also Gen 48:14-15; Acts 19:6). • <em>The disciples<\/em><em>,<\/em> motivated to protect Jesus, <em>scolded the parents<\/em><em>,<\/em> demonstrating a wrong attitude toward children (see Matt 18:5-6, 10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> Jesus would <em>lay his hands<\/em> on others to bless them (see Luke 4:40; 13:13; see also Gen 48:14-15; Acts 19:6). • <em>The disciples<\/em><em>,<\/em> motivated to protect Jesus, <em>scolded the parents<\/em><em>,<\/em> demonstrating a wrong attitude toward children (see Matt 18:5-6, 10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:13 Jesus would lay his hands on others to bless them (see Luke 4:40; 13:13; see also Gen 48:14-15; Acts 19:6). • The disciples, motivated to protect Jesus, scolded the parents, demonstrating a wrong attitude toward children (see Matt 18:5-6, 10).","summary_en":"19:13 Jesus would lay his hands on others to bless them (see Luke 4:40; 13:13; see also Gen 48:14-15; Acts 19:6). • The disciples, motivated to protect Jesus, scolded the parents, demonstrating a wrong attitude toward children (see Matt 18:5-6, 10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110126,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:13","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> Jesus would <em>lay his hands<\/em> on others to bless them (see Luke 4:40; 13:13; see also Gen 48:14-15; Acts 19:6). • <em>The disciples<\/em><em>,<\/em> motivated to protect Jesus, <em>scolded the parents<\/em><em>,<\/em> demonstrating a wrong attitude toward children (see Matt 18:5-6, 10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> Jesus would <em>lay his hands<\/em> on others to bless them (see Luke 4:40; 13:13; see also Gen 48:14-15; Acts 19:6). • <em>The disciples<\/em><em>,<\/em> motivated to protect Jesus, <em>scolded the parents<\/em><em>,<\/em> demonstrating a wrong attitude toward children (see Matt 18:5-6, 10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:13 Jesus would lay his hands on others to bless them (see Luke 4:40; 13:13; see also Gen 48:14-15; Acts 19:6). • The disciples, motivated to protect Jesus, scolded the parents, demonstrating a wrong attitude toward children (see Matt 18:5-6, 10).","summary_en":"19:13 Jesus would lay his hands on others to bless them (see Luke 4:40; 13:13; see also Gen 48:14-15; Acts 19:6). • The disciples, motivated to protect Jesus, scolded the parents, demonstrating a wrong attitude toward children (see Matt 18:5-6, 10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":137752,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:13","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> Jesus would <em>lay his hands<\/em> on others to bless them (see Luke 4:40; 13:13; see also Gen 48:14-15; Acts 19:6). • <em>The disciples<\/em><em>,<\/em> motivated to protect Jesus, <em>scolded the parents<\/em><em>,<\/em> demonstrating a wrong attitude toward children (see Matt 18:5-6, 10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> Jesus would <em>lay his hands<\/em> on others to bless them (see Luke 4:40; 13:13; see also Gen 48:14-15; Acts 19:6). • <em>The disciples<\/em><em>,<\/em> motivated to protect Jesus, <em>scolded the parents<\/em><em>,<\/em> demonstrating a wrong attitude toward children (see Matt 18:5-6, 10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:13 Jesus would lay his hands on others to bless them (see Luke 4:40; 13:13; see also Gen 48:14-15; Acts 19:6). • The disciples, motivated to protect Jesus, scolded the parents, demonstrating a wrong attitude toward children (see Matt 18:5-6, 10).","summary_en":"19:13 Jesus would lay his hands on others to bless them (see Luke 4:40; 13:13; see also Gen 48:14-15; Acts 19:6). • The disciples, motivated to protect Jesus, scolded the parents, demonstrating a wrong attitude toward children (see Matt 18:5-6, 10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"14":[{"id":11912,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Family Life and Relations","title_en":"Family Life and Relations","content_ro":"<h3>FAMILY LIFE AND RELATIONS<\/h3>\n<p>In Bible times, the family comprised members of a household, including not only parents and children, along with other relatives and concubines, but also servants, travelers, aliens, and anyone else who happened to be within the house and was therefore under the protection of the head of the family. The family of Jacob, for example, comprised three generations (Gn 46:8-26). Biblically, the term “family” is interchangeable with “house,” and “founding a house” can refer to setting up a separate dwelling as well as establishing a family. In the broader sense, “house” may refer to an entire nation (“house of Israel”). The heads of families returning from Babylon in the postexilic period controlled sometimes several hundred family members (Ezr 8:1-14). The family was a smaller part of a clan and tribe. In nomadic times the responsibilities and allegiances centered on the larger family group.<\/p>\n<p>Those who belonged to the clan knew that they had to work for common interests and accept responsibility for the whole group. All members of the family were to be protected and assisted in time of need.<\/p>\n<p>As the life of the Israelites became more settled, families (in the wider sense of the term) lived in villages surrounded by fields of wheat, barley, and flax, with areas of grazing land for sheep and goats. Each group of villages consisted of an intermarried, interdependent family group, such as that of the Danites of Zorah and Eshtaol (Jgs 18:11). The hard life of those days demanded a sharing of work and the loyal cooperation of the entire family for survival.<\/p>\n<p>As crafts and trades developed, along with a more sedentary lifestyle, sons learned their fathers’ skills and continued the family trade. Consequently, the whole village might follow a particular craft (1 Chr 4:14; Neh 11:35). By specializing in such trades, however, the villagers became less self-sufficient, depending more on farmers for food and on other specialized villages for the production of cloth or pottery (1 Chr 4:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>With the growth of cities, related groups lived together in specific areas. Many members of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah were listed in the census of Jerusalem by Nehemiah (Neh 11:4-8), and by the writer of Chronicles (1 Chr 9:3-9). One consequence of life in the cities was the fragmentation of the family group. As the bonds of the wider family were loosened, the unit consisted increasingly of a husband and wife with their children, living in one house. The size of houses that have been excavated precludes the idea of any larger family unit as the norm in OT societies.<\/p>\n<p>During the kingdom period, King David’s sons Amnon and Absalom set up their own separate houses (2 Sm 13:7-8, 20). At that time there were few slaves in Hebrew society, but they also were considered members of the family. As bonds of the wider family loosened, and the master of the household lost a degree of authority, the society became one in which the king was sovereign and all the people were his subjects.<\/p>\n<p>The early kings of Israel promoted such a change in order to establish a central ruling authority for the entire country. The king’s subjects fell broadly into the categories of employers and employees, corresponding to the rich and poor of society. By the eighth century <span>BC<\/span>, members of the wider family no longer worked for the communal good under the authority of the clan’s head; rather, individuals worked primarily for the good of their own immediate family. Hence one’s labor and devotion were focused more narrowly, and the greatest beneficiary was the king, the personal symbol of the nation.<\/p>\n<p>Emphasis on the smaller family unit increased, and old duties that had been willingly accepted by the wider groups in former times came to be neglected. People did not always help relatives in times of need, and they frequently had to be reminded of their obligations, particularly toward widows and orphans (Is 1:17; Jer 7:6). Family feuds also declined because members no longer felt responsible to take vengeance as a way to uphold the honor of the clan (2 Sm 3:27; 16:8; 2 Kgs 9:26). Nevertheless, Nehemiah expected Israelites to fight for their family honor (Neh 4:14). In NT times, the family was such a unit that it could be sold for a debt incurred by one of its members (Mt 18:25).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew religion’s emphasis on family participation in certain celebrations strengthened the small unit. The Passover, for example, was always celebrated as a family thanksgiving meal (Ex 12:3-4, 46). The prophet Samuel’s parents made a traditional annual pilgrimage to the shrine at Shiloh (1 Sm 2:19). In modern times, a young Jewish boy’s arrival at the threshold of manhood is celebrated with the Bar Mitzvah ceremony. Being so honored in the midst of a religious family preserves the ancient Hebrew tradition of family participation in religious ceremonies.<\/p>\n<p>In his preaching Jesus used the family as a symbol for the relationship of God to his people (Mt 19:14; 23:9; Lk 8:21). From the cross he handed over responsibility for the care of his mother to his disciple John (Jn 19:27).<\/p>\n<p>In NT times, the communion meals in the Jerusalem church took place by households (Acts 2:46). Early Christian meetings were held in the homes of believers because of opposition by the authorities. The book of Acts contains examples of entire families being converted to Christianity (Acts 10:24, 44-48; 16:15, 31-32). Timothy learned the gospel from his grandmother and mother (2 Tm 1:5).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Status of Family Members<\/p>\n<p>• Marital Security<\/p>\n<p>• Position of Children<\/p>\n<p>• The Rights of Children<\/p>\n<p>• Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n<p>• In New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"StatusofFamilyMembers\">Status of Family Members<\/p>\n<p>From nomadic times, a father’s authority held the family group together in their encampment, and he became the symbol of their security. In ancient patriarchal societies, the father was an absolute master who had the power of life and death over family members, ruling with unchallenged authority. Although he had extensive responsibilities for those under his care, his power was awesome and his status unquestioned.<\/p>\n<p>A man’s possessions included his wife, servants, slaves, and animals (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). In fact, the phrase “to marry a wife” comes from a Hebrew root meaning “to become the master of a wife.” A husband was as much the master of his wife as he was of his home or his fields. Consequently, the wife addressed him in a subservient manner, as a slave would address a master (Gn 18:12; Jgs 19:26). This low status for a woman extended to a daughter’s position in the ancient household. Females were always under the authority of a male relative: first, the father; then a husband. If a woman became a widow, she was subject to her husband’s nearest male relative, who became her “redeemer.” The bride price (Gn 29:18, 27; Ex 22:16-17; 1 Sm 18:25; 2 Sm 3:14) paid by her husband was not exactly a purchase of the woman from her father, but the exchange of money did stigmatize her. The amount of a bride price depended on the father’s status (Gn 34:12). The usual price was probably 20 to 30 shekels of silver. The bride received gifts of jewelry, ornaments, and clothing from her future husband, and she occasionally enjoyed some sort of financial or material return from the bride price for her own use (Jos 15:19; Jgs 1:15). When her father or husband died, the money frequently reverted to her.<\/p>\n<p>An engaged woman was considered her fiancé’s property just as much as if she were already married to him (Dt 22:23-27). The woman left her own family at marriage, to live with and become part of her new husband’s family. Normally, any succeeding marriages would be with members of that family.<\/p>\n<p>Despite the low legal status of the mother of the family, her life was not as bad as one might suppose. She was the legal wife, not an unpaid servant, and she frequently took a strong role as adviser to her husband in family affairs. Her most important function, aside from childbearing, was organization of the household, of which she was generally the respected manager. Even though the wife might have been acquired through capture in war (Dt 21:10-14), she could not be sold as a slave or daughter could (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5).<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, her position was precarious, in that she could be disowned or divorced by her husband as the result of a simple renunciation: “She is no longer my wife, and I am no longer her husband.” Perhaps he had found fault with her culinary skills, or possibly he was casting his eyes on another woman. In any event, a husband knew that if his wife did not obey even a signal or a glance, he was within his rights to obtain a divorce (cf. Ecclus 25:26). The wife, however, obtained a certain degree of protection in the letter of repudiation, by which her freedom was formally restored. Under Jewish tradition, a wife could not divorce her husband.<\/p>\n<p>In matters of domestic protocol, the Hebrew wife was not introduced to her husband’s guests, a tradition that subsequently led to considerable embarrassment for Abraham’s wife, Sarah, and for Rebekah (Gn 20:16). A woman normally remained veiled in public (24:65; 38:14; Is 47:2).<\/p>\n<p>The imagery in Proverbs 19:13 and 27:15 draws a vigorous comparison between a contentious woman and water dripping from a leaky roof. The OT leaves little doubt about the type of behavior expected from a woman. She was expected to be charming, soft-spoken, discreet, and calm (Prv 9:13; 11:16, 22; 21:9). She was also to be responsible, well-organized, intelligent, thoughtful, reverent, and a good manager of both the household and the family purse (31:10-31). A woman should also be pious and beautiful, and in NT tradition, submissive to her husband, as befitted a woman adorned with the priceless jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit (Ti 2:4-5; 1 Pt 3:1-6).<\/p>\n<p>The actions of a few women whose roles in life do not seem to fit the pattern of the meek, passive female pictured above, are recorded in the Bible and the Apocrypha. The books of Judith and Esther recount heroic tales of how national fortunes were saved by women. Deborah and Jael were renowned heroines (Jgs 4–5), and the kingdom of Judah was ruled by a vicious woman, Athaliah, for several years (2 Kgs 11). The women who stepped to the forefront of public life were exceptional and few in number. Judith was a rich widow, an unusual thing in Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MaritalSecurity\">Marital Security<\/p>\n<p>The security of a wife’s position improved considerably when she produced her first child, particularly if it was a son. A woman’s primary duty to her husband and his family was procreation (Gn 1:28; 9:1), and until she gave birth to a son, she feared displacement by a second wife or a concubine. Polygamous marriages were by no means rare, especially in wealthy families. They resulted in two ill-defined family groups, controlled by the mothers but under the overall authority of fathers; there were inevitable jealousies and frictions.<\/p>\n<p>The legal status of a woman was consistently poor in Bible times. With no evidence at all, a husband could accuse his wife of adultery, and she was compelled to face a trial by ordeal. She had to abase herself by taking an oath, eating dust and a cereal offering, and drinking bitter water. A priest, meanwhile, made pronouncements regarding the dire results that would come to her if she were guilty: she would become an outcast with no hope of survival. But if she maintained her serenity, and if her thigh did not rot nor her abdomen swell, she was considered to have “proved” her innocence. In such an event she would go free, and her husband bore no blame whatsoever for his false accusation (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a woman took a vow, it was legal only as long as her father or husband approved it. If she became a widow, the vow still remained in force and could be used against her (Nm 30:3-15).<\/p>\n<p>A woman in Israel was always under the protection of a male, be it her father, grandfather, great-grandfather, brother, husband, or some other member of her husband’s family. She had few legal rights and, in contrast to Babylonian traditions, could not inherit at her husband’s death. It is small wonder that widows were classed with orphans and the poor. A childless widow could on occasion return to her father’s family (Gn 38:11; Lv 22:13; Ru 1:8), thus becoming subject again to the authority of her father. A Hebrew widow could also remain with her late husband’s family. She would then come under the protection of her “redeemer,” a male relative of her husband’s family who assumed responsibility for her. If a husband died leaving a woman childless, it was the responsibility of the husband’s brother to marry her. The first son born of such a union was then regarded as the heir of the first husband.<\/p>\n<p>It was normal for a brother to accept the obligation for such a marriage (levirate). It could be refused on various grounds, but such refusal was considered dishonorable, for it was a man’s duty to perpetuate his brother’s name and to safeguard the family fortune.<\/p>\n<p>A redeemer’s responsibilities were considerable. In addition to the marriage, he was perhaps involved in avenging the family reputation, and he had to ensure that family property increased and remained within family control.<\/p>\n<p>If an Israelite fell into debt and was forced to sell himself into slavery, he would normally be “redeemed” by one of his relatives (Lv 25:47-49). If in his penury an Israelite had to sell his land or his house, the redeemer had the right of first refusal over all other prospective purchasers. It was as much his duty as his right to prevent family property from passing into the hands of strangers (v 25). The prophet Jeremiah bought his cousin Hanamel’s field under similar circumstances (Jer 32:6-15).<\/p>\n<p>The most familiar OT story of a childless widow, her “redeemer,” and their levirate marriage is recorded in the book of Ruth. One of Naomi’s two sons married Ruth. When Ruth was widowed, her impoverished mother-in-law, Naomi, left her home in Moab and returned to Bethlehem to sell some of the family property. Although a close relative was prepared to buy the land and keep it in the family, he was not ready to marry Ruth as well (Ru 3:12; 4:4). He knew that a son of that union would be deemed a son of the deceased, bearing the dead husband’s name, and thus ultimately inheriting the land (4:4-6). The next relative in order of kinship was Boaz, who became Ruth’s “redeemer.” He was prepared to accept the double obligation of purchasing the land and marrying Ruth (4:9-10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PositionofChildren\">Position of Children<\/p>\n<p>Children were generally well loved, but their childhood was short and they were often regarded as laborers for the house or fields. According to the law of primogeniture, the eldest son received a double portion of the estate as his birthright (Dt 21:17). Thus, he was assured of the position of family head. Even during his father’s lifetime, the eldest son took precedence over his brothers and sisters (Gn 43:33). Where twins were born, the first to emerge from the womb was considered the elder, with all the attendant privileges (25:24-26; 38:27-30).<\/p>\n<p>For a serious offense, the eldest son could lose the right of primogeniture (Gn 35:22; 49:3-4; 1 Chr 5:1), or it could be surrendered voluntarily, as Esau did by selling his birthright to his brother Jacob (Gn 25:29-34). There was a law protecting the eldest son from his father’s favoritism for a younger brother (Dt 21:15-17). Nevertheless, King David gave his kingdom to Solomon, his youngest son (1 Kgs 2:15).<\/p>\n<p>In a family with no sons, a daughter could inherit property (Nm 27:8). Frequently, parents consulted neither sons nor daughters when marriage partners were arranged for them. Marriage was often an alliance or contract between two families, and thus the wishes and concerns of individuals were considered unimportant. Love matches were few, although occasionally a son would marry in defiance of his parents, as Esau did (Gn 26:34-35). Although it was rare for young people to express their feelings and preferences about marriage in an open fashion, Saul’s daughter, Michal, made known her love for David (1 Sm 18:20).<\/p>\n<p>There is no record of legal adoption among the Hebrews, but it was practiced from ancient times in Mesopotamia. It was especially useful as a means of ensuring a childless couple that their land would be tilled and that they would be cared for in their old age. All examples of adoption mentioned in the OT took place outside the land of Israel (Ex 2:10; 1 Kgs 11:20; Est 2:7, 15) and are not examples of true adoption as a lifetime member of a family.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRightsofChildren\">The Rights of Children<\/p>\n<p>The nature of patriarchal society made for unfortunate distinctions between male and female children. The position of a daughter, who could be sold into slavery or sold to be the concubine of a man and then possibly sold again (Ex 21:7-11), was certainly inferior to that of a son. In the patriarchal period, however, both a son and a daughter could be put to death for disobeying the head of the family. One’s children could also be sacrificed in worship rituals (see Gn 22; Jgs 11). It is probable that infant sacrifice was practiced by nations neighboring Israel, including Canaan and Ammon.<\/p>\n<p>The rights of children were improved considerably with the promulgation of the code of Mosaic law. A father was no longer permitted to put his child to death without referring the case to the elders (Dt 21:18-21). Both sons and daughters could be brought before such authorities and accused of being disobedient, gluttonous, or drunkards. A father’s absolute authority even extended to his married son and family if they were living under his roof. The law also prohibited children from being held responsible for the crimes of their parents (Dt 24:16). In King David’s time a person convicted by the community had the right of appeal to the king (2 Sm 14:4-11).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew families both parents were held in high respect. Honor had to be given to both mother and father (Ex 20:12), and the law condemned offenses against either parent (21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 21:18; 27:16). Respect due to the mother is a recurrent theme in the Wisdom Literature (Prv 19:26; 20:20; cf. Ecclus 3:1-16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DailyLifeoftheHebrewFamily\">Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n<p>In the everyday affairs of a Hebrew household, it was the father’s responsibility to maintain the family fortune and to be the provider. He might work in the fields, most probably with crops of flax, barley, or wheat. Or he would work at a trade, possibly as a weaver, builder, potter, dyer, fuller, or a worker in copper or bronze. If he lived near the shore, he might be a fisherman.<\/p>\n<p>The father was also responsible for the religious well-being of the family. It was his duty to take over his sons’ education from the mother at an early age, teaching them the tenets of Hebrew religion (Ex 10:2; 12:26; Dt 4:9; 6:7). He also explained all the facets of the law and the interwoven history of the nation.<\/p>\n<p>The father was the disciplinarian of the family, with the rod being used to drive home the lessons taught (Prv 13:24; 22:15; 29:15-17). Though children were loved and valued, they were not pampered (Ecclus 30:9-12). In postexilic times education also took place within the precincts of the synagogue, and shortly before the time of Christ, a general elementary education was introduced. It was also imperative that a father teach his sons a trade, normally his own, for a man without a trade either starved or became a thief. Another important paternal responsibility was to provide wives for male offspring in the household.<\/p>\n<p>The mother was responsible for her sons’ and daughters’ early education (Prv 1:8; 6:20), teaching them religious songs and prayers as soon as they could talk. A father took over the education of his sons, but the mother continued with the daughters, training them to spin, weave, cook, clean, trim the lamps, and generally to become competent in all the household duties (31:13-31).<\/p>\n<p>With little furniture, keeping a house clean meant sweeping the floors to keep them free from dust and dirt. Cooking was at once simple and difficult. It was simple in that much of the food was cooked in the form of a soup or stew, or else made into a cake and cooked on a griddle. It was difficult in that the corn had to be ground by hand and bread was baked daily.<\/p>\n<p>A mother was expected to take wool, card it, spin it, and often weave and make clothes for her family. In addition, she would help her husband in the fields at harvesttime. Because many families had one or more olive trees, a few grapevines, and fig trees, the mother would also assist in picking the fruit. She would sometimes work at the press when the olives or grapes were being processed. Frequently the treading of grapes in the family vat would be done together by husband and wife. Drawing water from the well was considered a menial task and was generally the wife’s responsibility, although sometimes it was assigned to the children (Gn 24:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>As in all societies, there was a time when children laughed and played together (Zec 8:5; Mt 11:16), although childhood and adolescence were not recognized as specific stages of development. Children were considered as sucklings if under three, but were regarded as boys or girls when they were able to take care of themselves. A small child sat on his mother’s lap and was played with (Is 66:12). There is no evidence of organized sports for children. Toys, including whistles, rattles, dolls, and miniature cooking utensils, have been excavated at Palestinian sites.<\/p>\n<p>As soon as a boy was old enough, he took his place in the family and accepted his appointed task. Among other things, children were expected to gather fuel (Jer 7:18). Young boys and girls tended the flocks. The sheep had to be protected from marauding wild beasts, guarded against their own folly when they wandered near crevices, steered toward good pasture and water, and carried home when sick or injured (Gn 29:6; Ex 2:16). The care of cattle was also the responsibility of children (1 Sm 16:11). Of necessity, boys were trained in the various arts of war.<\/p>\n<p>Children sometimes joined their fathers in the fields, and their presence was always welcome. From earliest times, boys in particular would watch their fathers until they too picked up a tool or implement to try their skill; girls watched and learned from their mothers. Young children frequently listened to the talk of the elders at the city gates or in the villages. A visit to a sanctuary at festival time was a family affair, furnishing an ideal learning experience. As a child, Jesus accompanied his parents, Mary and Joseph, to the temple in Jerusalem (Lk 2:42-47).<\/p>\n<p>Young girls were surprisingly free to go about their appointed tasks. They were not secluded or veiled and could visit uninhibited with friends and neighbors (Gn 34:1). They were also able to converse with men without embarrassment (24:15-25; 29:11-12; 1 Sm 9:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>Mealtimes were strictly family times. It is doubtful whether a meal comparable to a breakfast was eaten, and a farmer would probably have a light lunch in the fields. The main meal of the day was prepared by the mother, and it would be eaten in the early evening. Although the variety of food available was limited, its preparation was time-consuming.<\/p>\n<p>Feast times were periods of great religious significance and were also the days when family members participated in the symbolic rituals of their faith. Among the Israelites several kinds of food were fundamental to their religious ritual. Family unity and the national religion were molded together by special meals in the home.<\/p>\n<p>Daylight played an important part in the daily habits of the people in antiquity. Although oil lamps were readily available in later periods, it was customary to rise with the sun and go to bed relatively soon after dark. The wife would probably be up before sunrise and might continue her labor after dark.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InNewTestamentTimes\">In New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>By NT times, for those who followed the Greek and Roman style, life became more elegant. Despite that, the status of many family members did not change substantially. Wealthier families had more slaves, and the children were more likely to have formal education, sometimes spending less effort on family chores. Even in Roman times, however, the father still had a legal right to accept or reject his child.<\/p>\n<p>The status of the woman had definitely improved by the NT period. A Roman matron was highly respected and exerted a strong influence over her husband. She was not sequestered in a particular section of the house, as a Greek woman was, but managed and supervised tasks in any part of her home. She helped her husband in business, had her own place in theaters, games, and religious festivals, and sometimes managed her own property. Palestinian women began to enjoy a new status and dignity as the result of Jesus’ attitude toward women and its influence on the early Christian church.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Education; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality; Widow; Woman.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FAMILY LIFE AND RELATIONS<\/h3>\n<p>In Bible times, the family comprised members of a household, including not only parents and children, along with other relatives and concubines, but also servants, travelers, aliens, and anyone else who happened to be within the house and was therefore under the protection of the head of the family. The family of Jacob, for example, comprised three generations (Gn 46:8-26). Biblically, the term “family” is interchangeable with “house,” and “founding a house” can refer to setting up a separate dwelling as well as establishing a family. In the broader sense, “house” may refer to an entire nation (“house of Israel”). The heads of families returning from Babylon in the postexilic period controlled sometimes several hundred family members (Ezr 8:1-14). The family was a smaller part of a clan and tribe. In nomadic times the responsibilities and allegiances centered on the larger family group.<\/p>\n<p>Those who belonged to the clan knew that they had to work for common interests and accept responsibility for the whole group. All members of the family were to be protected and assisted in time of need.<\/p>\n<p>As the life of the Israelites became more settled, families (in the wider sense of the term) lived in villages surrounded by fields of wheat, barley, and flax, with areas of grazing land for sheep and goats. Each group of villages consisted of an intermarried, interdependent family group, such as that of the Danites of Zorah and Eshtaol (Jgs 18:11). The hard life of those days demanded a sharing of work and the loyal cooperation of the entire family for survival.<\/p>\n<p>As crafts and trades developed, along with a more sedentary lifestyle, sons learned their fathers’ skills and continued the family trade. Consequently, the whole village might follow a particular craft (1 Chr 4:14; Neh 11:35). By specializing in such trades, however, the villagers became less self-sufficient, depending more on farmers for food and on other specialized villages for the production of cloth or pottery (1 Chr 4:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>With the growth of cities, related groups lived together in specific areas. Many members of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah were listed in the census of Jerusalem by Nehemiah (Neh 11:4-8), and by the writer of Chronicles (1 Chr 9:3-9). One consequence of life in the cities was the fragmentation of the family group. As the bonds of the wider family were loosened, the unit consisted increasingly of a husband and wife with their children, living in one house. The size of houses that have been excavated precludes the idea of any larger family unit as the norm in OT societies.<\/p>\n<p>During the kingdom period, King David’s sons Amnon and Absalom set up their own separate houses (2 Sm 13:7-8, 20). At that time there were few slaves in Hebrew society, but they also were considered members of the family. As bonds of the wider family loosened, and the master of the household lost a degree of authority, the society became one in which the king was sovereign and all the people were his subjects.<\/p>\n<p>The early kings of Israel promoted such a change in order to establish a central ruling authority for the entire country. The king’s subjects fell broadly into the categories of employers and employees, corresponding to the rich and poor of society. By the eighth century <span>BC<\/span>, members of the wider family no longer worked for the communal good under the authority of the clan’s head; rather, individuals worked primarily for the good of their own immediate family. Hence one’s labor and devotion were focused more narrowly, and the greatest beneficiary was the king, the personal symbol of the nation.<\/p>\n<p>Emphasis on the smaller family unit increased, and old duties that had been willingly accepted by the wider groups in former times came to be neglected. People did not always help relatives in times of need, and they frequently had to be reminded of their obligations, particularly toward widows and orphans (Is 1:17; Jer 7:6). Family feuds also declined because members no longer felt responsible to take vengeance as a way to uphold the honor of the clan (2 Sm 3:27; 16:8; 2 Kgs 9:26). Nevertheless, Nehemiah expected Israelites to fight for their family honor (Neh 4:14). In NT times, the family was such a unit that it could be sold for a debt incurred by one of its members (Mt 18:25).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew religion’s emphasis on family participation in certain celebrations strengthened the small unit. The Passover, for example, was always celebrated as a family thanksgiving meal (Ex 12:3-4, 46). The prophet Samuel’s parents made a traditional annual pilgrimage to the shrine at Shiloh (1 Sm 2:19). In modern times, a young Jewish boy’s arrival at the threshold of manhood is celebrated with the Bar Mitzvah ceremony. Being so honored in the midst of a religious family preserves the ancient Hebrew tradition of family participation in religious ceremonies.<\/p>\n<p>In his preaching Jesus used the family as a symbol for the relationship of God to his people (Mt 19:14; 23:9; Lk 8:21). From the cross he handed over responsibility for the care of his mother to his disciple John (Jn 19:27).<\/p>\n<p>In NT times, the communion meals in the Jerusalem church took place by households (Acts 2:46). Early Christian meetings were held in the homes of believers because of opposition by the authorities. The book of Acts contains examples of entire families being converted to Christianity (Acts 10:24, 44-48; 16:15, 31-32). Timothy learned the gospel from his grandmother and mother (2 Tm 1:5).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Status of Family Members<\/p>\n<p>• Marital Security<\/p>\n<p>• Position of Children<\/p>\n<p>• The Rights of Children<\/p>\n<p>• Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n<p>• In New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"StatusofFamilyMembers\">Status of Family Members<\/p>\n<p>From nomadic times, a father’s authority held the family group together in their encampment, and he became the symbol of their security. In ancient patriarchal societies, the father was an absolute master who had the power of life and death over family members, ruling with unchallenged authority. Although he had extensive responsibilities for those under his care, his power was awesome and his status unquestioned.<\/p>\n<p>A man’s possessions included his wife, servants, slaves, and animals (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). In fact, the phrase “to marry a wife” comes from a Hebrew root meaning “to become the master of a wife.” A husband was as much the master of his wife as he was of his home or his fields. Consequently, the wife addressed him in a subservient manner, as a slave would address a master (Gn 18:12; Jgs 19:26). This low status for a woman extended to a daughter’s position in the ancient household. Females were always under the authority of a male relative: first, the father; then a husband. If a woman became a widow, she was subject to her husband’s nearest male relative, who became her “redeemer.” The bride price (Gn 29:18, 27; Ex 22:16-17; 1 Sm 18:25; 2 Sm 3:14) paid by her husband was not exactly a purchase of the woman from her father, but the exchange of money did stigmatize her. The amount of a bride price depended on the father’s status (Gn 34:12). The usual price was probably 20 to 30 shekels of silver. The bride received gifts of jewelry, ornaments, and clothing from her future husband, and she occasionally enjoyed some sort of financial or material return from the bride price for her own use (Jos 15:19; Jgs 1:15). When her father or husband died, the money frequently reverted to her.<\/p>\n<p>An engaged woman was considered her fiancé’s property just as much as if she were already married to him (Dt 22:23-27). The woman left her own family at marriage, to live with and become part of her new husband’s family. Normally, any succeeding marriages would be with members of that family.<\/p>\n<p>Despite the low legal status of the mother of the family, her life was not as bad as one might suppose. She was the legal wife, not an unpaid servant, and she frequently took a strong role as adviser to her husband in family affairs. Her most important function, aside from childbearing, was organization of the household, of which she was generally the respected manager. Even though the wife might have been acquired through capture in war (Dt 21:10-14), she could not be sold as a slave or daughter could (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5).<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, her position was precarious, in that she could be disowned or divorced by her husband as the result of a simple renunciation: “She is no longer my wife, and I am no longer her husband.” Perhaps he had found fault with her culinary skills, or possibly he was casting his eyes on another woman. In any event, a husband knew that if his wife did not obey even a signal or a glance, he was within his rights to obtain a divorce (cf. Ecclus 25:26). The wife, however, obtained a certain degree of protection in the letter of repudiation, by which her freedom was formally restored. Under Jewish tradition, a wife could not divorce her husband.<\/p>\n<p>In matters of domestic protocol, the Hebrew wife was not introduced to her husband’s guests, a tradition that subsequently led to considerable embarrassment for Abraham’s wife, Sarah, and for Rebekah (Gn 20:16). A woman normally remained veiled in public (24:65; 38:14; Is 47:2).<\/p>\n<p>The imagery in Proverbs 19:13 and 27:15 draws a vigorous comparison between a contentious woman and water dripping from a leaky roof. The OT leaves little doubt about the type of behavior expected from a woman. She was expected to be charming, soft-spoken, discreet, and calm (Prv 9:13; 11:16, 22; 21:9). She was also to be responsible, well-organized, intelligent, thoughtful, reverent, and a good manager of both the household and the family purse (31:10-31). A woman should also be pious and beautiful, and in NT tradition, submissive to her husband, as befitted a woman adorned with the priceless jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit (Ti 2:4-5; 1 Pt 3:1-6).<\/p>\n<p>The actions of a few women whose roles in life do not seem to fit the pattern of the meek, passive female pictured above, are recorded in the Bible and the Apocrypha. The books of Judith and Esther recount heroic tales of how national fortunes were saved by women. Deborah and Jael were renowned heroines (Jgs 4–5), and the kingdom of Judah was ruled by a vicious woman, Athaliah, for several years (2 Kgs 11). The women who stepped to the forefront of public life were exceptional and few in number. Judith was a rich widow, an unusual thing in Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MaritalSecurity\">Marital Security<\/p>\n<p>The security of a wife’s position improved considerably when she produced her first child, particularly if it was a son. A woman’s primary duty to her husband and his family was procreation (Gn 1:28; 9:1), and until she gave birth to a son, she feared displacement by a second wife or a concubine. Polygamous marriages were by no means rare, especially in wealthy families. They resulted in two ill-defined family groups, controlled by the mothers but under the overall authority of fathers; there were inevitable jealousies and frictions.<\/p>\n<p>The legal status of a woman was consistently poor in Bible times. With no evidence at all, a husband could accuse his wife of adultery, and she was compelled to face a trial by ordeal. She had to abase herself by taking an oath, eating dust and a cereal offering, and drinking bitter water. A priest, meanwhile, made pronouncements regarding the dire results that would come to her if she were guilty: she would become an outcast with no hope of survival. But if she maintained her serenity, and if her thigh did not rot nor her abdomen swell, she was considered to have “proved” her innocence. In such an event she would go free, and her husband bore no blame whatsoever for his false accusation (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a woman took a vow, it was legal only as long as her father or husband approved it. If she became a widow, the vow still remained in force and could be used against her (Nm 30:3-15).<\/p>\n<p>A woman in Israel was always under the protection of a male, be it her father, grandfather, great-grandfather, brother, husband, or some other member of her husband’s family. She had few legal rights and, in contrast to Babylonian traditions, could not inherit at her husband’s death. It is small wonder that widows were classed with orphans and the poor. A childless widow could on occasion return to her father’s family (Gn 38:11; Lv 22:13; Ru 1:8), thus becoming subject again to the authority of her father. A Hebrew widow could also remain with her late husband’s family. She would then come under the protection of her “redeemer,” a male relative of her husband’s family who assumed responsibility for her. If a husband died leaving a woman childless, it was the responsibility of the husband’s brother to marry her. The first son born of such a union was then regarded as the heir of the first husband.<\/p>\n<p>It was normal for a brother to accept the obligation for such a marriage (levirate). It could be refused on various grounds, but such refusal was considered dishonorable, for it was a man’s duty to perpetuate his brother’s name and to safeguard the family fortune.<\/p>\n<p>A redeemer’s responsibilities were considerable. In addition to the marriage, he was perhaps involved in avenging the family reputation, and he had to ensure that family property increased and remained within family control.<\/p>\n<p>If an Israelite fell into debt and was forced to sell himself into slavery, he would normally be “redeemed” by one of his relatives (Lv 25:47-49). If in his penury an Israelite had to sell his land or his house, the redeemer had the right of first refusal over all other prospective purchasers. It was as much his duty as his right to prevent family property from passing into the hands of strangers (v 25). The prophet Jeremiah bought his cousin Hanamel’s field under similar circumstances (Jer 32:6-15).<\/p>\n<p>The most familiar OT story of a childless widow, her “redeemer,” and their levirate marriage is recorded in the book of Ruth. One of Naomi’s two sons married Ruth. When Ruth was widowed, her impoverished mother-in-law, Naomi, left her home in Moab and returned to Bethlehem to sell some of the family property. Although a close relative was prepared to buy the land and keep it in the family, he was not ready to marry Ruth as well (Ru 3:12; 4:4). He knew that a son of that union would be deemed a son of the deceased, bearing the dead husband’s name, and thus ultimately inheriting the land (4:4-6). The next relative in order of kinship was Boaz, who became Ruth’s “redeemer.” He was prepared to accept the double obligation of purchasing the land and marrying Ruth (4:9-10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PositionofChildren\">Position of Children<\/p>\n<p>Children were generally well loved, but their childhood was short and they were often regarded as laborers for the house or fields. According to the law of primogeniture, the eldest son received a double portion of the estate as his birthright (Dt 21:17). Thus, he was assured of the position of family head. Even during his father’s lifetime, the eldest son took precedence over his brothers and sisters (Gn 43:33). Where twins were born, the first to emerge from the womb was considered the elder, with all the attendant privileges (25:24-26; 38:27-30).<\/p>\n<p>For a serious offense, the eldest son could lose the right of primogeniture (Gn 35:22; 49:3-4; 1 Chr 5:1), or it could be surrendered voluntarily, as Esau did by selling his birthright to his brother Jacob (Gn 25:29-34). There was a law protecting the eldest son from his father’s favoritism for a younger brother (Dt 21:15-17). Nevertheless, King David gave his kingdom to Solomon, his youngest son (1 Kgs 2:15).<\/p>\n<p>In a family with no sons, a daughter could inherit property (Nm 27:8). Frequently, parents consulted neither sons nor daughters when marriage partners were arranged for them. Marriage was often an alliance or contract between two families, and thus the wishes and concerns of individuals were considered unimportant. Love matches were few, although occasionally a son would marry in defiance of his parents, as Esau did (Gn 26:34-35). Although it was rare for young people to express their feelings and preferences about marriage in an open fashion, Saul’s daughter, Michal, made known her love for David (1 Sm 18:20).<\/p>\n<p>There is no record of legal adoption among the Hebrews, but it was practiced from ancient times in Mesopotamia. It was especially useful as a means of ensuring a childless couple that their land would be tilled and that they would be cared for in their old age. All examples of adoption mentioned in the OT took place outside the land of Israel (Ex 2:10; 1 Kgs 11:20; Est 2:7, 15) and are not examples of true adoption as a lifetime member of a family.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRightsofChildren\">The Rights of Children<\/p>\n<p>The nature of patriarchal society made for unfortunate distinctions between male and female children. The position of a daughter, who could be sold into slavery or sold to be the concubine of a man and then possibly sold again (Ex 21:7-11), was certainly inferior to that of a son. In the patriarchal period, however, both a son and a daughter could be put to death for disobeying the head of the family. One’s children could also be sacrificed in worship rituals (see Gn 22; Jgs 11). It is probable that infant sacrifice was practiced by nations neighboring Israel, including Canaan and Ammon.<\/p>\n<p>The rights of children were improved considerably with the promulgation of the code of Mosaic law. A father was no longer permitted to put his child to death without referring the case to the elders (Dt 21:18-21). Both sons and daughters could be brought before such authorities and accused of being disobedient, gluttonous, or drunkards. A father’s absolute authority even extended to his married son and family if they were living under his roof. The law also prohibited children from being held responsible for the crimes of their parents (Dt 24:16). In King David’s time a person convicted by the community had the right of appeal to the king (2 Sm 14:4-11).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew families both parents were held in high respect. Honor had to be given to both mother and father (Ex 20:12), and the law condemned offenses against either parent (21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 21:18; 27:16). Respect due to the mother is a recurrent theme in the Wisdom Literature (Prv 19:26; 20:20; cf. Ecclus 3:1-16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DailyLifeoftheHebrewFamily\">Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n<p>In the everyday affairs of a Hebrew household, it was the father’s responsibility to maintain the family fortune and to be the provider. He might work in the fields, most probably with crops of flax, barley, or wheat. Or he would work at a trade, possibly as a weaver, builder, potter, dyer, fuller, or a worker in copper or bronze. If he lived near the shore, he might be a fisherman.<\/p>\n<p>The father was also responsible for the religious well-being of the family. It was his duty to take over his sons’ education from the mother at an early age, teaching them the tenets of Hebrew religion (Ex 10:2; 12:26; Dt 4:9; 6:7). He also explained all the facets of the law and the interwoven history of the nation.<\/p>\n<p>The father was the disciplinarian of the family, with the rod being used to drive home the lessons taught (Prv 13:24; 22:15; 29:15-17). Though children were loved and valued, they were not pampered (Ecclus 30:9-12). In postexilic times education also took place within the precincts of the synagogue, and shortly before the time of Christ, a general elementary education was introduced. It was also imperative that a father teach his sons a trade, normally his own, for a man without a trade either starved or became a thief. Another important paternal responsibility was to provide wives for male offspring in the household.<\/p>\n<p>The mother was responsible for her sons’ and daughters’ early education (Prv 1:8; 6:20), teaching them religious songs and prayers as soon as they could talk. A father took over the education of his sons, but the mother continued with the daughters, training them to spin, weave, cook, clean, trim the lamps, and generally to become competent in all the household duties (31:13-31).<\/p>\n<p>With little furniture, keeping a house clean meant sweeping the floors to keep them free from dust and dirt. Cooking was at once simple and difficult. It was simple in that much of the food was cooked in the form of a soup or stew, or else made into a cake and cooked on a griddle. It was difficult in that the corn had to be ground by hand and bread was baked daily.<\/p>\n<p>A mother was expected to take wool, card it, spin it, and often weave and make clothes for her family. In addition, she would help her husband in the fields at harvesttime. Because many families had one or more olive trees, a few grapevines, and fig trees, the mother would also assist in picking the fruit. She would sometimes work at the press when the olives or grapes were being processed. Frequently the treading of grapes in the family vat would be done together by husband and wife. Drawing water from the well was considered a menial task and was generally the wife’s responsibility, although sometimes it was assigned to the children (Gn 24:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>As in all societies, there was a time when children laughed and played together (Zec 8:5; Mt 11:16), although childhood and adolescence were not recognized as specific stages of development. Children were considered as sucklings if under three, but were regarded as boys or girls when they were able to take care of themselves. A small child sat on his mother’s lap and was played with (Is 66:12). There is no evidence of organized sports for children. Toys, including whistles, rattles, dolls, and miniature cooking utensils, have been excavated at Palestinian sites.<\/p>\n<p>As soon as a boy was old enough, he took his place in the family and accepted his appointed task. Among other things, children were expected to gather fuel (Jer 7:18). Young boys and girls tended the flocks. The sheep had to be protected from marauding wild beasts, guarded against their own folly when they wandered near crevices, steered toward good pasture and water, and carried home when sick or injured (Gn 29:6; Ex 2:16). The care of cattle was also the responsibility of children (1 Sm 16:11). Of necessity, boys were trained in the various arts of war.<\/p>\n<p>Children sometimes joined their fathers in the fields, and their presence was always welcome. From earliest times, boys in particular would watch their fathers until they too picked up a tool or implement to try their skill; girls watched and learned from their mothers. Young children frequently listened to the talk of the elders at the city gates or in the villages. A visit to a sanctuary at festival time was a family affair, furnishing an ideal learning experience. As a child, Jesus accompanied his parents, Mary and Joseph, to the temple in Jerusalem (Lk 2:42-47).<\/p>\n<p>Young girls were surprisingly free to go about their appointed tasks. They were not secluded or veiled and could visit uninhibited with friends and neighbors (Gn 34:1). They were also able to converse with men without embarrassment (24:15-25; 29:11-12; 1 Sm 9:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>Mealtimes were strictly family times. It is doubtful whether a meal comparable to a breakfast was eaten, and a farmer would probably have a light lunch in the fields. The main meal of the day was prepared by the mother, and it would be eaten in the early evening. Although the variety of food available was limited, its preparation was time-consuming.<\/p>\n<p>Feast times were periods of great religious significance and were also the days when family members participated in the symbolic rituals of their faith. Among the Israelites several kinds of food were fundamental to their religious ritual. Family unity and the national religion were molded together by special meals in the home.<\/p>\n<p>Daylight played an important part in the daily habits of the people in antiquity. Although oil lamps were readily available in later periods, it was customary to rise with the sun and go to bed relatively soon after dark. The wife would probably be up before sunrise and might continue her labor after dark.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InNewTestamentTimes\">In New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>By NT times, for those who followed the Greek and Roman style, life became more elegant. Despite that, the status of many family members did not change substantially. Wealthier families had more slaves, and the children were more likely to have formal education, sometimes spending less effort on family chores. Even in Roman times, however, the father still had a legal right to accept or reject his child.<\/p>\n<p>The status of the woman had definitely improved by the NT period. A Roman matron was highly respected and exerted a strong influence over her husband. She was not sequestered in a particular section of the house, as a Greek woman was, but managed and supervised tasks in any part of her home. She helped her husband in business, had her own place in theaters, games, and religious festivals, and sometimes managed her own property. Palestinian women began to enjoy a new status and dignity as the result of Jesus’ attitude toward women and its influence on the early Christian church.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Education; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality; Widow; Woman.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FAMILY LIFE AND RELATIONS In Bible times, the family comprised members of a household, including not only parents and children, along with other relatives and concubines, but also servants, travelers, aliens, and anyone else who happened to be within the house and was therefore under the protection of the head of the family. The family of Jacob, for example, comprised three generations (Gn 46:8-26). Biblically, the term “family” is interchangeable with “house,” and “founding a house” can refe...","summary_en":"FAMILY LIFE AND RELATIONS In Bible times, the family comprised members of a household, including not only parents and children, along with other relatives and concubines, but also servants, travelers, aliens, and anyone else who happened to be within the house and was therefore under the protection of the head of the family. The family of Jacob, for example, comprised three generations (Gn 46:8-26). Biblically, the term “family” is interchangeable with “house,” and “founding a house” can refe...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":61940,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Promised Kingdom","title_en":"God’s Promised Kingdom","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Promised Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to keep the hope of God’s kingdom alive. The Chronicler wanted the people to know that God’s promise to David, confirmed to Solomon, was equally confirmed for them. After the Exile, Judah no longer existed as an independent kingdom ruled by the dynasty of David. Instead, Judea stood as a small territory with limited independence under a Persian governor. Yet the community of Judea could experience God’s blessing, just as the people had in the days of Hezekiah and Josiah. The Chronicler did not know exactly how God’s promise to David would be realized. Yet he had complete trust in God’s power, sovereignty, and justice; he knew that God would be faithful to his promise and that his kingdom would eventually rule over all.<\/p>\n<p>Following the time of the Chronicler, it appeared that his hopes were disappointed. The Greeks replaced the Persians as rulers of Israel; their intolerance for the Jewish community of faith reached its zenith in the tyrannical Antiochus IV “Epiphanes” (175–163 <span>BC<\/span>), who made every effort to destroy Israel’s faith and identity, as Daniel had foreseen (Dan 11:21-39). The priestly family of Maccabees resisted Antiochus, restored the Temple, and preserved Judea’s identity. But then the community disintegrated under the successors to the Maccabees; Israel fractured into sects (e.g., the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes) and eventually came under Roman control. When Jesus was born, Roman governors controlled the territory of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The fulfillment of God’s promises to David took place in a way the Chronicler did not anticipate. Jesus was the anointed king, the Messiah from the dynasty of David (see Matt 16:16-17). His Kingdom was not established by the military defeat of the Romans but rather by the defeat of the powers of sin and death. His Kingdom continues to spread through his followers, and the powers of hell will never prevail against it. In the end, His Kingdom will be fully realized in the ultimate defeat of the powers of evil, and He will reign as King forever (see Rev 19:11–20:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Chr 17:9-14; 28:1-21; Isa 2:1-4; 60:1-22; 65:17-25; Ezek 37:21-28; Dan 2:31-45; 7:1-28; Mic 4:1-5; Zech 9:9-10; 14:1-21; Matt 4:17; 6:33; 13:11-50; 16:16-19; 18:3-4, 23-35; 19:14, 23-30; 20:1-16; 22:2-14; 25:1-46; Luke 1:30-33; Eph 5:5; Rev 19:1–21:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Promised Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to keep the hope of God’s kingdom alive. The Chronicler wanted the people to know that God’s promise to David, confirmed to Solomon, was equally confirmed for them. After the Exile, Judah no longer existed as an independent kingdom ruled by the dynasty of David. Instead, Judea stood as a small territory with limited independence under a Persian governor. Yet the community of Judea could experience God’s blessing, just as the people had in the days of Hezekiah and Josiah. The Chronicler did not know exactly how God’s promise to David would be realized. Yet he had complete trust in God’s power, sovereignty, and justice; he knew that God would be faithful to his promise and that his kingdom would eventually rule over all.<\/p>\n<p>Following the time of the Chronicler, it appeared that his hopes were disappointed. The Greeks replaced the Persians as rulers of Israel; their intolerance for the Jewish community of faith reached its zenith in the tyrannical Antiochus IV “Epiphanes” (175–163 <span>BC<\/span>), who made every effort to destroy Israel’s faith and identity, as Daniel had foreseen (Dan 11:21-39). The priestly family of Maccabees resisted Antiochus, restored the Temple, and preserved Judea’s identity. But then the community disintegrated under the successors to the Maccabees; Israel fractured into sects (e.g., the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes) and eventually came under Roman control. When Jesus was born, Roman governors controlled the territory of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The fulfillment of God’s promises to David took place in a way the Chronicler did not anticipate. Jesus was the anointed king, the Messiah from the dynasty of David (see Matt 16:16-17). His Kingdom was not established by the military defeat of the Romans but rather by the defeat of the powers of sin and death. His Kingdom continues to spread through his followers, and the powers of hell will never prevail against it. In the end, His Kingdom will be fully realized in the ultimate defeat of the powers of evil, and He will reign as King forever (see Rev 19:11–20:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Chr 17:9-14; 28:1-21; Isa 2:1-4; 60:1-22; 65:17-25; Ezek 37:21-28; Dan 2:31-45; 7:1-28; Mic 4:1-5; Zech 9:9-10; 14:1-21; Matt 4:17; 6:33; 13:11-50; 16:16-19; 18:3-4, 23-35; 19:14, 23-30; 20:1-16; 22:2-14; 25:1-46; Luke 1:30-33; Eph 5:5; Rev 19:1–21:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Promised Kingdom God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21). The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to ke...","summary_en":"God’s Promised Kingdom God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21). The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to ke...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":89566,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Promised Kingdom","title_en":"God’s Promised Kingdom","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Promised Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to keep the hope of God’s kingdom alive. The Chronicler wanted the people to know that God’s promise to David, confirmed to Solomon, was equally confirmed for them. After the Exile, Judah no longer existed as an independent kingdom ruled by the dynasty of David. Instead, Judea stood as a small territory with limited independence under a Persian governor. Yet the community of Judea could experience God’s blessing, just as the people had in the days of Hezekiah and Josiah. The Chronicler did not know exactly how God’s promise to David would be realized. Yet he had complete trust in God’s power, sovereignty, and justice; he knew that God would be faithful to his promise and that his kingdom would eventually rule over all.<\/p>\n<p>Following the time of the Chronicler, it appeared that his hopes were disappointed. The Greeks replaced the Persians as rulers of Israel; their intolerance for the Jewish community of faith reached its zenith in the tyrannical Antiochus IV “Epiphanes” (175–163 <span>BC<\/span>), who made every effort to destroy Israel’s faith and identity, as Daniel had foreseen (Dan 11:21-39). The priestly family of Maccabees resisted Antiochus, restored the Temple, and preserved Judea’s identity. But then the community disintegrated under the successors to the Maccabees; Israel fractured into sects (e.g., the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes) and eventually came under Roman control. When Jesus was born, Roman governors controlled the territory of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The fulfillment of God’s promises to David took place in a way the Chronicler did not anticipate. Jesus was the anointed king, the Messiah from the dynasty of David (see Matt 16:16-17). His Kingdom was not established by the military defeat of the Romans but rather by the defeat of the powers of sin and death. His Kingdom continues to spread through his followers, and the powers of hell will never prevail against it. In the end, His Kingdom will be fully realized in the ultimate defeat of the powers of evil, and He will reign as King forever (see Rev 19:11–20:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Chr 17:9-14; 28:1-21; Isa 2:1-4; 60:1-22; 65:17-25; Ezek 37:21-28; Dan 2:31-45; 7:1-28; Mic 4:1-5; Zech 9:9-10; 14:1-21; Matt 4:17; 6:33; 13:11-50; 16:16-19; 18:3-4, 23-35; 19:14, 23-30; 20:1-16; 22:2-14; 25:1-46; Luke 1:30-33; Eph 5:5; Rev 19:1–21:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Promised Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to keep the hope of God’s kingdom alive. The Chronicler wanted the people to know that God’s promise to David, confirmed to Solomon, was equally confirmed for them. After the Exile, Judah no longer existed as an independent kingdom ruled by the dynasty of David. Instead, Judea stood as a small territory with limited independence under a Persian governor. Yet the community of Judea could experience God’s blessing, just as the people had in the days of Hezekiah and Josiah. The Chronicler did not know exactly how God’s promise to David would be realized. Yet he had complete trust in God’s power, sovereignty, and justice; he knew that God would be faithful to his promise and that his kingdom would eventually rule over all.<\/p>\n<p>Following the time of the Chronicler, it appeared that his hopes were disappointed. The Greeks replaced the Persians as rulers of Israel; their intolerance for the Jewish community of faith reached its zenith in the tyrannical Antiochus IV “Epiphanes” (175–163 <span>BC<\/span>), who made every effort to destroy Israel’s faith and identity, as Daniel had foreseen (Dan 11:21-39). The priestly family of Maccabees resisted Antiochus, restored the Temple, and preserved Judea’s identity. But then the community disintegrated under the successors to the Maccabees; Israel fractured into sects (e.g., the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes) and eventually came under Roman control. When Jesus was born, Roman governors controlled the territory of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The fulfillment of God’s promises to David took place in a way the Chronicler did not anticipate. Jesus was the anointed king, the Messiah from the dynasty of David (see Matt 16:16-17). His Kingdom was not established by the military defeat of the Romans but rather by the defeat of the powers of sin and death. His Kingdom continues to spread through his followers, and the powers of hell will never prevail against it. In the end, His Kingdom will be fully realized in the ultimate defeat of the powers of evil, and He will reign as King forever (see Rev 19:11–20:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Chr 17:9-14; 28:1-21; Isa 2:1-4; 60:1-22; 65:17-25; Ezek 37:21-28; Dan 2:31-45; 7:1-28; Mic 4:1-5; Zech 9:9-10; 14:1-21; Matt 4:17; 6:33; 13:11-50; 16:16-19; 18:3-4, 23-35; 19:14, 23-30; 20:1-16; 22:2-14; 25:1-46; Luke 1:30-33; Eph 5:5; Rev 19:1–21:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Promised Kingdom God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21). The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to ke...","summary_en":"God’s Promised Kingdom God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21). The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to ke...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":117192,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Promised Kingdom","title_en":"God’s Promised Kingdom","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Promised Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to keep the hope of God’s kingdom alive. The Chronicler wanted the people to know that God’s promise to David, confirmed to Solomon, was equally confirmed for them. After the Exile, Judah no longer existed as an independent kingdom ruled by the dynasty of David. Instead, Judea stood as a small territory with limited independence under a Persian governor. Yet the community of Judea could experience God’s blessing, just as the people had in the days of Hezekiah and Josiah. The Chronicler did not know exactly how God’s promise to David would be realized. Yet he had complete trust in God’s power, sovereignty, and justice; he knew that God would be faithful to his promise and that his kingdom would eventually rule over all.<\/p>\n<p>Following the time of the Chronicler, it appeared that his hopes were disappointed. The Greeks replaced the Persians as rulers of Israel; their intolerance for the Jewish community of faith reached its zenith in the tyrannical Antiochus IV “Epiphanes” (175–163 <span>BC<\/span>), who made every effort to destroy Israel’s faith and identity, as Daniel had foreseen (Dan 11:21-39). The priestly family of Maccabees resisted Antiochus, restored the Temple, and preserved Judea’s identity. But then the community disintegrated under the successors to the Maccabees; Israel fractured into sects (e.g., the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes) and eventually came under Roman control. When Jesus was born, Roman governors controlled the territory of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The fulfillment of God’s promises to David took place in a way the Chronicler did not anticipate. Jesus was the anointed king, the Messiah from the dynasty of David (see Matt 16:16-17). His Kingdom was not established by the military defeat of the Romans but rather by the defeat of the powers of sin and death. His Kingdom continues to spread through his followers, and the powers of hell will never prevail against it. In the end, His Kingdom will be fully realized in the ultimate defeat of the powers of evil, and He will reign as King forever (see Rev 19:11–20:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Chr 17:9-14; 28:1-21; Isa 2:1-4; 60:1-22; 65:17-25; Ezek 37:21-28; Dan 2:31-45; 7:1-28; Mic 4:1-5; Zech 9:9-10; 14:1-21; Matt 4:17; 6:33; 13:11-50; 16:16-19; 18:3-4, 23-35; 19:14, 23-30; 20:1-16; 22:2-14; 25:1-46; Luke 1:30-33; Eph 5:5; Rev 19:1–21:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Promised Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to keep the hope of God’s kingdom alive. The Chronicler wanted the people to know that God’s promise to David, confirmed to Solomon, was equally confirmed for them. After the Exile, Judah no longer existed as an independent kingdom ruled by the dynasty of David. Instead, Judea stood as a small territory with limited independence under a Persian governor. Yet the community of Judea could experience God’s blessing, just as the people had in the days of Hezekiah and Josiah. The Chronicler did not know exactly how God’s promise to David would be realized. Yet he had complete trust in God’s power, sovereignty, and justice; he knew that God would be faithful to his promise and that his kingdom would eventually rule over all.<\/p>\n<p>Following the time of the Chronicler, it appeared that his hopes were disappointed. The Greeks replaced the Persians as rulers of Israel; their intolerance for the Jewish community of faith reached its zenith in the tyrannical Antiochus IV “Epiphanes” (175–163 <span>BC<\/span>), who made every effort to destroy Israel’s faith and identity, as Daniel had foreseen (Dan 11:21-39). The priestly family of Maccabees resisted Antiochus, restored the Temple, and preserved Judea’s identity. But then the community disintegrated under the successors to the Maccabees; Israel fractured into sects (e.g., the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes) and eventually came under Roman control. When Jesus was born, Roman governors controlled the territory of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The fulfillment of God’s promises to David took place in a way the Chronicler did not anticipate. Jesus was the anointed king, the Messiah from the dynasty of David (see Matt 16:16-17). His Kingdom was not established by the military defeat of the Romans but rather by the defeat of the powers of sin and death. His Kingdom continues to spread through his followers, and the powers of hell will never prevail against it. In the end, His Kingdom will be fully realized in the ultimate defeat of the powers of evil, and He will reign as King forever (see Rev 19:11–20:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Chr 17:9-14; 28:1-21; Isa 2:1-4; 60:1-22; 65:17-25; Ezek 37:21-28; Dan 2:31-45; 7:1-28; Mic 4:1-5; Zech 9:9-10; 14:1-21; Matt 4:17; 6:33; 13:11-50; 16:16-19; 18:3-4, 23-35; 19:14, 23-30; 20:1-16; 22:2-14; 25:1-46; Luke 1:30-33; Eph 5:5; Rev 19:1–21:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Promised Kingdom God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21). The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to ke...","summary_en":"God’s Promised Kingdom God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21). The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to ke...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":144818,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Promised Kingdom","title_en":"God’s Promised Kingdom","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Promised Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to keep the hope of God’s kingdom alive. The Chronicler wanted the people to know that God’s promise to David, confirmed to Solomon, was equally confirmed for them. After the Exile, Judah no longer existed as an independent kingdom ruled by the dynasty of David. Instead, Judea stood as a small territory with limited independence under a Persian governor. Yet the community of Judea could experience God’s blessing, just as the people had in the days of Hezekiah and Josiah. The Chronicler did not know exactly how God’s promise to David would be realized. Yet he had complete trust in God’s power, sovereignty, and justice; he knew that God would be faithful to his promise and that his kingdom would eventually rule over all.<\/p>\n<p>Following the time of the Chronicler, it appeared that his hopes were disappointed. The Greeks replaced the Persians as rulers of Israel; their intolerance for the Jewish community of faith reached its zenith in the tyrannical Antiochus IV “Epiphanes” (175–163 <span>BC<\/span>), who made every effort to destroy Israel’s faith and identity, as Daniel had foreseen (Dan 11:21-39). The priestly family of Maccabees resisted Antiochus, restored the Temple, and preserved Judea’s identity. But then the community disintegrated under the successors to the Maccabees; Israel fractured into sects (e.g., the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes) and eventually came under Roman control. When Jesus was born, Roman governors controlled the territory of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The fulfillment of God’s promises to David took place in a way the Chronicler did not anticipate. Jesus was the anointed king, the Messiah from the dynasty of David (see Matt 16:16-17). His Kingdom was not established by the military defeat of the Romans but rather by the defeat of the powers of sin and death. His Kingdom continues to spread through his followers, and the powers of hell will never prevail against it. In the end, His Kingdom will be fully realized in the ultimate defeat of the powers of evil, and He will reign as King forever (see Rev 19:11–20:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Chr 17:9-14; 28:1-21; Isa 2:1-4; 60:1-22; 65:17-25; Ezek 37:21-28; Dan 2:31-45; 7:1-28; Mic 4:1-5; Zech 9:9-10; 14:1-21; Matt 4:17; 6:33; 13:11-50; 16:16-19; 18:3-4, 23-35; 19:14, 23-30; 20:1-16; 22:2-14; 25:1-46; Luke 1:30-33; Eph 5:5; Rev 19:1–21:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Promised Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to keep the hope of God’s kingdom alive. The Chronicler wanted the people to know that God’s promise to David, confirmed to Solomon, was equally confirmed for them. After the Exile, Judah no longer existed as an independent kingdom ruled by the dynasty of David. Instead, Judea stood as a small territory with limited independence under a Persian governor. Yet the community of Judea could experience God’s blessing, just as the people had in the days of Hezekiah and Josiah. The Chronicler did not know exactly how God’s promise to David would be realized. Yet he had complete trust in God’s power, sovereignty, and justice; he knew that God would be faithful to his promise and that his kingdom would eventually rule over all.<\/p>\n<p>Following the time of the Chronicler, it appeared that his hopes were disappointed. The Greeks replaced the Persians as rulers of Israel; their intolerance for the Jewish community of faith reached its zenith in the tyrannical Antiochus IV “Epiphanes” (175–163 <span>BC<\/span>), who made every effort to destroy Israel’s faith and identity, as Daniel had foreseen (Dan 11:21-39). The priestly family of Maccabees resisted Antiochus, restored the Temple, and preserved Judea’s identity. But then the community disintegrated under the successors to the Maccabees; Israel fractured into sects (e.g., the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes) and eventually came under Roman control. When Jesus was born, Roman governors controlled the territory of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The fulfillment of God’s promises to David took place in a way the Chronicler did not anticipate. Jesus was the anointed king, the Messiah from the dynasty of David (see Matt 16:16-17). His Kingdom was not established by the military defeat of the Romans but rather by the defeat of the powers of sin and death. His Kingdom continues to spread through his followers, and the powers of hell will never prevail against it. In the end, His Kingdom will be fully realized in the ultimate defeat of the powers of evil, and He will reign as King forever (see Rev 19:11–20:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Chr 17:9-14; 28:1-21; Isa 2:1-4; 60:1-22; 65:17-25; Ezek 37:21-28; Dan 2:31-45; 7:1-28; Mic 4:1-5; Zech 9:9-10; 14:1-21; Matt 4:17; 6:33; 13:11-50; 16:16-19; 18:3-4, 23-35; 19:14, 23-30; 20:1-16; 22:2-14; 25:1-46; Luke 1:30-33; Eph 5:5; Rev 19:1–21:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Promised Kingdom God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21). The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to ke...","summary_en":"God’s Promised Kingdom God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21). The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to ke...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"16":[{"id":4879,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of the Old Testament in the New Testament Bible*, Quotations","title_en":"of the Old Testament in the New Testament Bible*, Quotations","content_ro":"<h3>BIBLE*, Q<span>uotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers.<\/p>\n<p>The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotations in distinctive print, this may not be easily seen, for the NT writers often weave the OT words into their own without indicating they are borrowing from the OT. There are over 400 passages of the OT that are explicitly cited in the NT. Almost half of these are introduced by a statement like “Scripture says” to draw attention to the fact that the authority and thought of the OT is being implemented. For the others, however, the OT words are woven into the fabric of the author’s own statement.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the over 400 passages cited explicitly, there are well over 1,000 places where there is an allusion to an OT text, event, or person. The difference between a quotation and an allusion is sometimes debated for particular texts, but usually the distinction is that in a quotation the author consciously uses the words of an OT passage, whereas with an allusion he has the texts in mind but is not consciously trying to use the words.<\/p>\n<p>Quotations are easy to identify if there is an introductory formula such as “the Scripture says” (as in Rom 10:11; cf. Is 28:16). Where there is no introductory formula, it is easy to overlook explicit quotations (Rom 10:13; cf. Jl 2:32). The allusions are, of course, harder still to recognize, but they often provide the key to interpretation. For example, John 1:14-18—with its mention of glory, grace and truth, Moses, and the fact that no one has seen God—is much more easily and profoundly understood when read in connection with Exodus 33:17–34:8. In the Exodus passage the glory of God and his grace and truth are revealed to Moses. The author was showing that a much more complete revelation of God was given in Jesus than was given Moses in the account recorded in Exodus.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, significant light is shed on many NT passages from OT passages with similar ideas and words even where the NT author may not have been consciously alluding to those texts (e.g. Mt 16:19; Is 22:22). What was behind the author’s thinking is not certain, but in such cases the NT reflects the thinking, the culture, and language of the OT period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DistributionofOldTestamentQuotations\">Distribution of Old Testament Quotations<\/p>\n<p>The books of the NT that show the most dependence on the OT are Matthew, John, Romans, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation. Such a statement can be misleading, however, because the writers have different methods.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew quotes or consciously reflects the wording of OT passages about 62 times, almost half of which have an introductory formula. The book of Revelation, on the other hand, never quotes the OT and never has an introductory formula but is probably more dependent on the OT than any other NT book. The book of Hebrews quotes or consciously reflects the OT about 59 times, again half of which have an introductory formula, but the Gospel of John does so only 18 times, nearly always with an introductory formula. However, the allusions to the OT are present on virtually every page of John’s Gospel, so much so that some scholars have argued that he has modeled his account on the exodus narrative, the Jewish feasts, or OT persons and images. Paul’s Letter to the Romans uses the OT 54 times (about three-fourths of which have introductory formulas), but nowhere else so frequently (e.g., 1 Cor 16 times, Gal 11 times, Phil one time, 1 Thes one time).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the indication that Philippians and 1 Thessalonians use the OT only once each, some other books make explicit use of the OT rarely or never. Colossians, Titus, Philemon, and the Johannine letters do not use the OT at all; 2 Timothy and Jude use the OT only once; while 2 Peter and 1 Timothy make use of it twice.<\/p>\n<p>The important point is to realize that the OT is used most frequently in circumstances where the audience is familiar with the OT or where the OT is essential for describing the events relating to Christ and the church. The books using the OT most frequently (Mt, Jn, Rom, Heb, 1 Pt, Rv) either stem from or are addressed to a Jewish context or, as in the case of Romans and John, deal specifically with the relation of Jews and Christians. The Gospels make rather extensive use of the OT because the language of the OT is necessary to convey the identity and importance of Jesus in the purposes of God. Similarly 1 Peter uses the OT frequently because the author is trying to convey to his persecuted audience that they are the people of God and the inheritors of the promises of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DifficultiesinInterpretation\">Difficulties in Interpretation<\/p>\n<p>Often when people think of quotations of the OT in the NT they think only in terms of prophecy. Some have been guilty of counting up the OT statements that the NT applies to Christ and the church and then claiming these OT texts as predictions that prove Jesus is the Messiah. Such a procedure is filled with problems because it is too simplistic and does not do justice to either the OT or to the way the NT uses it. Of course, the early church used the OT to show that Jesus fulfilled the promises of God and did God’s work, but the use the church made of the OT was quite varied and much of it cannot be classified as predictive prophecy. Prophecy itself is too complex to be limited to predictive thinking.<\/p>\n<p>Some of the most obvious examples of the difficulties appear in Matthew’s Gospel, although they are by no means confined there. Matthew 2:15—“Out of Egypt I called my son”—is a quotation of Hosea 11:1, but in Hosea these words do not refer to the Messiah. They refer to the nation of Israel. Similarly Matthew 2:18 quotes Jeremiah 31:15 (“A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more,” <span>niv<\/span>) as fulfilled in the slaughter of the innocent babies in Bethlehem, but in Jeremiah the weeping is over the destruction of Jerusalem. John 12:40 views Isaiah 6:10 as fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry, but this verse deals with the call of Isaiah and is not a prediction concerning the ministry of the Messiah. The examples could be multiplied but these should be sufficient to illustrate the problem. For this reason the NT writers have often been accused of twisting the Scriptures, but this charge is as simplistic as the thought that all prophecy is predictive and in fact springs from the same error. Therefore, any attempt to understand the use of the OT in the NT will have to deal with the variety of ways in which the OT is used and with the methods employed by the NT writers.<\/p>\n<p>There are other difficulties that are encountered as well. Sometimes the NT writer will indicate that some fact related to Christ is a fulfillment of the OT but the explicit text that he had in mind cannot be identified. For example, John 7:38 introduces the words “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water” with the statement “as Scripture has said.” No OT text reads this way. Possibly the allusion is to the rock that provided water in the wilderness (Ex 17:1), or to the waters that flowed from the new temple (Zec 14:8) or, more generally, it may be a reference to Isaiah 58:11. Similarly, the difficulty in determining the OT text behind the prophecy that Christ will be called a Nazarene (Mt 2:23) is notorious. Probably the reference is to Isaiah 11:1 and the Hebrew word there translated as “branch,” but the connection is not easily made and is not certain. A third example of this kind of difficulty is in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where Paul indicates that women should be in submission just as the Law says, but there is no OT text expressing this idea. His statement in probably to be understood as a summary rather than a quotation or allusion. Similarly on a few occasions an OT text is seemingly attributed to the wrong OT book. In Mark 1:2-3 an OT quotation is attributed to Isaiah but the quotation is really a conflation (or mixing) of Exodus 23:20, Malachi 3:1, and Isaiah 40:3. Matthew 27:9-10 quotes a passage that is said to be from Jeremiah, when really it is dependent on Zechariah 11:13 and might best be described as a summary of Zechariah 11:12-13, with certain words included from Jeremiah 32:6-9. These two examples do not create a major problem, however, for the determination of the origin of the words may be due to their use in collections of quotations from various prophets, in which case the more prominent prophets would be used to designate origin.<\/p>\n<p>The wording of the quotations of the OT text does not always conform to the modern form of the OT. Just as today there are numerous translations of the Bible, when the NT was being written there were various forms of the OT text. With regard to the Hebrew text (for the OT was written mostly in Hebrew), there were different traditions. Such differences in the Hebrew traditions would have been relatively small. Because of the increasing importance of Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity and of Greek after the conquests of Alexander the Great, the OT was also known and used in both these languages when the NT was being written. In fact, the Jews found it necessary in their synagogue services after reading the Hebrew OT to paraphrase the reading in Aramaic so that all could understand. These paraphrases were later written down and are known as Targums. The Greek translation of the OT that stems from the third century <span>BC<\/span> is known as the Septuagint, but there were also other Greek translations in use. This being the case, the wording of a NT quotation is not identical in every detail to the text of the Hebrew OT.<\/p>\n<p>Added to the fact that there were various forms of the text known in first-century <span>AD<\/span> Palestine is the complicating factor that NT writers often did not intend to quote the OT exactly. The use of formal quotation marks is a modern device, and ancient writers were not so taken by technical precision. They were more concerned with the intention of a text and consequently might copy or quote it verbatim, quote it from memory, use or adapt part of a verse, or even change certain words as they borrowed the verse to express their points. (The NT writers often use the OT words describing God’s actions in the past to explain what he has done in their time.) The importance of any differences between the NT quotation and the OT depends on the use to which the quotation is put and the degree to which the use is dependent on textual differences.<\/p>\n<p>Some examples should illustrate the nature of these difficulties. Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18. Whereas the Hebrew and Septuagint read, “You ascended to the heights, you lead captivity captive, you received gifts among mankind,” Ephesians records the verse as “After he ascended into the heights, <em>he<\/em> led captivity captive; he <em>gave<\/em> gifts to men.” Paul is stressing that Christ has given grace to people for ministry. He has either adapted the wording of the OT to make his point or he quoted a variant reading, <em>“he gave<\/em> gifts.” Some versions do have this reading. In fact, the Targum understands this verse as Moses giving the words of the law to the children of men, and Paul may well be adapting this understanding to the new revelation that has come in Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, but there are distinct differences between the Hebrew text and the wording in Matthew. The Hebrew reads, “Behold the young woman will become pregnant and will bear a son and you will call his name Immanuel,” whereas Matthew’s text records “Behold, the <em>virgin<\/em> will become pregnant and will bear a son, and <em>they<\/em> will call his name Immanuel.” The Septuagint does have the specific word “virgin,” like Matthew, but is not the source of Matthew’s quotation since other differences exist. Some have argued that the change from “you will call” to “they will call” was made by Matthew when he applied the words to Jesus. However, there are several traditions known for this part of the quotation and partial support for the reading in Matthew is provided by the text of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\n<p>Romans 11:26-27 is a conflation of Isaiah 59:20-21 and part of Isaiah 27:9, but there are important differences. One of these is that the OT has “the redeemer will come to Zion,” whereas Romans has “the deliverer will come <em>from<\/em> Zion.” The change to “from Zion” could indicate that Paul had a different textual tradition, could be the result of an intentional change by Paul, or more probably, could reflect the wording of Psalm 14:7.<\/p>\n<p>An awareness of the difficulties involved in the quotations of the OT by the NT writers will prohibit a simplistic approach and will prevent hasty conclusions. Care to ask not only which text was used but also which form of the text was used and how is obviously essential in any serious study. In addition it is necessary to allow for the possibility that the NT writers knew forms of a text that are now lost.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMethodsoftheNewTestamentWriters\">The Methods of the New Testament Writers<\/p>\n<p>The methods used by the NT writers were not unique to them. Many of these methods were also employed in first-century Judaism. In fact, both the technique used in quoting and the understanding of the OT text itself in many cases are paralleled in Judaism. For example, from the standpoint of technique used in quoting, the same kinds of formula introductions are used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the rabbinic writings, and elsewhere. The rabbinic technique of “pearl stringing,” that is, of applying verses from various parts of the OT (the Law, the Prophets, the Writings) to a subject, can be seen especially in Paul’s writings (note Rom 9:12-19 or 11:8-10). Somewhat related is the practice of using quotations that all contain a key word or key words (note 1 Pt 2:6-8, which draws together quotations using the word “stone,” or Rom 15:9-12, which joins OT verses referring to the “nations”).<\/p>\n<p>The methods used in the NT to interpret an OT text are also displayed in Judaism. Some passages interpret the OT “literally,” such as Jesus’ replies during temptation (see the quotations of Dt 8:3; 6:16; 6:13; in Mt 4:3-10), his teachings on marriage based on Genesis 2:24 (Mt 19:5), or Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom 1:17) or Genesis 15:6 (Rom 4:3-9). Many such examples could be given. With regard to prophecy, some of these statements are fulfilled in a “literal” or “direct” way in keeping with the intention of the OT (e.g., Mi 5:2, Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah; Mt 2:4-6). Jeremiah 31:31-34, the promise of the new covenant, is viewed as directly fulfilled in Christ (Heb 8:7-13). The prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 concerning the pouring out of the Spirit of the Lord is directly fulfilled in the Pentecost event (Acts 2:17-21), but the changing of the sun to darkness and the moon to blood are certainly not understood literally in connection with this event.<\/p>\n<p>A different method of interpretation is based on the concept of <em>corporate solidarity.<\/em> This technical expression is an attempt to convey the idea that the individuals among God’s people are not merely individuals; they are part of a larger whole. Consequently, what is said about the individual can apply to the whole and vice versa. This is the reason the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah is seen both as the nation (44:1) and as an individual (52:13–53:12). Also the king is sometimes viewed as representative of the nation. The easiest places to see the concept of corporate solidarity are in the effect of the sin of Achan on all the people (Jos 7) or the sin of David in numbering the people (1 Chr 21:3-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>Correspondence in history<\/em> is not so much a method of interpretation as it is a way of thinking about God. It assumes that the things that happen to God’s people are the things that have happened to previous generations and that God is faithful and operates in the present as he has in the past. Consequently, the trials and deliverance of God’s people are often expressed with words borrowed from the previous accounts of God’s people. Isaiah describes the anticipated deliverance in terms of a second exodus (11:15-16). Ezekiel describes the king set up over the people in terms of a second David (Ez 37:25). In the NT, Revelation 22 describes the new heavens and the new earth in terms of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2–3). Sometimes this technique is described as “typology,” but this term has been used for so many questionable interpretations that it is misleading. The most important thing about this concept is that it is a view of God and his working among his people.<\/p>\n<p>With these two concepts, the way that the OT is quoted in the NT can be understood. The conviction that Jesus was the promised deliverer and that the last days had dawned in his ministry are evident everywhere. The quotation of Hosea 11:1 can be used in Matthew 2:15 because of corporate solidarity and correspondence in history. What was said of the nation is true of the one who is its representative, and there is correspondence in their respective histories. Jeremiah 31:15 can be used in Matthew 2:18 because of correspondence in history and especially because Jeremiah looked forward to God’s intention for Israel and prophesied a new covenant (31:17, 31-34). Matthew saw not only the correspondence in history but believed that in Jesus this promised salvation had been granted. John 12:40 can quote Isaiah 6:10 of Jesus’ ministry, not because he twists the meaning of the OT text, but because he saw that what had happened with God’s messenger before happened again and even <em>ultimately<\/em> in Jesus’ ministry. The instances of such correspondences in history are numerous.