2
,,Porunceşte copiilor lui Israel să izgonească din tabără pe orice lepros, şi pe oricine are o lepădare de sămânţă, sau este întinat prin atingerea de un mort.
3
Fie bărbaţi fie femei, să-i scoateţi afară din tabără; să-i scoateţi afară, ca să nu spurce tabăra în mijlocul căreia Îmi am Eu locuinţa.``
4
Copiii lui Israel au făcut aşa, şi i-au scos afară din tabără; cum poruncise lui Moise Domnul, aşa au făcut copiii lui Israel.
5
Domnul a vorbit lui Moise, şi a zis:
6
,,Spune copiilor lui Israel: Când un bărbat sau o femeie va păcătui împotriva aproapelui său, făcând o călcare de lege faţă de Domnul, şi se va face astfel vinovat,
7
să-şi mărturisească păcatul, şi să dea înapoi în întregime preţul lucrului cîştigat prin mijloace necinstite, adăugând a cincea parte; să-l dea aceluia faţă de care s-a făcut vinovat.
8
Dacă nu este nimeni care să aibă drept să ia înapoi lucrul cîştigat prin mijloace necinstite, lucrul acela să se întoarcă la Domnul, la preot, afară de berbecele adus ca jertfă de ispăşire cu care se va face ispăşire pentru cel vinovat.
9
Orice dar ridicat din lucrurile închinate Domnului de copiii lui Israel, să fie al preotului, căruia îi sânt aduse.
10
Lucrurile închinate Domnului vor fi ale preotului: tot ce i se va da preotului, al lui să fie.``
11
Domnul a vorbit lui Moise, şi a zis:
12
,,Vorbeşte copiilor lui Israel, şi spune-le: Dacă păcătuieşte nevasta cuiva faţă de bărbatul ei, şi-i este necredincioasă;
13
dacă altul se culcă cu ea, şi lucrul este ascuns de bărbatul ei; dacă ea s-a pângărit în ascuns, fără să fie vreun martor împotriva ei, şi fără să fie prinsă asupra faptului; -
14
şi dacă bărbatul este apucat de un duh de gelozie şi are bănuieli asupra nevestei lui, care s-a pângărit, sau dacă este cuprins de un duh de gelozie şi are bănuieli asupra nevestei lui, care nu s-a pângărit; -
15
omul acela să-şi aducă nevasta la preot, şi, ca dar de mâncare pentru ea, să aducă a zecea parte dintr-o efă de floare de făină de orz; să nu toarne untdelemn pe ea, şi să nu pună tămâie pe ea, căci acesta este un dar de mâncare adus pentru gelozie, un dar de descoperire, care descopere o fărădelege.
16
Preotul s-o apropie, şi s-o pună să stea în picioare înaintea Domnului.
17
Preotul să ia apă sfântă într-un vas de pământ; să ia ţărână de pe podeala cortului şi s-o pună în apă.
18
Preotul să pună pe femeie să stea în picioare înaintea Domnului; să descopere capul femeii, şi să-i pună în mâni darul de mâncare adus pentru descoperire, darul de mâncare adus pentru gelozie; preotul să aibă în mână apele amare aducătoare de blestem.
19
Preotul să pună pe femeie să jure, şi să-i zică: ,Dacă niciun om nu s-a culcat cu tine, şi dacă, fiind subt puterea bărbatului tău, nu te-ai abătut dela el ca să te pângăreşti cu altul, să nu-ţi facă niciun rău aceste ape amare aducătoare de blestem!
20
Dar dacă, fiind subt puterea bărbatului tău, te-ai abătut dela el şi te-ai pângărit, şi dacă un alt om decât bărbatul tău s-a culcat cu tine, -
21
şi preotul să pună pe femeie să jure cu un jurământ de blestem, şi să-i zică: ,Domnul să te facă să ajungi de blestem şi de urgie în mijlocul poporului tău, făcând să ţi se usuce coapsa şi să ţi se umfle pântecele,
22
şi apele acestea aducătoare de blestem să intre în măruntaiele tale, ca să facă să ţi se umfle pântecele şi să ţi se usuce coapsa!` Şi femeia să zică: ,Amin! Amin!`
23
Preotul să scrie blestemurile acestea într-o carte, apoi să le şteargă cu apele cele amare.
24
Şi să dea femeii să bea apele amare aducătoare de blestem; şi apele aducătoare de blestem vor intra în ea şi-i vor pricinui amărăciunea.
25
Preotul să ia din mânile femeii darul de mâncare adus pentru gelozie, să legene darul într-o parte şi într-alta înaintea Domnului, şi să-l aducă pe altar.
26
Apoi preotul să ia un pumn din darul acesta, ca aducere aminte, şi să-l ardă pe altar. După aceea, să dea femeii să bea apele.
27
Dupăce îi va da să bea apele, dacă ea s-a pângărit şi a fost necredincioasă bărbatului ei, apele aducătoare de blestem vor intra în ea, şi-i vor pricinui amărăciunea; pântecele i se va umfla, coapsa i se va usca, şi femeia aceasta va fi de blestem în mijlocul poporului ei.
28
Dar dacă femeia nu s-a pângărit şi este curată, va rămânea neatinsă, şi va avea copii.
29
Aceasta este legea asupra geloziei, pentru împrejurarea când o femeie, care este subt puterea bărbatului ei, se abate şi se pângăreşte,
30
şi pentru împrejurarea când un bărbat, apucat de un duh de gelozie, are bănuieli asupra nevestei lui: preotul s-o pună să stea în picioare înaintea Domnului, şi să-i facă întocmai după legea aceasta.
31
Bărbatul va fi scutit de vină, dar femeia aceea îşi va lua pedeapsa nelegiuirii ei.``
{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":22768,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Biblical Concept of Law","title_en":"Biblical Concept of Law","content_ro":"<h3>LAW, Biblical Concept of<\/h3>\n<p>God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>• Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>• Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>• Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalContext\">Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). However, in his exalted status as ruler over God’s creation on earth, man had to prove his loyalty to the Lord. For this purpose God set up a simple test: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man was prohibited from eating the fruit of that tree (2:17). His disobedience marked him as unfit for fellowship with the great King. He was rebellious and by nature full of treachery, as the subsequent accounts of Cain (4:1-16), the generation of the Flood (6:1-13), Ham and Canaan (9:18-26; 10:6-20), and the Tower of Babel (11:1-9) demonstrate.<\/p>\n<p>Yet in the midst of all this the Lord graciously called Abraham. He promised to bless him, his seed, and the families of the earth that would join in a common expression of faith (Gn 12:2-3; 17:4-7). Abraham responded to God in faith (15:6), willingly observed the ritual of circumcision as a sign of the covenant (17:10; cf. 21:4), and walked before God with integrity of heart (17:1). Abraham subsequently learned that God had sovereignly and graciously chosen him with the purpose that Abraham’s family might distinguish itself from the nations “by doing righteousness and justice” (18:19). The Lord was pleased with his servant Abraham, who, though he had not received detailed laws, was a man of integrity. His heart was right with God, so that he willingly did what God commanded.<\/p>\n<p>The father of faith was the father of the faithful; the Lord testified that Abraham “obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws” (Gn 26:5, <span>niv<\/span>). His faith resulted in the fruits of righteousness (Jas 2:21-24).<\/p>\n<p>However, Israel, blessed by the Lord in the increase of descendants, the exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea, and his presence, did not respond to him in faith. They murmured and complained at Mt Sinai, at Kadesh-barnea, and in the plains of Moab. They proved themselves to be a rebellious and stiff-necked people (Ex 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Dt 9:6, 13). Though they had shown their character, the Lord was faithful to Abraham by covenanting himself to them. Israel became his people, his royal priesthood, his holy nation (Ex 19:5-6; Dt 26:18-19). He gave Israel the Ten Commandments, the law, and the covenant, symbolized by the two tablets of the testimony (Ex 32:15-16). Even after Moses had broken them in anger because of the people’s idolatrous worship of the golden calf, the Lord renewed his covenant by writing again the words of the covenant (34:28). On one hand, the context in which the law was given reflects God’s grace and forbearance with Israel’s sins (vv 6-7) and his determination to use Israel in the unfolding of his plan of redemption for the world. On the other hand, the context reflects Israel’s immaturity and stubbornness. Therefore, the law in the OT has positive and negative purposes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LawintheOldTestament\">Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The OT has many words for God’s law. The most general word is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Torah<\/span><em>,<\/em> which signifies instruction of any kind: religious and secular, written and oral, divine and human. Law in Israel was God’s law, mediated through Moses (Ex 20:19; Dt 5:23-27). Because Israel rejected the direct revelation of God’s oracles, the law was mediated through Moses the servant of God (Jn 1:17).<\/p>\n<p>Synonyms for law are, in various translations, word (cf. Ex 24:3; 34:27), judgment (cf. Ex 24:3), decree (cf. Nm 30:16; Dt 4:1), ordinance (cf. Nm 9:12, 14; Dt 6:2), command(ment) (cf. Dt 6:1, 25), statutes (Lv 3:17; 10:11), precepts (a Hebrew word used only in Psalms; cf. 119:4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87, 93, 94, 100, 104, 110, 128, 134, 141, 159, 168, 173), stipulations, requirements, testimonies (cf. Dt 4:45; 6:20; 1 Kgs 2:3), precept (a Hebrew term not in the Pentateuch; cf. Ps 119:15), or simply the “way(s)” (cf. 1 Kgs 2:3; Pss 18:21; 25:9; 37:34).<\/p>\n<p>These words form a semantic field, and it is far from easy to distinguish clearly among the various forms of laws. Generally “the words” pertain to the duties of man toward God, especially the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1; 34:27). The “judgments” contain civil regulations and duties to one’s fellows and to the social environment (21:1–23:9); these are often in the form of “if . . . then. . . .” In Leviticus and in cultic formulations the word “ordinances” has the technical sense of cultic regulations—the ceremonial laws. However, in other contexts, especially in a series of synonyms for law, it signifies any expectation or regulation. The “commandments” are those regulations given by a higher authority. Though the OT has many words for law, the connotation of one word is often indistinguishable from that of other words, especially in series such as “the decrees and laws” (Dt 4:1, 5; 5:1), “the commands, decrees and laws” (6:1), “walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The motivation for keeping the divine law lies in the acts and presence of the Lord. The prologue to the Decalogue reminds us of God’s mighty acts: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex 20:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). In the historic acts of Israel’s redemption, revelation at Mt Sinai, and consecration of Israel to be his people, he involved himself with Israel as a “father.” He adopted Israel to sonship and consecrated them; that is, he declared them holy (Ex 19:6; 31:13; Lv 20:8; 22:32; cf. Rom 9:4). Sometimes the two concepts of redemption and consecration are placed together, but whether they are or not, they are inseparable: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span>, who makes you holy” (Lv 22:32b, <span>niv<\/span>). The ground of obedience can be stated simply by an appeal to God’s name: “I am Yahweh” (cf. Lv 18:6, 21, 30; 19:10, 14, 16, 18, 28, 30-31, 34, 36-37). The requisite of practical holiness is also based on the experience of God’s presence. The Lord commanded Israel to be holy because he is holy (Lv 11:44-45; 19:2). The “holy one of Israel” dwelt in the midst of his people (Ex 25:8; 29:45; Nm 5:3; 35:34).