<\/p>\n<p>There are other texts where there seems to be an <em>actualization<\/em> of the OT text. Some quotations seem to be “lived out” in the ministry of Jesus. Because of their conviction about Jesus and his kingdom, the NT writers often saw certain OT texts as appropriated and made alive by Jesus. Psalm 118:22 was not intended as a prophecy of the Messiah, but Jesus saw it as descriptive of his ministry (Mt 21:42), and the early church saw this verse as actualized in his death and resurrection (Acts 4:11). Isaiah 53 is another text that the NT views as actualized in Jesus’ ministry (see Acts 8:32-35 and 1 Pt 2:22-25). Some Christians would view Psalm 22 as a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus, but it seems instead to be the lament of a righteous OT sufferer. Through correspondence in history, and because Christians saw so much of the psalmist’s plight actualized in Jesus’ crucifixion, the psalm became the easiest way to describe what once again had happened to God’s righteous sufferer. The words of Isaiah 40:3 describe the ministry of John the Baptist (Mt 3:3). Jews had come to see this verse as a prophecy of God’s end-time salvation, and the early church saw John the Baptist fulfilling this forerunner’s task. Luke made this identification (Lk 3:4-6), but he applied the same role to Jesus’ disciples (9:52; 10:1). This seems to be a further example of actualization and correspondence in history. In other places the church has applied to Christians ideas that were previously understood of Christ (e.g., the stone in 1 Pt 2:4-5; the ministry of the Suffering Servant in Acts 13:46-47).<\/p>\n<p>The most convenient term to describe the way the OT is “fulfilled” in Christ is to say that the OT finds its climax in Jesus. Even where actual quotations are not involved, the OT ideas such as prophet, priest, or king are climaxed in him as the ideal and embodiment of all the OT models. He could tell religious authorities that “one greater than Solomon is here” (Mt 12:42) or “one greater than the temple is here” (Mt 12:6). Those passages involving correspondence in history or actualization also lead to the conviction that he is the climax of the OT Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePurposesoftheUseoftheOldTestament\">The Purposes of the Use of the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The variety of methods of interpretation and application of the OT parallels the fact that the OT was used for a variety of purposes. People tend to think only in terms of the use of the OT to show that Jesus was the Messiah, but there are a number of other uses with a variety of goals. Many OT texts are used to show Jesus is the Messiah, the fulfillment of the OT promises (Lk 4:16-21). Without lessening the fulfillment emphasis, however, other verses are applied to Jesus for other purposes: to evangelize (Acts 8:32-25); to demonstrate or convince (Acts 13:33-35); to rebuke (Mk 7:6-7; Rom 11:7-10); and to describe (Rv 1:12-15). On the other hand, many quotations of the OT in the NT are not directly related to the Messiah. OT passages are adapted to provide a word from God on some aspect of life or ethics. For example, Jesus used Genesis 2:24 to substantiate his teaching on divorce as he attempted to deal with the issues raised by the civil regulation of divorce (Dt 24:1; Mt 19:1-12). The stress on the OT commandments shows their importance for Christians (Mt 19:16-22; Rom 13:8-10). Often OT statements deal with specific problems. The problem of pride at Corinth is solved by the quotation of Jeremiah 9:24 (“Let the one boasting, boast in the Lord,” 1 Cor 1:31). First Peter 3:10-12 incorporates Psalm 34:12-16 as ethical instructions, and 3:14-15 borrows from Isaiah 8:12-13 to address the fear of suffering. The spiritual armor in Ephesians 6:14-17 is derived largely from OT passages. Such examples are so numerous that there can be no doubt that the OT is used to describe Christian existence. In fact, nearly every subject discussed in the NT is presented somewhere via OT terms and quotations. Frequently OT passages are used to describe the church as God’s end-time community. Hosea 2:23 is used to show that those who formerly were not God’s people now are (Rom 9:25-26; 1 Pt 2:10). Several OT texts contribute to the description of the church in 1 Peter 2:9. OT texts that speak of the word of God describe the apostles’ preaching (Rom 10:8; 1 Pt 1:24-25). OT quotations describe the sinful condition of humanity (Rom 3:10-20). Salvation is explained through OT concepts and symbols and is based on OT statements (Jn 6:31-33; Gal 3:6-13). The words of Daniel describe the Second Coming (7:13-14; cf. Mt 24:30). Even the worship of early Christians was expressed through use of the OT (see Acts 4:24; Rom 11:34-35).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BIBLE*, Q<span>uotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers.<\/p>\n<p>The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotations in distinctive print, this may not be easily seen, for the NT writers often weave the OT words into their own without indicating they are borrowing from the OT. There are over 400 passages of the OT that are explicitly cited in the NT. Almost half of these are introduced by a statement like “Scripture says” to draw attention to the fact that the authority and thought of the OT is being implemented. For the others, however, the OT words are woven into the fabric of the author’s own statement.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the over 400 passages cited explicitly, there are well over 1,000 places where there is an allusion to an OT text, event, or person. The difference between a quotation and an allusion is sometimes debated for particular texts, but usually the distinction is that in a quotation the author consciously uses the words of an OT passage, whereas with an allusion he has the texts in mind but is not consciously trying to use the words.<\/p>\n<p>Quotations are easy to identify if there is an introductory formula such as “the Scripture says” (as in Rom 10:11; cf. Is 28:16). Where there is no introductory formula, it is easy to overlook explicit quotations (Rom 10:13; cf. Jl 2:32). The allusions are, of course, harder still to recognize, but they often provide the key to interpretation. For example, John 1:14-18—with its mention of glory, grace and truth, Moses, and the fact that no one has seen God—is much more easily and profoundly understood when read in connection with Exodus 33:17–34:8. In the Exodus passage the glory of God and his grace and truth are revealed to Moses. The author was showing that a much more complete revelation of God was given in Jesus than was given Moses in the account recorded in Exodus.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, significant light is shed on many NT passages from OT passages with similar ideas and words even where the NT author may not have been consciously alluding to those texts (e.g. Mt 16:19; Is 22:22). What was behind the author’s thinking is not certain, but in such cases the NT reflects the thinking, the culture, and language of the OT period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DistributionofOldTestamentQuotations\">Distribution of Old Testament Quotations<\/p>\n<p>The books of the NT that show the most dependence on the OT are Matthew, John, Romans, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation. Such a statement can be misleading, however, because the writers have different methods.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew quotes or consciously reflects the wording of OT passages about 62 times, almost half of which have an introductory formula. The book of Revelation, on the other hand, never quotes the OT and never has an introductory formula but is probably more dependent on the OT than any other NT book. The book of Hebrews quotes or consciously reflects the OT about 59 times, again half of which have an introductory formula, but the Gospel of John does so only 18 times, nearly always with an introductory formula. However, the allusions to the OT are present on virtually every page of John’s Gospel, so much so that some scholars have argued that he has modeled his account on the exodus narrative, the Jewish feasts, or OT persons and images. Paul’s Letter to the Romans uses the OT 54 times (about three-fourths of which have introductory formulas), but nowhere else so frequently (e.g., 1 Cor 16 times, Gal 11 times, Phil one time, 1 Thes one time).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the indication that Philippians and 1 Thessalonians use the OT only once each, some other books make explicit use of the OT rarely or never. Colossians, Titus, Philemon, and the Johannine letters do not use the OT at all; 2 Timothy and Jude use the OT only once; while 2 Peter and 1 Timothy make use of it twice.<\/p>\n<p>The important point is to realize that the OT is used most frequently in circumstances where the audience is familiar with the OT or where the OT is essential for describing the events relating to Christ and the church. The books using the OT most frequently (Mt, Jn, Rom, Heb, 1 Pt, Rv) either stem from or are addressed to a Jewish context or, as in the case of Romans and John, deal specifically with the relation of Jews and Christians. The Gospels make rather extensive use of the OT because the language of the OT is necessary to convey the identity and importance of Jesus in the purposes of God. Similarly 1 Peter uses the OT frequently because the author is trying to convey to his persecuted audience that they are the people of God and the inheritors of the promises of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DifficultiesinInterpretation\">Difficulties in Interpretation<\/p>\n<p>Often when people think of quotations of the OT in the NT they think only in terms of prophecy. Some have been guilty of counting up the OT statements that the NT applies to Christ and the church and then claiming these OT texts as predictions that prove Jesus is the Messiah. Such a procedure is filled with problems because it is too simplistic and does not do justice to either the OT or to the way the NT uses it. Of course, the early church used the OT to show that Jesus fulfilled the promises of God and did God’s work, but the use the church made of the OT was quite varied and much of it cannot be classified as predictive prophecy. Prophecy itself is too complex to be limited to predictive thinking.<\/p>\n<p>Some of the most obvious examples of the difficulties appear in Matthew’s Gospel, although they are by no means confined there. Matthew 2:15—“Out of Egypt I called my son”—is a quotation of Hosea 11:1, but in Hosea these words do not refer to the Messiah. They refer to the nation of Israel. Similarly Matthew 2:18 quotes Jeremiah 31:15 (“A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more,” <span>niv<\/span>) as fulfilled in the slaughter of the innocent babies in Bethlehem, but in Jeremiah the weeping is over the destruction of Jerusalem. John 12:40 views Isaiah 6:10 as fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry, but this verse deals with the call of Isaiah and is not a prediction concerning the ministry of the Messiah. The examples could be multiplied but these should be sufficient to illustrate the problem. For this reason the NT writers have often been accused of twisting the Scriptures, but this charge is as simplistic as the thought that all prophecy is predictive and in fact springs from the same error. Therefore, any attempt to understand the use of the OT in the NT will have to deal with the variety of ways in which the OT is used and with the methods employed by the NT writers.<\/p>\n<p>There are other difficulties that are encountered as well. Sometimes the NT writer will indicate that some fact related to Christ is a fulfillment of the OT but the explicit text that he had in mind cannot be identified. For example, John 7:38 introduces the words “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water” with the statement “as Scripture has said.” No OT text reads this way. Possibly the allusion is to the rock that provided water in the wilderness (Ex 17:1), or to the waters that flowed from the new temple (Zec 14:8) or, more generally, it may be a reference to Isaiah 58:11. Similarly, the difficulty in determining the OT text behind the prophecy that Christ will be called a Nazarene (Mt 2:23) is notorious. Probably the reference is to Isaiah 11:1 and the Hebrew word there translated as “branch,” but the connection is not easily made and is not certain. A third example of this kind of difficulty is in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where Paul indicates that women should be in submission just as the Law says, but there is no OT text expressing this idea. His statement in probably to be understood as a summary rather than a quotation or allusion. Similarly on a few occasions an OT text is seemingly attributed to the wrong OT book. In Mark 1:2-3 an OT quotation is attributed to Isaiah but the quotation is really a conflation (or mixing) of Exodus 23:20, Malachi 3:1, and Isaiah 40:3. Matthew 27:9-10 quotes a passage that is said to be from Jeremiah, when really it is dependent on Zechariah 11:13 and might best be described as a summary of Zechariah 11:12-13, with certain words included from Jeremiah 32:6-9. These two examples do not create a major problem, however, for the determination of the origin of the words may be due to their use in collections of quotations from various prophets, in which case the more prominent prophets would be used to designate origin.<\/p>\n<p>The wording of the quotations of the OT text does not always conform to the modern form of the OT. Just as today there are numerous translations of the Bible, when the NT was being written there were various forms of the OT text. With regard to the Hebrew text (for the OT was written mostly in Hebrew), there were different traditions. Such differences in the Hebrew traditions would have been relatively small. Because of the increasing importance of Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity and of Greek after the conquests of Alexander the Great, the OT was also known and used in both these languages when the NT was being written. In fact, the Jews found it necessary in their synagogue services after reading the Hebrew OT to paraphrase the reading in Aramaic so that all could understand. These paraphrases were later written down and are known as Targums. The Greek translation of the OT that stems from the third century <span>BC<\/span> is known as the Septuagint, but there were also other Greek translations in use. This being the case, the wording of a NT quotation is not identical in every detail to the text of the Hebrew OT.<\/p>\n<p>Added to the fact that there were various forms of the text known in first-century <span>AD<\/span> Palestine is the complicating factor that NT writers often did not intend to quote the OT exactly. The use of formal quotation marks is a modern device, and ancient writers were not so taken by technical precision. They were more concerned with the intention of a text and consequently might copy or quote it verbatim, quote it from memory, use or adapt part of a verse, or even change certain words as they borrowed the verse to express their points. (The NT writers often use the OT words describing God’s actions in the past to explain what he has done in their time.) The importance of any differences between the NT quotation and the OT depends on the use to which the quotation is put and the degree to which the use is dependent on textual differences.<\/p>\n<p>Some examples should illustrate the nature of these difficulties. Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18. Whereas the Hebrew and Septuagint read, “You ascended to the heights, you lead captivity captive, you received gifts among mankind,” Ephesians records the verse as “After he ascended into the heights, <em>he<\/em> led captivity captive; he <em>gave<\/em> gifts to men.” Paul is stressing that Christ has given grace to people for ministry. He has either adapted the wording of the OT to make his point or he quoted a variant reading, <em>“he gave<\/em> gifts.” Some versions do have this reading. In fact, the Targum understands this verse as Moses giving the words of the law to the children of men, and Paul may well be adapting this understanding to the new revelation that has come in Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, but there are distinct differences between the Hebrew text and the wording in Matthew. The Hebrew reads, “Behold the young woman will become pregnant and will bear a son and you will call his name Immanuel,” whereas Matthew’s text records “Behold, the <em>virgin<\/em> will become pregnant and will bear a son, and <em>they<\/em> will call his name Immanuel.” The Septuagint does have the specific word “virgin,” like Matthew, but is not the source of Matthew’s quotation since other differences exist. Some have argued that the change from “you will call” to “they will call” was made by Matthew when he applied the words to Jesus. However, there are several traditions known for this part of the quotation and partial support for the reading in Matthew is provided by the text of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\n<p>Romans 11:26-27 is a conflation of Isaiah 59:20-21 and part of Isaiah 27:9, but there are important differences. One of these is that the OT has “the redeemer will come to Zion,” whereas Romans has “the deliverer will come <em>from<\/em> Zion.” The change to “from Zion” could indicate that Paul had a different textual tradition, could be the result of an intentional change by Paul, or more probably, could reflect the wording of Psalm 14:7.<\/p>\n<p>An awareness of the difficulties involved in the quotations of the OT by the NT writers will prohibit a simplistic approach and will prevent hasty conclusions. Care to ask not only which text was used but also which form of the text was used and how is obviously essential in any serious study. In addition it is necessary to allow for the possibility that the NT writers knew forms of a text that are now lost.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMethodsoftheNewTestamentWriters\">The Methods of the New Testament Writers<\/p>\n<p>The methods used by the NT writers were not unique to them. Many of these methods were also employed in first-century Judaism. In fact, both the technique used in quoting and the understanding of the OT text itself in many cases are paralleled in Judaism. For example, from the standpoint of technique used in quoting, the same kinds of formula introductions are used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the rabbinic writings, and elsewhere. The rabbinic technique of “pearl stringing,” that is, of applying verses from various parts of the OT (the Law, the Prophets, the Writings) to a subject, can be seen especially in Paul’s writings (note Rom 9:12-19 or 11:8-10). Somewhat related is the practice of using quotations that all contain a key word or key words (note 1 Pt 2:6-8, which draws together quotations using the word “stone,” or Rom 15:9-12, which joins OT verses referring to the “nations”).<\/p>\n<p>The methods used in the NT to interpret an OT text are also displayed in Judaism. Some passages interpret the OT “literally,” such as Jesus’ replies during temptation (see the quotations of Dt 8:3; 6:16; 6:13; in Mt 4:3-10), his teachings on marriage based on Genesis 2:24 (Mt 19:5), or Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom 1:17) or Genesis 15:6 (Rom 4:3-9). Many such examples could be given. With regard to prophecy, some of these statements are fulfilled in a “literal” or “direct” way in keeping with the intention of the OT (e.g., Mi 5:2, Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah; Mt 2:4-6). Jeremiah 31:31-34, the promise of the new covenant, is viewed as directly fulfilled in Christ (Heb 8:7-13). The prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 concerning the pouring out of the Spirit of the Lord is directly fulfilled in the Pentecost event (Acts 2:17-21), but the changing of the sun to darkness and the moon to blood are certainly not understood literally in connection with this event.<\/p>\n<p>A different method of interpretation is based on the concept of <em>corporate solidarity.<\/em> This technical expression is an attempt to convey the idea that the individuals among God’s people are not merely individuals; they are part of a larger whole. Consequently, what is said about the individual can apply to the whole and vice versa. This is the reason the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah is seen both as the nation (44:1) and as an individual (52:13–53:12). Also the king is sometimes viewed as representative of the nation. The easiest places to see the concept of corporate solidarity are in the effect of the sin of Achan on all the people (Jos 7) or the sin of David in numbering the people (1 Chr 21:3-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>Correspondence in history<\/em> is not so much a method of interpretation as it is a way of thinking about God. It assumes that the things that happen to God’s people are the things that have happened to previous generations and that God is faithful and operates in the present as he has in the past. Consequently, the trials and deliverance of God’s people are often expressed with words borrowed from the previous accounts of God’s people. Isaiah describes the anticipated deliverance in terms of a second exodus (11:15-16). Ezekiel describes the king set up over the people in terms of a second David (Ez 37:25). In the NT, Revelation 22 describes the new heavens and the new earth in terms of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2–3). Sometimes this technique is described as “typology,” but this term has been used for so many questionable interpretations that it is misleading. The most important thing about this concept is that it is a view of God and his working among his people.<\/p>\n<p>With these two concepts, the way that the OT is quoted in the NT can be understood. The conviction that Jesus was the promised deliverer and that the last days had dawned in his ministry are evident everywhere. The quotation of Hosea 11:1 can be used in Matthew 2:15 because of corporate solidarity and correspondence in history. What was said of the nation is true of the one who is its representative, and there is correspondence in their respective histories. Jeremiah 31:15 can be used in Matthew 2:18 because of correspondence in history and especially because Jeremiah looked forward to God’s intention for Israel and prophesied a new covenant (31:17, 31-34). Matthew saw not only the correspondence in history but believed that in Jesus this promised salvation had been granted. John 12:40 can quote Isaiah 6:10 of Jesus’ ministry, not because he twists the meaning of the OT text, but because he saw that what had happened with God’s messenger before happened again and even <em>ultimately<\/em> in Jesus’ ministry. The instances of such correspondences in history are numerous.<\/p>\n<p>There are other texts where there seems to be an <em>actualization<\/em> of the OT text. Some quotations seem to be “lived out” in the ministry of Jesus. Because of their conviction about Jesus and his kingdom, the NT writers often saw certain OT texts as appropriated and made alive by Jesus. Psalm 118:22 was not intended as a prophecy of the Messiah, but Jesus saw it as descriptive of his ministry (Mt 21:42), and the early church saw this verse as actualized in his death and resurrection (Acts 4:11). Isaiah 53 is another text that the NT views as actualized in Jesus’ ministry (see Acts 8:32-35 and 1 Pt 2:22-25). Some Christians would view Psalm 22 as a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus, but it seems instead to be the lament of a righteous OT sufferer. Through correspondence in history, and because Christians saw so much of the psalmist’s plight actualized in Jesus’ crucifixion, the psalm became the easiest way to describe what once again had happened to God’s righteous sufferer. The words of Isaiah 40:3 describe the ministry of John the Baptist (Mt 3:3). Jews had come to see this verse as a prophecy of God’s end-time salvation, and the early church saw John the Baptist fulfilling this forerunner’s task. Luke made this identification (Lk 3:4-6), but he applied the same role to Jesus’ disciples (9:52; 10:1). This seems to be a further example of actualization and correspondence in history. In other places the church has applied to Christians ideas that were previously understood of Christ (e.g., the stone in 1 Pt 2:4-5; the ministry of the Suffering Servant in Acts 13:46-47).<\/p>\n<p>The most convenient term to describe the way the OT is “fulfilled” in Christ is to say that the OT finds its climax in Jesus. Even where actual quotations are not involved, the OT ideas such as prophet, priest, or king are climaxed in him as the ideal and embodiment of all the OT models. He could tell religious authorities that “one greater than Solomon is here” (Mt 12:42) or “one greater than the temple is here” (Mt 12:6). Those passages involving correspondence in history or actualization also lead to the conviction that he is the climax of the OT Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePurposesoftheUseoftheOldTestament\">The Purposes of the Use of the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The variety of methods of interpretation and application of the OT parallels the fact that the OT was used for a variety of purposes. People tend to think only in terms of the use of the OT to show that Jesus was the Messiah, but there are a number of other uses with a variety of goals. Many OT texts are used to show Jesus is the Messiah, the fulfillment of the OT promises (Lk 4:16-21). Without lessening the fulfillment emphasis, however, other verses are applied to Jesus for other purposes: to evangelize (Acts 8:32-25); to demonstrate or convince (Acts 13:33-35); to rebuke (Mk 7:6-7; Rom 11:7-10); and to describe (Rv 1:12-15). On the other hand, many quotations of the OT in the NT are not directly related to the Messiah. OT passages are adapted to provide a word from God on some aspect of life or ethics. For example, Jesus used Genesis 2:24 to substantiate his teaching on divorce as he attempted to deal with the issues raised by the civil regulation of divorce (Dt 24:1; Mt 19:1-12). The stress on the OT commandments shows their importance for Christians (Mt 19:16-22; Rom 13:8-10). Often OT statements deal with specific problems. The problem of pride at Corinth is solved by the quotation of Jeremiah 9:24 (“Let the one boasting, boast in the Lord,” 1 Cor 1:31). First Peter 3:10-12 incorporates Psalm 34:12-16 as ethical instructions, and 3:14-15 borrows from Isaiah 8:12-13 to address the fear of suffering. The spiritual armor in Ephesians 6:14-17 is derived largely from OT passages. Such examples are so numerous that there can be no doubt that the OT is used to describe Christian existence. In fact, nearly every subject discussed in the NT is presented somewhere via OT terms and quotations. Frequently OT passages are used to describe the church as God’s end-time community. Hosea 2:23 is used to show that those who formerly were not God’s people now are (Rom 9:25-26; 1 Pt 2:10). Several OT texts contribute to the description of the church in 1 Peter 2:9. OT texts that speak of the word of God describe the apostles’ preaching (Rom 10:8; 1 Pt 1:24-25). OT quotations describe the sinful condition of humanity (Rom 3:10-20). Salvation is explained through OT concepts and symbols and is based on OT statements (Jn 6:31-33; Gal 3:6-13). The words of Daniel describe the Second Coming (7:13-14; cf. Mt 24:30). Even the worship of early Christians was expressed through use of the OT (see Acts 4:24; Rom 11:34-35).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings. One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers. The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotation...","summary_en":"BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings. One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers. The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotation...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24796,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of Matthew","title_en":"Gospel of Matthew","content_ro":"<h3>MATTHEW, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>First Gospel and first book of the NT.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date and Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Nowhere does the text of Matthew itself clearly identify the author. Yet, as did the ancient church, we may ascribe authorship to Matthew the apostle. He was otherwise known as Levi (see Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27, 29). Before Jesus called him, he was a tax collector (Mt 9:9ff.). It is interesting to note that Matthew called himself a tax collector, while none of the other Gospel writers did. Perhaps he did this to show how great an ascendancy he had been granted when the Lord called him, for tax collectors were despised and considered the lowest of people. The Gospel itself bears the impress of one knowledgeable of currency, for the Gospel writer speaks quite specifically about a two-drachma tax (Mt 17:24), a four-drachma coin (v 27), and the various talents (18:24; 25:15ff.).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateandProvenance\">Date and Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Scholars are divided about the date when Matthew was written primarily because there is still debate about which Gospel was first written: Matthew or Mark. If Mark was written before Matthew, then Matthew was very indebted to Mark for a great deal of material, and vice versa. Those who argue for Matthew’s priority do so on the basis that Matthew’s Gospel was (1) recognized in the early church as the first Gospel, (2) written to those who first needed a written account—the Jews, and (3) placed first in the NT canon. Whether it preceded or followed Mark, most scholars are certain that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (<span>AD<\/span> 70) because the temple is spoken of as still standing (Mt 24:15). Irenaeus indicated that Matthew wrote this Gospel while Peter and Paul were in Rome. This would make the time of writing in the 60s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<h5>Apologetics<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew wrote to a community of Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, located in a center such as Antioch in Syria. The community was surrounded and beset by Jews hostile to the claims of Jesus and the Christian community.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew wrote as a Jew for Jews. In Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew contends, the OT reached its appointed goal. Jesus is the Messiah of Israel’s expectation. In the opening chapter Matthew identifies him as “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (1:1), indeed as “God with us” (v 23). In later chapters Jesus is revealed as the Son of Man of Daniel 7 and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. Throughout the book (Mt 1:22–27:10) the events of Jesus’ life are represented as the “fulfillment” of OT prophecies. He comes to offer Israel salvation from sin (1:21). Nevertheless, the Jews have rejected him as their Messiah, and have thus placed themselves in the most perilous position (11:20-24; 21:33-46). One explanation for Israel’s rejection of Jesus is the failure of the Jewish religious leadership to prepare the people for his coming. In the strongest language, Matthew denounces the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. They have forsaken the Word of God in favor of their own traditions (ch 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Teaching the Church<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew also wrote as a Christian for Christians. He presents Jesus as a new Moses, indeed as Yahweh incarnate, expounding his own law for his people (ch 5), now newly constituted around his person under the leadership of the apostles (10:2-4; 16:18-19; 23:8-10). If the Christian church is to function properly, the teaching of the Messiah on a host of moral and spiritual issues must be taken with utmost seriousness (chs 5–7, 18). To aid this purpose, Matthew takes the form of a theological textbook or a handbook for the church, to instruct the people of God concerning the person and work of Jesus. That these teachings may be more readily and firmly grasped, Matthew presents them in a highly organized and memorable way. To facilitate the learning of the material, he arranges Jesus’ teachings in five major discourses (interlocked with narrative portions) in which teachings of the same kind are clustered together (e.g., ch 10 consists of a charge to missionaries, and ch 13 consists of seven parables of the kingdom). Matthew’s leading theological themes may be identified as the <em>Son<\/em> of God (Jesus is Yahweh incarnate, “God with us”), the <em>kingdom<\/em> of God (in Jesus, God is invading history to inaugurate his final rule), the <em>salvation<\/em> of God (as the servant-king, Jesus has come to “save his people from their sins,” 1:21), and the <em>people<\/em> of God (Jesus has come to build his church, a redeemed community consisting of both Jews and Gentiles).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the Savior (1:1–2:23)<\/h5>\n<p>His name reveals his mission: “Jesus” (1:1) means “Yahweh saves.” He is “the son of Abraham,” who comes to fulfill God’s ancient promises to Jews and Gentiles (Gn 12:1-3). He is “Christ [or Messiah],” the son of David (Mt 1:1), who comes to inaugurate the kingdom of God (4:17). More than that, as evidenced both by prophecy (1:22-23) and by the nature of his conception (vv 18-20), he is “God with us”—now come to “save his people from their sins” (v 21). As the son of David, and in accord with prophecy, he is born in Bethlehem (2:1-6). Drawn by the star of Israel’s Messiah (cf. Nm 24:17), Gentiles come to worship him (Mt 2:1-12). When Herod seeks to destroy him, Jesus finds sanctuary in a gentile land; God’s calling his Son from Egypt marks the beginning of a mighty saving work—nothing less than a new exodus under Jesus, the new Moses (vv 13-20). Having been born in the humblest of circumstances, Jesus now comes to live in Nazareth (vv 21-23).<\/p>\n<h5>The Beginnings of Ministry (3:1–4:25)<\/h5>\n<p>In face of the judgment that Jesus is about to execute (as evidence of the kingdom’s arrival), John the Baptist calls Israel to repentance (3:1-12). Jesus’ submission to John’s baptism, and the voice from heaven, show him to be a King who serves his subjects by taking their sins upon himself (vv 13-17). Like Israel at the exodus, Jesus is led into the wilderness for a period of testing (4:1). When the devil seeks to turn him away both from God and from his appointed mission, Jesus gains victory by depending upon God and his Word (vv 1-11). Returning to Galilee, Jesus deliberately settles in territory with both Jewish and Gentile inhabitants (vv 12-16) and begins a ministry of preaching (like John, he calls for repentance in face of the dawning kingdom), teaching (he calls his first disciples), and healing (vv 17-25).<\/p>\n\n<h5>The Sermon on the Mount (5:1–7:29)<\/h5>\n<p>Just as Moses ascended Sinai to receive God’s law for Israel, so Jesus—as both the new Moses and as God incarnate—ascends the mountain to set forth his instruction for the citizens of the kingdom of God (5:1-2). He begins with <em>gospel<\/em> (not law), declaring that God shall surely save those who—beset by sin—trust in God’s mercy, obey his commands, and long for him to establish his righteous rule in the earth (vv 3-12). Toward that end, disciples are a preservative (salt) and a witness (light) in a sinful society (vv 13-16). As the one who has come not to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to bring them to completion (i.e., to usher in the new age to which the OT pointed— v 17), Jesus calls his disciples to steadfast obedience to God’s law as now expounded by the Lawgiver himself (vv 18-20). God’s commands embrace inner desires as well as outward actions, must not be watered down or rationalized, and call for more radical obedience than ever before, now that the end has come (vv 21-48). In their giving, praying, and fasting, disciples are to combat hypocrisy by God-centeredness and self-forgetfulness (6:1-18). The Lord’s Prayer (vv 9-13) calls upon God to honor his name by establishing his rule on earth, and to pardon, protect, and provide for his children. Given this prayer, and given the disciples’ God-centered view of reality (vv 19-24), there is no cause for anxiety (vv 25-34). Disciples must be discerning without being judgmental (7:1-6), and depend on God for the power needed to love others (6:7-12). Having completed his exposition of the law (5:21–7:12), Jesus now calls would-be disciples to follow him (7:13-14), warns against false teachers (vv 15-20), and insists that true disciples do God’s will (vv 21-23).<\/p>\n<h5>The Authority of Jesus (8:1–9:38)<\/h5>\n<p>Having given his authority <em>verbal<\/em> expression in teaching (7:28-29), Jesus now gives it <em>visible<\/em> expression in a series of healing miracles, again revealing himself as the servant of Isaiah (8:17). He heals a leper, a centurion’s servant, and a bleeding woman by his word (8:1-13; 9:20-22). His touch dispels a fever and raises a dead person (8:14-15; 9:23-25). A combination of word and touch cures the blind (9:27-31). As “God with us,” Jesus calls for unqualified allegiance (8:18-22). Though lacking even the natural protection enjoyed by animals (v 20), he demonstrates his sovereignty over the natural world—and thus his deity—by calming the storm (vv 23-27). In direct confrontations with demons, he shows his superiority over them (8:28-34; 9:32-33). Exercising God’s own authority, he declares sins forgiven (9:1-8) and calls sinners to repentance and to discipleship (vv 9-13). Joy over the kingdom’s inauguration is mingled with longing for its consummation (vv 14-17). The summary of 9:35-38 echoes 4:23-25, recalls chapters 5–7, and prepares for the next major discourse.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Charge to the Missionaries (10:1-42)<\/h5>\n<p>In response to the prayers that he has commanded, Christ now invests 12 disciples with apostolic authority and sends them out into his harvest field (9:37–10:4). The discourse speaks both of the apostles’ immediate mission (10:5-15) and of the church’s broader mission (vv 16-42). For now, the apostles are to concentrate on evangelizing Jews (v 6), in preparation for the mission to Gentiles (28:19). The “worthy” are those who welcome the apostles and their message; the “unworthy,” those who reject them (10:11-15). In the broader mission, there is sure to be persecution (vv 16-19, 24-25), but this will actually aid the witness (vv 17-23). God will save his faithful missionaries (vv 19-23) but judge those who oppress them and who disown Christ (vv 26-39). A sure reward awaits both the herald and the recipient of the message (vv 37-42).<\/p>\n<h5>Christ the Lord (11:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The judgment John predicted is already under way; one’s stand in the last judgment would be determined by his response to the words and works of Jesus (11:2-6). Like his herald, Jesus meets with widespread hostility and indifference (vv 7-19). Given the finality of the grace attending his ministry, those who reject him will suffer the severest judgment (vv 20-24). Yet there are others—the lowly, the burdened, the teachable—who learn (by revelation from God the Father and God the Son) that the “Lord of heaven and earth” is also the “gentle and humble” God who comes to give rest to those who trust in him (vv 25-30). As the one who ushers in the new age (12:6), Jesus claims that he is the Lord of the Sabbath (vv 1-8). True rest (11:29) comes to those who come to Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Viewing Jesus as the destroyer of the Sabbath, the Pharisees ascribe his miraculous powers to Satan (12:22-24). On the contrary, says Jesus, the rule he is inaugurating is crushing Satan’s empire (vv 25-29). To reject this truth in the full awareness of what one is doing is to commit the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit (vv 30-32); the words of Jesus’ accusers expose them as persons destined for condemnation (vv 33-37). The requested sign from heaven will not be given. Jesus’ resurrection is the only sign they need.<\/p>\n<h5>The Parables of the Kingdom (13:1-58)<\/h5>\n<p>This, the third of Matthew’s five great discourses, contains seven parables. In the parable of the sower, four kinds of soil—hard, shallow, cluttered, and fruitful—illustrate the various responses to Jesus’ preaching (13:3-9, 18-23). As those who have received Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom (4:17), the disciples are given more light, but the crowds must accept that initial proclamation before further light is given (13:10-17, 34-35). In both the parable of the weeds (vv 24-30, 36-43) and the parable of the net (vv 47-50), Jesus assures his disciples that the final judgment will separate true believers from false, and warns against hasty, premature judgments (cf. 7:1-5). The parables of the mustard and the yeast (13:31-33) contrast the smallness of the kingdom’s inauguration with the fullness of its consummation. The parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl (vv 44-46) depict the kingdom as a value far surpassing all others (cf. 6:33). Thus illuminated by Jesus, disciples have new treasures to add to their old (13:51-52). The people of Nazareth, on the contrary, echo the crowds’ lack of understanding and the Pharisees’ hostility (vv 53-58).<\/p>\n<h5>Spiritual Conflict (14:1–16:12)<\/h5>\n<p>In 14:1-12 the preaching of John exposes the weakness of Herod, and the beheading of John anticipates the crucifixion of Jesus (cf. 17:12). The true king is not Herod but Jesus. He is sovereign over nature itself (14:13-36)—God incarnate, “God with us,” who feeds the hungry multitude in the wilderness (as God once provided manna) and walks upon and calms the sea (see Ps 89:9). Peter models Christians’ faith, fear, and utter dependence on Jesus (Mt 14:28-31). The Pharisees and teachers of the law appear to worship God but in fact are devoted to their own traditions, which they offer not as supplements but as <em>rivals<\/em> to the Word of God (15:1-9). In verses 10-20 Jesus teaches both that ceremonial law apart from moral law becomes empty ritual, and that the old distinction between clean and unclean foods (Lv 11) is now as obsolete as the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. To underscore the point, Jesus enters pagan territory, heals a Canaanite (15:21-28) and feeds a Gentile multitude (vv 29-39). Pharisees and Sadducees, for all their differences, are united in their opposition to Jesus (16:1-12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming Salvation (16:13–17:27)<\/h5>\n<p>Going beyond the crowds’ respectful but inadequate estimates, Peter confesses Jesus to be “the Christ, the Son of the living God”—a recognition of Jesus’ deity granted by divine revelation (16:13-17; cf. 11:25-26). As it is God the Son who possesses and builds the church, Satan and death are victims rather than victors. Jesus will build his church on Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. The apostles’ prohibiting and granting entry into the church (“binding” and “loosing,” respectively) depends upon the prior decision of heaven (i.e., God’s revelation of apostolic teaching). In face of Peter’s confession and the persistent false notions of messiahship (16:20, 23), Jesus now (for the first time) predicts his sufferings and coming glory (vv 21-28). In anticipation of that glory, Jesus is transfigured before certain disciples; Moses and Elijah join God the Father in bearing witness to the unique splendor of God the Son (17:1-8). Jesus then demonstrated his power by combating demonic powers (vv 14-18) and exhibited his authority by choosing to pay the temple tax using miraculous means (vv 24-27).<\/p>\n<h5>Greatness in the Kingdom (18:1-35)<\/h5>\n<p>In this, the fourth of Matthew’s five great discourses, Jesus concentrates on the character and attitudes of church members. He calls upon his followers both to <em>become<\/em> and to <em>welcome<\/em> the lowliest (18:1-5). Leaders especially are enjoined to deal harshly with themselves but gently with those under their care (vv 6-9). Remembering the Father’s love for sinners, Christians are to make every effort (both by prayer and by personal initiative) to restore offending brothers, with excommunication being the last resort (vv 10-20). Church members who really understand the Father’s amazing grace will never stop offering forgiveness and compassion to those who wrong them (vv 21-35).<\/p>\n<h5>Instructions on the Way to Jerusalem (19:1–20:34)<\/h5>\n<p>Given God’s creation ordinances, says Jesus, divorce itself is never <em>commanded;<\/em> it is only <em>permitted<\/em> in the case of sin—that is, where the marital bond has already been severed through infidelity (19:1-9). As in 5:17-48, Jesus calls his followers to radical obedience (19:10-12). Besides instructing disciples to become like children (18:1-4), Jesus embraces children themselves with his love (19:13-15). He appeals likewise to the rich young man (vv 16-22); but the man, while faithful to the commands about love of neighbor, is too bound by his wealth to give himself unreservedly to loving God. Yet those who abandon all to follow Jesus will receive wealth untold in the coming kingdom (vv 27-30). The basis for such blessings lies not in human merit but in the astonishing generosity of the gracious God (20:1-16). None—not even the rich—are beyond the power of his grace. But God offers free salvation at great cost to himself (vv 17-19). Confronting competitiveness and ambition among his followers, Jesus teaches them that true greatness lies not in lording it over others but in serving them (vv 20-34), as shall be supremely demonstrated in his death as “a ransom for many” (v 28).<\/p>\n<h5>Confrontations in Jerusalem (21:1–22:46)<\/h5>\n<p>As the Servant-King (cf. 3:17), and as the Messiah destined for suffering (cf. 16:16-21; 20:28), Jesus enters Jerusalem not upon a war horse but upon a donkey’s colt, for he purposes not to declare war on his enemies but to hand himself over to them—and thus achieve his triumph through defeat (21:1-11). As Lord of the temple, he demands that its commerce be halted and that it become (as God ordained) a place of worship for everyone, including the sick, the young, and the alien (21:12-17; cf. Mk 11:17). He outwits those who refuse to acknowledge the heavenly source of his and John’s authority (Mt 21:23-27). In dramatic and devastating fashion, first visibly (by cursing the fig tree—vv 18-22) and then verbally (in the three parables of 21:28–22:14), Jesus pronounces judgment upon those Jews who have refused to acknowledge him as Messiah and Son of God. Henceforth, the true people of God are those who believe in Jesus, whether Jews or Gentiles. He calls upon his people to pledge their supreme allegiance to God. In the resurrection what will matter most is one’s relationship to God (22:23-33). Indeed, he who loves God with his whole being and his neighbor as himself has kept the two foundational commandments of the OT (vv 34-40). Henceforth, submitting to God means rightly recognizing Jesus; he is indeed David’s son (Mt 1:1), but he is supremely David’s Lord—the exalted Son of God (22:41-46; cf. 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Woes upon the Scribes and Pharisees (23:1-39)<\/h5>\n<p>Five reasons are stated for Jesus’ denunciation of the Jewish religious leaders. First is their hypocrisy: their practice contradicts their teaching (23:1-4), their external purity conceals inner rottenness (vv 25-28), and they appear to champion God’s cause but are really enemies of God’s servants (vv 29-36). Second is the pride that prompts their hypocrisy (23:5-12). Third is their exploitation of, and their baleful influence upon, those under their charge (vv 13-15). Fourth is their preoccupation with the minutia of the law to the neglect of its weightier matters (vv 16-24). Fifth is their responsibility for the dreadful judgment that the whole nation is about to experience (vv 33-39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the End (24:1–25:46)<\/h5>\n<p>The introduction to this, the fifth and last of Matthew’s great discourses, makes it plain that there is the closest connection (for both Jesus and his disciples) between the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age (24:1-3). Jesus first characterizes the time between his first advent and his return: there will be natural catastrophes, international warfare, the rise of false messiahs, the persecution of God’s people, and the universal proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom (vv 4-14). Then Jesus speaks of the catastrophe that is soon to befall the Jewish nation in particular (as already foretold in 22:7; 23:38), culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70 (24:15-25). Sometime thereafter (but after an interval known only to God the Father—v 36), the Son of Man will return in great glory, amid apocalyptic signs, to gather his people (vv 26-31). The present generation will not pass away before judgment falls upon Israel (vv 15-25), so let listeners take heed (vv 32-35). The same warning applies to the more remote coming of the Son of Man (vv 36-51): both the certainty of the event and the uncertainty of its time call for vigilance and faithfulness in the interval, for that event will bring both salvation and judgment. To drive the lesson home, Jesus tells the parables of the wise and foolish virgins (25:1-13) and the talents (vv 14-30). The concluding parable of the sheep and the goats (vv 31-46) speaks of the urgent necessity of making the right response to the “brothers”—that is, the messengers—of Christ; those who feed, clothe, and otherwise care for the messengers of Christ thereby testify to their reception of the apostles’ message and their Lord (cf. 10:40-42).<\/p>\n<h5>The Road to Golgotha (26:1–27:26)<\/h5>\n<p>As though in response to Jesus’ own prediction, the chief priests and the elders hatch their murderous plot (26:1-5), soon to be aided by Judas (vv 14-16). The anointing at Bethany (vv 6-13) testifies to the extravagance of love and the imminence of death. At the Passover meal (vv 17-30), signaling at what sacrifice the new exodus comes about (cf. 2:15), Jesus interprets his forthcoming death as an atoning sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (26:26-28; cf. 1:21) and anticipates the day of final victory over sin and death in the consummated kingdom (26:29). Jesus’ agony in Gethsemane (vv 36-46) expresses his horror over taking his people’s sins upon himself. By a stupendous act of filial obedience, he submits his will to the Father, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled (26:54; cf. Is 53). As the servant of God destined to suffer, Jesus resists attempts to thwart his arrest (26:47-56). The Jews’ supreme court (the Sanhedrin) and their loftiest religious official (the high priest) condemn Jesus as a blasphemer because he dares to identify himself as “the Christ, the Son of God” (26:57-68; cf. 16:16). As though joining the court’s repudiation, Peter—in fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy (26:31-35)—disclaims knowledge of Jesus (vv 69-75). Judas’s disillusionment finds expression in suicide (27:3-10). The Jews hand Jesus over to Pilate the Roman governor (vv 1-2), he alone having the authority to pronounce the death sentence. Knowing that the charge of blasphemy will carry no weight with Pilate, the Jews now represent Jesus as a threat to Caesar. In the end, Pilate responds not to specific charges and evidence but to pressure from the crowd and the threat of riot (vv 11-25). He releases Barabbas and delivers Jesus to be crucified (v 26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Death of Jesus (27:27-66)<\/h5>\n<p>Following his humiliating treatment at the hands of the Roman soldiers, Jesus is led to the place of execution; weakened by the beatings, he requires assistance (27:27-32). He refuses the proffered narcotic so that he might keep his head clear (v 34). His being executed with malefactors (v 38) testifies to the purpose of his death (cf. 1:21). A steady stream of abuse is hurled at him, in blasphemous disregard of the truth of the superscription “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (27:37-44). Finally, out of the darkness Jesus utters the cry of dereliction; now is revealed the ultimate horror (that from which his soul shrank in Gethsemane), the sin-bearer’s supreme agony—the beloved Son’s abandonment by the Father (vv 45-49). Having cried out with a loud voice (cf. Jn 19:30), Jesus dies (27:50). Immediately, the saving effects of his death become evident (vv 51-53): sinners, now forgiven, have access to the holy God (the veil of the temple is rent asunder), and there is hope of resurrection for those who have died. As at the beginning (2:1-12), Gentiles instead of Jews confess Jesus (27:54; contrast 26:63-65). Joseph’s careful attentiveness to Jesus’ burial contrasts with the ongoing attempts of the chief priests and Pharisees to resist Jesus’ power (27:57-66).<\/p>\n<h5>The Triumph of the Savior (28:1-20)<\/h5>\n<p>Amid great glory and power and joy, the Savior’s victory over death is announced and attested (28:1-7). The risen Jesus appears first to the women who stayed with him during his crucifixion (28:8-10; cf. 27:61; 28:1). The Jews’ response to the guards’ report signals their growing desperation before irresistible reality (28:11-15). Meeting with the 11 disciples on the mountain in Galilee (vv 16-20), Jesus, the new Moses, continues his instructions. He now reveals the evangelistic purpose for which Matthew has been preparing readers from the very threshold of his Gospel. The apostles are to disciple all peoples by baptizing them into the name of the triune God and by teaching them to obey all that Jesus has commanded. The apostles go forth in the assurance that Jesus—as the Lord—stands over them, and that Jesus—as Immanuel—stands with them until the very end of the age.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Luke, Gospel of; Mark, Gospel of; Matthew (Person); Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MATTHEW, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>First Gospel and first book of the NT.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date and Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Nowhere does the text of Matthew itself clearly identify the author. Yet, as did the ancient church, we may ascribe authorship to Matthew the apostle. He was otherwise known as Levi (see Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27, 29). Before Jesus called him, he was a tax collector (Mt 9:9ff.). It is interesting to note that Matthew called himself a tax collector, while none of the other Gospel writers did. Perhaps he did this to show how great an ascendancy he had been granted when the Lord called him, for tax collectors were despised and considered the lowest of people. The Gospel itself bears the impress of one knowledgeable of currency, for the Gospel writer speaks quite specifically about a two-drachma tax (Mt 17:24), a four-drachma coin (v 27), and the various talents (18:24; 25:15ff.).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateandProvenance\">Date and Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Scholars are divided about the date when Matthew was written primarily because there is still debate about which Gospel was first written: Matthew or Mark. If Mark was written before Matthew, then Matthew was very indebted to Mark for a great deal of material, and vice versa. Those who argue for Matthew’s priority do so on the basis that Matthew’s Gospel was (1) recognized in the early church as the first Gospel, (2) written to those who first needed a written account—the Jews, and (3) placed first in the NT canon. Whether it preceded or followed Mark, most scholars are certain that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (<span>AD<\/span> 70) because the temple is spoken of as still standing (Mt 24:15). Irenaeus indicated that Matthew wrote this Gospel while Peter and Paul were in Rome. This would make the time of writing in the 60s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<h5>Apologetics<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew wrote to a community of Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, located in a center such as Antioch in Syria. The community was surrounded and beset by Jews hostile to the claims of Jesus and the Christian community.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew wrote as a Jew for Jews. In Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew contends, the OT reached its appointed goal. Jesus is the Messiah of Israel’s expectation. In the opening chapter Matthew identifies him as “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (1:1), indeed as “God with us” (v 23). In later chapters Jesus is revealed as the Son of Man of Daniel 7 and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. Throughout the book (Mt 1:22–27:10) the events of Jesus’ life are represented as the “fulfillment” of OT prophecies. He comes to offer Israel salvation from sin (1:21). Nevertheless, the Jews have rejected him as their Messiah, and have thus placed themselves in the most perilous position (11:20-24; 21:33-46). One explanation for Israel’s rejection of Jesus is the failure of the Jewish religious leadership to prepare the people for his coming. In the strongest language, Matthew denounces the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. They have forsaken the Word of God in favor of their own traditions (ch 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Teaching the Church<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew also wrote as a Christian for Christians. He presents Jesus as a new Moses, indeed as Yahweh incarnate, expounding his own law for his people (ch 5), now newly constituted around his person under the leadership of the apostles (10:2-4; 16:18-19; 23:8-10). If the Christian church is to function properly, the teaching of the Messiah on a host of moral and spiritual issues must be taken with utmost seriousness (chs 5–7, 18). To aid this purpose, Matthew takes the form of a theological textbook or a handbook for the church, to instruct the people of God concerning the person and work of Jesus. That these teachings may be more readily and firmly grasped, Matthew presents them in a highly organized and memorable way. To facilitate the learning of the material, he arranges Jesus’ teachings in five major discourses (interlocked with narrative portions) in which teachings of the same kind are clustered together (e.g., ch 10 consists of a charge to missionaries, and ch 13 consists of seven parables of the kingdom). Matthew’s leading theological themes may be identified as the <em>Son<\/em> of God (Jesus is Yahweh incarnate, “God with us”), the <em>kingdom<\/em> of God (in Jesus, God is invading history to inaugurate his final rule), the <em>salvation<\/em> of God (as the servant-king, Jesus has come to “save his people from their sins,” 1:21), and the <em>people<\/em> of God (Jesus has come to build his church, a redeemed community consisting of both Jews and Gentiles).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the Savior (1:1–2:23)<\/h5>\n<p>His name reveals his mission: “Jesus” (1:1) means “Yahweh saves.” He is “the son of Abraham,” who comes to fulfill God’s ancient promises to Jews and Gentiles (Gn 12:1-3). He is “Christ [or Messiah],” the son of David (Mt 1:1), who comes to inaugurate the kingdom of God (4:17). More than that, as evidenced both by prophecy (1:22-23) and by the nature of his conception (vv 18-20), he is “God with us”—now come to “save his people from their sins” (v 21). As the son of David, and in accord with prophecy, he is born in Bethlehem (2:1-6). Drawn by the star of Israel’s Messiah (cf. Nm 24:17), Gentiles come to worship him (Mt 2:1-12). When Herod seeks to destroy him, Jesus finds sanctuary in a gentile land; God’s calling his Son from Egypt marks the beginning of a mighty saving work—nothing less than a new exodus under Jesus, the new Moses (vv 13-20). Having been born in the humblest of circumstances, Jesus now comes to live in Nazareth (vv 21-23).<\/p>\n<h5>The Beginnings of Ministry (3:1–4:25)<\/h5>\n<p>In face of the judgment that Jesus is about to execute (as evidence of the kingdom’s arrival), John the Baptist calls Israel to repentance (3:1-12). Jesus’ submission to John’s baptism, and the voice from heaven, show him to be a King who serves his subjects by taking their sins upon himself (vv 13-17). Like Israel at the exodus, Jesus is led into the wilderness for a period of testing (4:1). When the devil seeks to turn him away both from God and from his appointed mission, Jesus gains victory by depending upon God and his Word (vv 1-11). Returning to Galilee, Jesus deliberately settles in territory with both Jewish and Gentile inhabitants (vv 12-16) and begins a ministry of preaching (like John, he calls for repentance in face of the dawning kingdom), teaching (he calls his first disciples), and healing (vv 17-25).<\/p>\n\n<h5>The Sermon on the Mount (5:1–7:29)<\/h5>\n<p>Just as Moses ascended Sinai to receive God’s law for Israel, so Jesus—as both the new Moses and as God incarnate—ascends the mountain to set forth his instruction for the citizens of the kingdom of God (5:1-2). He begins with <em>gospel<\/em> (not law), declaring that God shall surely save those who—beset by sin—trust in God’s mercy, obey his commands, and long for him to establish his righteous rule in the earth (vv 3-12). Toward that end, disciples are a preservative (salt) and a witness (light) in a sinful society (vv 13-16). As the one who has come not to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to bring them to completion (i.e., to usher in the new age to which the OT pointed— v 17), Jesus calls his disciples to steadfast obedience to God’s law as now expounded by the Lawgiver himself (vv 18-20). God’s commands embrace inner desires as well as outward actions, must not be watered down or rationalized, and call for more radical obedience than ever before, now that the end has come (vv 21-48). In their giving, praying, and fasting, disciples are to combat hypocrisy by God-centeredness and self-forgetfulness (6:1-18). The Lord’s Prayer (vv 9-13) calls upon God to honor his name by establishing his rule on earth, and to pardon, protect, and provide for his children. Given this prayer, and given the disciples’ God-centered view of reality (vv 19-24), there is no cause for anxiety (vv 25-34). Disciples must be discerning without being judgmental (7:1-6), and depend on God for the power needed to love others (6:7-12). Having completed his exposition of the law (5:21–7:12), Jesus now calls would-be disciples to follow him (7:13-14), warns against false teachers (vv 15-20), and insists that true disciples do God’s will (vv 21-23).<\/p>\n<h5>The Authority of Jesus (8:1–9:38)<\/h5>\n<p>Having given his authority <em>verbal<\/em> expression in teaching (7:28-29), Jesus now gives it <em>visible<\/em> expression in a series of healing miracles, again revealing himself as the servant of Isaiah (8:17). He heals a leper, a centurion’s servant, and a bleeding woman by his word (8:1-13; 9:20-22). His touch dispels a fever and raises a dead person (8:14-15; 9:23-25). A combination of word and touch cures the blind (9:27-31). As “God with us,” Jesus calls for unqualified allegiance (8:18-22). Though lacking even the natural protection enjoyed by animals (v 20), he demonstrates his sovereignty over the natural world—and thus his deity—by calming the storm (vv 23-27). In direct confrontations with demons, he shows his superiority over them (8:28-34; 9:32-33). Exercising God’s own authority, he declares sins forgiven (9:1-8) and calls sinners to repentance and to discipleship (vv 9-13). Joy over the kingdom’s inauguration is mingled with longing for its consummation (vv 14-17). The summary of 9:35-38 echoes 4:23-25, recalls chapters 5–7, and prepares for the next major discourse.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Charge to the Missionaries (10:1-42)<\/h5>\n<p>In response to the prayers that he has commanded, Christ now invests 12 disciples with apostolic authority and sends them out into his harvest field (9:37–10:4). The discourse speaks both of the apostles’ immediate mission (10:5-15) and of the church’s broader mission (vv 16-42). For now, the apostles are to concentrate on evangelizing Jews (v 6), in preparation for the mission to Gentiles (28:19). The “worthy” are those who welcome the apostles and their message; the “unworthy,” those who reject them (10:11-15). In the broader mission, there is sure to be persecution (vv 16-19, 24-25), but this will actually aid the witness (vv 17-23). God will save his faithful missionaries (vv 19-23) but judge those who oppress them and who disown Christ (vv 26-39). A sure reward awaits both the herald and the recipient of the message (vv 37-42).<\/p>\n<h5>Christ the Lord (11:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The judgment John predicted is already under way; one’s stand in the last judgment would be determined by his response to the words and works of Jesus (11:2-6). Like his herald, Jesus meets with widespread hostility and indifference (vv 7-19). Given the finality of the grace attending his ministry, those who reject him will suffer the severest judgment (vv 20-24). Yet there are others—the lowly, the burdened, the teachable—who learn (by revelation from God the Father and God the Son) that the “Lord of heaven and earth” is also the “gentle and humble” God who comes to give rest to those who trust in him (vv 25-30). As the one who ushers in the new age (12:6), Jesus claims that he is the Lord of the Sabbath (vv 1-8). True rest (11:29) comes to those who come to Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Viewing Jesus as the destroyer of the Sabbath, the Pharisees ascribe his miraculous powers to Satan (12:22-24). On the contrary, says Jesus, the rule he is inaugurating is crushing Satan’s empire (vv 25-29). To reject this truth in the full awareness of what one is doing is to commit the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit (vv 30-32); the words of Jesus’ accusers expose them as persons destined for condemnation (vv 33-37). The requested sign from heaven will not be given. Jesus’ resurrection is the only sign they need.<\/p>\n<h5>The Parables of the Kingdom (13:1-58)<\/h5>\n<p>This, the third of Matthew’s five great discourses, contains seven parables. In the parable of the sower, four kinds of soil—hard, shallow, cluttered, and fruitful—illustrate the various responses to Jesus’ preaching (13:3-9, 18-23). As those who have received Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom (4:17), the disciples are given more light, but the crowds must accept that initial proclamation before further light is given (13:10-17, 34-35). In both the parable of the weeds (vv 24-30, 36-43) and the parable of the net (vv 47-50), Jesus assures his disciples that the final judgment will separate true believers from false, and warns against hasty, premature judgments (cf. 7:1-5). The parables of the mustard and the yeast (13:31-33) contrast the smallness of the kingdom’s inauguration with the fullness of its consummation. The parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl (vv 44-46) depict the kingdom as a value far surpassing all others (cf. 6:33). Thus illuminated by Jesus, disciples have new treasures to add to their old (13:51-52). The people of Nazareth, on the contrary, echo the crowds’ lack of understanding and the Pharisees’ hostility (vv 53-58).<\/p>\n<h5>Spiritual Conflict (14:1–16:12)<\/h5>\n<p>In 14:1-12 the preaching of John exposes the weakness of Herod, and the beheading of John anticipates the crucifixion of Jesus (cf. 17:12). The true king is not Herod but Jesus. He is sovereign over nature itself (14:13-36)—God incarnate, “God with us,” who feeds the hungry multitude in the wilderness (as God once provided manna) and walks upon and calms the sea (see Ps 89:9). Peter models Christians’ faith, fear, and utter dependence on Jesus (Mt 14:28-31). The Pharisees and teachers of the law appear to worship God but in fact are devoted to their own traditions, which they offer not as supplements but as <em>rivals<\/em> to the Word of God (15:1-9). In verses 10-20 Jesus teaches both that ceremonial law apart from moral law becomes empty ritual, and that the old distinction between clean and unclean foods (Lv 11) is now as obsolete as the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. To underscore the point, Jesus enters pagan territory, heals a Canaanite (15:21-28) and feeds a Gentile multitude (vv 29-39). Pharisees and Sadducees, for all their differences, are united in their opposition to Jesus (16:1-12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming Salvation (16:13–17:27)<\/h5>\n<p>Going beyond the crowds’ respectful but inadequate estimates, Peter confesses Jesus to be “the Christ, the Son of the living God”—a recognition of Jesus’ deity granted by divine revelation (16:13-17; cf. 11:25-26). As it is God the Son who possesses and builds the church, Satan and death are victims rather than victors. Jesus will build his church on Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. The apostles’ prohibiting and granting entry into the church (“binding” and “loosing,” respectively) depends upon the prior decision of heaven (i.e., God’s revelation of apostolic teaching). In face of Peter’s confession and the persistent false notions of messiahship (16:20, 23), Jesus now (for the first time) predicts his sufferings and coming glory (vv 21-28). In anticipation of that glory, Jesus is transfigured before certain disciples; Moses and Elijah join God the Father in bearing witness to the unique splendor of God the Son (17:1-8). Jesus then demonstrated his power by combating demonic powers (vv 14-18) and exhibited his authority by choosing to pay the temple tax using miraculous means (vv 24-27).<\/p>\n<h5>Greatness in the Kingdom (18:1-35)<\/h5>\n<p>In this, the fourth of Matthew’s five great discourses, Jesus concentrates on the character and attitudes of church members. He calls upon his followers both to <em>become<\/em> and to <em>welcome<\/em> the lowliest (18:1-5). Leaders especially are enjoined to deal harshly with themselves but gently with those under their care (vv 6-9). Remembering the Father’s love for sinners, Christians are to make every effort (both by prayer and by personal initiative) to restore offending brothers, with excommunication being the last resort (vv 10-20). Church members who really understand the Father’s amazing grace will never stop offering forgiveness and compassion to those who wrong them (vv 21-35).<\/p>\n<h5>Instructions on the Way to Jerusalem (19:1–20:34)<\/h5>\n<p>Given God’s creation ordinances, says Jesus, divorce itself is never <em>commanded;<\/em> it is only <em>permitted<\/em> in the case of sin—that is, where the marital bond has already been severed through infidelity (19:1-9). As in 5:17-48, Jesus calls his followers to radical obedience (19:10-12). Besides instructing disciples to become like children (18:1-4), Jesus embraces children themselves with his love (19:13-15). He appeals likewise to the rich young man (vv 16-22); but the man, while faithful to the commands about love of neighbor, is too bound by his wealth to give himself unreservedly to loving God. Yet those who abandon all to follow Jesus will receive wealth untold in the coming kingdom (vv 27-30). The basis for such blessings lies not in human merit but in the astonishing generosity of the gracious God (20:1-16). None—not even the rich—are beyond the power of his grace. But God offers free salvation at great cost to himself (vv 17-19). Confronting competitiveness and ambition among his followers, Jesus teaches them that true greatness lies not in lording it over others but in serving them (vv 20-34), as shall be supremely demonstrated in his death as “a ransom for many” (v 28).<\/p>\n<h5>Confrontations in Jerusalem (21:1–22:46)<\/h5>\n<p>As the Servant-King (cf. 3:17), and as the Messiah destined for suffering (cf. 16:16-21; 20:28), Jesus enters Jerusalem not upon a war horse but upon a donkey’s colt, for he purposes not to declare war on his enemies but to hand himself over to them—and thus achieve his triumph through defeat (21:1-11). As Lord of the temple, he demands that its commerce be halted and that it become (as God ordained) a place of worship for everyone, including the sick, the young, and the alien (21:12-17; cf. Mk 11:17). He outwits those who refuse to acknowledge the heavenly source of his and John’s authority (Mt 21:23-27). In dramatic and devastating fashion, first visibly (by cursing the fig tree—vv 18-22) and then verbally (in the three parables of 21:28–22:14), Jesus pronounces judgment upon those Jews who have refused to acknowledge him as Messiah and Son of God. Henceforth, the true people of God are those who believe in Jesus, whether Jews or Gentiles. He calls upon his people to pledge their supreme allegiance to God. In the resurrection what will matter most is one’s relationship to God (22:23-33). Indeed, he who loves God with his whole being and his neighbor as himself has kept the two foundational commandments of the OT (vv 34-40). Henceforth, submitting to God means rightly recognizing Jesus; he is indeed David’s son (Mt 1:1), but he is supremely David’s Lord—the exalted Son of God (22:41-46; cf. 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Woes upon the Scribes and Pharisees (23:1-39)<\/h5>\n<p>Five reasons are stated for Jesus’ denunciation of the Jewish religious leaders. First is their hypocrisy: their practice contradicts their teaching (23:1-4), their external purity conceals inner rottenness (vv 25-28), and they appear to champion God’s cause but are really enemies of God’s servants (vv 29-36). Second is the pride that prompts their hypocrisy (23:5-12). Third is their exploitation of, and their baleful influence upon, those under their charge (vv 13-15). Fourth is their preoccupation with the minutia of the law to the neglect of its weightier matters (vv 16-24). Fifth is their responsibility for the dreadful judgment that the whole nation is about to experience (vv 33-39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the End (24:1–25:46)<\/h5>\n<p>The introduction to this, the fifth and last of Matthew’s great discourses, makes it plain that there is the closest connection (for both Jesus and his disciples) between the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age (24:1-3). Jesus first characterizes the time between his first advent and his return: there will be natural catastrophes, international warfare, the rise of false messiahs, the persecution of God’s people, and the universal proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom (vv 4-14). Then Jesus speaks of the catastrophe that is soon to befall the Jewish nation in particular (as already foretold in 22:7; 23:38), culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70 (24:15-25). Sometime thereafter (but after an interval known only to God the Father—v 36), the Son of Man will return in great glory, amid apocalyptic signs, to gather his people (vv 26-31). The present generation will not pass away before judgment falls upon Israel (vv 15-25), so let listeners take heed (vv 32-35). The same warning applies to the more remote coming of the Son of Man (vv 36-51): both the certainty of the event and the uncertainty of its time call for vigilance and faithfulness in the interval, for that event will bring both salvation and judgment. To drive the lesson home, Jesus tells the parables of the wise and foolish virgins (25:1-13) and the talents (vv 14-30). The concluding parable of the sheep and the goats (vv 31-46) speaks of the urgent necessity of making the right response to the “brothers”—that is, the messengers—of Christ; those who feed, clothe, and otherwise care for the messengers of Christ thereby testify to their reception of the apostles’ message and their Lord (cf. 10:40-42).<\/p>\n<h5>The Road to Golgotha (26:1–27:26)<\/h5>\n<p>As though in response to Jesus’ own prediction, the chief priests and the elders hatch their murderous plot (26:1-5), soon to be aided by Judas (vv 14-16). The anointing at Bethany (vv 6-13) testifies to the extravagance of love and the imminence of death. At the Passover meal (vv 17-30), signaling at what sacrifice the new exodus comes about (cf. 2:15), Jesus interprets his forthcoming death as an atoning sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (26:26-28; cf. 1:21) and anticipates the day of final victory over sin and death in the consummated kingdom (26:29). Jesus’ agony in Gethsemane (vv 36-46) expresses his horror over taking his people’s sins upon himself. By a stupendous act of filial obedience, he submits his will to the Father, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled (26:54; cf. Is 53). As the servant of God destined to suffer, Jesus resists attempts to thwart his arrest (26:47-56). The Jews’ supreme court (the Sanhedrin) and their loftiest religious official (the high priest) condemn Jesus as a blasphemer because he dares to identify himself as “the Christ, the Son of God” (26:57-68; cf. 16:16). As though joining the court’s repudiation, Peter—in fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy (26:31-35)—disclaims knowledge of Jesus (vv 69-75). Judas’s disillusionment finds expression in suicide (27:3-10). The Jews hand Jesus over to Pilate the Roman governor (vv 1-2), he alone having the authority to pronounce the death sentence. Knowing that the charge of blasphemy will carry no weight with Pilate, the Jews now represent Jesus as a threat to Caesar. In the end, Pilate responds not to specific charges and evidence but to pressure from the crowd and the threat of riot (vv 11-25). He releases Barabbas and delivers Jesus to be crucified (v 26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Death of Jesus (27:27-66)<\/h5>\n<p>Following his humiliating treatment at the hands of the Roman soldiers, Jesus is led to the place of execution; weakened by the beatings, he requires assistance (27:27-32). He refuses the proffered narcotic so that he might keep his head clear (v 34). His being executed with malefactors (v 38) testifies to the purpose of his death (cf. 1:21). A steady stream of abuse is hurled at him, in blasphemous disregard of the truth of the superscription “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (27:37-44). Finally, out of the darkness Jesus utters the cry of dereliction; now is revealed the ultimate horror (that from which his soul shrank in Gethsemane), the sin-bearer’s supreme agony—the beloved Son’s abandonment by the Father (vv 45-49). Having cried out with a loud voice (cf. Jn 19:30), Jesus dies (27:50). Immediately, the saving effects of his death become evident (vv 51-53): sinners, now forgiven, have access to the holy God (the veil of the temple is rent asunder), and there is hope of resurrection for those who have died. As at the beginning (2:1-12), Gentiles instead of Jews confess Jesus (27:54; contrast 26:63-65). Joseph’s careful attentiveness to Jesus’ burial contrasts with the ongoing attempts of the chief priests and Pharisees to resist Jesus’ power (27:57-66).<\/p>\n<h5>The Triumph of the Savior (28:1-20)<\/h5>\n<p>Amid great glory and power and joy, the Savior’s victory over death is announced and attested (28:1-7). The risen Jesus appears first to the women who stayed with him during his crucifixion (28:8-10; cf. 27:61; 28:1). The Jews’ response to the guards’ report signals their growing desperation before irresistible reality (28:11-15). Meeting with the 11 disciples on the mountain in Galilee (vv 16-20), Jesus, the new Moses, continues his instructions. He now reveals the evangelistic purpose for which Matthew has been preparing readers from the very threshold of his Gospel. The apostles are to disciple all peoples by baptizing them into the name of the triune God and by teaching them to obey all that Jesus has commanded. The apostles go forth in the assurance that Jesus—as the Lord—stands over them, and that Jesus—as Immanuel—stands with them until the very end of the age.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Luke, Gospel of; Mark, Gospel of; Matthew (Person); Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MATTHEW, Gospel of First Gospel and first book of the NT. Preview • Author • Date and Provenance • Purpose • Content Author Nowhere does the text of Matthew itself clearly identify the author. Yet, as did the ancient church, we may ascribe authorship to Matthew the apostle. He was otherwise known as Levi (see Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27, 29). Before Jesus called him, he was a tax collector (Mt 9:9ff.). It is interesting to note that Matthew called himself a tax collector, while none of the other Gospel ...","summary_en":"MATTHEW, Gospel of First Gospel and first book of the NT. Preview • Author • Date and Provenance • Purpose • Content Author Nowhere does the text of Matthew itself clearly identify the author. Yet, as did the ancient church, we may ascribe authorship to Matthew the apostle. He was otherwise known as Levi (see Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27, 29). Before Jesus called him, he was a tax collector (Mt 9:9ff.). It is interesting to note that Matthew called himself a tax collector, while none of the other Gospel ...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"17":[{"id":54875,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:17","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:17<\/strong> <em>Why ask me?<\/em> The man, as a Jew, should have known that God’s standard of goodness is clearly reflected in his commandments. The man’s questions (also 19:20) show that he was not trusting in the adequacy of God’s revealed will. • <em>only One . . . is good:<\/em> The man may have believed he could act with perfect goodness on his own, whereas only God is truly <em>good<\/em> and thus the source of all goodness. • <em>keep the commandments:<\/em> Jesus has in mind either leading the man to see his sinfulness by asking him to do the impossible, or more probably, restating that good works are a telling gauge of the truthfulness of a person’s faith (see 7:13-27).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:17<\/strong> <em>Why ask me?<\/em> The man, as a Jew, should have known that God’s standard of goodness is clearly reflected in his commandments. The man’s questions (also 19:20) show that he was not trusting in the adequacy of God’s revealed will. • <em>only One . . . is good:<\/em> The man may have believed he could act with perfect goodness on his own, whereas only God is truly <em>good<\/em> and thus the source of all goodness. • <em>keep the commandments:<\/em> Jesus has in mind either leading the man to see his sinfulness by asking him to do the impossible, or more probably, restating that good works are a telling gauge of the truthfulness of a person’s faith (see 7:13-27).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:17 Why ask me? The man, as a Jew, should have known that God’s standard of goodness is clearly reflected in his commandments. The man’s questions (also 19:20) show that he was not trusting in the adequacy of God’s revealed will. • only One . . . is good: The man may have believed he could act with perfect goodness on his own, whereas only God is truly good and thus the source of all goodness. • keep the commandments: Jesus has in mind either leading the man to see his sinfulness by asking ...","summary_en":"19:17 Why ask me? The man, as a Jew, should have known that God’s standard of goodness is clearly reflected in his commandments. The man’s questions (also 19:20) show that he was not trusting in the adequacy of God’s revealed will. • only One . . . is good: The man may have believed he could act with perfect goodness on his own, whereas only God is truly good and thus the source of all goodness. • keep the commandments: Jesus has in mind either leading the man to see his sinfulness by asking ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82501,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:17","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:17<\/strong> <em>Why ask me?<\/em> The man, as a Jew, should have known that God’s standard of goodness is clearly reflected in his commandments. The man’s questions (also 19:20) show that he was not trusting in the adequacy of God’s revealed will. • <em>only One . . . is good:<\/em> The man may have believed he could act with perfect goodness on his own, whereas only God is truly <em>good<\/em> and thus the source of all goodness. • <em>keep the commandments:<\/em> Jesus has in mind either leading the man to see his sinfulness by asking him to do the impossible, or more probably, restating that good works are a telling gauge of the truthfulness of a person’s faith (see 7:13-27).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:17<\/strong> <em>Why ask me?<\/em> The man, as a Jew, should have known that God’s standard of goodness is clearly reflected in his commandments. The man’s questions (also 19:20) show that he was not trusting in the adequacy of God’s revealed will. • <em>only One . . . is good:<\/em> The man may have believed he could act with perfect goodness on his own, whereas only God is truly <em>good<\/em> and thus the source of all goodness. • <em>keep the commandments:<\/em> Jesus has in mind either leading the man to see his sinfulness by asking him to do the impossible, or more probably, restating that good works are a telling gauge of the truthfulness of a person’s faith (see 7:13-27).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:17 Why ask me? The man, as a Jew, should have known that God’s standard of goodness is clearly reflected in his commandments. The man’s questions (also 19:20) show that he was not trusting in the adequacy of God’s revealed will. • only One . . . is good: The man may have believed he could act with perfect goodness on his own, whereas only God is truly good and thus the source of all goodness. • keep the commandments: Jesus has in mind either leading the man to see his sinfulness by asking ...","summary_en":"19:17 Why ask me? The man, as a Jew, should have known that God’s standard of goodness is clearly reflected in his commandments. The man’s questions (also 19:20) show that he was not trusting in the adequacy of God’s revealed will. • only One . . . is good: The man may have believed he could act with perfect goodness on his own, whereas only God is truly good and thus the source of all goodness. • keep the commandments: Jesus has in mind either leading the man to see his sinfulness by asking ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110127,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:17","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:17<\/strong> <em>Why ask me?<\/em> The man, as a Jew, should have known that God’s standard of goodness is clearly reflected in his commandments. The man’s questions (also 19:20) show that he was not trusting in the adequacy of God’s revealed will. • <em>only One . . . is good:<\/em> The man may have believed he could act with perfect goodness on his own, whereas only God is truly <em>good<\/em> and thus the source of all goodness. • <em>keep the commandments:<\/em> Jesus has in mind either leading the man to see his sinfulness by asking him to do the impossible, or more probably, restating that good works are a telling gauge of the truthfulness of a person’s faith (see 7:13-27).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:17<\/strong> <em>Why ask me?<\/em> The man, as a Jew, should have known that God’s standard of goodness is clearly reflected in his commandments. The man’s questions (also 19:20) show that he was not trusting in the adequacy of God’s revealed will. • <em>only One . . . is good:<\/em> The man may have believed he could act with perfect goodness on his own, whereas only God is truly <em>good<\/em> and thus the source of all goodness. • <em>keep the commandments:<\/em> Jesus has in mind either leading the man to see his sinfulness by asking him to do the impossible, or more probably, restating that good works are a telling gauge of the truthfulness of a person’s faith (see 7:13-27).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:17 Why ask me? The man, as a Jew, should have known that God’s standard of goodness is clearly reflected in his commandments. The man’s questions (also 19:20) show that he was not trusting in the adequacy of God’s revealed will. • only One . . . is good: The man may have believed he could act with perfect goodness on his own, whereas only God is truly good and thus the source of all goodness. • keep the commandments: Jesus has in mind either leading the man to see his sinfulness by asking ...","summary_en":"19:17 Why ask me? The man, as a Jew, should have known that God’s standard of goodness is clearly reflected in his commandments. The man’s questions (also 19:20) show that he was not trusting in the adequacy of God’s revealed will. • only One . . . is good: The man may have believed he could act with perfect goodness on his own, whereas only God is truly good and thus the source of all goodness. • keep the commandments: Jesus has in mind either leading the man to see his sinfulness by asking ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":137753,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:17","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:17<\/strong> <em>Why ask me?<\/em> The man, as a Jew, should have known that God’s standard of goodness is clearly reflected in his commandments. The man’s questions (also 19:20) show that he was not trusting in the adequacy of God’s revealed will. • <em>only One . . . is good:<\/em> The man may have believed he could act with perfect goodness on his own, whereas only God is truly <em>good<\/em> and thus the source of all goodness. • <em>keep the commandments:<\/em> Jesus has in mind either leading the man to see his sinfulness by asking him to do the impossible, or more probably, restating that good works are a telling gauge of the truthfulness of a person’s faith (see 7:13-27).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:17<\/strong> <em>Why ask me?<\/em> The man, as a Jew, should have known that God’s standard of goodness is clearly reflected in his commandments. The man’s questions (also 19:20) show that he was not trusting in the adequacy of God’s revealed will. • <em>only One . . . is good:<\/em> The man may have believed he could act with perfect goodness on his own, whereas only God is truly <em>good<\/em> and thus the source of all goodness. • <em>keep the commandments:<\/em> Jesus has in mind either leading the man to see his sinfulness by asking him to do the impossible, or more probably, restating that good works are a telling gauge of the truthfulness of a person’s faith (see 7:13-27).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:17 Why ask me? The man, as a Jew, should have known that God’s standard of goodness is clearly reflected in his commandments. The man’s questions (also 19:20) show that he was not trusting in the adequacy of God’s revealed will. • only One . . . is good: The man may have believed he could act with perfect goodness on his own, whereas only God is truly good and thus the source of all goodness. • keep the commandments: Jesus has in mind either leading the man to see his sinfulness by asking ...","summary_en":"19:17 Why ask me? The man, as a Jew, should have known that God’s standard of goodness is clearly reflected in his commandments. The man’s questions (also 19:20) show that he was not trusting in the adequacy of God’s revealed will. • only One . . . is good: The man may have believed he could act with perfect goodness on his own, whereas only God is truly good and thus the source of all goodness. • keep the commandments: Jesus has in mind either leading the man to see his sinfulness by asking ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"19":[{"id":61091,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Family Redeemer","title_en":"The Family Redeemer","content_ro":"<h3>The Family Redeemer<\/h3>\n<p>The idea of a family redeemer, established in the law of Moses, finds a vivid example in the story of Ruth. In that book, the expression “family redeemer” has a specific, technical meaning. Elsewhere, the underlying Hebrew term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">go’el<\/span> is translated “nearest relative” (Num 27:11; 35:19, 24).<\/p>\n<p>According to the law, family redeemers had three main responsibilities in Israel:<\/p>\n<p>1. Leviticus 25:23-34 stipulates that if an Israelite became so poor that he had to sell his land, a family member was to pay off the debt so the land would remain in the family. If no relative could purchase the land and the seller was unable to buy it back, the land still reverted to the seller or his heirs in the Jubilee (fiftieth) Year. Two examples of family redeemers buying land for their relatives are Boaz (Ruth 4:1-12) and Jeremiah (Jer 32:6-15).<\/p>\n<p>2. Similarly, if an Israelite became so poor he had to sell himself into debt-slavery, a family redeemer was to buy his relative from service to a non-relative (Lev 25:35-55). The poor Israelite would pay off his debt by working for his relative, who could be expected to treat him better than a stranger would.<\/p>\n<p>3. The family redeemer was to pursue justice for an Israelite killed by another’s hand, under conditions described in Num 35:9-34.<\/p>\n<p>The concept of the family redeemer reminds us that God is the true owner of all things, and he commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev 19:18; Matt 22:39-40). The New Testament presents Jesus as the perfect family redeemer, buying us from the slavery to sin and death into which we had sold ourselves (Matt 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; Eph 1:7; Titus 2:14; Rev 5:9; cp. Exod 6:6; 15:13; Ps 130:8; Isa 44:22; 59:20; 63:9; Jer 31:11). In the spirit of the Old Testament family redeemer (such as Boaz) and following the example of our great Redeemer, we, too, are commanded to act with love and compassion toward others (Lev 19:11-18; Matt 5:43-48; 19:19; 22:37-40; Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8-9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 25:23-55; Num 35:9-34; Ruth 2:20; 3:9, 12; 4:1-10; Isa 59:20; Jer 32:6-15; Matt 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; Eph 1:7; Titus 2:14; Rev 5:9<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Family Redeemer<\/h3>\n<p>The idea of a family redeemer, established in the law of Moses, finds a vivid example in the story of Ruth. In that book, the expression “family redeemer” has a specific, technical meaning. Elsewhere, the underlying Hebrew term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">go’el<\/span> is translated “nearest relative” (Num 27:11; 35:19, 24).<\/p>\n<p>According to the law, family redeemers had three main responsibilities in Israel:<\/p>\n<p>1. Leviticus 25:23-34 stipulates that if an Israelite became so poor that he had to sell his land, a family member was to pay off the debt so the land would remain in the family. If no relative could purchase the land and the seller was unable to buy it back, the land still reverted to the seller or his heirs in the Jubilee (fiftieth) Year. Two examples of family redeemers buying land for their relatives are Boaz (Ruth 4:1-12) and Jeremiah (Jer 32:6-15).<\/p>\n<p>2. Similarly, if an Israelite became so poor he had to sell himself into debt-slavery, a family redeemer was to buy his relative from service to a non-relative (Lev 25:35-55). The poor Israelite would pay off his debt by working for his relative, who could be expected to treat him better than a stranger would.<\/p>\n<p>3. The family redeemer was to pursue justice for an Israelite killed by another’s hand, under conditions described in Num 35:9-34.<\/p>\n<p>The concept of the family redeemer reminds us that God is the true owner of all things, and he commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev 19:18; Matt 22:39-40). The New Testament presents Jesus as the perfect family redeemer, buying us from the slavery to sin and death into which we had sold ourselves (Matt 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; Eph 1:7; Titus 2:14; Rev 5:9; cp. Exod 6:6; 15:13; Ps 130:8; Isa 44:22; 59:20; 63:9; Jer 31:11). In the spirit of the Old Testament family redeemer (such as Boaz) and following the example of our great Redeemer, we, too, are commanded to act with love and compassion toward others (Lev 19:11-18; Matt 5:43-48; 19:19; 22:37-40; Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8-9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 25:23-55; Num 35:9-34; Ruth 2:20; 3:9, 12; 4:1-10; Isa 59:20; Jer 32:6-15; Matt 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; Eph 1:7; Titus 2:14; Rev 5:9<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Family Redeemer The idea of a family redeemer, established in the law of Moses, finds a vivid example in the story of Ruth. In that book, the expression “family redeemer” has a specific, technical meaning. Elsewhere, the underlying Hebrew term go’el is translated “nearest relative” (Num 27:11; 35:19, 24). According to the law, family redeemers had three main responsibilities in Israel: 1. Leviticus 25:23-34 stipulates that if an Israelite became so poor that he had to sell his land, a fam...","summary_en":"The Family Redeemer The idea of a family redeemer, established in the law of Moses, finds a vivid example in the story of Ruth. In that book, the expression “family redeemer” has a specific, technical meaning. Elsewhere, the underlying Hebrew term go’el is translated “nearest relative” (Num 27:11; 35:19, 24). According to the law, family redeemers had three main responsibilities in Israel: 1. Leviticus 25:23-34 stipulates that if an Israelite became so poor that he had to sell his land, a fam...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":64123,"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":88717,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Family Redeemer","title_en":"The Family Redeemer","content_ro":"<h3>The Family Redeemer<\/h3>\n<p>The idea of a family redeemer, established in the law of Moses, finds a vivid example in the story of Ruth. In that book, the expression “family redeemer” has a specific, technical meaning. Elsewhere, the underlying Hebrew term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">go’el<\/span> is translated “nearest relative” (Num 27:11; 35:19, 24).<\/p>\n<p>According to the law, family redeemers had three main responsibilities in Israel:<\/p>\n<p>1. Leviticus 25:23-34 stipulates that if an Israelite became so poor that he had to sell his land, a family member was to pay off the debt so the land would remain in the family. If no relative could purchase the land and the seller was unable to buy it back, the land still reverted to the seller or his heirs in the Jubilee (fiftieth) Year. Two examples of family redeemers buying land for their relatives are Boaz (Ruth 4:1-12) and Jeremiah (Jer 32:6-15).<\/p>\n<p>2. Similarly, if an Israelite became so poor he had to sell himself into debt-slavery, a family redeemer was to buy his relative from service to a non-relative (Lev 25:35-55). The poor Israelite would pay off his debt by working for his relative, who could be expected to treat him better than a stranger would.<\/p>\n<p>3. The family redeemer was to pursue justice for an Israelite killed by another’s hand, under conditions described in Num 35:9-34.<\/p>\n<p>The concept of the family redeemer reminds us that God is the true owner of all things, and he commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev 19:18; Matt 22:39-40). The New Testament presents Jesus as the perfect family redeemer, buying us from the slavery to sin and death into which we had sold ourselves (Matt 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; Eph 1:7; Titus 2:14; Rev 5:9; cp. Exod 6:6; 15:13; Ps 130:8; Isa 44:22; 59:20; 63:9; Jer 31:11). In the spirit of the Old Testament family redeemer (such as Boaz) and following the example of our great Redeemer, we, too, are commanded to act with love and compassion toward others (Lev 19:11-18; Matt 5:43-48; 19:19; 22:37-40; Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8-9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 25:23-55; Num 35:9-34; Ruth 2:20; 3:9, 12; 4:1-10; Isa 59:20; Jer 32:6-15; Matt 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; Eph 1:7; Titus 2:14; Rev 5:9<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Family Redeemer<\/h3>\n<p>The idea of a family redeemer, established in the law of Moses, finds a vivid example in the story of Ruth. In that book, the expression “family redeemer” has a specific, technical meaning. Elsewhere, the underlying Hebrew term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">go’el<\/span> is translated “nearest relative” (Num 27:11; 35:19, 24).<\/p>\n<p>According to the law, family redeemers had three main responsibilities in Israel:<\/p>\n<p>1. Leviticus 25:23-34 stipulates that if an Israelite became so poor that he had to sell his land, a family member was to pay off the debt so the land would remain in the family. If no relative could purchase the land and the seller was unable to buy it back, the land still reverted to the seller or his heirs in the Jubilee (fiftieth) Year. Two examples of family redeemers buying land for their relatives are Boaz (Ruth 4:1-12) and Jeremiah (Jer 32:6-15).<\/p>\n<p>2. Similarly, if an Israelite became so poor he had to sell himself into debt-slavery, a family redeemer was to buy his relative from service to a non-relative (Lev 25:35-55). The poor Israelite would pay off his debt by working for his relative, who could be expected to treat him better than a stranger would.<\/p>\n<p>3. The family redeemer was to pursue justice for an Israelite killed by another’s hand, under conditions described in Num 35:9-34.<\/p>\n<p>The concept of the family redeemer reminds us that God is the true owner of all things, and he commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev 19:18; Matt 22:39-40). The New Testament presents Jesus as the perfect family redeemer, buying us from the slavery to sin and death into which we had sold ourselves (Matt 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; Eph 1:7; Titus 2:14; Rev 5:9; cp. Exod 6:6; 15:13; Ps 130:8; Isa 44:22; 59:20; 63:9; Jer 31:11). In the spirit of the Old Testament family redeemer (such as Boaz) and following the example of our great Redeemer, we, too, are commanded to act with love and compassion toward others (Lev 19:11-18; Matt 5:43-48; 19:19; 22:37-40; Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8-9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 25:23-55; Num 35:9-34; Ruth 2:20; 3:9, 12; 4:1-10; Isa 59:20; Jer 32:6-15; Matt 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; Eph 1:7; Titus 2:14; Rev 5:9<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Family Redeemer The idea of a family redeemer, established in the law of Moses, finds a vivid example in the story of Ruth. In that book, the expression “family redeemer” has a specific, technical meaning. Elsewhere, the underlying Hebrew term go’el is translated “nearest relative” (Num 27:11; 35:19, 24). According to the law, family redeemers had three main responsibilities in Israel: 1. Leviticus 25:23-34 stipulates that if an Israelite became so poor that he had to sell his land, a fam...","summary_en":"The Family Redeemer The idea of a family redeemer, established in the law of Moses, finds a vivid example in the story of Ruth. In that book, the expression “family redeemer” has a specific, technical meaning. Elsewhere, the underlying Hebrew term go’el is translated “nearest relative” (Num 27:11; 35:19, 24). According to the law, family redeemers had three main responsibilities in Israel: 1. Leviticus 25:23-34 stipulates that if an Israelite became so poor that he had to sell his land, a fam...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":91749,"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":116343,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Family Redeemer","title_en":"The Family Redeemer","content_ro":"<h3>The Family Redeemer<\/h3>\n<p>The idea of a family redeemer, established in the law of Moses, finds a vivid example in the story of Ruth. In that book, the expression “family redeemer” has a specific, technical meaning. Elsewhere, the underlying Hebrew term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">go’el<\/span> is translated “nearest relative” (Num 27:11; 35:19, 24).<\/p>\n<p>According to the law, family redeemers had three main responsibilities in Israel:<\/p>\n<p>1. Leviticus 25:23-34 stipulates that if an Israelite became so poor that he had to sell his land, a family member was to pay off the debt so the land would remain in the family. If no relative could purchase the land and the seller was unable to buy it back, the land still reverted to the seller or his heirs in the Jubilee (fiftieth) Year. Two examples of family redeemers buying land for their relatives are Boaz (Ruth 4:1-12) and Jeremiah (Jer 32:6-15).<\/p>\n<p>2. Similarly, if an Israelite became so poor he had to sell himself into debt-slavery, a family redeemer was to buy his relative from service to a non-relative (Lev 25:35-55). The poor Israelite would pay off his debt by working for his relative, who could be expected to treat him better than a stranger would.<\/p>\n<p>3. The family redeemer was to pursue justice for an Israelite killed by another’s hand, under conditions described in Num 35:9-34.<\/p>\n<p>The concept of the family redeemer reminds us that God is the true owner of all things, and he commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev 19:18; Matt 22:39-40). The New Testament presents Jesus as the perfect family redeemer, buying us from the slavery to sin and death into which we had sold ourselves (Matt 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; Eph 1:7; Titus 2:14; Rev 5:9; cp. Exod 6:6; 15:13; Ps 130:8; Isa 44:22; 59:20; 63:9; Jer 31:11). In the spirit of the Old Testament family redeemer (such as Boaz) and following the example of our great Redeemer, we, too, are commanded to act with love and compassion toward others (Lev 19:11-18; Matt 5:43-48; 19:19; 22:37-40; Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8-9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 25:23-55; Num 35:9-34; Ruth 2:20; 3:9, 12; 4:1-10; Isa 59:20; Jer 32:6-15; Matt 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; Eph 1:7; Titus 2:14; Rev 5:9<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Family Redeemer<\/h3>\n<p>The idea of a family redeemer, established in the law of Moses, finds a vivid example in the story of Ruth. In that book, the expression “family redeemer” has a specific, technical meaning. Elsewhere, the underlying Hebrew term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">go’el<\/span> is translated “nearest relative” (Num 27:11; 35:19, 24).<\/p>\n<p>According to the law, family redeemers had three main responsibilities in Israel:<\/p>\n<p>1. Leviticus 25:23-34 stipulates that if an Israelite became so poor that he had to sell his land, a family member was to pay off the debt so the land would remain in the family. If no relative could purchase the land and the seller was unable to buy it back, the land still reverted to the seller or his heirs in the Jubilee (fiftieth) Year. Two examples of family redeemers buying land for their relatives are Boaz (Ruth 4:1-12) and Jeremiah (Jer 32:6-15).<\/p>\n<p>2. Similarly, if an Israelite became so poor he had to sell himself into debt-slavery, a family redeemer was to buy his relative from service to a non-relative (Lev 25:35-55). The poor Israelite would pay off his debt by working for his relative, who could be expected to treat him better than a stranger would.<\/p>\n<p>3. The family redeemer was to pursue justice for an Israelite killed by another’s hand, under conditions described in Num 35:9-34.<\/p>\n<p>The concept of the family redeemer reminds us that God is the true owner of all things, and he commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev 19:18; Matt 22:39-40). The New Testament presents Jesus as the perfect family redeemer, buying us from the slavery to sin and death into which we had sold ourselves (Matt 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; Eph 1:7; Titus 2:14; Rev 5:9; cp. Exod 6:6; 15:13; Ps 130:8; Isa 44:22; 59:20; 63:9; Jer 31:11). In the spirit of the Old Testament family redeemer (such as Boaz) and following the example of our great Redeemer, we, too, are commanded to act with love and compassion toward others (Lev 19:11-18; Matt 5:43-48; 19:19; 22:37-40; Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8-9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 25:23-55; Num 35:9-34; Ruth 2:20; 3:9, 12; 4:1-10; Isa 59:20; Jer 32:6-15; Matt 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; Eph 1:7; Titus 2:14; Rev 5:9<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Family Redeemer The idea of a family redeemer, established in the law of Moses, finds a vivid example in the story of Ruth. In that book, the expression “family redeemer” has a specific, technical meaning. Elsewhere, the underlying Hebrew term go’el is translated “nearest relative” (Num 27:11; 35:19, 24). According to the law, family redeemers had three main responsibilities in Israel: 1. Leviticus 25:23-34 stipulates that if an Israelite became so poor that he had to sell his land, a fam...","summary_en":"The Family Redeemer The idea of a family redeemer, established in the law of Moses, finds a vivid example in the story of Ruth. In that book, the expression “family redeemer” has a specific, technical meaning. Elsewhere, the underlying Hebrew term go’el is translated “nearest relative” (Num 27:11; 35:19, 24). According to the law, family redeemers had three main responsibilities in Israel: 1. Leviticus 25:23-34 stipulates that if an Israelite became so poor that he had to sell his land, a fam...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":119375,"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":143969,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Family Redeemer","title_en":"The Family Redeemer","content_ro":"<h3>The Family Redeemer<\/h3>\n<p>The idea of a family redeemer, established in the law of Moses, finds a vivid example in the story of Ruth. In that book, the expression “family redeemer” has a specific, technical meaning. Elsewhere, the underlying Hebrew term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">go’el<\/span> is translated “nearest relative” (Num 27:11; 35:19, 24).<\/p>\n<p>According to the law, family redeemers had three main responsibilities in Israel:<\/p>\n<p>1. Leviticus 25:23-34 stipulates that if an Israelite became so poor that he had to sell his land, a family member was to pay off the debt so the land would remain in the family. If no relative could purchase the land and the seller was unable to buy it back, the land still reverted to the seller or his heirs in the Jubilee (fiftieth) Year. Two examples of family redeemers buying land for their relatives are Boaz (Ruth 4:1-12) and Jeremiah (Jer 32:6-15).<\/p>\n<p>2. Similarly, if an Israelite became so poor he had to sell himself into debt-slavery, a family redeemer was to buy his relative from service to a non-relative (Lev 25:35-55). The poor Israelite would pay off his debt by working for his relative, who could be expected to treat him better than a stranger would.<\/p>\n<p>3. The family redeemer was to pursue justice for an Israelite killed by another’s hand, under conditions described in Num 35:9-34.<\/p>\n<p>The concept of the family redeemer reminds us that God is the true owner of all things, and he commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev 19:18; Matt 22:39-40). The New Testament presents Jesus as the perfect family redeemer, buying us from the slavery to sin and death into which we had sold ourselves (Matt 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; Eph 1:7; Titus 2:14; Rev 5:9; cp. Exod 6:6; 15:13; Ps 130:8; Isa 44:22; 59:20; 63:9; Jer 31:11). In the spirit of the Old Testament family redeemer (such as Boaz) and following the example of our great Redeemer, we, too, are commanded to act with love and compassion toward others (Lev 19:11-18; Matt 5:43-48; 19:19; 22:37-40; Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8-9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 25:23-55; Num 35:9-34; Ruth 2:20; 3:9, 12; 4:1-10; Isa 59:20; Jer 32:6-15; Matt 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; Eph 1:7; Titus 2:14; Rev 5:9<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Family Redeemer<\/h3>\n<p>The idea of a family redeemer, established in the law of Moses, finds a vivid example in the story of Ruth. In that book, the expression “family redeemer” has a specific, technical meaning. Elsewhere, the underlying Hebrew term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">go’el<\/span> is translated “nearest relative” (Num 27:11; 35:19, 24).<\/p>\n<p>According to the law, family redeemers had three main responsibilities in Israel:<\/p>\n<p>1. Leviticus 25:23-34 stipulates that if an Israelite became so poor that he had to sell his land, a family member was to pay off the debt so the land would remain in the family. If no relative could purchase the land and the seller was unable to buy it back, the land still reverted to the seller or his heirs in the Jubilee (fiftieth) Year. Two examples of family redeemers buying land for their relatives are Boaz (Ruth 4:1-12) and Jeremiah (Jer 32:6-15).<\/p>\n<p>2. Similarly, if an Israelite became so poor he had to sell himself into debt-slavery, a family redeemer was to buy his relative from service to a non-relative (Lev 25:35-55). The poor Israelite would pay off his debt by working for his relative, who could be expected to treat him better than a stranger would.<\/p>\n<p>3. The family redeemer was to pursue justice for an Israelite killed by another’s hand, under conditions described in Num 35:9-34.<\/p>\n<p>The concept of the family redeemer reminds us that God is the true owner of all things, and he commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev 19:18; Matt 22:39-40). The New Testament presents Jesus as the perfect family redeemer, buying us from the slavery to sin and death into which we had sold ourselves (Matt 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; Eph 1:7; Titus 2:14; Rev 5:9; cp. Exod 6:6; 15:13; Ps 130:8; Isa 44:22; 59:20; 63:9; Jer 31:11). In the spirit of the Old Testament family redeemer (such as Boaz) and following the example of our great Redeemer, we, too, are commanded to act with love and compassion toward others (Lev 19:11-18; Matt 5:43-48; 19:19; 22:37-40; Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8-9).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 25:23-55; Num 35:9-34; Ruth 2:20; 3:9, 12; 4:1-10; Isa 59:20; Jer 32:6-15; Matt 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; Eph 1:7; Titus 2:14; Rev 5:9<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Family Redeemer The idea of a family redeemer, established in the law of Moses, finds a vivid example in the story of Ruth. In that book, the expression “family redeemer” has a specific, technical meaning. Elsewhere, the underlying Hebrew term go’el is translated “nearest relative” (Num 27:11; 35:19, 24). According to the law, family redeemers had three main responsibilities in Israel: 1. Leviticus 25:23-34 stipulates that if an Israelite became so poor that he had to sell his land, a fam...","summary_en":"The Family Redeemer The idea of a family redeemer, established in the law of Moses, finds a vivid example in the story of Ruth. In that book, the expression “family redeemer” has a specific, technical meaning. Elsewhere, the underlying Hebrew term go’el is translated “nearest relative” (Num 27:11; 35:19, 24). According to the law, family redeemers had three main responsibilities in Israel: 1. Leviticus 25:23-34 stipulates that if an Israelite became so poor that he had to sell his land, a fam...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":147001,"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}],"21":[{"id":27186,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Needle","title_en":"Needle","content_ro":"<h3>NEEDLE<\/h3>\n<p>Object used in Jesus’ lesson about the rich man and entrance into God’s kingdom. Following his discussion with the rich young ruler, Jesus told his disciples that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!” (Mt 19:24, <span>nlt<\/span>; Mk 10:25; Lk 18:25). Jesus was not condemning riches or wealth but rather the change of will and false security that they may engender, as was the case with the rich young ruler (cf. Mt 19:21-22; Mk 10:21-22; Lk 18:22-23). Entrance into God’s kingdom is an act of God, not of man. Using the largest land animal in Palestine, Jesus paralleled the absurdity of a camel’s passing through the eye of a needle with a rich man’s attempt to use his position and possessions to gain entrance into heaven. A similar expression is found in rabbinic literature, where the elephant is pictured as passing through the eye of a needle.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NEEDLE<\/h3>\n<p>Object used in Jesus’ lesson about the rich man and entrance into God’s kingdom. Following his discussion with the rich young ruler, Jesus told his disciples that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!” (Mt 19:24, <span>nlt<\/span>; Mk 10:25; Lk 18:25). Jesus was not condemning riches or wealth but rather the change of will and false security that they may engender, as was the case with the rich young ruler (cf. Mt 19:21-22; Mk 10:21-22; Lk 18:22-23). Entrance into God’s kingdom is an act of God, not of man. Using the largest land animal in Palestine, Jesus paralleled the absurdity of a camel’s passing through the eye of a needle with a rich man’s attempt to use his position and possessions to gain entrance into heaven. A similar expression is found in rabbinic literature, where the elephant is pictured as passing through the eye of a needle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"NEEDLE Object used in Jesus’ lesson about the rich man and entrance into God’s kingdom. Following his discussion with the rich young ruler, Jesus told his disciples that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!” (Mt 19:24, nlt; Mk 10:25; Lk 18:25). Jesus was not condemning riches or wealth but rather the change of will and false security that they may engender, as was the case with the rich young ruler (cf. Mt 19:21-22; Mk...","summary_en":"NEEDLE Object used in Jesus’ lesson about the rich man and entrance into God’s kingdom. Following his discussion with the rich young ruler, Jesus told his disciples that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!” (Mt 19:24, nlt; Mk 10:25; Lk 18:25). Jesus was not condemning riches or wealth but rather the change of will and false security that they may engender, as was the case with the rich young ruler (cf. Mt 19:21-22; Mk...","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":54876,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:21","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:21-22<\/strong> By calling the man to <em>go and sell<\/em> and <em>come, follow me<\/em><em>,<\/em> Jesus revealed that the man had not in fact kept the first of the ten commandments (Exod 20:3). His <em>possessions<\/em>—his wealth and security—had become his god (see Matt 6:20, 24; 13:44-46).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:21-22<\/strong> By calling the man to <em>go and sell<\/em> and <em>come, follow me<\/em><em>,<\/em> Jesus revealed that the man had not in fact kept the first of the ten commandments (Exod 20:3). His <em>possessions<\/em>—his wealth and security—had become his god (see Matt 6:20, 24; 13:44-46).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:21-22 By calling the man to go and sell and come, follow me, Jesus revealed that the man had not in fact kept the first of the ten commandments (Exod 20:3). His possessions—his wealth and security—had become his god (see Matt 6:20, 24; 13:44-46).","summary_en":"19:21-22 By calling the man to go and sell and come, follow me, Jesus revealed that the man had not in fact kept the first of the ten commandments (Exod 20:3). His possessions—his wealth and security—had become his god (see Matt 6:20, 24; 13:44-46).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82502,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:21","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:21-22<\/strong> By calling the man to <em>go and sell<\/em> and <em>come, follow me<\/em><em>,<\/em> Jesus revealed that the man had not in fact kept the first of the ten commandments (Exod 20:3). His <em>possessions<\/em>—his wealth and security—had become his god (see Matt 6:20, 24; 13:44-46).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:21-22<\/strong> By calling the man to <em>go and sell<\/em> and <em>come, follow me<\/em><em>,<\/em> Jesus revealed that the man had not in fact kept the first of the ten commandments (Exod 20:3). His <em>possessions<\/em>—his wealth and security—had become his god (see Matt 6:20, 24; 13:44-46).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:21-22 By calling the man to go and sell and come, follow me, Jesus revealed that the man had not in fact kept the first of the ten commandments (Exod 20:3). His possessions—his wealth and security—had become his god (see Matt 6:20, 24; 13:44-46).","summary_en":"19:21-22 By calling the man to go and sell and come, follow me, Jesus revealed that the man had not in fact kept the first of the ten commandments (Exod 20:3). His possessions—his wealth and security—had become his god (see Matt 6:20, 24; 13:44-46).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110128,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:21","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:21-22<\/strong> By calling the man to <em>go and sell<\/em> and <em>come, follow me<\/em><em>,<\/em> Jesus revealed that the man had not in fact kept the first of the ten commandments (Exod 20:3). His <em>possessions<\/em>—his wealth and security—had become his god (see Matt 6:20, 24; 13:44-46).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:21-22<\/strong> By calling the man to <em>go and sell<\/em> and <em>come, follow me<\/em><em>,<\/em> Jesus revealed that the man had not in fact kept the first of the ten commandments (Exod 20:3). His <em>possessions<\/em>—his wealth and security—had become his god (see Matt 6:20, 24; 13:44-46).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:21-22 By calling the man to go and sell and come, follow me, Jesus revealed that the man had not in fact kept the first of the ten commandments (Exod 20:3). His possessions—his wealth and security—had become his god (see Matt 6:20, 24; 13:44-46).","summary_en":"19:21-22 By calling the man to go and sell and come, follow me, Jesus revealed that the man had not in fact kept the first of the ten commandments (Exod 20:3). His possessions—his wealth and security—had become his god (see Matt 6:20, 24; 13:44-46).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":137754,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:21","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:21-22<\/strong> By calling the man to <em>go and sell<\/em> and <em>come, follow me<\/em><em>,<\/em> Jesus revealed that the man had not in fact kept the first of the ten commandments (Exod 20:3). His <em>possessions<\/em>—his wealth and security—had become his god (see Matt 6:20, 24; 13:44-46).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:21-22<\/strong> By calling the man to <em>go and sell<\/em> and <em>come, follow me<\/em><em>,<\/em> Jesus revealed that the man had not in fact kept the first of the ten commandments (Exod 20:3). His <em>possessions<\/em>—his wealth and security—had become his god (see Matt 6:20, 24; 13:44-46).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:21-22 By calling the man to go and sell and come, follow me, Jesus revealed that the man had not in fact kept the first of the ten commandments (Exod 20:3). His possessions—his wealth and security—had become his god (see Matt 6:20, 24; 13:44-46).","summary_en":"19:21-22 By calling the man to go and sell and come, follow me, Jesus revealed that the man had not in fact kept the first of the ten commandments (Exod 20:3). His possessions—his wealth and security—had become his god (see Matt 6:20, 24; 13:44-46).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":67261,"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":94887,"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":122513,"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":150139,"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}],"23":[{"id":21865,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Kingdom of Heaven Kingdom of God","title_en":"Kingdom of Heaven Kingdom of God","content_ro":"<h3>KINGDOM OF GOD, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN<\/h3>\n<p>The sovereign rule of God, initiated by Christ’s earthly ministry and consummated when the kingdom of the world becomes the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ (Rv 11:15).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Old Testament Background<\/p>\n<p>• In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>According to the testimony of the first three Gospels, the proclamation of the kingdom of God was Jesus’ central message. Matthew summarizes the Galilean ministry with the words “Jesus traveled throughout Galilee teaching in the synagogues, preaching everywhere the Good News about the Kingdom” (Mt 4:23, <span>nlt<\/span>). The Sermon on the Mount is concerned with the righteousness that qualifies people to enter the kingdom of God (5:20). The collection of parables in Matthew 13 and Mark 4 illustrate the “mystery” of the kingdom of God (Mt 13:11; Mk 4:11). The establishment of the Lord’s Supper looks forward to the establishment of the kingdom of God (Mt 26:29; Mk 14:25).<\/p>\n<p>The NT reports two different forms of the expression: “the kingdom of God” and “the kingdom of the heavens.” The latter is found only in Matthew, but Matthew also has “the kingdom of God” four times (Mt 12:28; 19:24; 21:31, 43). “The kingdom of heaven” is a Semitic phrase that would have been meaningful to Jews but not to Greeks. The Jews, out of reverence for God, avoided uttering the divine name, and contemporary literature gives examples of substituting the word “heaven” for God (1 Macc 3:18, 50; 4:10; see Lk 15:18).<\/p>\n<p>The key to an understanding of the kingdom of God is that the basic meaning of the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">basileia<\/span><em>,<\/em> as also of the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">malkut<\/span><em>,<\/em> is rule, reign, dominion. We frequently find in the OT the expression “in the year of the kingdom of . . . ,” meaning in the year of the reign of a given king (e.g., 1 Chr 26:31; 2 Chr 3:2; 15:10; Ezr 7:1; 8:1; Est 2:16; Jer 10:7; 52:31). When we read that Solomon’s kingdom was firmly established (1 Kgs 2:12), we are to understand that his authority to reign was settled. To “turn the kingdom of Saul over to [David]” (1 Chr 12:23, <span>kjv<\/span>) indicates that the authority that had been Saul’s was given to David. As a result of having received legal authority, David became king. This abstract idea of <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">malkut<\/span> is evident when it is found in parallelisms with such ideas as power, might, glory, and dominion (Dn 4:34; 7:14).<\/p>\n<p>When <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">malkut<\/span> is used of God, it almost always refers to his authority or to his rule as the heavenly King. “They will talk together about the glory of your kingdom; they will celebrate examples of your power. . . . For your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom. You rule generation after generation” (Ps 145:11, 13, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Further, if a king rules, there must be a realm or sphere over which he reigns. This is also called <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">malkut<\/span><em>.<\/em> “So the realm of Jehoshaphat was quiet, for his God gave him rest round about” (2 Chr 20:30, <span>rsv<\/span>; see Est 3:6; Jer 10:7; Dn 9:1; 11:9).<\/p>\n<p>This same twofold use of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">basileia<\/span> is found in the NT. In fact, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">basileia<\/span> could be translated by the expression “kingly power” in Luke 23:42 (<span>niv<\/span> mg) and by “kingship” in John 18:36. When a nobleman went into a far country to get a “kingdom” (Luke 19:12, <span>nasb<\/span>) he went to the governing authority to get an appointment as king. When Jesus said, “My kingship is not of this world” (Jn 18:36, <span>rsv<\/span>), he did not mean to say that his rule has nothing to do with the world but rather that his kingship—his dominion—does not come from man but from God. Therefore, he rejects the use of worldly fighting to gain his ends.<\/p>\n<p>This central meaning of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">basileia<\/span> makes it easy to understand many sayings in the Gospels. In the Lord’s Prayer the petition “Thy kingdom come” (Mt 6:10) is a prayer for God to manifest his reign so that his will may be done on earth as it is in heaven. When we read that we are to “receive the kingdom of God like a child” (Mk 10:15, <span>rsv<\/span>), we must open our hearts and lives to the rule of God.<\/p>\n<p>Also in the NT are sayings about being <em>in<\/em> the kingdom or of <em>entering<\/em> the kingdom (Mt 8:11; Mk 9:47; 10:23-25; Lk 13:28). There is no philological or theological objection to understanding “the kingdom of God” first as the divine reign or rule and second as the sphere of blessing in which that reign is experienced.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentBackground\">Old Testament Background<\/p>\n<p>The expression “the kingdom of God” is not found in the OT, but the idea appears throughout the prophets. God is frequently spoken of as the King, both of Israel (Ex 15:18; Nm 23:21; Dt 33:5; Is 43:15) and of all the earth (2 Kgs 19:15; Pss 29:10; 47:2; 93:1-2; 96:10; 97:1-9; 99:1-4; 145:11-13; Is 6:5; Jer 46:18). Although God is not the earthly King of Israel, other references speak of a day when God shall become King and shall rule over his people (Is 24:23; 33:22; 52:7; Ob 1:21; Zep 3:15; Zec 14:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>This brief summary of God’s kingship provides the outline for the entire OT concept. While God is King over all the earth, he is in a special way King over his people, Israel. God’s rule is therefore something realized in Israel’s history. However, it is only partially and imperfectly realized. Israel again and again rebelled against the divine sovereignty. Furthermore, Israel was constantly plagued by wars with its pagan neighbors in which it was not always victorious. Again, there are evils in nature and the physical world that often bring suffering to God’s people. Therefore, the prophets look forward to a day when God’s rule will be fully experienced, not by Israel alone, but by all the world. The main emphasis of the prophets is on hope, the establishing of God’s perfect rule in the world.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets describe the final establishment of God’s kingdom in terms of a theophany—a divine visitation (Mi 1:3-4). Zechariah foresees a “Day of the Lord” when all nations will be gathered in battle against Jerusalem, when the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations (Zec 14:3, 5). Israel will be visited by the Lord (Is 29:6) and delivered from its enemies (35:4; 59:20). God’s coming will also mean judgment (2:21; 26:21). This final coming of God will mean the salvation of the Gentiles as well as of Israel (Zec 2:10-11; cf. Is 66:18-24).<\/p>\n<p>Behind this language is a distinct theology of “the God who comes.” It is a fact widely recognized in contemporary OT theology that the God of the OT is not a nature god, like the gods of other peoples, but a God of history—a God who visits his people in history to bless or to judge them. God visited Israel in Egypt to deliver them from bondage and to constitute them as his people. The rescue from Egypt was not merely an act of deliverance; it was an act through which God made himself known and through which Israel was to know and serve him.<\/p>\n<p>Because God has visited his people again and again in their history, he must finally come to them in the future to judge wickedness and to establish his kingdom. Israel’s hope is thus rooted in history, or rather in the God who works in history. God will finally break into history in a glorious theophany to establish his rule in all the earth. The source of the kingdom is not history itself but God.<\/p>\n<p>While the prophets visualize the kingdom as coming from God, the kingdom is always on earth. The divine irruption into the natural order is not designed to accomplish its destruction but to make way for a new, perfect order arising out of the old, imperfect one. The prophets do not present a single consistent picture of the new order. Sometimes the new order is described very much in this-worldly terms. “The terraced vineyards on the hills of Israel will drip with sweet wine” (Am 9:13, <span>nlt<\/span>). On the other hand, God will create new heavens and a new earth (Is 65:17; 66:22), where there will be untroubled joy, prosperity, peace, and righteousness. The final visitation of God will mean the redemption of the world, for a redeemed earth is the scene of the kingdom of God. The prophets look forward again and again to the deliverance of creation “from the bondage to decay.” The description is often couched in simple physical terms. The wilderness will become fruitful (32:15); the desert will blossom (35:2); sorrow and sighing will flee away (v 10). The burning sands will be cooled and the dry places become springs of water (v 7); peace will return to the animal world so that all injury and destruction are done away with (11:6). All this results because the earth becomes full of the knowledge of God (v 9).<\/p>\n<p>Such language is not mere poetry but reflects a profound theology of creation. Humans as creatures were made to dwell on the earth, and the earth shares in human destiny. The main point is that creation as such is good and not a hindrance to true spirituality, as was often true in Greek thought. Redemption always includes redemption of the earth, which then becomes the blessed environment God intended it to be. Salvation does not mean deliverance from creaturehood, for this is not an evil thing but an essential and permanent element of true, human existence. Salvation does not mean escape from bodily creaturely existence, as in some Greek thought. On the contrary, ultimate redemption will mean the redemption of the whole person. The emergence of the doctrine of bodily resurrection is a reflection of this theology of creaturehood. The corollary of this is that creation in its entirety must share in the blessing of redemption.<\/p>\n<p>A distinctive element in prophetic eschatology is the tension between history and eschatology. That is, as the prophets looked into the future, they saw an immediate historical judgment as well as a more remote eschatological visitation. For Amos, the Day of the Lord is both the immediate judgment of Israel by the Assyrians and a final eschatological salvation. Joel sees an imminent historical visitation of drought and locusts, but beyond this he sees the eschatological Day of the Lord. Zephaniah sees an imminent Day of the Lord in some undesignated historical visitation (Zep 1:2-18), but beyond it he sees the salvation of the Gentiles (3:9). The same God who acts in history to bless and judge his people will act at the end of history in an eschatological act of judgment and salvation. The prophets do not sharply distinguish between these two days, for it is one and the same God who is concerned to judge and save his people.<\/p>\n<p>The eschatological hope of the prophets is always an ethical hope. That is to say, the prophets are not interested in the future for its own sake but for the impact of the future on the present. The prophetic predictions were given that, in light of future judgment and salvation, Israel might be confronted in the present by the will of God. “Prepare to meet your God as he comes in judgment, you people of Israel” (Am 4:12, <span>nlt<\/span>) might well be taken as the keynote of all the prophets.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>The Synoptic Gospels<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus’ teachings about the kingdom of God embodied the same contrast between the present order and the future age as that of the prophets, and he expressed it in the idiom “this age and the age to come.” This fact is obscured in the <span>kjv<\/span>, which translates the word for “age” by “world.” These are, however, two different concepts. A rich man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life (Mk 10:17). The context makes it clear that he was asking about eschatological life—the life of the resurrection (Dn 12:2). Jesus speaks of the difficulty of entering the kingdom of God. (The parallel passage in Matthew 19:23-24 has both “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven,” proving that they are interchangeable terms.) In their reaction the disciples ask, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus’ answer contrasts the lot of his disciples “in this time” with the “age to come” (Mk 10:29-30) when they would inherit eternal life. It is clear from this passage that in some sense the kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven, salvation, and eternal life all belong to the age to come. So far as this saying is concerned, God’s people will not experience eternal life until they do so in the new age.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew alone records the expression “the close of the age.” This age will be terminated by the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 24:3) and by the judgment of humanity (13:39-42). Then the righteous will be separated from the wicked (v 49). The same expression occurs in the promise of the risen Jesus assuring his disciples of his presence until the consummation of the age (28:20). It follows that if this age is to come to its consummation, it must be followed by another age—the age to come.<\/p>\n<p>The eschatological kingdom will be inaugurated by an apocalyptic event—the glorious coming of the Son of Man. This is made clear by two of the parables about the kingdom of God. In the parable of the tares, “the Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire” (Mt 13:41-42, <span>rsv<\/span>). The parable of the sheep and goats reflects the same eschatology. When the Son of Man comes in his glory, he will sit on his glorious throne to judge the nations, separating the sheep from the goats. The righteous—the sheep—are to “inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world”; and entrance into the kingdom is synonymous with entrance into life (25:31-46, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The eschatological character of the kingdom of God is seen also in the other two parables of Matthew 25. “The kingdom of heaven shall be compared to ten maidens who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom” (v 1, <span>rsv<\/span>). However, five of them were foolish and did not provide an adequate supply of oil for their lamps. Thus they were late for the wedding and were excluded from the wedding feast—a symbol of the eschatological kingdom—while those properly prepared entered the kingdom. In the same way the two faithful servants who had been “faithful over a little” were granted to “enter into the joy of your master” (vv 21, 23), while the unfaithful servant was excluded from the kingdom and cast into outer darkness.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus almost never showed any interest in descriptions of the eschatological kingdom, but it is clear that its coming was constantly in his thoughts. The pure in heart will see God (Mt 5:8). The harvest will take place and the grain will be gathered into the barn (13:30, 39; Mk 4:29). Jesus frequently used the metaphor of a feast or table fellowship to describe life in the eschatological kingdom. He will drink wine again with his disciples in the kingdom of God. They will eat and drink at Jesus’ table in the kingdom (Lk 22:30). People will be gathered from all corners of the earth to sit at a table with the OT saints (Mt 8:11-12; Lk 13:29). The consummation is likened to a wedding feast (Mt 22:1-14) and a banquet (Lk 14:16-24). All of these metaphors picture the restoration of communion between God and people, a union that had been broken by sin.<\/p>\n<p>In most of the sayings cited to illustrate the future character of the kingdom, “kingdom” refers to the eschatological order—the eschaton, the age to come. However, when Jesus taught his disciples to pray “Thy kingdom come” (Mt 6:10), he was not referring to the new eschatological order; he was referring to the kingdom as God’s kingly rule, his reign. It is a prayer that God will effectively establish his sovereign rule in the world.<\/p>\n<p>In his teaching about the kingdom of God as the apocalyptic consummation, Jesus does not differ essentially from the OT prophets. The most distinctive element in Jesus’ teaching—indeed, the fact that characterizes his entire mission and message—is the fact that in some real sense of the word, the kingdom of God has come in history in an utterly unexpected way. This sets Jesus’ teaching apart from all contemporary Jewish thought.<\/p>\n<p>This is seen first of all in his repeated teaching that his mission is a fulfillment of the OT messianic prophets. Mark summarizes Jesus’ message with the words “The Kingdom of God is near! Turn from your sins and believe this Good News!” (Mk 1:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). This saying can have one of two meanings. It may refer to the imminent coming of the apocalyptic kingdom. Matthew summarizes the message of John the Baptist with nearly the same words: “Turn from your sins and turn to God, because the Kingdom of Heaven is near” (Mt 3:2, <span>nlt<\/span>). The Baptist expounds what he means by the approach of the kingdom of God: “He is ready to separate the chaff from the grain with his winnowing fork. Then he will clean up the threshing area, storing the grain in his barn but burning the chaff with never-ending fire” (v 12, <span>nlt<\/span>). John proclaimed an apocalyptic act; “unquenchable fire” can mean no strictly historical event but only an apocalyptic judgment. John expected Jesus to be the one in whom the cosmic event expected by the prophets would be carried out.<\/p>\n<p>It is possible that this was also Jesus’ meaning. However, another interpretation is possible that is better supported by the actual course of his mission: “The time is fulfilled.” The messianic promises of the prophets were not only about to be fulfilled; they were actually in process of fulfillment in his mission. In Jesus, God was visiting his people. The hope of the prophets in some real sense was being realized.<\/p>\n<p>The meaning of this can be seen in Luke’s introduction of Jesus’ ministry. Luke selects an event that occurred in Nazareth later in Jesus’ ministry (Lk 4:16-21) and places it at the beginning of his Gospel in order to sound this note of fulfillment. Jesus read from Isaiah a promise that looked forward to the messianic salvation: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for he has appointed me to preach Good News to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim that captives will be released, that the blind will see, that the downtrodden will be freed from their oppressors, and that the time of the Lord’s favor has come” (vv 18-19, <span>nlt<\/span>). Then Jesus astonished his audience by the assertion “This Scripture has come true today before your very eyes!” (v 21, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Here was an amazing claim. John the Baptist had announced an apocalyptic visitation of God that would mean the fulfillment of the eschatological hope and the consummation of the messianic age. Jesus proclaimed that the messianic promise was actually being fulfilled in his person. This is no apocalyptic kingdom but a present salvation. In these words Jesus did not proclaim the imminence of the apocalyptic kingdom. Rather, he boldly announced that the kingdom of God had come. The presence of the kingdom was a happening, an event, the gracious action of God. This was no new theology or new idea or new promise; it was a new event in history.<\/p>\n<p>The note of fulfillment is again sounded in Jesus’ answer to the question about fasting. “Do wedding guests fast while celebrating with the groom? Of course not. They can’t fast while they are with the groom” (Mk 2:19, <span>nlt<\/span>). The marriage feast had become a metaphor in Judaism for the messianic consummation. In these words Jesus announced the presence of the messianic time of salvation. It would be a contradiction in terms for the disciples to fast when they were enjoying the blessings of the messianic age. The time of fulfillment had come.<\/p>\n<p>A saying found in different contexts in Matthew and Luke touches this central note of the fulfillment in history of the OT hope: “Blessed are the eyes which see what you see! For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it” (Lk 10:23-24, <span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Mt 13:16-17). Both Matthew and Luke associate this saying with the kingdom of God, and both agree that the hope of former generations has become an object of experience. Many prophets and kings looked forward to something, but they looked in vain, for it did not come to them. What they longed for has now come, and this can be nothing less than the promised messianic salvation.<\/p>\n<p>Fulfillment in history is again asserted in Jesus’ answer to John’s question about the one who is to come (Mt 11:2-3). “The deeds of the Christ” (Messiah) were not the deeds John had announced. Wicked rulers like Herod were not being judged in fire. Instead, Jesus was helping people, not bringing an apocalyptic kingdom. Jesus replied in words that echo the promise of the messianic salvation in Isaiah 35:5-6: “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them” (Mt 11:4-5, <span>rsv<\/span>). In these words Jesus claimed that the blessings of the messianic salvation are present. There was indeed reason for John’s perplexity, for the fulfillment was not taking place along expected lines. The apocalyptic consummation did not appear to be on the horizon. The point of Jesus’ answer was that fulfillment was taking place without the eschatological consummation. Therefore, Jesus pronounced a special blessing upon those who were not offended by the character of the messianic fulfillment (v 6). The fulfillment was indeed taking place, but not the apocalyptic consummation.<\/p>\n<p>The most unambiguous statement of the presence of the kingdom is found in the words about the binding of Satan. One of Jesus’ most characteristic acts was the exorcism of demons—deliverance from satanic power. The Pharisees admitted his power but attributed it to Satan. Jesus replied, “If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? . . . But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God is come upon you” (Mt 12:26, 28, <span>rsv<\/span>). Here the verb has the clear meaning “to come, to arrive” (cf. Rom 9:30; 2 Cor 10:14; Phil 3:16). Here is a clear affirmation that the kingdom of God has come among men.<\/p>\n<p>In explanation Jesus said, “Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house” (Mt 12:29, <span>rsv<\/span>). The strong man is Satan; this “present evil age” (Gal 1:4) is his “house”; his “goods” are demon-possessed men and women. Jesus has invaded the strong man’s house to snatch away from him men and women whom he has in his power, and this is the work of the kingdom of God. The kingly reign of God has come into history in the person of Jesus before the apocalyptic consummation when Satan will be destroyed, to render Satan a preliminary defeat. Jesus has already “bound” Satan (i.e., curbed his power). This has been accomplished by the presence of the kingdom of God in the mission of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>A similar saying is found in Luke 10:18. Jesus had sent a band of his disciples on a preaching mission. Like Jesus, they were to proclaim the nearness of the kingdom of God (Lk 10:9). They, too, were to exorcize demons. When they returned to Jesus to report their success, Jesus said, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (v 18, <span>rsv<\/span>). This again is metaphorical language that asserts that in the mission of Jesus’ disciples, as well as in Jesus himself, Satan has fallen from his place of power. Both “binding” and “falling” are metaphors that describe the same truth: the victory of the kingdom of God over Satan.<\/p>\n<p>Here is the element that sets Jesus apart from the OT and from all of contemporary Judaism. The prophets conceived of the kingdom being established by a heavenly supernatural being (Dn 7) or ruled by a powerful Davidic messianic king (Is 9, 11). The fulfillment of the messianic hope is everywhere in the prophets an eschatological hope. The same is true of the Jewish writers who despaired of history and cast all hope into the future.<\/p>\n<p>In contrast to all that had gone before him, Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God as an event taking place in his own person and mission. God had again assumed the initiative; God was acting. No first-century Jew had any idea of the kingdom of God coming into history in the person of an ordinary man—a teacher who was meek and lowly.<\/p>\n<p>The presence of the kingdom is further seen in the fact that the rule of God, present in Jesus, is a gift to be received. This is also true of the kingdom in its eschatological consummation, where the kingdom is freely inherited by the righteous (Mt 25:34). In answer to the young man’s question about inheriting eternal life (Mk 10:17), Jesus spoke of entering the kingdom (vv 23-24) and receiving the gift of eternal life (v 30) as though they were synonymous. The kingdom is a gift that the Father is pleased to bestow upon the little flock of Jesus’ disciples (Lk 12:32).<\/p>\n<p>If God’s eschatological rule brings to his people the blessings of that kingdom, and if God’s kingdom is his rule invading history before the eschatological consummation, then we may expect God’s rule in the present to bring a preliminary blessing to his people. This fact is reflected in numerous sayings. The kingdom is something to be sought here and now (Mt 6:33) and to be received as children receive a gift (Mk 10:15; Lk 18:16-17). Although it is present in an unexpected form, the kingdom of God in Jesus’ person is like a hidden treasure or a pearl of great price whose possession outranks all other goods (Mt 13:44-46). The gift of the kingdom is also seen in that the deaf hear, the blind see, lepers are cleansed, and the poor have good news preached to them (11:5).<\/p>\n<h5>John’s Gospel<\/h5>\n<p>In the Gospel of John the concept of eternal life takes the place of the kingdom of God in Jesus’ teaching. The kingdom of God is mentioned twice (Jn 3:3, 5), and it is placed in connection with eternal life. The kingdom of God is here the eschatological kingdom, and eternal life is the life of the kingdom. Thus, as the kingdom of God in the synoptic Gospels is both future and present, so eternal life is both the life of the age to come (12:25) and also a present blessing (3:16, etc.).<\/p>\n<h5>Acts<\/h5>\n<p>In Acts it seems the earliest disciples generally failed to understand Jesus’ message about the kingdom of God as a present spiritual blessing. They gathered together to await the coming of the eschatological kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6). Acts relates that the disciples continued to preach the kingdom of God, but usually it is an eschatological blessing (8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). However, the last two references make the kingdom of God synonymous with the gospel about Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p>One important theme in Acts is linked to that of the kingdom of God. On the Day of Pentecost, Peter announces that God has seated Jesus at his right hand in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1 (Acts 2:33-35). In the Psalms this is a prophecy of the enthronement of the Davidic king in Jerusalem. Peter asserts that this prophecy is now fulfilled in the heavenly reign of Jesus. Therefore, he has been made both Lord and Christ (Messiah). These are interchangeable terms, “Lord” meaning absolute sovereign, “Christ” meaning the messianic king.<\/p>\n<h5>Paul’s Writings<\/h5>\n<p>Paul carried further this theme of the heavenly rule of Christ, the anointed King. The kingdom is both an eschatological inheritance (1 Cor 6:9; 15:50; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; 1 Thes 2:12; 2 Thes 1:5; 2 Tm 4:1, 18) and a present blessing into which believers now enter (Rom 14:17; Col 1:13). The key to this is the interchangeable character of lordship and messianic kingship. Jesus is now exalted as Lord over all (Phil 2:11), and even as his lordship is invisible, it will become manifest to all at his second coming. In the same way, he has been enthroned as messianic King by virtue of his resurrection and heavenly session, and he must reign as King until he has put all his enemies under his feet (1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:22). The last enemy to be destroyed is death.<\/p>\n<h5>Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>The central message of the Revelation to John is the consummation of God’s redemptive purpose, when the kingdom of this world becomes the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ (Rv 11:15). Revelation pictures the plight of a persecuted church in a hostile world, but it assures the church that Christ has already won a victory over the powers of evil (5:5), by virtue of which he can finally destroy them (19:11–20:14). Again, the last enemy to be destroyed is death (20:13-14). Revelation closes with a highly symbolic picture of the kingdom of God (chs 21–22) when God comes to dwell among his people, and “they shall see his face” (22:4). Thus the NT ends: divine order is restored to a disordered world. This is the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Teachings of; King; Parable.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>KINGDOM OF GOD, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN<\/h3>\n<p>The sovereign rule of God, initiated by Christ’s earthly ministry and consummated when the kingdom of the world becomes the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ (Rv 11:15).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Old Testament Background<\/p>\n<p>• In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>According to the testimony of the first three Gospels, the proclamation of the kingdom of God was Jesus’ central message. Matthew summarizes the Galilean ministry with the words “Jesus traveled throughout Galilee teaching in the synagogues, preaching everywhere the Good News about the Kingdom” (Mt 4:23, <span>nlt<\/span>). The Sermon on the Mount is concerned with the righteousness that qualifies people to enter the kingdom of God (5:20). The collection of parables in Matthew 13 and Mark 4 illustrate the “mystery” of the kingdom of God (Mt 13:11; Mk 4:11). The establishment of the Lord’s Supper looks forward to the establishment of the kingdom of God (Mt 26:29; Mk 14:25).<\/p>\n<p>The NT reports two different forms of the expression: “the kingdom of God” and “the kingdom of the heavens.” The latter is found only in Matthew, but Matthew also has “the kingdom of God” four times (Mt 12:28; 19:24; 21:31, 43). “The kingdom of heaven” is a Semitic phrase that would have been meaningful to Jews but not to Greeks. The Jews, out of reverence for God, avoided uttering the divine name, and contemporary literature gives examples of substituting the word “heaven” for God (1 Macc 3:18, 50; 4:10; see Lk 15:18).<\/p>\n<p>The key to an understanding of the kingdom of God is that the basic meaning of the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">basileia<\/span><em>,<\/em> as also of the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">malkut<\/span><em>,<\/em> is rule, reign, dominion. We frequently find in the OT the expression “in the year of the kingdom of . . . ,” meaning in the year of the reign of a given king (e.g., 1 Chr 26:31; 2 Chr 3:2; 15:10; Ezr 7:1; 8:1; Est 2:16; Jer 10:7; 52:31). When we read that Solomon’s kingdom was firmly established (1 Kgs 2:12), we are to understand that his authority to reign was settled. To “turn the kingdom of Saul over to [David]” (1 Chr 12:23, <span>kjv<\/span>) indicates that the authority that had been Saul’s was given to David. As a result of having received legal authority, David became king. This abstract idea of <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">malkut<\/span> is evident when it is found in parallelisms with such ideas as power, might, glory, and dominion (Dn 4:34; 7:14).<\/p>\n<p>When <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">malkut<\/span> is used of God, it almost always refers to his authority or to his rule as the heavenly King. “They will talk together about the glory of your kingdom; they will celebrate examples of your power. . . . For your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom. You rule generation after generation” (Ps 145:11, 13, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Further, if a king rules, there must be a realm or sphere over which he reigns. This is also called <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">malkut<\/span><em>.<\/em> “So the realm of Jehoshaphat was quiet, for his God gave him rest round about” (2 Chr 20:30, <span>rsv<\/span>; see Est 3:6; Jer 10:7; Dn 9:1; 11:9).<\/p>\n<p>This same twofold use of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">basileia<\/span> is found in the NT. In fact, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">basileia<\/span> could be translated by the expression “kingly power” in Luke 23:42 (<span>niv<\/span> mg) and by “kingship” in John 18:36. When a nobleman went into a far country to get a “kingdom” (Luke 19:12, <span>nasb<\/span>) he went to the governing authority to get an appointment as king. When Jesus said, “My kingship is not of this world” (Jn 18:36, <span>rsv<\/span>), he did not mean to say that his rule has nothing to do with the world but rather that his kingship—his dominion—does not come from man but from God. Therefore, he rejects the use of worldly fighting to gain his ends.<\/p>\n<p>This central meaning of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">basileia<\/span> makes it easy to understand many sayings in the Gospels. In the Lord’s Prayer the petition “Thy kingdom come” (Mt 6:10) is a prayer for God to manifest his reign so that his will may be done on earth as it is in heaven. When we read that we are to “receive the kingdom of God like a child” (Mk 10:15, <span>rsv<\/span>), we must open our hearts and lives to the rule of God.<\/p>\n<p>Also in the NT are sayings about being <em>in<\/em> the kingdom or of <em>entering<\/em> the kingdom (Mt 8:11; Mk 9:47; 10:23-25; Lk 13:28). There is no philological or theological objection to understanding “the kingdom of God” first as the divine reign or rule and second as the sphere of blessing in which that reign is experienced.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentBackground\">Old Testament Background<\/p>\n<p>The expression “the kingdom of God” is not found in the OT, but the idea appears throughout the prophets. God is frequently spoken of as the King, both of Israel (Ex 15:18; Nm 23:21; Dt 33:5; Is 43:15) and of all the earth (2 Kgs 19:15; Pss 29:10; 47:2; 93:1-2; 96:10; 97:1-9; 99:1-4; 145:11-13; Is 6:5; Jer 46:18). Although God is not the earthly King of Israel, other references speak of a day when God shall become King and shall rule over his people (Is 24:23; 33:22; 52:7; Ob 1:21; Zep 3:15; Zec 14:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>This brief summary of God’s kingship provides the outline for the entire OT concept. While God is King over all the earth, he is in a special way King over his people, Israel. God’s rule is therefore something realized in Israel’s history. However, it is only partially and imperfectly realized. Israel again and again rebelled against the divine sovereignty. Furthermore, Israel was constantly plagued by wars with its pagan neighbors in which it was not always victorious. Again, there are evils in nature and the physical world that often bring suffering to God’s people. Therefore, the prophets look forward to a day when God’s rule will be fully experienced, not by Israel alone, but by all the world. The main emphasis of the prophets is on hope, the establishing of God’s perfect rule in the world.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets describe the final establishment of God’s kingdom in terms of a theophany—a divine visitation (Mi 1:3-4). Zechariah foresees a “Day of the Lord” when all nations will be gathered in battle against Jerusalem, when the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations (Zec 14:3, 5). Israel will be visited by the Lord (Is 29:6) and delivered from its enemies (35:4; 59:20). God’s coming will also mean judgment (2:21; 26:21). This final coming of God will mean the salvation of the Gentiles as well as of Israel (Zec 2:10-11; cf. Is 66:18-24).<\/p>\n<p>Behind this language is a distinct theology of “the God who comes.” It is a fact widely recognized in contemporary OT theology that the God of the OT is not a nature god, like the gods of other peoples, but a God of history—a God who visits his people in history to bless or to judge them. God visited Israel in Egypt to deliver them from bondage and to constitute them as his people. The rescue from Egypt was not merely an act of deliverance; it was an act through which God made himself known and through which Israel was to know and serve him.<\/p>\n<p>Because God has visited his people again and again in their history, he must finally come to them in the future to judge wickedness and to establish his kingdom. Israel’s hope is thus rooted in history, or rather in the God who works in history. God will finally break into history in a glorious theophany to establish his rule in all the earth. The source of the kingdom is not history itself but God.<\/p>\n<p>While the prophets visualize the kingdom as coming from God, the kingdom is always on earth. The divine irruption into the natural order is not designed to accomplish its destruction but to make way for a new, perfect order arising out of the old, imperfect one. The prophets do not present a single consistent picture of the new order. Sometimes the new order is described very much in this-worldly terms. “The terraced vineyards on the hills of Israel will drip with sweet wine” (Am 9:13, <span>nlt<\/span>). On the other hand, God will create new heavens and a new earth (Is 65:17; 66:22), where there will be untroubled joy, prosperity, peace, and righteousness. The final visitation of God will mean the redemption of the world, for a redeemed earth is the scene of the kingdom of God. The prophets look forward again and again to the deliverance of creation “from the bondage to decay.” The description is often couched in simple physical terms. The wilderness will become fruitful (32:15); the desert will blossom (35:2); sorrow and sighing will flee away (v 10). The burning sands will be cooled and the dry places become springs of water (v 7); peace will return to the animal world so that all injury and destruction are done away with (11:6). All this results because the earth becomes full of the knowledge of God (v 9).<\/p>\n<p>Such language is not mere poetry but reflects a profound theology of creation. Humans as creatures were made to dwell on the earth, and the earth shares in human destiny. The main point is that creation as such is good and not a hindrance to true spirituality, as was often true in Greek thought. Redemption always includes redemption of the earth, which then becomes the blessed environment God intended it to be. Salvation does not mean deliverance from creaturehood, for this is not an evil thing but an essential and permanent element of true, human existence. Salvation does not mean escape from bodily creaturely existence, as in some Greek thought. On the contrary, ultimate redemption will mean the redemption of the whole person. The emergence of the doctrine of bodily resurrection is a reflection of this theology of creaturehood. The corollary of this is that creation in its entirety must share in the blessing of redemption.<\/p>\n<p>A distinctive element in prophetic eschatology is the tension between history and eschatology. That is, as the prophets looked into the future, they saw an immediate historical judgment as well as a more remote eschatological visitation. For Amos, the Day of the Lord is both the immediate judgment of Israel by the Assyrians and a final eschatological salvation. Joel sees an imminent historical visitation of drought and locusts, but beyond this he sees the eschatological Day of the Lord. Zephaniah sees an imminent Day of the Lord in some undesignated historical visitation (Zep 1:2-18), but beyond it he sees the salvation of the Gentiles (3:9). The same God who acts in history to bless and judge his people will act at the end of history in an eschatological act of judgment and salvation. The prophets do not sharply distinguish between these two days, for it is one and the same God who is concerned to judge and save his people.<\/p>\n<p>The eschatological hope of the prophets is always an ethical hope. That is to say, the prophets are not interested in the future for its own sake but for the impact of the future on the present. The prophetic predictions were given that, in light of future judgment and salvation, Israel might be confronted in the present by the will of God. “Prepare to meet your God as he comes in judgment, you people of Israel” (Am 4:12, <span>nlt<\/span>) might well be taken as the keynote of all the prophets.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>The Synoptic Gospels<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus’ teachings about the kingdom of God embodied the same contrast between the present order and the future age as that of the prophets, and he expressed it in the idiom “this age and the age to come.” This fact is obscured in the <span>kjv<\/span>, which translates the word for “age” by “world.” These are, however, two different concepts. A rich man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life (Mk 10:17). The context makes it clear that he was asking about eschatological life—the life of the resurrection (Dn 12:2). Jesus speaks of the difficulty of entering the kingdom of God. (The parallel passage in Matthew 19:23-24 has both “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven,” proving that they are interchangeable terms.) In their reaction the disciples ask, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus’ answer contrasts the lot of his disciples “in this time” with the “age to come” (Mk 10:29-30) when they would inherit eternal life. It is clear from this passage that in some sense the kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven, salvation, and eternal life all belong to the age to come. So far as this saying is concerned, God’s people will not experience eternal life until they do so in the new age.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew alone records the expression “the close of the age.” This age will be terminated by the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 24:3) and by the judgment of humanity (13:39-42). Then the righteous will be separated from the wicked (v 49). The same expression occurs in the promise of the risen Jesus assuring his disciples of his presence until the consummation of the age (28:20). It follows that if this age is to come to its consummation, it must be followed by another age—the age to come.<\/p>\n<p>The eschatological kingdom will be inaugurated by an apocalyptic event—the glorious coming of the Son of Man. This is made clear by two of the parables about the kingdom of God. In the parable of the tares, “the Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire” (Mt 13:41-42, <span>rsv<\/span>). The parable of the sheep and goats reflects the same eschatology. When the Son of Man comes in his glory, he will sit on his glorious throne to judge the nations, separating the sheep from the goats. The righteous—the sheep—are to “inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world”; and entrance into the kingdom is synonymous with entrance into life (25:31-46, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The eschatological character of the kingdom of God is seen also in the other two parables of Matthew 25. “The kingdom of heaven shall be compared to ten maidens who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom” (v 1, <span>rsv<\/span>). However, five of them were foolish and did not provide an adequate supply of oil for their lamps. Thus they were late for the wedding and were excluded from the wedding feast—a symbol of the eschatological kingdom—while those properly prepared entered the kingdom. In the same way the two faithful servants who had been “faithful over a little” were granted to “enter into the joy of your master” (vv 21, 23), while the unfaithful servant was excluded from the kingdom and cast into outer darkness.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus almost never showed any interest in descriptions of the eschatological kingdom, but it is clear that its coming was constantly in his thoughts. The pure in heart will see God (Mt 5:8). The harvest will take place and the grain will be gathered into the barn (13:30, 39; Mk 4:29). Jesus frequently used the metaphor of a feast or table fellowship to describe life in the eschatological kingdom. He will drink wine again with his disciples in the kingdom of God. They will eat and drink at Jesus’ table in the kingdom (Lk 22:30). People will be gathered from all corners of the earth to sit at a table with the OT saints (Mt 8:11-12; Lk 13:29). The consummation is likened to a wedding feast (Mt 22:1-14) and a banquet (Lk 14:16-24). All of these metaphors picture the restoration of communion between God and people, a union that had been broken by sin.<\/p>\n<p>In most of the sayings cited to illustrate the future character of the kingdom, “kingdom” refers to the eschatological order—the eschaton, the age to come. However, when Jesus taught his disciples to pray “Thy kingdom come” (Mt 6:10), he was not referring to the new eschatological order; he was referring to the kingdom as God’s kingly rule, his reign. It is a prayer that God will effectively establish his sovereign rule in the world.<\/p>\n<p>In his teaching about the kingdom of God as the apocalyptic consummation, Jesus does not differ essentially from the OT prophets. The most distinctive element in Jesus’ teaching—indeed, the fact that characterizes his entire mission and message—is the fact that in some real sense of the word, the kingdom of God has come in history in an utterly unexpected way. This sets Jesus’ teaching apart from all contemporary Jewish thought.<\/p>\n<p>This is seen first of all in his repeated teaching that his mission is a fulfillment of the OT messianic prophets. Mark summarizes Jesus’ message with the words “The Kingdom of God is near! Turn from your sins and believe this Good News!” (Mk 1:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). This saying can have one of two meanings. It may refer to the imminent coming of the apocalyptic kingdom. Matthew summarizes the message of John the Baptist with nearly the same words: “Turn from your sins and turn to God, because the Kingdom of Heaven is near” (Mt 3:2, <span>nlt<\/span>). The Baptist expounds what he means by the approach of the kingdom of God: “He is ready to separate the chaff from the grain with his winnowing fork. Then he will clean up the threshing area, storing the grain in his barn but burning the chaff with never-ending fire” (v 12, <span>nlt<\/span>). John proclaimed an apocalyptic act; “unquenchable fire” can mean no strictly historical event but only an apocalyptic judgment. John expected Jesus to be the one in whom the cosmic event expected by the prophets would be carried out.<\/p>\n<p>It is possible that this was also Jesus’ meaning. However, another interpretation is possible that is better supported by the actual course of his mission: “The time is fulfilled.” The messianic promises of the prophets were not only about to be fulfilled; they were actually in process of fulfillment in his mission. In Jesus, God was visiting his people. The hope of the prophets in some real sense was being realized.<\/p>\n<p>The meaning of this can be seen in Luke’s introduction of Jesus’ ministry. Luke selects an event that occurred in Nazareth later in Jesus’ ministry (Lk 4:16-21) and places it at the beginning of his Gospel in order to sound this note of fulfillment. Jesus read from Isaiah a promise that looked forward to the messianic salvation: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for he has appointed me to preach Good News to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim that captives will be released, that the blind will see, that the downtrodden will be freed from their oppressors, and that the time of the Lord’s favor has come” (vv 18-19, <span>nlt<\/span>). Then Jesus astonished his audience by the assertion “This Scripture has come true today before your very eyes!” (v 21, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Here was an amazing claim. John the Baptist had announced an apocalyptic visitation of God that would mean the fulfillment of the eschatological hope and the consummation of the messianic age. Jesus proclaimed that the messianic promise was actually being fulfilled in his person. This is no apocalyptic kingdom but a present salvation. In these words Jesus did not proclaim the imminence of the apocalyptic kingdom. Rather, he boldly announced that the kingdom of God had come. The presence of the kingdom was a happening, an event, the gracious action of God. This was no new theology or new idea or new promise; it was a new event in history.<\/p>\n<p>The note of fulfillment is again sounded in Jesus’ answer to the question about fasting. “Do wedding guests fast while celebrating with the groom? Of course not. They can’t fast while they are with the groom” (Mk 2:19, <span>nlt<\/span>). The marriage feast had become a metaphor in Judaism for the messianic consummation. In these words Jesus announced the presence of the messianic time of salvation. It would be a contradiction in terms for the disciples to fast when they were enjoying the blessings of the messianic age. The time of fulfillment had come.<\/p>\n<p>A saying found in different contexts in Matthew and Luke touches this central note of the fulfillment in history of the OT hope: “Blessed are the eyes which see what you see! For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it” (Lk 10:23-24, <span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Mt 13:16-17). Both Matthew and Luke associate this saying with the kingdom of God, and both agree that the hope of former generations has become an object of experience. Many prophets and kings looked forward to something, but they looked in vain, for it did not come to them. What they longed for has now come, and this can be nothing less than the promised messianic salvation.<\/p>\n<p>Fulfillment in history is again asserted in Jesus’ answer to John’s question about the one who is to come (Mt 11:2-3). “The deeds of the Christ” (Messiah) were not the deeds John had announced. Wicked rulers like Herod were not being judged in fire. Instead, Jesus was helping people, not bringing an apocalyptic kingdom. Jesus replied in words that echo the promise of the messianic salvation in Isaiah 35:5-6: “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them” (Mt 11:4-5, <span>rsv<\/span>). In these words Jesus claimed that the blessings of the messianic salvation are present. There was indeed reason for John’s perplexity, for the fulfillment was not taking place along expected lines. The apocalyptic consummation did not appear to be on the horizon. The point of Jesus’ answer was that fulfillment was taking place without the eschatological consummation. Therefore, Jesus pronounced a special blessing upon those who were not offended by the character of the messianic fulfillment (v 6). The fulfillment was indeed taking place, but not the apocalyptic consummation.<\/p>\n<p>The most unambiguous statement of the presence of the kingdom is found in the words about the binding of Satan. One of Jesus’ most characteristic acts was the exorcism of demons—deliverance from satanic power. The Pharisees admitted his power but attributed it to Satan. Jesus replied, “If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? . . . But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God is come upon you” (Mt 12:26, 28, <span>rsv<\/span>). Here the verb has the clear meaning “to come, to arrive” (cf. Rom 9:30; 2 Cor 10:14; Phil 3:16). Here is a clear affirmation that the kingdom of God has come among men.<\/p>\n<p>In explanation Jesus said, “Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house” (Mt 12:29, <span>rsv<\/span>). The strong man is Satan; this “present evil age” (Gal 1:4) is his “house”; his “goods” are demon-possessed men and women. Jesus has invaded the strong man’s house to snatch away from him men and women whom he has in his power, and this is the work of the kingdom of God. The kingly reign of God has come into history in the person of Jesus before the apocalyptic consummation when Satan will be destroyed, to render Satan a preliminary defeat. Jesus has already “bound” Satan (i.e., curbed his power). This has been accomplished by the presence of the kingdom of God in the mission of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>A similar saying is found in Luke 10:18. Jesus had sent a band of his disciples on a preaching mission. Like Jesus, they were to proclaim the nearness of the kingdom of God (Lk 10:9). They, too, were to exorcize demons. When they returned to Jesus to report their success, Jesus said, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (v 18, <span>rsv<\/span>). This again is metaphorical language that asserts that in the mission of Jesus’ disciples, as well as in Jesus himself, Satan has fallen from his place of power. Both “binding” and “falling” are metaphors that describe the same truth: the victory of the kingdom of God over Satan.<\/p>\n<p>Here is the element that sets Jesus apart from the OT and from all of contemporary Judaism. The prophets conceived of the kingdom being established by a heavenly supernatural being (Dn 7) or ruled by a powerful Davidic messianic king (Is 9, 11). The fulfillment of the messianic hope is everywhere in the prophets an eschatological hope. The same is true of the Jewish writers who despaired of history and cast all hope into the future.<\/p>\n<p>In contrast to all that had gone before him, Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God as an event taking place in his own person and mission. God had again assumed the initiative; God was acting. No first-century Jew had any idea of the kingdom of God coming into history in the person of an ordinary man—a teacher who was meek and lowly.<\/p>\n<p>The presence of the kingdom is further seen in the fact that the rule of God, present in Jesus, is a gift to be received. This is also true of the kingdom in its eschatological consummation, where the kingdom is freely inherited by the righteous (Mt 25:34). In answer to the young man’s question about inheriting eternal life (Mk 10:17), Jesus spoke of entering the kingdom (vv 23-24) and receiving the gift of eternal life (v 30) as though they were synonymous. The kingdom is a gift that the Father is pleased to bestow upon the little flock of Jesus’ disciples (Lk 12:32).<\/p>\n<p>If God’s eschatological rule brings to his people the blessings of that kingdom, and if God’s kingdom is his rule invading history before the eschatological consummation, then we may expect God’s rule in the present to bring a preliminary blessing to his people. This fact is reflected in numerous sayings. The kingdom is something to be sought here and now (Mt 6:33) and to be received as children receive a gift (Mk 10:15; Lk 18:16-17). Although it is present in an unexpected form, the kingdom of God in Jesus’ person is like a hidden treasure or a pearl of great price whose possession outranks all other goods (Mt 13:44-46). The gift of the kingdom is also seen in that the deaf hear, the blind see, lepers are cleansed, and the poor have good news preached to them (11:5).<\/p>\n<h5>John’s Gospel<\/h5>\n<p>In the Gospel of John the concept of eternal life takes the place of the kingdom of God in Jesus’ teaching. The kingdom of God is mentioned twice (Jn 3:3, 5), and it is placed in connection with eternal life. The kingdom of God is here the eschatological kingdom, and eternal life is the life of the kingdom. Thus, as the kingdom of God in the synoptic Gospels is both future and present, so eternal life is both the life of the age to come (12:25) and also a present blessing (3:16, etc.).<\/p>\n<h5>Acts<\/h5>\n<p>In Acts it seems the earliest disciples generally failed to understand Jesus’ message about the kingdom of God as a present spiritual blessing. They gathered together to await the coming of the eschatological kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6). Acts relates that the disciples continued to preach the kingdom of God, but usually it is an eschatological blessing (8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). However, the last two references make the kingdom of God synonymous with the gospel about Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p>One important theme in Acts is linked to that of the kingdom of God. On the Day of Pentecost, Peter announces that God has seated Jesus at his right hand in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1 (Acts 2:33-35). In the Psalms this is a prophecy of the enthronement of the Davidic king in Jerusalem. Peter asserts that this prophecy is now fulfilled in the heavenly reign of Jesus. Therefore, he has been made both Lord and Christ (Messiah). These are interchangeable terms, “Lord” meaning absolute sovereign, “Christ” meaning the messianic king.<\/p>\n<h5>Paul’s Writings<\/h5>\n<p>Paul carried further this theme of the heavenly rule of Christ, the anointed King. The kingdom is both an eschatological inheritance (1 Cor 6:9; 15:50; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; 1 Thes 2:12; 2 Thes 1:5; 2 Tm 4:1, 18) and a present blessing into which believers now enter (Rom 14:17; Col 1:13). The key to this is the interchangeable character of lordship and messianic kingship. Jesus is now exalted as Lord over all (Phil 2:11), and even as his lordship is invisible, it will become manifest to all at his second coming. In the same way, he has been enthroned as messianic King by virtue of his resurrection and heavenly session, and he must reign as King until he has put all his enemies under his feet (1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:22). The last enemy to be destroyed is death.<\/p>\n<h5>Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>The central message of the Revelation to John is the consummation of God’s redemptive purpose, when the kingdom of this world becomes the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ (Rv 11:15). Revelation pictures the plight of a persecuted church in a hostile world, but it assures the church that Christ has already won a victory over the powers of evil (5:5), by virtue of which he can finally destroy them (19:11–20:14). Again, the last enemy to be destroyed is death (20:13-14). Revelation closes with a highly symbolic picture of the kingdom of God (chs 21–22) when God comes to dwell among his people, and “they shall see his face” (22:4). Thus the NT ends: divine order is restored to a disordered world. This is the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Teachings of; King; Parable.<\/p>","summary_ro":"KINGDOM OF GOD, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN The sovereign rule of God, initiated by Christ’s earthly ministry and consummated when the kingdom of the world becomes the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ (Rv 11:15). Preview • Introduction • Old Testament Background • In the New Testament Introduction According to the testimony of the first three Gospels, the proclamation of the kingdom of God was Jesus’ central message. Matthew summarizes the Galilean ministry with the words “Jesus traveled throughou...","summary_en":"KINGDOM OF GOD, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN The sovereign rule of God, initiated by Christ’s earthly ministry and consummated when the kingdom of the world becomes the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ (Rv 11:15). Preview • Introduction • Old Testament Background • In the New Testament Introduction According to the testimony of the first three Gospels, the proclamation of the kingdom of God was Jesus’ central message. Matthew summarizes the Galilean ministry with the words “Jesus traveled throughou...","source":"Articles\/K.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":54877,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:23","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:23","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:23<\/strong> Jesus draws a lesson for discipleship from the rich man’s tragic denial. It is <em>hard<\/em> for the <em>rich<\/em> to humble themselves, admit their need, and trust in God (see 5:3; Luke 6:24; 1 Tim 6:9-10). • <em>Kingdom of Heaven<\/em> is equivalent here to <em>eternal life<\/em> (Matt 19:16-17, 29) or to <em>salvation<\/em> as the result of God’s regenerating work (19:25-26).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:23<\/strong> Jesus draws a lesson for discipleship from the rich man’s tragic denial. It is <em>hard<\/em> for the <em>rich<\/em> to humble themselves, admit their need, and trust in God (see 5:3; Luke 6:24; 1 Tim 6:9-10). • <em>Kingdom of Heaven<\/em> is equivalent here to <em>eternal life<\/em> (Matt 19:16-17, 29) or to <em>salvation<\/em> as the result of God’s regenerating work (19:25-26).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:23 Jesus draws a lesson for discipleship from the rich man’s tragic denial. It is hard for the rich to humble themselves, admit their need, and trust in God (see 5:3; Luke 6:24; 1 Tim 6:9-10). • Kingdom of Heaven is equivalent here to eternal life (Matt 19:16-17, 29) or to salvation as the result of God’s regenerating work (19:25-26).","summary_en":"19:23 Jesus draws a lesson for discipleship from the rich man’s tragic denial. It is hard for the rich to humble themselves, admit their need, and trust in God (see 5:3; Luke 6:24; 1 Tim 6:9-10). • Kingdom of Heaven is equivalent here to eternal life (Matt 19:16-17, 29) or to salvation as the result of God’s regenerating work (19:25-26).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82503,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:23","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:23","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:23<\/strong> Jesus draws a lesson for discipleship from the rich man’s tragic denial. It is <em>hard<\/em> for the <em>rich<\/em> to humble themselves, admit their need, and trust in God (see 5:3; Luke 6:24; 1 Tim 6:9-10). • <em>Kingdom of Heaven<\/em> is equivalent here to <em>eternal life<\/em> (Matt 19:16-17, 29) or to <em>salvation<\/em> as the result of God’s regenerating work (19:25-26).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:23<\/strong> Jesus draws a lesson for discipleship from the rich man’s tragic denial. It is <em>hard<\/em> for the <em>rich<\/em> to humble themselves, admit their need, and trust in God (see 5:3; Luke 6:24; 1 Tim 6:9-10). • <em>Kingdom of Heaven<\/em> is equivalent here to <em>eternal life<\/em> (Matt 19:16-17, 29) or to <em>salvation<\/em> as the result of God’s regenerating work (19:25-26).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:23 Jesus draws a lesson for discipleship from the rich man’s tragic denial. It is hard for the rich to humble themselves, admit their need, and trust in God (see 5:3; Luke 6:24; 1 Tim 6:9-10). • Kingdom of Heaven is equivalent here to eternal life (Matt 19:16-17, 29) or to salvation as the result of God’s regenerating work (19:25-26).","summary_en":"19:23 Jesus draws a lesson for discipleship from the rich man’s tragic denial. It is hard for the rich to humble themselves, admit their need, and trust in God (see 5:3; Luke 6:24; 1 Tim 6:9-10). • Kingdom of Heaven is equivalent here to eternal life (Matt 19:16-17, 29) or to salvation as the result of God’s regenerating work (19:25-26).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110129,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:23","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:23","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:23<\/strong> Jesus draws a lesson for discipleship from the rich man’s tragic denial. It is <em>hard<\/em> for the <em>rich<\/em> to humble themselves, admit their need, and trust in God (see 5:3; Luke 6:24; 1 Tim 6:9-10). • <em>Kingdom of Heaven<\/em> is equivalent here to <em>eternal life<\/em> (Matt 19:16-17, 29) or to <em>salvation<\/em> as the result of God’s regenerating work (19:25-26).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:23<\/strong> Jesus draws a lesson for discipleship from the rich man’s tragic denial. It is <em>hard<\/em> for the <em>rich<\/em> to humble themselves, admit their need, and trust in God (see 5:3; Luke 6:24; 1 Tim 6:9-10). • <em>Kingdom of Heaven<\/em> is equivalent here to <em>eternal life<\/em> (Matt 19:16-17, 29) or to <em>salvation<\/em> as the result of God’s regenerating work (19:25-26).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:23 Jesus draws a lesson for discipleship from the rich man’s tragic denial. It is hard for the rich to humble themselves, admit their need, and trust in God (see 5:3; Luke 6:24; 1 Tim 6:9-10). • Kingdom of Heaven is equivalent here to eternal life (Matt 19:16-17, 29) or to salvation as the result of God’s regenerating work (19:25-26).","summary_en":"19:23 Jesus draws a lesson for discipleship from the rich man’s tragic denial. It is hard for the rich to humble themselves, admit their need, and trust in God (see 5:3; Luke 6:24; 1 Tim 6:9-10). • Kingdom of Heaven is equivalent here to eternal life (Matt 19:16-17, 29) or to salvation as the result of God’s regenerating work (19:25-26).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":137755,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:23","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:23","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:23<\/strong> Jesus draws a lesson for discipleship from the rich man’s tragic denial. It is <em>hard<\/em> for the <em>rich<\/em> to humble themselves, admit their need, and trust in God (see 5:3; Luke 6:24; 1 Tim 6:9-10). • <em>Kingdom of Heaven<\/em> is equivalent here to <em>eternal life<\/em> (Matt 19:16-17, 29) or to <em>salvation<\/em> as the result of God’s regenerating work (19:25-26).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:23<\/strong> Jesus draws a lesson for discipleship from the rich man’s tragic denial. It is <em>hard<\/em> for the <em>rich<\/em> to humble themselves, admit their need, and trust in God (see 5:3; Luke 6:24; 1 Tim 6:9-10). • <em>Kingdom of Heaven<\/em> is equivalent here to <em>eternal life<\/em> (Matt 19:16-17, 29) or to <em>salvation<\/em> as the result of God’s regenerating work (19:25-26).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:23 Jesus draws a lesson for discipleship from the rich man’s tragic denial. It is hard for the rich to humble themselves, admit their need, and trust in God (see 5:3; Luke 6:24; 1 Tim 6:9-10). • Kingdom of Heaven is equivalent here to eternal life (Matt 19:16-17, 29) or to salvation as the result of God’s regenerating work (19:25-26).","summary_en":"19:23 Jesus draws a lesson for discipleship from the rich man’s tragic denial. It is hard for the rich to humble themselves, admit their need, and trust in God (see 5:3; Luke 6:24; 1 Tim 6:9-10). • Kingdom of Heaven is equivalent here to eternal life (Matt 19:16-17, 29) or to salvation as the result of God’s regenerating work (19:25-26).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":61941,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Promised Kingdom","title_en":"God’s Promised Kingdom","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Promised Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to keep the hope of God’s kingdom alive. The Chronicler wanted the people to know that God’s promise to David, confirmed to Solomon, was equally confirmed for them. After the Exile, Judah no longer existed as an independent kingdom ruled by the dynasty of David. Instead, Judea stood as a small territory with limited independence under a Persian governor. Yet the community of Judea could experience God’s blessing, just as the people had in the days of Hezekiah and Josiah. The Chronicler did not know exactly how God’s promise to David would be realized. Yet he had complete trust in God’s power, sovereignty, and justice; he knew that God would be faithful to his promise and that his kingdom would eventually rule over all.