<\/p>\n<p>How could rebellious Israel grasp what God required, if it were not by precise moral, social, civil, and cultic regulations? The Lord had observed that they did not have “the heart” to serve him as a covenant-loyal people (Dt 5:29). By Israel’s very nature, it could not develop an adequate moral and cultic system to please God. Because of the people’s hardness of heart, God had to reveal (i.e., “spell out”) his will.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IsraeliteLawandtheAncientNearEast\">Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s law reflected the practices of its ancient Near Eastern context. Ancient Babylonian law codes (Eshnunna, Hammurabi) show similarities with the biblical codes. The similarities go beyond similarity of cases and include legal formulations (casuistic law). Israelite law is distinct in that it is divine law. Moses is the mediator and not the promulgator of the law, as was the practice of a king who, like Hammurabi, put into force a legal code. The Lord himself gave Israel its laws (cf. Dt 4:5-8). The laws in the ancient Near East dealt with the ordering of society. But Israel’s laws were given to regulate every aspect of life: personal, familial, social, and cultic. The laws were to teach Israel to distinguish between holy and profane, between clean and unclean, and between just and unjust.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLaws\">Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>The legal corpus of the OT is not given in one book or in one section. Moreover, the laws reflect the development from the desert context (Exodus) to the context of the land (Deuteronomy). The OT legal material is complex, full of variations and duplications. It is found in Exodus (chs 20–24; 25–31), Leviticus, Numbers (chs 3–6; 8–10; 15; 18; 19; 28–30), and Deuteronomy (chs 5–26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ten Commandments<\/h5>\n<p>The commandments are simply designated as “the words” of God (Ex 20:1). They appear in Exodus 20:1-17 and in Deuteronomy 5:6-21, but minor variations and individual commandments occur in other contexts (e.g., Ex 34:14, 17, 21; Lv 19:1-8; Dt 27:15-16). As a part of the covenant, the commandments were first addressed to Israel; they now form the basis of morality in Christianity. The abiding relevance of the moral law is clear from the NT. Our Lord established his authority as interpreter of all the commandments (Mt 5:17-48; 12:1-14; 23:23-24). He summarized the law in terms of love for God and man (cf. Mt 22:37-40; Mk 12:28-34; Lk 10:27; cf. Rom 13:8-9; Gal 5:14). Since he is also the Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath cannot be divorced from the other commandments (Mt 12:8). The apostle Paul also upheld the law, as his “ethics of the Spirit” reflects an internalization of the law of God in the hearts of believers (cf. Rom 8:1-17; 12:1–15:13; 1 Cor 2:6-16; 5:1-8; 10:23–11:1; Gal 5:13–6:10; Eph 4:17–6:9; Phil 2:1-18; Col 3:1–4:6; 1 Thes 4:1-12; 5:12-24; 2 Thes 3:6-15; 1 Tm 6:3-10; Ti 3:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The commandments were written on both sides of the two tablets by the Lord (Ex 32:15-16). It is unclear whether the tablets were duplicate copies, how the commandments were divided, and how the commandments were numbered. They were kept in the ark of the covenant as a testimony to the covenant (40:20).<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Covenant (Ex 20:23–23:19)<\/h5>\n<p>The purpose of the covenant code was to exemplify and to set into motion the legal machinery by which Israel as a nation could reflect God’s concern for justice, love, peace, and the value of life. The laws in the Book of the Covenant are mainly of the casuistic type. They regulate life in an agricultural society with servants, donkeys, bulls, oxen, sheep, and fields of grain. The regulations pertain to relations with women (including widows), aliens, orphans; to legal concerns (liability, damages, ownership); as well as to religious obligations (altar, Sabbath). Often the law requires restitution, but restitution is not the rule when human life is involved (Ex 21:12-29; 22:2-3), especially when it involves one’s family (21:15-17, 22-25). The penal code attached to the case laws makes clear the value of human life, which is protected by the <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”). The <em>lex talionis<\/em> does not point to a lack of forgiveness under the OT but rather was intended to be a legal principle giving coherence and justice to a society. The Book of the Covenant explicates by means of principles and cases how Israel must live together as a nation embracing the law of God and applying it <em>justly<\/em> (without discrimination or twisting of rights), <em>lovingly<\/em> (with a concern for the parties involved), and <em>peaceably.<\/em><\/p>\n<h5>The Priestly Law<\/h5>\n<p>God’s concern for holiness and purity comes to expression in the priestly laws (Ex 25–31; 35–40; Lv 1–27; Nm 4–10). The regulations pertain to the construction of the tabernacle, the consecration and ordination of priests, the offerings and sacrifices, rules of purity, the holy days, and vows.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was set in the middle of Israel’s camp in the wilderness. It symbolized the presence of God with his people. The priests and Levites were encamped around the tabernacle to serve and protect God’s holiness. All the tribes were situated around the tabernacle, and though the members of the tribes did not have access to all parts of the tabernacle, they had to be ritually clean to live in the camp. Anyone who was ritually defiled (Lv 13:46; Nm 5:1-3) or had sinned grievously was put outside the camp (Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36). This regulation even included objects that had become defiled (Lv 8:17; 9:11).<\/p>\n<p>By means of prescribed offerings and sacrifices (Lv 1–7; 16; Nm 15:1-31; 28), God assured Israel, individually and corporately, of forgiveness when it had unwittingly sinned. The offerings and sacrifices concretely embodied the purpose of the offerer, whether forgiveness, dedication, or fellowship.<\/p>\n<p>The priests and Levites taught the law of God (Dt 31:9-13), applied its regulations, and served in courts (17:8-13).<\/p>\n<h5>The Holiness Code (Lv 17–26)<\/h5>\n<p>The holiness code forms a significant part of the book of Leviticus. Here Moses addressed all of Israel (cf. Lv 17:2; 18:2; 19:2; 20:2; 21:24; 23:2; 24:2; 25:2; 26:46; 27:2).<\/p>\n<p>The laws are in the form of prohibitions and direct commands. They pertain to the place of sacrifice and the prohibition of eating meat with blood in it (ch 17); the prohibition of sexual relations with specified family members (ch 18); and regulations promoting godliness, holiness, justice, and love in society (ch 19). The penal code applies penalties to those who sin against the regulations (ch 20; 24:10-23). Chapters 21–24 apply the cultic regulations to the priests and to all Israelites. The institutions of the sabbatical year and the Year of Jubilee regulate the remission of debts, freedom of people, and restitution of land (ch 25).<\/p>\n<p>The holiness code spells out the qualities required of a holy people: devotion to God (offerings, sacrifices, priests) and love for man (Lv 19:18b) demonstrated in concern for justice, peace, freedom, the value of human life, and a concern for the family. Many of the laws reflect the spirit of the Decalogue (ch 19).<\/p>\n<p>Both promises and curses are attached to the holiness code (ch 26). The curses predict exile as a consequence of breaking the laws. But always underlying the laws and penalties is the grace of the Lord, who promises freely to forgive the people’s sins and to renew the broken covenant (26:44-45).<\/p>\n<h5>Laws of Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The Deuteronomic laws are explications and new applications of the Book of the Covenant in view of Israel’s new historical situation. Israel was about to enter the Promised Land when Moses outlined to them the law of God (Dt 1:5). The impersonal element of the Book of the Covenant is here transformed by personal appeal. Moses strongly appeals to Israel to be loyal to the Lord, the covenant, and the covenantal stipulations. The Deuteronomic laws envision the people in the land of promise, with a central sanctuary (12:5, 11-18; 14:23; 15:20; 16:5-7, 16, 21; 17:8; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11) and with a king (17:14-20). The blessings and the curses motivate covenant loyalty (ch 28). However, Israel is also here assured that even if it breaks God’s law, the Lord remains gracious and forgiving.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposesoftheLaw\">Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p>The law revealed at Mt Sinai was intended to lead Israel closer to God. Rebellious though they were, God used the law as his righteous instrument to teach, in a very specific way, what sin is (cf. Rom 5:20; 7:7-8) and how they should walk on a path that kept them undefiled by sin and holy to the Lord. The law was the teacher and the keeper of Israel (Gal 3:24). The detailed explications of the laws in all areas of life (work, society, family, cult, and nation) had an important place in God’s dealings with Israel. Israel was a nation in a special land, with a theocratic government, and was in need of a legislative corpus. Moreover, Israel’s condition at Mt Sinai was such that it could not receive direct revelation. The revelation had to be mediated through Moses. It had to be set forth in detail because Israel had no intuitive grasp of what the revelation of God’s holiness, justice, righteousness, love, and forebearance required of them. They had adopted Egyptian ways and had to learn the divine will by revelation. However, Moses and the prophets emphasize that the purpose of the law is not strict adherence to the law for its own sake (legalism) or for a reward (Pharisaism). Keeping the law is an act of devotion to God, for the sake of God. Our Lord confirmed the purpose of the law: to establish a dynamic way of life in which one continually seeks God’s kingdom and his righteousness (Mt 6:33).<\/p>\n<p>The law of God is his means of sanctification. He consecrated Israel by an act of grace, and he required Israel to remain holy. Jesus confirmed those uses of the law whereby one may know his sinfulness and by which he may be driven to Christ. On the cross our Lord carried the penalties of the law, fulfilled in a greater way the tabernacle\/temple presence of God, fulfilled the Father’s expectations of atonement, and demonstrated the love of the Father. He, the Son and greater than Moses, gave the essence of the law in the summary of God’s requirements: love of God and love of neighbor (Mt 23:23-24; Lk 11:42-44). Jesus taught that the purpose of obedience is not primarily to receive a reward but to serve as salt (Mt 5:13) and light (Mt 5:14-16; cf. Eph 4:17–5:20), and to bear fruit (Jn 15:1-17). The purpose of the law of God is the gradual transformation of the children of God to reflect the image of the Son (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10), to be an imitation of the Father (Eph 5:1-2), and to be filled with the Spirit of God (Gal 5:18, 22-24). For this purpose Jesus gave us the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, which summarize the intent of the teaching of Moses and the prophets (Mt 5–7).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the law is to transform regenerated believers into maturity. Spiritual maturity is not a privilege that was reserved for believers after Christ; OT saints also walked with God (Enoch, Gn 5:22-24; Noah, 6:9; Abraham, 17:1). These were mature men who lived with integrity in the presence of God (cf. Gn 17:1; Dt 18:13; Pss 15:1-2; 18:26; 101:2, 6; 119:80; Prv 11:5).<\/p>\n<p>Maturity, or integrity, is that response to God whereby the believer no longer needs to live by individual stipulations or in fear of mistakes and sins of omission, but delights in doing the Lord’s will (Pss 1:2; 112:1). Since the coming of Christ and Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has been poured out on every believer. He has come not only to internalize the law of God (Jer 31:33) but also to help us develop Christian maturity by giving the fruits of godliness in greater fullness (Gal 5:22-24). Whereas maturity and freedom were experienced by some OT saints, it is God’s gift to all his children in Christ (Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 12:13). The purpose is still the same, “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped [mature] for every good work” (2 Tm 3:17, <span>niv<\/span>), but the means to accomplish this and the status of the child of God is so much better since Pentecost.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Criminal Law and Punishment; Galatians, Letter to the; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Justification; Romans, Letter to the; Commandments, The Ten; Torah; Tradition.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LAW, Biblical Concept of<\/h3>\n<p>God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>• Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>• Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>• Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalContext\">Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). However, in his exalted status as ruler over God’s creation on earth, man had to prove his loyalty to the Lord. For this purpose God set up a simple test: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man was prohibited from eating the fruit of that tree (2:17). His disobedience marked him as unfit for fellowship with the great King. He was rebellious and by nature full of treachery, as the subsequent accounts of Cain (4:1-16), the generation of the Flood (6:1-13), Ham and Canaan (9:18-26; 10:6-20), and the Tower of Babel (11:1-9) demonstrate.<\/p>\n<p>Yet in the midst of all this the Lord graciously called Abraham. He promised to bless him, his seed, and the families of the earth that would join in a common expression of faith (Gn 12:2-3; 17:4-7). Abraham responded to God in faith (15:6), willingly observed the ritual of circumcision as a sign of the covenant (17:10; cf. 21:4), and walked before God with integrity of heart (17:1). Abraham subsequently learned that God had sovereignly and graciously chosen him with the purpose that Abraham’s family might distinguish itself from the nations “by doing righteousness and justice” (18:19). The Lord was pleased with his servant Abraham, who, though he had not received detailed laws, was a man of integrity. His heart was right with God, so that he willingly did what God commanded.<\/p>\n<p>The father of faith was the father of the faithful; the Lord testified that Abraham “obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws” (Gn 26:5, <span>niv<\/span>). His faith resulted in the fruits of righteousness (Jas 2:21-24).<\/p>\n<p>However, Israel, blessed by the Lord in the increase of descendants, the exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea, and his presence, did not respond to him in faith. They murmured and complained at Mt Sinai, at Kadesh-barnea, and in the plains of Moab. They proved themselves to be a rebellious and stiff-necked people (Ex 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Dt 9:6, 13). Though they had shown their character, the Lord was faithful to Abraham by covenanting himself to them. Israel became his people, his royal priesthood, his holy nation (Ex 19:5-6; Dt 26:18-19). He gave Israel the Ten Commandments, the law, and the covenant, symbolized by the two tablets of the testimony (Ex 32:15-16). Even after Moses had broken them in anger because of the people’s idolatrous worship of the golden calf, the Lord renewed his covenant by writing again the words of the covenant (34:28). On one hand, the context in which the law was given reflects God’s grace and forbearance with Israel’s sins (vv 6-7) and his determination to use Israel in the unfolding of his plan of redemption for the world. On the other hand, the context reflects Israel’s immaturity and stubbornness. Therefore, the law in the OT has positive and negative purposes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LawintheOldTestament\">Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The OT has many words for God’s law. The most general word is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Torah<\/span><em>,<\/em> which signifies instruction of any kind: religious and secular, written and oral, divine and human. Law in Israel was God’s law, mediated through Moses (Ex 20:19; Dt 5:23-27). Because Israel rejected the direct revelation of God’s oracles, the law was mediated through Moses the servant of God (Jn 1:17).<\/p>\n<p>Synonyms for law are, in various translations, word (cf. Ex 24:3; 34:27), judgment (cf. Ex 24:3), decree (cf. Nm 30:16; Dt 4:1), ordinance (cf. Nm 9:12, 14; Dt 6:2), command(ment) (cf. Dt 6:1, 25), statutes (Lv 3:17; 10:11), precepts (a Hebrew word used only in Psalms; cf. 119:4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87, 93, 94, 100, 104, 110, 128, 134, 141, 159, 168, 173), stipulations, requirements, testimonies (cf. Dt 4:45; 6:20; 1 Kgs 2:3), precept (a Hebrew term not in the Pentateuch; cf. Ps 119:15), or simply the “way(s)” (cf. 1 Kgs 2:3; Pss 18:21; 25:9; 37:34).<\/p>\n<p>These words form a semantic field, and it is far from easy to distinguish clearly among the various forms of laws. Generally “the words” pertain to the duties of man toward God, especially the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1; 34:27). The “judgments” contain civil regulations and duties to one’s fellows and to the social environment (21:1–23:9); these are often in the form of “if . . . then. . . .” In Leviticus and in cultic formulations the word “ordinances” has the technical sense of cultic regulations—the ceremonial laws. However, in other contexts, especially in a series of synonyms for law, it signifies any expectation or regulation. The “commandments” are those regulations given by a higher authority. Though the OT has many words for law, the connotation of one word is often indistinguishable from that of other words, especially in series such as “the decrees and laws” (Dt 4:1, 5; 5:1), “the commands, decrees and laws” (6:1), “walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The motivation for keeping the divine law lies in the acts and presence of the Lord. The prologue to the Decalogue reminds us of God’s mighty acts: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex 20:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). In the historic acts of Israel’s redemption, revelation at Mt Sinai, and consecration of Israel to be his people, he involved himself with Israel as a “father.” He adopted Israel to sonship and consecrated them; that is, he declared them holy (Ex 19:6; 31:13; Lv 20:8; 22:32; cf. Rom 9:4). Sometimes the two concepts of redemption and consecration are placed together, but whether they are or not, they are inseparable: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span>, who makes you holy” (Lv 22:32b, <span>niv<\/span>). The ground of obedience can be stated simply by an appeal to God’s name: “I am Yahweh” (cf. Lv 18:6, 21, 30; 19:10, 14, 16, 18, 28, 30-31, 34, 36-37). The requisite of practical holiness is also based on the experience of God’s presence. The Lord commanded Israel to be holy because he is holy (Lv 11:44-45; 19:2). The “holy one of Israel” dwelt in the midst of his people (Ex 25:8; 29:45; Nm 5:3; 35:34).<\/p>\n<p>How could rebellious Israel grasp what God required, if it were not by precise moral, social, civil, and cultic regulations? The Lord had observed that they did not have “the heart” to serve him as a covenant-loyal people (Dt 5:29). By Israel’s very nature, it could not develop an adequate moral and cultic system to please God. Because of the people’s hardness of heart, God had to reveal (i.e., “spell out”) his will.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IsraeliteLawandtheAncientNearEast\">Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s law reflected the practices of its ancient Near Eastern context. Ancient Babylonian law codes (Eshnunna, Hammurabi) show similarities with the biblical codes. The similarities go beyond similarity of cases and include legal formulations (casuistic law). Israelite law is distinct in that it is divine law. Moses is the mediator and not the promulgator of the law, as was the practice of a king who, like Hammurabi, put into force a legal code. The Lord himself gave Israel its laws (cf. Dt 4:5-8). The laws in the ancient Near East dealt with the ordering of society. But Israel’s laws were given to regulate every aspect of life: personal, familial, social, and cultic. The laws were to teach Israel to distinguish between holy and profane, between clean and unclean, and between just and unjust.