<\/p>\n<p>Following the time of the Chronicler, it appeared that his hopes were disappointed. The Greeks replaced the Persians as rulers of Israel; their intolerance for the Jewish community of faith reached its zenith in the tyrannical Antiochus IV “Epiphanes” (175–163 <span>BC<\/span>), who made every effort to destroy Israel’s faith and identity, as Daniel had foreseen (Dan 11:21-39). The priestly family of Maccabees resisted Antiochus, restored the Temple, and preserved Judea’s identity. But then the community disintegrated under the successors to the Maccabees; Israel fractured into sects (e.g., the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes) and eventually came under Roman control. When Jesus was born, Roman governors controlled the territory of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The fulfillment of God’s promises to David took place in a way the Chronicler did not anticipate. Jesus was the anointed king, the Messiah from the dynasty of David (see Matt 16:16-17). His Kingdom was not established by the military defeat of the Romans but rather by the defeat of the powers of sin and death. His Kingdom continues to spread through his followers, and the powers of hell will never prevail against it. In the end, His Kingdom will be fully realized in the ultimate defeat of the powers of evil, and He will reign as King forever (see Rev 19:11–20:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Chr 17:9-14; 28:1-21; Isa 2:1-4; 60:1-22; 65:17-25; Ezek 37:21-28; Dan 2:31-45; 7:1-28; Mic 4:1-5; Zech 9:9-10; 14:1-21; Matt 4:17; 6:33; 13:11-50; 16:16-19; 18:3-4, 23-35; 19:14, 23-30; 20:1-16; 22:2-14; 25:1-46; Luke 1:30-33; Eph 5:5; Rev 19:1–21:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Promised Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to keep the hope of God’s kingdom alive. The Chronicler wanted the people to know that God’s promise to David, confirmed to Solomon, was equally confirmed for them. After the Exile, Judah no longer existed as an independent kingdom ruled by the dynasty of David. Instead, Judea stood as a small territory with limited independence under a Persian governor. Yet the community of Judea could experience God’s blessing, just as the people had in the days of Hezekiah and Josiah. The Chronicler did not know exactly how God’s promise to David would be realized. Yet he had complete trust in God’s power, sovereignty, and justice; he knew that God would be faithful to his promise and that his kingdom would eventually rule over all.<\/p>\n<p>Following the time of the Chronicler, it appeared that his hopes were disappointed. The Greeks replaced the Persians as rulers of Israel; their intolerance for the Jewish community of faith reached its zenith in the tyrannical Antiochus IV “Epiphanes” (175–163 <span>BC<\/span>), who made every effort to destroy Israel’s faith and identity, as Daniel had foreseen (Dan 11:21-39). The priestly family of Maccabees resisted Antiochus, restored the Temple, and preserved Judea’s identity. But then the community disintegrated under the successors to the Maccabees; Israel fractured into sects (e.g., the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes) and eventually came under Roman control. When Jesus was born, Roman governors controlled the territory of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The fulfillment of God’s promises to David took place in a way the Chronicler did not anticipate. Jesus was the anointed king, the Messiah from the dynasty of David (see Matt 16:16-17). His Kingdom was not established by the military defeat of the Romans but rather by the defeat of the powers of sin and death. His Kingdom continues to spread through his followers, and the powers of hell will never prevail against it. In the end, His Kingdom will be fully realized in the ultimate defeat of the powers of evil, and He will reign as King forever (see Rev 19:11–20:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Chr 17:9-14; 28:1-21; Isa 2:1-4; 60:1-22; 65:17-25; Ezek 37:21-28; Dan 2:31-45; 7:1-28; Mic 4:1-5; Zech 9:9-10; 14:1-21; Matt 4:17; 6:33; 13:11-50; 16:16-19; 18:3-4, 23-35; 19:14, 23-30; 20:1-16; 22:2-14; 25:1-46; Luke 1:30-33; Eph 5:5; Rev 19:1–21:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Promised Kingdom God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21). The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to ke...","summary_en":"God’s Promised Kingdom God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21). The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to ke...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":66408,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Miracles","title_en":"Miracles","content_ro":"<h3>Miracles<\/h3>\n<p>Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in more than the miracle itself (see John 12:37). Miracles remind us of the truth that anything is possible for God (Mark 9:21-23; cp. Matt 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 1:37; 18:27).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus performed many miracles during his ministry including physical healings, exorcisms, nature miracles, and raising the dead. Jesus demonstrated a deep love for humankind in the way he responded to people’s needs, and many people followed him in response to his miracles (John 6:2), though he cautioned against following him just because of the miracles (John 6:26). Perhaps the three greatest miracles that occurred in relation to Jesus are (1) his coming as the Word of God in human flesh (John 1:14), (2) his glorious resurrection from the dead (Matt 28; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-53; John 20:1-31; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor 15:3-8; cp Acts 23:6; 26:8), and (3) the miracle of the new birth (John 3:3-8; Gal 2:20; Eph 2:8-10). The coming of Jesus into the world to be the Savior and to die for our sins shows us how much God loves us (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5; 1 Jn 3:1-2). The fact that God raised Jesus from the dead reveals God’s power over death and gives us a living hope, the promise of eternal life (1 Pet 1:3-9). And the person who puts faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is born anew as a child of God and receives eternal life (John 1:12; 3:36; Rom 5:1-2; 1 Jn 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>The miraculous activity of Jesus continued in the work of his followers, as demonstrated throughout the book of Acts (e.g., Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-15; 6:8; 8:6-7; 9:32-42; 14:3). Filled with the Holy Spirit, the apostles and other Christian leaders performed these miraculous signs, wonders, and mighty works, often in order to offer tangible evidence of the power and truth of the Christian message (14:3; see John 3:2; Heb 2:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 19:23-26; 28:1-20; Mark 10:23-27; Luke 1:30-38; 18:24-27; 24:1-53; John 1:12-14; 3:2-8, 16; 20:1–21:25; Acts 4:29-31; 5:12-16; 6:8; 8:4-23; 9:32-42; 14:3-4; 26:8; Rom 5:1, 8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5, 8-10; Heb 2:4; 1 Pet 1:3-5; 1 Jn 5:12-13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Miracles<\/h3>\n<p>Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in more than the miracle itself (see John 12:37). Miracles remind us of the truth that anything is possible for God (Mark 9:21-23; cp. Matt 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 1:37; 18:27).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus performed many miracles during his ministry including physical healings, exorcisms, nature miracles, and raising the dead. Jesus demonstrated a deep love for humankind in the way he responded to people’s needs, and many people followed him in response to his miracles (John 6:2), though he cautioned against following him just because of the miracles (John 6:26). Perhaps the three greatest miracles that occurred in relation to Jesus are (1) his coming as the Word of God in human flesh (John 1:14), (2) his glorious resurrection from the dead (Matt 28; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-53; John 20:1-31; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor 15:3-8; cp Acts 23:6; 26:8), and (3) the miracle of the new birth (John 3:3-8; Gal 2:20; Eph 2:8-10). The coming of Jesus into the world to be the Savior and to die for our sins shows us how much God loves us (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5; 1 Jn 3:1-2). The fact that God raised Jesus from the dead reveals God’s power over death and gives us a living hope, the promise of eternal life (1 Pet 1:3-9). And the person who puts faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is born anew as a child of God and receives eternal life (John 1:12; 3:36; Rom 5:1-2; 1 Jn 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>The miraculous activity of Jesus continued in the work of his followers, as demonstrated throughout the book of Acts (e.g., Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-15; 6:8; 8:6-7; 9:32-42; 14:3). Filled with the Holy Spirit, the apostles and other Christian leaders performed these miraculous signs, wonders, and mighty works, often in order to offer tangible evidence of the power and truth of the Christian message (14:3; see John 3:2; Heb 2:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 19:23-26; 28:1-20; Mark 10:23-27; Luke 1:30-38; 18:24-27; 24:1-53; John 1:12-14; 3:2-8, 16; 20:1–21:25; Acts 4:29-31; 5:12-16; 6:8; 8:4-23; 9:32-42; 14:3-4; 26:8; Rom 5:1, 8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5, 8-10; Heb 2:4; 1 Pet 1:3-5; 1 Jn 5:12-13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Miracles Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in ...","summary_en":"Miracles Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":89567,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Promised Kingdom","title_en":"God’s Promised Kingdom","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Promised Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to keep the hope of God’s kingdom alive. The Chronicler wanted the people to know that God’s promise to David, confirmed to Solomon, was equally confirmed for them. After the Exile, Judah no longer existed as an independent kingdom ruled by the dynasty of David. Instead, Judea stood as a small territory with limited independence under a Persian governor. Yet the community of Judea could experience God’s blessing, just as the people had in the days of Hezekiah and Josiah. The Chronicler did not know exactly how God’s promise to David would be realized. Yet he had complete trust in God’s power, sovereignty, and justice; he knew that God would be faithful to his promise and that his kingdom would eventually rule over all.<\/p>\n<p>Following the time of the Chronicler, it appeared that his hopes were disappointed. The Greeks replaced the Persians as rulers of Israel; their intolerance for the Jewish community of faith reached its zenith in the tyrannical Antiochus IV “Epiphanes” (175–163 <span>BC<\/span>), who made every effort to destroy Israel’s faith and identity, as Daniel had foreseen (Dan 11:21-39). The priestly family of Maccabees resisted Antiochus, restored the Temple, and preserved Judea’s identity. But then the community disintegrated under the successors to the Maccabees; Israel fractured into sects (e.g., the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes) and eventually came under Roman control. When Jesus was born, Roman governors controlled the territory of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The fulfillment of God’s promises to David took place in a way the Chronicler did not anticipate. Jesus was the anointed king, the Messiah from the dynasty of David (see Matt 16:16-17). His Kingdom was not established by the military defeat of the Romans but rather by the defeat of the powers of sin and death. His Kingdom continues to spread through his followers, and the powers of hell will never prevail against it. In the end, His Kingdom will be fully realized in the ultimate defeat of the powers of evil, and He will reign as King forever (see Rev 19:11–20:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Chr 17:9-14; 28:1-21; Isa 2:1-4; 60:1-22; 65:17-25; Ezek 37:21-28; Dan 2:31-45; 7:1-28; Mic 4:1-5; Zech 9:9-10; 14:1-21; Matt 4:17; 6:33; 13:11-50; 16:16-19; 18:3-4, 23-35; 19:14, 23-30; 20:1-16; 22:2-14; 25:1-46; Luke 1:30-33; Eph 5:5; Rev 19:1–21:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Promised Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to keep the hope of God’s kingdom alive. The Chronicler wanted the people to know that God’s promise to David, confirmed to Solomon, was equally confirmed for them. After the Exile, Judah no longer existed as an independent kingdom ruled by the dynasty of David. Instead, Judea stood as a small territory with limited independence under a Persian governor. Yet the community of Judea could experience God’s blessing, just as the people had in the days of Hezekiah and Josiah. The Chronicler did not know exactly how God’s promise to David would be realized. Yet he had complete trust in God’s power, sovereignty, and justice; he knew that God would be faithful to his promise and that his kingdom would eventually rule over all.<\/p>\n<p>Following the time of the Chronicler, it appeared that his hopes were disappointed. The Greeks replaced the Persians as rulers of Israel; their intolerance for the Jewish community of faith reached its zenith in the tyrannical Antiochus IV “Epiphanes” (175–163 <span>BC<\/span>), who made every effort to destroy Israel’s faith and identity, as Daniel had foreseen (Dan 11:21-39). The priestly family of Maccabees resisted Antiochus, restored the Temple, and preserved Judea’s identity. But then the community disintegrated under the successors to the Maccabees; Israel fractured into sects (e.g., the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes) and eventually came under Roman control. When Jesus was born, Roman governors controlled the territory of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The fulfillment of God’s promises to David took place in a way the Chronicler did not anticipate. Jesus was the anointed king, the Messiah from the dynasty of David (see Matt 16:16-17). His Kingdom was not established by the military defeat of the Romans but rather by the defeat of the powers of sin and death. His Kingdom continues to spread through his followers, and the powers of hell will never prevail against it. In the end, His Kingdom will be fully realized in the ultimate defeat of the powers of evil, and He will reign as King forever (see Rev 19:11–20:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Chr 17:9-14; 28:1-21; Isa 2:1-4; 60:1-22; 65:17-25; Ezek 37:21-28; Dan 2:31-45; 7:1-28; Mic 4:1-5; Zech 9:9-10; 14:1-21; Matt 4:17; 6:33; 13:11-50; 16:16-19; 18:3-4, 23-35; 19:14, 23-30; 20:1-16; 22:2-14; 25:1-46; Luke 1:30-33; Eph 5:5; Rev 19:1–21:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Promised Kingdom God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21). The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to ke...","summary_en":"God’s Promised Kingdom God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21). The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to ke...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":94034,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Miracles","title_en":"Miracles","content_ro":"<h3>Miracles<\/h3>\n<p>Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in more than the miracle itself (see John 12:37). Miracles remind us of the truth that anything is possible for God (Mark 9:21-23; cp. Matt 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 1:37; 18:27).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus performed many miracles during his ministry including physical healings, exorcisms, nature miracles, and raising the dead. Jesus demonstrated a deep love for humankind in the way he responded to people’s needs, and many people followed him in response to his miracles (John 6:2), though he cautioned against following him just because of the miracles (John 6:26). Perhaps the three greatest miracles that occurred in relation to Jesus are (1) his coming as the Word of God in human flesh (John 1:14), (2) his glorious resurrection from the dead (Matt 28; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-53; John 20:1-31; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor 15:3-8; cp Acts 23:6; 26:8), and (3) the miracle of the new birth (John 3:3-8; Gal 2:20; Eph 2:8-10). The coming of Jesus into the world to be the Savior and to die for our sins shows us how much God loves us (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5; 1 Jn 3:1-2). The fact that God raised Jesus from the dead reveals God’s power over death and gives us a living hope, the promise of eternal life (1 Pet 1:3-9). And the person who puts faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is born anew as a child of God and receives eternal life (John 1:12; 3:36; Rom 5:1-2; 1 Jn 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>The miraculous activity of Jesus continued in the work of his followers, as demonstrated throughout the book of Acts (e.g., Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-15; 6:8; 8:6-7; 9:32-42; 14:3). Filled with the Holy Spirit, the apostles and other Christian leaders performed these miraculous signs, wonders, and mighty works, often in order to offer tangible evidence of the power and truth of the Christian message (14:3; see John 3:2; Heb 2:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 19:23-26; 28:1-20; Mark 10:23-27; Luke 1:30-38; 18:24-27; 24:1-53; John 1:12-14; 3:2-8, 16; 20:1–21:25; Acts 4:29-31; 5:12-16; 6:8; 8:4-23; 9:32-42; 14:3-4; 26:8; Rom 5:1, 8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5, 8-10; Heb 2:4; 1 Pet 1:3-5; 1 Jn 5:12-13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Miracles<\/h3>\n<p>Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in more than the miracle itself (see John 12:37). Miracles remind us of the truth that anything is possible for God (Mark 9:21-23; cp. Matt 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 1:37; 18:27).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus performed many miracles during his ministry including physical healings, exorcisms, nature miracles, and raising the dead. Jesus demonstrated a deep love for humankind in the way he responded to people’s needs, and many people followed him in response to his miracles (John 6:2), though he cautioned against following him just because of the miracles (John 6:26). Perhaps the three greatest miracles that occurred in relation to Jesus are (1) his coming as the Word of God in human flesh (John 1:14), (2) his glorious resurrection from the dead (Matt 28; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-53; John 20:1-31; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor 15:3-8; cp Acts 23:6; 26:8), and (3) the miracle of the new birth (John 3:3-8; Gal 2:20; Eph 2:8-10). The coming of Jesus into the world to be the Savior and to die for our sins shows us how much God loves us (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5; 1 Jn 3:1-2). The fact that God raised Jesus from the dead reveals God’s power over death and gives us a living hope, the promise of eternal life (1 Pet 1:3-9). And the person who puts faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is born anew as a child of God and receives eternal life (John 1:12; 3:36; Rom 5:1-2; 1 Jn 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>The miraculous activity of Jesus continued in the work of his followers, as demonstrated throughout the book of Acts (e.g., Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-15; 6:8; 8:6-7; 9:32-42; 14:3). Filled with the Holy Spirit, the apostles and other Christian leaders performed these miraculous signs, wonders, and mighty works, often in order to offer tangible evidence of the power and truth of the Christian message (14:3; see John 3:2; Heb 2:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 19:23-26; 28:1-20; Mark 10:23-27; Luke 1:30-38; 18:24-27; 24:1-53; John 1:12-14; 3:2-8, 16; 20:1–21:25; Acts 4:29-31; 5:12-16; 6:8; 8:4-23; 9:32-42; 14:3-4; 26:8; Rom 5:1, 8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5, 8-10; Heb 2:4; 1 Pet 1:3-5; 1 Jn 5:12-13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Miracles Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in ...","summary_en":"Miracles Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":117193,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Promised Kingdom","title_en":"God’s Promised Kingdom","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Promised Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to keep the hope of God’s kingdom alive. The Chronicler wanted the people to know that God’s promise to David, confirmed to Solomon, was equally confirmed for them. After the Exile, Judah no longer existed as an independent kingdom ruled by the dynasty of David. Instead, Judea stood as a small territory with limited independence under a Persian governor. Yet the community of Judea could experience God’s blessing, just as the people had in the days of Hezekiah and Josiah. The Chronicler did not know exactly how God’s promise to David would be realized. Yet he had complete trust in God’s power, sovereignty, and justice; he knew that God would be faithful to his promise and that his kingdom would eventually rule over all.<\/p>\n<p>Following the time of the Chronicler, it appeared that his hopes were disappointed. The Greeks replaced the Persians as rulers of Israel; their intolerance for the Jewish community of faith reached its zenith in the tyrannical Antiochus IV “Epiphanes” (175–163 <span>BC<\/span>), who made every effort to destroy Israel’s faith and identity, as Daniel had foreseen (Dan 11:21-39). The priestly family of Maccabees resisted Antiochus, restored the Temple, and preserved Judea’s identity. But then the community disintegrated under the successors to the Maccabees; Israel fractured into sects (e.g., the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes) and eventually came under Roman control. When Jesus was born, Roman governors controlled the territory of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The fulfillment of God’s promises to David took place in a way the Chronicler did not anticipate. Jesus was the anointed king, the Messiah from the dynasty of David (see Matt 16:16-17). His Kingdom was not established by the military defeat of the Romans but rather by the defeat of the powers of sin and death. His Kingdom continues to spread through his followers, and the powers of hell will never prevail against it. In the end, His Kingdom will be fully realized in the ultimate defeat of the powers of evil, and He will reign as King forever (see Rev 19:11–20:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Chr 17:9-14; 28:1-21; Isa 2:1-4; 60:1-22; 65:17-25; Ezek 37:21-28; Dan 2:31-45; 7:1-28; Mic 4:1-5; Zech 9:9-10; 14:1-21; Matt 4:17; 6:33; 13:11-50; 16:16-19; 18:3-4, 23-35; 19:14, 23-30; 20:1-16; 22:2-14; 25:1-46; Luke 1:30-33; Eph 5:5; Rev 19:1–21:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Promised Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to keep the hope of God’s kingdom alive. The Chronicler wanted the people to know that God’s promise to David, confirmed to Solomon, was equally confirmed for them. After the Exile, Judah no longer existed as an independent kingdom ruled by the dynasty of David. Instead, Judea stood as a small territory with limited independence under a Persian governor. Yet the community of Judea could experience God’s blessing, just as the people had in the days of Hezekiah and Josiah. The Chronicler did not know exactly how God’s promise to David would be realized. Yet he had complete trust in God’s power, sovereignty, and justice; he knew that God would be faithful to his promise and that his kingdom would eventually rule over all.<\/p>\n<p>Following the time of the Chronicler, it appeared that his hopes were disappointed. The Greeks replaced the Persians as rulers of Israel; their intolerance for the Jewish community of faith reached its zenith in the tyrannical Antiochus IV “Epiphanes” (175–163 <span>BC<\/span>), who made every effort to destroy Israel’s faith and identity, as Daniel had foreseen (Dan 11:21-39). The priestly family of Maccabees resisted Antiochus, restored the Temple, and preserved Judea’s identity. But then the community disintegrated under the successors to the Maccabees; Israel fractured into sects (e.g., the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes) and eventually came under Roman control. When Jesus was born, Roman governors controlled the territory of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The fulfillment of God’s promises to David took place in a way the Chronicler did not anticipate. Jesus was the anointed king, the Messiah from the dynasty of David (see Matt 16:16-17). His Kingdom was not established by the military defeat of the Romans but rather by the defeat of the powers of sin and death. His Kingdom continues to spread through his followers, and the powers of hell will never prevail against it. In the end, His Kingdom will be fully realized in the ultimate defeat of the powers of evil, and He will reign as King forever (see Rev 19:11–20:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Chr 17:9-14; 28:1-21; Isa 2:1-4; 60:1-22; 65:17-25; Ezek 37:21-28; Dan 2:31-45; 7:1-28; Mic 4:1-5; Zech 9:9-10; 14:1-21; Matt 4:17; 6:33; 13:11-50; 16:16-19; 18:3-4, 23-35; 19:14, 23-30; 20:1-16; 22:2-14; 25:1-46; Luke 1:30-33; Eph 5:5; Rev 19:1–21:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Promised Kingdom God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21). The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to ke...","summary_en":"God’s Promised Kingdom God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21). The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to ke...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":121660,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Miracles","title_en":"Miracles","content_ro":"<h3>Miracles<\/h3>\n<p>Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in more than the miracle itself (see John 12:37). Miracles remind us of the truth that anything is possible for God (Mark 9:21-23; cp. Matt 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 1:37; 18:27).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus performed many miracles during his ministry including physical healings, exorcisms, nature miracles, and raising the dead. Jesus demonstrated a deep love for humankind in the way he responded to people’s needs, and many people followed him in response to his miracles (John 6:2), though he cautioned against following him just because of the miracles (John 6:26). Perhaps the three greatest miracles that occurred in relation to Jesus are (1) his coming as the Word of God in human flesh (John 1:14), (2) his glorious resurrection from the dead (Matt 28; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-53; John 20:1-31; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor 15:3-8; cp Acts 23:6; 26:8), and (3) the miracle of the new birth (John 3:3-8; Gal 2:20; Eph 2:8-10). The coming of Jesus into the world to be the Savior and to die for our sins shows us how much God loves us (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5; 1 Jn 3:1-2). The fact that God raised Jesus from the dead reveals God’s power over death and gives us a living hope, the promise of eternal life (1 Pet 1:3-9). And the person who puts faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is born anew as a child of God and receives eternal life (John 1:12; 3:36; Rom 5:1-2; 1 Jn 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>The miraculous activity of Jesus continued in the work of his followers, as demonstrated throughout the book of Acts (e.g., Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-15; 6:8; 8:6-7; 9:32-42; 14:3). Filled with the Holy Spirit, the apostles and other Christian leaders performed these miraculous signs, wonders, and mighty works, often in order to offer tangible evidence of the power and truth of the Christian message (14:3; see John 3:2; Heb 2:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 19:23-26; 28:1-20; Mark 10:23-27; Luke 1:30-38; 18:24-27; 24:1-53; John 1:12-14; 3:2-8, 16; 20:1–21:25; Acts 4:29-31; 5:12-16; 6:8; 8:4-23; 9:32-42; 14:3-4; 26:8; Rom 5:1, 8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5, 8-10; Heb 2:4; 1 Pet 1:3-5; 1 Jn 5:12-13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Miracles<\/h3>\n<p>Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in more than the miracle itself (see John 12:37). Miracles remind us of the truth that anything is possible for God (Mark 9:21-23; cp. Matt 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 1:37; 18:27).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus performed many miracles during his ministry including physical healings, exorcisms, nature miracles, and raising the dead. Jesus demonstrated a deep love for humankind in the way he responded to people’s needs, and many people followed him in response to his miracles (John 6:2), though he cautioned against following him just because of the miracles (John 6:26). Perhaps the three greatest miracles that occurred in relation to Jesus are (1) his coming as the Word of God in human flesh (John 1:14), (2) his glorious resurrection from the dead (Matt 28; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-53; John 20:1-31; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor 15:3-8; cp Acts 23:6; 26:8), and (3) the miracle of the new birth (John 3:3-8; Gal 2:20; Eph 2:8-10). The coming of Jesus into the world to be the Savior and to die for our sins shows us how much God loves us (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5; 1 Jn 3:1-2). The fact that God raised Jesus from the dead reveals God’s power over death and gives us a living hope, the promise of eternal life (1 Pet 1:3-9). And the person who puts faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is born anew as a child of God and receives eternal life (John 1:12; 3:36; Rom 5:1-2; 1 Jn 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>The miraculous activity of Jesus continued in the work of his followers, as demonstrated throughout the book of Acts (e.g., Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-15; 6:8; 8:6-7; 9:32-42; 14:3). Filled with the Holy Spirit, the apostles and other Christian leaders performed these miraculous signs, wonders, and mighty works, often in order to offer tangible evidence of the power and truth of the Christian message (14:3; see John 3:2; Heb 2:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 19:23-26; 28:1-20; Mark 10:23-27; Luke 1:30-38; 18:24-27; 24:1-53; John 1:12-14; 3:2-8, 16; 20:1–21:25; Acts 4:29-31; 5:12-16; 6:8; 8:4-23; 9:32-42; 14:3-4; 26:8; Rom 5:1, 8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5, 8-10; Heb 2:4; 1 Pet 1:3-5; 1 Jn 5:12-13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Miracles Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in ...","summary_en":"Miracles Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":144819,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Promised Kingdom","title_en":"God’s Promised Kingdom","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Promised Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to keep the hope of God’s kingdom alive. The Chronicler wanted the people to know that God’s promise to David, confirmed to Solomon, was equally confirmed for them. After the Exile, Judah no longer existed as an independent kingdom ruled by the dynasty of David. Instead, Judea stood as a small territory with limited independence under a Persian governor. Yet the community of Judea could experience God’s blessing, just as the people had in the days of Hezekiah and Josiah. The Chronicler did not know exactly how God’s promise to David would be realized. Yet he had complete trust in God’s power, sovereignty, and justice; he knew that God would be faithful to his promise and that his kingdom would eventually rule over all.<\/p>\n<p>Following the time of the Chronicler, it appeared that his hopes were disappointed. The Greeks replaced the Persians as rulers of Israel; their intolerance for the Jewish community of faith reached its zenith in the tyrannical Antiochus IV “Epiphanes” (175–163 <span>BC<\/span>), who made every effort to destroy Israel’s faith and identity, as Daniel had foreseen (Dan 11:21-39). The priestly family of Maccabees resisted Antiochus, restored the Temple, and preserved Judea’s identity. But then the community disintegrated under the successors to the Maccabees; Israel fractured into sects (e.g., the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes) and eventually came under Roman control. When Jesus was born, Roman governors controlled the territory of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The fulfillment of God’s promises to David took place in a way the Chronicler did not anticipate. Jesus was the anointed king, the Messiah from the dynasty of David (see Matt 16:16-17). His Kingdom was not established by the military defeat of the Romans but rather by the defeat of the powers of sin and death. His Kingdom continues to spread through his followers, and the powers of hell will never prevail against it. In the end, His Kingdom will be fully realized in the ultimate defeat of the powers of evil, and He will reign as King forever (see Rev 19:11–20:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Chr 17:9-14; 28:1-21; Isa 2:1-4; 60:1-22; 65:17-25; Ezek 37:21-28; Dan 2:31-45; 7:1-28; Mic 4:1-5; Zech 9:9-10; 14:1-21; Matt 4:17; 6:33; 13:11-50; 16:16-19; 18:3-4, 23-35; 19:14, 23-30; 20:1-16; 22:2-14; 25:1-46; Luke 1:30-33; Eph 5:5; Rev 19:1–21:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Promised Kingdom<\/h3>\n<p>God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21).<\/p>\n<p>The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to keep the hope of God’s kingdom alive. The Chronicler wanted the people to know that God’s promise to David, confirmed to Solomon, was equally confirmed for them. After the Exile, Judah no longer existed as an independent kingdom ruled by the dynasty of David. Instead, Judea stood as a small territory with limited independence under a Persian governor. Yet the community of Judea could experience God’s blessing, just as the people had in the days of Hezekiah and Josiah. The Chronicler did not know exactly how God’s promise to David would be realized. Yet he had complete trust in God’s power, sovereignty, and justice; he knew that God would be faithful to his promise and that his kingdom would eventually rule over all.<\/p>\n<p>Following the time of the Chronicler, it appeared that his hopes were disappointed. The Greeks replaced the Persians as rulers of Israel; their intolerance for the Jewish community of faith reached its zenith in the tyrannical Antiochus IV “Epiphanes” (175–163 <span>BC<\/span>), who made every effort to destroy Israel’s faith and identity, as Daniel had foreseen (Dan 11:21-39). The priestly family of Maccabees resisted Antiochus, restored the Temple, and preserved Judea’s identity. But then the community disintegrated under the successors to the Maccabees; Israel fractured into sects (e.g., the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes) and eventually came under Roman control. When Jesus was born, Roman governors controlled the territory of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The fulfillment of God’s promises to David took place in a way the Chronicler did not anticipate. Jesus was the anointed king, the Messiah from the dynasty of David (see Matt 16:16-17). His Kingdom was not established by the military defeat of the Romans but rather by the defeat of the powers of sin and death. His Kingdom continues to spread through his followers, and the powers of hell will never prevail against it. In the end, His Kingdom will be fully realized in the ultimate defeat of the powers of evil, and He will reign as King forever (see Rev 19:11–20:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Chr 17:9-14; 28:1-21; Isa 2:1-4; 60:1-22; 65:17-25; Ezek 37:21-28; Dan 2:31-45; 7:1-28; Mic 4:1-5; Zech 9:9-10; 14:1-21; Matt 4:17; 6:33; 13:11-50; 16:16-19; 18:3-4, 23-35; 19:14, 23-30; 20:1-16; 22:2-14; 25:1-46; Luke 1:30-33; Eph 5:5; Rev 19:1–21:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Promised Kingdom God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21). The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to ke...","summary_en":"God’s Promised Kingdom God promised that his kingdom would come through David (1 Chr 17:4-14). During his reign, David himself made preparations for the building of the Temple as the focal point of God’s kingdom (28:11-19). He also appealed to Israel’s leaders to seek the Lord (28:8-10), and he encouraged the community of Israel to “be strong and courageous” in trusting God to provide (28:20-21). The Chronicler used these words of David to appeal to the citizens of Judea after the Exile to ke...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":149286,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Miracles","title_en":"Miracles","content_ro":"<h3>Miracles<\/h3>\n<p>Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in more than the miracle itself (see John 12:37). Miracles remind us of the truth that anything is possible for God (Mark 9:21-23; cp. Matt 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 1:37; 18:27).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus performed many miracles during his ministry including physical healings, exorcisms, nature miracles, and raising the dead. Jesus demonstrated a deep love for humankind in the way he responded to people’s needs, and many people followed him in response to his miracles (John 6:2), though he cautioned against following him just because of the miracles (John 6:26). Perhaps the three greatest miracles that occurred in relation to Jesus are (1) his coming as the Word of God in human flesh (John 1:14), (2) his glorious resurrection from the dead (Matt 28; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-53; John 20:1-31; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor 15:3-8; cp Acts 23:6; 26:8), and (3) the miracle of the new birth (John 3:3-8; Gal 2:20; Eph 2:8-10). The coming of Jesus into the world to be the Savior and to die for our sins shows us how much God loves us (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5; 1 Jn 3:1-2). The fact that God raised Jesus from the dead reveals God’s power over death and gives us a living hope, the promise of eternal life (1 Pet 1:3-9). And the person who puts faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is born anew as a child of God and receives eternal life (John 1:12; 3:36; Rom 5:1-2; 1 Jn 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>The miraculous activity of Jesus continued in the work of his followers, as demonstrated throughout the book of Acts (e.g., Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-15; 6:8; 8:6-7; 9:32-42; 14:3). Filled with the Holy Spirit, the apostles and other Christian leaders performed these miraculous signs, wonders, and mighty works, often in order to offer tangible evidence of the power and truth of the Christian message (14:3; see John 3:2; Heb 2:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 19:23-26; 28:1-20; Mark 10:23-27; Luke 1:30-38; 18:24-27; 24:1-53; John 1:12-14; 3:2-8, 16; 20:1–21:25; Acts 4:29-31; 5:12-16; 6:8; 8:4-23; 9:32-42; 14:3-4; 26:8; Rom 5:1, 8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5, 8-10; Heb 2:4; 1 Pet 1:3-5; 1 Jn 5:12-13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Miracles<\/h3>\n<p>Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in more than the miracle itself (see John 12:37). Miracles remind us of the truth that anything is possible for God (Mark 9:21-23; cp. Matt 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 1:37; 18:27).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus performed many miracles during his ministry including physical healings, exorcisms, nature miracles, and raising the dead. Jesus demonstrated a deep love for humankind in the way he responded to people’s needs, and many people followed him in response to his miracles (John 6:2), though he cautioned against following him just because of the miracles (John 6:26). Perhaps the three greatest miracles that occurred in relation to Jesus are (1) his coming as the Word of God in human flesh (John 1:14), (2) his glorious resurrection from the dead (Matt 28; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-53; John 20:1-31; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor 15:3-8; cp Acts 23:6; 26:8), and (3) the miracle of the new birth (John 3:3-8; Gal 2:20; Eph 2:8-10). The coming of Jesus into the world to be the Savior and to die for our sins shows us how much God loves us (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5; 1 Jn 3:1-2). The fact that God raised Jesus from the dead reveals God’s power over death and gives us a living hope, the promise of eternal life (1 Pet 1:3-9). And the person who puts faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is born anew as a child of God and receives eternal life (John 1:12; 3:36; Rom 5:1-2; 1 Jn 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>The miraculous activity of Jesus continued in the work of his followers, as demonstrated throughout the book of Acts (e.g., Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-15; 6:8; 8:6-7; 9:32-42; 14:3). Filled with the Holy Spirit, the apostles and other Christian leaders performed these miraculous signs, wonders, and mighty works, often in order to offer tangible evidence of the power and truth of the Christian message (14:3; see John 3:2; Heb 2:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 19:23-26; 28:1-20; Mark 10:23-27; Luke 1:30-38; 18:24-27; 24:1-53; John 1:12-14; 3:2-8, 16; 20:1–21:25; Acts 4:29-31; 5:12-16; 6:8; 8:4-23; 9:32-42; 14:3-4; 26:8; Rom 5:1, 8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5, 8-10; Heb 2:4; 1 Pet 1:3-5; 1 Jn 5:12-13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Miracles Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in ...","summary_en":"Miracles Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"24":[{"id":21792,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Kingdom of Heaven Kingdom of God","title_en":"Kingdom of Heaven Kingdom of God","content_ro":"<h3>KINGDOM OF GOD, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN<\/h3>\n<p>The sovereign rule of God, initiated by Christ’s earthly ministry and consummated when the kingdom of the world becomes the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ (Rv 11:15).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Old Testament Background<\/p>\n<p>• In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>According to the testimony of the first three Gospels, the proclamation of the kingdom of God was Jesus’ central message. Matthew summarizes the Galilean ministry with the words “Jesus traveled throughout Galilee teaching in the synagogues, preaching everywhere the Good News about the Kingdom” (Mt 4:23, <span>nlt<\/span>). The Sermon on the Mount is concerned with the righteousness that qualifies people to enter the kingdom of God (5:20). The collection of parables in Matthew 13 and Mark 4 illustrate the “mystery” of the kingdom of God (Mt 13:11; Mk 4:11). The establishment of the Lord’s Supper looks forward to the establishment of the kingdom of God (Mt 26:29; Mk 14:25).<\/p>\n<p>The NT reports two different forms of the expression: “the kingdom of God” and “the kingdom of the heavens.” The latter is found only in Matthew, but Matthew also has “the kingdom of God” four times (Mt 12:28; 19:24; 21:31, 43). “The kingdom of heaven” is a Semitic phrase that would have been meaningful to Jews but not to Greeks. The Jews, out of reverence for God, avoided uttering the divine name, and contemporary literature gives examples of substituting the word “heaven” for God (1 Macc 3:18, 50; 4:10; see Lk 15:18).<\/p>\n<p>The key to an understanding of the kingdom of God is that the basic meaning of the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">basileia<\/span><em>,<\/em> as also of the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">malkut<\/span><em>,<\/em> is rule, reign, dominion. We frequently find in the OT the expression “in the year of the kingdom of . . . ,” meaning in the year of the reign of a given king (e.g., 1 Chr 26:31; 2 Chr 3:2; 15:10; Ezr 7:1; 8:1; Est 2:16; Jer 10:7; 52:31). When we read that Solomon’s kingdom was firmly established (1 Kgs 2:12), we are to understand that his authority to reign was settled. To “turn the kingdom of Saul over to [David]” (1 Chr 12:23, <span>kjv<\/span>) indicates that the authority that had been Saul’s was given to David. As a result of having received legal authority, David became king. This abstract idea of <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">malkut<\/span> is evident when it is found in parallelisms with such ideas as power, might, glory, and dominion (Dn 4:34; 7:14).<\/p>\n<p>When <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">malkut<\/span> is used of God, it almost always refers to his authority or to his rule as the heavenly King. “They will talk together about the glory of your kingdom; they will celebrate examples of your power. . . . For your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom. You rule generation after generation” (Ps 145:11, 13, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Further, if a king rules, there must be a realm or sphere over which he reigns. This is also called <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">malkut<\/span><em>.<\/em> “So the realm of Jehoshaphat was quiet, for his God gave him rest round about” (2 Chr 20:30, <span>rsv<\/span>; see Est 3:6; Jer 10:7; Dn 9:1; 11:9).<\/p>\n<p>This same twofold use of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">basileia<\/span> is found in the NT. In fact, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">basileia<\/span> could be translated by the expression “kingly power” in Luke 23:42 (<span>niv<\/span> mg) and by “kingship” in John 18:36. When a nobleman went into a far country to get a “kingdom” (Luke 19:12, <span>nasb<\/span>) he went to the governing authority to get an appointment as king. When Jesus said, “My kingship is not of this world” (Jn 18:36, <span>rsv<\/span>), he did not mean to say that his rule has nothing to do with the world but rather that his kingship—his dominion—does not come from man but from God. Therefore, he rejects the use of worldly fighting to gain his ends.<\/p>\n<p>This central meaning of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">basileia<\/span> makes it easy to understand many sayings in the Gospels. In the Lord’s Prayer the petition “Thy kingdom come” (Mt 6:10) is a prayer for God to manifest his reign so that his will may be done on earth as it is in heaven. When we read that we are to “receive the kingdom of God like a child” (Mk 10:15, <span>rsv<\/span>), we must open our hearts and lives to the rule of God.<\/p>\n<p>Also in the NT are sayings about being <em>in<\/em> the kingdom or of <em>entering<\/em> the kingdom (Mt 8:11; Mk 9:47; 10:23-25; Lk 13:28). There is no philological or theological objection to understanding “the kingdom of God” first as the divine reign or rule and second as the sphere of blessing in which that reign is experienced.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentBackground\">Old Testament Background<\/p>\n<p>The expression “the kingdom of God” is not found in the OT, but the idea appears throughout the prophets. God is frequently spoken of as the King, both of Israel (Ex 15:18; Nm 23:21; Dt 33:5; Is 43:15) and of all the earth (2 Kgs 19:15; Pss 29:10; 47:2; 93:1-2; 96:10; 97:1-9; 99:1-4; 145:11-13; Is 6:5; Jer 46:18). Although God is not the earthly King of Israel, other references speak of a day when God shall become King and shall rule over his people (Is 24:23; 33:22; 52:7; Ob 1:21; Zep 3:15; Zec 14:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>This brief summary of God’s kingship provides the outline for the entire OT concept. While God is King over all the earth, he is in a special way King over his people, Israel. God’s rule is therefore something realized in Israel’s history. However, it is only partially and imperfectly realized. Israel again and again rebelled against the divine sovereignty. Furthermore, Israel was constantly plagued by wars with its pagan neighbors in which it was not always victorious. Again, there are evils in nature and the physical world that often bring suffering to God’s people. Therefore, the prophets look forward to a day when God’s rule will be fully experienced, not by Israel alone, but by all the world. The main emphasis of the prophets is on hope, the establishing of God’s perfect rule in the world.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets describe the final establishment of God’s kingdom in terms of a theophany—a divine visitation (Mi 1:3-4). Zechariah foresees a “Day of the Lord” when all nations will be gathered in battle against Jerusalem, when the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations (Zec 14:3, 5). Israel will be visited by the Lord (Is 29:6) and delivered from its enemies (35:4; 59:20). God’s coming will also mean judgment (2:21; 26:21). This final coming of God will mean the salvation of the Gentiles as well as of Israel (Zec 2:10-11; cf. Is 66:18-24).<\/p>\n<p>Behind this language is a distinct theology of “the God who comes.” It is a fact widely recognized in contemporary OT theology that the God of the OT is not a nature god, like the gods of other peoples, but a God of history—a God who visits his people in history to bless or to judge them. God visited Israel in Egypt to deliver them from bondage and to constitute them as his people. The rescue from Egypt was not merely an act of deliverance; it was an act through which God made himself known and through which Israel was to know and serve him.<\/p>\n<p>Because God has visited his people again and again in their history, he must finally come to them in the future to judge wickedness and to establish his kingdom. Israel’s hope is thus rooted in history, or rather in the God who works in history. God will finally break into history in a glorious theophany to establish his rule in all the earth. The source of the kingdom is not history itself but God.<\/p>\n<p>While the prophets visualize the kingdom as coming from God, the kingdom is always on earth. The divine irruption into the natural order is not designed to accomplish its destruction but to make way for a new, perfect order arising out of the old, imperfect one. The prophets do not present a single consistent picture of the new order. Sometimes the new order is described very much in this-worldly terms. “The terraced vineyards on the hills of Israel will drip with sweet wine” (Am 9:13, <span>nlt<\/span>). On the other hand, God will create new heavens and a new earth (Is 65:17; 66:22), where there will be untroubled joy, prosperity, peace, and righteousness. The final visitation of God will mean the redemption of the world, for a redeemed earth is the scene of the kingdom of God. The prophets look forward again and again to the deliverance of creation “from the bondage to decay.” The description is often couched in simple physical terms. The wilderness will become fruitful (32:15); the desert will blossom (35:2); sorrow and sighing will flee away (v 10). The burning sands will be cooled and the dry places become springs of water (v 7); peace will return to the animal world so that all injury and destruction are done away with (11:6). All this results because the earth becomes full of the knowledge of God (v 9).<\/p>\n<p>Such language is not mere poetry but reflects a profound theology of creation. Humans as creatures were made to dwell on the earth, and the earth shares in human destiny. The main point is that creation as such is good and not a hindrance to true spirituality, as was often true in Greek thought. Redemption always includes redemption of the earth, which then becomes the blessed environment God intended it to be. Salvation does not mean deliverance from creaturehood, for this is not an evil thing but an essential and permanent element of true, human existence. Salvation does not mean escape from bodily creaturely existence, as in some Greek thought. On the contrary, ultimate redemption will mean the redemption of the whole person. The emergence of the doctrine of bodily resurrection is a reflection of this theology of creaturehood. The corollary of this is that creation in its entirety must share in the blessing of redemption.<\/p>\n<p>A distinctive element in prophetic eschatology is the tension between history and eschatology. That is, as the prophets looked into the future, they saw an immediate historical judgment as well as a more remote eschatological visitation. For Amos, the Day of the Lord is both the immediate judgment of Israel by the Assyrians and a final eschatological salvation. Joel sees an imminent historical visitation of drought and locusts, but beyond this he sees the eschatological Day of the Lord. Zephaniah sees an imminent Day of the Lord in some undesignated historical visitation (Zep 1:2-18), but beyond it he sees the salvation of the Gentiles (3:9). The same God who acts in history to bless and judge his people will act at the end of history in an eschatological act of judgment and salvation. The prophets do not sharply distinguish between these two days, for it is one and the same God who is concerned to judge and save his people.<\/p>\n<p>The eschatological hope of the prophets is always an ethical hope. That is to say, the prophets are not interested in the future for its own sake but for the impact of the future on the present. The prophetic predictions were given that, in light of future judgment and salvation, Israel might be confronted in the present by the will of God. “Prepare to meet your God as he comes in judgment, you people of Israel” (Am 4:12, <span>nlt<\/span>) might well be taken as the keynote of all the prophets.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>The Synoptic Gospels<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus’ teachings about the kingdom of God embodied the same contrast between the present order and the future age as that of the prophets, and he expressed it in the idiom “this age and the age to come.” This fact is obscured in the <span>kjv<\/span>, which translates the word for “age” by “world.” These are, however, two different concepts. A rich man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life (Mk 10:17). The context makes it clear that he was asking about eschatological life—the life of the resurrection (Dn 12:2). Jesus speaks of the difficulty of entering the kingdom of God. (The parallel passage in Matthew 19:23-24 has both “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven,” proving that they are interchangeable terms.) In their reaction the disciples ask, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus’ answer contrasts the lot of his disciples “in this time” with the “age to come” (Mk 10:29-30) when they would inherit eternal life. It is clear from this passage that in some sense the kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven, salvation, and eternal life all belong to the age to come. So far as this saying is concerned, God’s people will not experience eternal life until they do so in the new age.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew alone records the expression “the close of the age.” This age will be terminated by the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 24:3) and by the judgment of humanity (13:39-42). Then the righteous will be separated from the wicked (v 49). The same expression occurs in the promise of the risen Jesus assuring his disciples of his presence until the consummation of the age (28:20). It follows that if this age is to come to its consummation, it must be followed by another age—the age to come.<\/p>\n<p>The eschatological kingdom will be inaugurated by an apocalyptic event—the glorious coming of the Son of Man. This is made clear by two of the parables about the kingdom of God. In the parable of the tares, “the Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire” (Mt 13:41-42, <span>rsv<\/span>). The parable of the sheep and goats reflects the same eschatology. When the Son of Man comes in his glory, he will sit on his glorious throne to judge the nations, separating the sheep from the goats. The righteous—the sheep—are to “inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world”; and entrance into the kingdom is synonymous with entrance into life (25:31-46, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The eschatological character of the kingdom of God is seen also in the other two parables of Matthew 25. “The kingdom of heaven shall be compared to ten maidens who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom” (v 1, <span>rsv<\/span>). However, five of them were foolish and did not provide an adequate supply of oil for their lamps. Thus they were late for the wedding and were excluded from the wedding feast—a symbol of the eschatological kingdom—while those properly prepared entered the kingdom. In the same way the two faithful servants who had been “faithful over a little” were granted to “enter into the joy of your master” (vv 21, 23), while the unfaithful servant was excluded from the kingdom and cast into outer darkness.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus almost never showed any interest in descriptions of the eschatological kingdom, but it is clear that its coming was constantly in his thoughts. The pure in heart will see God (Mt 5:8). The harvest will take place and the grain will be gathered into the barn (13:30, 39; Mk 4:29). Jesus frequently used the metaphor of a feast or table fellowship to describe life in the eschatological kingdom. He will drink wine again with his disciples in the kingdom of God. They will eat and drink at Jesus’ table in the kingdom (Lk 22:30). People will be gathered from all corners of the earth to sit at a table with the OT saints (Mt 8:11-12; Lk 13:29). The consummation is likened to a wedding feast (Mt 22:1-14) and a banquet (Lk 14:16-24). All of these metaphors picture the restoration of communion between God and people, a union that had been broken by sin.<\/p>\n<p>In most of the sayings cited to illustrate the future character of the kingdom, “kingdom” refers to the eschatological order—the eschaton, the age to come. However, when Jesus taught his disciples to pray “Thy kingdom come” (Mt 6:10), he was not referring to the new eschatological order; he was referring to the kingdom as God’s kingly rule, his reign. It is a prayer that God will effectively establish his sovereign rule in the world.<\/p>\n<p>In his teaching about the kingdom of God as the apocalyptic consummation, Jesus does not differ essentially from the OT prophets. The most distinctive element in Jesus’ teaching—indeed, the fact that characterizes his entire mission and message—is the fact that in some real sense of the word, the kingdom of God has come in history in an utterly unexpected way. This sets Jesus’ teaching apart from all contemporary Jewish thought.<\/p>\n<p>This is seen first of all in his repeated teaching that his mission is a fulfillment of the OT messianic prophets. Mark summarizes Jesus’ message with the words “The Kingdom of God is near! Turn from your sins and believe this Good News!” (Mk 1:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). This saying can have one of two meanings. It may refer to the imminent coming of the apocalyptic kingdom. Matthew summarizes the message of John the Baptist with nearly the same words: “Turn from your sins and turn to God, because the Kingdom of Heaven is near” (Mt 3:2, <span>nlt<\/span>). The Baptist expounds what he means by the approach of the kingdom of God: “He is ready to separate the chaff from the grain with his winnowing fork. Then he will clean up the threshing area, storing the grain in his barn but burning the chaff with never-ending fire” (v 12, <span>nlt<\/span>). John proclaimed an apocalyptic act; “unquenchable fire” can mean no strictly historical event but only an apocalyptic judgment. John expected Jesus to be the one in whom the cosmic event expected by the prophets would be carried out.<\/p>\n<p>It is possible that this was also Jesus’ meaning. However, another interpretation is possible that is better supported by the actual course of his mission: “The time is fulfilled.” The messianic promises of the prophets were not only about to be fulfilled; they were actually in process of fulfillment in his mission. In Jesus, God was visiting his people. The hope of the prophets in some real sense was being realized.<\/p>\n<p>The meaning of this can be seen in Luke’s introduction of Jesus’ ministry. Luke selects an event that occurred in Nazareth later in Jesus’ ministry (Lk 4:16-21) and places it at the beginning of his Gospel in order to sound this note of fulfillment. Jesus read from Isaiah a promise that looked forward to the messianic salvation: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for he has appointed me to preach Good News to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim that captives will be released, that the blind will see, that the downtrodden will be freed from their oppressors, and that the time of the Lord’s favor has come” (vv 18-19, <span>nlt<\/span>). Then Jesus astonished his audience by the assertion “This Scripture has come true today before your very eyes!” (v 21, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Here was an amazing claim. John the Baptist had announced an apocalyptic visitation of God that would mean the fulfillment of the eschatological hope and the consummation of the messianic age. Jesus proclaimed that the messianic promise was actually being fulfilled in his person. This is no apocalyptic kingdom but a present salvation. In these words Jesus did not proclaim the imminence of the apocalyptic kingdom. Rather, he boldly announced that the kingdom of God had come. The presence of the kingdom was a happening, an event, the gracious action of God. This was no new theology or new idea or new promise; it was a new event in history.<\/p>\n<p>The note of fulfillment is again sounded in Jesus’ answer to the question about fasting. “Do wedding guests fast while celebrating with the groom? Of course not. They can’t fast while they are with the groom” (Mk 2:19, <span>nlt<\/span>). The marriage feast had become a metaphor in Judaism for the messianic consummation. In these words Jesus announced the presence of the messianic time of salvation. It would be a contradiction in terms for the disciples to fast when they were enjoying the blessings of the messianic age. The time of fulfillment had come.<\/p>\n<p>A saying found in different contexts in Matthew and Luke touches this central note of the fulfillment in history of the OT hope: “Blessed are the eyes which see what you see! For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it” (Lk 10:23-24, <span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Mt 13:16-17). Both Matthew and Luke associate this saying with the kingdom of God, and both agree that the hope of former generations has become an object of experience. Many prophets and kings looked forward to something, but they looked in vain, for it did not come to them. What they longed for has now come, and this can be nothing less than the promised messianic salvation.<\/p>\n<p>Fulfillment in history is again asserted in Jesus’ answer to John’s question about the one who is to come (Mt 11:2-3). “The deeds of the Christ” (Messiah) were not the deeds John had announced. Wicked rulers like Herod were not being judged in fire. Instead, Jesus was helping people, not bringing an apocalyptic kingdom. Jesus replied in words that echo the promise of the messianic salvation in Isaiah 35:5-6: “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them” (Mt 11:4-5, <span>rsv<\/span>). In these words Jesus claimed that the blessings of the messianic salvation are present. There was indeed reason for John’s perplexity, for the fulfillment was not taking place along expected lines. The apocalyptic consummation did not appear to be on the horizon. The point of Jesus’ answer was that fulfillment was taking place without the eschatological consummation. Therefore, Jesus pronounced a special blessing upon those who were not offended by the character of the messianic fulfillment (v 6). The fulfillment was indeed taking place, but not the apocalyptic consummation.<\/p>\n<p>The most unambiguous statement of the presence of the kingdom is found in the words about the binding of Satan. One of Jesus’ most characteristic acts was the exorcism of demons—deliverance from satanic power. The Pharisees admitted his power but attributed it to Satan. Jesus replied, “If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? . . . But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God is come upon you” (Mt 12:26, 28, <span>rsv<\/span>). Here the verb has the clear meaning “to come, to arrive” (cf. Rom 9:30; 2 Cor 10:14; Phil 3:16). Here is a clear affirmation that the kingdom of God has come among men.<\/p>\n<p>In explanation Jesus said, “Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house” (Mt 12:29, <span>rsv<\/span>). The strong man is Satan; this “present evil age” (Gal 1:4) is his “house”; his “goods” are demon-possessed men and women. Jesus has invaded the strong man’s house to snatch away from him men and women whom he has in his power, and this is the work of the kingdom of God. The kingly reign of God has come into history in the person of Jesus before the apocalyptic consummation when Satan will be destroyed, to render Satan a preliminary defeat. Jesus has already “bound” Satan (i.e., curbed his power). This has been accomplished by the presence of the kingdom of God in the mission of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>A similar saying is found in Luke 10:18. Jesus had sent a band of his disciples on a preaching mission. Like Jesus, they were to proclaim the nearness of the kingdom of God (Lk 10:9). They, too, were to exorcize demons. When they returned to Jesus to report their success, Jesus said, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (v 18, <span>rsv<\/span>). This again is metaphorical language that asserts that in the mission of Jesus’ disciples, as well as in Jesus himself, Satan has fallen from his place of power. Both “binding” and “falling” are metaphors that describe the same truth: the victory of the kingdom of God over Satan.<\/p>\n<p>Here is the element that sets Jesus apart from the OT and from all of contemporary Judaism. The prophets conceived of the kingdom being established by a heavenly supernatural being (Dn 7) or ruled by a powerful Davidic messianic king (Is 9, 11). The fulfillment of the messianic hope is everywhere in the prophets an eschatological hope. The same is true of the Jewish writers who despaired of history and cast all hope into the future.<\/p>\n<p>In contrast to all that had gone before him, Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God as an event taking place in his own person and mission. God had again assumed the initiative; God was acting. No first-century Jew had any idea of the kingdom of God coming into history in the person of an ordinary man—a teacher who was meek and lowly.<\/p>\n<p>The presence of the kingdom is further seen in the fact that the rule of God, present in Jesus, is a gift to be received. This is also true of the kingdom in its eschatological consummation, where the kingdom is freely inherited by the righteous (Mt 25:34). In answer to the young man’s question about inheriting eternal life (Mk 10:17), Jesus spoke of entering the kingdom (vv 23-24) and receiving the gift of eternal life (v 30) as though they were synonymous. The kingdom is a gift that the Father is pleased to bestow upon the little flock of Jesus’ disciples (Lk 12:32).<\/p>\n<p>If God’s eschatological rule brings to his people the blessings of that kingdom, and if God’s kingdom is his rule invading history before the eschatological consummation, then we may expect God’s rule in the present to bring a preliminary blessing to his people. This fact is reflected in numerous sayings. The kingdom is something to be sought here and now (Mt 6:33) and to be received as children receive a gift (Mk 10:15; Lk 18:16-17). Although it is present in an unexpected form, the kingdom of God in Jesus’ person is like a hidden treasure or a pearl of great price whose possession outranks all other goods (Mt 13:44-46). The gift of the kingdom is also seen in that the deaf hear, the blind see, lepers are cleansed, and the poor have good news preached to them (11:5).<\/p>\n<h5>John’s Gospel<\/h5>\n<p>In the Gospel of John the concept of eternal life takes the place of the kingdom of God in Jesus’ teaching. The kingdom of God is mentioned twice (Jn 3:3, 5), and it is placed in connection with eternal life. The kingdom of God is here the eschatological kingdom, and eternal life is the life of the kingdom. Thus, as the kingdom of God in the synoptic Gospels is both future and present, so eternal life is both the life of the age to come (12:25) and also a present blessing (3:16, etc.).<\/p>\n<h5>Acts<\/h5>\n<p>In Acts it seems the earliest disciples generally failed to understand Jesus’ message about the kingdom of God as a present spiritual blessing. They gathered together to await the coming of the eschatological kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6). Acts relates that the disciples continued to preach the kingdom of God, but usually it is an eschatological blessing (8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). However, the last two references make the kingdom of God synonymous with the gospel about Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p>One important theme in Acts is linked to that of the kingdom of God. On the Day of Pentecost, Peter announces that God has seated Jesus at his right hand in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1 (Acts 2:33-35). In the Psalms this is a prophecy of the enthronement of the Davidic king in Jerusalem. Peter asserts that this prophecy is now fulfilled in the heavenly reign of Jesus. Therefore, he has been made both Lord and Christ (Messiah). These are interchangeable terms, “Lord” meaning absolute sovereign, “Christ” meaning the messianic king.<\/p>\n<h5>Paul’s Writings<\/h5>\n<p>Paul carried further this theme of the heavenly rule of Christ, the anointed King. The kingdom is both an eschatological inheritance (1 Cor 6:9; 15:50; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; 1 Thes 2:12; 2 Thes 1:5; 2 Tm 4:1, 18) and a present blessing into which believers now enter (Rom 14:17; Col 1:13). The key to this is the interchangeable character of lordship and messianic kingship. Jesus is now exalted as Lord over all (Phil 2:11), and even as his lordship is invisible, it will become manifest to all at his second coming. In the same way, he has been enthroned as messianic King by virtue of his resurrection and heavenly session, and he must reign as King until he has put all his enemies under his feet (1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:22). The last enemy to be destroyed is death.<\/p>\n<h5>Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>The central message of the Revelation to John is the consummation of God’s redemptive purpose, when the kingdom of this world becomes the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ (Rv 11:15). Revelation pictures the plight of a persecuted church in a hostile world, but it assures the church that Christ has already won a victory over the powers of evil (5:5), by virtue of which he can finally destroy them (19:11–20:14). Again, the last enemy to be destroyed is death (20:13-14). Revelation closes with a highly symbolic picture of the kingdom of God (chs 21–22) when God comes to dwell among his people, and “they shall see his face” (22:4). Thus the NT ends: divine order is restored to a disordered world. This is the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Teachings of; King; Parable.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>KINGDOM OF GOD, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN<\/h3>\n<p>The sovereign rule of God, initiated by Christ’s earthly ministry and consummated when the kingdom of the world becomes the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ (Rv 11:15).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Old Testament Background<\/p>\n<p>• In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>According to the testimony of the first three Gospels, the proclamation of the kingdom of God was Jesus’ central message. Matthew summarizes the Galilean ministry with the words “Jesus traveled throughout Galilee teaching in the synagogues, preaching everywhere the Good News about the Kingdom” (Mt 4:23, <span>nlt<\/span>). The Sermon on the Mount is concerned with the righteousness that qualifies people to enter the kingdom of God (5:20). The collection of parables in Matthew 13 and Mark 4 illustrate the “mystery” of the kingdom of God (Mt 13:11; Mk 4:11). The establishment of the Lord’s Supper looks forward to the establishment of the kingdom of God (Mt 26:29; Mk 14:25).<\/p>\n<p>The NT reports two different forms of the expression: “the kingdom of God” and “the kingdom of the heavens.” The latter is found only in Matthew, but Matthew also has “the kingdom of God” four times (Mt 12:28; 19:24; 21:31, 43). “The kingdom of heaven” is a Semitic phrase that would have been meaningful to Jews but not to Greeks. The Jews, out of reverence for God, avoided uttering the divine name, and contemporary literature gives examples of substituting the word “heaven” for God (1 Macc 3:18, 50; 4:10; see Lk 15:18).<\/p>\n<p>The key to an understanding of the kingdom of God is that the basic meaning of the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">basileia<\/span><em>,<\/em> as also of the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">malkut<\/span><em>,<\/em> is rule, reign, dominion. We frequently find in the OT the expression “in the year of the kingdom of . . . ,” meaning in the year of the reign of a given king (e.g., 1 Chr 26:31; 2 Chr 3:2; 15:10; Ezr 7:1; 8:1; Est 2:16; Jer 10:7; 52:31). When we read that Solomon’s kingdom was firmly established (1 Kgs 2:12), we are to understand that his authority to reign was settled. To “turn the kingdom of Saul over to [David]” (1 Chr 12:23, <span>kjv<\/span>) indicates that the authority that had been Saul’s was given to David. As a result of having received legal authority, David became king. This abstract idea of <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">malkut<\/span> is evident when it is found in parallelisms with such ideas as power, might, glory, and dominion (Dn 4:34; 7:14).<\/p>\n<p>When <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">malkut<\/span> is used of God, it almost always refers to his authority or to his rule as the heavenly King. “They will talk together about the glory of your kingdom; they will celebrate examples of your power. . . . For your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom. You rule generation after generation” (Ps 145:11, 13, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Further, if a king rules, there must be a realm or sphere over which he reigns. This is also called <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">malkut<\/span><em>.<\/em> “So the realm of Jehoshaphat was quiet, for his God gave him rest round about” (2 Chr 20:30, <span>rsv<\/span>; see Est 3:6; Jer 10:7; Dn 9:1; 11:9).<\/p>\n<p>This same twofold use of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">basileia<\/span> is found in the NT. In fact, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">basileia<\/span> could be translated by the expression “kingly power” in Luke 23:42 (<span>niv<\/span> mg) and by “kingship” in John 18:36. When a nobleman went into a far country to get a “kingdom” (Luke 19:12, <span>nasb<\/span>) he went to the governing authority to get an appointment as king. When Jesus said, “My kingship is not of this world” (Jn 18:36, <span>rsv<\/span>), he did not mean to say that his rule has nothing to do with the world but rather that his kingship—his dominion—does not come from man but from God. Therefore, he rejects the use of worldly fighting to gain his ends.<\/p>\n<p>This central meaning of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">basileia<\/span> makes it easy to understand many sayings in the Gospels. In the Lord’s Prayer the petition “Thy kingdom come” (Mt 6:10) is a prayer for God to manifest his reign so that his will may be done on earth as it is in heaven. When we read that we are to “receive the kingdom of God like a child” (Mk 10:15, <span>rsv<\/span>), we must open our hearts and lives to the rule of God.<\/p>\n<p>Also in the NT are sayings about being <em>in<\/em> the kingdom or of <em>entering<\/em> the kingdom (Mt 8:11; Mk 9:47; 10:23-25; Lk 13:28). There is no philological or theological objection to understanding “the kingdom of God” first as the divine reign or rule and second as the sphere of blessing in which that reign is experienced.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentBackground\">Old Testament Background<\/p>\n<p>The expression “the kingdom of God” is not found in the OT, but the idea appears throughout the prophets. God is frequently spoken of as the King, both of Israel (Ex 15:18; Nm 23:21; Dt 33:5; Is 43:15) and of all the earth (2 Kgs 19:15; Pss 29:10; 47:2; 93:1-2; 96:10; 97:1-9; 99:1-4; 145:11-13; Is 6:5; Jer 46:18). Although God is not the earthly King of Israel, other references speak of a day when God shall become King and shall rule over his people (Is 24:23; 33:22; 52:7; Ob 1:21; Zep 3:15; Zec 14:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>This brief summary of God’s kingship provides the outline for the entire OT concept. While God is King over all the earth, he is in a special way King over his people, Israel. God’s rule is therefore something realized in Israel’s history. However, it is only partially and imperfectly realized. Israel again and again rebelled against the divine sovereignty. Furthermore, Israel was constantly plagued by wars with its pagan neighbors in which it was not always victorious. Again, there are evils in nature and the physical world that often bring suffering to God’s people. Therefore, the prophets look forward to a day when God’s rule will be fully experienced, not by Israel alone, but by all the world. The main emphasis of the prophets is on hope, the establishing of God’s perfect rule in the world.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets describe the final establishment of God’s kingdom in terms of a theophany—a divine visitation (Mi 1:3-4). Zechariah foresees a “Day of the Lord” when all nations will be gathered in battle against Jerusalem, when the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations (Zec 14:3, 5). Israel will be visited by the Lord (Is 29:6) and delivered from its enemies (35:4; 59:20). God’s coming will also mean judgment (2:21; 26:21). This final coming of God will mean the salvation of the Gentiles as well as of Israel (Zec 2:10-11; cf. Is 66:18-24).<\/p>\n<p>Behind this language is a distinct theology of “the God who comes.” It is a fact widely recognized in contemporary OT theology that the God of the OT is not a nature god, like the gods of other peoples, but a God of history—a God who visits his people in history to bless or to judge them. God visited Israel in Egypt to deliver them from bondage and to constitute them as his people. The rescue from Egypt was not merely an act of deliverance; it was an act through which God made himself known and through which Israel was to know and serve him.<\/p>\n<p>Because God has visited his people again and again in their history, he must finally come to them in the future to judge wickedness and to establish his kingdom. Israel’s hope is thus rooted in history, or rather in the God who works in history. God will finally break into history in a glorious theophany to establish his rule in all the earth. The source of the kingdom is not history itself but God.<\/p>\n<p>While the prophets visualize the kingdom as coming from God, the kingdom is always on earth. The divine irruption into the natural order is not designed to accomplish its destruction but to make way for a new, perfect order arising out of the old, imperfect one. The prophets do not present a single consistent picture of the new order. Sometimes the new order is described very much in this-worldly terms. “The terraced vineyards on the hills of Israel will drip with sweet wine” (Am 9:13, <span>nlt<\/span>). On the other hand, God will create new heavens and a new earth (Is 65:17; 66:22), where there will be untroubled joy, prosperity, peace, and righteousness. The final visitation of God will mean the redemption of the world, for a redeemed earth is the scene of the kingdom of God. The prophets look forward again and again to the deliverance of creation “from the bondage to decay.” The description is often couched in simple physical terms. The wilderness will become fruitful (32:15); the desert will blossom (35:2); sorrow and sighing will flee away (v 10). The burning sands will be cooled and the dry places become springs of water (v 7); peace will return to the animal world so that all injury and destruction are done away with (11:6). All this results because the earth becomes full of the knowledge of God (v 9).<\/p>\n<p>Such language is not mere poetry but reflects a profound theology of creation. Humans as creatures were made to dwell on the earth, and the earth shares in human destiny. The main point is that creation as such is good and not a hindrance to true spirituality, as was often true in Greek thought. Redemption always includes redemption of the earth, which then becomes the blessed environment God intended it to be. Salvation does not mean deliverance from creaturehood, for this is not an evil thing but an essential and permanent element of true, human existence. Salvation does not mean escape from bodily creaturely existence, as in some Greek thought. On the contrary, ultimate redemption will mean the redemption of the whole person. The emergence of the doctrine of bodily resurrection is a reflection of this theology of creaturehood. The corollary of this is that creation in its entirety must share in the blessing of redemption.<\/p>\n<p>A distinctive element in prophetic eschatology is the tension between history and eschatology. That is, as the prophets looked into the future, they saw an immediate historical judgment as well as a more remote eschatological visitation. For Amos, the Day of the Lord is both the immediate judgment of Israel by the Assyrians and a final eschatological salvation. Joel sees an imminent historical visitation of drought and locusts, but beyond this he sees the eschatological Day of the Lord. Zephaniah sees an imminent Day of the Lord in some undesignated historical visitation (Zep 1:2-18), but beyond it he sees the salvation of the Gentiles (3:9). The same God who acts in history to bless and judge his people will act at the end of history in an eschatological act of judgment and salvation. The prophets do not sharply distinguish between these two days, for it is one and the same God who is concerned to judge and save his people.<\/p>\n<p>The eschatological hope of the prophets is always an ethical hope. That is to say, the prophets are not interested in the future for its own sake but for the impact of the future on the present. The prophetic predictions were given that, in light of future judgment and salvation, Israel might be confronted in the present by the will of God. “Prepare to meet your God as he comes in judgment, you people of Israel” (Am 4:12, <span>nlt<\/span>) might well be taken as the keynote of all the prophets.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>The Synoptic Gospels<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus’ teachings about the kingdom of God embodied the same contrast between the present order and the future age as that of the prophets, and he expressed it in the idiom “this age and the age to come.” This fact is obscured in the <span>kjv<\/span>, which translates the word for “age” by “world.” These are, however, two different concepts. A rich man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life (Mk 10:17). The context makes it clear that he was asking about eschatological life—the life of the resurrection (Dn 12:2). Jesus speaks of the difficulty of entering the kingdom of God. (The parallel passage in Matthew 19:23-24 has both “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven,” proving that they are interchangeable terms.) In their reaction the disciples ask, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus’ answer contrasts the lot of his disciples “in this time” with the “age to come” (Mk 10:29-30) when they would inherit eternal life. It is clear from this passage that in some sense the kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven, salvation, and eternal life all belong to the age to come. So far as this saying is concerned, God’s people will not experience eternal life until they do so in the new age.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew alone records the expression “the close of the age.” This age will be terminated by the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 24:3) and by the judgment of humanity (13:39-42). Then the righteous will be separated from the wicked (v 49). The same expression occurs in the promise of the risen Jesus assuring his disciples of his presence until the consummation of the age (28:20). It follows that if this age is to come to its consummation, it must be followed by another age—the age to come.<\/p>\n<p>The eschatological kingdom will be inaugurated by an apocalyptic event—the glorious coming of the Son of Man. This is made clear by two of the parables about the kingdom of God. In the parable of the tares, “the Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire” (Mt 13:41-42, <span>rsv<\/span>). The parable of the sheep and goats reflects the same eschatology. When the Son of Man comes in his glory, he will sit on his glorious throne to judge the nations, separating the sheep from the goats. The righteous—the sheep—are to “inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world”; and entrance into the kingdom is synonymous with entrance into life (25:31-46, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The eschatological character of the kingdom of God is seen also in the other two parables of Matthew 25. “The kingdom of heaven shall be compared to ten maidens who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom” (v 1, <span>rsv<\/span>). However, five of them were foolish and did not provide an adequate supply of oil for their lamps. Thus they were late for the wedding and were excluded from the wedding feast—a symbol of the eschatological kingdom—while those properly prepared entered the kingdom. In the same way the two faithful servants who had been “faithful over a little” were granted to “enter into the joy of your master” (vv 21, 23), while the unfaithful servant was excluded from the kingdom and cast into outer darkness.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus almost never showed any interest in descriptions of the eschatological kingdom, but it is clear that its coming was constantly in his thoughts. The pure in heart will see God (Mt 5:8). The harvest will take place and the grain will be gathered into the barn (13:30, 39; Mk 4:29). Jesus frequently used the metaphor of a feast or table fellowship to describe life in the eschatological kingdom. He will drink wine again with his disciples in the kingdom of God. They will eat and drink at Jesus’ table in the kingdom (Lk 22:30). People will be gathered from all corners of the earth to sit at a table with the OT saints (Mt 8:11-12; Lk 13:29). The consummation is likened to a wedding feast (Mt 22:1-14) and a banquet (Lk 14:16-24). All of these metaphors picture the restoration of communion between God and people, a union that had been broken by sin.<\/p>\n<p>In most of the sayings cited to illustrate the future character of the kingdom, “kingdom” refers to the eschatological order—the eschaton, the age to come. However, when Jesus taught his disciples to pray “Thy kingdom come” (Mt 6:10), he was not referring to the new eschatological order; he was referring to the kingdom as God’s kingly rule, his reign. It is a prayer that God will effectively establish his sovereign rule in the world.<\/p>\n<p>In his teaching about the kingdom of God as the apocalyptic consummation, Jesus does not differ essentially from the OT prophets. The most distinctive element in Jesus’ teaching—indeed, the fact that characterizes his entire mission and message—is the fact that in some real sense of the word, the kingdom of God has come in history in an utterly unexpected way. This sets Jesus’ teaching apart from all contemporary Jewish thought.<\/p>\n<p>This is seen first of all in his repeated teaching that his mission is a fulfillment of the OT messianic prophets. Mark summarizes Jesus’ message with the words “The Kingdom of God is near! Turn from your sins and believe this Good News!” (Mk 1:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). This saying can have one of two meanings. It may refer to the imminent coming of the apocalyptic kingdom. Matthew summarizes the message of John the Baptist with nearly the same words: “Turn from your sins and turn to God, because the Kingdom of Heaven is near” (Mt 3:2, <span>nlt<\/span>). The Baptist expounds what he means by the approach of the kingdom of God: “He is ready to separate the chaff from the grain with his winnowing fork. Then he will clean up the threshing area, storing the grain in his barn but burning the chaff with never-ending fire” (v 12, <span>nlt<\/span>). John proclaimed an apocalyptic act; “unquenchable fire” can mean no strictly historical event but only an apocalyptic judgment. John expected Jesus to be the one in whom the cosmic event expected by the prophets would be carried out.<\/p>\n<p>It is possible that this was also Jesus’ meaning. However, another interpretation is possible that is better supported by the actual course of his mission: “The time is fulfilled.” The messianic promises of the prophets were not only about to be fulfilled; they were actually in process of fulfillment in his mission. In Jesus, God was visiting his people. The hope of the prophets in some real sense was being realized.<\/p>\n<p>The meaning of this can be seen in Luke’s introduction of Jesus’ ministry. Luke selects an event that occurred in Nazareth later in Jesus’ ministry (Lk 4:16-21) and places it at the beginning of his Gospel in order to sound this note of fulfillment. Jesus read from Isaiah a promise that looked forward to the messianic salvation: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for he has appointed me to preach Good News to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim that captives will be released, that the blind will see, that the downtrodden will be freed from their oppressors, and that the time of the Lord’s favor has come” (vv 18-19, <span>nlt<\/span>). Then Jesus astonished his audience by the assertion “This Scripture has come true today before your very eyes!” (v 21, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Here was an amazing claim. John the Baptist had announced an apocalyptic visitation of God that would mean the fulfillment of the eschatological hope and the consummation of the messianic age. Jesus proclaimed that the messianic promise was actually being fulfilled in his person. This is no apocalyptic kingdom but a present salvation. In these words Jesus did not proclaim the imminence of the apocalyptic kingdom. Rather, he boldly announced that the kingdom of God had come. The presence of the kingdom was a happening, an event, the gracious action of God. This was no new theology or new idea or new promise; it was a new event in history.<\/p>\n<p>The note of fulfillment is again sounded in Jesus’ answer to the question about fasting. “Do wedding guests fast while celebrating with the groom? Of course not. They can’t fast while they are with the groom” (Mk 2:19, <span>nlt<\/span>). The marriage feast had become a metaphor in Judaism for the messianic consummation. In these words Jesus announced the presence of the messianic time of salvation. It would be a contradiction in terms for the disciples to fast when they were enjoying the blessings of the messianic age. The time of fulfillment had come.<\/p>\n<p>A saying found in different contexts in Matthew and Luke touches this central note of the fulfillment in history of the OT hope: “Blessed are the eyes which see what you see! For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it” (Lk 10:23-24, <span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Mt 13:16-17). Both Matthew and Luke associate this saying with the kingdom of God, and both agree that the hope of former generations has become an object of experience. Many prophets and kings looked forward to something, but they looked in vain, for it did not come to them. What they longed for has now come, and this can be nothing less than the promised messianic salvation.<\/p>\n<p>Fulfillment in history is again asserted in Jesus’ answer to John’s question about the one who is to come (Mt 11:2-3). “The deeds of the Christ” (Messiah) were not the deeds John had announced. Wicked rulers like Herod were not being judged in fire. Instead, Jesus was helping people, not bringing an apocalyptic kingdom. Jesus replied in words that echo the promise of the messianic salvation in Isaiah 35:5-6: “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them” (Mt 11:4-5, <span>rsv<\/span>). In these words Jesus claimed that the blessings of the messianic salvation are present. There was indeed reason for John’s perplexity, for the fulfillment was not taking place along expected lines. The apocalyptic consummation did not appear to be on the horizon. The point of Jesus’ answer was that fulfillment was taking place without the eschatological consummation. Therefore, Jesus pronounced a special blessing upon those who were not offended by the character of the messianic fulfillment (v 6). The fulfillment was indeed taking place, but not the apocalyptic consummation.<\/p>\n<p>The most unambiguous statement of the presence of the kingdom is found in the words about the binding of Satan. One of Jesus’ most characteristic acts was the exorcism of demons—deliverance from satanic power. The Pharisees admitted his power but attributed it to Satan. Jesus replied, “If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? . . . But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God is come upon you” (Mt 12:26, 28, <span>rsv<\/span>). Here the verb has the clear meaning “to come, to arrive” (cf. Rom 9:30; 2 Cor 10:14; Phil 3:16). Here is a clear affirmation that the kingdom of God has come among men.<\/p>\n<p>In explanation Jesus said, “Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house” (Mt 12:29, <span>rsv<\/span>). The strong man is Satan; this “present evil age” (Gal 1:4) is his “house”; his “goods” are demon-possessed men and women. Jesus has invaded the strong man’s house to snatch away from him men and women whom he has in his power, and this is the work of the kingdom of God. The kingly reign of God has come into history in the person of Jesus before the apocalyptic consummation when Satan will be destroyed, to render Satan a preliminary defeat. Jesus has already “bound” Satan (i.e., curbed his power). This has been accomplished by the presence of the kingdom of God in the mission of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>A similar saying is found in Luke 10:18. Jesus had sent a band of his disciples on a preaching mission. Like Jesus, they were to proclaim the nearness of the kingdom of God (Lk 10:9). They, too, were to exorcize demons. When they returned to Jesus to report their success, Jesus said, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (v 18, <span>rsv<\/span>). This again is metaphorical language that asserts that in the mission of Jesus’ disciples, as well as in Jesus himself, Satan has fallen from his place of power. Both “binding” and “falling” are metaphors that describe the same truth: the victory of the kingdom of God over Satan.<\/p>\n<p>Here is the element that sets Jesus apart from the OT and from all of contemporary Judaism. The prophets conceived of the kingdom being established by a heavenly supernatural being (Dn 7) or ruled by a powerful Davidic messianic king (Is 9, 11). The fulfillment of the messianic hope is everywhere in the prophets an eschatological hope. The same is true of the Jewish writers who despaired of history and cast all hope into the future.<\/p>\n<p>In contrast to all that had gone before him, Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God as an event taking place in his own person and mission. God had again assumed the initiative; God was acting. No first-century Jew had any idea of the kingdom of God coming into history in the person of an ordinary man—a teacher who was meek and lowly.<\/p>\n<p>The presence of the kingdom is further seen in the fact that the rule of God, present in Jesus, is a gift to be received. This is also true of the kingdom in its eschatological consummation, where the kingdom is freely inherited by the righteous (Mt 25:34). In answer to the young man’s question about inheriting eternal life (Mk 10:17), Jesus spoke of entering the kingdom (vv 23-24) and receiving the gift of eternal life (v 30) as though they were synonymous. The kingdom is a gift that the Father is pleased to bestow upon the little flock of Jesus’ disciples (Lk 12:32).<\/p>\n<p>If God’s eschatological rule brings to his people the blessings of that kingdom, and if God’s kingdom is his rule invading history before the eschatological consummation, then we may expect God’s rule in the present to bring a preliminary blessing to his people. This fact is reflected in numerous sayings. The kingdom is something to be sought here and now (Mt 6:33) and to be received as children receive a gift (Mk 10:15; Lk 18:16-17). Although it is present in an unexpected form, the kingdom of God in Jesus’ person is like a hidden treasure or a pearl of great price whose possession outranks all other goods (Mt 13:44-46). The gift of the kingdom is also seen in that the deaf hear, the blind see, lepers are cleansed, and the poor have good news preached to them (11:5).<\/p>\n<h5>John’s Gospel<\/h5>\n<p>In the Gospel of John the concept of eternal life takes the place of the kingdom of God in Jesus’ teaching. The kingdom of God is mentioned twice (Jn 3:3, 5), and it is placed in connection with eternal life. The kingdom of God is here the eschatological kingdom, and eternal life is the life of the kingdom. Thus, as the kingdom of God in the synoptic Gospels is both future and present, so eternal life is both the life of the age to come (12:25) and also a present blessing (3:16, etc.).<\/p>\n<h5>Acts<\/h5>\n<p>In Acts it seems the earliest disciples generally failed to understand Jesus’ message about the kingdom of God as a present spiritual blessing. They gathered together to await the coming of the eschatological kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6). Acts relates that the disciples continued to preach the kingdom of God, but usually it is an eschatological blessing (8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). However, the last two references make the kingdom of God synonymous with the gospel about Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p>One important theme in Acts is linked to that of the kingdom of God. On the Day of Pentecost, Peter announces that God has seated Jesus at his right hand in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1 (Acts 2:33-35). In the Psalms this is a prophecy of the enthronement of the Davidic king in Jerusalem. Peter asserts that this prophecy is now fulfilled in the heavenly reign of Jesus. Therefore, he has been made both Lord and Christ (Messiah). These are interchangeable terms, “Lord” meaning absolute sovereign, “Christ” meaning the messianic king.<\/p>\n<h5>Paul’s Writings<\/h5>\n<p>Paul carried further this theme of the heavenly rule of Christ, the anointed King. The kingdom is both an eschatological inheritance (1 Cor 6:9; 15:50; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; 1 Thes 2:12; 2 Thes 1:5; 2 Tm 4:1, 18) and a present blessing into which believers now enter (Rom 14:17; Col 1:13). The key to this is the interchangeable character of lordship and messianic kingship. Jesus is now exalted as Lord over all (Phil 2:11), and even as his lordship is invisible, it will become manifest to all at his second coming. In the same way, he has been enthroned as messianic King by virtue of his resurrection and heavenly session, and he must reign as King until he has put all his enemies under his feet (1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:22). The last enemy to be destroyed is death.<\/p>\n<h5>Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>The central message of the Revelation to John is the consummation of God’s redemptive purpose, when the kingdom of this world becomes the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ (Rv 11:15). Revelation pictures the plight of a persecuted church in a hostile world, but it assures the church that Christ has already won a victory over the powers of evil (5:5), by virtue of which he can finally destroy them (19:11–20:14). Again, the last enemy to be destroyed is death (20:13-14). Revelation closes with a highly symbolic picture of the kingdom of God (chs 21–22) when God comes to dwell among his people, and “they shall see his face” (22:4). Thus the NT ends: divine order is restored to a disordered world. This is the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Teachings of; King; Parable.<\/p>","summary_ro":"KINGDOM OF GOD, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN The sovereign rule of God, initiated by Christ’s earthly ministry and consummated when the kingdom of the world becomes the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ (Rv 11:15). Preview • Introduction • Old Testament Background • In the New Testament Introduction According to the testimony of the first three Gospels, the proclamation of the kingdom of God was Jesus’ central message. Matthew summarizes the Galilean ministry with the words “Jesus traveled throughou...","summary_en":"KINGDOM OF GOD, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN The sovereign rule of God, initiated by Christ’s earthly ministry and consummated when the kingdom of the world becomes the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ (Rv 11:15). Preview • Introduction • Old Testament Background • In the New Testament Introduction According to the testimony of the first three Gospels, the proclamation of the kingdom of God was Jesus’ central message. Matthew summarizes the Galilean ministry with the words “Jesus traveled throughou...","source":"Articles\/K.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":27183,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Needle","title_en":"Needle","content_ro":"<h3>NEEDLE<\/h3>\n<p>Object used in Jesus’ lesson about the rich man and entrance into God’s kingdom. Following his discussion with the rich young ruler, Jesus told his disciples that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!” (Mt 19:24, <span>nlt<\/span>; Mk 10:25; Lk 18:25). Jesus was not condemning riches or wealth but rather the change of will and false security that they may engender, as was the case with the rich young ruler (cf. Mt 19:21-22; Mk 10:21-22; Lk 18:22-23). Entrance into God’s kingdom is an act of God, not of man. Using the largest land animal in Palestine, Jesus paralleled the absurdity of a camel’s passing through the eye of a needle with a rich man’s attempt to use his position and possessions to gain entrance into heaven. A similar expression is found in rabbinic literature, where the elephant is pictured as passing through the eye of a needle.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NEEDLE<\/h3>\n<p>Object used in Jesus’ lesson about the rich man and entrance into God’s kingdom. Following his discussion with the rich young ruler, Jesus told his disciples that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!” (Mt 19:24, <span>nlt<\/span>; Mk 10:25; Lk 18:25). Jesus was not condemning riches or wealth but rather the change of will and false security that they may engender, as was the case with the rich young ruler (cf. Mt 19:21-22; Mk 10:21-22; Lk 18:22-23). Entrance into God’s kingdom is an act of God, not of man. Using the largest land animal in Palestine, Jesus paralleled the absurdity of a camel’s passing through the eye of a needle with a rich man’s attempt to use his position and possessions to gain entrance into heaven. A similar expression is found in rabbinic literature, where the elephant is pictured as passing through the eye of a needle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"NEEDLE Object used in Jesus’ lesson about the rich man and entrance into God’s kingdom. Following his discussion with the rich young ruler, Jesus told his disciples that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!” (Mt 19:24, nlt; Mk 10:25; Lk 18:25). Jesus was not condemning riches or wealth but rather the change of will and false security that they may engender, as was the case with the rich young ruler (cf. Mt 19:21-22; Mk...","summary_en":"NEEDLE Object used in Jesus’ lesson about the rich man and entrance into God’s kingdom. Following his discussion with the rich young ruler, Jesus told his disciples that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!” (Mt 19:24, nlt; Mk 10:25; Lk 18:25). Jesus was not condemning riches or wealth but rather the change of will and false security that they may engender, as was the case with the rich young ruler (cf. Mt 19:21-22; Mk...","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33615,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Salvation","title_en":"Salvation","content_ro":"<h3>SALVATION<\/h3>\n<p>God’s way of providing people deliverance from sin and death. Scripture reveals God but it also reveals his plan to save the human race. In that sense, salvation is a major theme in both the OT and NT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The concept of salvation is represented by various terms and situations in both Testaments. Among several Hebrew words that mean “deliver” or “save,” the Hebrew verb <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">yasha‘<\/span> and derivatives are most frequently translated by English versions as “save” or “salvation.” Frequency in the English Bible depends upon the version considered. For example, in the OT “salvation” is found 74 times in the <span>nlt<\/span>, 80 times in the <span>niv<\/span>, 90 times in the <span>rsv<\/span>, 111 times in the <span>nasb<\/span>, and 119 times in the <span>kjv<\/span>. Salvation is not used as a technical term in the OT and is ascribed to both individuals and God. Leaders like Samson (Jgs 13:5) or David (2 Sm 8:6) are used of the Lord to bring deliverance to God’s people.<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s concept of salvation was rooted in the historical experience of the exodus. This momentous occasion was an opportunity to witness the salvation of the Lord (Ex 14:13) firsthand. Poets (Ps 106:8) and prophets (Is 43:3; Hos 13:4) later reiterated God’s salvation when recalling the exodus experience. Israel’s understanding of salvation was worked out in historical instances like Sennacherib’s attack on Jerusalem in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, when the Lord declared that he would save the city for his name’s sake (2 Kgs 19:34; cf. 18:30, 35). Israel’s opportunity to see God’s salvation through various leaders and situations corroborated this understanding of God as the God of salvation.<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s response to God’s deliverance was primarily praise, as evidenced so often in the psalms (Pss 3:8; 9:14; 21:1) and earlier poetic passages (Ex 15:2; 1 Sm 2:1). In addition, they directed petitions and pleas for help to the Lord for his salvation—whether from enemies (Pss 35:3; 38:22), sickness (69:29), or battle (140:7; 144:10-11)—and in faith expected his deliverance (35:9; 65:5).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets emphasized the eschatological (end-time) aspect of salvation. God’s ability to save was revealed by his great works in the past, which thus promoted the anticipation of his work of deliverance in the future. This future hope was for the nation of Israel (Is 45:17) but anticipated universal deliverance (49:6). The prophets looked forward to deliverance and return from exile in Babylon (Is 49:25-26; Jer 46:27), yet they also spoke of an abiding future salvation (Is 45:17; 51:6-8). The messianic hope is indicated in passages that speak of an individual who will bring God’s salvation. Isaiah speaks of the Servant who brings salvation to the ends of the earth (49:6), while Jeremiah writes of deliverance by God’s righteous Branch (Jer 23:5-6). The mention of the king who brings salvation in Zechariah 9:9 reflects this messianic theme and is applied to Jesus Christ in Matthew 21:4-5.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In classical Greek the verb <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sozo<\/span> (“to save”) and noun <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">soteria<\/span> (“salvation”) are used for the concept of “rescue,” “deliverance” or “salvation,” and even “well-being” or “health.” The Septuagint most frequently uses <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sozo<\/span> to render the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">yasha‘<\/span> (“to save”), and the NT primarily employs <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sozo<\/span> and its derivatives for the idea of salvation.<\/p>\n<p>These Greek terms are generally used theologically in the NT, but examples of nontheological usage occur. In Acts 27, these words refer to the threat and deliverance of the soldiers, sailors, and prisoners from shipwreck (vv 20, 31), as well as their well-being (v 34).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels “salvation” is clearly connected with the OT concept of salvation; it is applied to the coming of Christ in Zechariah’s prophecy (Lk 1:69, 71; cf. Pss 106:10; 132:17) and in Simeon’s hymn of praise (Lk 2:30). While <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">soteria<\/span> does not occur frequently in the Gospels, the concept of salvation is implied in Jesus’ statement about entrance into the kingdom of God (Mt 19:24-26) and his miracles of healing (Lk 17:19; 18:42).<\/p>\n<p>The NT teaches that salvation has its source in Jesus Christ (2 Tm 2:10; Heb 5:9), who is the “author” and mediator of salvation (Heb 2:10; 7:25). Salvation is God’s work (1 Thes 5:9) and is offered by his grace (Eph 2:8-9). The message of salvation is contained in the Scriptures (2 Tm 3:15) and is carried by those who proclaim the word of truth (Eph 1:13). The appropriate response is repentance (2 Cor 7:10) and faith (2 Tm 3:15; 1 Pt 1:9). This was the preaching of the early church as it proclaimed the Savior Jesus (Acts 4:12; 13:23-26; 16:30-31). Paul especially proclaimed the universality of God’s offer of salvation (Rom 1:16; Ti 2:11). His desire was for Jews to be saved (Rom 10:1), though he primarily preached the message of salvation to the Gentiles (11:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>Within the Scriptures there are many other terms associated with the concept of salvation. The new birth speaks of being made alive in Christ (“born again,” Jn 3:3). Justification envisions one’s legal standing before God, while redemption speaks more of the means of salvation—the payment of a price to bring one back to God. Reconciliation speaks of a change in relationship and propitiation, which evokes the OT sacrificial system and points to the turning away of God’s wrath. These terms and others share some common ground with the biblical concept of salvation, but all point to the person and work of Jesus Christ the Savior.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Justification, Justified; Reconciliation; Redeemer, Redemption; Savior.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SALVATION<\/h3>\n<p>God’s way of providing people deliverance from sin and death. Scripture reveals God but it also reveals his plan to save the human race. In that sense, salvation is a major theme in both the OT and NT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The concept of salvation is represented by various terms and situations in both Testaments. Among several Hebrew words that mean “deliver” or “save,” the Hebrew verb <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">yasha‘<\/span> and derivatives are most frequently translated by English versions as “save” or “salvation.” Frequency in the English Bible depends upon the version considered. For example, in the OT “salvation” is found 74 times in the <span>nlt<\/span>, 80 times in the <span>niv<\/span>, 90 times in the <span>rsv<\/span>, 111 times in the <span>nasb<\/span>, and 119 times in the <span>kjv<\/span>. Salvation is not used as a technical term in the OT and is ascribed to both individuals and God. Leaders like Samson (Jgs 13:5) or David (2 Sm 8:6) are used of the Lord to bring deliverance to God’s people.<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s concept of salvation was rooted in the historical experience of the exodus. This momentous occasion was an opportunity to witness the salvation of the Lord (Ex 14:13) firsthand. Poets (Ps 106:8) and prophets (Is 43:3; Hos 13:4) later reiterated God’s salvation when recalling the exodus experience. Israel’s understanding of salvation was worked out in historical instances like Sennacherib’s attack on Jerusalem in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, when the Lord declared that he would save the city for his name’s sake (2 Kgs 19:34; cf. 18:30, 35). Israel’s opportunity to see God’s salvation through various leaders and situations corroborated this understanding of God as the God of salvation.<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s response to God’s deliverance was primarily praise, as evidenced so often in the psalms (Pss 3:8; 9:14; 21:1) and earlier poetic passages (Ex 15:2; 1 Sm 2:1). In addition, they directed petitions and pleas for help to the Lord for his salvation—whether from enemies (Pss 35:3; 38:22), sickness (69:29), or battle (140:7; 144:10-11)—and in faith expected his deliverance (35:9; 65:5).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets emphasized the eschatological (end-time) aspect of salvation. God’s ability to save was revealed by his great works in the past, which thus promoted the anticipation of his work of deliverance in the future. This future hope was for the nation of Israel (Is 45:17) but anticipated universal deliverance (49:6). The prophets looked forward to deliverance and return from exile in Babylon (Is 49:25-26; Jer 46:27), yet they also spoke of an abiding future salvation (Is 45:17; 51:6-8). The messianic hope is indicated in passages that speak of an individual who will bring God’s salvation. Isaiah speaks of the Servant who brings salvation to the ends of the earth (49:6), while Jeremiah writes of deliverance by God’s righteous Branch (Jer 23:5-6). The mention of the king who brings salvation in Zechariah 9:9 reflects this messianic theme and is applied to Jesus Christ in Matthew 21:4-5.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In classical Greek the verb <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sozo<\/span> (“to save”) and noun <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">soteria<\/span> (“salvation”) are used for the concept of “rescue,” “deliverance” or “salvation,” and even “well-being” or “health.” The Septuagint most frequently uses <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sozo<\/span> to render the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">yasha‘<\/span> (“to save”), and the NT primarily employs <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sozo<\/span> and its derivatives for the idea of salvation.<\/p>\n<p>These Greek terms are generally used theologically in the NT, but examples of nontheological usage occur. In Acts 27, these words refer to the threat and deliverance of the soldiers, sailors, and prisoners from shipwreck (vv 20, 31), as well as their well-being (v 34).<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels “salvation” is clearly connected with the OT concept of salvation; it is applied to the coming of Christ in Zechariah’s prophecy (Lk 1:69, 71; cf. Pss 106:10; 132:17) and in Simeon’s hymn of praise (Lk 2:30). While <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">soteria<\/span> does not occur frequently in the Gospels, the concept of salvation is implied in Jesus’ statement about entrance into the kingdom of God (Mt 19:24-26) and his miracles of healing (Lk 17:19; 18:42).<\/p>\n<p>The NT teaches that salvation has its source in Jesus Christ (2 Tm 2:10; Heb 5:9), who is the “author” and mediator of salvation (Heb 2:10; 7:25). Salvation is God’s work (1 Thes 5:9) and is offered by his grace (Eph 2:8-9). The message of salvation is contained in the Scriptures (2 Tm 3:15) and is carried by those who proclaim the word of truth (Eph 1:13). The appropriate response is repentance (2 Cor 7:10) and faith (2 Tm 3:15; 1 Pt 1:9). This was the preaching of the early church as it proclaimed the Savior Jesus (Acts 4:12; 13:23-26; 16:30-31). Paul especially proclaimed the universality of God’s offer of salvation (Rom 1:16; Ti 2:11). His desire was for Jews to be saved (Rom 10:1), though he primarily preached the message of salvation to the Gentiles (11:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>Within the Scriptures there are many other terms associated with the concept of salvation. The new birth speaks of being made alive in Christ (“born again,” Jn 3:3). Justification envisions one’s legal standing before God, while redemption speaks more of the means of salvation—the payment of a price to bring one back to God. Reconciliation speaks of a change in relationship and propitiation, which evokes the OT sacrificial system and points to the turning away of God’s wrath. These terms and others share some common ground with the biblical concept of salvation, but all point to the person and work of Jesus Christ the Savior.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Justification, Justified; Reconciliation; Redeemer, Redemption; Savior.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SALVATION God’s way of providing people deliverance from sin and death. Scripture reveals God but it also reveals his plan to save the human race. In that sense, salvation is a major theme in both the OT and NT. In the Old Testament The concept of salvation is represented by various terms and situations in both Testaments. Among several Hebrew words that mean “deliver” or “save,” the Hebrew verb yasha‘ and derivatives are most frequently translated by English versions as “save” or “salvation....","summary_en":"SALVATION God’s way of providing people deliverance from sin and death. Scripture reveals God but it also reveals his plan to save the human race. In that sense, salvation is a major theme in both the OT and NT. In the Old Testament The concept of salvation is represented by various terms and situations in both Testaments. Among several Hebrew words that mean “deliver” or “save,” the Hebrew verb yasha‘ and derivatives are most frequently translated by English versions as “save” or “salvation....","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":54878,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:24","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:24","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:24<\/strong> <em>easier for a camel:<\/em> This analogy reinforces the difficulty that wealthy people face in entering the Kingdom. A few manuscripts have a Greek word meaning <em>rope<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kamilos<\/span>) instead of <em>camel<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kamēlos<\/span>), a difference of only one letter. • <em>to go through the eye of a needle:<\/em> The image makes the wealthy entering the Kingdom an impossibility. The situation is not utterly hopeless, however (19:26-27). See study note on Mark 10:25.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:24<\/strong> <em>easier for a camel:<\/em> This analogy reinforces the difficulty that wealthy people face in entering the Kingdom. A few manuscripts have a Greek word meaning <em>rope<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kamilos<\/span>) instead of <em>camel<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kamēlos<\/span>), a difference of only one letter. • <em>to go through the eye of a needle:<\/em> The image makes the wealthy entering the Kingdom an impossibility. The situation is not utterly hopeless, however (19:26-27). See study note on Mark 10:25.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:24 easier for a camel: This analogy reinforces the difficulty that wealthy people face in entering the Kingdom. A few manuscripts have a Greek word meaning rope (Greek kamilos) instead of camel (Greek kamēlos), a difference of only one letter. • to go through the eye of a needle: The image makes the wealthy entering the Kingdom an impossibility. The situation is not utterly hopeless, however (19:26-27). See study note on Mark 10:25.","summary_en":"19:24 easier for a camel: This analogy reinforces the difficulty that wealthy people face in entering the Kingdom. A few manuscripts have a Greek word meaning rope (Greek kamilos) instead of camel (Greek kamēlos), a difference of only one letter. • to go through the eye of a needle: The image makes the wealthy entering the Kingdom an impossibility. The situation is not utterly hopeless, however (19:26-27). See study note on Mark 10:25.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82504,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:24","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:24","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:24<\/strong> <em>easier for a camel:<\/em> This analogy reinforces the difficulty that wealthy people face in entering the Kingdom. A few manuscripts have a Greek word meaning <em>rope<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kamilos<\/span>) instead of <em>camel<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kamēlos<\/span>), a difference of only one letter. • <em>to go through the eye of a needle:<\/em> The image makes the wealthy entering the Kingdom an impossibility. The situation is not utterly hopeless, however (19:26-27). See study note on Mark 10:25.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:24<\/strong> <em>easier for a camel:<\/em> This analogy reinforces the difficulty that wealthy people face in entering the Kingdom. A few manuscripts have a Greek word meaning <em>rope<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kamilos<\/span>) instead of <em>camel<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kamēlos<\/span>), a difference of only one letter. • <em>to go through the eye of a needle:<\/em> The image makes the wealthy entering the Kingdom an impossibility. The situation is not utterly hopeless, however (19:26-27). See study note on Mark 10:25.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:24 easier for a camel: This analogy reinforces the difficulty that wealthy people face in entering the Kingdom. A few manuscripts have a Greek word meaning rope (Greek kamilos) instead of camel (Greek kamēlos), a difference of only one letter. • to go through the eye of a needle: The image makes the wealthy entering the Kingdom an impossibility. The situation is not utterly hopeless, however (19:26-27). See study note on Mark 10:25.","summary_en":"19:24 easier for a camel: This analogy reinforces the difficulty that wealthy people face in entering the Kingdom. A few manuscripts have a Greek word meaning rope (Greek kamilos) instead of camel (Greek kamēlos), a difference of only one letter. • to go through the eye of a needle: The image makes the wealthy entering the Kingdom an impossibility. The situation is not utterly hopeless, however (19:26-27). See study note on Mark 10:25.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110130,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:24","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:24","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:24<\/strong> <em>easier for a camel:<\/em> This analogy reinforces the difficulty that wealthy people face in entering the Kingdom. A few manuscripts have a Greek word meaning <em>rope<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kamilos<\/span>) instead of <em>camel<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kamēlos<\/span>), a difference of only one letter. • <em>to go through the eye of a needle:<\/em> The image makes the wealthy entering the Kingdom an impossibility. The situation is not utterly hopeless, however (19:26-27). See study note on Mark 10:25.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:24<\/strong> <em>easier for a camel:<\/em> This analogy reinforces the difficulty that wealthy people face in entering the Kingdom. A few manuscripts have a Greek word meaning <em>rope<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kamilos<\/span>) instead of <em>camel<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kamēlos<\/span>), a difference of only one letter. • <em>to go through the eye of a needle:<\/em> The image makes the wealthy entering the Kingdom an impossibility. The situation is not utterly hopeless, however (19:26-27). See study note on Mark 10:25.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:24 easier for a camel: This analogy reinforces the difficulty that wealthy people face in entering the Kingdom. A few manuscripts have a Greek word meaning rope (Greek kamilos) instead of camel (Greek kamēlos), a difference of only one letter. • to go through the eye of a needle: The image makes the wealthy entering the Kingdom an impossibility. The situation is not utterly hopeless, however (19:26-27). See study note on Mark 10:25.","summary_en":"19:24 easier for a camel: This analogy reinforces the difficulty that wealthy people face in entering the Kingdom. A few manuscripts have a Greek word meaning rope (Greek kamilos) instead of camel (Greek kamēlos), a difference of only one letter. • to go through the eye of a needle: The image makes the wealthy entering the Kingdom an impossibility. The situation is not utterly hopeless, however (19:26-27). See study note on Mark 10:25.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":137756,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:24","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:24","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:24<\/strong> <em>easier for a camel:<\/em> This analogy reinforces the difficulty that wealthy people face in entering the Kingdom. A few manuscripts have a Greek word meaning <em>rope<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kamilos<\/span>) instead of <em>camel<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kamēlos<\/span>), a difference of only one letter. • <em>to go through the eye of a needle:<\/em> The image makes the wealthy entering the Kingdom an impossibility. The situation is not utterly hopeless, however (19:26-27). See study note on Mark 10:25.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:24<\/strong> <em>easier for a camel:<\/em> This analogy reinforces the difficulty that wealthy people face in entering the Kingdom. A few manuscripts have a Greek word meaning <em>rope<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kamilos<\/span>) instead of <em>camel<\/em> (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kamēlos<\/span>), a difference of only one letter. • <em>to go through the eye of a needle:<\/em> The image makes the wealthy entering the Kingdom an impossibility. The situation is not utterly hopeless, however (19:26-27). See study note on Mark 10:25.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:24 easier for a camel: This analogy reinforces the difficulty that wealthy people face in entering the Kingdom. A few manuscripts have a Greek word meaning rope (Greek kamilos) instead of camel (Greek kamēlos), a difference of only one letter. • to go through the eye of a needle: The image makes the wealthy entering the Kingdom an impossibility. The situation is not utterly hopeless, however (19:26-27). See study note on Mark 10:25.","summary_en":"19:24 easier for a camel: This analogy reinforces the difficulty that wealthy people face in entering the Kingdom. A few manuscripts have a Greek word meaning rope (Greek kamilos) instead of camel (Greek kamēlos), a difference of only one letter. • to go through the eye of a needle: The image makes the wealthy entering the Kingdom an impossibility. The situation is not utterly hopeless, however (19:26-27). See study note on Mark 10:25.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"26":[{"id":14199,"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":54879,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:26","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:26","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:26<\/strong> God’s regenerating grace is absolutely essential before the wealthy are able to repent from their idolatry, abandon their possessions if called to do so, and follow Jesus (19:21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:26<\/strong> God’s regenerating grace is absolutely essential before the wealthy are able to repent from their idolatry, abandon their possessions if called to do so, and follow Jesus (19:21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:26 God’s regenerating grace is absolutely essential before the wealthy are able to repent from their idolatry, abandon their possessions if called to do so, and follow Jesus (19:21).","summary_en":"19:26 God’s regenerating grace is absolutely essential before the wealthy are able to repent from their idolatry, abandon their possessions if called to do so, and follow Jesus (19:21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82505,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:26","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:26","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:26<\/strong> God’s regenerating grace is absolutely essential before the wealthy are able to repent from their idolatry, abandon their possessions if called to do so, and follow Jesus (19:21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:26<\/strong> God’s regenerating grace is absolutely essential before the wealthy are able to repent from their idolatry, abandon their possessions if called to do so, and follow Jesus (19:21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:26 God’s regenerating grace is absolutely essential before the wealthy are able to repent from their idolatry, abandon their possessions if called to do so, and follow Jesus (19:21).","summary_en":"19:26 God’s regenerating grace is absolutely essential before the wealthy are able to repent from their idolatry, abandon their possessions if called to do so, and follow Jesus (19:21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110131,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:26","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:26","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:26<\/strong> God’s regenerating grace is absolutely essential before the wealthy are able to repent from their idolatry, abandon their possessions if called to do so, and follow Jesus (19:21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:26<\/strong> God’s regenerating grace is absolutely essential before the wealthy are able to repent from their idolatry, abandon their possessions if called to do so, and follow Jesus (19:21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:26 God’s regenerating grace is absolutely essential before the wealthy are able to repent from their idolatry, abandon their possessions if called to do so, and follow Jesus (19:21).","summary_en":"19:26 God’s regenerating grace is absolutely essential before the wealthy are able to repent from their idolatry, abandon their possessions if called to do so, and follow Jesus (19:21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":137757,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:26","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:26","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:26<\/strong> God’s regenerating grace is absolutely essential before the wealthy are able to repent from their idolatry, abandon their possessions if called to do so, and follow Jesus (19:21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:26<\/strong> God’s regenerating grace is absolutely essential before the wealthy are able to repent from their idolatry, abandon their possessions if called to do so, and follow Jesus (19:21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:26 God’s regenerating grace is absolutely essential before the wealthy are able to repent from their idolatry, abandon their possessions if called to do so, and follow Jesus (19:21).","summary_en":"19:26 God’s regenerating grace is absolutely essential before the wealthy are able to repent from their idolatry, abandon their possessions if called to do so, and follow Jesus (19:21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":66372,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Miracles","title_en":"Miracles","content_ro":"<h3>Miracles<\/h3>\n<p>Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in more than the miracle itself (see John 12:37). Miracles remind us of the truth that anything is possible for God (Mark 9:21-23; cp. Matt 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 1:37; 18:27).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus performed many miracles during his ministry including physical healings, exorcisms, nature miracles, and raising the dead. Jesus demonstrated a deep love for humankind in the way he responded to people’s needs, and many people followed him in response to his miracles (John 6:2), though he cautioned against following him just because of the miracles (John 6:26). Perhaps the three greatest miracles that occurred in relation to Jesus are (1) his coming as the Word of God in human flesh (John 1:14), (2) his glorious resurrection from the dead (Matt 28; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-53; John 20:1-31; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor 15:3-8; cp Acts 23:6; 26:8), and (3) the miracle of the new birth (John 3:3-8; Gal 2:20; Eph 2:8-10). The coming of Jesus into the world to be the Savior and to die for our sins shows us how much God loves us (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5; 1 Jn 3:1-2). The fact that God raised Jesus from the dead reveals God’s power over death and gives us a living hope, the promise of eternal life (1 Pet 1:3-9). And the person who puts faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is born anew as a child of God and receives eternal life (John 1:12; 3:36; Rom 5:1-2; 1 Jn 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>The miraculous activity of Jesus continued in the work of his followers, as demonstrated throughout the book of Acts (e.g., Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-15; 6:8; 8:6-7; 9:32-42; 14:3). Filled with the Holy Spirit, the apostles and other Christian leaders performed these miraculous signs, wonders, and mighty works, often in order to offer tangible evidence of the power and truth of the Christian message (14:3; see John 3:2; Heb 2:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 19:23-26; 28:1-20; Mark 10:23-27; Luke 1:30-38; 18:24-27; 24:1-53; John 1:12-14; 3:2-8, 16; 20:1–21:25; Acts 4:29-31; 5:12-16; 6:8; 8:4-23; 9:32-42; 14:3-4; 26:8; Rom 5:1, 8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5, 8-10; Heb 2:4; 1 Pet 1:3-5; 1 Jn 5:12-13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Miracles<\/h3>\n<p>Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in more than the miracle itself (see John 12:37). Miracles remind us of the truth that anything is possible for God (Mark 9:21-23; cp. Matt 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 1:37; 18:27).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus performed many miracles during his ministry including physical healings, exorcisms, nature miracles, and raising the dead. Jesus demonstrated a deep love for humankind in the way he responded to people’s needs, and many people followed him in response to his miracles (John 6:2), though he cautioned against following him just because of the miracles (John 6:26). Perhaps the three greatest miracles that occurred in relation to Jesus are (1) his coming as the Word of God in human flesh (John 1:14), (2) his glorious resurrection from the dead (Matt 28; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-53; John 20:1-31; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor 15:3-8; cp Acts 23:6; 26:8), and (3) the miracle of the new birth (John 3:3-8; Gal 2:20; Eph 2:8-10). The coming of Jesus into the world to be the Savior and to die for our sins shows us how much God loves us (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5; 1 Jn 3:1-2). The fact that God raised Jesus from the dead reveals God’s power over death and gives us a living hope, the promise of eternal life (1 Pet 1:3-9). And the person who puts faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is born anew as a child of God and receives eternal life (John 1:12; 3:36; Rom 5:1-2; 1 Jn 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>The miraculous activity of Jesus continued in the work of his followers, as demonstrated throughout the book of Acts (e.g., Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-15; 6:8; 8:6-7; 9:32-42; 14:3). Filled with the Holy Spirit, the apostles and other Christian leaders performed these miraculous signs, wonders, and mighty works, often in order to offer tangible evidence of the power and truth of the Christian message (14:3; see John 3:2; Heb 2:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 19:23-26; 28:1-20; Mark 10:23-27; Luke 1:30-38; 18:24-27; 24:1-53; John 1:12-14; 3:2-8, 16; 20:1–21:25; Acts 4:29-31; 5:12-16; 6:8; 8:4-23; 9:32-42; 14:3-4; 26:8; Rom 5:1, 8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5, 8-10; Heb 2:4; 1 Pet 1:3-5; 1 Jn 5:12-13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Miracles Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in ...","summary_en":"Miracles Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93998,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Miracles","title_en":"Miracles","content_ro":"<h3>Miracles<\/h3>\n<p>Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in more than the miracle itself (see John 12:37). Miracles remind us of the truth that anything is possible for God (Mark 9:21-23; cp. Matt 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 1:37; 18:27).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus performed many miracles during his ministry including physical healings, exorcisms, nature miracles, and raising the dead. Jesus demonstrated a deep love for humankind in the way he responded to people’s needs, and many people followed him in response to his miracles (John 6:2), though he cautioned against following him just because of the miracles (John 6:26). Perhaps the three greatest miracles that occurred in relation to Jesus are (1) his coming as the Word of God in human flesh (John 1:14), (2) his glorious resurrection from the dead (Matt 28; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-53; John 20:1-31; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor 15:3-8; cp Acts 23:6; 26:8), and (3) the miracle of the new birth (John 3:3-8; Gal 2:20; Eph 2:8-10). The coming of Jesus into the world to be the Savior and to die for our sins shows us how much God loves us (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5; 1 Jn 3:1-2). The fact that God raised Jesus from the dead reveals God’s power over death and gives us a living hope, the promise of eternal life (1 Pet 1:3-9). And the person who puts faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is born anew as a child of God and receives eternal life (John 1:12; 3:36; Rom 5:1-2; 1 Jn 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>The miraculous activity of Jesus continued in the work of his followers, as demonstrated throughout the book of Acts (e.g., Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-15; 6:8; 8:6-7; 9:32-42; 14:3). Filled with the Holy Spirit, the apostles and other Christian leaders performed these miraculous signs, wonders, and mighty works, often in order to offer tangible evidence of the power and truth of the Christian message (14:3; see John 3:2; Heb 2:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 19:23-26; 28:1-20; Mark 10:23-27; Luke 1:30-38; 18:24-27; 24:1-53; John 1:12-14; 3:2-8, 16; 20:1–21:25; Acts 4:29-31; 5:12-16; 6:8; 8:4-23; 9:32-42; 14:3-4; 26:8; Rom 5:1, 8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5, 8-10; Heb 2:4; 1 Pet 1:3-5; 1 Jn 5:12-13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Miracles<\/h3>\n<p>Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in more than the miracle itself (see John 12:37). Miracles remind us of the truth that anything is possible for God (Mark 9:21-23; cp. Matt 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 1:37; 18:27).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus performed many miracles during his ministry including physical healings, exorcisms, nature miracles, and raising the dead. Jesus demonstrated a deep love for humankind in the way he responded to people’s needs, and many people followed him in response to his miracles (John 6:2), though he cautioned against following him just because of the miracles (John 6:26). Perhaps the three greatest miracles that occurred in relation to Jesus are (1) his coming as the Word of God in human flesh (John 1:14), (2) his glorious resurrection from the dead (Matt 28; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-53; John 20:1-31; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor 15:3-8; cp Acts 23:6; 26:8), and (3) the miracle of the new birth (John 3:3-8; Gal 2:20; Eph 2:8-10). The coming of Jesus into the world to be the Savior and to die for our sins shows us how much God loves us (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5; 1 Jn 3:1-2). The fact that God raised Jesus from the dead reveals God’s power over death and gives us a living hope, the promise of eternal life (1 Pet 1:3-9). And the person who puts faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is born anew as a child of God and receives eternal life (John 1:12; 3:36; Rom 5:1-2; 1 Jn 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>The miraculous activity of Jesus continued in the work of his followers, as demonstrated throughout the book of Acts (e.g., Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-15; 6:8; 8:6-7; 9:32-42; 14:3). Filled with the Holy Spirit, the apostles and other Christian leaders performed these miraculous signs, wonders, and mighty works, often in order to offer tangible evidence of the power and truth of the Christian message (14:3; see John 3:2; Heb 2:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 19:23-26; 28:1-20; Mark 10:23-27; Luke 1:30-38; 18:24-27; 24:1-53; John 1:12-14; 3:2-8, 16; 20:1–21:25; Acts 4:29-31; 5:12-16; 6:8; 8:4-23; 9:32-42; 14:3-4; 26:8; Rom 5:1, 8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5, 8-10; Heb 2:4; 1 Pet 1:3-5; 1 Jn 5:12-13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Miracles Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in ...","summary_en":"Miracles Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":121624,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Miracles","title_en":"Miracles","content_ro":"<h3>Miracles<\/h3>\n<p>Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in more than the miracle itself (see John 12:37). Miracles remind us of the truth that anything is possible for God (Mark 9:21-23; cp. Matt 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 1:37; 18:27).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus performed many miracles during his ministry including physical healings, exorcisms, nature miracles, and raising the dead. Jesus demonstrated a deep love for humankind in the way he responded to people’s needs, and many people followed him in response to his miracles (John 6:2), though he cautioned against following him just because of the miracles (John 6:26). Perhaps the three greatest miracles that occurred in relation to Jesus are (1) his coming as the Word of God in human flesh (John 1:14), (2) his glorious resurrection from the dead (Matt 28; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-53; John 20:1-31; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor 15:3-8; cp Acts 23:6; 26:8), and (3) the miracle of the new birth (John 3:3-8; Gal 2:20; Eph 2:8-10). The coming of Jesus into the world to be the Savior and to die for our sins shows us how much God loves us (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5; 1 Jn 3:1-2). The fact that God raised Jesus from the dead reveals God’s power over death and gives us a living hope, the promise of eternal life (1 Pet 1:3-9). And the person who puts faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is born anew as a child of God and receives eternal life (John 1:12; 3:36; Rom 5:1-2; 1 Jn 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>The miraculous activity of Jesus continued in the work of his followers, as demonstrated throughout the book of Acts (e.g., Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-15; 6:8; 8:6-7; 9:32-42; 14:3). Filled with the Holy Spirit, the apostles and other Christian leaders performed these miraculous signs, wonders, and mighty works, often in order to offer tangible evidence of the power and truth of the Christian message (14:3; see John 3:2; Heb 2:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 19:23-26; 28:1-20; Mark 10:23-27; Luke 1:30-38; 18:24-27; 24:1-53; John 1:12-14; 3:2-8, 16; 20:1–21:25; Acts 4:29-31; 5:12-16; 6:8; 8:4-23; 9:32-42; 14:3-4; 26:8; Rom 5:1, 8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5, 8-10; Heb 2:4; 1 Pet 1:3-5; 1 Jn 5:12-13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Miracles<\/h3>\n<p>Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in more than the miracle itself (see John 12:37). Miracles remind us of the truth that anything is possible for God (Mark 9:21-23; cp. Matt 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 1:37; 18:27).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus performed many miracles during his ministry including physical healings, exorcisms, nature miracles, and raising the dead. Jesus demonstrated a deep love for humankind in the way he responded to people’s needs, and many people followed him in response to his miracles (John 6:2), though he cautioned against following him just because of the miracles (John 6:26). Perhaps the three greatest miracles that occurred in relation to Jesus are (1) his coming as the Word of God in human flesh (John 1:14), (2) his glorious resurrection from the dead (Matt 28; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-53; John 20:1-31; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor 15:3-8; cp Acts 23:6; 26:8), and (3) the miracle of the new birth (John 3:3-8; Gal 2:20; Eph 2:8-10). The coming of Jesus into the world to be the Savior and to die for our sins shows us how much God loves us (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5; 1 Jn 3:1-2). The fact that God raised Jesus from the dead reveals God’s power over death and gives us a living hope, the promise of eternal life (1 Pet 1:3-9). And the person who puts faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is born anew as a child of God and receives eternal life (John 1:12; 3:36; Rom 5:1-2; 1 Jn 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>The miraculous activity of Jesus continued in the work of his followers, as demonstrated throughout the book of Acts (e.g., Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-15; 6:8; 8:6-7; 9:32-42; 14:3). Filled with the Holy Spirit, the apostles and other Christian leaders performed these miraculous signs, wonders, and mighty works, often in order to offer tangible evidence of the power and truth of the Christian message (14:3; see John 3:2; Heb 2:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 19:23-26; 28:1-20; Mark 10:23-27; Luke 1:30-38; 18:24-27; 24:1-53; John 1:12-14; 3:2-8, 16; 20:1–21:25; Acts 4:29-31; 5:12-16; 6:8; 8:4-23; 9:32-42; 14:3-4; 26:8; Rom 5:1, 8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5, 8-10; Heb 2:4; 1 Pet 1:3-5; 1 Jn 5:12-13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Miracles Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in ...","summary_en":"Miracles Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":149250,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Miracles","title_en":"Miracles","content_ro":"<h3>Miracles<\/h3>\n<p>Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in more than the miracle itself (see John 12:37). Miracles remind us of the truth that anything is possible for God (Mark 9:21-23; cp. Matt 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 1:37; 18:27).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus performed many miracles during his ministry including physical healings, exorcisms, nature miracles, and raising the dead. Jesus demonstrated a deep love for humankind in the way he responded to people’s needs, and many people followed him in response to his miracles (John 6:2), though he cautioned against following him just because of the miracles (John 6:26). Perhaps the three greatest miracles that occurred in relation to Jesus are (1) his coming as the Word of God in human flesh (John 1:14), (2) his glorious resurrection from the dead (Matt 28; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-53; John 20:1-31; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor 15:3-8; cp Acts 23:6; 26:8), and (3) the miracle of the new birth (John 3:3-8; Gal 2:20; Eph 2:8-10). The coming of Jesus into the world to be the Savior and to die for our sins shows us how much God loves us (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5; 1 Jn 3:1-2). The fact that God raised Jesus from the dead reveals God’s power over death and gives us a living hope, the promise of eternal life (1 Pet 1:3-9). And the person who puts faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is born anew as a child of God and receives eternal life (John 1:12; 3:36; Rom 5:1-2; 1 Jn 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>The miraculous activity of Jesus continued in the work of his followers, as demonstrated throughout the book of Acts (e.g., Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-15; 6:8; 8:6-7; 9:32-42; 14:3). Filled with the Holy Spirit, the apostles and other Christian leaders performed these miraculous signs, wonders, and mighty works, often in order to offer tangible evidence of the power and truth of the Christian message (14:3; see John 3:2; Heb 2:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 19:23-26; 28:1-20; Mark 10:23-27; Luke 1:30-38; 18:24-27; 24:1-53; John 1:12-14; 3:2-8, 16; 20:1–21:25; Acts 4:29-31; 5:12-16; 6:8; 8:4-23; 9:32-42; 14:3-4; 26:8; Rom 5:1, 8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5, 8-10; Heb 2:4; 1 Pet 1:3-5; 1 Jn 5:12-13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Miracles<\/h3>\n<p>Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in more than the miracle itself (see John 12:37). Miracles remind us of the truth that anything is possible for God (Mark 9:21-23; cp. Matt 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 1:37; 18:27).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus performed many miracles during his ministry including physical healings, exorcisms, nature miracles, and raising the dead. Jesus demonstrated a deep love for humankind in the way he responded to people’s needs, and many people followed him in response to his miracles (John 6:2), though he cautioned against following him just because of the miracles (John 6:26). Perhaps the three greatest miracles that occurred in relation to Jesus are (1) his coming as the Word of God in human flesh (John 1:14), (2) his glorious resurrection from the dead (Matt 28; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-53; John 20:1-31; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor 15:3-8; cp Acts 23:6; 26:8), and (3) the miracle of the new birth (John 3:3-8; Gal 2:20; Eph 2:8-10). The coming of Jesus into the world to be the Savior and to die for our sins shows us how much God loves us (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5; 1 Jn 3:1-2). The fact that God raised Jesus from the dead reveals God’s power over death and gives us a living hope, the promise of eternal life (1 Pet 1:3-9). And the person who puts faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is born anew as a child of God and receives eternal life (John 1:12; 3:36; Rom 5:1-2; 1 Jn 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>The miraculous activity of Jesus continued in the work of his followers, as demonstrated throughout the book of Acts (e.g., Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-15; 6:8; 8:6-7; 9:32-42; 14:3). Filled with the Holy Spirit, the apostles and other Christian leaders performed these miraculous signs, wonders, and mighty works, often in order to offer tangible evidence of the power and truth of the Christian message (14:3; see John 3:2; Heb 2:4).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 19:23-26; 28:1-20; Mark 10:23-27; Luke 1:30-38; 18:24-27; 24:1-53; John 1:12-14; 3:2-8, 16; 20:1–21:25; Acts 4:29-31; 5:12-16; 6:8; 8:4-23; 9:32-42; 14:3-4; 26:8; Rom 5:1, 8; 8:32; Eph 2:4-5, 8-10; Heb 2:4; 1 Pet 1:3-5; 1 Jn 5:12-13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Miracles Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in ...","summary_en":"Miracles Miracles occur frequently in the biblical narrative. They are particularly concentrated during the time of Moses and during the ministries of Elijah\/Elisha, Jesus, and the apostles. The Bible does not attempt to prove miracles, but simply reports them. Miracles demonstrate both the power of God over the natural order and the compassion of God in response to human need. Miracles can lead to belief in God (John 2:23), though they do not necessarily do so and though one must believe in ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"27":[{"id":42162,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Simon Peter","title_en":"Simon Peter","content_ro":"<h3>Simon Peter<\/h3>\n<p>Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew name <em>Simeon<\/em> (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. <em>Cephas<\/em> is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as <em>Petros<\/em> (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42).<\/p>\n<p>Though Bethsaida was Peter’s hometown (John 1:44), he later lived in Capernaum. He was married (1 Cor 9:5), and at one point, when visiting Peter’s home, Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt 8:14-15; Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>Originally fishermen, Peter and his brother Andrew were among the first to be called by Jesus to be disciples, together with James and John, their fishing partners (Matt 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; cp. Luke 5:1-11; John 1:35-51). They were ordinary, minimally educated working men (Acts 4:13).<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s name occurs first on every list of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). Together with the brothers James and John, Peter was part of an “inner circle” of disciples who were with Jesus on certain special occasions—the healing of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), Jesus’ transfiguration (Matt 17:1-2; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28-29), and Jesus’ prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was bold and impulsive (Matt 26:33; Mark 14:29; Luke 5:8; 22:33; John 13:36-37; 21:7), and the first of the disciples to confess his belief in Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:15-16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20). He reproved Jesus when Jesus spoke of his coming death—a notion that did not fit Peter’s view of the Messiah—and was in turn rebuked by Jesus for it (Matt 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33). However, Jesus spoke of Peter as a key person he would use to build the church (Matt 16:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Peter surreptitiously entered the courtyard of the high priest when Jesus was taken there for interrogation. But when challenged by people who recognized him (partly because of his Galilean accent), he vigorously denied all knowledge of Jesus (26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62)—as Jesus had said he would, in spite of Peter’s insistence that he would never do so (Matt 26:33-35; Mark 14:29-31; Luke 22:31-34). Peter immediately felt deep remorse.<\/p>\n<p>After the news of Jesus’ resurrection, Peter was one of the first to run to the tomb to see if it was true (John 20:3-7), and he appears to have been the first of the Twelve to whom the risen Jesus showed himself (Luke 24:33-34; 1 Cor 15:5). Much of Jesus’ conversation recorded in John 21 was with Peter, whom Jesus encouraged to “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>Following the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13), Peter quickly emerged as the primary spokesman for the early Christians. From that point on, as recorded in Acts 2:14–12:25, he played a crucial role in the spread of the gospel in Judea, boldly preaching to the crowds (Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26), healing people (Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-16; 9:32-43), and—even under arrest—speaking fearlessly to the authorities (Acts 4:1-20; 5:26-32). Twice he miraculously escaped from prison (Acts 5:18-25; 12:6-11). He also exercised leadership in the administrative affairs of the quickly growing community of disciples (Acts 5:3-11).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was the first to bring the Good News to Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48; see Matt 16:18). And he played a key role in the Jerusalem council concerning Gentile converts, arguing that Gentiles should not be compelled to observe the law of Moses but should be accepted on the basis of their faith in Christ alone (Acts 15:7-11). Later, however, when visiting Antioch, he was inconsistent on this point—resulting in a rebuke from Paul (Gal 2:11-16).<\/p>\n<p>Other than his taking his wife with him on at least some of his mission trips (1 Cor 9:5), few details are known about Peter’s later life and missionary work. (He may have spent time at Corinth; see 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22). Widespread early tradition says that Peter was crucified—like his Lord, just as Jesus had predicted (John 21:18-19)—in Rome during Nero’s persecution of Christians in <span>AD<\/span> 64–65. The reliability of the tradition that he was crucified upside-down is less certain.<\/p>\n<p>Peter was likely the source of the material recorded by Mark in his Gospel, which Mark probably learned while he was assisting Peter in his evangelistic work in Italy near the end of his life. Peter is also traditionally understood to be the author of 1 Peter (written from Rome—“Babylon,” 1 Pet 5:13) and 2 Peter.<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, Peter stands as a reassuring example of Christ’s forgiving grace for those who know they’ve failed him—and of the way Christ can graciously restore and use such people for his glory, in spite of their failings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:18-20; 8:14; 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15; 16:16-19, 22-23; 17:1-4, 24-27; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33-45, 58, 69-75; Mark 1:16-18, 29-30, 36-37; 3:16; 5:37; 8:29-33; 9:2-6; 10:28; 11:21; 13:3-4; 14:29-42, 54, 66-72; 16:7-8; Luke 4:38; 5:3-10; 6:14; 8:45, 51; 9:20, 28-33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:8, 31-34, 55-62; 24:12, 34; John 1:40-42, 44; 6:8, 68; 13:6-10, 24, 36-38; 18:10-11, 15-18, 25-27; 20:2-6; 21:2-21; Acts 1:1–12:25; 15:7-11; Gal 2:7-16; 1 Pet 1:1–5:14; 2 Pet 1:1–3:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Simon Peter<\/h3>\n<p>Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew name <em>Simeon<\/em> (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. <em>Cephas<\/em> is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as <em>Petros<\/em> (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42).<\/p>\n<p>Though Bethsaida was Peter’s hometown (John 1:44), he later lived in Capernaum. He was married (1 Cor 9:5), and at one point, when visiting Peter’s home, Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt 8:14-15; Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>Originally fishermen, Peter and his brother Andrew were among the first to be called by Jesus to be disciples, together with James and John, their fishing partners (Matt 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; cp. Luke 5:1-11; John 1:35-51). They were ordinary, minimally educated working men (Acts 4:13).<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s name occurs first on every list of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). Together with the brothers James and John, Peter was part of an “inner circle” of disciples who were with Jesus on certain special occasions—the healing of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), Jesus’ transfiguration (Matt 17:1-2; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28-29), and Jesus’ prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was bold and impulsive (Matt 26:33; Mark 14:29; Luke 5:8; 22:33; John 13:36-37; 21:7), and the first of the disciples to confess his belief in Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:15-16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20). He reproved Jesus when Jesus spoke of his coming death—a notion that did not fit Peter’s view of the Messiah—and was in turn rebuked by Jesus for it (Matt 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33). However, Jesus spoke of Peter as a key person he would use to build the church (Matt 16:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Peter surreptitiously entered the courtyard of the high priest when Jesus was taken there for interrogation. But when challenged by people who recognized him (partly because of his Galilean accent), he vigorously denied all knowledge of Jesus (26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62)—as Jesus had said he would, in spite of Peter’s insistence that he would never do so (Matt 26:33-35; Mark 14:29-31; Luke 22:31-34). Peter immediately felt deep remorse.<\/p>\n<p>After the news of Jesus’ resurrection, Peter was one of the first to run to the tomb to see if it was true (John 20:3-7), and he appears to have been the first of the Twelve to whom the risen Jesus showed himself (Luke 24:33-34; 1 Cor 15:5). Much of Jesus’ conversation recorded in John 21 was with Peter, whom Jesus encouraged to “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>Following the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13), Peter quickly emerged as the primary spokesman for the early Christians. From that point on, as recorded in Acts 2:14–12:25, he played a crucial role in the spread of the gospel in Judea, boldly preaching to the crowds (Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26), healing people (Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-16; 9:32-43), and—even under arrest—speaking fearlessly to the authorities (Acts 4:1-20; 5:26-32). Twice he miraculously escaped from prison (Acts 5:18-25; 12:6-11). He also exercised leadership in the administrative affairs of the quickly growing community of disciples (Acts 5:3-11).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was the first to bring the Good News to Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48; see Matt 16:18). And he played a key role in the Jerusalem council concerning Gentile converts, arguing that Gentiles should not be compelled to observe the law of Moses but should be accepted on the basis of their faith in Christ alone (Acts 15:7-11). Later, however, when visiting Antioch, he was inconsistent on this point—resulting in a rebuke from Paul (Gal 2:11-16).<\/p>\n<p>Other than his taking his wife with him on at least some of his mission trips (1 Cor 9:5), few details are known about Peter’s later life and missionary work. (He may have spent time at Corinth; see 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22). Widespread early tradition says that Peter was crucified—like his Lord, just as Jesus had predicted (John 21:18-19)—in Rome during Nero’s persecution of Christians in <span>AD<\/span> 64–65. The reliability of the tradition that he was crucified upside-down is less certain.<\/p>\n<p>Peter was likely the source of the material recorded by Mark in his Gospel, which Mark probably learned while he was assisting Peter in his evangelistic work in Italy near the end of his life. Peter is also traditionally understood to be the author of 1 Peter (written from Rome—“Babylon,” 1 Pet 5:13) and 2 Peter.<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, Peter stands as a reassuring example of Christ’s forgiving grace for those who know they’ve failed him—and of the way Christ can graciously restore and use such people for his glory, in spite of their failings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:18-20; 8:14; 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15; 16:16-19, 22-23; 17:1-4, 24-27; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33-45, 58, 69-75; Mark 1:16-18, 29-30, 36-37; 3:16; 5:37; 8:29-33; 9:2-6; 10:28; 11:21; 13:3-4; 14:29-42, 54, 66-72; 16:7-8; Luke 4:38; 5:3-10; 6:14; 8:45, 51; 9:20, 28-33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:8, 31-34, 55-62; 24:12, 34; John 1:40-42, 44; 6:8, 68; 13:6-10, 24, 36-38; 18:10-11, 15-18, 25-27; 20:2-6; 21:2-21; Acts 1:1–12:25; 15:7-11; Gal 2:7-16; 1 Pet 1:1–5:14; 2 Pet 1:1–3:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"Simon Peter Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8). The Hebrew name Simeon (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. Cephas is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as Petros (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42)...","summary_en":"Simon Peter Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8). The Hebrew name Simeon (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. Cephas is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as Petros (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42)...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69788,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Simon Peter","title_en":"Simon Peter","content_ro":"<h3>Simon Peter<\/h3>\n<p>Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew name <em>Simeon<\/em> (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. <em>Cephas<\/em> is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as <em>Petros<\/em> (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42).<\/p>\n<p>Though Bethsaida was Peter’s hometown (John 1:44), he later lived in Capernaum. He was married (1 Cor 9:5), and at one point, when visiting Peter’s home, Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt 8:14-15; Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>Originally fishermen, Peter and his brother Andrew were among the first to be called by Jesus to be disciples, together with James and John, their fishing partners (Matt 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; cp. Luke 5:1-11; John 1:35-51). They were ordinary, minimally educated working men (Acts 4:13).<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s name occurs first on every list of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). Together with the brothers James and John, Peter was part of an “inner circle” of disciples who were with Jesus on certain special occasions—the healing of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), Jesus’ transfiguration (Matt 17:1-2; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28-29), and Jesus’ prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was bold and impulsive (Matt 26:33; Mark 14:29; Luke 5:8; 22:33; John 13:36-37; 21:7), and the first of the disciples to confess his belief in Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:15-16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20). He reproved Jesus when Jesus spoke of his coming death—a notion that did not fit Peter’s view of the Messiah—and was in turn rebuked by Jesus for it (Matt 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33). However, Jesus spoke of Peter as a key person he would use to build the church (Matt 16:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Peter surreptitiously entered the courtyard of the high priest when Jesus was taken there for interrogation. But when challenged by people who recognized him (partly because of his Galilean accent), he vigorously denied all knowledge of Jesus (26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62)—as Jesus had said he would, in spite of Peter’s insistence that he would never do so (Matt 26:33-35; Mark 14:29-31; Luke 22:31-34). Peter immediately felt deep remorse.<\/p>\n<p>After the news of Jesus’ resurrection, Peter was one of the first to run to the tomb to see if it was true (John 20:3-7), and he appears to have been the first of the Twelve to whom the risen Jesus showed himself (Luke 24:33-34; 1 Cor 15:5). Much of Jesus’ conversation recorded in John 21 was with Peter, whom Jesus encouraged to “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>Following the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13), Peter quickly emerged as the primary spokesman for the early Christians. From that point on, as recorded in Acts 2:14–12:25, he played a crucial role in the spread of the gospel in Judea, boldly preaching to the crowds (Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26), healing people (Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-16; 9:32-43), and—even under arrest—speaking fearlessly to the authorities (Acts 4:1-20; 5:26-32). Twice he miraculously escaped from prison (Acts 5:18-25; 12:6-11). He also exercised leadership in the administrative affairs of the quickly growing community of disciples (Acts 5:3-11).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was the first to bring the Good News to Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48; see Matt 16:18). And he played a key role in the Jerusalem council concerning Gentile converts, arguing that Gentiles should not be compelled to observe the law of Moses but should be accepted on the basis of their faith in Christ alone (Acts 15:7-11). Later, however, when visiting Antioch, he was inconsistent on this point—resulting in a rebuke from Paul (Gal 2:11-16).<\/p>\n<p>Other than his taking his wife with him on at least some of his mission trips (1 Cor 9:5), few details are known about Peter’s later life and missionary work. (He may have spent time at Corinth; see 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22). Widespread early tradition says that Peter was crucified—like his Lord, just as Jesus had predicted (John 21:18-19)—in Rome during Nero’s persecution of Christians in <span>AD<\/span> 64–65. The reliability of the tradition that he was crucified upside-down is less certain.<\/p>\n<p>Peter was likely the source of the material recorded by Mark in his Gospel, which Mark probably learned while he was assisting Peter in his evangelistic work in Italy near the end of his life. Peter is also traditionally understood to be the author of 1 Peter (written from Rome—“Babylon,” 1 Pet 5:13) and 2 Peter.<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, Peter stands as a reassuring example of Christ’s forgiving grace for those who know they’ve failed him—and of the way Christ can graciously restore and use such people for his glory, in spite of their failings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:18-20; 8:14; 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15; 16:16-19, 22-23; 17:1-4, 24-27; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33-45, 58, 69-75; Mark 1:16-18, 29-30, 36-37; 3:16; 5:37; 8:29-33; 9:2-6; 10:28; 11:21; 13:3-4; 14:29-42, 54, 66-72; 16:7-8; Luke 4:38; 5:3-10; 6:14; 8:45, 51; 9:20, 28-33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:8, 31-34, 55-62; 24:12, 34; John 1:40-42, 44; 6:8, 68; 13:6-10, 24, 36-38; 18:10-11, 15-18, 25-27; 20:2-6; 21:2-21; Acts 1:1–12:25; 15:7-11; Gal 2:7-16; 1 Pet 1:1–5:14; 2 Pet 1:1–3:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Simon Peter<\/h3>\n<p>Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew name <em>Simeon<\/em> (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. <em>Cephas<\/em> is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as <em>Petros<\/em> (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42).<\/p>\n<p>Though Bethsaida was Peter’s hometown (John 1:44), he later lived in Capernaum. He was married (1 Cor 9:5), and at one point, when visiting Peter’s home, Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt 8:14-15; Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>Originally fishermen, Peter and his brother Andrew were among the first to be called by Jesus to be disciples, together with James and John, their fishing partners (Matt 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; cp. Luke 5:1-11; John 1:35-51). They were ordinary, minimally educated working men (Acts 4:13).<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s name occurs first on every list of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). Together with the brothers James and John, Peter was part of an “inner circle” of disciples who were with Jesus on certain special occasions—the healing of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), Jesus’ transfiguration (Matt 17:1-2; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28-29), and Jesus’ prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was bold and impulsive (Matt 26:33; Mark 14:29; Luke 5:8; 22:33; John 13:36-37; 21:7), and the first of the disciples to confess his belief in Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:15-16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20). He reproved Jesus when Jesus spoke of his coming death—a notion that did not fit Peter’s view of the Messiah—and was in turn rebuked by Jesus for it (Matt 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33). However, Jesus spoke of Peter as a key person he would use to build the church (Matt 16:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Peter surreptitiously entered the courtyard of the high priest when Jesus was taken there for interrogation. But when challenged by people who recognized him (partly because of his Galilean accent), he vigorously denied all knowledge of Jesus (26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62)—as Jesus had said he would, in spite of Peter’s insistence that he would never do so (Matt 26:33-35; Mark 14:29-31; Luke 22:31-34). Peter immediately felt deep remorse.<\/p>\n<p>After the news of Jesus’ resurrection, Peter was one of the first to run to the tomb to see if it was true (John 20:3-7), and he appears to have been the first of the Twelve to whom the risen Jesus showed himself (Luke 24:33-34; 1 Cor 15:5). Much of Jesus’ conversation recorded in John 21 was with Peter, whom Jesus encouraged to “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>Following the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13), Peter quickly emerged as the primary spokesman for the early Christians. From that point on, as recorded in Acts 2:14–12:25, he played a crucial role in the spread of the gospel in Judea, boldly preaching to the crowds (Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26), healing people (Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-16; 9:32-43), and—even under arrest—speaking fearlessly to the authorities (Acts 4:1-20; 5:26-32). Twice he miraculously escaped from prison (Acts 5:18-25; 12:6-11). He also exercised leadership in the administrative affairs of the quickly growing community of disciples (Acts 5:3-11).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was the first to bring the Good News to Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48; see Matt 16:18). And he played a key role in the Jerusalem council concerning Gentile converts, arguing that Gentiles should not be compelled to observe the law of Moses but should be accepted on the basis of their faith in Christ alone (Acts 15:7-11). Later, however, when visiting Antioch, he was inconsistent on this point—resulting in a rebuke from Paul (Gal 2:11-16).<\/p>\n<p>Other than his taking his wife with him on at least some of his mission trips (1 Cor 9:5), few details are known about Peter’s later life and missionary work. (He may have spent time at Corinth; see 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22). Widespread early tradition says that Peter was crucified—like his Lord, just as Jesus had predicted (John 21:18-19)—in Rome during Nero’s persecution of Christians in <span>AD<\/span> 64–65. The reliability of the tradition that he was crucified upside-down is less certain.<\/p>\n<p>Peter was likely the source of the material recorded by Mark in his Gospel, which Mark probably learned while he was assisting Peter in his evangelistic work in Italy near the end of his life. Peter is also traditionally understood to be the author of 1 Peter (written from Rome—“Babylon,” 1 Pet 5:13) and 2 Peter.<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, Peter stands as a reassuring example of Christ’s forgiving grace for those who know they’ve failed him—and of the way Christ can graciously restore and use such people for his glory, in spite of their failings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:18-20; 8:14; 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15; 16:16-19, 22-23; 17:1-4, 24-27; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33-45, 58, 69-75; Mark 1:16-18, 29-30, 36-37; 3:16; 5:37; 8:29-33; 9:2-6; 10:28; 11:21; 13:3-4; 14:29-42, 54, 66-72; 16:7-8; Luke 4:38; 5:3-10; 6:14; 8:45, 51; 9:20, 28-33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:8, 31-34, 55-62; 24:12, 34; John 1:40-42, 44; 6:8, 68; 13:6-10, 24, 36-38; 18:10-11, 15-18, 25-27; 20:2-6; 21:2-21; Acts 1:1–12:25; 15:7-11; Gal 2:7-16; 1 Pet 1:1–5:14; 2 Pet 1:1–3:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"Simon Peter Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8). The Hebrew name Simeon (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. Cephas is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as Petros (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42)...","summary_en":"Simon Peter Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8). The Hebrew name Simeon (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. Cephas is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as Petros (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42)...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97414,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Simon Peter","title_en":"Simon Peter","content_ro":"<h3>Simon Peter<\/h3>\n<p>Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew name <em>Simeon<\/em> (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. <em>Cephas<\/em> is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as <em>Petros<\/em> (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42).<\/p>\n<p>Though Bethsaida was Peter’s hometown (John 1:44), he later lived in Capernaum. He was married (1 Cor 9:5), and at one point, when visiting Peter’s home, Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt 8:14-15; Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>Originally fishermen, Peter and his brother Andrew were among the first to be called by Jesus to be disciples, together with James and John, their fishing partners (Matt 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; cp. Luke 5:1-11; John 1:35-51). They were ordinary, minimally educated working men (Acts 4:13).<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s name occurs first on every list of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). Together with the brothers James and John, Peter was part of an “inner circle” of disciples who were with Jesus on certain special occasions—the healing of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), Jesus’ transfiguration (Matt 17:1-2; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28-29), and Jesus’ prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was bold and impulsive (Matt 26:33; Mark 14:29; Luke 5:8; 22:33; John 13:36-37; 21:7), and the first of the disciples to confess his belief in Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:15-16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20). He reproved Jesus when Jesus spoke of his coming death—a notion that did not fit Peter’s view of the Messiah—and was in turn rebuked by Jesus for it (Matt 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33). However, Jesus spoke of Peter as a key person he would use to build the church (Matt 16:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Peter surreptitiously entered the courtyard of the high priest when Jesus was taken there for interrogation. But when challenged by people who recognized him (partly because of his Galilean accent), he vigorously denied all knowledge of Jesus (26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62)—as Jesus had said he would, in spite of Peter’s insistence that he would never do so (Matt 26:33-35; Mark 14:29-31; Luke 22:31-34). Peter immediately felt deep remorse.<\/p>\n<p>After the news of Jesus’ resurrection, Peter was one of the first to run to the tomb to see if it was true (John 20:3-7), and he appears to have been the first of the Twelve to whom the risen Jesus showed himself (Luke 24:33-34; 1 Cor 15:5). Much of Jesus’ conversation recorded in John 21 was with Peter, whom Jesus encouraged to “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>Following the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13), Peter quickly emerged as the primary spokesman for the early Christians. From that point on, as recorded in Acts 2:14–12:25, he played a crucial role in the spread of the gospel in Judea, boldly preaching to the crowds (Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26), healing people (Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-16; 9:32-43), and—even under arrest—speaking fearlessly to the authorities (Acts 4:1-20; 5:26-32). Twice he miraculously escaped from prison (Acts 5:18-25; 12:6-11). He also exercised leadership in the administrative affairs of the quickly growing community of disciples (Acts 5:3-11).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was the first to bring the Good News to Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48; see Matt 16:18). And he played a key role in the Jerusalem council concerning Gentile converts, arguing that Gentiles should not be compelled to observe the law of Moses but should be accepted on the basis of their faith in Christ alone (Acts 15:7-11). Later, however, when visiting Antioch, he was inconsistent on this point—resulting in a rebuke from Paul (Gal 2:11-16).<\/p>\n<p>Other than his taking his wife with him on at least some of his mission trips (1 Cor 9:5), few details are known about Peter’s later life and missionary work. (He may have spent time at Corinth; see 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22). Widespread early tradition says that Peter was crucified—like his Lord, just as Jesus had predicted (John 21:18-19)—in Rome during Nero’s persecution of Christians in <span>AD<\/span> 64–65. The reliability of the tradition that he was crucified upside-down is less certain.<\/p>\n<p>Peter was likely the source of the material recorded by Mark in his Gospel, which Mark probably learned while he was assisting Peter in his evangelistic work in Italy near the end of his life. Peter is also traditionally understood to be the author of 1 Peter (written from Rome—“Babylon,” 1 Pet 5:13) and 2 Peter.<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, Peter stands as a reassuring example of Christ’s forgiving grace for those who know they’ve failed him—and of the way Christ can graciously restore and use such people for his glory, in spite of their failings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:18-20; 8:14; 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15; 16:16-19, 22-23; 17:1-4, 24-27; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33-45, 58, 69-75; Mark 1:16-18, 29-30, 36-37; 3:16; 5:37; 8:29-33; 9:2-6; 10:28; 11:21; 13:3-4; 14:29-42, 54, 66-72; 16:7-8; Luke 4:38; 5:3-10; 6:14; 8:45, 51; 9:20, 28-33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:8, 31-34, 55-62; 24:12, 34; John 1:40-42, 44; 6:8, 68; 13:6-10, 24, 36-38; 18:10-11, 15-18, 25-27; 20:2-6; 21:2-21; Acts 1:1–12:25; 15:7-11; Gal 2:7-16; 1 Pet 1:1–5:14; 2 Pet 1:1–3:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Simon Peter<\/h3>\n<p>Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew name <em>Simeon<\/em> (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. <em>Cephas<\/em> is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as <em>Petros<\/em> (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42).<\/p>\n<p>Though Bethsaida was Peter’s hometown (John 1:44), he later lived in Capernaum. He was married (1 Cor 9:5), and at one point, when visiting Peter’s home, Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt 8:14-15; Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>Originally fishermen, Peter and his brother Andrew were among the first to be called by Jesus to be disciples, together with James and John, their fishing partners (Matt 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; cp. Luke 5:1-11; John 1:35-51). They were ordinary, minimally educated working men (Acts 4:13).<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s name occurs first on every list of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). Together with the brothers James and John, Peter was part of an “inner circle” of disciples who were with Jesus on certain special occasions—the healing of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), Jesus’ transfiguration (Matt 17:1-2; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28-29), and Jesus’ prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was bold and impulsive (Matt 26:33; Mark 14:29; Luke 5:8; 22:33; John 13:36-37; 21:7), and the first of the disciples to confess his belief in Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:15-16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20). He reproved Jesus when Jesus spoke of his coming death—a notion that did not fit Peter’s view of the Messiah—and was in turn rebuked by Jesus for it (Matt 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33). However, Jesus spoke of Peter as a key person he would use to build the church (Matt 16:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Peter surreptitiously entered the courtyard of the high priest when Jesus was taken there for interrogation. But when challenged by people who recognized him (partly because of his Galilean accent), he vigorously denied all knowledge of Jesus (26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62)—as Jesus had said he would, in spite of Peter’s insistence that he would never do so (Matt 26:33-35; Mark 14:29-31; Luke 22:31-34). Peter immediately felt deep remorse.<\/p>\n<p>After the news of Jesus’ resurrection, Peter was one of the first to run to the tomb to see if it was true (John 20:3-7), and he appears to have been the first of the Twelve to whom the risen Jesus showed himself (Luke 24:33-34; 1 Cor 15:5). Much of Jesus’ conversation recorded in John 21 was with Peter, whom Jesus encouraged to “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>Following the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13), Peter quickly emerged as the primary spokesman for the early Christians. From that point on, as recorded in Acts 2:14–12:25, he played a crucial role in the spread of the gospel in Judea, boldly preaching to the crowds (Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26), healing people (Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-16; 9:32-43), and—even under arrest—speaking fearlessly to the authorities (Acts 4:1-20; 5:26-32). Twice he miraculously escaped from prison (Acts 5:18-25; 12:6-11). He also exercised leadership in the administrative affairs of the quickly growing community of disciples (Acts 5:3-11).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was the first to bring the Good News to Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48; see Matt 16:18). And he played a key role in the Jerusalem council concerning Gentile converts, arguing that Gentiles should not be compelled to observe the law of Moses but should be accepted on the basis of their faith in Christ alone (Acts 15:7-11). Later, however, when visiting Antioch, he was inconsistent on this point—resulting in a rebuke from Paul (Gal 2:11-16).<\/p>\n<p>Other than his taking his wife with him on at least some of his mission trips (1 Cor 9:5), few details are known about Peter’s later life and missionary work. (He may have spent time at Corinth; see 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22). Widespread early tradition says that Peter was crucified—like his Lord, just as Jesus had predicted (John 21:18-19)—in Rome during Nero’s persecution of Christians in <span>AD<\/span> 64–65. The reliability of the tradition that he was crucified upside-down is less certain.<\/p>\n<p>Peter was likely the source of the material recorded by Mark in his Gospel, which Mark probably learned while he was assisting Peter in his evangelistic work in Italy near the end of his life. Peter is also traditionally understood to be the author of 1 Peter (written from Rome—“Babylon,” 1 Pet 5:13) and 2 Peter.<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, Peter stands as a reassuring example of Christ’s forgiving grace for those who know they’ve failed him—and of the way Christ can graciously restore and use such people for his glory, in spite of their failings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:18-20; 8:14; 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15; 16:16-19, 22-23; 17:1-4, 24-27; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33-45, 58, 69-75; Mark 1:16-18, 29-30, 36-37; 3:16; 5:37; 8:29-33; 9:2-6; 10:28; 11:21; 13:3-4; 14:29-42, 54, 66-72; 16:7-8; Luke 4:38; 5:3-10; 6:14; 8:45, 51; 9:20, 28-33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:8, 31-34, 55-62; 24:12, 34; John 1:40-42, 44; 6:8, 68; 13:6-10, 24, 36-38; 18:10-11, 15-18, 25-27; 20:2-6; 21:2-21; Acts 1:1–12:25; 15:7-11; Gal 2:7-16; 1 Pet 1:1–5:14; 2 Pet 1:1–3:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"Simon Peter Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8). The Hebrew name Simeon (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. Cephas is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as Petros (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42)...","summary_en":"Simon Peter Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8). The Hebrew name Simeon (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. Cephas is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as Petros (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42)...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125040,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Simon Peter","title_en":"Simon Peter","content_ro":"<h3>Simon Peter<\/h3>\n<p>Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew name <em>Simeon<\/em> (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. <em>Cephas<\/em> is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as <em>Petros<\/em> (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42).<\/p>\n<p>Though Bethsaida was Peter’s hometown (John 1:44), he later lived in Capernaum. He was married (1 Cor 9:5), and at one point, when visiting Peter’s home, Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt 8:14-15; Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>Originally fishermen, Peter and his brother Andrew were among the first to be called by Jesus to be disciples, together with James and John, their fishing partners (Matt 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; cp. Luke 5:1-11; John 1:35-51). They were ordinary, minimally educated working men (Acts 4:13).<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s name occurs first on every list of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). Together with the brothers James and John, Peter was part of an “inner circle” of disciples who were with Jesus on certain special occasions—the healing of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), Jesus’ transfiguration (Matt 17:1-2; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28-29), and Jesus’ prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was bold and impulsive (Matt 26:33; Mark 14:29; Luke 5:8; 22:33; John 13:36-37; 21:7), and the first of the disciples to confess his belief in Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:15-16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20). He reproved Jesus when Jesus spoke of his coming death—a notion that did not fit Peter’s view of the Messiah—and was in turn rebuked by Jesus for it (Matt 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33). However, Jesus spoke of Peter as a key person he would use to build the church (Matt 16:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Peter surreptitiously entered the courtyard of the high priest when Jesus was taken there for interrogation. But when challenged by people who recognized him (partly because of his Galilean accent), he vigorously denied all knowledge of Jesus (26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62)—as Jesus had said he would, in spite of Peter’s insistence that he would never do so (Matt 26:33-35; Mark 14:29-31; Luke 22:31-34). Peter immediately felt deep remorse.<\/p>\n<p>After the news of Jesus’ resurrection, Peter was one of the first to run to the tomb to see if it was true (John 20:3-7), and he appears to have been the first of the Twelve to whom the risen Jesus showed himself (Luke 24:33-34; 1 Cor 15:5). Much of Jesus’ conversation recorded in John 21 was with Peter, whom Jesus encouraged to “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>Following the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13), Peter quickly emerged as the primary spokesman for the early Christians. From that point on, as recorded in Acts 2:14–12:25, he played a crucial role in the spread of the gospel in Judea, boldly preaching to the crowds (Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26), healing people (Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-16; 9:32-43), and—even under arrest—speaking fearlessly to the authorities (Acts 4:1-20; 5:26-32). Twice he miraculously escaped from prison (Acts 5:18-25; 12:6-11). He also exercised leadership in the administrative affairs of the quickly growing community of disciples (Acts 5:3-11).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was the first to bring the Good News to Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48; see Matt 16:18). And he played a key role in the Jerusalem council concerning Gentile converts, arguing that Gentiles should not be compelled to observe the law of Moses but should be accepted on the basis of their faith in Christ alone (Acts 15:7-11). Later, however, when visiting Antioch, he was inconsistent on this point—resulting in a rebuke from Paul (Gal 2:11-16).<\/p>\n<p>Other than his taking his wife with him on at least some of his mission trips (1 Cor 9:5), few details are known about Peter’s later life and missionary work. (He may have spent time at Corinth; see 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22). Widespread early tradition says that Peter was crucified—like his Lord, just as Jesus had predicted (John 21:18-19)—in Rome during Nero’s persecution of Christians in <span>AD<\/span> 64–65. The reliability of the tradition that he was crucified upside-down is less certain.