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLaws\">Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>The legal corpus of the OT is not given in one book or in one section. Moreover, the laws reflect the development from the desert context (Exodus) to the context of the land (Deuteronomy). The OT legal material is complex, full of variations and duplications. It is found in Exodus (chs 20–24; 25–31), Leviticus, Numbers (chs 3–6; 8–10; 15; 18; 19; 28–30), and Deuteronomy (chs 5–26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ten Commandments<\/h5>\n<p>The commandments are simply designated as “the words” of God (Ex 20:1). They appear in Exodus 20:1-17 and in Deuteronomy 5:6-21, but minor variations and individual commandments occur in other contexts (e.g., Ex 34:14, 17, 21; Lv 19:1-8; Dt 27:15-16). As a part of the covenant, the commandments were first addressed to Israel; they now form the basis of morality in Christianity. The abiding relevance of the moral law is clear from the NT. Our Lord established his authority as interpreter of all the commandments (Mt 5:17-48; 12:1-14; 23:23-24). He summarized the law in terms of love for God and man (cf. Mt 22:37-40; Mk 12:28-34; Lk 10:27; cf. Rom 13:8-9; Gal 5:14). Since he is also the Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath cannot be divorced from the other commandments (Mt 12:8). The apostle Paul also upheld the law, as his “ethics of the Spirit” reflects an internalization of the law of God in the hearts of believers (cf. Rom 8:1-17; 12:1–15:13; 1 Cor 2:6-16; 5:1-8; 10:23–11:1; Gal 5:13–6:10; Eph 4:17–6:9; Phil 2:1-18; Col 3:1–4:6; 1 Thes 4:1-12; 5:12-24; 2 Thes 3:6-15; 1 Tm 6:3-10; Ti 3:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The commandments were written on both sides of the two tablets by the Lord (Ex 32:15-16). It is unclear whether the tablets were duplicate copies, how the commandments were divided, and how the commandments were numbered. They were kept in the ark of the covenant as a testimony to the covenant (40:20).<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Covenant (Ex 20:23–23:19)<\/h5>\n<p>The purpose of the covenant code was to exemplify and to set into motion the legal machinery by which Israel as a nation could reflect God’s concern for justice, love, peace, and the value of life. The laws in the Book of the Covenant are mainly of the casuistic type. They regulate life in an agricultural society with servants, donkeys, bulls, oxen, sheep, and fields of grain. The regulations pertain to relations with women (including widows), aliens, orphans; to legal concerns (liability, damages, ownership); as well as to religious obligations (altar, Sabbath). Often the law requires restitution, but restitution is not the rule when human life is involved (Ex 21:12-29; 22:2-3), especially when it involves one’s family (21:15-17, 22-25). The penal code attached to the case laws makes clear the value of human life, which is protected by the <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”). The <em>lex talionis<\/em> does not point to a lack of forgiveness under the OT but rather was intended to be a legal principle giving coherence and justice to a society. The Book of the Covenant explicates by means of principles and cases how Israel must live together as a nation embracing the law of God and applying it <em>justly<\/em> (without discrimination or twisting of rights), <em>lovingly<\/em> (with a concern for the parties involved), and <em>peaceably.<\/em><\/p>\n<h5>The Priestly Law<\/h5>\n<p>God’s concern for holiness and purity comes to expression in the priestly laws (Ex 25–31; 35–40; Lv 1–27; Nm 4–10). The regulations pertain to the construction of the tabernacle, the consecration and ordination of priests, the offerings and sacrifices, rules of purity, the holy days, and vows.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was set in the middle of Israel’s camp in the wilderness. It symbolized the presence of God with his people. The priests and Levites were encamped around the tabernacle to serve and protect God’s holiness. All the tribes were situated around the tabernacle, and though the members of the tribes did not have access to all parts of the tabernacle, they had to be ritually clean to live in the camp. Anyone who was ritually defiled (Lv 13:46; Nm 5:1-3) or had sinned grievously was put outside the camp (Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36). This regulation even included objects that had become defiled (Lv 8:17; 9:11).<\/p>\n<p>By means of prescribed offerings and sacrifices (Lv 1–7; 16; Nm 15:1-31; 28), God assured Israel, individually and corporately, of forgiveness when it had unwittingly sinned. The offerings and sacrifices concretely embodied the purpose of the offerer, whether forgiveness, dedication, or fellowship.<\/p>\n<p>The priests and Levites taught the law of God (Dt 31:9-13), applied its regulations, and served in courts (17:8-13).<\/p>\n<h5>The Holiness Code (Lv 17–26)<\/h5>\n<p>The holiness code forms a significant part of the book of Leviticus. Here Moses addressed all of Israel (cf. Lv 17:2; 18:2; 19:2; 20:2; 21:24; 23:2; 24:2; 25:2; 26:46; 27:2).<\/p>\n<p>The laws are in the form of prohibitions and direct commands. They pertain to the place of sacrifice and the prohibition of eating meat with blood in it (ch 17); the prohibition of sexual relations with specified family members (ch 18); and regulations promoting godliness, holiness, justice, and love in society (ch 19). The penal code applies penalties to those who sin against the regulations (ch 20; 24:10-23). Chapters 21–24 apply the cultic regulations to the priests and to all Israelites. The institutions of the sabbatical year and the Year of Jubilee regulate the remission of debts, freedom of people, and restitution of land (ch 25).<\/p>\n<p>The holiness code spells out the qualities required of a holy people: devotion to God (offerings, sacrifices, priests) and love for man (Lv 19:18b) demonstrated in concern for justice, peace, freedom, the value of human life, and a concern for the family. Many of the laws reflect the spirit of the Decalogue (ch 19).<\/p>\n<p>Both promises and curses are attached to the holiness code (ch 26). The curses predict exile as a consequence of breaking the laws. But always underlying the laws and penalties is the grace of the Lord, who promises freely to forgive the people’s sins and to renew the broken covenant (26:44-45).<\/p>\n<h5>Laws of Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The Deuteronomic laws are explications and new applications of the Book of the Covenant in view of Israel’s new historical situation. Israel was about to enter the Promised Land when Moses outlined to them the law of God (Dt 1:5). The impersonal element of the Book of the Covenant is here transformed by personal appeal. Moses strongly appeals to Israel to be loyal to the Lord, the covenant, and the covenantal stipulations. The Deuteronomic laws envision the people in the land of promise, with a central sanctuary (12:5, 11-18; 14:23; 15:20; 16:5-7, 16, 21; 17:8; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11) and with a king (17:14-20). The blessings and the curses motivate covenant loyalty (ch 28). However, Israel is also here assured that even if it breaks God’s law, the Lord remains gracious and forgiving.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposesoftheLaw\">Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p>The law revealed at Mt Sinai was intended to lead Israel closer to God. Rebellious though they were, God used the law as his righteous instrument to teach, in a very specific way, what sin is (cf. Rom 5:20; 7:7-8) and how they should walk on a path that kept them undefiled by sin and holy to the Lord. The law was the teacher and the keeper of Israel (Gal 3:24). The detailed explications of the laws in all areas of life (work, society, family, cult, and nation) had an important place in God’s dealings with Israel. Israel was a nation in a special land, with a theocratic government, and was in need of a legislative corpus. Moreover, Israel’s condition at Mt Sinai was such that it could not receive direct revelation. The revelation had to be mediated through Moses. It had to be set forth in detail because Israel had no intuitive grasp of what the revelation of God’s holiness, justice, righteousness, love, and forebearance required of them. They had adopted Egyptian ways and had to learn the divine will by revelation. However, Moses and the prophets emphasize that the purpose of the law is not strict adherence to the law for its own sake (legalism) or for a reward (Pharisaism). Keeping the law is an act of devotion to God, for the sake of God. Our Lord confirmed the purpose of the law: to establish a dynamic way of life in which one continually seeks God’s kingdom and his righteousness (Mt 6:33).<\/p>\n<p>The law of God is his means of sanctification. He consecrated Israel by an act of grace, and he required Israel to remain holy. Jesus confirmed those uses of the law whereby one may know his sinfulness and by which he may be driven to Christ. On the cross our Lord carried the penalties of the law, fulfilled in a greater way the tabernacle\/temple presence of God, fulfilled the Father’s expectations of atonement, and demonstrated the love of the Father. He, the Son and greater than Moses, gave the essence of the law in the summary of God’s requirements: love of God and love of neighbor (Mt 23:23-24; Lk 11:42-44). Jesus taught that the purpose of obedience is not primarily to receive a reward but to serve as salt (Mt 5:13) and light (Mt 5:14-16; cf. Eph 4:17–5:20), and to bear fruit (Jn 15:1-17). The purpose of the law of God is the gradual transformation of the children of God to reflect the image of the Son (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10), to be an imitation of the Father (Eph 5:1-2), and to be filled with the Spirit of God (Gal 5:18, 22-24). For this purpose Jesus gave us the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, which summarize the intent of the teaching of Moses and the prophets (Mt 5–7).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the law is to transform regenerated believers into maturity. Spiritual maturity is not a privilege that was reserved for believers after Christ; OT saints also walked with God (Enoch, Gn 5:22-24; Noah, 6:9; Abraham, 17:1). These were mature men who lived with integrity in the presence of God (cf. Gn 17:1; Dt 18:13; Pss 15:1-2; 18:26; 101:2, 6; 119:80; Prv 11:5).<\/p>\n<p>Maturity, or integrity, is that response to God whereby the believer no longer needs to live by individual stipulations or in fear of mistakes and sins of omission, but delights in doing the Lord’s will (Pss 1:2; 112:1). Since the coming of Christ and Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has been poured out on every believer. He has come not only to internalize the law of God (Jer 31:33) but also to help us develop Christian maturity by giving the fruits of godliness in greater fullness (Gal 5:22-24). Whereas maturity and freedom were experienced by some OT saints, it is God’s gift to all his children in Christ (Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 12:13). The purpose is still the same, “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped [mature] for every good work” (2 Tm 3:17, <span>niv<\/span>), but the means to accomplish this and the status of the child of God is so much better since Pentecost.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Criminal Law and Punishment; Galatians, Letter to the; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Justification; Romans, Letter to the; Commandments, The Ten; Torah; Tradition.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LAW, Biblical Concept of God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God. Preview • Historical Context • Law in the Old Testament • Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East • Old Testament Laws • Purposes of the Law Historical Context When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). Howe...","summary_en":"LAW, Biblical Concept of God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God. Preview • Historical Context • Law in the Old Testament • Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East • Old Testament Laws • Purposes of the Law Historical Context When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). Howe...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":26063,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Miscarriage","title_en":"Miscarriage","content_ro":"<h3>MISCARRIAGE<\/h3>\n<p>Spontaneous abortion of a nonviable fetus. It occurs in both human (Jb 3:16; Hos 9:14) and animal (Gn 31:38; Jb 21:10) pregnancies. The major problem is not in being unable to conceive or to become pregnant but in carrying the pregnancy to full term. The curse of a “miscarrying womb” results in not being able to have children (Hos 9:14), while the blessing of God results in successful pregnancies and long life (Ex 23:26).<\/p>\n<p>The time factor is the key abnormality as indicated by premature delivery or “untimely birth” (Ps 58:8; Jb 3:16). While miscarriages occur for many reasons, Scripture mentions two: improper care (in animals) (Gn 31:38) and trauma to a pregnant woman (Ex 21:22).<\/p>\n<p>Numbers 5 gives the test for an unfaithful wife. If she is guilty of adultery, then “her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away” (v 27, <span>niv<\/span>). These phrases may be euphemisms for miscarriage or for sterility (see <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Paul underscores his inherent unworthiness to be an apostle by comparing his spiritual birth to an untimely physical birth (1 Cor 15:8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Barrenness.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MISCARRIAGE<\/h3>\n<p>Spontaneous abortion of a nonviable fetus. It occurs in both human (Jb 3:16; Hos 9:14) and animal (Gn 31:38; Jb 21:10) pregnancies. The major problem is not in being unable to conceive or to become pregnant but in carrying the pregnancy to full term. The curse of a “miscarrying womb” results in not being able to have children (Hos 9:14), while the blessing of God results in successful pregnancies and long life (Ex 23:26).<\/p>\n<p>The time factor is the key abnormality as indicated by premature delivery or “untimely birth” (Ps 58:8; Jb 3:16). While miscarriages occur for many reasons, Scripture mentions two: improper care (in animals) (Gn 31:38) and trauma to a pregnant woman (Ex 21:22).<\/p>\n<p>Numbers 5 gives the test for an unfaithful wife. If she is guilty of adultery, then “her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away” (v 27, <span>niv<\/span>). These phrases may be euphemisms for miscarriage or for sterility (see <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Paul underscores his inherent unworthiness to be an apostle by comparing his spiritual birth to an untimely physical birth (1 Cor 15:8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Barrenness.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MISCARRIAGE Spontaneous abortion of a nonviable fetus. It occurs in both human (Jb 3:16; Hos 9:14) and animal (Gn 31:38; Jb 21:10) pregnancies. The major problem is not in being unable to conceive or to become pregnant but in carrying the pregnancy to full term. The curse of a “miscarrying womb” results in not being able to have children (Hos 9:14), while the blessing of God results in successful pregnancies and long life (Ex 23:26). The time factor is the key abnormality as indicated by prem...","summary_en":"MISCARRIAGE Spontaneous abortion of a nonviable fetus. It occurs in both human (Jb 3:16; Hos 9:14) and animal (Gn 31:38; Jb 21:10) pregnancies. The major problem is not in being unable to conceive or to become pregnant but in carrying the pregnancy to full term. The curse of a “miscarrying womb” results in not being able to have children (Hos 9:14), while the blessing of God results in successful pregnancies and long life (Ex 23:26). The time factor is the key abnormality as indicated by prem...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":27841,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Numbers","title_en":"Book of Numbers","content_ro":"<h3>NUMBERS, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Fourth book of the English Bible. Its title is the English translation of the Latin Vulgate title, <em>Numeri.<\/em> The book takes this name from the fact that several rosters of various kinds are recorded in the book, specifically, the two army musters in chapters 1 and 26, the tribal camp and march arrangements in chapter 2, and the Levitical censuses in chapters 3 and 4.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p>• Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The question of the authorship of Numbers is part of the larger question of the authorship of the Pentateuch. Until the appearance of the higher-critical documentary theories of the 19th century, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was almost universally held by both Jews and Christians alike. This time-honored tradition is supported by the Pentateuch itself (e.g., Ex 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Nm 33:2; Dt 31:9, 24), the rest of the OT (e.g., Jos 23:6; Jgs 3:4; Mal 4:4), as well as Jesus’ teaching (e.g., Jn 5:46-47), and the rest of the NT (e.g., Acts 28:23; Rom 10:19; 1 Cor 9:9). Although discrepancies in the Pentateuch were widely and openly acknowledged, nevertheless Moses, the 15th-century <span>BC<\/span> lawgiver, was affirmed as the primary author of the Pentateuchal literature.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<h5>Sinai Peninsula<\/h5>\n<p>The historical background of Numbers begins primarily in the geographical region of the Sinai Peninsula of the mid-second millennium <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Sinai Peninsula is in the shape of an inverted triangle with the base on the north. It is approximately 240 miles (386.2 kilometers) long from north to south and 175 miles (281.6 kilometers) wide at the northern base, with an area of approximately 22,000 square miles (56,980 square kilometers). It is bounded on the north by the Mediterranean Sea and the southern border of Canaan, on the west by the Bitter Lakes and the Gulf of Suez, and on the east by the Arabah and the Gulf of Aqaba. Beginning in the north at the Mediterranean coast and moving south, for about 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) the soil is sandy. South of this coastal plain is a high plateau (Et-Tih) of gravel and limestone (about 2,500 feet, or 762 meters, above sea level), stretching south into the peninsula for approximately 150 miles (241.4 kilometers). Rising above the plateau at this point is a granite mountain formation with peaks up to 8,000 feet (2,438.4 meters) above sea level. In this mountainous region at the apex of the peninsular triangle, Jebel Musa (7,363 feet, or 2,244.2 meters, high), the traditional site where Israel camped before Mt Sinai and Moses received the law, rises above the plain.<\/p>\n<p>The peninsula itself is comprised of five wilderness areas. In the north and immediately east of the land of Goshen is the approximately 40-mile- or 64.4-kilometer-wide wilderness of Shur, which runs past the River of Egypt (Wadi el-Arish) to the region of Kadesh-barnea and northeast to Beersheba. East of this region is the wilderness of Zin, extending east from the wilderness of Shur to the southern tip of the Dead Sea. Kadesh-barnea is located on its southern border (Nm 20:1; 33:36). South of the wilderness of Shur is the wilderness of Etham, and east of this wilderness in the east-central region of Sinai is the great wilderness of Paran (Dt 1:19). Kadesh-barnea is on the northern border of this territory (Nm 13:26). In this area the Israelites spent 38 of their 40 years of wandering. Southwest of the wilderness of Paran, on the western slopes of the peninsula, not far from the granite mountains standing in the southern apex of the triangle, is the wilderness of Sin.<\/p>\n<p>While the region is generally desolate and barren, it is not impassable or incapable of sustaining travelers. Wells and springs dot both the western and eastern borders at reasonable distances from each other. The water table is fairly close to ground level, making the digging of wells possible (Nm 20:17; 21:16-18). The limestone rocks are also capable of holding great amounts of water (20:11). Vegetation is sparse except around the more permanent streams where vegetation and date palms flourish. The rainy season in winter is approximately 20 days. Quail (11:31-32) are known to migrate across the peninsula to Europe in the spring.<\/p>\n\n<h5>The Peoples Israel Confronted<\/h5>\n<h6>Amalekites and Canaanites (14:25, 43-45; 24:20)<\/h6>\n<p>The Amalekites were descendants of Amalek, son of Eliphaz and grandson of Esau (Gn 36:12, 16). They were generally a nomadic people. In the Sinai Peninsula they were the first to war against Israel at Rephidim (cf. Nm 24:20), perhaps the Wadi Refayid in southwest Sinai (Ex 17:8-16), before Israel reached Horeb. A year later, the Amalekites settled in the hills and valleys north of Kadesh-barnea. In league with the Canaanites, the inhabitants of Palestine, they blocked the effort of Israel to invade the land of promise from the south (Nm 14:45). Israel’s will to wage war appears to have been completely broken for years to come.