<\/p>\n<p>Peter was likely the source of the material recorded by Mark in his Gospel, which Mark probably learned while he was assisting Peter in his evangelistic work in Italy near the end of his life. Peter is also traditionally understood to be the author of 1 Peter (written from Rome—“Babylon,” 1 Pet 5:13) and 2 Peter.<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, Peter stands as a reassuring example of Christ’s forgiving grace for those who know they’ve failed him—and of the way Christ can graciously restore and use such people for his glory, in spite of their failings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:18-20; 8:14; 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15; 16:16-19, 22-23; 17:1-4, 24-27; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33-45, 58, 69-75; Mark 1:16-18, 29-30, 36-37; 3:16; 5:37; 8:29-33; 9:2-6; 10:28; 11:21; 13:3-4; 14:29-42, 54, 66-72; 16:7-8; Luke 4:38; 5:3-10; 6:14; 8:45, 51; 9:20, 28-33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:8, 31-34, 55-62; 24:12, 34; John 1:40-42, 44; 6:8, 68; 13:6-10, 24, 36-38; 18:10-11, 15-18, 25-27; 20:2-6; 21:2-21; Acts 1:1–12:25; 15:7-11; Gal 2:7-16; 1 Pet 1:1–5:14; 2 Pet 1:1–3:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Simon Peter<\/h3>\n<p>Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew name <em>Simeon<\/em> (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. <em>Cephas<\/em> is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as <em>Petros<\/em> (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42).<\/p>\n<p>Though Bethsaida was Peter’s hometown (John 1:44), he later lived in Capernaum. He was married (1 Cor 9:5), and at one point, when visiting Peter’s home, Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt 8:14-15; Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38-39).<\/p>\n<p>Originally fishermen, Peter and his brother Andrew were among the first to be called by Jesus to be disciples, together with James and John, their fishing partners (Matt 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; cp. Luke 5:1-11; John 1:35-51). They were ordinary, minimally educated working men (Acts 4:13).<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s name occurs first on every list of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). Together with the brothers James and John, Peter was part of an “inner circle” of disciples who were with Jesus on certain special occasions—the healing of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), Jesus’ transfiguration (Matt 17:1-2; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28-29), and Jesus’ prayer in the garden (Matt 26:37; Mark 14:33).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was bold and impulsive (Matt 26:33; Mark 14:29; Luke 5:8; 22:33; John 13:36-37; 21:7), and the first of the disciples to confess his belief in Jesus as the Messiah (Matt 16:15-16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20). He reproved Jesus when Jesus spoke of his coming death—a notion that did not fit Peter’s view of the Messiah—and was in turn rebuked by Jesus for it (Matt 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33). However, Jesus spoke of Peter as a key person he would use to build the church (Matt 16:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Peter surreptitiously entered the courtyard of the high priest when Jesus was taken there for interrogation. But when challenged by people who recognized him (partly because of his Galilean accent), he vigorously denied all knowledge of Jesus (26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62)—as Jesus had said he would, in spite of Peter’s insistence that he would never do so (Matt 26:33-35; Mark 14:29-31; Luke 22:31-34). Peter immediately felt deep remorse.<\/p>\n<p>After the news of Jesus’ resurrection, Peter was one of the first to run to the tomb to see if it was true (John 20:3-7), and he appears to have been the first of the Twelve to whom the risen Jesus showed himself (Luke 24:33-34; 1 Cor 15:5). Much of Jesus’ conversation recorded in John 21 was with Peter, whom Jesus encouraged to “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>Following the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13), Peter quickly emerged as the primary spokesman for the early Christians. From that point on, as recorded in Acts 2:14–12:25, he played a crucial role in the spread of the gospel in Judea, boldly preaching to the crowds (Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26), healing people (Acts 3:1-11; 5:12-16; 9:32-43), and—even under arrest—speaking fearlessly to the authorities (Acts 4:1-20; 5:26-32). Twice he miraculously escaped from prison (Acts 5:18-25; 12:6-11). He also exercised leadership in the administrative affairs of the quickly growing community of disciples (Acts 5:3-11).<\/p>\n<p>Peter was the first to bring the Good News to Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48; see Matt 16:18). And he played a key role in the Jerusalem council concerning Gentile converts, arguing that Gentiles should not be compelled to observe the law of Moses but should be accepted on the basis of their faith in Christ alone (Acts 15:7-11). Later, however, when visiting Antioch, he was inconsistent on this point—resulting in a rebuke from Paul (Gal 2:11-16).<\/p>\n<p>Other than his taking his wife with him on at least some of his mission trips (1 Cor 9:5), few details are known about Peter’s later life and missionary work. (He may have spent time at Corinth; see 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22). Widespread early tradition says that Peter was crucified—like his Lord, just as Jesus had predicted (John 21:18-19)—in Rome during Nero’s persecution of Christians in <span>AD<\/span> 64–65. The reliability of the tradition that he was crucified upside-down is less certain.<\/p>\n<p>Peter was likely the source of the material recorded by Mark in his Gospel, which Mark probably learned while he was assisting Peter in his evangelistic work in Italy near the end of his life. Peter is also traditionally understood to be the author of 1 Peter (written from Rome—“Babylon,” 1 Pet 5:13) and 2 Peter.<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, Peter stands as a reassuring example of Christ’s forgiving grace for those who know they’ve failed him—and of the way Christ can graciously restore and use such people for his glory, in spite of their failings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Matt 4:18-20; 8:14; 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15; 16:16-19, 22-23; 17:1-4, 24-27; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33-45, 58, 69-75; Mark 1:16-18, 29-30, 36-37; 3:16; 5:37; 8:29-33; 9:2-6; 10:28; 11:21; 13:3-4; 14:29-42, 54, 66-72; 16:7-8; Luke 4:38; 5:3-10; 6:14; 8:45, 51; 9:20, 28-33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:8, 31-34, 55-62; 24:12, 34; John 1:40-42, 44; 6:8, 68; 13:6-10, 24, 36-38; 18:10-11, 15-18, 25-27; 20:2-6; 21:2-21; Acts 1:1–12:25; 15:7-11; Gal 2:7-16; 1 Pet 1:1–5:14; 2 Pet 1:1–3:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"Simon Peter Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8). The Hebrew name Simeon (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. Cephas is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as Petros (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42)...","summary_en":"Simon Peter Simon Peter was the most prominent of the twelve apostles. After Jesus’ death, he became the primary spokesman for the early Christians in Jerusalem and was the apostle primarily responsible for evangelizing the Jews (Gal 2:7-8). The Hebrew name Simeon (transliterated in English as “Simon”) was probably his original name. Cephas is the transliteration of an Aramaic name given him by Jesus, meaning “rock”—translated in Greek as Petros (English “Peter”; see Matt 16:17-18; John 1:42)...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24797,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gospel of Matthew","title_en":"Gospel of Matthew","content_ro":"<h3>MATTHEW, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>First Gospel and first book of the NT.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date and Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Nowhere does the text of Matthew itself clearly identify the author. Yet, as did the ancient church, we may ascribe authorship to Matthew the apostle. He was otherwise known as Levi (see Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27, 29). Before Jesus called him, he was a tax collector (Mt 9:9ff.). It is interesting to note that Matthew called himself a tax collector, while none of the other Gospel writers did. Perhaps he did this to show how great an ascendancy he had been granted when the Lord called him, for tax collectors were despised and considered the lowest of people. The Gospel itself bears the impress of one knowledgeable of currency, for the Gospel writer speaks quite specifically about a two-drachma tax (Mt 17:24), a four-drachma coin (v 27), and the various talents (18:24; 25:15ff.).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateandProvenance\">Date and Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Scholars are divided about the date when Matthew was written primarily because there is still debate about which Gospel was first written: Matthew or Mark. If Mark was written before Matthew, then Matthew was very indebted to Mark for a great deal of material, and vice versa. Those who argue for Matthew’s priority do so on the basis that Matthew’s Gospel was (1) recognized in the early church as the first Gospel, (2) written to those who first needed a written account—the Jews, and (3) placed first in the NT canon. Whether it preceded or followed Mark, most scholars are certain that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (<span>AD<\/span> 70) because the temple is spoken of as still standing (Mt 24:15). Irenaeus indicated that Matthew wrote this Gospel while Peter and Paul were in Rome. This would make the time of writing in the 60s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<h5>Apologetics<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew wrote to a community of Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, located in a center such as Antioch in Syria. The community was surrounded and beset by Jews hostile to the claims of Jesus and the Christian community.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew wrote as a Jew for Jews. In Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew contends, the OT reached its appointed goal. Jesus is the Messiah of Israel’s expectation. In the opening chapter Matthew identifies him as “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (1:1), indeed as “God with us” (v 23). In later chapters Jesus is revealed as the Son of Man of Daniel 7 and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. Throughout the book (Mt 1:22–27:10) the events of Jesus’ life are represented as the “fulfillment” of OT prophecies. He comes to offer Israel salvation from sin (1:21). Nevertheless, the Jews have rejected him as their Messiah, and have thus placed themselves in the most perilous position (11:20-24; 21:33-46). One explanation for Israel’s rejection of Jesus is the failure of the Jewish religious leadership to prepare the people for his coming. In the strongest language, Matthew denounces the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. They have forsaken the Word of God in favor of their own traditions (ch 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Teaching the Church<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew also wrote as a Christian for Christians. He presents Jesus as a new Moses, indeed as Yahweh incarnate, expounding his own law for his people (ch 5), now newly constituted around his person under the leadership of the apostles (10:2-4; 16:18-19; 23:8-10). If the Christian church is to function properly, the teaching of the Messiah on a host of moral and spiritual issues must be taken with utmost seriousness (chs 5–7, 18). To aid this purpose, Matthew takes the form of a theological textbook or a handbook for the church, to instruct the people of God concerning the person and work of Jesus. That these teachings may be more readily and firmly grasped, Matthew presents them in a highly organized and memorable way. To facilitate the learning of the material, he arranges Jesus’ teachings in five major discourses (interlocked with narrative portions) in which teachings of the same kind are clustered together (e.g., ch 10 consists of a charge to missionaries, and ch 13 consists of seven parables of the kingdom). Matthew’s leading theological themes may be identified as the <em>Son<\/em> of God (Jesus is Yahweh incarnate, “God with us”), the <em>kingdom<\/em> of God (in Jesus, God is invading history to inaugurate his final rule), the <em>salvation<\/em> of God (as the servant-king, Jesus has come to “save his people from their sins,” 1:21), and the <em>people<\/em> of God (Jesus has come to build his church, a redeemed community consisting of both Jews and Gentiles).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the Savior (1:1–2:23)<\/h5>\n<p>His name reveals his mission: “Jesus” (1:1) means “Yahweh saves.” He is “the son of Abraham,” who comes to fulfill God’s ancient promises to Jews and Gentiles (Gn 12:1-3). He is “Christ [or Messiah],” the son of David (Mt 1:1), who comes to inaugurate the kingdom of God (4:17). More than that, as evidenced both by prophecy (1:22-23) and by the nature of his conception (vv 18-20), he is “God with us”—now come to “save his people from their sins” (v 21). As the son of David, and in accord with prophecy, he is born in Bethlehem (2:1-6). Drawn by the star of Israel’s Messiah (cf. Nm 24:17), Gentiles come to worship him (Mt 2:1-12). When Herod seeks to destroy him, Jesus finds sanctuary in a gentile land; God’s calling his Son from Egypt marks the beginning of a mighty saving work—nothing less than a new exodus under Jesus, the new Moses (vv 13-20). Having been born in the humblest of circumstances, Jesus now comes to live in Nazareth (vv 21-23).<\/p>\n<h5>The Beginnings of Ministry (3:1–4:25)<\/h5>\n<p>In face of the judgment that Jesus is about to execute (as evidence of the kingdom’s arrival), John the Baptist calls Israel to repentance (3:1-12). Jesus’ submission to John’s baptism, and the voice from heaven, show him to be a King who serves his subjects by taking their sins upon himself (vv 13-17). Like Israel at the exodus, Jesus is led into the wilderness for a period of testing (4:1). When the devil seeks to turn him away both from God and from his appointed mission, Jesus gains victory by depending upon God and his Word (vv 1-11). Returning to Galilee, Jesus deliberately settles in territory with both Jewish and Gentile inhabitants (vv 12-16) and begins a ministry of preaching (like John, he calls for repentance in face of the dawning kingdom), teaching (he calls his first disciples), and healing (vv 17-25).<\/p>\n\n<h5>The Sermon on the Mount (5:1–7:29)<\/h5>\n<p>Just as Moses ascended Sinai to receive God’s law for Israel, so Jesus—as both the new Moses and as God incarnate—ascends the mountain to set forth his instruction for the citizens of the kingdom of God (5:1-2). He begins with <em>gospel<\/em> (not law), declaring that God shall surely save those who—beset by sin—trust in God’s mercy, obey his commands, and long for him to establish his righteous rule in the earth (vv 3-12). Toward that end, disciples are a preservative (salt) and a witness (light) in a sinful society (vv 13-16). As the one who has come not to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to bring them to completion (i.e., to usher in the new age to which the OT pointed— v 17), Jesus calls his disciples to steadfast obedience to God’s law as now expounded by the Lawgiver himself (vv 18-20). God’s commands embrace inner desires as well as outward actions, must not be watered down or rationalized, and call for more radical obedience than ever before, now that the end has come (vv 21-48). In their giving, praying, and fasting, disciples are to combat hypocrisy by God-centeredness and self-forgetfulness (6:1-18). The Lord’s Prayer (vv 9-13) calls upon God to honor his name by establishing his rule on earth, and to pardon, protect, and provide for his children. Given this prayer, and given the disciples’ God-centered view of reality (vv 19-24), there is no cause for anxiety (vv 25-34). Disciples must be discerning without being judgmental (7:1-6), and depend on God for the power needed to love others (6:7-12). Having completed his exposition of the law (5:21–7:12), Jesus now calls would-be disciples to follow him (7:13-14), warns against false teachers (vv 15-20), and insists that true disciples do God’s will (vv 21-23).<\/p>\n<h5>The Authority of Jesus (8:1–9:38)<\/h5>\n<p>Having given his authority <em>verbal<\/em> expression in teaching (7:28-29), Jesus now gives it <em>visible<\/em> expression in a series of healing miracles, again revealing himself as the servant of Isaiah (8:17). He heals a leper, a centurion’s servant, and a bleeding woman by his word (8:1-13; 9:20-22). His touch dispels a fever and raises a dead person (8:14-15; 9:23-25). A combination of word and touch cures the blind (9:27-31). As “God with us,” Jesus calls for unqualified allegiance (8:18-22). Though lacking even the natural protection enjoyed by animals (v 20), he demonstrates his sovereignty over the natural world—and thus his deity—by calming the storm (vv 23-27). In direct confrontations with demons, he shows his superiority over them (8:28-34; 9:32-33). Exercising God’s own authority, he declares sins forgiven (9:1-8) and calls sinners to repentance and to discipleship (vv 9-13). Joy over the kingdom’s inauguration is mingled with longing for its consummation (vv 14-17). The summary of 9:35-38 echoes 4:23-25, recalls chapters 5–7, and prepares for the next major discourse.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Charge to the Missionaries (10:1-42)<\/h5>\n<p>In response to the prayers that he has commanded, Christ now invests 12 disciples with apostolic authority and sends them out into his harvest field (9:37–10:4). The discourse speaks both of the apostles’ immediate mission (10:5-15) and of the church’s broader mission (vv 16-42). For now, the apostles are to concentrate on evangelizing Jews (v 6), in preparation for the mission to Gentiles (28:19). The “worthy” are those who welcome the apostles and their message; the “unworthy,” those who reject them (10:11-15). In the broader mission, there is sure to be persecution (vv 16-19, 24-25), but this will actually aid the witness (vv 17-23). God will save his faithful missionaries (vv 19-23) but judge those who oppress them and who disown Christ (vv 26-39). A sure reward awaits both the herald and the recipient of the message (vv 37-42).<\/p>\n<h5>Christ the Lord (11:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The judgment John predicted is already under way; one’s stand in the last judgment would be determined by his response to the words and works of Jesus (11:2-6). Like his herald, Jesus meets with widespread hostility and indifference (vv 7-19). Given the finality of the grace attending his ministry, those who reject him will suffer the severest judgment (vv 20-24). Yet there are others—the lowly, the burdened, the teachable—who learn (by revelation from God the Father and God the Son) that the “Lord of heaven and earth” is also the “gentle and humble” God who comes to give rest to those who trust in him (vv 25-30). As the one who ushers in the new age (12:6), Jesus claims that he is the Lord of the Sabbath (vv 1-8). True rest (11:29) comes to those who come to Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Viewing Jesus as the destroyer of the Sabbath, the Pharisees ascribe his miraculous powers to Satan (12:22-24). On the contrary, says Jesus, the rule he is inaugurating is crushing Satan’s empire (vv 25-29). To reject this truth in the full awareness of what one is doing is to commit the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit (vv 30-32); the words of Jesus’ accusers expose them as persons destined for condemnation (vv 33-37). The requested sign from heaven will not be given. Jesus’ resurrection is the only sign they need.<\/p>\n<h5>The Parables of the Kingdom (13:1-58)<\/h5>\n<p>This, the third of Matthew’s five great discourses, contains seven parables. In the parable of the sower, four kinds of soil—hard, shallow, cluttered, and fruitful—illustrate the various responses to Jesus’ preaching (13:3-9, 18-23). As those who have received Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom (4:17), the disciples are given more light, but the crowds must accept that initial proclamation before further light is given (13:10-17, 34-35). In both the parable of the weeds (vv 24-30, 36-43) and the parable of the net (vv 47-50), Jesus assures his disciples that the final judgment will separate true believers from false, and warns against hasty, premature judgments (cf. 7:1-5). The parables of the mustard and the yeast (13:31-33) contrast the smallness of the kingdom’s inauguration with the fullness of its consummation. The parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl (vv 44-46) depict the kingdom as a value far surpassing all others (cf. 6:33). Thus illuminated by Jesus, disciples have new treasures to add to their old (13:51-52). The people of Nazareth, on the contrary, echo the crowds’ lack of understanding and the Pharisees’ hostility (vv 53-58).<\/p>\n<h5>Spiritual Conflict (14:1–16:12)<\/h5>\n<p>In 14:1-12 the preaching of John exposes the weakness of Herod, and the beheading of John anticipates the crucifixion of Jesus (cf. 17:12). The true king is not Herod but Jesus. He is sovereign over nature itself (14:13-36)—God incarnate, “God with us,” who feeds the hungry multitude in the wilderness (as God once provided manna) and walks upon and calms the sea (see Ps 89:9). Peter models Christians’ faith, fear, and utter dependence on Jesus (Mt 14:28-31). The Pharisees and teachers of the law appear to worship God but in fact are devoted to their own traditions, which they offer not as supplements but as <em>rivals<\/em> to the Word of God (15:1-9). In verses 10-20 Jesus teaches both that ceremonial law apart from moral law becomes empty ritual, and that the old distinction between clean and unclean foods (Lv 11) is now as obsolete as the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. To underscore the point, Jesus enters pagan territory, heals a Canaanite (15:21-28) and feeds a Gentile multitude (vv 29-39). Pharisees and Sadducees, for all their differences, are united in their opposition to Jesus (16:1-12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming Salvation (16:13–17:27)<\/h5>\n<p>Going beyond the crowds’ respectful but inadequate estimates, Peter confesses Jesus to be “the Christ, the Son of the living God”—a recognition of Jesus’ deity granted by divine revelation (16:13-17; cf. 11:25-26). As it is God the Son who possesses and builds the church, Satan and death are victims rather than victors. Jesus will build his church on Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. The apostles’ prohibiting and granting entry into the church (“binding” and “loosing,” respectively) depends upon the prior decision of heaven (i.e., God’s revelation of apostolic teaching). In face of Peter’s confession and the persistent false notions of messiahship (16:20, 23), Jesus now (for the first time) predicts his sufferings and coming glory (vv 21-28). In anticipation of that glory, Jesus is transfigured before certain disciples; Moses and Elijah join God the Father in bearing witness to the unique splendor of God the Son (17:1-8). Jesus then demonstrated his power by combating demonic powers (vv 14-18) and exhibited his authority by choosing to pay the temple tax using miraculous means (vv 24-27).<\/p>\n<h5>Greatness in the Kingdom (18:1-35)<\/h5>\n<p>In this, the fourth of Matthew’s five great discourses, Jesus concentrates on the character and attitudes of church members. He calls upon his followers both to <em>become<\/em> and to <em>welcome<\/em> the lowliest (18:1-5). Leaders especially are enjoined to deal harshly with themselves but gently with those under their care (vv 6-9). Remembering the Father’s love for sinners, Christians are to make every effort (both by prayer and by personal initiative) to restore offending brothers, with excommunication being the last resort (vv 10-20). Church members who really understand the Father’s amazing grace will never stop offering forgiveness and compassion to those who wrong them (vv 21-35).<\/p>\n<h5>Instructions on the Way to Jerusalem (19:1–20:34)<\/h5>\n<p>Given God’s creation ordinances, says Jesus, divorce itself is never <em>commanded;<\/em> it is only <em>permitted<\/em> in the case of sin—that is, where the marital bond has already been severed through infidelity (19:1-9). As in 5:17-48, Jesus calls his followers to radical obedience (19:10-12). Besides instructing disciples to become like children (18:1-4), Jesus embraces children themselves with his love (19:13-15). He appeals likewise to the rich young man (vv 16-22); but the man, while faithful to the commands about love of neighbor, is too bound by his wealth to give himself unreservedly to loving God. Yet those who abandon all to follow Jesus will receive wealth untold in the coming kingdom (vv 27-30). The basis for such blessings lies not in human merit but in the astonishing generosity of the gracious God (20:1-16). None—not even the rich—are beyond the power of his grace. But God offers free salvation at great cost to himself (vv 17-19). Confronting competitiveness and ambition among his followers, Jesus teaches them that true greatness lies not in lording it over others but in serving them (vv 20-34), as shall be supremely demonstrated in his death as “a ransom for many” (v 28).<\/p>\n<h5>Confrontations in Jerusalem (21:1–22:46)<\/h5>\n<p>As the Servant-King (cf. 3:17), and as the Messiah destined for suffering (cf. 16:16-21; 20:28), Jesus enters Jerusalem not upon a war horse but upon a donkey’s colt, for he purposes not to declare war on his enemies but to hand himself over to them—and thus achieve his triumph through defeat (21:1-11). As Lord of the temple, he demands that its commerce be halted and that it become (as God ordained) a place of worship for everyone, including the sick, the young, and the alien (21:12-17; cf. Mk 11:17). He outwits those who refuse to acknowledge the heavenly source of his and John’s authority (Mt 21:23-27). In dramatic and devastating fashion, first visibly (by cursing the fig tree—vv 18-22) and then verbally (in the three parables of 21:28–22:14), Jesus pronounces judgment upon those Jews who have refused to acknowledge him as Messiah and Son of God. Henceforth, the true people of God are those who believe in Jesus, whether Jews or Gentiles. He calls upon his people to pledge their supreme allegiance to God. In the resurrection what will matter most is one’s relationship to God (22:23-33). Indeed, he who loves God with his whole being and his neighbor as himself has kept the two foundational commandments of the OT (vv 34-40). Henceforth, submitting to God means rightly recognizing Jesus; he is indeed David’s son (Mt 1:1), but he is supremely David’s Lord—the exalted Son of God (22:41-46; cf. 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Woes upon the Scribes and Pharisees (23:1-39)<\/h5>\n<p>Five reasons are stated for Jesus’ denunciation of the Jewish religious leaders. First is their hypocrisy: their practice contradicts their teaching (23:1-4), their external purity conceals inner rottenness (vv 25-28), and they appear to champion God’s cause but are really enemies of God’s servants (vv 29-36). Second is the pride that prompts their hypocrisy (23:5-12). Third is their exploitation of, and their baleful influence upon, those under their charge (vv 13-15). Fourth is their preoccupation with the minutia of the law to the neglect of its weightier matters (vv 16-24). Fifth is their responsibility for the dreadful judgment that the whole nation is about to experience (vv 33-39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the End (24:1–25:46)<\/h5>\n<p>The introduction to this, the fifth and last of Matthew’s great discourses, makes it plain that there is the closest connection (for both Jesus and his disciples) between the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age (24:1-3). Jesus first characterizes the time between his first advent and his return: there will be natural catastrophes, international warfare, the rise of false messiahs, the persecution of God’s people, and the universal proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom (vv 4-14). Then Jesus speaks of the catastrophe that is soon to befall the Jewish nation in particular (as already foretold in 22:7; 23:38), culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70 (24:15-25). Sometime thereafter (but after an interval known only to God the Father—v 36), the Son of Man will return in great glory, amid apocalyptic signs, to gather his people (vv 26-31). The present generation will not pass away before judgment falls upon Israel (vv 15-25), so let listeners take heed (vv 32-35). The same warning applies to the more remote coming of the Son of Man (vv 36-51): both the certainty of the event and the uncertainty of its time call for vigilance and faithfulness in the interval, for that event will bring both salvation and judgment. To drive the lesson home, Jesus tells the parables of the wise and foolish virgins (25:1-13) and the talents (vv 14-30). The concluding parable of the sheep and the goats (vv 31-46) speaks of the urgent necessity of making the right response to the “brothers”—that is, the messengers—of Christ; those who feed, clothe, and otherwise care for the messengers of Christ thereby testify to their reception of the apostles’ message and their Lord (cf. 10:40-42).<\/p>\n<h5>The Road to Golgotha (26:1–27:26)<\/h5>\n<p>As though in response to Jesus’ own prediction, the chief priests and the elders hatch their murderous plot (26:1-5), soon to be aided by Judas (vv 14-16). The anointing at Bethany (vv 6-13) testifies to the extravagance of love and the imminence of death. At the Passover meal (vv 17-30), signaling at what sacrifice the new exodus comes about (cf. 2:15), Jesus interprets his forthcoming death as an atoning sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (26:26-28; cf. 1:21) and anticipates the day of final victory over sin and death in the consummated kingdom (26:29). Jesus’ agony in Gethsemane (vv 36-46) expresses his horror over taking his people’s sins upon himself. By a stupendous act of filial obedience, he submits his will to the Father, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled (26:54; cf. Is 53). As the servant of God destined to suffer, Jesus resists attempts to thwart his arrest (26:47-56). The Jews’ supreme court (the Sanhedrin) and their loftiest religious official (the high priest) condemn Jesus as a blasphemer because he dares to identify himself as “the Christ, the Son of God” (26:57-68; cf. 16:16). As though joining the court’s repudiation, Peter—in fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy (26:31-35)—disclaims knowledge of Jesus (vv 69-75). Judas’s disillusionment finds expression in suicide (27:3-10). The Jews hand Jesus over to Pilate the Roman governor (vv 1-2), he alone having the authority to pronounce the death sentence. Knowing that the charge of blasphemy will carry no weight with Pilate, the Jews now represent Jesus as a threat to Caesar. In the end, Pilate responds not to specific charges and evidence but to pressure from the crowd and the threat of riot (vv 11-25). He releases Barabbas and delivers Jesus to be crucified (v 26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Death of Jesus (27:27-66)<\/h5>\n<p>Following his humiliating treatment at the hands of the Roman soldiers, Jesus is led to the place of execution; weakened by the beatings, he requires assistance (27:27-32). He refuses the proffered narcotic so that he might keep his head clear (v 34). His being executed with malefactors (v 38) testifies to the purpose of his death (cf. 1:21). A steady stream of abuse is hurled at him, in blasphemous disregard of the truth of the superscription “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (27:37-44). Finally, out of the darkness Jesus utters the cry of dereliction; now is revealed the ultimate horror (that from which his soul shrank in Gethsemane), the sin-bearer’s supreme agony—the beloved Son’s abandonment by the Father (vv 45-49). Having cried out with a loud voice (cf. Jn 19:30), Jesus dies (27:50). Immediately, the saving effects of his death become evident (vv 51-53): sinners, now forgiven, have access to the holy God (the veil of the temple is rent asunder), and there is hope of resurrection for those who have died. As at the beginning (2:1-12), Gentiles instead of Jews confess Jesus (27:54; contrast 26:63-65). Joseph’s careful attentiveness to Jesus’ burial contrasts with the ongoing attempts of the chief priests and Pharisees to resist Jesus’ power (27:57-66).<\/p>\n<h5>The Triumph of the Savior (28:1-20)<\/h5>\n<p>Amid great glory and power and joy, the Savior’s victory over death is announced and attested (28:1-7). The risen Jesus appears first to the women who stayed with him during his crucifixion (28:8-10; cf. 27:61; 28:1). The Jews’ response to the guards’ report signals their growing desperation before irresistible reality (28:11-15). Meeting with the 11 disciples on the mountain in Galilee (vv 16-20), Jesus, the new Moses, continues his instructions. He now reveals the evangelistic purpose for which Matthew has been preparing readers from the very threshold of his Gospel. The apostles are to disciple all peoples by baptizing them into the name of the triune God and by teaching them to obey all that Jesus has commanded. The apostles go forth in the assurance that Jesus—as the Lord—stands over them, and that Jesus—as Immanuel—stands with them until the very end of the age.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Luke, Gospel of; Mark, Gospel of; Matthew (Person); Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MATTHEW, Gospel of<\/h3>\n<p>First Gospel and first book of the NT.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date and Provenance<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Nowhere does the text of Matthew itself clearly identify the author. Yet, as did the ancient church, we may ascribe authorship to Matthew the apostle. He was otherwise known as Levi (see Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27, 29). Before Jesus called him, he was a tax collector (Mt 9:9ff.). It is interesting to note that Matthew called himself a tax collector, while none of the other Gospel writers did. Perhaps he did this to show how great an ascendancy he had been granted when the Lord called him, for tax collectors were despised and considered the lowest of people. The Gospel itself bears the impress of one knowledgeable of currency, for the Gospel writer speaks quite specifically about a two-drachma tax (Mt 17:24), a four-drachma coin (v 27), and the various talents (18:24; 25:15ff.).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateandProvenance\">Date and Provenance<\/p>\n<p>Scholars are divided about the date when Matthew was written primarily because there is still debate about which Gospel was first written: Matthew or Mark. If Mark was written before Matthew, then Matthew was very indebted to Mark for a great deal of material, and vice versa. Those who argue for Matthew’s priority do so on the basis that Matthew’s Gospel was (1) recognized in the early church as the first Gospel, (2) written to those who first needed a written account—the Jews, and (3) placed first in the NT canon. Whether it preceded or followed Mark, most scholars are certain that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (<span>AD<\/span> 70) because the temple is spoken of as still standing (Mt 24:15). Irenaeus indicated that Matthew wrote this Gospel while Peter and Paul were in Rome. This would make the time of writing in the 60s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<h5>Apologetics<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew wrote to a community of Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, located in a center such as Antioch in Syria. The community was surrounded and beset by Jews hostile to the claims of Jesus and the Christian community.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew wrote as a Jew for Jews. In Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew contends, the OT reached its appointed goal. Jesus is the Messiah of Israel’s expectation. In the opening chapter Matthew identifies him as “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (1:1), indeed as “God with us” (v 23). In later chapters Jesus is revealed as the Son of Man of Daniel 7 and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. Throughout the book (Mt 1:22–27:10) the events of Jesus’ life are represented as the “fulfillment” of OT prophecies. He comes to offer Israel salvation from sin (1:21). Nevertheless, the Jews have rejected him as their Messiah, and have thus placed themselves in the most perilous position (11:20-24; 21:33-46). One explanation for Israel’s rejection of Jesus is the failure of the Jewish religious leadership to prepare the people for his coming. In the strongest language, Matthew denounces the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. They have forsaken the Word of God in favor of their own traditions (ch 15).<\/p>\n<h5>Teaching the Church<\/h5>\n<p>Matthew also wrote as a Christian for Christians. He presents Jesus as a new Moses, indeed as Yahweh incarnate, expounding his own law for his people (ch 5), now newly constituted around his person under the leadership of the apostles (10:2-4; 16:18-19; 23:8-10). If the Christian church is to function properly, the teaching of the Messiah on a host of moral and spiritual issues must be taken with utmost seriousness (chs 5–7, 18). To aid this purpose, Matthew takes the form of a theological textbook or a handbook for the church, to instruct the people of God concerning the person and work of Jesus. That these teachings may be more readily and firmly grasped, Matthew presents them in a highly organized and memorable way. To facilitate the learning of the material, he arranges Jesus’ teachings in five major discourses (interlocked with narrative portions) in which teachings of the same kind are clustered together (e.g., ch 10 consists of a charge to missionaries, and ch 13 consists of seven parables of the kingdom). Matthew’s leading theological themes may be identified as the <em>Son<\/em> of God (Jesus is Yahweh incarnate, “God with us”), the <em>kingdom<\/em> of God (in Jesus, God is invading history to inaugurate his final rule), the <em>salvation<\/em> of God (as the servant-king, Jesus has come to “save his people from their sins,” 1:21), and the <em>people<\/em> of God (Jesus has come to build his church, a redeemed community consisting of both Jews and Gentiles).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the Savior (1:1–2:23)<\/h5>\n<p>His name reveals his mission: “Jesus” (1:1) means “Yahweh saves.” He is “the son of Abraham,” who comes to fulfill God’s ancient promises to Jews and Gentiles (Gn 12:1-3). He is “Christ [or Messiah],” the son of David (Mt 1:1), who comes to inaugurate the kingdom of God (4:17). More than that, as evidenced both by prophecy (1:22-23) and by the nature of his conception (vv 18-20), he is “God with us”—now come to “save his people from their sins” (v 21). As the son of David, and in accord with prophecy, he is born in Bethlehem (2:1-6). Drawn by the star of Israel’s Messiah (cf. Nm 24:17), Gentiles come to worship him (Mt 2:1-12). When Herod seeks to destroy him, Jesus finds sanctuary in a gentile land; God’s calling his Son from Egypt marks the beginning of a mighty saving work—nothing less than a new exodus under Jesus, the new Moses (vv 13-20). Having been born in the humblest of circumstances, Jesus now comes to live in Nazareth (vv 21-23).<\/p>\n<h5>The Beginnings of Ministry (3:1–4:25)<\/h5>\n<p>In face of the judgment that Jesus is about to execute (as evidence of the kingdom’s arrival), John the Baptist calls Israel to repentance (3:1-12). Jesus’ submission to John’s baptism, and the voice from heaven, show him to be a King who serves his subjects by taking their sins upon himself (vv 13-17). Like Israel at the exodus, Jesus is led into the wilderness for a period of testing (4:1). When the devil seeks to turn him away both from God and from his appointed mission, Jesus gains victory by depending upon God and his Word (vv 1-11). Returning to Galilee, Jesus deliberately settles in territory with both Jewish and Gentile inhabitants (vv 12-16) and begins a ministry of preaching (like John, he calls for repentance in face of the dawning kingdom), teaching (he calls his first disciples), and healing (vv 17-25).<\/p>\n\n<h5>The Sermon on the Mount (5:1–7:29)<\/h5>\n<p>Just as Moses ascended Sinai to receive God’s law for Israel, so Jesus—as both the new Moses and as God incarnate—ascends the mountain to set forth his instruction for the citizens of the kingdom of God (5:1-2). He begins with <em>gospel<\/em> (not law), declaring that God shall surely save those who—beset by sin—trust in God’s mercy, obey his commands, and long for him to establish his righteous rule in the earth (vv 3-12). Toward that end, disciples are a preservative (salt) and a witness (light) in a sinful society (vv 13-16). As the one who has come not to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to bring them to completion (i.e., to usher in the new age to which the OT pointed— v 17), Jesus calls his disciples to steadfast obedience to God’s law as now expounded by the Lawgiver himself (vv 18-20). God’s commands embrace inner desires as well as outward actions, must not be watered down or rationalized, and call for more radical obedience than ever before, now that the end has come (vv 21-48). In their giving, praying, and fasting, disciples are to combat hypocrisy by God-centeredness and self-forgetfulness (6:1-18). The Lord’s Prayer (vv 9-13) calls upon God to honor his name by establishing his rule on earth, and to pardon, protect, and provide for his children. Given this prayer, and given the disciples’ God-centered view of reality (vv 19-24), there is no cause for anxiety (vv 25-34). Disciples must be discerning without being judgmental (7:1-6), and depend on God for the power needed to love others (6:7-12). Having completed his exposition of the law (5:21–7:12), Jesus now calls would-be disciples to follow him (7:13-14), warns against false teachers (vv 15-20), and insists that true disciples do God’s will (vv 21-23).<\/p>\n<h5>The Authority of Jesus (8:1–9:38)<\/h5>\n<p>Having given his authority <em>verbal<\/em> expression in teaching (7:28-29), Jesus now gives it <em>visible<\/em> expression in a series of healing miracles, again revealing himself as the servant of Isaiah (8:17). He heals a leper, a centurion’s servant, and a bleeding woman by his word (8:1-13; 9:20-22). His touch dispels a fever and raises a dead person (8:14-15; 9:23-25). A combination of word and touch cures the blind (9:27-31). As “God with us,” Jesus calls for unqualified allegiance (8:18-22). Though lacking even the natural protection enjoyed by animals (v 20), he demonstrates his sovereignty over the natural world—and thus his deity—by calming the storm (vv 23-27). In direct confrontations with demons, he shows his superiority over them (8:28-34; 9:32-33). Exercising God’s own authority, he declares sins forgiven (9:1-8) and calls sinners to repentance and to discipleship (vv 9-13). Joy over the kingdom’s inauguration is mingled with longing for its consummation (vv 14-17). The summary of 9:35-38 echoes 4:23-25, recalls chapters 5–7, and prepares for the next major discourse.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Charge to the Missionaries (10:1-42)<\/h5>\n<p>In response to the prayers that he has commanded, Christ now invests 12 disciples with apostolic authority and sends them out into his harvest field (9:37–10:4). The discourse speaks both of the apostles’ immediate mission (10:5-15) and of the church’s broader mission (vv 16-42). For now, the apostles are to concentrate on evangelizing Jews (v 6), in preparation for the mission to Gentiles (28:19). The “worthy” are those who welcome the apostles and their message; the “unworthy,” those who reject them (10:11-15). In the broader mission, there is sure to be persecution (vv 16-19, 24-25), but this will actually aid the witness (vv 17-23). God will save his faithful missionaries (vv 19-23) but judge those who oppress them and who disown Christ (vv 26-39). A sure reward awaits both the herald and the recipient of the message (vv 37-42).<\/p>\n<h5>Christ the Lord (11:1–12:50)<\/h5>\n<p>The judgment John predicted is already under way; one’s stand in the last judgment would be determined by his response to the words and works of Jesus (11:2-6). Like his herald, Jesus meets with widespread hostility and indifference (vv 7-19). Given the finality of the grace attending his ministry, those who reject him will suffer the severest judgment (vv 20-24). Yet there are others—the lowly, the burdened, the teachable—who learn (by revelation from God the Father and God the Son) that the “Lord of heaven and earth” is also the “gentle and humble” God who comes to give rest to those who trust in him (vv 25-30). As the one who ushers in the new age (12:6), Jesus claims that he is the Lord of the Sabbath (vv 1-8). True rest (11:29) comes to those who come to Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Viewing Jesus as the destroyer of the Sabbath, the Pharisees ascribe his miraculous powers to Satan (12:22-24). On the contrary, says Jesus, the rule he is inaugurating is crushing Satan’s empire (vv 25-29). To reject this truth in the full awareness of what one is doing is to commit the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit (vv 30-32); the words of Jesus’ accusers expose them as persons destined for condemnation (vv 33-37). The requested sign from heaven will not be given. Jesus’ resurrection is the only sign they need.<\/p>\n<h5>The Parables of the Kingdom (13:1-58)<\/h5>\n<p>This, the third of Matthew’s five great discourses, contains seven parables. In the parable of the sower, four kinds of soil—hard, shallow, cluttered, and fruitful—illustrate the various responses to Jesus’ preaching (13:3-9, 18-23). As those who have received Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom (4:17), the disciples are given more light, but the crowds must accept that initial proclamation before further light is given (13:10-17, 34-35). In both the parable of the weeds (vv 24-30, 36-43) and the parable of the net (vv 47-50), Jesus assures his disciples that the final judgment will separate true believers from false, and warns against hasty, premature judgments (cf. 7:1-5). The parables of the mustard and the yeast (13:31-33) contrast the smallness of the kingdom’s inauguration with the fullness of its consummation. The parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl (vv 44-46) depict the kingdom as a value far surpassing all others (cf. 6:33). Thus illuminated by Jesus, disciples have new treasures to add to their old (13:51-52). The people of Nazareth, on the contrary, echo the crowds’ lack of understanding and the Pharisees’ hostility (vv 53-58).<\/p>\n<h5>Spiritual Conflict (14:1–16:12)<\/h5>\n<p>In 14:1-12 the preaching of John exposes the weakness of Herod, and the beheading of John anticipates the crucifixion of Jesus (cf. 17:12). The true king is not Herod but Jesus. He is sovereign over nature itself (14:13-36)—God incarnate, “God with us,” who feeds the hungry multitude in the wilderness (as God once provided manna) and walks upon and calms the sea (see Ps 89:9). Peter models Christians’ faith, fear, and utter dependence on Jesus (Mt 14:28-31). The Pharisees and teachers of the law appear to worship God but in fact are devoted to their own traditions, which they offer not as supplements but as <em>rivals<\/em> to the Word of God (15:1-9). In verses 10-20 Jesus teaches both that ceremonial law apart from moral law becomes empty ritual, and that the old distinction between clean and unclean foods (Lv 11) is now as obsolete as the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. To underscore the point, Jesus enters pagan territory, heals a Canaanite (15:21-28) and feeds a Gentile multitude (vv 29-39). Pharisees and Sadducees, for all their differences, are united in their opposition to Jesus (16:1-12).<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming Salvation (16:13–17:27)<\/h5>\n<p>Going beyond the crowds’ respectful but inadequate estimates, Peter confesses Jesus to be “the Christ, the Son of the living God”—a recognition of Jesus’ deity granted by divine revelation (16:13-17; cf. 11:25-26). As it is God the Son who possesses and builds the church, Satan and death are victims rather than victors. Jesus will build his church on Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. The apostles’ prohibiting and granting entry into the church (“binding” and “loosing,” respectively) depends upon the prior decision of heaven (i.e., God’s revelation of apostolic teaching). In face of Peter’s confession and the persistent false notions of messiahship (16:20, 23), Jesus now (for the first time) predicts his sufferings and coming glory (vv 21-28). In anticipation of that glory, Jesus is transfigured before certain disciples; Moses and Elijah join God the Father in bearing witness to the unique splendor of God the Son (17:1-8). Jesus then demonstrated his power by combating demonic powers (vv 14-18) and exhibited his authority by choosing to pay the temple tax using miraculous means (vv 24-27).<\/p>\n<h5>Greatness in the Kingdom (18:1-35)<\/h5>\n<p>In this, the fourth of Matthew’s five great discourses, Jesus concentrates on the character and attitudes of church members. He calls upon his followers both to <em>become<\/em> and to <em>welcome<\/em> the lowliest (18:1-5). Leaders especially are enjoined to deal harshly with themselves but gently with those under their care (vv 6-9). Remembering the Father’s love for sinners, Christians are to make every effort (both by prayer and by personal initiative) to restore offending brothers, with excommunication being the last resort (vv 10-20). Church members who really understand the Father’s amazing grace will never stop offering forgiveness and compassion to those who wrong them (vv 21-35).<\/p>\n<h5>Instructions on the Way to Jerusalem (19:1–20:34)<\/h5>\n<p>Given God’s creation ordinances, says Jesus, divorce itself is never <em>commanded;<\/em> it is only <em>permitted<\/em> in the case of sin—that is, where the marital bond has already been severed through infidelity (19:1-9). As in 5:17-48, Jesus calls his followers to radical obedience (19:10-12). Besides instructing disciples to become like children (18:1-4), Jesus embraces children themselves with his love (19:13-15). He appeals likewise to the rich young man (vv 16-22); but the man, while faithful to the commands about love of neighbor, is too bound by his wealth to give himself unreservedly to loving God. Yet those who abandon all to follow Jesus will receive wealth untold in the coming kingdom (vv 27-30). The basis for such blessings lies not in human merit but in the astonishing generosity of the gracious God (20:1-16). None—not even the rich—are beyond the power of his grace. But God offers free salvation at great cost to himself (vv 17-19). Confronting competitiveness and ambition among his followers, Jesus teaches them that true greatness lies not in lording it over others but in serving them (vv 20-34), as shall be supremely demonstrated in his death as “a ransom for many” (v 28).<\/p>\n<h5>Confrontations in Jerusalem (21:1–22:46)<\/h5>\n<p>As the Servant-King (cf. 3:17), and as the Messiah destined for suffering (cf. 16:16-21; 20:28), Jesus enters Jerusalem not upon a war horse but upon a donkey’s colt, for he purposes not to declare war on his enemies but to hand himself over to them—and thus achieve his triumph through defeat (21:1-11). As Lord of the temple, he demands that its commerce be halted and that it become (as God ordained) a place of worship for everyone, including the sick, the young, and the alien (21:12-17; cf. Mk 11:17). He outwits those who refuse to acknowledge the heavenly source of his and John’s authority (Mt 21:23-27). In dramatic and devastating fashion, first visibly (by cursing the fig tree—vv 18-22) and then verbally (in the three parables of 21:28–22:14), Jesus pronounces judgment upon those Jews who have refused to acknowledge him as Messiah and Son of God. Henceforth, the true people of God are those who believe in Jesus, whether Jews or Gentiles. He calls upon his people to pledge their supreme allegiance to God. In the resurrection what will matter most is one’s relationship to God (22:23-33). Indeed, he who loves God with his whole being and his neighbor as himself has kept the two foundational commandments of the OT (vv 34-40). Henceforth, submitting to God means rightly recognizing Jesus; he is indeed David’s son (Mt 1:1), but he is supremely David’s Lord—the exalted Son of God (22:41-46; cf. 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Woes upon the Scribes and Pharisees (23:1-39)<\/h5>\n<p>Five reasons are stated for Jesus’ denunciation of the Jewish religious leaders. First is their hypocrisy: their practice contradicts their teaching (23:1-4), their external purity conceals inner rottenness (vv 25-28), and they appear to champion God’s cause but are really enemies of God’s servants (vv 29-36). Second is the pride that prompts their hypocrisy (23:5-12). Third is their exploitation of, and their baleful influence upon, those under their charge (vv 13-15). Fourth is their preoccupation with the minutia of the law to the neglect of its weightier matters (vv 16-24). Fifth is their responsibility for the dreadful judgment that the whole nation is about to experience (vv 33-39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Coming of the End (24:1–25:46)<\/h5>\n<p>The introduction to this, the fifth and last of Matthew’s great discourses, makes it plain that there is the closest connection (for both Jesus and his disciples) between the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age (24:1-3). Jesus first characterizes the time between his first advent and his return: there will be natural catastrophes, international warfare, the rise of false messiahs, the persecution of God’s people, and the universal proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom (vv 4-14). Then Jesus speaks of the catastrophe that is soon to befall the Jewish nation in particular (as already foretold in 22:7; 23:38), culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70 (24:15-25). Sometime thereafter (but after an interval known only to God the Father—v 36), the Son of Man will return in great glory, amid apocalyptic signs, to gather his people (vv 26-31). The present generation will not pass away before judgment falls upon Israel (vv 15-25), so let listeners take heed (vv 32-35). The same warning applies to the more remote coming of the Son of Man (vv 36-51): both the certainty of the event and the uncertainty of its time call for vigilance and faithfulness in the interval, for that event will bring both salvation and judgment. To drive the lesson home, Jesus tells the parables of the wise and foolish virgins (25:1-13) and the talents (vv 14-30). The concluding parable of the sheep and the goats (vv 31-46) speaks of the urgent necessity of making the right response to the “brothers”—that is, the messengers—of Christ; those who feed, clothe, and otherwise care for the messengers of Christ thereby testify to their reception of the apostles’ message and their Lord (cf. 10:40-42).<\/p>\n<h5>The Road to Golgotha (26:1–27:26)<\/h5>\n<p>As though in response to Jesus’ own prediction, the chief priests and the elders hatch their murderous plot (26:1-5), soon to be aided by Judas (vv 14-16). The anointing at Bethany (vv 6-13) testifies to the extravagance of love and the imminence of death. At the Passover meal (vv 17-30), signaling at what sacrifice the new exodus comes about (cf. 2:15), Jesus interprets his forthcoming death as an atoning sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (26:26-28; cf. 1:21) and anticipates the day of final victory over sin and death in the consummated kingdom (26:29). Jesus’ agony in Gethsemane (vv 36-46) expresses his horror over taking his people’s sins upon himself. By a stupendous act of filial obedience, he submits his will to the Father, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled (26:54; cf. Is 53). As the servant of God destined to suffer, Jesus resists attempts to thwart his arrest (26:47-56). The Jews’ supreme court (the Sanhedrin) and their loftiest religious official (the high priest) condemn Jesus as a blasphemer because he dares to identify himself as “the Christ, the Son of God” (26:57-68; cf. 16:16). As though joining the court’s repudiation, Peter—in fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy (26:31-35)—disclaims knowledge of Jesus (vv 69-75). Judas’s disillusionment finds expression in suicide (27:3-10). The Jews hand Jesus over to Pilate the Roman governor (vv 1-2), he alone having the authority to pronounce the death sentence. Knowing that the charge of blasphemy will carry no weight with Pilate, the Jews now represent Jesus as a threat to Caesar. In the end, Pilate responds not to specific charges and evidence but to pressure from the crowd and the threat of riot (vv 11-25). He releases Barabbas and delivers Jesus to be crucified (v 26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Death of Jesus (27:27-66)<\/h5>\n<p>Following his humiliating treatment at the hands of the Roman soldiers, Jesus is led to the place of execution; weakened by the beatings, he requires assistance (27:27-32). He refuses the proffered narcotic so that he might keep his head clear (v 34). His being executed with malefactors (v 38) testifies to the purpose of his death (cf. 1:21). A steady stream of abuse is hurled at him, in blasphemous disregard of the truth of the superscription “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (27:37-44). Finally, out of the darkness Jesus utters the cry of dereliction; now is revealed the ultimate horror (that from which his soul shrank in Gethsemane), the sin-bearer’s supreme agony—the beloved Son’s abandonment by the Father (vv 45-49). Having cried out with a loud voice (cf. Jn 19:30), Jesus dies (27:50). Immediately, the saving effects of his death become evident (vv 51-53): sinners, now forgiven, have access to the holy God (the veil of the temple is rent asunder), and there is hope of resurrection for those who have died. As at the beginning (2:1-12), Gentiles instead of Jews confess Jesus (27:54; contrast 26:63-65). Joseph’s careful attentiveness to Jesus’ burial contrasts with the ongoing attempts of the chief priests and Pharisees to resist Jesus’ power (27:57-66).<\/p>\n<h5>The Triumph of the Savior (28:1-20)<\/h5>\n<p>Amid great glory and power and joy, the Savior’s victory over death is announced and attested (28:1-7). The risen Jesus appears first to the women who stayed with him during his crucifixion (28:8-10; cf. 27:61; 28:1). The Jews’ response to the guards’ report signals their growing desperation before irresistible reality (28:11-15). Meeting with the 11 disciples on the mountain in Galilee (vv 16-20), Jesus, the new Moses, continues his instructions. He now reveals the evangelistic purpose for which Matthew has been preparing readers from the very threshold of his Gospel. The apostles are to disciple all peoples by baptizing them into the name of the triune God and by teaching them to obey all that Jesus has commanded. The apostles go forth in the assurance that Jesus—as the Lord—stands over them, and that Jesus—as Immanuel—stands with them until the very end of the age.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Luke, Gospel of; Mark, Gospel of; Matthew (Person); Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MATTHEW, Gospel of First Gospel and first book of the NT. Preview • Author • Date and Provenance • Purpose • Content Author Nowhere does the text of Matthew itself clearly identify the author. Yet, as did the ancient church, we may ascribe authorship to Matthew the apostle. He was otherwise known as Levi (see Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27, 29). Before Jesus called him, he was a tax collector (Mt 9:9ff.). It is interesting to note that Matthew called himself a tax collector, while none of the other Gospel ...","summary_en":"MATTHEW, Gospel of First Gospel and first book of the NT. Preview • Author • Date and Provenance • Purpose • Content Author Nowhere does the text of Matthew itself clearly identify the author. Yet, as did the ancient church, we may ascribe authorship to Matthew the apostle. He was otherwise known as Levi (see Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27, 29). Before Jesus called him, he was a tax collector (Mt 9:9ff.). It is interesting to note that Matthew called himself a tax collector, while none of the other Gospel ...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":30007,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Peter, the Apostle","title_en":"Peter, the Apostle","content_ro":"<h3>PETER, <span>The Apostle<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>One of the 12 disciples; rose to prominence both among the disciples during Jesus’ ministry and among the apostles afterwards.<\/p>\n<p>There are actually four forms of Peter’s name in the New Testament: the Hebrew translated into Greek, “Simeon” to “Simon,” and the Aramaic translated into Greek, “Cephas” to “Petros” (meaning “rock”). His given name was Simeon bar-Jonah (Mt 16:17; cf. Jn 1:42), “Simon the son of John,” which was common Semitic nomenclature. It is most likely that “Simon” was not merely the Greek equivalent of “Simeon” but that, having his home in bilingual Galilee, “Simon” was the alternate form he used in dealings with Gentiles. In fact, it was quite common for a cosmopolitan Jew to employ three forms of his name depending on the occasion: Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. The double name “Simon Peter” (or “Simon called Peter”) demonstrates that the second name was a later addition, similar to “Jesus, the Christ.” The number of times that the Aramaic equivalent “Cephas” is used (once in John, four times each in Galatians and 1 Corinthians), as well as its translation into the Greek (not common with proper names), indicates the importance of the secondary name. Both Aramaic and Greek forms mean “the rock,” an obvious indication of Peter’s stature in the early church (see below on Mt 16:18). It is obvious that he was called “Simon” throughout Jesus’ ministry but came to be known as “Peter” more and more in the apostolic age.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Background<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Conversion and Call<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Place among the Twelve<\/p>\n<p>• Peter the Rock<\/p>\n<p>• Peter the Apostle<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Future Ministry<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersBackground\">Peter’s Background<\/p>\n<p>Peter was raised in bilingual Galilee. John 1:44 says that the home of Andrew (his brother) and Peter was Bethsaida, the whereabouts of which is difficult to place archaeologically. The only site about which we know is east of the Jordan in the district called Gaulanitis. Yet John 12:21 places Bethsaida in Galilee; however, it is possible that John is reflecting the popular use of the term “Galilee” rather than the legally correct one. Peter and Andrew had a fishing business centered in Capernaum (Mk 1:21, 29) and perhaps were partners with James and John (Lk 5:10). It is also likely that they intermittently continued in their business while disciples, as indicated in the fishing scene in John 21:1-8.<\/p>\n<p>One difficulty with this is the series of statements saying, “We have left all and followed You” (Mt 19:27; Mk 10:28; Lk 18:28, <span>nkjv<\/span>). The majority of interpreters have given this an absolute sense of “sold” or “left” their business. However, Luke 18:28 occurs in the context of leaving their homes but obviously is not meant in an absolute sense. It seems most likely that the disciples did leave the practice of their fishing businesses to follow Christ, but kept the tools of their trade and returned to their trades when necessary.<\/p>\n<p>They certainly did not abandon their families, as evidenced by Peter, who returned to his home at the end of each tour. The New Testament tells us that Peter was married. In Mark 1:29-31 Jesus heals his mother-in-law, who perhaps was living with Peter. In fact, it is possible that his home became Jesus’ headquarters in Galilee. (Matthew 8:14 may indicate that Jesus dwelt there.) First Corinthians 9:5 says that Peter, along with the other married apostles, often took his wife with him on his missionary journeys. Later tradition speaks of his children (Clement of Alexandria’s <em>Stromateis<\/em> 2.6.52) and says that Peter was present at the martyrdom of his wife (Eusebius’s <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.30.2).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersConversionandCall\">Peter’s Conversion and Call<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s brother, Andrew, was a disciple of John the Baptist, according to John 1:35-40. This follows the witness of John in 1:29-34 and is the second stage of John’s discipleship drama in chapter one—i.e., after bearing witness he now sends his own followers to Jesus. Andrew and the unnamed disciple (perhaps Philip as in Jn 1:43 or the “beloved disciple,” whom many identify with John himself) then “follow” Jesus (a term used often in John for discipleship). The next day Andrew follows the Baptist’s example and finds his brother Simon, saying, “We have found the Messiah” (Jn 1:41, <span>nkjv<\/span>). Peter’s conversion is presupposed in John 1:42, where Simon is brought to Jesus by Andrew and there given a new name.<\/p>\n<p>There are three separate episodes in the Gospels in which Simon is called, and these overlap with three episodes in which he is given the name “Cephas” (“Peter,” which means “rock”) by Jesus. John locates the event in Judea where John the Baptist was baptizing. The synoptic Gospels have two different scenes. The first call takes place at the Sea of Galilee (Mk 1:16-20; Mt 4:18-22). Jesus is walking along the shore and sees Peter and Andrew along with James and John casting their nets into the sea. At this time he calls them to become “fishers of men.” Luke then expands this into a fishing scene (Lk 5:1-11), in which the disciples have fished all night and caught nothing but at the command of Jesus lower their nets and catch an amount of fish so great that the boat starts to sink. The episode concludes exactly like the Markan abbreviated form: Jesus says that from now on they will “catch men,” and as a result they leave everything and follow him.<\/p>\n<p>The second synoptic episode involving Peter’s call (and his new name) is the official choice of the Twelve upon the mountain (Mk 3:13-19 and parallels); in the list of the names we have “Simon he surnamed Peter.” The final occurrence dealing with Peter’s new name is found in Matthew 16:17-19, in connection with Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi.<\/p>\n<p>It is somewhat difficult to harmonize these episodes properly. Were there three different episodes in which Simon was called (Jn 1:42; Mk 1:20; 3:16) and three separate incidents in which he was given the name Cephas\/Peter (Jn 1:42; Mk 3:16; Mt 16:18)? It is attractive to a broad spectrum of academia to assume that one single event, which happened at some indeterminate time toward the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, was later expanded into these diverse traditions. However, a closer examination of the Gospel data does not necessitate such a conclusion. John 1:35-42 is not an institutional scene that connotes an official call. Rather, it describes the first encounter with Jesus and realization regarding his significance. The “renaming” is in the future tense and looks to a later event. Moreover, John deliberately omits most of the crisis events in Jesus’ life (the baptism, the choice of the Twelve, the Transfiguration, the words of institution at the Last Supper, Gethsemane) and replaces them with highly theological scenes that teach the spiritual significance of the events. This is what he has done here.<\/p>\n<p>The same is true of the first synoptic call, i.e., the fishing scene. Again, there is no hint of official ordination to office here but rather a proleptic or prophetic hint of future ministry. This is especially true of the highly theological scene in Luke, which promises abundant results. Again in all three accounts the future tense is employed: “I will make you fishers of men” (Matthew and Mark), “You will catch men” (Luke, <span>nkjv<\/span>). The call in Mark 1:20 and Matthew 4:21 and their reaction (leaving all behind and following Jesus) is the opening gambit that is finalized in the actual institutional scene in Mark 3:13-19 and parallels. The wording does not indicate that these two episodes are doublets, for the actual appointment of the disciples occurs in the second passage. We must differentiate between the original call to one segment (who became the so-called “inner circle” of the Twelve) and the final choice of all the disciples.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersPlaceamongtheTwelve\">Peter’s Place among the Twelve<\/p>\n<p>The prominence of Simon Peter in the Gospels and Acts cannot be disputed. While some have attempted to attribute this to his leadership role in the later church, there is no basis for that in the text of the NT. From the very beginning Simon attained preeminence above the others. In the lists of the Twelve just mentioned, Simon’s name always appears first, and in Matthew 10:2 it introduces his name as “the first.” Moreover, the Twelve are often designated “Peter and those with him” (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:32; 8:45, <span>nkjv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the accounts Peter acted and spoke on behalf of the other disciples. At the Transfiguration it is Peter who wanted to erect tents (Mk 9:5), and he alone had sufficient faith to attempt walking on the water (Mt 14:28-31). It is Peter who asks the Lord to explain his teaching on forgiveness (Mt 18:21) and parables (Mt 15:15; Lk 12:41) and who speaks the disciples’ minds in Matthew 19:27, “Behold, we have left everything and followed you; what’s in it for us?” (paraphrased). The collectors of the temple tax come to Peter as leader of the group (Mt 17:24). As a member of the inner circle (with James and John, possibly Andrew in Mk 13:3) he was often alone with Jesus (at the raising of Jairus’s daughter, Mk 5:37 and parallels; at the Transfiguration, Mk 9:2 and parallels; at Gethsemane, Mk 14:33 and Mt 26:37). Jesus asks Peter and John to prepare the Passover meal in Luke 22:8, and in Mark 14:37 (and Mt 26:40) he directs his rebuke to Peter as representing the others (“Could ye not watch with me one hour?”). Finally, the message of the angel at the tomb as recorded in Mark 16:7 said, “Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter.” Certainly Peter held a very special place among the Twelve.<\/p>\n<p>This was especially evident in the Caesarea Philippi episode (Mk 8:27-33 and parallels). It was Peter whose confession became the high point of the Gospel accounts, “Thou art the Christ” (Luke adds “of God”; Matthew, “the Son of the living God”). After Jesus then spoke of the suffering of the Son of Man, Peter rebuked him, and in Mark’s description Jesus then turned, gazed at all the disciples, and said to Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men” (v 33, <span>kjv<\/span>). This was obviously directed at them all through Peter.<\/p>\n<p>The portrait of Peter that comes through all four accounts pictures him as impulsive, often rash; he is the first to act and speak his mind and was typified by his enthusiasm for everything in which he had a part. At the sight of Jesus walking on the water, Peter asked that the Lord command him to do the same and then immediately leaped out of the boat and began doing just that. At the Transfiguration, while the others were awed into silence by the appearance of Moses and Elijah, Peter the man of action said, “If thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles” (Mt 17:4, <span>kjv<\/span>). Mark and Luke both add here that Peter did not know what he was saying. Peter’s unguarded and unthinking tendency to protest Jesus’ statements is seen not only at Caesarea Philippi but also at the foot-washing scene in John 13:4-11 when he said first, “You shall never ever wash my feet”; and then after Jesus’ strong retort, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me,” he reversed himself completely, stating, “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and head” (13:8-9, <span>nkjv<\/span>). Finally, in the account of the race to the tomb (Jn 20:2-10), the beloved disciple, reaching the tomb first, paused while Peter immediately and impulsively entered it. Peter was certainly one who “rushed in where angels fear to tread.” However, this very trait aligns him with all of us and may be one of the major reasons why he becomes the representative disciple throughout the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetertheRock\">Peter the Rock<\/p>\n<p>The key to the significance of Simon Peter is obviously the controversial addendum to the Caesarea Philippi episode, found only in Matthew 16:17-19, Jesus’ testimonial to Peter. There are several crucial aspects of this saying. The most important for this study is verse 18, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (<span>kjv<\/span>). There have been many interpretations of this down through history: (1) It refers to Peter as the “rock” or first bishop of the church. This was the Roman Catholic interpretation from the third century on and was employed as a prooftext for apostolic succession, but it is not hinted at anywhere in the context or even in the epistles: it was not a first-century concept. (2) The majority of Protestants since the Reformation have taken this to be a reference to Peter’s statement of faith rather than to Peter himself; but this neglects the wordplay, which is even more pronounced in Aramaic, which has only one form for “Cephas” (rock). (3) An alternative has been to take “this rock” as a reference to Jesus himself, but that is fanciful and is hardly in the context. In conclusion, “this rock” is almost certainly a reference to Peter, but it must be understood in two ways. First, Peter was to become the foundation upon which Christ would build his church, a position clearly attested to in Acts. This does not mean that Peter had an authority above the other apostles. Paul’s rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11-14 demonstrates that he was not above them, and at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 it is James who has the position of leadership. Second, Peter is seen here not merely as an individual but as the representative of the disciples. This view is coming to increasing prominence today. It recognized the Jewish concept of “corporate identity” in which the leader was identified with the corporate body (e.g., the king or high priest representing the nation before God). This concept is also in keeping with Matthew 18:18-20, which passes on the same authority to the church as is here given to Peter. In this view Peter as the rock becomes the first of the building blocks upon which Christ, the chief cornerstone (to continue the metaphor), will build his church (see Eph 2:19-20).<\/p>\n<p>Two other aspects are worthy of note here. First, verse 18 says, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The “gates of hell” is a common Jewish euphemism for death’s inevitable and irrevocable power. Jesus is saying that Satan will not be triumphant over the church, and his sphere of operations, death, will be defeated (cf. 1 Cor 15:26, 54-55). The church would undergo persecution and martyrdom, but the church would be triumphant.<\/p>\n<p>Second, verse 19 promises, “I will give unto thee [singular] the keys of the kingdom,” another statement used of apostolic succession by the medieval church. Again, this must be understood in light of corporate identity; Peter, as the preeminent figure in the early church, here embodies the community in his leadership. The “keys of the kingdom” are in direct contrast to the “gates of hell” (cf. Rv 1:18, “the keys of hell and death” and Rv 3:7, the “key of David”), and this follows the imagery of the building seen in the rock upon which Christ will build his church. Here Peter is given the keys that will unlock the power of the kingdom in building God’s community, the church. The future tense (“will give”) undoubtedly points to the postresurrection period, when that power was unleashed and the church erected.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetertheApostle\">Peter the Apostle<\/p>\n<p>Two events led to the new Peter who fills the pages of Acts: his reinstatement described in John 21:15-17 and the resurrection appearance of the Lord, which is never described but alluded to in Luke 24:34 and 1 Corinthians 15:5. His denial was certainly proof that he was not yet able to assume his predicted position as the rock of the church. Both Luke and Paul seem to state that the risen Lord appeared to Simon Peter before the others, which would be fitting in light of his preeminence in the early church. During the Palestinian era, the fifteen-year period prior to the Gentile mission, Peter was the leading figure. The others mentioned in Acts 1–12 are all secondary to Peter, the dominant director of church policy. These include John, who is with Peter in the temple (3:1), the prison (4:13), and Samaria (8:14); Stephen, who was one of the Seven and whose revolutionary preaching led to his martyrdom (chs 6–7); Philip, another of the Seven who proclaimed the gospel in Samaria and to the Ethiopian eunuch (ch 8); Barnabas, who set an example of communal sharing (4:36-37) and was an official delegate to Antioch (11:20-30); Paul, a miraculous convert and witness (9:1-30; 11:25-30; 12:25); and James, who became the first apostolic martyr (12:2). It is Peter who proposes the choice of the 12th disciple (1:15-17), who proclaims the gospel at Pentecost (2:14-40), who utters the healing word (3:6), and who defends the gospel before the Sanhedrin (4:8-12, 19-20; 5:29-32). The episode regarding Ananias and Sapphira is particularly poignant, for here Peter functions as the avenging messenger of God; nowhere is his authority more evident. We would also note his authority in the scene at Samaria concerning the attempt of Simon the Sorcerer to buy the charismatic power (8:18-24). Again, it is Peter whose influence commands the situation. In these two incidents we certainly see the “binding and loosing” jurisdiction (cf. Mt 16:19) exhibited in Peter.<\/p>\n<p>Yet Peter and the church still came under the strictures of their Jewish heritage. The evidence points to a Jewish proselyte self-consciousness on the part of the early church. They viewed themselves as the righteous remnant, living in the age of Messianic fulfillment, but still interpreted themselves in a Jewish sense and conducted their evangelism in the proselyte form of Jewish particularism (i.e., Gentiles could only be converted through Judaism). Two events altered this. First, the Hellenistic Jewish branch of the church rebelled against the Hebrew Christians, which resulted in the appointment of the seven deacons and a change in the orthodox policy of the Palestinian church. Second, this then led to a new preaching ministry, first by Stephen, whose insights ended in his martyrdom and the dispersal of the Hellenistic branch in chapter 8; then by Philip and others, who extended the gospel even further, to the Samaritans and God-fearers. As a further result, Peter and John came to Samaria (8:14), the next significant step toward the Gentile mission. Thus ended the centrality of Jerusalem in the unfolding story.<\/p>\n<p>The two miracles of Peter, at Lydda (the paralytic) and Joppa (raising the dead woman) in Acts 9:32-42, are probably intended to parallel similar miracles of Jesus in Luke’s first work (Lk 5:18-26; 8:49-56). This is part of a major theme in Acts whereby Jesus’ life and ministry are paralleled and continued in the work of the Spirit through the church. Again Peter is seen in a representative role.<\/p>\n<p>The new relationships are extended in two further scenes. First, Peter stays with “Simon, a tanner,” in Joppa, an unclean trade; no pious Jew would knowingly have social contact with such a one. Even more important, God teaches Peter through a dream (10:10-16) that the old dichotomy between clean and unclean has been broken. This then leads Peter to the home of an uncircumcised Gentile, the most serious social taboo for the Jew, and subsequent events force Peter to admit Gentiles into the church without the necessity of Jewish proselyte requirements. The serious consequences of this are seen in the debate that ensued in Jerusalem (Acts 11:2-3) and later at the council (Acts 15:1-21). The centrality of this event is demonstrated in the extent to which Luke reproduces Peter’s speech, which seems to be a repetition of chapter 10 but is meant to highlight this crucial episode. Often forgotten in the significance of this for the early church is the fact that for Luke the Gentile mission begins with Peter, not Paul. He is the one upon whom the salvific act of God descends; and as the leader of the church, he was the first important witness to it.<\/p>\n<p>The persecution of Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:1-4) was likely due to the furor caused by this free intercourse with Gentiles; and it ended the period of Peter’s leadership in Jerusalem. The Jewish people were greatly offended by the new Christian push; and according to Luke in Acts, the idyllic period of popularity, in which the common people supported the church, effectively ceased at this time. Peter’s miraculous release and the dramatic scene at Mary’s house typified the special place of Peter, but the momentum shifts. Peter is forced to flee Jerusalem, and in the interim James arises to leadership (Acts 12:17); at the Jerusalem council it is the latter who has the chair and presents the council’s decision (Acts 15:6-29).<\/p>\n<p>The exact relationship between Peter and the other disciples, especially with the so-called pillars—James and John—and the apostle Paul, cannot be ascertained. The evidence is too vague. Many have thought that indeed there were no truly universal leaders, for the early church was too diverse. However, that is unlikely, and Luke’s portrayal in Acts parallels Paul’s statement in Galatians 2:8 that Peter was the apostle par excellence to the “circumcised” and Paul to the “Gentiles.” They were the universal leaders, while James became the local leader of the Jerusalem eldership. However, neither Peter nor Paul had dominical status similar to that of later popes (i.e., neither was the absolute spokesman of the church and above criticism). So-called emissaries from James could have such an influence on Peter that he would hypocritically change his behavior before Gentiles (Gal 2:12), and Paul could rebuke Peter publicly for doing so (Gal 2:11-14). Paul never claimed authority over the other disciples and even sought their approval and “the right hands of fellowship” for his ministry to the Gentiles (Gal 2:1-10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersFutureMinistry\">Peter’s Future Ministry<\/p>\n<p>We have very little hard evidence for Peter’s other movements. It seems as though Peter gradually turned from leadership to missionary work. However, this is an oversimplification. It is most likely that, following the similar pattern of Paul, he combined the two. The presence of a “Cephas party” at Corinth (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22) may indicate that Peter had spent some time there. This is made even more likely when Paul uses Peter as the main example for taking one’s wife on missionary expeditions (1 Cor 9:5). The “Cephas party” probably consisted of those who were converted under his ministry; it is probable that they were Jewish Christians and opposed the “Paul party” on Jewish-Gentile debates reflected elsewhere in 1 Corinthians.<\/p>\n<p>The First Epistle of Peter was sent to churches in northern Asia Minor—the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. The problem here is that there is no hint that Peter had been there and no personal notations in the epistle to demonstrate his acquaintance with these churches. However, it does show that he was very interested in them. In fact, some believe that the reason why Paul was not allowed into this district according to Acts 16:7-8 was that Peter was already ministering there. In short, the question of Peter’s involvement in Asia Minor must remain an open one.<\/p>\n<p>There is no final NT evidence that Peter went to Rome. First Peter 5:13 says that the epistle was sent from “Babylon,” and it is doubtful that this was the literal Babylon, because there is no tradition that Peter ever went there, and Babylon was sparsely populated back then. It is probably a cryptic symbol for Rome, the “Babylon of the West.” It is most likely that the “Babylon” of Revelation 14:8 and 16:19 is also a symbol of Rome. This would fit the strong tradition in the early church that indeed Peter did minister there.<\/p>\n<p>There are four early external witnesses concerning Peter’s death. John 21:18 mentions only the martyrdom of Peter but does not give any hint as to the place. First Clement was written at the end of the first century and reports the martyrdom of Peter and Paul among others. While 1 Clement 5:4 testifies only to the fact and not the place of Peter’s martyrdom, a study of two aspects favors Rome—the reference to a “great multitude” of martyrdoms, which best fits the Neronian persecution, and the phrase “glorious example among us,” which shows that the people of Clement’s own church (Rome) were involved. Ignatius’s letter to the Romans (4:3) also testifies generally to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, and again the context favors Rome as the place. He says, “I did not command you as did Peter and Paul,” which shows that they had ministries in Rome. The Ascension of Isaiah 4:2-3, a Jewish Christian work of the same period, speaks of Beliar (probably Nero) who martyrs “one of the Twelve,” almost certainly Peter. Therefore the earliest evidence does not explicitly point to Rome as the place of Peter’s death, but that is the most likely hypothesis.<\/p>\n<p>Definite statements to that effect appear toward the end of the second century. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in a letter dated c. 170 (preserved in Eusebius’s <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 2.25.8) says that Peter and Paul taught together in Italy. At the end of that century Irenaeus says (in <em>Against Heresies<\/em> 2.1-3) that Peter and Paul preached in Rome, and Tertullian in the same general period adds that Peter was martyred “like . . . the Lord” (<em>Scorpiace<\/em> 15). Clement of Alexandria and Origen both allude to Peter’s presence in Rome, and the latter adds the belief that he was “crucified head-downwards” (Eusebius’s <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 2.15.2; 3.1.2). The tradition that Peter was crucified may be supported in John 21:18: “when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall . . . carry thee wither thou wouldest not” (<span>kjv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The fact that Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (c. 55–57) does not mention Peter tells us that he could not have gone there earlier than that. If 1 Peter was written during the Neronian persecution, as those who hold to Petrine authorship believe, he must have gone there sometime in the late 50s or early 60s. Of course, the extent of his ministry in Rome also cannot be known. Some indeed have posited that he had little or no extensive stay in Rome. The facts, as they can be recovered, point to certain tentative conclusions. Peter did have some type of ministry in Rome, though the extent of it cannot be known. However, it is doubtful, in light of the early testimony to his preaching ministry there, that he was merely passing through Rome when caught in Nero’s pogrom. Therefore he most likely spent the last years of his ministry in Rome and there suffered martyrdom under Nero, perhaps by crucifixion.<\/p>\n<p>Simon Peter, along with Paul, was the leading figure in the early church. His impact has been tragically dimmed by the acrimonious debates of Roman Catholic– Protestant circles, but the biblical evidence is clear. He was the leading disciple of Jesus and indeed the “rock” who provided the foundation for the church. As the representative disciple, his enthusiasm and even his weaknesses have made him the supreme example of the developing disciple, one who, through the power of the risen Lord, rose above his faults to become a towering figure on the church scene.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PETER, <span>The Apostle<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>One of the 12 disciples; rose to prominence both among the disciples during Jesus’ ministry and among the apostles afterwards.<\/p>\n<p>There are actually four forms of Peter’s name in the New Testament: the Hebrew translated into Greek, “Simeon” to “Simon,” and the Aramaic translated into Greek, “Cephas” to “Petros” (meaning “rock”). His given name was Simeon bar-Jonah (Mt 16:17; cf. Jn 1:42), “Simon the son of John,” which was common Semitic nomenclature. It is most likely that “Simon” was not merely the Greek equivalent of “Simeon” but that, having his home in bilingual Galilee, “Simon” was the alternate form he used in dealings with Gentiles. In fact, it was quite common for a cosmopolitan Jew to employ three forms of his name depending on the occasion: Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. The double name “Simon Peter” (or “Simon called Peter”) demonstrates that the second name was a later addition, similar to “Jesus, the Christ.” The number of times that the Aramaic equivalent “Cephas” is used (once in John, four times each in Galatians and 1 Corinthians), as well as its translation into the Greek (not common with proper names), indicates the importance of the secondary name. Both Aramaic and Greek forms mean “the rock,” an obvious indication of Peter’s stature in the early church (see below on Mt 16:18). It is obvious that he was called “Simon” throughout Jesus’ ministry but came to be known as “Peter” more and more in the apostolic age.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Background<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Conversion and Call<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Place among the Twelve<\/p>\n<p>• Peter the Rock<\/p>\n<p>• Peter the Apostle<\/p>\n<p>• Peter’s Future Ministry<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersBackground\">Peter’s Background<\/p>\n<p>Peter was raised in bilingual Galilee. John 1:44 says that the home of Andrew (his brother) and Peter was Bethsaida, the whereabouts of which is difficult to place archaeologically. The only site about which we know is east of the Jordan in the district called Gaulanitis. Yet John 12:21 places Bethsaida in Galilee; however, it is possible that John is reflecting the popular use of the term “Galilee” rather than the legally correct one. Peter and Andrew had a fishing business centered in Capernaum (Mk 1:21, 29) and perhaps were partners with James and John (Lk 5:10). It is also likely that they intermittently continued in their business while disciples, as indicated in the fishing scene in John 21:1-8.<\/p>\n<p>One difficulty with this is the series of statements saying, “We have left all and followed You” (Mt 19:27; Mk 10:28; Lk 18:28, <span>nkjv<\/span>). The majority of interpreters have given this an absolute sense of “sold” or “left” their business. However, Luke 18:28 occurs in the context of leaving their homes but obviously is not meant in an absolute sense. It seems most likely that the disciples did leave the practice of their fishing businesses to follow Christ, but kept the tools of their trade and returned to their trades when necessary.<\/p>\n<p>They certainly did not abandon their families, as evidenced by Peter, who returned to his home at the end of each tour. The New Testament tells us that Peter was married. In Mark 1:29-31 Jesus heals his mother-in-law, who perhaps was living with Peter. In fact, it is possible that his home became Jesus’ headquarters in Galilee. (Matthew 8:14 may indicate that Jesus dwelt there.) First Corinthians 9:5 says that Peter, along with the other married apostles, often took his wife with him on his missionary journeys. Later tradition speaks of his children (Clement of Alexandria’s <em>Stromateis<\/em> 2.6.52) and says that Peter was present at the martyrdom of his wife (Eusebius’s <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 3.30.2).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersConversionandCall\">Peter’s Conversion and Call<\/p>\n<p>Peter’s brother, Andrew, was a disciple of John the Baptist, according to John 1:35-40. This follows the witness of John in 1:29-34 and is the second stage of John’s discipleship drama in chapter one—i.e., after bearing witness he now sends his own followers to Jesus. Andrew and the unnamed disciple (perhaps Philip as in Jn 1:43 or the “beloved disciple,” whom many identify with John himself) then “follow” Jesus (a term used often in John for discipleship). The next day Andrew follows the Baptist’s example and finds his brother Simon, saying, “We have found the Messiah” (Jn 1:41, <span>nkjv<\/span>). Peter’s conversion is presupposed in John 1:42, where Simon is brought to Jesus by Andrew and there given a new name.<\/p>\n<p>There are three separate episodes in the Gospels in which Simon is called, and these overlap with three episodes in which he is given the name “Cephas” (“Peter,” which means “rock”) by Jesus. John locates the event in Judea where John the Baptist was baptizing. The synoptic Gospels have two different scenes. The first call takes place at the Sea of Galilee (Mk 1:16-20; Mt 4:18-22). Jesus is walking along the shore and sees Peter and Andrew along with James and John casting their nets into the sea. At this time he calls them to become “fishers of men.” Luke then expands this into a fishing scene (Lk 5:1-11), in which the disciples have fished all night and caught nothing but at the command of Jesus lower their nets and catch an amount of fish so great that the boat starts to sink. The episode concludes exactly like the Markan abbreviated form: Jesus says that from now on they will “catch men,” and as a result they leave everything and follow him.<\/p>\n<p>The second synoptic episode involving Peter’s call (and his new name) is the official choice of the Twelve upon the mountain (Mk 3:13-19 and parallels); in the list of the names we have “Simon he surnamed Peter.” The final occurrence dealing with Peter’s new name is found in Matthew 16:17-19, in connection with Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi.<\/p>\n<p>It is somewhat difficult to harmonize these episodes properly. Were there three different episodes in which Simon was called (Jn 1:42; Mk 1:20; 3:16) and three separate incidents in which he was given the name Cephas\/Peter (Jn 1:42; Mk 3:16; Mt 16:18)? It is attractive to a broad spectrum of academia to assume that one single event, which happened at some indeterminate time toward the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, was later expanded into these diverse traditions. However, a closer examination of the Gospel data does not necessitate such a conclusion. John 1:35-42 is not an institutional scene that connotes an official call. Rather, it describes the first encounter with Jesus and realization regarding his significance. The “renaming” is in the future tense and looks to a later event. Moreover, John deliberately omits most of the crisis events in Jesus’ life (the baptism, the choice of the Twelve, the Transfiguration, the words of institution at the Last Supper, Gethsemane) and replaces them with highly theological scenes that teach the spiritual significance of the events. This is what he has done here.<\/p>\n<p>The same is true of the first synoptic call, i.e., the fishing scene. Again, there is no hint of official ordination to office here but rather a proleptic or prophetic hint of future ministry. This is especially true of the highly theological scene in Luke, which promises abundant results. Again in all three accounts the future tense is employed: “I will make you fishers of men” (Matthew and Mark), “You will catch men” (Luke, <span>nkjv<\/span>). The call in Mark 1:20 and Matthew 4:21 and their reaction (leaving all behind and following Jesus) is the opening gambit that is finalized in the actual institutional scene in Mark 3:13-19 and parallels. The wording does not indicate that these two episodes are doublets, for the actual appointment of the disciples occurs in the second passage. We must differentiate between the original call to one segment (who became the so-called “inner circle” of the Twelve) and the final choice of all the disciples.