<\/p>\n<h6>Edomites (20:14-21; 21:4, 10-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Edom, or Seir (24:18), is the territory south of the Dead Sea occupied by Esau’s descendants. Stretching from its northern border at the Wadi Zered (21:12), which flowed into the Dead Sea at its southern tip, 100 miles (160.9 kilometers) south to the Gulf of Aqaba, it occupied both sides of the Arabah, with Kadesh-barnea again standing on the edge of its western border (20:16), giving it a land area of approximately 4,000 square miles (10,360 square kilometers). It is a rugged mountain region with peaks rising to 3,500 feet (1,066.8 meters). The “king’s highway,” an ancient trade route from Damascus through the Transjordan to the Gulf of Aqaba, passed through its territory and major cities, Bozrah and Leman. While Edom was not fertile, it did have cultivable areas (20:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>During Israel’s march to the Transjordan region, Edom refused to let Israel journey directly east from Kadesh through its territory but forced Israel to move southeast into and up the Arabah (21:4, 11). In spite of this hostility to God’s people, Israel was forbidden to attack (Dt 2:2-8) or to hate the Edomites (23:7), and so Edom was spared from destruction during the conquest of the land. The area was later conquered by David (2 Sm 8:13-14) according to Balaam’s prophecy (Nm 24:18).<\/p>\n<h6>Arad (21:1-3)<\/h6>\n<p>Arad was a south Canaanite settlement in the Negev. Its king, after fighting against Israel and taking some captives, was later defeated at Hormah.<\/p>\n<h6>Moabites (21:11-15; 22:1–24:25)<\/h6>\n<p>Moab, occupied by the descendants of Lot (Gn 19:37), is the territory east of the Dead Sea lying primarily between the Wadi Arnon (Nm 21:13) and the Wadi Zered with a land area of approximately 1,400 square miles (3,626 square kilometers).<\/p>\n<p>In the late middle Bronze Age, the Moabites had overflowed their main plateau and had extended well to the north of the Arnon all the way to the northern end of the Dead Sea (21:20). At the time of the events recorded in Numbers, however, the Amorites occupied the area from Arnon all the way north to the Wadi Jabbok (vv 13, 21-24), having earlier taken this land from Moab (vv 26-30). The Moabite kingdom was highly organized, with agriculture and livestock, splendid buildings, distinctive pottery, and strong fortifications around her borders. Its god was Chemosh (v 29).<\/p>\n<p>Balak, king of Moab during the period of the conquest, in league with Midian, hired Balaam to curse Israel (chs 22–24). When this failed, the two heathen powers sought to neutralize Israel by luring the people of God into the worship of Chemosh and into idolatry (25:1-2). In the war that ensued, Israel defeated Midian (31:1-18), but by God’s express command (Dt 2:9-13) spared Moab. But as Balaam had prophesied earlier (Nm 24:17), David in the 11th century warred against and defeated Moab (2 Sm 8:2, 13-14).<\/p>\n<h6>Amorites (21:21-35)<\/h6>\n<p>The Amorites, the people who had occupied northern Moabite territory (Nm 21:25-30), were descendants of Canaan (Gn 10:16) who had scattered throughout the hill country on both sides of the Jordan River. Heshbon was their capital city. Both Sihon of Heshbon and Og of Bashan were Amorite kings (Dt 3:8).<\/p>\n<p>As for Bashan (Nm 21:33-35; cf. Dt 1:4; 3:1-12), it is the fertile grazing region (Nm 32:1-5) east of the Sea of Kinnereth (Galilee), whose northern border extended to Mt Hermon and whose southern border, while normally the river Yarmuk, in the Mosaic age was the Wadi Jabbok (Jos 12:4-5). Its land area covered approximately 5,000 square miles (12,950 square kilometers). Its major cities were Ashtaroth, Edrei, and Golan. After the conquest of the land, this territory fell to the half-tribe of Manasseh, with Gad occupying southern Gilead, and Reuben the region south to the Wadi Arnon.<\/p>\n<h6>Midianites (25:16-18; 31:1-54)<\/h6>\n<p>The Midianites, descendants of Abraham through the concubine Keturah (Gn 25:2), were desert dwellers in Transjordan from Moab to the region south of Edom. The elders of Moab and Midian cooperated in hiring Balaam to curse Israel (Nm 22:4-7). Later, when that effort proved fruitless, the Midianites, again with Moab, led Israel into idolatry and immorality (25:1-6, 14-15). Cozbi, the Midianite woman who was executed for her wickedness (25:8), was the daughter of Zur, one of the five Midianite kings confederate with the Amorite king Sihon (Jos 13:21) who were later killed in Israel’s holy war against Midian (Nm 31:8). This war with Midian apparently broke the back of any remaining Amorite resistance, for Joshua 13:15-23 clearly intimates that as a result the tribe of Reuben occupied this territory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>Numbers serves a twofold purpose. First, as a historical book, it contains the account of Israel’s fortunes from Mt Sinai to the plains of Moab on the eve of the conquest of Canaan—that almost-40-year period spent in the wilderness of Sinai and in Transjordan (1447–1407 <span>BC<\/span>). While recounting Israel’s many failures and God’s many faithful acts, it depicts Moses, Israel’s leader, in all of his greatness and in all of his weakness. The two army rolls (chs 2 and 26) introduce the “acts” of the main drama of its history: the first in preparation for entering the land, which failed due to Israel’s unbelief; the second, after the death of the entire generation that left Egypt, in preparation for the successful invasion of Canaan under Joshua’s leadership.<\/p>\n<p>Second, in line with Paul’s general belief that “whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope” (Rom 15:4, <span>rsv<\/span>), and in keeping with his specific teaching that “these things [that befell Israel in the wilderness] happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come” (1 Cor 10:11, <span>rsv<\/span>), Numbers serves a doctrinal, typical, and hortatory purpose (cf. v 12). Historical events are divinely invested with spiritual truths, thereby becoming object lessons for the Christian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 1<\/h5>\n<p>The Lord commanded Moses to register (Nm 1:18) the men able to go to war (vv 2-3). The total number of soldiers in Israel was 603,550 (v 46). The Levites were not numbered in this roll (vv 47-54), since they were to be set apart for special service pertaining to the tabernacle.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 2<\/h5>\n<p>The Lord instructed Moses concerning the arrangement of the tribes while encamped and on the march. With the tabernacle in the center of the camp, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, totaling 186,400 (v 9), were to camp on the east; Reuben, Simeon, and Gad, totaling 151,450 (v 16), were to camp on the south; Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin, totaling 108,100 (v 24), were to camp on the west; and Dan, Asher, and Naphtali, totaling 157,600 (v 31), were to camp on the north.<\/p>\n<p>On the march, Judah’s east group (v 9) was to set out first, followed by Reuben’s south group (v 16). The Levites with the tabernacle were to follow (v 17). Then Ephraim’s west group (v 24) was to follow the Levites, with Dan’s north group (v 31) bringing up the rear. This means that the Levites were flanked by two groups, before and behind.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 3<\/h5>\n<p>Aaron, the great-grandson of Levi through Kohath (Ex 6:16-20), and his descendants were designated to serve as priests at the tabernacle (Nm 3:2-3). The remaining descendants of Levi, from the families of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, were to serve the Aaronic line at the tabernacle (vv 5-10). The Gershonites were responsible for the tabernacle coverings, hangings, and screens (vv 25-26); the Kohathites were responsible for the “furniture” in the tabernacle (v 31); and the Merarites were responsible for the frames, bars, and foundations for the tabernacle (vv 36-37).<\/p>\n<p>God instructed Moses to number the three Levitical families. Gershon’s descendants, totaling 7,500 (v 22), were to camp on the west, between the western group of tribes and the tabernacle. Kohath’s descendants, totaling 8,600 (v 28), were to camp on the south, between the southern group of tribes and the tabernacle. Merari’s descendants, totaling 6,200 (v 34), were to camp on the north, between the northern group of tribes and the tabernacle. Moses and the Aaronic family were to camp on the east, between the eastern group of tribes and the tabernacle (v 38). Both in camp and on the march, then, the tabernacle was in the midst of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The census of Israel’s firstborn males disclosed 273 more male babies than Levites (vv 40-46), and since the Levites were a ransom for Israelite males on a one-to-one basis, the 273 additional male children had to be ransomed by atonement money (vv 46-51).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 4<\/h5>\n<p>God instructed Moses that only Levites between the ages of 30 and 50 were to serve at the tabernacle. A census disclosed that there were 2,750 Kohathites (v 36), 2,630 Gershonites (v 40), and 3,200 Merarites (v 44), making a total of 8,580 (v 48) who were eligible to serve the Aaronic priests.<\/p>\n<p>God further ordered the Aaronic priests, when the tabernacle was being dismantled for the march, to cover all the tabernacle “furniture” before the Kohathites even looked at them (v 20) lest the Kohathites, either looking at or touching them (v 15), should die (vv 15, 20).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 5<\/h5>\n<p>For ceremonial purposes, God demanded that lepers, those with a bodily discharge, and those who had touched the dead, must be put outside the camp until they were purified (vv 1-4). Furthermore, God instructed those making restitution for a wrongdoing, if the wronged person was no longer alive, to give the restitution price to a priest (vv 5-10).<\/p>\n<p>Finally, if a woman was suspected by her husband of infidelity but there was no evidence of such, the woman was to undergo a trial by water ordeal to relieve the man of his suspicions. The priest was to give her holy water with dust from the floor of the tabernacle in it to drink. If she was guilty, the water by divine direction would cause her pain, make her abdomen swell, and her thigh waste away (vv 11-31).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 6<\/h5>\n<p>Laws pertaining to the Nazirite were given next. A Nazirite was a person who determined to take a vow to separate himself wholly to the Lord. To dramatize this separation, the Nazirite was to drink no intoxicating beverage, let the hair grow long, and touch no dead body (vv 3-6). Should he defile himself, he was to follow prescribed rules for ceremonial cleansing (vv 9-12). When his vow had run its course, he was to follow prescribed rules for terminating his vow (vv 13-21). Finally, God instructed the Aaronic priesthood concerning the blessing they were to pronounce upon the Israelite worshiper (vv 22-27).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 7<\/h5>\n<p>The leaders in Israel brought six wagons and twelve oxen for use in the transfer of the tabernacle (7:3). Moses gave two wagons and four oxen to the Gershonites (v 7), and four wagons and eight oxen to the Merarites (v 8). (The Kohathites were to carry the “furniture” of the tabernacle on their shoulders, v 9.) For twelve consecutive days, to consecrate the altar after it was anointed (vv 10, 88), the tribal leaders, in the order of march (cf. ch 2), brought similar offerings. God demonstrated his pleasure with this gesture by speaking to Moses from the mercy seat (v 89).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 8<\/h5>\n<p>God granted the prerogative to light the seven-branched lampstand to the Aaronic priests (vv 1-4). Following divine instructions, Moses and Aaron consecrated the Levites to the service of the tabernacle by means of a purification ceremony (vv 5-22).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 9:1–10:10<\/h5>\n<p>For the benefit of the worshiper who was ceremonially unclean or away on a journey at the time of the Passover, God granted permission to observe the Passover a month later (vv 6-12; see also ch 27).<\/p>\n<p>God gave final instructions to the people before their departure from Sinai. They were to prepare for marching when they saw the cloud ascending from the tabernacle, and they were to stop at the place where the cloud settled down (9:15-23). The people were to assemble at the tabernacle if two silver trumpets were blown; only the leaders were to come if one was blown; and at the blast of a military alarm, the several groups of tribes were to prepare for an immediate march (10:1-10).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 10:11–14:45<\/h5>\n<p>The next section recounts the march from Sinai to Kadesh-barnea, a period of time approximately one and a half to two months in length (cf. 10:11; 13:20). Almost immediately the people began to complain as they passed through the terrible wilderness of Paran (Dt 1:19), angering the Lord at Taberah (Nm 11:1-3) and at Kibroth-hattaavah (Nm 11:4-35; Pss 78:26-31; 106:13-15). Miriam and Aaron challenged Moses’ sole right to speak for God to the people, which resulted in temporary leprosy as punishment for Miriam (doubtless the leader in the provocation). Through Moses’ intercession, the two were forgiven (Nm 12). Out of this event, however, came the remarkable description of Moses’ relationship to God as a unique means of revelation (vv 6-8).<\/p>\n<p>From Paran (Kadesh-barnea) Moses dispatched the spies to survey the land (ch 13). Deuteronomy 1:22 suggests that the plan to spy out the land originated with the people, with Moses (at God’s behest) acquiescing. At the end of 40 days, they returned. Only Caleb and Joshua urged the people to advance to the conquest; the other 10 spies spoke of foes too formidable for them to defeat. The people, greatly discouraged, attempted to stone Caleb and Joshua (Nm 14:10), and were prevented from doing so only by the sudden appearance of the glory cloud at the tabernacle. God swore in his wrath (Nm 14:21; cf. Heb 3:7–4:10) that, with the exception of Caleb and Joshua, none of that generation would enter the land of promise (Nm 14:21-35). He then struck down the 10 unbelieving spies (v 37). Presumptuously, and in spite of God’s express command to the contrary (Dt 1:42), Israel attempted to advance on the land, leaving Moses and the ark of the covenant in the camp. They were challenged by the Amalekites and Canaanites.<\/p>\n<p>Israel remained in this general area with tribal families fanning out over the wilderness and settling around springs and oases (Dt 1:46). Numbers 15:1–21:20 relates the account of the 38 years of wilderness wandering. Much of this time was probably spent around Kadesh-barnea (Dt 1:46).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 15<\/h5>\n<p>Further priestly legislation was given (Nm 15:1-21). Also, the procedure to be followed when an Israelite committed a sin deliberately and defiantly was spelled out in terms of excommunication: there was no atonement for such an attitude (vv 22-31). A Sabbath violator was executed (vv 32-36), perhaps as an illustration of the foregoing legislation. Finally, to assist them in obeying God’s laws, the Israelites were instructed to tie blue tassels to their outer garments as reminders (vv 37-41).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 16<\/h5>\n<p>Korah challenged Aaron’s high priesthood, and Dathan, Abiram, and On challenged Moses’ leadership (vv 1-14). God, at Moses’ word, opened up the earth and swallowed the offenders (Nm 16:32; cf. Dt 9:6; Ps 106:16-18). Korah is regarded in the NT (Jude 1:11) as a classic example of a rebellious malcontent.<\/p>\n<p>Numbers 26:11 states that Korah’s young children did not perish with him. Perhaps they became the ancestors of the “sons of Korah,” the sacred musicians of the temple who composed 12 Korahite psalms (Pss 42–49, 84–85, 87–88).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 17<\/h5>\n<p>God then instructed the leaders of each tribe to bring rods, 12 in all, to write the names of the tribes upon them (with Aaron’s name on Levi’s rod), and to deposit them in the tabernacle. The following day, Aaron’s rod had sprouted with blossoms and ripe almonds, thus vindicating Aaron’s special high-priestly status.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 18–19<\/h5>\n<p>Further priestly legislation was given. In 18:1-7, the full responsibility for the priestly service was given to the Aaronic priests—a very natural consequence of the preceding chapter. The Levites were to assist the Aaronic order (v 6). Since the tribe of Levi received no land inheritance, they were to be supported from the offerings of the people (vv 8-20).<\/p>\n<p>In 19:1-22 instructions concerning ceremonial impurity were given. When an Israelite became ceremonially unclean through contact with death (vv 11-16), God required that he be purified from his sin (vv 9, 17) by the sprinkling of specially prepared water upon him.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 20<\/h5>\n<p>With Israel once again at Kadesh on the southern border of the wilderness of Zin in the first month of the 40th year of wandering, Miriam died and was buried (v 1). According to the encampment list in chapter 33, 18 encampments may have occurred for Israel since the nation had last been at this site (cf. 33:18-36).<\/p>\n<p>At this time the nation complained once again because there was little water (20:2). Moses, at God’s instruction, brought forth water from a rock (vv 8-11), but because of a gross infraction by Moses and Aaron on this occasion, God announced that they would not be permitted to lead Israel in the conquest of the land (vv 12, 23-24).<\/p>\n<p>The chapter closes with Edom refusing Israel passage across its territory (vv 14-21) and Aaron dying on Mt Hor on the border of Edom (vv 22-29) in the fifth month of the 40th year (33:38). Eleazar, Aaron’s son, assumed the office of high priest.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 21<\/h5>\n<p>After a quick victory over Arad (vv 1-3), Israel started south to encircle Edom. Becoming impatient with God and with Moses, the people expressed their disgust with God’s provision of manna. The Lord sent poisonous snakes to the camp, causing many to die. But at God’s command Moses fashioned a snake out of bronze and placed it atop a standard. All who looked to the bronze snake survived (vv 4-10). The bronze snake was preserved and later was destroyed by Hezekiah, the symbol having become by his time an idol (2 Kgs 18:4). Later still, Jesus drew an analogy between these wicked sinners looking to the bronze snake and being delivered and men looking to him by faith and being saved (Jn 3:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>Leaving that fateful place, Israel journeyed into and up the Arabah, crossed the Wadi Zered in an eastern swing around Moab, finally crossing the Arnon into Amorite territory. Journeying north, they camped at Pisgah (Nm 21:10-20).<\/p>\n<p>At this point the conquest of the Transjordan begins. In quick succession Israel defeated Sihon of Heshbon (vv 21-31) and Og of Bashan (vv 33-35) and settled in the plains of Moab (22:1). This encampment was the scene for the remainder of the activities of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua 1–3. In a real sense, one can say the wilderness wanderings were now over.<\/p>\n<p>Here is the place, then, to summarize the spiritual condition of Israel on the eve of the conquest of Canaan. Numbers makes it quite evident that the entire generation that left Egypt, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb, was to die in the wilderness because of its apostasy (cf. Am 5:25), unbelief, and general failure to keep covenant with God. None of the generation of male children born in the wilderness had been circumcised (Jos 5:2-9). Psalm 90 underscores Israel as the recipient of God’s wrath in the wilderness. It is in this pitiable spiritual condition that Israel arrived on the plains of Moab.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 22–24<\/h5>\n<p>Balak, king of Moab, frightened by Israel’s presence, joined with Midian to hire Balaam, the false prophet, to curse Israel. For gain, Balaam agreed (2 Pt 2:15; Jude 1:11), but God prevented him, causing him rather to bless Israel in his four oracular utterances (Nm 23:7-10, 18-24; 24:3-9, 15-19) and to predict the destruction of Moab, Edom, Amalek (24:20), the Kenites (24:21), and Asshur (24:24). With that, Balak and Balaam separated. Balaam, in collusion with Midian, agreed to counsel Israel to commit idolatry and immorality (31:16). And so, where Balak failed to turn the Lord against Israel, Balaam succeeded (ch 25).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 25<\/h5>\n<p>Israel sinned against God by idolatrous and immoral acts with the people of Moab (vv 1-3). In carrying out the command of God to destroy the reprobate Israelites, Phinehas killed Zimri and Cozbi, the latter being a daughter of one of the five kings of Midian (vv 4-14). This event provided the occasion for God to declare a holy war against Midian (vv 16-18; cf. ch 31).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 26<\/h5>\n<p>The Lord commanded Moses to take a roll of the men of the second generation who were capable of warring against Israel’s enemies. The total number came to 601,730 (v 51), a reduction of 1,820 men from the first count. With a smaller force than the first generation, Israel conquered Canaan, clearly indicating that Israel could have spared itself the years of wandering if only the nation had obeyed God 38 years before Kadesh. The Levites totaled 23,000 males a month old and upward (vv 57-62).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 27<\/h5>\n<p>At the request of the daughters of Zelophehad (cf. 26:33) that they be granted the right to inherit their father’s possessions since he had no sons, the Lord agreed that they could, using the occasion to give further laws of inheritance (vv 1-11).<\/p>\n<p>Reminded that he would soon die in Abarim, Moses requested that God appoint his successor. God selected Joshua, and Moses commissioned him (vv 12-23).