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersPlaceamongtheTwelve\">Peter’s Place among the Twelve<\/p>\n<p>The prominence of Simon Peter in the Gospels and Acts cannot be disputed. While some have attempted to attribute this to his leadership role in the later church, there is no basis for that in the text of the NT. From the very beginning Simon attained preeminence above the others. In the lists of the Twelve just mentioned, Simon’s name always appears first, and in Matthew 10:2 it introduces his name as “the first.” Moreover, the Twelve are often designated “Peter and those with him” (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:32; 8:45, <span>nkjv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the accounts Peter acted and spoke on behalf of the other disciples. At the Transfiguration it is Peter who wanted to erect tents (Mk 9:5), and he alone had sufficient faith to attempt walking on the water (Mt 14:28-31). It is Peter who asks the Lord to explain his teaching on forgiveness (Mt 18:21) and parables (Mt 15:15; Lk 12:41) and who speaks the disciples’ minds in Matthew 19:27, “Behold, we have left everything and followed you; what’s in it for us?” (paraphrased). The collectors of the temple tax come to Peter as leader of the group (Mt 17:24). As a member of the inner circle (with James and John, possibly Andrew in Mk 13:3) he was often alone with Jesus (at the raising of Jairus’s daughter, Mk 5:37 and parallels; at the Transfiguration, Mk 9:2 and parallels; at Gethsemane, Mk 14:33 and Mt 26:37). Jesus asks Peter and John to prepare the Passover meal in Luke 22:8, and in Mark 14:37 (and Mt 26:40) he directs his rebuke to Peter as representing the others (“Could ye not watch with me one hour?”). Finally, the message of the angel at the tomb as recorded in Mark 16:7 said, “Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter.” Certainly Peter held a very special place among the Twelve.<\/p>\n<p>This was especially evident in the Caesarea Philippi episode (Mk 8:27-33 and parallels). It was Peter whose confession became the high point of the Gospel accounts, “Thou art the Christ” (Luke adds “of God”; Matthew, “the Son of the living God”). After Jesus then spoke of the suffering of the Son of Man, Peter rebuked him, and in Mark’s description Jesus then turned, gazed at all the disciples, and said to Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men” (v 33, <span>kjv<\/span>). This was obviously directed at them all through Peter.<\/p>\n<p>The portrait of Peter that comes through all four accounts pictures him as impulsive, often rash; he is the first to act and speak his mind and was typified by his enthusiasm for everything in which he had a part. At the sight of Jesus walking on the water, Peter asked that the Lord command him to do the same and then immediately leaped out of the boat and began doing just that. At the Transfiguration, while the others were awed into silence by the appearance of Moses and Elijah, Peter the man of action said, “If thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles” (Mt 17:4, <span>kjv<\/span>). Mark and Luke both add here that Peter did not know what he was saying. Peter’s unguarded and unthinking tendency to protest Jesus’ statements is seen not only at Caesarea Philippi but also at the foot-washing scene in John 13:4-11 when he said first, “You shall never ever wash my feet”; and then after Jesus’ strong retort, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me,” he reversed himself completely, stating, “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and head” (13:8-9, <span>nkjv<\/span>). Finally, in the account of the race to the tomb (Jn 20:2-10), the beloved disciple, reaching the tomb first, paused while Peter immediately and impulsively entered it. Peter was certainly one who “rushed in where angels fear to tread.” However, this very trait aligns him with all of us and may be one of the major reasons why he becomes the representative disciple throughout the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetertheRock\">Peter the Rock<\/p>\n<p>The key to the significance of Simon Peter is obviously the controversial addendum to the Caesarea Philippi episode, found only in Matthew 16:17-19, Jesus’ testimonial to Peter. There are several crucial aspects of this saying. The most important for this study is verse 18, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (<span>kjv<\/span>). There have been many interpretations of this down through history: (1) It refers to Peter as the “rock” or first bishop of the church. This was the Roman Catholic interpretation from the third century on and was employed as a prooftext for apostolic succession, but it is not hinted at anywhere in the context or even in the epistles: it was not a first-century concept. (2) The majority of Protestants since the Reformation have taken this to be a reference to Peter’s statement of faith rather than to Peter himself; but this neglects the wordplay, which is even more pronounced in Aramaic, which has only one form for “Cephas” (rock). (3) An alternative has been to take “this rock” as a reference to Jesus himself, but that is fanciful and is hardly in the context. In conclusion, “this rock” is almost certainly a reference to Peter, but it must be understood in two ways. First, Peter was to become the foundation upon which Christ would build his church, a position clearly attested to in Acts. This does not mean that Peter had an authority above the other apostles. Paul’s rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11-14 demonstrates that he was not above them, and at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 it is James who has the position of leadership. Second, Peter is seen here not merely as an individual but as the representative of the disciples. This view is coming to increasing prominence today. It recognized the Jewish concept of “corporate identity” in which the leader was identified with the corporate body (e.g., the king or high priest representing the nation before God). This concept is also in keeping with Matthew 18:18-20, which passes on the same authority to the church as is here given to Peter. In this view Peter as the rock becomes the first of the building blocks upon which Christ, the chief cornerstone (to continue the metaphor), will build his church (see Eph 2:19-20).<\/p>\n<p>Two other aspects are worthy of note here. First, verse 18 says, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The “gates of hell” is a common Jewish euphemism for death’s inevitable and irrevocable power. Jesus is saying that Satan will not be triumphant over the church, and his sphere of operations, death, will be defeated (cf. 1 Cor 15:26, 54-55). The church would undergo persecution and martyrdom, but the church would be triumphant.<\/p>\n<p>Second, verse 19 promises, “I will give unto thee [singular] the keys of the kingdom,” another statement used of apostolic succession by the medieval church. Again, this must be understood in light of corporate identity; Peter, as the preeminent figure in the early church, here embodies the community in his leadership. The “keys of the kingdom” are in direct contrast to the “gates of hell” (cf. Rv 1:18, “the keys of hell and death” and Rv 3:7, the “key of David”), and this follows the imagery of the building seen in the rock upon which Christ will build his church. Here Peter is given the keys that will unlock the power of the kingdom in building God’s community, the church. The future tense (“will give”) undoubtedly points to the postresurrection period, when that power was unleashed and the church erected.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetertheApostle\">Peter the Apostle<\/p>\n<p>Two events led to the new Peter who fills the pages of Acts: his reinstatement described in John 21:15-17 and the resurrection appearance of the Lord, which is never described but alluded to in Luke 24:34 and 1 Corinthians 15:5. His denial was certainly proof that he was not yet able to assume his predicted position as the rock of the church. Both Luke and Paul seem to state that the risen Lord appeared to Simon Peter before the others, which would be fitting in light of his preeminence in the early church. During the Palestinian era, the fifteen-year period prior to the Gentile mission, Peter was the leading figure. The others mentioned in Acts 1–12 are all secondary to Peter, the dominant director of church policy. These include John, who is with Peter in the temple (3:1), the prison (4:13), and Samaria (8:14); Stephen, who was one of the Seven and whose revolutionary preaching led to his martyrdom (chs 6–7); Philip, another of the Seven who proclaimed the gospel in Samaria and to the Ethiopian eunuch (ch 8); Barnabas, who set an example of communal sharing (4:36-37) and was an official delegate to Antioch (11:20-30); Paul, a miraculous convert and witness (9:1-30; 11:25-30; 12:25); and James, who became the first apostolic martyr (12:2). It is Peter who proposes the choice of the 12th disciple (1:15-17), who proclaims the gospel at Pentecost (2:14-40), who utters the healing word (3:6), and who defends the gospel before the Sanhedrin (4:8-12, 19-20; 5:29-32). The episode regarding Ananias and Sapphira is particularly poignant, for here Peter functions as the avenging messenger of God; nowhere is his authority more evident. We would also note his authority in the scene at Samaria concerning the attempt of Simon the Sorcerer to buy the charismatic power (8:18-24). Again, it is Peter whose influence commands the situation. In these two incidents we certainly see the “binding and loosing” jurisdiction (cf. Mt 16:19) exhibited in Peter.<\/p>\n<p>Yet Peter and the church still came under the strictures of their Jewish heritage. The evidence points to a Jewish proselyte self-consciousness on the part of the early church. They viewed themselves as the righteous remnant, living in the age of Messianic fulfillment, but still interpreted themselves in a Jewish sense and conducted their evangelism in the proselyte form of Jewish particularism (i.e., Gentiles could only be converted through Judaism). Two events altered this. First, the Hellenistic Jewish branch of the church rebelled against the Hebrew Christians, which resulted in the appointment of the seven deacons and a change in the orthodox policy of the Palestinian church. Second, this then led to a new preaching ministry, first by Stephen, whose insights ended in his martyrdom and the dispersal of the Hellenistic branch in chapter 8; then by Philip and others, who extended the gospel even further, to the Samaritans and God-fearers. As a further result, Peter and John came to Samaria (8:14), the next significant step toward the Gentile mission. Thus ended the centrality of Jerusalem in the unfolding story.<\/p>\n<p>The two miracles of Peter, at Lydda (the paralytic) and Joppa (raising the dead woman) in Acts 9:32-42, are probably intended to parallel similar miracles of Jesus in Luke’s first work (Lk 5:18-26; 8:49-56). This is part of a major theme in Acts whereby Jesus’ life and ministry are paralleled and continued in the work of the Spirit through the church. Again Peter is seen in a representative role.<\/p>\n<p>The new relationships are extended in two further scenes. First, Peter stays with “Simon, a tanner,” in Joppa, an unclean trade; no pious Jew would knowingly have social contact with such a one. Even more important, God teaches Peter through a dream (10:10-16) that the old dichotomy between clean and unclean has been broken. This then leads Peter to the home of an uncircumcised Gentile, the most serious social taboo for the Jew, and subsequent events force Peter to admit Gentiles into the church without the necessity of Jewish proselyte requirements. The serious consequences of this are seen in the debate that ensued in Jerusalem (Acts 11:2-3) and later at the council (Acts 15:1-21). The centrality of this event is demonstrated in the extent to which Luke reproduces Peter’s speech, which seems to be a repetition of chapter 10 but is meant to highlight this crucial episode. Often forgotten in the significance of this for the early church is the fact that for Luke the Gentile mission begins with Peter, not Paul. He is the one upon whom the salvific act of God descends; and as the leader of the church, he was the first important witness to it.<\/p>\n<p>The persecution of Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:1-4) was likely due to the furor caused by this free intercourse with Gentiles; and it ended the period of Peter’s leadership in Jerusalem. The Jewish people were greatly offended by the new Christian push; and according to Luke in Acts, the idyllic period of popularity, in which the common people supported the church, effectively ceased at this time. Peter’s miraculous release and the dramatic scene at Mary’s house typified the special place of Peter, but the momentum shifts. Peter is forced to flee Jerusalem, and in the interim James arises to leadership (Acts 12:17); at the Jerusalem council it is the latter who has the chair and presents the council’s decision (Acts 15:6-29).<\/p>\n<p>The exact relationship between Peter and the other disciples, especially with the so-called pillars—James and John—and the apostle Paul, cannot be ascertained. The evidence is too vague. Many have thought that indeed there were no truly universal leaders, for the early church was too diverse. However, that is unlikely, and Luke’s portrayal in Acts parallels Paul’s statement in Galatians 2:8 that Peter was the apostle par excellence to the “circumcised” and Paul to the “Gentiles.” They were the universal leaders, while James became the local leader of the Jerusalem eldership. However, neither Peter nor Paul had dominical status similar to that of later popes (i.e., neither was the absolute spokesman of the church and above criticism). So-called emissaries from James could have such an influence on Peter that he would hypocritically change his behavior before Gentiles (Gal 2:12), and Paul could rebuke Peter publicly for doing so (Gal 2:11-14). Paul never claimed authority over the other disciples and even sought their approval and “the right hands of fellowship” for his ministry to the Gentiles (Gal 2:1-10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PetersFutureMinistry\">Peter’s Future Ministry<\/p>\n<p>We have very little hard evidence for Peter’s other movements. It seems as though Peter gradually turned from leadership to missionary work. However, this is an oversimplification. It is most likely that, following the similar pattern of Paul, he combined the two. The presence of a “Cephas party” at Corinth (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22) may indicate that Peter had spent some time there. This is made even more likely when Paul uses Peter as the main example for taking one’s wife on missionary expeditions (1 Cor 9:5). The “Cephas party” probably consisted of those who were converted under his ministry; it is probable that they were Jewish Christians and opposed the “Paul party” on Jewish-Gentile debates reflected elsewhere in 1 Corinthians.<\/p>\n<p>The First Epistle of Peter was sent to churches in northern Asia Minor—the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. The problem here is that there is no hint that Peter had been there and no personal notations in the epistle to demonstrate his acquaintance with these churches. However, it does show that he was very interested in them. In fact, some believe that the reason why Paul was not allowed into this district according to Acts 16:7-8 was that Peter was already ministering there. In short, the question of Peter’s involvement in Asia Minor must remain an open one.<\/p>\n<p>There is no final NT evidence that Peter went to Rome. First Peter 5:13 says that the epistle was sent from “Babylon,” and it is doubtful that this was the literal Babylon, because there is no tradition that Peter ever went there, and Babylon was sparsely populated back then. It is probably a cryptic symbol for Rome, the “Babylon of the West.” It is most likely that the “Babylon” of Revelation 14:8 and 16:19 is also a symbol of Rome. This would fit the strong tradition in the early church that indeed Peter did minister there.<\/p>\n<p>There are four early external witnesses concerning Peter’s death. John 21:18 mentions only the martyrdom of Peter but does not give any hint as to the place. First Clement was written at the end of the first century and reports the martyrdom of Peter and Paul among others. While 1 Clement 5:4 testifies only to the fact and not the place of Peter’s martyrdom, a study of two aspects favors Rome—the reference to a “great multitude” of martyrdoms, which best fits the Neronian persecution, and the phrase “glorious example among us,” which shows that the people of Clement’s own church (Rome) were involved. Ignatius’s letter to the Romans (4:3) also testifies generally to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, and again the context favors Rome as the place. He says, “I did not command you as did Peter and Paul,” which shows that they had ministries in Rome. The Ascension of Isaiah 4:2-3, a Jewish Christian work of the same period, speaks of Beliar (probably Nero) who martyrs “one of the Twelve,” almost certainly Peter. Therefore the earliest evidence does not explicitly point to Rome as the place of Peter’s death, but that is the most likely hypothesis.<\/p>\n<p>Definite statements to that effect appear toward the end of the second century. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in a letter dated c. 170 (preserved in Eusebius’s <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 2.25.8) says that Peter and Paul taught together in Italy. At the end of that century Irenaeus says (in <em>Against Heresies<\/em> 2.1-3) that Peter and Paul preached in Rome, and Tertullian in the same general period adds that Peter was martyred “like . . . the Lord” (<em>Scorpiace<\/em> 15). Clement of Alexandria and Origen both allude to Peter’s presence in Rome, and the latter adds the belief that he was “crucified head-downwards” (Eusebius’s <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> 2.15.2; 3.1.2). The tradition that Peter was crucified may be supported in John 21:18: “when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall . . . carry thee wither thou wouldest not” (<span>kjv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The fact that Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (c. 55–57) does not mention Peter tells us that he could not have gone there earlier than that. If 1 Peter was written during the Neronian persecution, as those who hold to Petrine authorship believe, he must have gone there sometime in the late 50s or early 60s. Of course, the extent of his ministry in Rome also cannot be known. Some indeed have posited that he had little or no extensive stay in Rome. The facts, as they can be recovered, point to certain tentative conclusions. Peter did have some type of ministry in Rome, though the extent of it cannot be known. However, it is doubtful, in light of the early testimony to his preaching ministry there, that he was merely passing through Rome when caught in Nero’s pogrom. Therefore he most likely spent the last years of his ministry in Rome and there suffered martyrdom under Nero, perhaps by crucifixion.<\/p>\n<p>Simon Peter, along with Paul, was the leading figure in the early church. His impact has been tragically dimmed by the acrimonious debates of Roman Catholic– Protestant circles, but the biblical evidence is clear. He was the leading disciple of Jesus and indeed the “rock” who provided the foundation for the church. As the representative disciple, his enthusiasm and even his weaknesses have made him the supreme example of the developing disciple, one who, through the power of the risen Lord, rose above his faults to become a towering figure on the church scene.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PETER, The Apostle One of the 12 disciples; rose to prominence both among the disciples during Jesus’ ministry and among the apostles afterwards. There are actually four forms of Peter’s name in the New Testament: the Hebrew translated into Greek, “Simeon” to “Simon,” and the Aramaic translated into Greek, “Cephas” to “Petros” (meaning “rock”). His given name was Simeon bar-Jonah (Mt 16:17; cf. Jn 1:42), “Simon the son of John,” which was common Semitic nomenclature. It is most likely that “S...","summary_en":"PETER, The Apostle One of the 12 disciples; rose to prominence both among the disciples during Jesus’ ministry and among the apostles afterwards. There are actually four forms of Peter’s name in the New Testament: the Hebrew translated into Greek, “Simeon” to “Simon,” and the Aramaic translated into Greek, “Cephas” to “Petros” (meaning “rock”). His given name was Simeon bar-Jonah (Mt 16:17; cf. Jn 1:42), “Simon the son of John,” which was common Semitic nomenclature. It is most likely that “S...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"28":[{"id":27712,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"and Numerology*, Numbers","title_en":"and Numerology*, Numbers","content_ro":"<h3>NUMBERS AND NUMEROLOGY*<\/h3>\n<p>Individual numbers have a symbolic as well as a literal sense in the Bible. In Daniel, and to a lesser extent in Revelation, there is a developed system of numerology where interrelated systems of numbers are used in a definite pattern.<\/p>\n<p>Traditionally, conservative Christians have been suspicious of numerology because of its unwise use by groups of Christians who see theological symbolism in every number in the OT, even the most factual. This view was inherited from mystical, pre-Christian Jewish groups, and later carried to extremes by the Kabbalists.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Expression of Numbers<\/p>\n<p>• Ways of Writing Numerals<\/p>\n<p>• Problems of Large Numbers<\/p>\n<p>• Counting by Generations<\/p>\n<p>• Approximate Use of Numbers<\/p>\n<p>• Symbolic Use of Numbers<\/p>\n<p>• Exact Statistics<\/p>\n<p>• Numerology<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ExpressionofNumbers\">Expression of Numbers<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew, and indeed any other Semitic language, has a simple but adequate system of numeration. The number one is an adjective. After that, the numerals are nouns, in parallel masculine and feminine forms, although the masculine is used with the feminine noun and vice versa. Ordinal numbers (first, second, third, etc.) exist alongside cardinal numbers (one, two, three), but as in most languages, the second set can be used instead of the first (“day two” instead of “second day”). From ten to nineteen, there is one composite form built like English “thirteen” (“three-ten”), but “twenty” is literally “tens” (the plural of “ten”). Thirty, forty, and so on are literally “threes,” “fours” (the plural of the words “three” and “four,” respectively) and so on, up to a hundred, which is a new word. There are also separate words for “thousand” and for “ten thousand,” as in Greek, Chinese, and many other languages. Larger numbers must be expressed by multiples of these (“ten thousand times ten thousand” and “thousands of thousands”), suggesting that large figures, rarely needed for small populations and tiny kingdoms, were expressed approximately. Hebrew has not only a singular and plural but also a dual form to express two of anything (two hundred, two thousand). Fractions (a half, a third, a tenth, etc.) could be expressed, and multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction were used. Indeed, instances of all four operations can be found in the Bible. The Hebrew mathematical system was basically part of the larger western Asian mathematical system, of which we know a great deal from Mesopotamia and Egypt. These countries, however, used a more highly developed mathematical system than Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WaysofWritingNumerals\">Ways of Writing Numerals<\/p>\n<p>In the Bible, numbers are always written out in words, as on the famous Moabite Stone and the Siloam Inscription. But every nation in the ancient world could also express numbers by using figures or ciphers of various kinds (like our 1, 2, 3, . . .). Because of this danger of error, in later days numbers were normally written out in full, in words, where confusion, although still possible, was not nearly so likely. An additional way of writing numbers, known both to the Hebrews and the Greeks, was the use of consecutive letters of the alphabet instead of consecutive numerals (as if we used A for 1, B for 2, etc.). This system, in wide use by NT times, is the usual system in modern Hebrew and has the advantage that numerical combinations can be pronounced by inserting arbitrary vowels, thus making artificial words. For example, if the number of the beast (Rv 13:18), 666, is expressed in alphabetical letters, it can spell out the consonants of “Nero Caesar,” although other names are possible, especially if the variant reading 616 is used.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ProblemsofLargeNumbers\">Problems of Large Numbers<\/p>\n<p>Even allowing for all these possibilities, there remain certain problems connected with large numbers, particularly in the OT. The most obvious is that of the ten long-lived patriarchs, whose ages are recorded in Genesis 5. Different figures (varying by whole centuries) are recorded for their ages in the Hebrew text, the Samaritan text, and the earliest Greek translation (known as the Septuagint), but all figures are very large. Some interpret these figures literally and point out that there is a steady reduction from the ages attained by these patriarchs to the more modest 120 years allotted to man in Noah’s time (Gn 6:3) and the 70 years accepted later as the human life span (Ps 90:10). This would correspond to the progressive spiritual deterioration of mankind after the fall, from the perfect state of Adam to the present condition. Whatever the explanation of the figures, there is no doubt that this is the theological intent of the Bible.<\/p>\n<p>The large number of Israelites who left Egypt is also problematic. If there were actually 600,000 fighting men (Nm 1:46), this would correspond to a whole nation of some 2 million or more. Possibly the word translated “thousand” means “clan units”; it would clearly be a much smaller total body, whatever its exact size. Of course, God could have maintained any number of people in the desert. The evidence of archaeology as to the population of Canaan both before and after the Israelite onslaught seems to support a lower number. The same principle might explain the large numbers given for the fighting men of the various Israelite tribes, and the huge totals for Israel and Judah’s military strength given at later times in the historical books of the OT.<\/p>\n<p>To the ordinary Bible reader, perhaps one of the biggest problems is the different numbers recorded in Chronicles and Kings, when the same incidents are being described. Manuscript errors, or confusion of numbers written by signs or single letters of the alphabet, may account for numerous individual inconsistencies, but not for wholesale differences, particularly as the figures in Chronicles are consistently much larger. These very large round numbers may have symbolic significance and may not be intended to be taken in their literal sense at all. Indeed, since the Jews had before them the book of Kings and the book of Chronicles at the same time, they can hardly have taken both sets of numbers literally themselves.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CountingbyGenerations\">Counting by Generations<\/p>\n<p>One of the problems of the OT is that of the dating of events. Even with an exact number system, there is no absolute fixed point from which to reckon. Later Jews and Christians counted from the presumed date of the Creation. Not until after the time of David and Solomon are both internal reference between the comparative dates of kings of Judah and Israel and external reference to monarchs outside Israel used. This open-endedness accounts for the vague period of “forty years” used so often in the OT (e.g., the book of Judges) for any long but indeterminate period of time, almost certainly corresponding to a generation (Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">dor<\/span>). Counting by generations is specific in some places in the Bible and may be implicit in others. For instance, Abraham’s descendants are to return to Canaan “in the fourth generation” (Gn 15:16), and the genealogy of Christ is neatly constructed on a pattern of three groups of fourteen generations (Mt 1:17), rather than on periods of years. Wherever people use and recite genealogies, such counting by generations is natural. But Abraham’s descendants are said to have returned to Canaan approximately four centuries later (Gal 3:17), and therefore the word “generation” sometimes stands for 100 years. The Hebrew word for “generation” may mean 120 years (Gn 6:3). Usually, the ancient Hebrews used vague phrases like “in those days” or “after those days” or “the days are coming,” which expressed past, present, and future without any specific mention of number. In other words, the Bible writers were more concerned with theology than with mathematics.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ApproximateUseofNumbers\">Approximate Use of Numbers<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, Israel’s 40 years in the desert is a good example of the approximate use of numbers (Nm 14:33). In the NT, Jesus was in the wilderness 40 days during the temptation (Mt 4:2), and there were 40 days between his resurrection and ascension (Acts 1:3). Moses was 40 years old at his call (Acts 7:23), apparently lived 40 years in Midian (Ex 7:7), and spent 40 years leading Israel out of Egypt and through the desert (Dt 34:7), for he is said to be 120 years old at his death. However, two generations of 40 years is the normal maximum for a healthy man (Ps 90:10), and even this is often shortened to 70 years by the rigors of life. Seventy is also used at times in this approximate sense.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SymbolicUseofNumbers\">Symbolic Use of Numbers<\/p>\n<p>In Scripture, seven symbolizes completeness or perfection. On the seventh day God rested from his labors and creation is finished (Gn 2:2). Pharaoh in his dream saw seven cattle coming from the Nile (41:2). Samson’s sacred Nazirite locks were braided in seven plaits (Jgs 16:13). Seven devils left Mary of Magdala, signifying the totality of her previous possession by Satan (Lk 8:2); “seven other devils” will enter the purified but vacant life of a person (Mt 12:45). However, on the positive side, there were the seven spirits of God (Rv 3:1). In the seventh year the Hebrew slave was to be freed (Ex 21:2), having completed his time of captivity and service. Every seventh year was a sabbatical year (Lv 25:4). Seven times seven reiterates the sense of completeness. In the Year of Jubilee (at the completion of 7 x 7 years = the 50th year), all land is freed and returns to the original owners (Lv 25:10). Pentecost, the Feast of Weeks, is seven times seven days after Passover. “Seventy,” which is literally “sevens” in Hebrew, strengthens the concept of perfection. There are 70 elders (Ex 24:1) in Israel. Israel was exiled to Babylon for 70 years (Jer 25:12) to complete its punishment. “Seventy times seven” (Mt 18:22) reiterates this still further. The Lord was not giving Peter a mathematical number of times that he should forgive another person, but rather was insisting on limitless forgiveness for a brother’s sin.<\/p>\n<p>“Three” may well share in this meaning of completion or perfection, although not so forcibly (2 Kgs 13:18). Many things happen “on the third day” (Hos 6:2). Jonah spent three days in the stomach of the fish (Mt 12:40), and the Lord rose again on the third day (1 Cor 15:4). David was offered a choice of divine punishments—three years, three months, three days (2 Sm 24:13). For the Christian, “three” takes on a far deeper significance as the number of Persons of the Trinity. The three Persons are clearly expressed, for instance, in the Great Commission (Mt 28:19) and in the Pauline benediction (2 Cor 13:13). Many echoes of this threefold expression are in the NT, and many anticipations of it in the OT, of which the thrice-repeated “Holy” in Isaiah 6:3 is the most famous.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars see four as another symbol of completeness (four winds of heaven, Dn 7:2; four horsemen, Rv 6:1-7; four living creatures around the throne of God, Rv 4:6). Five is certainly used in an indefinite sense as a small number (Is 19:18; 30:17). Nor do eight or nine seem to have any special significance, although, like other numbers, they may be used in a factual sense to describe any of God’s activities (nine plagues on Egypt, Ex 7–10). “Ten” does have significance because of the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17), but not any special symbolism earlier in the Bible. If anything, “ten” is elsewhere used in a vague way. Laban changes Jacob’s wages ten times (Gn 31:7); Daniel and his friends are ten times better than all other students (Dn 1:20); ten times over, the Jewish settlers will be warned of impending enemy attacks (Neh 4:12).<\/p>\n<p>Eleven appears to have no special biblical significance, but 12 certainly has. The clearest proof of this is the existence of the 12 tribes in Israel. In Revelation 7:4-8, where it is mathematically important that the number of tribes be limited to 12, the tribe of Dan is altogether omitted—probably on account of Dan’s sin of idolatry (Jgs 18:14-20). Ishmael’s descendants were also divided into 12 clans (Gn 17:20), so that the number 12 was apparently significant outside Israel as well. In the NT Christ chose 12 apostles (Mt 10:1-4). The link with the number of tribes is made specific when Christ tells the apostles that they will sit on 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes (Mt 19:28). However, it is interesting that, after the election and appointment of Matthias (Acts 1:26), the Christian church apparently made no subsequent efforts to maintain the number of apostles. Like “seven times seven,” “twelve times twelve” increases the force of the number. When this is further multiplied by a thousand, the figure becomes the 144,000 redeemed (Rv 7:4), who were sealed “out of all the tribes of Israel.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ExactStatistics\">Exact Statistics<\/p>\n<p>As distinct from the metaphorical use of numbers to denote completion, immensity, and the like, numbers in Hebrew were often used to give exact tallies or measurements. Such usage is known to us only from clay tablets and ostraca (broken pieces of potsherd engraved in ink, used as rough notebooks). However, ascertaining exactly what the text was in its earliest form and what that text means is difficult.<\/p>\n<p>An example is the number of the sons of Jeconiah among the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh. They were struck down by the Lord because of their failure to rejoice with the others when God’s ark returned to Israel from the Philistine country (1 Sm 6:19). The Greek text (LXX) reads “seventy”; the later Hebrew manuscripts add “fifty thousand.” But, as Beth-shemesh itself was only a small frontier town, and the “sons of Jeconiah” was presumably only one clan among several, the smaller number is obviously the original, and the large addition due to some later manuscript confusion.<\/p>\n<p>A good rule in trying to decide whether a number is statistical or impressionistic is to determine whether it is a small number, or an unusual number for which there is no obvious theological explanation. When the men of Ai killed some 36 Israelites at the first assault on the city (Jos 7:5), the smallness of the number is evidence that this is a vividly remembered factual detail. Similarly, in the case of the number of Abraham’s 318 men (Gn 14:14) or the catch of 153 fish after the resurrection (Jn 21:11), the numbers, though large, are not round numbers but unusual combinations, and are obviously meant in a literal or statistical sense. Irrelevant details like this have a habit of remaining in the memory, and are the best guarantee of the trustworthiness of the narrative.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Numerology\">Numerology<\/p>\n<p>Numerology may be said to be an extended application of the metaphorical significance of numbers (7, 40, etc.) already discussed. In the Bible, this systematization of numbers always goes with a strong sense of the sovereignty of God, his control over human history, and a belief in his ongoing purpose and its triumphant conclusion.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the first clear instance of numerology in the Bible is 1 Kings 6:1, where Solomon began to build the temple 480 years after the exodus, a period 5 times 10 times 12, or 4 times 120, the ideal life span of man in early days (Gn 6:3). First Chronicles 6:3-8 gives 12 generations of men (presumably 40 years each) to cover the same period, so “twelve generations” is probably the real basis for the computation, rather than any exact year-by-year tally. A tally would have been impossible in the days of the judges and unlikely before the monarchy. David was the first to establish an official scribe or recorder to keep daily annals in Israel (2 Sm 8:16-17), as was common in the great kingdoms from far earlier times. Such Israelite annals are later mentioned as sources of the books of the kings (2 Kgs 14:18). The number 480 is probably a rough approximation rather than exact and denotes the end of one of God’s epochs.<\/p>\n<p>When Jeremiah prophesies an exile of 70 years for Judah (Jer 25:11; 29:10), it is not only a historical prediction that was literally fulfilled but also a symbol of completeness; Judah’s punishment is complete (cf. Is 40:2). Isaiah (Is 23:15) had made a similar prophecy of a 70-year punishment for Tyre, and Ezekiel (Ez 29:11-13) prophesied a 40-year “exile” for Egypt. When these 70 years are regarded as sabbatical years, where the land must lie untilled to compensate for the 7 times 70 years of sin before, then true numerology begins (2 Chr 36:21). Here numerology is used only as an explanation of past and present, but it can also be used to explain the future, especially in the book of Daniel.<\/p>\n<p>Daniel (Dn 9:2) refers to the literal 70 years of the exile as foretold by Jeremiah. In Daniel 9:24, this has been extended to 70 weeks of years (490 years) applied to the distant future. Daniel 9:25 sees 69 of these (483 years) as elapsing before Messiah appears. Presumably, the last week of the 70 is therefore thought of as the time of his activity. However this may be interpreted in terms of actual dates, it must be harmonized with 9:26, where the Messiah is “cut off” after 62 weeks of years (434 years). The difficulty lies in establishing the starting point for this long period. This is an example of an elaborate numerology, embracing centuries of history, all ultimately based on the 70 years of Jeremiah. According to biblical principles, this can have both an “immediate” fulfillment in the return from exile, and a “prophetic” fulfillment in the far distant future in connection with the coming of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The other major example of extended numerology in Daniel is in connection with the “time, times, and half a time” (7:25). This must stand for three and a half “times,” that is, half of seven “times.” Thus, it refers either to three and a half years (half a “week” of years) or three and a half “weeks” of years (cf. “seven times” in 4:16, where “seven years” is clearly meant). Whatever may be its ultimate prophetic fulfillment in Christ, the “initial” or “partial” fulfillment is the roughly three and a half years of bitter persecution of God’s people by Antiochus Epiphanes (167–164 <span>BC<\/span>). This figure of three and a half years reappears in Revelation 11:2 (“forty-two months”), and 12:14 (“a time, and times, and half a time”), to describe the period of Rome’s persecution of the Christian church. The figure had possibly become a symbol of any bitter but limited persecution. The “two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings” of Daniel 8:14 may mean 1,150 days, which is approximately the same length of time.<\/p>\n<p>The three and a half years of Daniel 7:25 reappear in Revelation 11 in the form of “forty-two months,” the time when the heathen will trample down Jerusalem (Rv 11:2). The 1,290 days of Daniel 12:11 reappear here (in the slightly different form of 1,260 days) as the time that God’s two witnesses will prophesy (Rv 11:3). The 42 months reappear in Revelation 13:5 as the period that the wild beast will be allowed to blaspheme. While the “thousand years” of 20:6 is not derived from Daniel at all, the metaphorical use of “thousand” is familiar to the OT. The closest direct parallel is in Deuteronomy 7:9, where God’s covenant will be kept with a “thousand generations” to come.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NUMBERS AND NUMEROLOGY*<\/h3>\n<p>Individual numbers have a symbolic as well as a literal sense in the Bible. In Daniel, and to a lesser extent in Revelation, there is a developed system of numerology where interrelated systems of numbers are used in a definite pattern.<\/p>\n<p>Traditionally, conservative Christians have been suspicious of numerology because of its unwise use by groups of Christians who see theological symbolism in every number in the OT, even the most factual. This view was inherited from mystical, pre-Christian Jewish groups, and later carried to extremes by the Kabbalists.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Expression of Numbers<\/p>\n<p>• Ways of Writing Numerals<\/p>\n<p>• Problems of Large Numbers<\/p>\n<p>• Counting by Generations<\/p>\n<p>• Approximate Use of Numbers<\/p>\n<p>• Symbolic Use of Numbers<\/p>\n<p>• Exact Statistics<\/p>\n<p>• Numerology<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ExpressionofNumbers\">Expression of Numbers<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew, and indeed any other Semitic language, has a simple but adequate system of numeration. The number one is an adjective. After that, the numerals are nouns, in parallel masculine and feminine forms, although the masculine is used with the feminine noun and vice versa. Ordinal numbers (first, second, third, etc.) exist alongside cardinal numbers (one, two, three), but as in most languages, the second set can be used instead of the first (“day two” instead of “second day”). From ten to nineteen, there is one composite form built like English “thirteen” (“three-ten”), but “twenty” is literally “tens” (the plural of “ten”). Thirty, forty, and so on are literally “threes,” “fours” (the plural of the words “three” and “four,” respectively) and so on, up to a hundred, which is a new word. There are also separate words for “thousand” and for “ten thousand,” as in Greek, Chinese, and many other languages. Larger numbers must be expressed by multiples of these (“ten thousand times ten thousand” and “thousands of thousands”), suggesting that large figures, rarely needed for small populations and tiny kingdoms, were expressed approximately. Hebrew has not only a singular and plural but also a dual form to express two of anything (two hundred, two thousand). Fractions (a half, a third, a tenth, etc.) could be expressed, and multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction were used. Indeed, instances of all four operations can be found in the Bible. The Hebrew mathematical system was basically part of the larger western Asian mathematical system, of which we know a great deal from Mesopotamia and Egypt. These countries, however, used a more highly developed mathematical system than Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WaysofWritingNumerals\">Ways of Writing Numerals<\/p>\n<p>In the Bible, numbers are always written out in words, as on the famous Moabite Stone and the Siloam Inscription. But every nation in the ancient world could also express numbers by using figures or ciphers of various kinds (like our 1, 2, 3, . . .). Because of this danger of error, in later days numbers were normally written out in full, in words, where confusion, although still possible, was not nearly so likely. An additional way of writing numbers, known both to the Hebrews and the Greeks, was the use of consecutive letters of the alphabet instead of consecutive numerals (as if we used A for 1, B for 2, etc.). This system, in wide use by NT times, is the usual system in modern Hebrew and has the advantage that numerical combinations can be pronounced by inserting arbitrary vowels, thus making artificial words. For example, if the number of the beast (Rv 13:18), 666, is expressed in alphabetical letters, it can spell out the consonants of “Nero Caesar,” although other names are possible, especially if the variant reading 616 is used.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ProblemsofLargeNumbers\">Problems of Large Numbers<\/p>\n<p>Even allowing for all these possibilities, there remain certain problems connected with large numbers, particularly in the OT. The most obvious is that of the ten long-lived patriarchs, whose ages are recorded in Genesis 5. Different figures (varying by whole centuries) are recorded for their ages in the Hebrew text, the Samaritan text, and the earliest Greek translation (known as the Septuagint), but all figures are very large. Some interpret these figures literally and point out that there is a steady reduction from the ages attained by these patriarchs to the more modest 120 years allotted to man in Noah’s time (Gn 6:3) and the 70 years accepted later as the human life span (Ps 90:10). This would correspond to the progressive spiritual deterioration of mankind after the fall, from the perfect state of Adam to the present condition. Whatever the explanation of the figures, there is no doubt that this is the theological intent of the Bible.<\/p>\n<p>The large number of Israelites who left Egypt is also problematic. If there were actually 600,000 fighting men (Nm 1:46), this would correspond to a whole nation of some 2 million or more. Possibly the word translated “thousand” means “clan units”; it would clearly be a much smaller total body, whatever its exact size. Of course, God could have maintained any number of people in the desert. The evidence of archaeology as to the population of Canaan both before and after the Israelite onslaught seems to support a lower number. The same principle might explain the large numbers given for the fighting men of the various Israelite tribes, and the huge totals for Israel and Judah’s military strength given at later times in the historical books of the OT.<\/p>\n<p>To the ordinary Bible reader, perhaps one of the biggest problems is the different numbers recorded in Chronicles and Kings, when the same incidents are being described. Manuscript errors, or confusion of numbers written by signs or single letters of the alphabet, may account for numerous individual inconsistencies, but not for wholesale differences, particularly as the figures in Chronicles are consistently much larger. These very large round numbers may have symbolic significance and may not be intended to be taken in their literal sense at all. Indeed, since the Jews had before them the book of Kings and the book of Chronicles at the same time, they can hardly have taken both sets of numbers literally themselves.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CountingbyGenerations\">Counting by Generations<\/p>\n<p>One of the problems of the OT is that of the dating of events. Even with an exact number system, there is no absolute fixed point from which to reckon. Later Jews and Christians counted from the presumed date of the Creation. Not until after the time of David and Solomon are both internal reference between the comparative dates of kings of Judah and Israel and external reference to monarchs outside Israel used. This open-endedness accounts for the vague period of “forty years” used so often in the OT (e.g., the book of Judges) for any long but indeterminate period of time, almost certainly corresponding to a generation (Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">dor<\/span>). Counting by generations is specific in some places in the Bible and may be implicit in others. For instance, Abraham’s descendants are to return to Canaan “in the fourth generation” (Gn 15:16), and the genealogy of Christ is neatly constructed on a pattern of three groups of fourteen generations (Mt 1:17), rather than on periods of years. Wherever people use and recite genealogies, such counting by generations is natural. But Abraham’s descendants are said to have returned to Canaan approximately four centuries later (Gal 3:17), and therefore the word “generation” sometimes stands for 100 years. The Hebrew word for “generation” may mean 120 years (Gn 6:3). Usually, the ancient Hebrews used vague phrases like “in those days” or “after those days” or “the days are coming,” which expressed past, present, and future without any specific mention of number. In other words, the Bible writers were more concerned with theology than with mathematics.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ApproximateUseofNumbers\">Approximate Use of Numbers<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, Israel’s 40 years in the desert is a good example of the approximate use of numbers (Nm 14:33). In the NT, Jesus was in the wilderness 40 days during the temptation (Mt 4:2), and there were 40 days between his resurrection and ascension (Acts 1:3). Moses was 40 years old at his call (Acts 7:23), apparently lived 40 years in Midian (Ex 7:7), and spent 40 years leading Israel out of Egypt and through the desert (Dt 34:7), for he is said to be 120 years old at his death. However, two generations of 40 years is the normal maximum for a healthy man (Ps 90:10), and even this is often shortened to 70 years by the rigors of life. Seventy is also used at times in this approximate sense.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SymbolicUseofNumbers\">Symbolic Use of Numbers<\/p>\n<p>In Scripture, seven symbolizes completeness or perfection. On the seventh day God rested from his labors and creation is finished (Gn 2:2). Pharaoh in his dream saw seven cattle coming from the Nile (41:2). Samson’s sacred Nazirite locks were braided in seven plaits (Jgs 16:13). Seven devils left Mary of Magdala, signifying the totality of her previous possession by Satan (Lk 8:2); “seven other devils” will enter the purified but vacant life of a person (Mt 12:45). However, on the positive side, there were the seven spirits of God (Rv 3:1). In the seventh year the Hebrew slave was to be freed (Ex 21:2), having completed his time of captivity and service. Every seventh year was a sabbatical year (Lv 25:4). Seven times seven reiterates the sense of completeness. In the Year of Jubilee (at the completion of 7 x 7 years = the 50th year), all land is freed and returns to the original owners (Lv 25:10). Pentecost, the Feast of Weeks, is seven times seven days after Passover. “Seventy,” which is literally “sevens” in Hebrew, strengthens the concept of perfection. There are 70 elders (Ex 24:1) in Israel. Israel was exiled to Babylon for 70 years (Jer 25:12) to complete its punishment. “Seventy times seven” (Mt 18:22) reiterates this still further. The Lord was not giving Peter a mathematical number of times that he should forgive another person, but rather was insisting on limitless forgiveness for a brother’s sin.<\/p>\n<p>“Three” may well share in this meaning of completion or perfection, although not so forcibly (2 Kgs 13:18). Many things happen “on the third day” (Hos 6:2). Jonah spent three days in the stomach of the fish (Mt 12:40), and the Lord rose again on the third day (1 Cor 15:4). David was offered a choice of divine punishments—three years, three months, three days (2 Sm 24:13). For the Christian, “three” takes on a far deeper significance as the number of Persons of the Trinity. The three Persons are clearly expressed, for instance, in the Great Commission (Mt 28:19) and in the Pauline benediction (2 Cor 13:13). Many echoes of this threefold expression are in the NT, and many anticipations of it in the OT, of which the thrice-repeated “Holy” in Isaiah 6:3 is the most famous.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars see four as another symbol of completeness (four winds of heaven, Dn 7:2; four horsemen, Rv 6:1-7; four living creatures around the throne of God, Rv 4:6). Five is certainly used in an indefinite sense as a small number (Is 19:18; 30:17). Nor do eight or nine seem to have any special significance, although, like other numbers, they may be used in a factual sense to describe any of God’s activities (nine plagues on Egypt, Ex 7–10). “Ten” does have significance because of the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17), but not any special symbolism earlier in the Bible. If anything, “ten” is elsewhere used in a vague way. Laban changes Jacob’s wages ten times (Gn 31:7); Daniel and his friends are ten times better than all other students (Dn 1:20); ten times over, the Jewish settlers will be warned of impending enemy attacks (Neh 4:12).<\/p>\n<p>Eleven appears to have no special biblical significance, but 12 certainly has. The clearest proof of this is the existence of the 12 tribes in Israel. In Revelation 7:4-8, where it is mathematically important that the number of tribes be limited to 12, the tribe of Dan is altogether omitted—probably on account of Dan’s sin of idolatry (Jgs 18:14-20). Ishmael’s descendants were also divided into 12 clans (Gn 17:20), so that the number 12 was apparently significant outside Israel as well. In the NT Christ chose 12 apostles (Mt 10:1-4). The link with the number of tribes is made specific when Christ tells the apostles that they will sit on 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes (Mt 19:28). However, it is interesting that, after the election and appointment of Matthias (Acts 1:26), the Christian church apparently made no subsequent efforts to maintain the number of apostles. Like “seven times seven,” “twelve times twelve” increases the force of the number. When this is further multiplied by a thousand, the figure becomes the 144,000 redeemed (Rv 7:4), who were sealed “out of all the tribes of Israel.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ExactStatistics\">Exact Statistics<\/p>\n<p>As distinct from the metaphorical use of numbers to denote completion, immensity, and the like, numbers in Hebrew were often used to give exact tallies or measurements. Such usage is known to us only from clay tablets and ostraca (broken pieces of potsherd engraved in ink, used as rough notebooks). However, ascertaining exactly what the text was in its earliest form and what that text means is difficult.<\/p>\n<p>An example is the number of the sons of Jeconiah among the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh. They were struck down by the Lord because of their failure to rejoice with the others when God’s ark returned to Israel from the Philistine country (1 Sm 6:19). The Greek text (LXX) reads “seventy”; the later Hebrew manuscripts add “fifty thousand.” But, as Beth-shemesh itself was only a small frontier town, and the “sons of Jeconiah” was presumably only one clan among several, the smaller number is obviously the original, and the large addition due to some later manuscript confusion.<\/p>\n<p>A good rule in trying to decide whether a number is statistical or impressionistic is to determine whether it is a small number, or an unusual number for which there is no obvious theological explanation. When the men of Ai killed some 36 Israelites at the first assault on the city (Jos 7:5), the smallness of the number is evidence that this is a vividly remembered factual detail. Similarly, in the case of the number of Abraham’s 318 men (Gn 14:14) or the catch of 153 fish after the resurrection (Jn 21:11), the numbers, though large, are not round numbers but unusual combinations, and are obviously meant in a literal or statistical sense. Irrelevant details like this have a habit of remaining in the memory, and are the best guarantee of the trustworthiness of the narrative.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Numerology\">Numerology<\/p>\n<p>Numerology may be said to be an extended application of the metaphorical significance of numbers (7, 40, etc.) already discussed. In the Bible, this systematization of numbers always goes with a strong sense of the sovereignty of God, his control over human history, and a belief in his ongoing purpose and its triumphant conclusion.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the first clear instance of numerology in the Bible is 1 Kings 6:1, where Solomon began to build the temple 480 years after the exodus, a period 5 times 10 times 12, or 4 times 120, the ideal life span of man in early days (Gn 6:3). First Chronicles 6:3-8 gives 12 generations of men (presumably 40 years each) to cover the same period, so “twelve generations” is probably the real basis for the computation, rather than any exact year-by-year tally. A tally would have been impossible in the days of the judges and unlikely before the monarchy. David was the first to establish an official scribe or recorder to keep daily annals in Israel (2 Sm 8:16-17), as was common in the great kingdoms from far earlier times. Such Israelite annals are later mentioned as sources of the books of the kings (2 Kgs 14:18). The number 480 is probably a rough approximation rather than exact and denotes the end of one of God’s epochs.<\/p>\n<p>When Jeremiah prophesies an exile of 70 years for Judah (Jer 25:11; 29:10), it is not only a historical prediction that was literally fulfilled but also a symbol of completeness; Judah’s punishment is complete (cf. Is 40:2). Isaiah (Is 23:15) had made a similar prophecy of a 70-year punishment for Tyre, and Ezekiel (Ez 29:11-13) prophesied a 40-year “exile” for Egypt. When these 70 years are regarded as sabbatical years, where the land must lie untilled to compensate for the 7 times 70 years of sin before, then true numerology begins (2 Chr 36:21). Here numerology is used only as an explanation of past and present, but it can also be used to explain the future, especially in the book of Daniel.<\/p>\n<p>Daniel (Dn 9:2) refers to the literal 70 years of the exile as foretold by Jeremiah. In Daniel 9:24, this has been extended to 70 weeks of years (490 years) applied to the distant future. Daniel 9:25 sees 69 of these (483 years) as elapsing before Messiah appears. Presumably, the last week of the 70 is therefore thought of as the time of his activity. However this may be interpreted in terms of actual dates, it must be harmonized with 9:26, where the Messiah is “cut off” after 62 weeks of years (434 years). The difficulty lies in establishing the starting point for this long period. This is an example of an elaborate numerology, embracing centuries of history, all ultimately based on the 70 years of Jeremiah. According to biblical principles, this can have both an “immediate” fulfillment in the return from exile, and a “prophetic” fulfillment in the far distant future in connection with the coming of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The other major example of extended numerology in Daniel is in connection with the “time, times, and half a time” (7:25). This must stand for three and a half “times,” that is, half of seven “times.” Thus, it refers either to three and a half years (half a “week” of years) or three and a half “weeks” of years (cf. “seven times” in 4:16, where “seven years” is clearly meant). Whatever may be its ultimate prophetic fulfillment in Christ, the “initial” or “partial” fulfillment is the roughly three and a half years of bitter persecution of God’s people by Antiochus Epiphanes (167–164 <span>BC<\/span>). This figure of three and a half years reappears in Revelation 11:2 (“forty-two months”), and 12:14 (“a time, and times, and half a time”), to describe the period of Rome’s persecution of the Christian church. The figure had possibly become a symbol of any bitter but limited persecution. The “two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings” of Daniel 8:14 may mean 1,150 days, which is approximately the same length of time.<\/p>\n<p>The three and a half years of Daniel 7:25 reappear in Revelation 11 in the form of “forty-two months,” the time when the heathen will trample down Jerusalem (Rv 11:2). The 1,290 days of Daniel 12:11 reappear here (in the slightly different form of 1,260 days) as the time that God’s two witnesses will prophesy (Rv 11:3). The 42 months reappear in Revelation 13:5 as the period that the wild beast will be allowed to blaspheme. While the “thousand years” of 20:6 is not derived from Daniel at all, the metaphorical use of “thousand” is familiar to the OT. The closest direct parallel is in Deuteronomy 7:9, where God’s covenant will be kept with a “thousand generations” to come.<\/p>","summary_ro":"NUMBERS AND NUMEROLOGY* Individual numbers have a symbolic as well as a literal sense in the Bible. In Daniel, and to a lesser extent in Revelation, there is a developed system of numerology where interrelated systems of numbers are used in a definite pattern. Traditionally, conservative Christians have been suspicious of numerology because of its unwise use by groups of Christians who see theological symbolism in every number in the OT, even the most factual. This view was inherited from mys...","summary_en":"NUMBERS AND NUMEROLOGY* Individual numbers have a symbolic as well as a literal sense in the Bible. In Daniel, and to a lesser extent in Revelation, there is a developed system of numerology where interrelated systems of numbers are used in a definite pattern. Traditionally, conservative Christians have been suspicious of numerology because of its unwise use by groups of Christians who see theological symbolism in every number in the OT, even the most factual. This view was inherited from mys...","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":31605,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Prophecy","title_en":"Prophecy","content_ro":"<h3>PROPHECY<\/h3>\n<p>Term, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Prophecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Types of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• The Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• Prophecy in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• The Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ProphecyintheOldTestament\">Prophecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>One of the clearest and most significant statements on the nature of prophetic inspiration in the OT is found in Numbers 12:6-8: “The <span>Lord<\/span> said to them, ‘Now listen to me! Even with prophets, I the <span>Lord<\/span> communicate by visions and dreams. But that is not how I communicate with my servant Moses. He is entrusted with my entire house. I speak to him face to face, directly and not in riddles! He sees the <span>Lord<\/span> as he is’ ” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Several important insights into the nature of prophetic inspiration are found in this passage: (1) The prophetic gift of Moses was unique in that he alone received revelations directly from God. (2) Ordinarily, prophetic revelation was received through the medium of a dream or a vision. (3) The meaning of prophetic revelation is not always completely clear; prophecy is sometimes ambiguous.<\/p>\n<p>Further insight into the nature of prophetic revelation is found in Deuteronomy 18:18: “I [God] will raise up for them a prophet like you [Moses] from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (<span>rsv<\/span>). While this passage is of interest because Jesus was identified as “the prophet like Moses” who came in fulfillment of this prediction (Acts 3:22; 7:37), the more immediate historical reference is to the succession of prophets that guided Israel from Joshua to Malachi. The phrase “I will put my words in his mouth” refers to the process of divine inspiration and is reminiscent of the common OT prophetic formula “the word of the Lord came to [such and such a prophet]” (for examples, see 1 Sm 15:10; 2 Sm 24:11; 1 Kgs 19:9; Jon 1:1; Hg 1:1; 2:1, 20; Zec 7:1, 8; 8:1). A true prophet is one who speaks (or repeats) all that God has told him.<\/p>\n<h5>Modes of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\n<p>Dreams were a commonly recognized mode of inspiration throughout the ancient world, though they were more highly regarded in Greece than in ancient Israel. Revelatory dreams in the Bible fall into two major categories: (1) dreams whose meaning is self-evident, and (2) symbolic dreams that usually require the expertise of an interpreter of dreams. Both types normally involve both visual and auditory elements. In those dreams whose meaning is self-evident, normally a supernatural being (God or an angel) appears to the dreamer and speaks to him or her in a straightforward manner.<\/p>\n<p>More frequently, revelatory dreams have symbolic elements that require interpretation. The two great dream interpreters of the OT are Joseph and Daniel; the latter is clearly a prophet. The two symbolic dreams that Joseph himself dreamed (Gn 37:5-11) had sufficiently self-evident meaning so that his brothers and father were able to interpret them immediately. More complex were the dreams of the butler and baker (40:1-19) and of Pharaoh (41:1-36), which Joseph was able to interpret with the help of God. Similarly, Daniel was enabled to interpret the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar (Dn 2:25-45; 4:4-27). The skill in interpreting such dreams was attributed by both Joseph and Daniel to God (Gn 40:8; 41:16, 25; Dn 2:27-30; cf. 4:9). While dreams are used almost interchangeably with visions in referring to modes of prophetic inspiration (Jl 2:28), dreams do not occupy a significant part in the prophetic revelations of any of the OT prophets, with the exception of Daniel.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most characteristic modes of prophetic inspiration was the vision (Nm 12:6; 24:4, 16; Hos 12:10). The revelatory visions experienced by the prophets were not limited to visual phenomena alone but also included the auditory dimension as well. In Isaiah 1:1, the author describes his entire prophetic book as a “vision”: “These visions concerning Judah and Jerusalem came to Isaiah son of Amoz during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah—all kings of Judah” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Yet in the very next verse, Isaiah says, “Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth! This is what the <span>Lord<\/span> says.” Again, in Amos 1:1, “The <em>words<\/em> of Amos, who was among the shepherds of Tekoa, which he <em>saw<\/em> concerning Israel” (<span>rsv<\/span>, emphasis added).<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\n<p>All prophecy, whether biblical or not, presupposes that the prophet either possessed or was possessed by a personal supernatural power. The external behavioral manifestations of this possession can exhibit great variety.<\/p>\n<p>The prophetic phenomenon generally designated “ecstatic” prophecy appears to have existed in Canaan prior to the arrival of the Hebrew tribes in the 13th century <span>BC<\/span>. The first reference to ecstatic prophecy in Israel occurs in 1 Samuel 10:5-13 (11th century <span>BC<\/span>), and it persisted at least till the sixth century <span>BC<\/span> (Jer 29:26).<\/p>\n<p>The ecstatic prophet achieves a trancelike state by self-induced means. The most common devices used to achieve a state of ecstasy were musical instruments, such as the harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre (1 Sm 10:5). Among the prophets of Baal, self-flagellation was another means of inducing ecstasy (1 Kgs 18:28-29).<\/p>\n<p>This kind of prophetic ecstasy was usually practiced by groups of prophets (1 Sm 10:5), and such ecstasy was contagious. When Saul met a band of such prophets, the Spirit of God came upon him and he, too, began to prophesy (vv 10-13), a phenomenon that occurred repeatedly to various messengers sent by Saul on a later occasion (19:20-22). At that time Saul again prophesied, and his ecstatic behavior is described in 1 Samuel 19:24. When Elisha was asked to prophesy for King Jehoram of Israel, he first requested a minstrel. When the minstrel played, the power of the Lord came upon him (2 Kgs 3:15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TypesofOldTestamentProphets\">Types of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\n<p>There are two basic types of prophetic commission in the OT. One type is that of a narrative call by God to a particular individual whose objections to the call are gradually overcome in a dialogue between himself and God. The classic example of this type of prophetic commission is found in Jeremiah 1:4-8:<\/p>\n<p>The <span>Lord<\/span> gave me a message. He said, “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my spokesman to the world.”<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>“O Sovereign <span>Lord<\/span>,” I said, “I can’t speak for you! I’m too young!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>“Don’t say that,” the <span>Lord<\/span> replied, “for you must go wherever I send you and say whatever I tell you. And don’t be afraid of the people, for I will be with you and take care of you. I, the <span>Lord<\/span>, have spoken!” (<span>nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Similar prophetic commissions including such dialogues are associated with the calls of Moses (Ex 3:1–4:17) and Gideon (Jgs 6:11-17).<\/p>\n<p>The second major form of prophetic commission is the “throne vision.” An outstanding example is Isaiah 6:1-8:<\/p>\n<p>In the year King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord. He was sitting on a lofty throne, and the train of his robe filled the Temple. . . .<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Then I said, “My destruction is sealed, for I am a sinful man and a member of a sinful race. Yet I have seen the King, the <span>Lord<\/span> Almighty!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>Then one of the seraphim flew over to the altar, and he picked up a burning coal with a pair of tongs. He touched my lips with it and said, “See, this coal has touched your lips. Now your guilt is removed, and your sins are forgiven.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>Then I heard the Lord asking, “Whom should I send as a messenger to my people? Who will go for us?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>And I said, “Lord, I’ll go! Send me.” (<span>nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Here we have an account of the visionary presence of a prophet in the heavenly council; in this case, however, the prophet participates in the deliberations and thereby receives a prophetic commission. Though few prophets have left accounts of their divine commissions, most of them appear to have been conscious of having been “sent” by God (Is 48:16; Hos 8:1; Am 7:14-15). According to Jeremiah, false prophets did not receive such divine commissions (Jer 23:21, 32; 28:15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMessageoftheProphets\">The Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of the Message<\/h5>\n<p>The most common introductory formula for prophetic oracles in the OT is the phrase “Thus says the Lord,” which occurs hundreds of times in prophetic contexts. This formula clearly implies that the pronouncement so introduced is not the word of the prophet who utters the oracle but of the God of Israel who delivered his word to his prophet. The use of this formula also reiterates the prophet’s sense of divine commission. In oracles introduced in this manner, God speaks in the first person. In fact, virtually all Israelite prophetic utterance is formulated as the direct speech of the God of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets used many literary forms in which to express their oracles. Two of the more widely used forms of prophetic speech are the judgment speech and the oracle of salvation. The judgment speech is composed of at least two central elements: the speech of rebuke or invective, and the pronouncement of judgment (see 2 Kgs 1:3-4). The second common prophetic speech form is the oracle of salvation (see Is 41:8-13). Other fixed forms of prophetic speech include the prophecy of salvation (43:14-21), the proclamation of salvation (41:17-20; 42:14-17; 43:16-21; 49:7-12), and the woe oracle (Is 5:8-10; 10:1-4; Am 5:18-24; 6:1-7; Mi 2:1-5).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of the Message<\/h5>\n<p>The common adage that OT prophets were not “foretellers” but “forthtellers” is not strictly correct. All of the prophets predict the future. Such prediction, however, is based not on human curiosity of what the future will hold but rather is rooted in the future consequences of past or present violations of the covenant, or on a future act of deliverance that will provide hope for a discouraged people. Most of the prophetic speeches that have been preserved in the OT were originally delivered as public proclamations or sermons. Most of these prophetic proclamations were evoked by the iniquity and apostasy of Israel. Hosea and Jeremiah condemned Israel because she had broken the covenant (Jer 11:2-3; Hos 8:1).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets are frequently associated with social justice and social reform, and these elements were unquestionably an important dimension of their message. Amos denounced the rich who afflicted the poor (Am 2:6-8; 4:1; 5:11; 8:4-6). He railed against sexual immorality (2:6-8) and against those who take bribes (5:12). Hosea provided a list of prevalent vices, including lying, killing, stealing, adultery, and idolatry (Hos 4:2). Idolatry was a particular target for his denunciations (8:5; 11:2). The background for such heated denunciations of Israel’s behavior is God’s unquenchable love for Israel (Is 43:4; Jer 31:3; Hos 3:1; 11:1-4; 14:4; Mal 1:2), which is inseparable from his election of Israel (Is 43:1; Jer 33:24; Ez 20:5; Hos 3).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets were concerned not only with the transgressions of Israel and the historical judgment that would inevitably follow but also with the achievement of a final future time of bliss. The message of many of the prophets is thoroughly eschatological (i.e., pertaining to the end times). One such eschatological concept is that of the Day of the Lord. The concept of the Day of the Lord first appears in Amos, where the emphasis lies on the disaster that will befall Israel on that day. Amos’s emphasis on disaster notwithstanding, the Day of the Lord is a conception that had both salvific as well as judgmental overtones for Israel. While the disaster that will occur in the Day of the Lord can be viewed in terms of a literal historical fulfillment in the tragic events of 722 <span>BC<\/span> (the fall of Samaria) and 586 <span>BC<\/span> (the fall of Judah), there are nevertheless features of these predictions that transcend historical fulfillment and reach toward eschatological fulfillment.<\/p>\n<p>Since the Israelite conception of “salvation” was largely temporal in its dimensions, it included such blessings as length of life, fruitfulness of the womb and field, peace and victory over one’s enemies, the abundance of water, and so on. In harmony with this conception of salvation, the future age is conceived in precisely those terms, as in Amos 9:13-15.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets pictured a time when David himself, or someone very much like him, would return and inaugurate a golden era reminiscent of the great Davidic and Solomonic period. The covenant of God with David was not a conditional covenant but rather one that was absolutely inviolable (2 Sm 7:4-17; Ps 89; Jer 33:19-22), and it was with this knowledge that the prophets could look forward confidently to a restoration of David’s throne (Jer 17:24-26; 23:5-6; 33:14-15).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ProphecyintheNewTestament\">Prophecy in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In contrast to the few self-proclaimed prophets of the intertestamental period, early Christianity began with a flurry of prophetic activity that lasted well into the second century <span>AD<\/span>. Jesus, his disciples and followers, and the early Christians were convinced that the times in which they lived were times in which OT prophecy was being fulfilled (Mk 1:14-15; Acts 2:16-21; Rom 16:25-27; 1 Cor 10:11). Yet this era was not only one of fulfillment but also one of the renewal of the prophetic gift.<\/p>\n<h5>John the Baptist<\/h5>\n<p>John the Baptist is remembered in the NT primarily as the forerunner of Jesus whose coming was predicted by Malachi (Mal 4:5-6). Yet, in his own right, John proclaimed the imminent judgment of God with a flair of denunciation and rebuke reminiscent of the OT prophets. John’s costume, consisting of a hairy cloak and a leather girdle (Mk 1:6), was reminiscent of the typical garb of OT prophets (1 Kgs 19:19; 2 Kgs 1:8; 2:13-14; Zec 13:4). John was regarded as a prophet by people everywhere (Mt 14:5; 17:10-13; Mk 9:11-13; 11:32; Lk 1:76; 7:26). Luke reports, in a style similar to the OT prophetic narratives, that “the word of God came to John” (Lk 3:2). Two short prophetic speeches have been preserved in Matthew 3:7-10 (cf. Lk 3:7-9) and Mark 1:7-8 (cf. Mt 3:11-12; Lk 3:15-18). In the first speech, John denounced those of his generation who had transgressed the covenant law and exhorted them to change their manner of life. In the second speech, John predicted the coming of the Mighty One, Jesus (Mt 3:11; Mk 1:7; Lk 3:16; Jn 1:15, 27, 30; Acts 13:25). John’s style, however, was not precisely that of the OT prophets. His pronouncements were made on his own authority; never did he use formulas such as “thus says the Lord,” or present his prophetic utterances as if they were speeches made by God. Yet, in spite of these differences, John is appropriately regarded as the last representative of the OT prophetic tradition (Mt 11:13; Lk 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus of Nazareth<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus was popularly regarded as a prophet (Mt 16:14; 21:10-11; Mk 6:14-15; 8:28; Lk 7:16, 39; 9:8, 19; Jn 6:14; 7:40, 52). This assessment was based as much on the mighty deeds Jesus performed as on his prophetic speeches and predictions. Though Jesus nowhere claimed prophetic status directly, that claim is implicit in Mark 6:4: “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown” (cf. Mt 13:57; Lk 4:24). It is implicit as well in Luke 13:33: “Yes, today, tomorrow, and the next day I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem!” (<span>nlt<\/span>). In Acts, Jesus is regarded as “the prophet like Moses” predicted in Deuteronomy 18:18 (Acts 3:22; 7:37). Matthew presents Jesus as the New Moses, but he does not particularly emphasize his prophetic role. John, however, like Luke, emphasizes Jesus’ role as the prophet (Jn 4:19; 6:14-15; 7:40).<\/p>\n<p>While the Gospels and Acts reflect the notion that Jesus was a prophet, they also emphasize the fact that he was much more than a prophet. Nevertheless, the notion of prophetism was sufficiently important in early Judaism that Jesus’ recognition as a prophet is very significant. There are 12 solid reasons for regarding Jesus as a prophet in the OT tradition: (1) The sovereign authority of Jesus’ teaching (Mk 1:27), a feature underlined by his use of the introductory formula “(Amen) I say to you,” which is reminiscent of the formula “thus says the Lord” used by the OT prophets. (2) The poetic character of many of Jesus’ sayings is unlike contemporary rabbinic teaching but is similar to the poetic rhetoric of the OT prophets. (3) Jesus experienced visions (Lk 10:18) like the ancient prophets. (4) Jesus, like the prophets, made many predictions (Mt 23:38; Mk 13:2; 14:58; Lk 13:35; etc.). (5) Like the OT prophets, Jesus performed symbolic acts (such as the cleansing of the temple, the entry into Jerusalem, and the Last Supper). (6) Jesus, like the prophets, when necessary, rejected the formal observance of religious ritual and emphasized the moral and spiritual dimensions of obedience to God. (7) Jesus announced the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God—an eschatological proclamation similar to those made by the prophets. (8) Like the OT prophets, Jesus functioned as a preacher of repentance. (9) Jesus, like many of the prophets, was conscious of a special calling of God (Mt 15:24; Mk 8:31; 9:37; 14:36; Lk 4:18-26). (10) Jesus, like the prophets, received divine revelation through intimate communion with God (Mt 11:27; Lk 10:22). (11) Like the prophets, Jesus represented God; to obey him was to obey God, to reject him was to reject God (Mk 9:37; cf. Ez 33:30-33). (12) Like the prophets, Jesus was conscious of a mission to all Israel (Mt 15:24; 19:28; Lk 22:30).<\/p>\n<p>Among the many prophetic predictions of Jesus are the following:<\/p>\n<p>1. Predictions of the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God (Mt 10:7-8, 23; 23:39; Mk 1:15; 9:1; 13:28-29)<\/p>\n<li>2. Predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Mt 23:37-39; 24:2; 26:61; 27:40; Mk 13:2; 14:58; 15:29; Lk 13:34-35; 21:6; Jn 2:19-21)<\/li>\n<li>3. Predictions of the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 10:23, 32-33; 12:40; 13:40-41; 16:27; 24:27, 37-39; Mk 8:38; 13:26-27; 14:62; Lk 9:26; 11:30; 12:8-9; 17:24, 26)<\/li>\n<li>4. Predictions of the end of the age. The longest prophetic section in the Gospels is the eschatological discourse of Jesus in Mark 13:1-32 (cf. Mt 24:1-36; Lk 21:5-33), in which a number of predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age are woven into a lengthy discourse to the disciples.<\/li>\n<h5>Prophecy as a Gift for the Believers<\/h5>\n<p>The beginning of prophetic activity in early Christianity, according to Acts, coincided with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the earliest Christians on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-21). Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost indicates that the outpouring of the Spirit fulfilled Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:4, 17-21; cf. Jl 2:28-32). Further, since the Spirit had been poured out upon all early Christians (that Spirit being a Spirit of prophecy), all are actual or potential prophets.<\/p>\n<p>According to 1 Corinthians 12:28 (see also Rom 12:6; Eph 4:11), God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, and third teachers. The names of several early Christian prophets have been preserved. These include Agabus (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10-11); Judas and Silas (15:32); Barnabas, Simeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Paul (13:1); and the four virgin daughters of Philip the evangelist (21:8-9). John, the author of Revelation, was certainly a prophet (Rv 1:3; 22:9, 18), though he never directly assumed that title.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRoleoftheChristianProphet\">The Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\n<p>Christian prophets were leaders in early Christian communities (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11), who exercised their gift in church gatherings (Acts 13:1-3; 11:27-28; 1 Cor 12–14; Rv 1:10). Since the Spirit of God was particularly active in Christian worship, prophecy was a major means whereby God communicated with his people. Prophets, like apostles and teachers, did not hold offices in local communities like bishops, elders, and deacons. Rather, they were chosen, not by individual congregations, but by divine commission and so were honored and accepted in all local communities.<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian prophets were both itinerant and settled, though itinerant prophets seem to have been more prevalent in Syria-Palestine and Asia Minor than in the European churches.<\/p>\n<h5>The Function of Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>According to Paul, the central purpose of prophecy (as of all other spiritual gifts) is that of building up or edifying the church. According to 1 Corinthians 14:3, “one who prophesies is helping others grow in the Lord, encouraging and comforting them” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Again, in 1 Corinthians 14:4, Paul states that the “one who speaks a word of prophecy strengthens the entire church.” Paul discussed the subject of spiritual gifts, particularly tongues speaking and prophecy, because the Corinthians had placed an excessive emphasis on speaking in tongues. Paul did not object to speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:18, 39), but he did point out that, since it was generally incomprehensible, the church could not be edified by it. Prophecy, which consisted of comprehensible speech inspired by the Spirit, contributed to the mutual edification, encouragement, and consolation of all present (1 Cor 14:20-25, 39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>We know only a little about the content of prophecies uttered in the first-century church. Prophetic utterance occasionally provided divine guidance in making important decisions in early Christianity. Through a prophetic utterance, Paul and Barnabas were selected for a particular mission (Acts 13:1-3; cf. 1 Tm 1:18; 4:14). Probably through prophetic utterance, Paul and Timothy were forbidden to preach the gospel in Asia (Acts 16:6), and they were similarly forbidden by the Spirit of Jesus to go into Bithynia (v 7). Perhaps the most frequent use of prophecy is the prediction of the future. Agabus predicted a universal famine (11:28) and the imminent arrest of Paul (21:11). Other prophets had also predicted his impending imprisonment (20:23). The prophecies contained in the Revelation of John are all oriented toward the future events that will gradually unfold in the last days. Yet the purpose of John’s elaborate prophecy is not to satisfy the curiosity of his audience but rather to comfort and encourage them in the midst of persecution.<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>Unlike the prophets of the OT, Christian prophets did not always present their message in the form of a direct speech from God or Jesus. There are few, if any, formal indicators of the presence of prophetic speech in early Christian literature. The book of Revelation is one notable exception.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Dreams; Oracle; Promise; Prophet, Prophetess; Prophets, False; Visions.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PROPHECY<\/h3>\n<p>Term, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Prophecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Types of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• The Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• Prophecy in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• The Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ProphecyintheOldTestament\">Prophecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>One of the clearest and most significant statements on the nature of prophetic inspiration in the OT is found in Numbers 12:6-8: “The <span>Lord<\/span> said to them, ‘Now listen to me! Even with prophets, I the <span>Lord<\/span> communicate by visions and dreams. But that is not how I communicate with my servant Moses. He is entrusted with my entire house. I speak to him face to face, directly and not in riddles! He sees the <span>Lord<\/span> as he is’ ” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Several important insights into the nature of prophetic inspiration are found in this passage: (1) The prophetic gift of Moses was unique in that he alone received revelations directly from God. (2) Ordinarily, prophetic revelation was received through the medium of a dream or a vision. (3) The meaning of prophetic revelation is not always completely clear; prophecy is sometimes ambiguous.<\/p>\n<p>Further insight into the nature of prophetic revelation is found in Deuteronomy 18:18: “I [God] will raise up for them a prophet like you [Moses] from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (<span>rsv<\/span>). While this passage is of interest because Jesus was identified as “the prophet like Moses” who came in fulfillment of this prediction (Acts 3:22; 7:37), the more immediate historical reference is to the succession of prophets that guided Israel from Joshua to Malachi. The phrase “I will put my words in his mouth” refers to the process of divine inspiration and is reminiscent of the common OT prophetic formula “the word of the Lord came to [such and such a prophet]” (for examples, see 1 Sm 15:10; 2 Sm 24:11; 1 Kgs 19:9; Jon 1:1; Hg 1:1; 2:1, 20; Zec 7:1, 8; 8:1). A true prophet is one who speaks (or repeats) all that God has told him.<\/p>\n<h5>Modes of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\n<p>Dreams were a commonly recognized mode of inspiration throughout the ancient world, though they were more highly regarded in Greece than in ancient Israel. Revelatory dreams in the Bible fall into two major categories: (1) dreams whose meaning is self-evident, and (2) symbolic dreams that usually require the expertise of an interpreter of dreams. Both types normally involve both visual and auditory elements. In those dreams whose meaning is self-evident, normally a supernatural being (God or an angel) appears to the dreamer and speaks to him or her in a straightforward manner.<\/p>\n<p>More frequently, revelatory dreams have symbolic elements that require interpretation. The two great dream interpreters of the OT are Joseph and Daniel; the latter is clearly a prophet. The two symbolic dreams that Joseph himself dreamed (Gn 37:5-11) had sufficiently self-evident meaning so that his brothers and father were able to interpret them immediately. More complex were the dreams of the butler and baker (40:1-19) and of Pharaoh (41:1-36), which Joseph was able to interpret with the help of God. Similarly, Daniel was enabled to interpret the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar (Dn 2:25-45; 4:4-27). The skill in interpreting such dreams was attributed by both Joseph and Daniel to God (Gn 40:8; 41:16, 25; Dn 2:27-30; cf. 4:9). While dreams are used almost interchangeably with visions in referring to modes of prophetic inspiration (Jl 2:28), dreams do not occupy a significant part in the prophetic revelations of any of the OT prophets, with the exception of Daniel.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most characteristic modes of prophetic inspiration was the vision (Nm 12:6; 24:4, 16; Hos 12:10). The revelatory visions experienced by the prophets were not limited to visual phenomena alone but also included the auditory dimension as well. In Isaiah 1:1, the author describes his entire prophetic book as a “vision”: “These visions concerning Judah and Jerusalem came to Isaiah son of Amoz during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah—all kings of Judah” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Yet in the very next verse, Isaiah says, “Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth! This is what the <span>Lord<\/span> says.” Again, in Amos 1:1, “The <em>words<\/em> of Amos, who was among the shepherds of Tekoa, which he <em>saw<\/em> concerning Israel” (<span>rsv<\/span>, emphasis added).<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\n<p>All prophecy, whether biblical or not, presupposes that the prophet either possessed or was possessed by a personal supernatural power. The external behavioral manifestations of this possession can exhibit great variety.<\/p>\n<p>The prophetic phenomenon generally designated “ecstatic” prophecy appears to have existed in Canaan prior to the arrival of the Hebrew tribes in the 13th century <span>BC<\/span>. The first reference to ecstatic prophecy in Israel occurs in 1 Samuel 10:5-13 (11th century <span>BC<\/span>), and it persisted at least till the sixth century <span>BC<\/span> (Jer 29:26).<\/p>\n<p>The ecstatic prophet achieves a trancelike state by self-induced means. The most common devices used to achieve a state of ecstasy were musical instruments, such as the harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre (1 Sm 10:5). Among the prophets of Baal, self-flagellation was another means of inducing ecstasy (1 Kgs 18:28-29).<\/p>\n<p>This kind of prophetic ecstasy was usually practiced by groups of prophets (1 Sm 10:5), and such ecstasy was contagious. When Saul met a band of such prophets, the Spirit of God came upon him and he, too, began to prophesy (vv 10-13), a phenomenon that occurred repeatedly to various messengers sent by Saul on a later occasion (19:20-22). At that time Saul again prophesied, and his ecstatic behavior is described in 1 Samuel 19:24. When Elisha was asked to prophesy for King Jehoram of Israel, he first requested a minstrel. When the minstrel played, the power of the Lord came upon him (2 Kgs 3:15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TypesofOldTestamentProphets\">Types of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\n<p>There are two basic types of prophetic commission in the OT. One type is that of a narrative call by God to a particular individual whose objections to the call are gradually overcome in a dialogue between himself and God. The classic example of this type of prophetic commission is found in Jeremiah 1:4-8:<\/p>\n<p>The <span>Lord<\/span> gave me a message. He said, “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my spokesman to the world.”<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>“O Sovereign <span>Lord<\/span>,” I said, “I can’t speak for you! I’m too young!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>“Don’t say that,” the <span>Lord<\/span> replied, “for you must go wherever I send you and say whatever I tell you. And don’t be afraid of the people, for I will be with you and take care of you. I, the <span>Lord<\/span>, have spoken!” (<span>nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Similar prophetic commissions including such dialogues are associated with the calls of Moses (Ex 3:1–4:17) and Gideon (Jgs 6:11-17).<\/p>\n<p>The second major form of prophetic commission is the “throne vision.” An outstanding example is Isaiah 6:1-8:<\/p>\n<p>In the year King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord. He was sitting on a lofty throne, and the train of his robe filled the Temple. . . .<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Then I said, “My destruction is sealed, for I am a sinful man and a member of a sinful race. Yet I have seen the King, the <span>Lord<\/span> Almighty!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>Then one of the seraphim flew over to the altar, and he picked up a burning coal with a pair of tongs. He touched my lips with it and said, “See, this coal has touched your lips. Now your guilt is removed, and your sins are forgiven.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>Then I heard the Lord asking, “Whom should I send as a messenger to my people? Who will go for us?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>And I said, “Lord, I’ll go! Send me.” (<span>nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Here we have an account of the visionary presence of a prophet in the heavenly council; in this case, however, the prophet participates in the deliberations and thereby receives a prophetic commission. Though few prophets have left accounts of their divine commissions, most of them appear to have been conscious of having been “sent” by God (Is 48:16; Hos 8:1; Am 7:14-15). According to Jeremiah, false prophets did not receive such divine commissions (Jer 23:21, 32; 28:15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMessageoftheProphets\">The Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of the Message<\/h5>\n<p>The most common introductory formula for prophetic oracles in the OT is the phrase “Thus says the Lord,” which occurs hundreds of times in prophetic contexts. This formula clearly implies that the pronouncement so introduced is not the word of the prophet who utters the oracle but of the God of Israel who delivered his word to his prophet. The use of this formula also reiterates the prophet’s sense of divine commission. In oracles introduced in this manner, God speaks in the first person. In fact, virtually all Israelite prophetic utterance is formulated as the direct speech of the God of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets used many literary forms in which to express their oracles. Two of the more widely used forms of prophetic speech are the judgment speech and the oracle of salvation. The judgment speech is composed of at least two central elements: the speech of rebuke or invective, and the pronouncement of judgment (see 2 Kgs 1:3-4). The second common prophetic speech form is the oracle of salvation (see Is 41:8-13). Other fixed forms of prophetic speech include the prophecy of salvation (43:14-21), the proclamation of salvation (41:17-20; 42:14-17; 43:16-21; 49:7-12), and the woe oracle (Is 5:8-10; 10:1-4; Am 5:18-24; 6:1-7; Mi 2:1-5).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of the Message<\/h5>\n<p>The common adage that OT prophets were not “foretellers” but “forthtellers” is not strictly correct. All of the prophets predict the future. Such prediction, however, is based not on human curiosity of what the future will hold but rather is rooted in the future consequences of past or present violations of the covenant, or on a future act of deliverance that will provide hope for a discouraged people. Most of the prophetic speeches that have been preserved in the OT were originally delivered as public proclamations or sermons. Most of these prophetic proclamations were evoked by the iniquity and apostasy of Israel. Hosea and Jeremiah condemned Israel because she had broken the covenant (Jer 11:2-3; Hos 8:1).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets are frequently associated with social justice and social reform, and these elements were unquestionably an important dimension of their message. Amos denounced the rich who afflicted the poor (Am 2:6-8; 4:1; 5:11; 8:4-6). He railed against sexual immorality (2:6-8) and against those who take bribes (5:12). Hosea provided a list of prevalent vices, including lying, killing, stealing, adultery, and idolatry (Hos 4:2). Idolatry was a particular target for his denunciations (8:5; 11:2). The background for such heated denunciations of Israel’s behavior is God’s unquenchable love for Israel (Is 43:4; Jer 31:3; Hos 3:1; 11:1-4; 14:4; Mal 1:2), which is inseparable from his election of Israel (Is 43:1; Jer 33:24; Ez 20:5; Hos 3).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets were concerned not only with the transgressions of Israel and the historical judgment that would inevitably follow but also with the achievement of a final future time of bliss. The message of many of the prophets is thoroughly eschatological (i.e., pertaining to the end times). One such eschatological concept is that of the Day of the Lord. The concept of the Day of the Lord first appears in Amos, where the emphasis lies on the disaster that will befall Israel on that day. Amos’s emphasis on disaster notwithstanding, the Day of the Lord is a conception that had both salvific as well as judgmental overtones for Israel. While the disaster that will occur in the Day of the Lord can be viewed in terms of a literal historical fulfillment in the tragic events of 722 <span>BC<\/span> (the fall of Samaria) and 586 <span>BC<\/span> (the fall of Judah), there are nevertheless features of these predictions that transcend historical fulfillment and reach toward eschatological fulfillment.<\/p>\n<p>Since the Israelite conception of “salvation” was largely temporal in its dimensions, it included such blessings as length of life, fruitfulness of the womb and field, peace and victory over one’s enemies, the abundance of water, and so on. In harmony with this conception of salvation, the future age is conceived in precisely those terms, as in Amos 9:13-15.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets pictured a time when David himself, or someone very much like him, would return and inaugurate a golden era reminiscent of the great Davidic and Solomonic period. The covenant of God with David was not a conditional covenant but rather one that was absolutely inviolable (2 Sm 7:4-17; Ps 89; Jer 33:19-22), and it was with this knowledge that the prophets could look forward confidently to a restoration of David’s throne (Jer 17:24-26; 23:5-6; 33:14-15).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ProphecyintheNewTestament\">Prophecy in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In contrast to the few self-proclaimed prophets of the intertestamental period, early Christianity began with a flurry of prophetic activity that lasted well into the second century <span>AD<\/span>. Jesus, his disciples and followers, and the early Christians were convinced that the times in which they lived were times in which OT prophecy was being fulfilled (Mk 1:14-15; Acts 2:16-21; Rom 16:25-27; 1 Cor 10:11). Yet this era was not only one of fulfillment but also one of the renewal of the prophetic gift.<\/p>\n<h5>John the Baptist<\/h5>\n<p>John the Baptist is remembered in the NT primarily as the forerunner of Jesus whose coming was predicted by Malachi (Mal 4:5-6). Yet, in his own right, John proclaimed the imminent judgment of God with a flair of denunciation and rebuke reminiscent of the OT prophets. John’s costume, consisting of a hairy cloak and a leather girdle (Mk 1:6), was reminiscent of the typical garb of OT prophets (1 Kgs 19:19; 2 Kgs 1:8; 2:13-14; Zec 13:4). John was regarded as a prophet by people everywhere (Mt 14:5; 17:10-13; Mk 9:11-13; 11:32; Lk 1:76; 7:26). Luke reports, in a style similar to the OT prophetic narratives, that “the word of God came to John” (Lk 3:2). Two short prophetic speeches have been preserved in Matthew 3:7-10 (cf. Lk 3:7-9) and Mark 1:7-8 (cf. Mt 3:11-12; Lk 3:15-18). In the first speech, John denounced those of his generation who had transgressed the covenant law and exhorted them to change their manner of life. In the second speech, John predicted the coming of the Mighty One, Jesus (Mt 3:11; Mk 1:7; Lk 3:16; Jn 1:15, 27, 30; Acts 13:25). John’s style, however, was not precisely that of the OT prophets. His pronouncements were made on his own authority; never did he use formulas such as “thus says the Lord,” or present his prophetic utterances as if they were speeches made by God. Yet, in spite of these differences, John is appropriately regarded as the last representative of the OT prophetic tradition (Mt 11:13; Lk 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus of Nazareth<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus was popularly regarded as a prophet (Mt 16:14; 21:10-11; Mk 6:14-15; 8:28; Lk 7:16, 39; 9:8, 19; Jn 6:14; 7:40, 52). This assessment was based as much on the mighty deeds Jesus performed as on his prophetic speeches and predictions. Though Jesus nowhere claimed prophetic status directly, that claim is implicit in Mark 6:4: “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown” (cf. Mt 13:57; Lk 4:24). It is implicit as well in Luke 13:33: “Yes, today, tomorrow, and the next day I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem!” (<span>nlt<\/span>). In Acts, Jesus is regarded as “the prophet like Moses” predicted in Deuteronomy 18:18 (Acts 3:22; 7:37). Matthew presents Jesus as the New Moses, but he does not particularly emphasize his prophetic role. John, however, like Luke, emphasizes Jesus’ role as the prophet (Jn 4:19; 6:14-15; 7:40).<\/p>\n<p>While the Gospels and Acts reflect the notion that Jesus was a prophet, they also emphasize the fact that he was much more than a prophet. Nevertheless, the notion of prophetism was sufficiently important in early Judaism that Jesus’ recognition as a prophet is very significant. There are 12 solid reasons for regarding Jesus as a prophet in the OT tradition: (1) The sovereign authority of Jesus’ teaching (Mk 1:27), a feature underlined by his use of the introductory formula “(Amen) I say to you,” which is reminiscent of the formula “thus says the Lord” used by the OT prophets. (2) The poetic character of many of Jesus’ sayings is unlike contemporary rabbinic teaching but is similar to the poetic rhetoric of the OT prophets. (3) Jesus experienced visions (Lk 10:18) like the ancient prophets. (4) Jesus, like the prophets, made many predictions (Mt 23:38; Mk 13:2; 14:58; Lk 13:35; etc.). (5) Like the OT prophets, Jesus performed symbolic acts (such as the cleansing of the temple, the entry into Jerusalem, and the Last Supper). (6) Jesus, like the prophets, when necessary, rejected the formal observance of religious ritual and emphasized the moral and spiritual dimensions of obedience to God. (7) Jesus announced the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God—an eschatological proclamation similar to those made by the prophets. (8) Like the OT prophets, Jesus functioned as a preacher of repentance. (9) Jesus, like many of the prophets, was conscious of a special calling of God (Mt 15:24; Mk 8:31; 9:37; 14:36; Lk 4:18-26). (10) Jesus, like the prophets, received divine revelation through intimate communion with God (Mt 11:27; Lk 10:22). (11) Like the prophets, Jesus represented God; to obey him was to obey God, to reject him was to reject God (Mk 9:37; cf. Ez 33:30-33). (12) Like the prophets, Jesus was conscious of a mission to all Israel (Mt 15:24; 19:28; Lk 22:30).<\/p>\n<p>Among the many prophetic predictions of Jesus are the following:<\/p>\n<p>1. Predictions of the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God (Mt 10:7-8, 23; 23:39; Mk 1:15; 9:1; 13:28-29)<\/p>\n<li>2. Predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Mt 23:37-39; 24:2; 26:61; 27:40; Mk 13:2; 14:58; 15:29; Lk 13:34-35; 21:6; Jn 2:19-21)<\/li>\n<li>3. Predictions of the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 10:23, 32-33; 12:40; 13:40-41; 16:27; 24:27, 37-39; Mk 8:38; 13:26-27; 14:62; Lk 9:26; 11:30; 12:8-9; 17:24, 26)<\/li>\n<li>4. Predictions of the end of the age. The longest prophetic section in the Gospels is the eschatological discourse of Jesus in Mark 13:1-32 (cf. Mt 24:1-36; Lk 21:5-33), in which a number of predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age are woven into a lengthy discourse to the disciples.<\/li>\n<h5>Prophecy as a Gift for the Believers<\/h5>\n<p>The beginning of prophetic activity in early Christianity, according to Acts, coincided with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the earliest Christians on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-21). Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost indicates that the outpouring of the Spirit fulfilled Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:4, 17-21; cf. Jl 2:28-32). Further, since the Spirit had been poured out upon all early Christians (that Spirit being a Spirit of prophecy), all are actual or potential prophets.<\/p>\n<p>According to 1 Corinthians 12:28 (see also Rom 12:6; Eph 4:11), God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, and third teachers. The names of several early Christian prophets have been preserved. These include Agabus (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10-11); Judas and Silas (15:32); Barnabas, Simeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Paul (13:1); and the four virgin daughters of Philip the evangelist (21:8-9). John, the author of Revelation, was certainly a prophet (Rv 1:3; 22:9, 18), though he never directly assumed that title.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRoleoftheChristianProphet\">The Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\n<p>Christian prophets were leaders in early Christian communities (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11), who exercised their gift in church gatherings (Acts 13:1-3; 11:27-28; 1 Cor 12–14; Rv 1:10). Since the Spirit of God was particularly active in Christian worship, prophecy was a major means whereby God communicated with his people. Prophets, like apostles and teachers, did not hold offices in local communities like bishops, elders, and deacons. Rather, they were chosen, not by individual congregations, but by divine commission and so were honored and accepted in all local communities.<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian prophets were both itinerant and settled, though itinerant prophets seem to have been more prevalent in Syria-Palestine and Asia Minor than in the European churches.<\/p>\n<h5>The Function of Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>According to Paul, the central purpose of prophecy (as of all other spiritual gifts) is that of building up or edifying the church. According to 1 Corinthians 14:3, “one who prophesies is helping others grow in the Lord, encouraging and comforting them” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Again, in 1 Corinthians 14:4, Paul states that the “one who speaks a word of prophecy strengthens the entire church.” Paul discussed the subject of spiritual gifts, particularly tongues speaking and prophecy, because the Corinthians had placed an excessive emphasis on speaking in tongues. Paul did not object to speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:18, 39), but he did point out that, since it was generally incomprehensible, the church could not be edified by it. Prophecy, which consisted of comprehensible speech inspired by the Spirit, contributed to the mutual edification, encouragement, and consolation of all present (1 Cor 14:20-25, 39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>We know only a little about the content of prophecies uttered in the first-century church. Prophetic utterance occasionally provided divine guidance in making important decisions in early Christianity. Through a prophetic utterance, Paul and Barnabas were selected for a particular mission (Acts 13:1-3; cf. 1 Tm 1:18; 4:14). Probably through prophetic utterance, Paul and Timothy were forbidden to preach the gospel in Asia (Acts 16:6), and they were similarly forbidden by the Spirit of Jesus to go into Bithynia (v 7). Perhaps the most frequent use of prophecy is the prediction of the future. Agabus predicted a universal famine (11:28) and the imminent arrest of Paul (21:11). Other prophets had also predicted his impending imprisonment (20:23). The prophecies contained in the Revelation of John are all oriented toward the future events that will gradually unfold in the last days. Yet the purpose of John’s elaborate prophecy is not to satisfy the curiosity of his audience but rather to comfort and encourage them in the midst of persecution.<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>Unlike the prophets of the OT, Christian prophets did not always present their message in the form of a direct speech from God or Jesus. There are few, if any, formal indicators of the presence of prophetic speech in early Christian literature. The book of Revelation is one notable exception.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Dreams; Oracle; Promise; Prophet, Prophetess; Prophets, False; Visions.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PROPHECY Term, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration. Preview • Prophecy in the Old Testament • Types of Old Testament Prophets • The Message of the Prophets • Prophecy in the ...","summary_en":"PROPHECY Term, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration. Preview • Prophecy in the Old Testament • Types of Old Testament Prophets • The Message of the Prophets • Prophecy in the ...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":32592,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Regeneration*","title_en":"Regeneration*","content_ro":"<h3>REGENERATION*<\/h3>\n<p>Spiritual rebirth producing a new beginning. It describes the new life of the believer in Christ (Ti 3:5) and the new order that will begin at Christ’s return (Mt 19:28). It occurs in the <span>kjv<\/span> of the Bible in only these two places. This does not mean, however, that the concept is unimportant. A variety of other words and figures are used frequently by the biblical writers to describe the same inner renewal of the heart.<\/p>\n<p>Secular writers also speak of regeneration. For the Stoic philosophers, it meant a return to a former state of existence. They referred to the yearly cycle of the seasons as a regeneration. For the biblical writers, however, regeneration means a renewal on a higher level. It is a radically new beginning rather than a mere restoration of previous conditions. This renewal involves a mighty change in the person. It is a work of the Holy Spirit, breaking the dominion of sin and implanting proper attitudes and desires. The regenerated person freely and joyously does the will of God. The ultimate goal of regeneration is the creation of a new heaven and earth that will be totally righteous and without sin (2 Pt 3:13). The present working of the Holy Spirit in the believer is a foretaste of this future cosmic regeneration (Eph 1:13-14). The new heavens and earth are still future. But God’s renewal of his people, foreseen by the OT prophets, is already a reality (Is 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pt 3:13; Rv 21:1).<\/p>\n<p>The believer now possesses a new life from God through the process of spiritual birth. Christians are born of God (Jn 1:12-13). And it is only through this spiritual birth that one may participate in the kingdom of God and receive his Spirit. Those born into God’s family reflect his righteous character (1 Jn 2:29). They are freed from habitual sin (3:9; 5:18). In James 1:18 this process of birth is attributed to the power of the Word of God.<\/p>\n<p>Extending this metaphor for regeneration, Jesus taught Nicodemus about the absolute necessity of being born again, or born from above, as a prerequisite to entering the kingdom of God. Those who are thus reborn possess a living hope (1 Pt 1:3). Again, this new birth is brought about through the power of the Word of God (v 23).<\/p>\n<p>The initial experience of regeneration is followed by a continuing renewal in the life of the Christian. The newborn are to desire the pure milk of the Word of God in order to grow (1 Pt 2:2). Paul commands an ongoing transformation by the renewing of the mind (Rom 12:2; Eph 4:23). The new person remains in a process of constant renewal (Col 3:10), and the inner self is renewed daily (2 Cor 4:16).<\/p>\n<p>The present result of the new birth is a new person or new creation for whom old things are replaced by new (2 Cor 5:17). It is this new creation, rather than superficial participation in religious practices, that is the goal of the Christian life (Gal 6:15). It involves laying aside the old nature (Eph 4:22) and putting on the new nature (v 24). In the final analysis, however, this is never the result of human effort alone. We are God’s workmanship (2:10).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Conversion; Redeemer, Redemption; Repentance; Salvation.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>REGENERATION*<\/h3>\n<p>Spiritual rebirth producing a new beginning. It describes the new life of the believer in Christ (Ti 3:5) and the new order that will begin at Christ’s return (Mt 19:28). It occurs in the <span>kjv<\/span> of the Bible in only these two places. This does not mean, however, that the concept is unimportant. A variety of other words and figures are used frequently by the biblical writers to describe the same inner renewal of the heart.<\/p>\n<p>Secular writers also speak of regeneration. For the Stoic philosophers, it meant a return to a former state of existence. They referred to the yearly cycle of the seasons as a regeneration. For the biblical writers, however, regeneration means a renewal on a higher level. It is a radically new beginning rather than a mere restoration of previous conditions. This renewal involves a mighty change in the person. It is a work of the Holy Spirit, breaking the dominion of sin and implanting proper attitudes and desires. The regenerated person freely and joyously does the will of God. The ultimate goal of regeneration is the creation of a new heaven and earth that will be totally righteous and without sin (2 Pt 3:13). The present working of the Holy Spirit in the believer is a foretaste of this future cosmic regeneration (Eph 1:13-14). The new heavens and earth are still future. But God’s renewal of his people, foreseen by the OT prophets, is already a reality (Is 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pt 3:13; Rv 21:1).<\/p>\n<p>The believer now possesses a new life from God through the process of spiritual birth. Christians are born of God (Jn 1:12-13). And it is only through this spiritual birth that one may participate in the kingdom of God and receive his Spirit. Those born into God’s family reflect his righteous character (1 Jn 2:29). They are freed from habitual sin (3:9; 5:18). In James 1:18 this process of birth is attributed to the power of the Word of God.<\/p>\n<p>Extending this metaphor for regeneration, Jesus taught Nicodemus about the absolute necessity of being born again, or born from above, as a prerequisite to entering the kingdom of God. Those who are thus reborn possess a living hope (1 Pt 1:3). Again, this new birth is brought about through the power of the Word of God (v 23).<\/p>\n<p>The initial experience of regeneration is followed by a continuing renewal in the life of the Christian. The newborn are to desire the pure milk of the Word of God in order to grow (1 Pt 2:2). Paul commands an ongoing transformation by the renewing of the mind (Rom 12:2; Eph 4:23). The new person remains in a process of constant renewal (Col 3:10), and the inner self is renewed daily (2 Cor 4:16).<\/p>\n<p>The present result of the new birth is a new person or new creation for whom old things are replaced by new (2 Cor 5:17). It is this new creation, rather than superficial participation in religious practices, that is the goal of the Christian life (Gal 6:15). It involves laying aside the old nature (Eph 4:22) and putting on the new nature (v 24). In the final analysis, however, this is never the result of human effort alone. We are God’s workmanship (2:10).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Conversion; Redeemer, Redemption; Repentance; Salvation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"REGENERATION* Spiritual rebirth producing a new beginning. It describes the new life of the believer in Christ (Ti 3:5) and the new order that will begin at Christ’s return (Mt 19:28). It occurs in the kjv of the Bible in only these two places. This does not mean, however, that the concept is unimportant. A variety of other words and figures are used frequently by the biblical writers to describe the same inner renewal of the heart. Secular writers also speak of regeneration. For the Stoic ph...","summary_en":"REGENERATION* Spiritual rebirth producing a new beginning. It describes the new life of the believer in Christ (Ti 3:5) and the new order that will begin at Christ’s return (Mt 19:28). It occurs in the kjv of the Bible in only these two places. This does not mean, however, that the concept is unimportant. A variety of other words and figures are used frequently by the biblical writers to describe the same inner renewal of the heart. Secular writers also speak of regeneration. For the Stoic ph...","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":35836,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Son of Man","title_en":"Son of Man","content_ro":"<h3>SON OF MAN<\/h3>\n<p>Messianic title used by Jesus to express his heavenly origin, earthly mission, and glorious future coming. It does not refer merely to his human nature or humanity, as some church fathers or contemporary scholars believe. Rather, it reflects on the heavenly origin and divine dignity of Jesus, on the mystery of his manifestation in human form, and on his earthly mission that took him to the cross and then into glory.<\/p>\n<p>The background of the term “Son of Man” is to be found in the OT. The book of Ezekiel is the general source, since this prophet was referred to as “son of man” 90 times. For example, God addressed him, “Son of man, stand upon your feet, and I will speak with you” (Ez 2:1, <span>rsv<\/span>). Jesus’ use of the term “Son of Man” and numerous themes from Ezekiel suggest his desire to identify himself as the eschatological prophet who, like Ezekiel (chs 4, 7, 10, 22, 40–48), had the last word about the destruction of Jerusalem and the restoration of the kingdom of God to Israel (Mt 23–24; Acts 1:6-8).<\/p>\n<p>The specific source of the term is Daniel 7:13-14, with its vision of one “like a son of man” who “comes with the clouds” into the presence of “the Ancient of Days,” who gives him the universal and eternal kingdom of God. Jesus repeatedly quoted parts of this text in teaching about his second coming (Mt 16:27; 19:28; 24:30; 25:31; 26:64). Clearly, Jesus understood this passage as a prophetic portrayal of his own person: his incarnation, ascension, and inheritance of the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the term “Son of Man” is used by Jesus about 80 times as a mysterious, indirect way of speaking about himself (Mt, 32 times; Mk, 14 times; Lk, 26 times; Jn, 10 times). In all these texts, Jesus was always the speaker, and no one ever addressed him as “Son of Man.” In some texts the reference is cryptic enough for some interpreters to insist that Jesus was speaking about another person. Such uncertainty is recorded in only one text in John, where the crowd asks Jesus, “Who is this ‘Son of Man’?” (Jn 12:34). In most texts, the identification is clear. In some it is explicit: “Who do men say that the Son of Man is?”—followed by, “Who do you say that I am?” (Mt 16:13, 15). The conclusion generally drawn is that Jesus used the term as a messianic title for himself, so that he could speak modestly about his person and mission yet convey the exalted content he wished to reveal about himself. He could do this with considerable originality because the term was not fraught with popular misconceptions concerning the Messiah.<\/p>\n<p>The term occurs only four other times in the NT. In Acts 7:56, Stephen says, “Look, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing in the place of honor at God’s right hand!” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Hebrews 2:6 quotes Psalm 8:4 as applying to Jesus. Finally, Revelation 1:13 and 14:14 record visions of someone “like a son of man,” who is undoubtedly the glorified Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>In the synoptic Gospels, the first theme in Jesus’ self-revelation connected with his use of the title “Son of Man” concerns his coming to earth to accomplish his messianic mission. A general comparison of Jesus’ present earthly condition with that of his previous heavenly glory is expressed in the saying “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head” (Mt 8:20; see Lk 9:58). This saying indicates that the Son of Man gave up his heavenly home to suffer all the humiliations of his earthly ministry (Phil 2:5-11).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus used the title to claim divine prerogatives, saying, “The Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath” (Mt 12:8; Mk 2:28; Lk 6:5). The Sabbath, a divine institution, may not be revised by ordinary men. But since Jesus is the Son of Man from heaven, he is free to rule as Lord even of the Sabbath, because he is the same Lord who instituted the Sabbath (Gn 2:2; Ex 20:8-11). After healing the paralytic at Capernaum, Jesus claimed that “the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mt 9:6; Mk 2:10; Lk 5:24). Previously, forgiveness of sins came from heaven and from God, but now forgiveness comes from Capernaum and is given by Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The second aspect of Jesus’ use of the “Son of Man” title concerns his suffering, death, and glorious resurrection as the mysterious method he would use to fulfill his earthly mission as the Son of Man. Jesus began expounding this passion theme after Peter confessed him to be Messiah and Son of God (Mt 16:16). Jesus’ prediction of his passion as the Son of Man begins in Mark 8:31-32 and is repeated in several other texts. The Gospels expand the theme to include his suffering of mockery and scourging (Mt 17:12; 20:18; Mk 8:31; Lk 9:22), betrayal by Judas (Mt 17:22; 26:24-25; Mk 14:21, 41), rejection by the Jewish leaders (Mt 20:18), death by crucifixion (Mt 20:19; Mk 9:12, 31; 10:33), burial for three days (Mt 12:40; Lk 11:30), and resurrection (Mt 17:22-23; Mk 8:31).<\/p>\n<p>In the famous text “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45), Jesus teaches that his death was a vicarious sacrifice for the salvation of his people. This idea of substitutionary atonement is a new element in the Son of Man material and derives from Jesus’ understanding of himself as the suffering Servant of the Lord (Is 53).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus also used the “Son of Man” title to teach about his second coming. As the Son of Man, Jesus will return to earth from heaven in the glory of his Father with the angels (Mt 16:27; Mk 8:38; Lk 9:26). First, he will be seated at the right hand of God, and then he will come again (Mt 26:64; Mk 14:62; Lk 22:69) with the clouds (Mt 24:30; Mk 13:26; Lk 21:27). This coming will be unexpected (Mt 24:27; Lk 12:40), like a flash of lightning or the flood of Noah (Mt 24:37; Lk 17:24). His coming will be for the gathering of the elect, the judgment of all the nations of the earth (Mt 19:28; 25:32), and the restoration of final righteousness in the world (19:28; 25:46).<\/p>\n<p>In these passages, Jesus’ focus shifts from the provisional victory in his passion and resurrection to the final victory of the Son of Man at his second coming. Here again, the dramatic emphasis is on the heavenly origin and divine prerogatives of the Son of Man. This man Jesus, the Son of Man, will be the final judge (cf. Acts 17:31).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of John has its own distinctive material concerning the Son of Man. The angels are said to ascend and descend on the Son of Man (Jn 1:51), thereby signifying that he is a preexistent person who has come from heaven to earth (3:13; 6:62). His being lifted up (by crucifixion) will bring about eternal life for all who believe in him (3:14). The Son of Man (3:14) is also the Son of God (3:16), God’s one and only Son (1:18; 3:18). Quite simply, in John’s Gospel, the “Son of Man” title is equivalent to the title “Son of God.” It reveals his divinity, preexistence, heavenly origin, and divine prerogatives. It affirms his present earthly condition for revelation and passion, and his future eschatological glory. The Father has given the Son of Man authority to raise the dead and to judge the world (5:25-27).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Christology; Jesus Christ, Teachings of; Messiah; Son of God.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SON OF MAN<\/h3>\n<p>Messianic title used by Jesus to express his heavenly origin, earthly mission, and glorious future coming. It does not refer merely to his human nature or humanity, as some church fathers or contemporary scholars believe. Rather, it reflects on the heavenly origin and divine dignity of Jesus, on the mystery of his manifestation in human form, and on his earthly mission that took him to the cross and then into glory.<\/p>\n<p>The background of the term “Son of Man” is to be found in the OT. The book of Ezekiel is the general source, since this prophet was referred to as “son of man” 90 times. For example, God addressed him, “Son of man, stand upon your feet, and I will speak with you” (Ez 2:1, <span>rsv<\/span>). Jesus’ use of the term “Son of Man” and numerous themes from Ezekiel suggest his desire to identify himself as the eschatological prophet who, like Ezekiel (chs 4, 7, 10, 22, 40–48), had the last word about the destruction of Jerusalem and the restoration of the kingdom of God to Israel (Mt 23–24; Acts 1:6-8).<\/p>\n<p>The specific source of the term is Daniel 7:13-14, with its vision of one “like a son of man” who “comes with the clouds” into the presence of “the Ancient of Days,” who gives him the universal and eternal kingdom of God. Jesus repeatedly quoted parts of this text in teaching about his second coming (Mt 16:27; 19:28; 24:30; 25:31; 26:64). Clearly, Jesus understood this passage as a prophetic portrayal of his own person: his incarnation, ascension, and inheritance of the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospels, the term “Son of Man” is used by Jesus about 80 times as a mysterious, indirect way of speaking about himself (Mt, 32 times; Mk, 14 times; Lk, 26 times; Jn, 10 times). In all these texts, Jesus was always the speaker, and no one ever addressed him as “Son of Man.” In some texts the reference is cryptic enough for some interpreters to insist that Jesus was speaking about another person. Such uncertainty is recorded in only one text in John, where the crowd asks Jesus, “Who is this ‘Son of Man’?” (Jn 12:34). In most texts, the identification is clear. In some it is explicit: “Who do men say that the Son of Man is?”—followed by, “Who do you say that I am?” (Mt 16:13, 15). The conclusion generally drawn is that Jesus used the term as a messianic title for himself, so that he could speak modestly about his person and mission yet convey the exalted content he wished to reveal about himself. He could do this with considerable originality because the term was not fraught with popular misconceptions concerning the Messiah.<\/p>\n<p>The term occurs only four other times in the NT. In Acts 7:56, Stephen says, “Look, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing in the place of honor at God’s right hand!” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Hebrews 2:6 quotes Psalm 8:4 as applying to Jesus. Finally, Revelation 1:13 and 14:14 record visions of someone “like a son of man,” who is undoubtedly the glorified Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>In the synoptic Gospels, the first theme in Jesus’ self-revelation connected with his use of the title “Son of Man” concerns his coming to earth to accomplish his messianic mission. A general comparison of Jesus’ present earthly condition with that of his previous heavenly glory is expressed in the saying “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head” (Mt 8:20; see Lk 9:58). This saying indicates that the Son of Man gave up his heavenly home to suffer all the humiliations of his earthly ministry (Phil 2:5-11).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus used the title to claim divine prerogatives, saying, “The Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath” (Mt 12:8; Mk 2:28; Lk 6:5). The Sabbath, a divine institution, may not be revised by ordinary men. But since Jesus is the Son of Man from heaven, he is free to rule as Lord even of the Sabbath, because he is the same Lord who instituted the Sabbath (Gn 2:2; Ex 20:8-11). After healing the paralytic at Capernaum, Jesus claimed that “the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mt 9:6; Mk 2:10; Lk 5:24). Previously, forgiveness of sins came from heaven and from God, but now forgiveness comes from Capernaum and is given by Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The second aspect of Jesus’ use of the “Son of Man” title concerns his suffering, death, and glorious resurrection as the mysterious method he would use to fulfill his earthly mission as the Son of Man. Jesus began expounding this passion theme after Peter confessed him to be Messiah and Son of God (Mt 16:16). Jesus’ prediction of his passion as the Son of Man begins in Mark 8:31-32 and is repeated in several other texts. The Gospels expand the theme to include his suffering of mockery and scourging (Mt 17:12; 20:18; Mk 8:31; Lk 9:22), betrayal by Judas (Mt 17:22; 26:24-25; Mk 14:21, 41), rejection by the Jewish leaders (Mt 20:18), death by crucifixion (Mt 20:19; Mk 9:12, 31; 10:33), burial for three days (Mt 12:40; Lk 11:30), and resurrection (Mt 17:22-23; Mk 8:31).<\/p>\n<p>In the famous text “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45), Jesus teaches that his death was a vicarious sacrifice for the salvation of his people. This idea of substitutionary atonement is a new element in the Son of Man material and derives from Jesus’ understanding of himself as the suffering Servant of the Lord (Is 53).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus also used the “Son of Man” title to teach about his second coming. As the Son of Man, Jesus will return to earth from heaven in the glory of his Father with the angels (Mt 16:27; Mk 8:38; Lk 9:26). First, he will be seated at the right hand of God, and then he will come again (Mt 26:64; Mk 14:62; Lk 22:69) with the clouds (Mt 24:30; Mk 13:26; Lk 21:27). This coming will be unexpected (Mt 24:27; Lk 12:40), like a flash of lightning or the flood of Noah (Mt 24:37; Lk 17:24). His coming will be for the gathering of the elect, the judgment of all the nations of the earth (Mt 19:28; 25:32), and the restoration of final righteousness in the world (19:28; 25:46).<\/p>\n<p>In these passages, Jesus’ focus shifts from the provisional victory in his passion and resurrection to the final victory of the Son of Man at his second coming. Here again, the dramatic emphasis is on the heavenly origin and divine prerogatives of the Son of Man. This man Jesus, the Son of Man, will be the final judge (cf. Acts 17:31).<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of John has its own distinctive material concerning the Son of Man. The angels are said to ascend and descend on the Son of Man (Jn 1:51), thereby signifying that he is a preexistent person who has come from heaven to earth (3:13; 6:62). His being lifted up (by crucifixion) will bring about eternal life for all who believe in him (3:14). The Son of Man (3:14) is also the Son of God (3:16), God’s one and only Son (1:18; 3:18). Quite simply, in John’s Gospel, the “Son of Man” title is equivalent to the title “Son of God.” It reveals his divinity, preexistence, heavenly origin, and divine prerogatives. It affirms his present earthly condition for revelation and passion, and his future eschatological glory. The Father has given the Son of Man authority to raise the dead and to judge the world (5:25-27).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Christology; Jesus Christ, Teachings of; Messiah; Son of God.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SON OF MAN Messianic title used by Jesus to express his heavenly origin, earthly mission, and glorious future coming. It does not refer merely to his human nature or humanity, as some church fathers or contemporary scholars believe. Rather, it reflects on the heavenly origin and divine dignity of Jesus, on the mystery of his manifestation in human form, and on his earthly mission that took him to the cross and then into glory. The background of the term “Son of Man” is to be found in the OT. ...","summary_en":"SON OF MAN Messianic title used by Jesus to express his heavenly origin, earthly mission, and glorious future coming. It does not refer merely to his human nature or humanity, as some church fathers or contemporary scholars believe. Rather, it reflects on the heavenly origin and divine dignity of Jesus, on the mystery of his manifestation in human form, and on his earthly mission that took him to the cross and then into glory. The background of the term “Son of Man” is to be found in the OT. ...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":54880,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:28","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:28<\/strong> <em>you . . . will also sit on twelve thrones:<\/em> The disciples’ part in judging is a reversal—those who are wealthy and powerful now will be judged by those who are humble and poor (see 19:30). • <em>Judging<\/em> can mean both ruling and condemning (see Rev 20:4).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:28<\/strong> <em>you . . . will also sit on twelve thrones:<\/em> The disciples’ part in judging is a reversal—those who are wealthy and powerful now will be judged by those who are humble and poor (see 19:30). • <em>Judging<\/em> can mean both ruling and condemning (see Rev 20:4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:28 you . . . will also sit on twelve thrones: The disciples’ part in judging is a reversal—those who are wealthy and powerful now will be judged by those who are humble and poor (see 19:30). • Judging can mean both ruling and condemning (see Rev 20:4).","summary_en":"19:28 you . . . will also sit on twelve thrones: The disciples’ part in judging is a reversal—those who are wealthy and powerful now will be judged by those who are humble and poor (see 19:30). • Judging can mean both ruling and condemning (see Rev 20:4).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":82506,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:28","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:28<\/strong> <em>you . . . will also sit on twelve thrones:<\/em> The disciples’ part in judging is a reversal—those who are wealthy and powerful now will be judged by those who are humble and poor (see 19:30). • <em>Judging<\/em> can mean both ruling and condemning (see Rev 20:4).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:28<\/strong> <em>you . . . will also sit on twelve thrones:<\/em> The disciples’ part in judging is a reversal—those who are wealthy and powerful now will be judged by those who are humble and poor (see 19:30). • <em>Judging<\/em> can mean both ruling and condemning (see Rev 20:4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:28 you . . . will also sit on twelve thrones: The disciples’ part in judging is a reversal—those who are wealthy and powerful now will be judged by those who are humble and poor (see 19:30). • Judging can mean both ruling and condemning (see Rev 20:4).","summary_en":"19:28 you . . . will also sit on twelve thrones: The disciples’ part in judging is a reversal—those who are wealthy and powerful now will be judged by those who are humble and poor (see 19:30). • Judging can mean both ruling and condemning (see Rev 20:4).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":110132,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:28","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:28<\/strong> <em>you . . . will also sit on twelve thrones:<\/em> The disciples’ part in judging is a reversal—those who are wealthy and powerful now will be judged by those who are humble and poor (see 19:30). • <em>Judging<\/em> can mean both ruling and condemning (see Rev 20:4).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:28<\/strong> <em>you . . . will also sit on twelve thrones:<\/em> The disciples’ part in judging is a reversal—those who are wealthy and powerful now will be judged by those who are humble and poor (see 19:30). • <em>Judging<\/em> can mean both ruling and condemning (see Rev 20:4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:28 you . . . will also sit on twelve thrones: The disciples’ part in judging is a reversal—those who are wealthy and powerful now will be judged by those who are humble and poor (see 19:30). • Judging can mean both ruling and condemning (see Rev 20:4).","summary_en":"19:28 you . . . will also sit on twelve thrones: The disciples’ part in judging is a reversal—those who are wealthy and powerful now will be judged by those who are humble and poor (see 19:30). • Judging can mean both ruling and condemning (see Rev 20:4).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":137758,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Matei 19:28","title_en":"Study Note: Matei 19:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:28<\/strong> <em>you . . . will also sit on twelve thrones:<\/em> The disciples’ part in judging is a reversal—those who are wealthy and powerful now will be judged by those who are humble and poor (see 19:30). • <em>Judging<\/em> can mean both ruling and condemning (see Rev 20:4).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:28<\/strong> <em>you . . . will also sit on twelve thrones:<\/em> The disciples’ part in judging is a reversal—those who are wealthy and powerful now will be judged by those who are humble and poor (see 19:30). • <em>Judging<\/em> can mean both ruling and condemning (see Rev 20:4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:28 you . . . will also sit on twelve thrones: The disciples’ part in judging is a reversal—those who are wealthy and powerful now will be judged by those who are humble and poor (see 19:30). • Judging can mean both ruling and condemning (see Rev 20:4).","summary_en":"19:28 you . . . will also sit on twelve thrones: The disciples’ part in judging is a reversal—those who are wealthy and powerful now will be judged by those who are humble and poor (see 19:30). • Judging can mean both ruling and condemning (see Rev 20:4).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":64950,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Son of Man","title_en":"The Son of Man","content_ro":"<h3>The Son of Man<\/h3>\n<p>“Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite way to refer to himself. The phrase is just as odd in Greek as in English: It translates the Hebrew phrase <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ben ’adam,<\/span> an idiom that means “human being” or “person” (see, e.g., Ezek 2:1-8). One reason Jesus preferred this name was because it was not an inflammatory title such as “Christ” or “Messiah.” The expression is used in three ways in the Gospels:<\/p>\n<p>(1) The background to Jesus’ use of the title is Dan 7:13-14, where an exalted messianic figure “like a son of man” (that is, having human form) comes with the clouds of heaven and is given great glory and power. Jesus understood himself as the one who would return to earth in the clouds of heaven (see Mark 8:38; 13:26; 14:62). Sometimes Jesus used “Son of Man” in this sense, to refer to his role as judge, deliverer, savior, and vindicator (Matt 10:23; 13:41; 16:27; 19:28; 24:27, 30, 37, 44; 25:31; 26:64).<\/p>\n<p>(2) Often Jesus used “Son of Man” to describe himself as a suffering redeemer (12:40; 17:9, 12, 22; 20:18, 28; 26:2, 24, 45). This sense is rooted in Isa 52:13–53:12.<\/p>\n<p>(3) At times, Jesus apparently used “Son of Man” to refer to himself as the representative of humans (Matt 8:20; 11:19; 12:8, 32; 13:37). The book of Ezekiel uses “son of man” in a similar sense (e.g., Ezek 2:1-8).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus did not use “Son of Man” to distinguish his humanity from his deity (“Son of God”). By using this title, Jesus could define himself as Messiah on his own terms. He used “Son of Man” to describe his total identity and as a veiled suggestion that those who watched and heard him should pay attention to who he is.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ezek 2:1-8; 3:1, 4, 10, 17, 25; 4:1; Dan 7:13-14; 8:17; Matt 8:18-22; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 40; 13:37, 41; 16:13, 27-28; 17:9, 12, 22; 19:28; 20:18, 28; 24:27, 30, 37-39, 44; 25:31; 26:2, 24, 45, 64; Mark 2:10; John 1:51; 3:13-14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23, 34; 13:31; Acts 7:56; Heb 2:6; Rev 1:13; 14:14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Son of Man<\/h3>\n<p>“Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite way to refer to himself. The phrase is just as odd in Greek as in English: It translates the Hebrew phrase <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ben ’adam,<\/span> an idiom that means “human being” or “person” (see, e.g., Ezek 2:1-8). One reason Jesus preferred this name was because it was not an inflammatory title such as “Christ” or “Messiah.” The expression is used in three ways in the Gospels:<\/p>\n<p>(1) The background to Jesus’ use of the title is Dan 7:13-14, where an exalted messianic figure “like a son of man” (that is, having human form) comes with the clouds of heaven and is given great glory and power. Jesus understood himself as the one who would return to earth in the clouds of heaven (see Mark 8:38; 13:26; 14:62). Sometimes Jesus used “Son of Man” in this sense, to refer to his role as judge, deliverer, savior, and vindicator (Matt 10:23; 13:41; 16:27; 19:28; 24:27, 30, 37, 44; 25:31; 26:64).<\/p>\n<p>(2) Often Jesus used “Son of Man” to describe himself as a suffering redeemer (12:40; 17:9, 12, 22; 20:18, 28; 26:2, 24, 45). This sense is rooted in Isa 52:13–53:12.<\/p>\n<p>(3) At times, Jesus apparently used “Son of Man” to refer to himself as the representative of humans (Matt 8:20; 11:19; 12:8, 32; 13:37). The book of Ezekiel uses “son of man” in a similar sense (e.g., Ezek 2:1-8).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus did not use “Son of Man” to distinguish his humanity from his deity (“Son of God”). By using this title, Jesus could define himself as Messiah on his own terms. He used “Son of Man” to describe his total identity and as a veiled suggestion that those who watched and heard him should pay attention to who he is.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ezek 2:1-8; 3:1, 4, 10, 17, 25; 4:1; Dan 7:13-14; 8:17; Matt 8:18-22; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 40; 13:37, 41; 16:13, 27-28; 17:9, 12, 22; 19:28; 20:18, 28; 24:27, 30, 37-39, 44; 25:31; 26:2, 24, 45, 64; Mark 2:10; John 1:51; 3:13-14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23, 34; 13:31; Acts 7:56; Heb 2:6; Rev 1:13; 14:14<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Son of Man “Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite way to refer to himself. The phrase is just as odd in Greek as in English: It translates the Hebrew phrase ben ’adam, an idiom that means “human being” or “person” (see, e.g., Ezek 2:1-8). One reason Jesus preferred this name was because it was not an inflammatory title such as “Christ” or “Messiah.” The expression is used in three ways in the Gospels: (1) The background to Jesus’ use of the title is Dan 7:13-14, where an exalted messianic figur...","summary_en":"The Son of Man “Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite way to refer to himself. The phrase is just as odd in Greek as in English: It translates the Hebrew phrase ben ’adam, an idiom that means “human being” or “person” (see, e.g., Ezek 2:1-8). One reason Jesus preferred this name was because it was not an inflammatory title such as “Christ” or “Messiah.” The expression is used in three ways in the Gospels: (1) The background to Jesus’ use of the title is Dan 7:13-14, where an exalted messianic figur...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":67959,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Symbolic Numbers","title_en":"Symbolic Numbers","content_ro":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\n<p>Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\n<p>The number <em>one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). <em>Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and <em>three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). <em>Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by <em>four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When <em>three<\/em> and <em>four<\/em> are added to make <em>seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of <em>three<\/em> by <em>four<\/em> yields <em>twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number <em>five<\/em> and its multiples, such as <em>ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., <em>five<\/em> fingers per hand); and <em>six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (<em>five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (<em>seven<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p>Multiples of <em>ten<\/em> (e.g., <em>forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate <em>many<\/em>, whereas <em>three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). <em>One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as <em>myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\n<p>While some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\n<p>Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\n<p>The number <em>one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). <em>Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and <em>three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). <em>Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by <em>four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When <em>three<\/em> and <em>four<\/em> are added to make <em>seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of <em>three<\/em> by <em>four<\/em> yields <em>twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number <em>five<\/em> and its multiples, such as <em>ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., <em>five<\/em> fingers per hand); and <em>six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (<em>five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (<em>seven<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p>Multiples of <em>ten<\/em> (e.g., <em>forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate <em>many<\/em>, whereas <em>three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). <em>One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as <em>myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\n<p>While some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","summary_en":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":92576,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Son of Man","title_en":"The Son of Man","content_ro":"<h3>The Son of Man<\/h3>\n<p>“Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite way to refer to himself. The phrase is just as odd in Greek as in English: It translates the Hebrew phrase <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ben ’adam,<\/span> an idiom that means “human being” or “person” (see, e.g., Ezek 2:1-8). One reason Jesus preferred this name was because it was not an inflammatory title such as “Christ” or “Messiah.” The expression is used in three ways in the Gospels:<\/p>\n<p>(1) The background to Jesus’ use of the title is Dan 7:13-14, where an exalted messianic figure “like a son of man” (that is, having human form) comes with the clouds of heaven and is given great glory and power. Jesus understood himself as the one who would return to earth in the clouds of heaven (see Mark 8:38; 13:26; 14:62). Sometimes Jesus used “Son of Man” in this sense, to refer to his role as judge, deliverer, savior, and vindicator (Matt 10:23; 13:41; 16:27; 19:28; 24:27, 30, 37, 44; 25:31; 26:64).<\/p>\n<p>(2) Often Jesus used “Son of Man” to describe himself as a suffering redeemer (12:40; 17:9, 12, 22; 20:18, 28; 26:2, 24, 45). This sense is rooted in Isa 52:13–53:12.<\/p>\n<p>(3) At times, Jesus apparently used “Son of Man” to refer to himself as the representative of humans (Matt 8:20; 11:19; 12:8, 32; 13:37). The book of Ezekiel uses “son of man” in a similar sense (e.g., Ezek 2:1-8).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus did not use “Son of Man” to distinguish his humanity from his deity (“Son of God”). By using this title, Jesus could define himself as Messiah on his own terms. He used “Son of Man” to describe his total identity and as a veiled suggestion that those who watched and heard him should pay attention to who he is.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ezek 2:1-8; 3:1, 4, 10, 17, 25; 4:1; Dan 7:13-14; 8:17; Matt 8:18-22; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 40; 13:37, 41; 16:13, 27-28; 17:9, 12, 22; 19:28; 20:18, 28; 24:27, 30, 37-39, 44; 25:31; 26:2, 24, 45, 64; Mark 2:10; John 1:51; 3:13-14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23, 34; 13:31; Acts 7:56; Heb 2:6; Rev 1:13; 14:14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Son of Man<\/h3>\n<p>“Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite way to refer to himself. The phrase is just as odd in Greek as in English: It translates the Hebrew phrase <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ben ’adam,<\/span> an idiom that means “human being” or “person” (see, e.g., Ezek 2:1-8). One reason Jesus preferred this name was because it was not an inflammatory title such as “Christ” or “Messiah.” The expression is used in three ways in the Gospels:<\/p>\n<p>(1) The background to Jesus’ use of the title is Dan 7:13-14, where an exalted messianic figure “like a son of man” (that is, having human form) comes with the clouds of heaven and is given great glory and power. Jesus understood himself as the one who would return to earth in the clouds of heaven (see Mark 8:38; 13:26; 14:62). Sometimes Jesus used “Son of Man” in this sense, to refer to his role as judge, deliverer, savior, and vindicator (Matt 10:23; 13:41; 16:27; 19:28; 24:27, 30, 37, 44; 25:31; 26:64).<\/p>\n<p>(2) Often Jesus used “Son of Man” to describe himself as a suffering redeemer (12:40; 17:9, 12, 22; 20:18, 28; 26:2, 24, 45). This sense is rooted in Isa 52:13–53:12.<\/p>\n<p>(3) At times, Jesus apparently used “Son of Man” to refer to himself as the representative of humans (Matt 8:20; 11:19; 12:8, 32; 13:37). The book of Ezekiel uses “son of man” in a similar sense (e.g., Ezek 2:1-8).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus did not use “Son of Man” to distinguish his humanity from his deity (“Son of God”). By using this title, Jesus could define himself as Messiah on his own terms. He used “Son of Man” to describe his total identity and as a veiled suggestion that those who watched and heard him should pay attention to who he is.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ezek 2:1-8; 3:1, 4, 10, 17, 25; 4:1; Dan 7:13-14; 8:17; Matt 8:18-22; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 40; 13:37, 41; 16:13, 27-28; 17:9, 12, 22; 19:28; 20:18, 28; 24:27, 30, 37-39, 44; 25:31; 26:2, 24, 45, 64; Mark 2:10; John 1:51; 3:13-14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23, 34; 13:31; Acts 7:56; Heb 2:6; Rev 1:13; 14:14<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Son of Man “Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite way to refer to himself. The phrase is just as odd in Greek as in English: It translates the Hebrew phrase ben ’adam, an idiom that means “human being” or “person” (see, e.g., Ezek 2:1-8). One reason Jesus preferred this name was because it was not an inflammatory title such as “Christ” or “Messiah.” The expression is used in three ways in the Gospels: (1) The background to Jesus’ use of the title is Dan 7:13-14, where an exalted messianic figur...","summary_en":"The Son of Man “Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite way to refer to himself. The phrase is just as odd in Greek as in English: It translates the Hebrew phrase ben ’adam, an idiom that means “human being” or “person” (see, e.g., Ezek 2:1-8). One reason Jesus preferred this name was because it was not an inflammatory title such as “Christ” or “Messiah.” The expression is used in three ways in the Gospels: (1) The background to Jesus’ use of the title is Dan 7:13-14, where an exalted messianic figur...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":95585,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Symbolic Numbers","title_en":"Symbolic Numbers","content_ro":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\n<p>Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\n<p>The number <em>one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). <em>Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and <em>three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). <em>Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by <em>four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When <em>three<\/em> and <em>four<\/em> are added to make <em>seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of <em>three<\/em> by <em>four<\/em> yields <em>twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number <em>five<\/em> and its multiples, such as <em>ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., <em>five<\/em> fingers per hand); and <em>six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (<em>five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (<em>seven<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p>Multiples of <em>ten<\/em> (e.g., <em>forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate <em>many<\/em>, whereas <em>three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). <em>One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as <em>myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\n<p>While some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\n<p>Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\n<p>The number <em>one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). <em>Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and <em>three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). <em>Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by <em>four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When <em>three<\/em> and <em>four<\/em> are added to make <em>seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of <em>three<\/em> by <em>four<\/em> yields <em>twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number <em>five<\/em> and its multiples, such as <em>ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., <em>five<\/em> fingers per hand); and <em>six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (<em>five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (<em>seven<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p>Multiples of <em>ten<\/em> (e.g., <em>forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate <em>many<\/em>, whereas <em>three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). <em>One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as <em>myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\n<p>While some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","summary_en":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":120202,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Son of Man","title_en":"The Son of Man","content_ro":"<h3>The Son of Man<\/h3>\n<p>“Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite way to refer to himself. The phrase is just as odd in Greek as in English: It translates the Hebrew phrase <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ben ’adam,<\/span> an idiom that means “human being” or “person” (see, e.g., Ezek 2:1-8). One reason Jesus preferred this name was because it was not an inflammatory title such as “Christ” or “Messiah.” The expression is used in three ways in the Gospels:<\/p>\n<p>(1) The background to Jesus’ use of the title is Dan 7:13-14, where an exalted messianic figure “like a son of man” (that is, having human form) comes with the clouds of heaven and is given great glory and power. Jesus understood himself as the one who would return to earth in the clouds of heaven (see Mark 8:38; 13:26; 14:62). Sometimes Jesus used “Son of Man” in this sense, to refer to his role as judge, deliverer, savior, and vindicator (Matt 10:23; 13:41; 16:27; 19:28; 24:27, 30, 37, 44; 25:31; 26:64).<\/p>\n<p>(2) Often Jesus used “Son of Man” to describe himself as a suffering redeemer (12:40; 17:9, 12, 22; 20:18, 28; 26:2, 24, 45). This sense is rooted in Isa 52:13–53:12.<\/p>\n<p>(3) At times, Jesus apparently used “Son of Man” to refer to himself as the representative of humans (Matt 8:20; 11:19; 12:8, 32; 13:37). The book of Ezekiel uses “son of man” in a similar sense (e.g., Ezek 2:1-8).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus did not use “Son of Man” to distinguish his humanity from his deity (“Son of God”). By using this title, Jesus could define himself as Messiah on his own terms. He used “Son of Man” to describe his total identity and as a veiled suggestion that those who watched and heard him should pay attention to who he is.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ezek 2:1-8; 3:1, 4, 10, 17, 25; 4:1; Dan 7:13-14; 8:17; Matt 8:18-22; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 40; 13:37, 41; 16:13, 27-28; 17:9, 12, 22; 19:28; 20:18, 28; 24:27, 30, 37-39, 44; 25:31; 26:2, 24, 45, 64; Mark 2:10; John 1:51; 3:13-14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23, 34; 13:31; Acts 7:56; Heb 2:6; Rev 1:13; 14:14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Son of Man<\/h3>\n<p>“Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite way to refer to himself. The phrase is just as odd in Greek as in English: It translates the Hebrew phrase <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ben ’adam,<\/span> an idiom that means “human being” or “person” (see, e.g., Ezek 2:1-8). One reason Jesus preferred this name was because it was not an inflammatory title such as “Christ” or “Messiah.” The expression is used in three ways in the Gospels:<\/p>\n<p>(1) The background to Jesus’ use of the title is Dan 7:13-14, where an exalted messianic figure “like a son of man” (that is, having human form) comes with the clouds of heaven and is given great glory and power. Jesus understood himself as the one who would return to earth in the clouds of heaven (see Mark 8:38; 13:26; 14:62). Sometimes Jesus used “Son of Man” in this sense, to refer to his role as judge, deliverer, savior, and vindicator (Matt 10:23; 13:41; 16:27; 19:28; 24:27, 30, 37, 44; 25:31; 26:64).<\/p>\n<p>(2) Often Jesus used “Son of Man” to describe himself as a suffering redeemer (12:40; 17:9, 12, 22; 20:18, 28; 26:2, 24, 45). This sense is rooted in Isa 52:13–53:12.<\/p>\n<p>(3) At times, Jesus apparently used “Son of Man” to refer to himself as the representative of humans (Matt 8:20; 11:19; 12:8, 32; 13:37). The book of Ezekiel uses “son of man” in a similar sense (e.g., Ezek 2:1-8).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus did not use “Son of Man” to distinguish his humanity from his deity (“Son of God”). By using this title, Jesus could define himself as Messiah on his own terms. He used “Son of Man” to describe his total identity and as a veiled suggestion that those who watched and heard him should pay attention to who he is.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ezek 2:1-8; 3:1, 4, 10, 17, 25; 4:1; Dan 7:13-14; 8:17; Matt 8:18-22; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 40; 13:37, 41; 16:13, 27-28; 17:9, 12, 22; 19:28; 20:18, 28; 24:27, 30, 37-39, 44; 25:31; 26:2, 24, 45, 64; Mark 2:10; John 1:51; 3:13-14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23, 34; 13:31; Acts 7:56; Heb 2:6; Rev 1:13; 14:14<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Son of Man “Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite way to refer to himself. The phrase is just as odd in Greek as in English: It translates the Hebrew phrase ben ’adam, an idiom that means “human being” or “person” (see, e.g., Ezek 2:1-8). One reason Jesus preferred this name was because it was not an inflammatory title such as “Christ” or “Messiah.” The expression is used in three ways in the Gospels: (1) The background to Jesus’ use of the title is Dan 7:13-14, where an exalted messianic figur...","summary_en":"The Son of Man “Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite way to refer to himself. The phrase is just as odd in Greek as in English: It translates the Hebrew phrase ben ’adam, an idiom that means “human being” or “person” (see, e.g., Ezek 2:1-8). One reason Jesus preferred this name was because it was not an inflammatory title such as “Christ” or “Messiah.” The expression is used in three ways in the Gospels: (1) The background to Jesus’ use of the title is Dan 7:13-14, where an exalted messianic figur...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":123211,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Symbolic Numbers","title_en":"Symbolic Numbers","content_ro":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\n<p>Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\n<p>The number <em>one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). <em>Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and <em>three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). <em>Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by <em>four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When <em>three<\/em> and <em>four<\/em> are added to make <em>seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of <em>three<\/em> by <em>four<\/em> yields <em>twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number <em>five<\/em> and its multiples, such as <em>ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., <em>five<\/em> fingers per hand); and <em>six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (<em>five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (<em>seven<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p>Multiples of <em>ten<\/em> (e.g., <em>forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate <em>many<\/em>, whereas <em>three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). <em>One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as <em>myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\n<p>While some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\n<p>Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\n<p>The number <em>one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). <em>Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and <em>three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). <em>Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by <em>four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When <em>three<\/em> and <em>four<\/em> are added to make <em>seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of <em>three<\/em> by <em>four<\/em> yields <em>twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number <em>five<\/em> and its multiples, such as <em>ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., <em>five<\/em> fingers per hand); and <em>six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (<em>five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (<em>seven<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p>Multiples of <em>ten<\/em> (e.g., <em>forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate <em>many<\/em>, whereas <em>three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). <em>One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as <em>myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\n<p>While some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","summary_en":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":147828,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Son of Man","title_en":"The Son of Man","content_ro":"<h3>The Son of Man<\/h3>\n<p>“Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite way to refer to himself. The phrase is just as odd in Greek as in English: It translates the Hebrew phrase <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ben ’adam,<\/span> an idiom that means “human being” or “person” (see, e.g., Ezek 2:1-8). One reason Jesus preferred this name was because it was not an inflammatory title such as “Christ” or “Messiah.” The expression is used in three ways in the Gospels:<\/p>\n<p>(1) The background to Jesus’ use of the title is Dan 7:13-14, where an exalted messianic figure “like a son of man” (that is, having human form) comes with the clouds of heaven and is given great glory and power. Jesus understood himself as the one who would return to earth in the clouds of heaven (see Mark 8:38; 13:26; 14:62). Sometimes Jesus used “Son of Man” in this sense, to refer to his role as judge, deliverer, savior, and vindicator (Matt 10:23; 13:41; 16:27; 19:28; 24:27, 30, 37, 44; 25:31; 26:64).<\/p>\n<p>(2) Often Jesus used “Son of Man” to describe himself as a suffering redeemer (12:40; 17:9, 12, 22; 20:18, 28; 26:2, 24, 45). This sense is rooted in Isa 52:13–53:12.<\/p>\n<p>(3) At times, Jesus apparently used “Son of Man” to refer to himself as the representative of humans (Matt 8:20; 11:19; 12:8, 32; 13:37). The book of Ezekiel uses “son of man” in a similar sense (e.g., Ezek 2:1-8).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus did not use “Son of Man” to distinguish his humanity from his deity (“Son of God”). By using this title, Jesus could define himself as Messiah on his own terms. He used “Son of Man” to describe his total identity and as a veiled suggestion that those who watched and heard him should pay attention to who he is.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ezek 2:1-8; 3:1, 4, 10, 17, 25; 4:1; Dan 7:13-14; 8:17; Matt 8:18-22; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 40; 13:37, 41; 16:13, 27-28; 17:9, 12, 22; 19:28; 20:18, 28; 24:27, 30, 37-39, 44; 25:31; 26:2, 24, 45, 64; Mark 2:10; John 1:51; 3:13-14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23, 34; 13:31; Acts 7:56; Heb 2:6; Rev 1:13; 14:14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Son of Man<\/h3>\n<p>“Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite way to refer to himself. The phrase is just as odd in Greek as in English: It translates the Hebrew phrase <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ben ’adam,<\/span> an idiom that means “human being” or “person” (see, e.g., Ezek 2:1-8). One reason Jesus preferred this name was because it was not an inflammatory title such as “Christ” or “Messiah.” The expression is used in three ways in the Gospels:<\/p>\n<p>(1) The background to Jesus’ use of the title is Dan 7:13-14, where an exalted messianic figure “like a son of man” (that is, having human form) comes with the clouds of heaven and is given great glory and power. Jesus understood himself as the one who would return to earth in the clouds of heaven (see Mark 8:38; 13:26; 14:62). Sometimes Jesus used “Son of Man” in this sense, to refer to his role as judge, deliverer, savior, and vindicator (Matt 10:23; 13:41; 16:27; 19:28; 24:27, 30, 37, 44; 25:31; 26:64).<\/p>\n<p>(2) Often Jesus used “Son of Man” to describe himself as a suffering redeemer (12:40; 17:9, 12, 22; 20:18, 28; 26:2, 24, 45). This sense is rooted in Isa 52:13–53:12.<\/p>\n<p>(3) At times, Jesus apparently used “Son of Man” to refer to himself as the representative of humans (Matt 8:20; 11:19; 12:8, 32; 13:37). The book of Ezekiel uses “son of man” in a similar sense (e.g., Ezek 2:1-8).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus did not use “Son of Man” to distinguish his humanity from his deity (“Son of God”). By using this title, Jesus could define himself as Messiah on his own terms. He used “Son of Man” to describe his total identity and as a veiled suggestion that those who watched and heard him should pay attention to who he is.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ezek 2:1-8; 3:1, 4, 10, 17, 25; 4:1; Dan 7:13-14; 8:17; Matt 8:18-22; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 40; 13:37, 41; 16:13, 27-28; 17:9, 12, 22; 19:28; 20:18, 28; 24:27, 30, 37-39, 44; 25:31; 26:2, 24, 45, 64; Mark 2:10; John 1:51; 3:13-14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23, 34; 13:31; Acts 7:56; Heb 2:6; Rev 1:13; 14:14<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Son of Man “Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite way to refer to himself. The phrase is just as odd in Greek as in English: It translates the Hebrew phrase ben ’adam, an idiom that means “human being” or “person” (see, e.g., Ezek 2:1-8). One reason Jesus preferred this name was because it was not an inflammatory title such as “Christ” or “Messiah.” The expression is used in three ways in the Gospels: (1) The background to Jesus’ use of the title is Dan 7:13-14, where an exalted messianic figur...","summary_en":"The Son of Man “Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite way to refer to himself. The phrase is just as odd in Greek as in English: It translates the Hebrew phrase ben ’adam, an idiom that means “human being” or “person” (see, e.g., Ezek 2:1-8). One reason Jesus preferred this name was because it was not an inflammatory title such as “Christ” or “Messiah.” The expression is used in three ways in the Gospels: (1) The background to Jesus’ use of the title is Dan 7:13-14, where an exalted messianic figur...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":150837,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Symbolic Numbers","title_en":"Symbolic Numbers","content_ro":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\n<p>Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\n<p>The number <em>one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). <em>Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and <em>three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). <em>Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by <em>four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When <em>three<\/em> and <em>four<\/em> are added to make <em>seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of <em>three<\/em> by <em>four<\/em> yields <em>twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number <em>five<\/em> and its multiples, such as <em>ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., <em>five<\/em> fingers per hand); and <em>six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (<em>five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (<em>seven<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p>Multiples of <em>ten<\/em> (e.g., <em>forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate <em>many<\/em>, whereas <em>three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). <em>One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as <em>myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\n<p>While some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\n<p>Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\n<p>The number <em>one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). <em>Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and <em>three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). <em>Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by <em>four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When <em>three<\/em> and <em>four<\/em> are added to make <em>seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of <em>three<\/em> by <em>four<\/em> yields <em>twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number <em>five<\/em> and its multiples, such as <em>ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., <em>five<\/em> fingers per hand); and <em>six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (<em>five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (<em>seven<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p>Multiples of <em>ten<\/em> (e.g., <em>forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate <em>many<\/em>, whereas <em>three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). <em>One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as <em>myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\n<p>While some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","summary_en":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"29":[{"id":17489,"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":33087,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Riches","title_en":"Riches","content_ro":"<h3>RICHES<\/h3>\n<p>Wealth measured by money or the amount of property owned, whether land and buildings (Is 5:8-10), livestock (1 Sm 25:2-3), or slaves (8:11-18). Great riches brought great influence and power, as the Hebrew word for wealth implies.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible seems to speak with two voices on the subject of riches, sometimes describing material wealth as a sign of God’s blessing and approval (e.g., Gn 24:35), at other times virtually identifying the rich with the wicked (e.g., Ps 37:7, 16).<\/p>\n<p>God made all things for people to enjoy (1 Tm 6:17). That is why being rich is a matter for thanksgiving, not embarrassment. Every possession that a person can possibly own comes from the Creator (Ps 24:1), so all wealth can rightly be counted as a blessing from God. It was in this spirit that David could pray to God, “Riches and honour come of thee” (1 Chr 29:12, <span>kjv<\/span>). Even when wealth is earned by hard work, the Bible reminds its readers that both their talents and their resources are God-given. Jesus illustrates this important lesson in the parables of the 10 talents (Mt 25:14-30) and the 10 minas (Lk 19:11-26).<\/p>\n<p>Nowhere, then, does the Bible say that having possessions and becoming wealthy are wrong in themselves. There would be no point in the Ten Commandments’ ban on stealing and envy if it was wrong for God’s people to own anything at all. Jesus himself never taught that it was sinful to be rich.<\/p>\n<p>However, Jesus warned that riches could keep a person out of the kingdom: “How hard it is for rich people to get into the Kingdom of God!” (Mk 10:23, <span>nlt<\/span>). Affluence, he taught, can destroy peace (Mt 6:24-34), blind people to the needs of others (Lk 16:19-31), stand between individuals and the gateway to eternal life (Mk 10:17-27), and even bring God’s judgment (Lk 12:16-21). He told his disciples not to accumulate personal wealth (Mt 6:19), and he praised those who gave up their possessions (19:29).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ warnings against wealth are not, in fact, directed against riches in themselves. What he condemns is the wrong attitudes many people have toward acquiring wealth, and the wrong ways in which they use it. Longing for riches, not having them, chokes the spiritual life like weeds in a field of grain (Mt 13:22). The greedy desire to have more wealth doomed the unforgiving servant (18:23-35). And the rich man’s selfishness, not his wealth, sealed his fate (Lk 16:19-26). Paul captured the main theme in these parables when he said, “The <em>love<\/em> of money is at the root of all kinds of evil” (1 Tm 6:10, <span>nlt<\/span>, emphasis added).<\/p>\n<p>The greatest danger of all arises when riches gain the mastery in a person’s life. The whole Bible warns against this idolatrous attitude to material things (e.g., Dt 8:17-18; Lk 14:15-24). Satan tempted Jesus to put material wealth and power in God’s place (Mt 4:8-9), and Jesus delivers the clearest warning against making money one’s master (6:24). In this light Jesus instructs the rich young ruler to sell everything (Mk 10:17-22). Here was a wealthy man who had allowed his possessions to possess him. Jesus’ aim was to make him recognize his bondage so he could escape from his self-made prison. The fact that he turned away from Jesus demonstrates the powerful pull of riches.<\/p>\n<p>These blunt warnings are the most striking aspect of Jesus’ teaching on wealth. But alongside his exposure of wrong attitudes he was careful to sketch in the outline of right attitudes. Those who recognize that they are God’s trustees (not owners) of their possessions, he taught, will find many valuable outlets for their riches in the Lord’s service (Lk 12:42-44). Instead of making them tight-fisted, their riches should allow them to express love in many practical ways (2 Cor 8:2). And instead of having their inward peace ruined by anxious greed, they would find the secret of serenity in an increasing sense of dependence on their heavenly Giver (Lk 12:29-31; 1 Tm 6:17).<\/p>\n<p>According to the Bible, then, the morality of riches depends entirely on personal attitudes. And nowhere does this come out more than in the frequent comparisons Scripture draws between material and spiritual wealth. Those who make material riches their goal in life have wrong values. However wealthy they may appear, they are poverty-stricken in God’s sight (Mt 16:26; Rv 3:17). In his view, the truly rich are those whose main aim in life is to serve him as King (Mt 13:44-46). Their wealth lies in the currency of faith and good works (1 Tm 6:18; Jas 2:5)—a heavenly bank balance that no one can steal and nothing can erode: “Wherever your treasure is, there your heart and thoughts will also be” (Mt 6:21, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Money; Poor, The; Wages; Wealth.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>RICHES<\/h3>\n<p>Wealth measured by money or the amount of property owned, whether land and buildings (Is 5:8-10), livestock (1 Sm 25:2-3), or slaves (8:11-18). Great riches brought great influence and power, as the Hebrew word for wealth implies.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible seems to speak with two voices on the subject of riches, sometimes describing material wealth as a sign of God’s blessing and approval (e.g., Gn 24:35), at other times virtually identifying the rich with the wicked (e.g., Ps 37:7, 16).<\/p>\n<p>God made all things for people to enjoy (1 Tm 6:17). That is why being rich is a matter for thanksgiving, not embarrassment. Every possession that a person can possibly own comes from the Creator (Ps 24:1), so all wealth can rightly be counted as a blessing from God. It was in this spirit that David could pray to God, “Riches and honour come of thee” (1 Chr 29:12, <span>kjv<\/span>). Even when wealth is earned by hard work, the Bible reminds its readers that both their talents and their resources are God-given. Jesus illustrates this important lesson in the parables of the 10 talents (Mt 25:14-30) and the 10 minas (Lk 19:11-26).<\/p>\n<p>Nowhere, then, does the Bible say that having possessions and becoming wealthy are wrong in themselves. There would be no point in the Ten Commandments’ ban on stealing and envy if it was wrong for God’s people to own anything at all. Jesus himself never taught that it was sinful to be rich.<\/p>\n<p>However, Jesus warned that riches could keep a person out of the kingdom: “How hard it is for rich people to get into the Kingdom of God!” (Mk 10:23, <span>nlt<\/span>). Affluence, he taught, can destroy peace (Mt 6:24-34), blind people to the needs of others (Lk 16:19-31), stand between individuals and the gateway to eternal life (Mk 10:17-27), and even bring God’s judgment (Lk 12:16-21). He told his disciples not to accumulate personal wealth (Mt 6:19), and he praised those who gave up their possessions (19:29).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ warnings against wealth are not, in fact, directed against riches in themselves. What he condemns is the wrong attitudes many people have toward acquiring wealth, and the wrong ways in which they use it. Longing for riches, not having them, chokes the spiritual life like weeds in a field of grain (Mt 13:22). The greedy desire to have more wealth doomed the unforgiving servant (18:23-35). And the rich man’s selfishness, not his wealth, sealed his fate (Lk 16:19-26). Paul captured the main theme in these parables when he said, “The <em>love<\/em> of money is at the root of all kinds of evil” (1 Tm 6:10, <span>nlt<\/span>, emphasis added).<\/p>\n<p>The greatest danger of all arises when riches gain the mastery in a person’s life. The whole Bible warns against this idolatrous attitude to material things (e.g., Dt 8:17-18; Lk 14:15-24). Satan tempted Jesus to put material wealth and power in God’s place (Mt 4:8-9), and Jesus delivers the clearest warning against making money one’s master (6:24). In this light Jesus instructs the rich young ruler to sell everything (Mk 10:17-22). Here was a wealthy man who had allowed his possessions to possess him. Jesus’ aim was to make him recognize his bondage so he could escape from his self-made prison. The fact that he turned away from Jesus demonstrates the powerful pull of riches.<\/p>\n<p>These blunt warnings are the most striking aspect of Jesus’ teaching on wealth. But alongside his exposure of wrong attitudes he was careful to sketch in the outline of right attitudes. Those who recognize that they are God’s trustees (not owners) of their possessions, he taught, will find many valuable outlets for their riches in the Lord’s service (Lk 12:42-44). Instead of making them tight-fisted, their riches should allow them to express love in many practical ways (2 Cor 8:2). And instead of having their inward peace ruined by anxious greed, they would find the secret of serenity in an increasing sense of dependence on their heavenly Giver (Lk 12:29-31; 1 Tm 6:17).<\/p>\n<p>According to the Bible, then, the morality of riches depends entirely on personal attitudes. And nowhere does this come out more than in the frequent comparisons Scripture draws between material and spiritual wealth. Those who make material riches their goal in life have wrong values. However wealthy they may appear, they are poverty-stricken in God’s sight (Mt 16:26; Rv 3:17). In his view, the truly rich are those whose main aim in life is to serve him as King (Mt 13:44-46). Their wealth lies in the currency of faith and good works (1 Tm 6:18; Jas 2:5)—a heavenly bank balance that no one can steal and nothing can erode: “Wherever your treasure is, there your heart and thoughts will also be” (Mt 6:21, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Money; Poor, The; Wages; Wealth.<\/p>","summary_ro":"RICHES Wealth measured by money or the amount of property owned, whether land and buildings (Is 5:8-10), livestock (1 Sm 25:2-3), or slaves (8:11-18). Great riches brought great influence and power, as the Hebrew word for wealth implies. The Bible seems to speak with two voices on the subject of riches, sometimes describing material wealth as a sign of God’s blessing and approval (e.g., Gn 24:35), at other times virtually identifying the rich with the wicked (e.g., Ps 37:7, 16). God made all ...","summary_en":"RICHES Wealth measured by money or the amount of property owned, whether land and buildings (Is 5:8-10), livestock (1 Sm 25:2-3), or slaves (8:11-18). Great riches brought great influence and power, as the Hebrew word for wealth implies. The Bible seems to speak with two voices on the subject of riches, sometimes describing material wealth as a sign of God’s blessing and approval (e.g., Gn 24:35), at other times virtually identifying the rich with the wicked (e.g., Ps 37:7, 16). God made all ...","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"30":[{"id":40070,"type":"textbox","type_label":"Notă explicativă","type_icon":"💡","type_color":"#8b5cf6","title_ro":"Guidelines for Interpreting Parables","title_en":"Guidelines for Interpreting Parables","content_ro":"<h3>Guidelines for Interpreting Parables<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>Interpreting the parables is not easy, but certain guidelines can be presented that will avoid past errors and make sane interpretation possible.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<li>1. Analyze the parable thoroughly. Note the characters and movement of the story, its climax, and the repetition of key words or ideas. If it appears in more than one Gospel, do a comparative analysis of the various accounts to note both similarities and differences.<\/li>\n<li>2. Listen to the parable without any preconceptions as to its form or its meaning. Attempt to hear the parable as if sitting at the feet of Jesus without knowing the parable, its meaning, and Christian theology. While it is impossible for a modern reader to become a first-century Jewish hearer, it is imperative that a parable be interpreted in its original context and in the ways its author originally intended it to be understood.<\/li>\n<li>3. Look for help in the surrounding context, but realize that the original context for many of the parables has not been preserved. Often the parables appear where they do in the Gospels because of the arrangement of the Gospel writers.<\/li>\n<li>4. Notice features in the parable that reflect the life and thinking of the first-century world. An understanding of cultural and religious factors, and an awareness of the OT ideas reflected in a parable, will greatly assist in its interpretation.<\/li>\n<li>5. Note how the parable fits into the purpose and plan of the entire book. If the parable is present in the other Gospels, note its location and how it has been shaped to fit into the purpose of each Gospel writer.<\/li>\n<li>6. Determine as explicitly as possible the message of the parable in the teaching of Jesus. There may be several points that need to be made in a given parable, as was indicated above for the parable of the lost son. There may be legitimate secondary features in the parable, but be careful not to push the story too far. One should exercise caution since it is easy to violate a parable’s intention. No one would want to suggest that God has tormentors on the basis of the parable of the unforgiving servant (see Mt 18:34); rather, this verse points out the seriousness of the sin and its judgment. However, some people wrongly overemphasize minor features of other parables. If one will interpret the parable as a whole—in keeping with its original intention—such errors will be minimized.<\/li>\n<li>7. Note where the teaching of the parable conforms to the teaching of Jesus elsewhere. Jesus’ nonparabolic teaching may provide the key for, or strengthen, the interpretation of a parable.<\/li>\n<li>8. Give due emphasis to the “rule of end stress.” Usually the climax and the most important part of a parable comes at its conclusion. Consequently, the focus of the interpretation should be there as well. Often, the end of the parable will include the theme of reversal. As elsewhere in the teaching of Jesus, his statement on a given topic is often the exact reverse of what others say or expect. Note Matthew 10:39: “If you cling to your life, you will lose it; but if you give it up for me, you will find it” (<span>nlt<\/span>). The parable of the workers in the vineyard tells of those who receive less than they expected and closes with a classic reversal statement: “the last shall be first and the first last” (Mt 20:16; cf. 19:30). Note the reversal in Matthew 21:31 at the end of the parable of the two sons (21:28-30). After the religious authorities had made a judgment on the basis of the parable, the reversal is accomplished as they are told that the tax collectors and prostitutes were going into the kingdom of God before them (vv 31-32).<\/li>\n<li>9. Determine what principles are present in the parable that reveal the nature of God, his kingdom, the way he deals with humanity, or what he expects of humanity.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>Guidelines for Interpreting Parables<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>Interpreting the parables is not easy, but certain guidelines can be presented that will avoid past errors and make sane interpretation possible.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<li>1. Analyze the parable thoroughly. Note the characters and movement of the story, its climax, and the repetition of key words or ideas. If it appears in more than one Gospel, do a comparative analysis of the various accounts to note both similarities and differences.<\/li>\n<li>2. Listen to the parable without any preconceptions as to its form or its meaning. Attempt to hear the parable as if sitting at the feet of Jesus without knowing the parable, its meaning, and Christian theology. While it is impossible for a modern reader to become a first-century Jewish hearer, it is imperative that a parable be interpreted in its original context and in the ways its author originally intended it to be understood.<\/li>\n<li>3. Look for help in the surrounding context, but realize that the original context for many of the parables has not been preserved. Often the parables appear where they do in the Gospels because of the arrangement of the Gospel writers.<\/li>\n<li>4. Notice features in the parable that reflect the life and thinking of the first-century world. An understanding of cultural and religious factors, and an awareness of the OT ideas reflected in a parable, will greatly assist in its interpretation.<\/li>\n<li>5. Note how the parable fits into the purpose and plan of the entire book. If the parable is present in the other Gospels, note its location and how it has been shaped to fit into the purpose of each Gospel writer.<\/li>\n<li>6. Determine as explicitly as possible the message of the parable in the teaching of Jesus. There may be several points that need to be made in a given parable, as was indicated above for the parable of the lost son. There may be legitimate secondary features in the parable, but be careful not to push the story too far. One should exercise caution since it is easy to violate a parable’s intention. No one would want to suggest that God has tormentors on the basis of the parable of the unforgiving servant (see Mt 18:34); rather, this verse points out the seriousness of the sin and its judgment. However, some people wrongly overemphasize minor features of other parables. If one will interpret the parable as a whole—in keeping with its original intention—such errors will be minimized.<\/li>\n<li>7. Note where the teaching of the parable conforms to the teaching of Jesus elsewhere. Jesus’ nonparabolic teaching may provide the key for, or strengthen, the interpretation of a parable.<\/li>\n<li>8. Give due emphasis to the “rule of end stress.” Usually the climax and the most important part of a parable comes at its conclusion. Consequently, the focus of the interpretation should be there as well. Often, the end of the parable will include the theme of reversal. As elsewhere in the teaching of Jesus, his statement on a given topic is often the exact reverse of what others say or expect. Note Matthew 10:39: “If you cling to your life, you will lose it; but if you give it up for me, you will find it” (<span>nlt<\/span>). The parable of the workers in the vineyard tells of those who receive less than they expected and closes with a classic reversal statement: “the last shall be first and the first last” (Mt 20:16; cf. 19:30). Note the reversal in Matthew 21:31 at the end of the parable of the two sons (21:28-30). After the religious authorities had made a judgment on the basis of the parable, the reversal is accomplished as they are told that the tax collectors and prostitutes were going into the kingdom of God before them (vv 31-32).<\/li>\n<li>9. Determine what principles are present in the parable that reveal the nature of God, his kingdom, the way he deals with humanity, or what he expects of humanity.<\/li>","summary_ro":"Guidelines for Interpreting Parables Interpreting the parables is not easy, but certain guidelines can be presented that will avoid past errors and make sane interpretation possible. 1. Analyze the parable thoroughly. Note the characters and movement of the story, its climax, and the repetition of key words or ideas. If it appears in more than one Gospel, do a comparative analysis of the various accounts to note both similarities and differences. 2. Listen to the parable without any preconcep...","summary_en":"Guidelines for Interpreting Parables Interpreting the parables is not easy, but certain guidelines can be presented that will avoid past errors and make sane interpretation possible. 1. Analyze the parable thoroughly. Note the characters and movement of the story, its climax, and the repetition of key words or ideas. If it appears in more than one Gospel, do a comparative analysis of the various accounts to note both similarities and differences. 2. Listen to the parable without any preconcep...","source":"Textboxes\/Textboxes.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.
Matei 19
— 30 versete
Matei 19
📘 Info carte
Se încarcă...
📖 Resurse