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 28–30<\/h5>\n<p>Further priestly legislation regarding offerings for various occasions was given. God also instructed Moses to inform the people concerning vows. When a man made a vow, it was inviolable (30:2), but if a woman made a vow, the man (father, husband) responsible for her could nullify it if he felt that it was rash (vv 1-16).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 31<\/h5>\n<p>The account of the holy war declared against Midian in 25:16-18 is given. With Phinehas accompanying 12,000 warriors, Israel defeated Midian, killing Balaam along with the five kings and many male adults of Midian (31:1-8). The Midianite women and children were taken captive, but Moses commanded that all the male children and the nonvirgin women be killed (vv 9-18). One must not conclude that this war meant the end of Midian as such, for Midian later proved a formidable foe of Israel in the time of the judges (Jgs 6).<\/p>\n<p>After the battle, the warriors were instructed to purify themselves, their clothing, and the booty from the war before coming into the camp (Nm 31:19-24). Furthermore, they were instructed to divide the booty in half and to contribute one-fifth of one percent of their half to the high priest (“the Lord’s tribute”). The other half was divided among the people who had remained in camp, after the Levites received a two percent contribution (vv 25-31).<\/p>\n<p>Verses 32-47 give the tally of the booty after its division into two parts and the amount that was given from each part to Eleazar and the Levites. The tally is said by some to be too high to be authentic, but there is no evidence that disputes the recorded figures.<\/p>\n<p>In thanksgiving to God because no Israelite had been killed in the war (v 49) and to make atonement for themselves (v 50), the army officers brought a special offering of gold trinkets to Moses and Eleazar, which was placed in the tabernacle as a memorial (vv 48-54).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 32<\/h5>\n<p>At their request and on the condition that they aid the other tribes in the conquest of Canaan, Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh were allotted the Transjordan region. Moses earnestly besought the Lord to change his mind about not permitting him to enter the land of promise (Dt 3:23-27). But God would not let him.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 33–34<\/h5>\n<p>At God’s command, Moses kept a written record of Israel’s itinerary from Egypt to the plains of Moab. Here is biblical evidence of the Mosaic authorship of Numbers.<\/p>\n<p>The boundaries of the Promised Land were now given. The southern boundary would run from the southern tip of the Dead Sea, south of Kadesh-barnea up to the River of Egypt (Wadi el-Arish), and on to the Mediterranean Sea (34:3-5). The western boundary would be the coastline of the Mediterranean Sea itself (v 6). The northern boundary, not realized until the times of David and Solomon (2 Sm 8:3-12; 1 Kgs 8:65), was to extend from the Mediterranean Sea east to Hamath, at the head of the Orontes River (Nm 34:7-9). The eastern boundary was to be practically on a vertical line, with the Jordan Valley running north to the northern boundary (vv 10-12). The nine and a half tribes were to divide this area among themselves (vv 13-15).<\/p>\n<p>The Lord then selected the men who were to bear the responsibility of dividing the land of Canaan among the western tribes after the conquest (vv 16-29).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 35<\/h5>\n<p>God instructed Israel to give 48 cities throughout the land on both sides of the Jordan to the Levites for a permanent possession (vv 1-8), since that tribe was not included in the land allotments to the other tribes. The number of cities each tribe was to give was to be determined by its size (v 8). Six of the Levitical cities, three on each side of the Jordan, were to be designated “cities of refuge” for the manslayer (v 6; cf. Jos 20).<\/p>\n<p>Legislation concerning the manslayer follows (vv 9-34). If the slayer committed murder, the kinsman avenger had the right to fulfill his role as executioner (vv 16-21). If, however, the killing was unintentional, the manslayer was to flee to the nearest city of refuge for a trial. If found innocent of murder, he was assigned to remain within the city of refuge until the death of the high priest. If he left the city before then, the kinsman avenger was permitted to execute him (vv 22-34).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 36<\/h5>\n<p>Basing their question on the earlier law established in chapter 27, the leaders from Manasseh asked whether an heiress should be allowed to marry outside her tribe, with the accompanying transfer of property from one tribe to another that would ensue. God directed that an heiress would have to marry within her tribe (vv 1-12).<\/p>\n<p>The last verse of the book refers to all the laws given in the plains of Moab (26:1–36:12; cf. Lv 27:34).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologicalTeaching\">Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Numbers God is revealed as the unchangingly faithful God of the covenant (Nm 23:19). This faithfulness to his covenant required that he both guide and care for his people and punish their sins against him. But no impediment was so great that God’s design to bring his people to the land of promise was thwarted (11:23).<\/p>\n<p>Both by his wrathful reaction to Israel’s sin and by the numerous priestly laws, God highlights his awesome holiness. The legislation expressly teaches that the person who approaches God must be clean. Even to look with unholy eyes upon the holiness of God meant death (4:20).<\/p>\n<p>His sovereignty over all of life is evident from the attention he displays over even the minutest aspects of life. The phrase “And the Lord said unto Moses” occurs over 50 times, and the words that follow in each case deal with all kinds of matters.<\/p>\n<p>As the God of the covenant, God’s “christological” character is also apparent. God’s blessing and faithfulness reflect the christological motif. Finally, Moses’ prophetic leadership (Acts 7:37-38) and intercessory ministry (e.g., Nm 11:2; 12:13; 14:19), in the Aaronic priesthood (e.g., ch 16), in the animal sacrifices (cf. 19:9; Heb 9:13), and in the symbols (the manna, the water, the bronze snake) foreshadow the future Christ.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel’s responses to God, the people depict all of human sinfulness and faithlessness. Israel’s wanderings illustrate the results of unbelief. The punishments of Israel prove the maxim of Numbers 32:23: “But if you fail to keep your word, then you will have sinned against the <span>Lord<\/span>, and you may be sure that your sin will find you out” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Numbers forcefully teaches that safety and blessing are to be found only in trust in the Lord. Only he is capable of bringing men and women to the place of rest (Heb 4:9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Deuteronomy, Book of; Exodus, Book of; Genesis, Book of; Leviticus, Book of; Moses; Wilderness Wanderings.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NUMBERS, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Fourth book of the English Bible. Its title is the English translation of the Latin Vulgate title, <em>Numeri.<\/em> The book takes this name from the fact that several rosters of various kinds are recorded in the book, specifically, the two army musters in chapters 1 and 26, the tribal camp and march arrangements in chapter 2, and the Levitical censuses in chapters 3 and 4.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p>• Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The question of the authorship of Numbers is part of the larger question of the authorship of the Pentateuch. Until the appearance of the higher-critical documentary theories of the 19th century, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was almost universally held by both Jews and Christians alike. This time-honored tradition is supported by the Pentateuch itself (e.g., Ex 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Nm 33:2; Dt 31:9, 24), the rest of the OT (e.g., Jos 23:6; Jgs 3:4; Mal 4:4), as well as Jesus’ teaching (e.g., Jn 5:46-47), and the rest of the NT (e.g., Acts 28:23; Rom 10:19; 1 Cor 9:9). Although discrepancies in the Pentateuch were widely and openly acknowledged, nevertheless Moses, the 15th-century <span>BC<\/span> lawgiver, was affirmed as the primary author of the Pentateuchal literature.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<h5>Sinai Peninsula<\/h5>\n<p>The historical background of Numbers begins primarily in the geographical region of the Sinai Peninsula of the mid-second millennium <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Sinai Peninsula is in the shape of an inverted triangle with the base on the north. It is approximately 240 miles (386.2 kilometers) long from north to south and 175 miles (281.6 kilometers) wide at the northern base, with an area of approximately 22,000 square miles (56,980 square kilometers). It is bounded on the north by the Mediterranean Sea and the southern border of Canaan, on the west by the Bitter Lakes and the Gulf of Suez, and on the east by the Arabah and the Gulf of Aqaba. Beginning in the north at the Mediterranean coast and moving south, for about 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) the soil is sandy. South of this coastal plain is a high plateau (Et-Tih) of gravel and limestone (about 2,500 feet, or 762 meters, above sea level), stretching south into the peninsula for approximately 150 miles (241.4 kilometers). Rising above the plateau at this point is a granite mountain formation with peaks up to 8,000 feet (2,438.4 meters) above sea level. In this mountainous region at the apex of the peninsular triangle, Jebel Musa (7,363 feet, or 2,244.2 meters, high), the traditional site where Israel camped before Mt Sinai and Moses received the law, rises above the plain.<\/p>\n<p>The peninsula itself is comprised of five wilderness areas. In the north and immediately east of the land of Goshen is the approximately 40-mile- or 64.4-kilometer-wide wilderness of Shur, which runs past the River of Egypt (Wadi el-Arish) to the region of Kadesh-barnea and northeast to Beersheba. East of this region is the wilderness of Zin, extending east from the wilderness of Shur to the southern tip of the Dead Sea. Kadesh-barnea is located on its southern border (Nm 20:1; 33:36). South of the wilderness of Shur is the wilderness of Etham, and east of this wilderness in the east-central region of Sinai is the great wilderness of Paran (Dt 1:19). Kadesh-barnea is on the northern border of this territory (Nm 13:26). In this area the Israelites spent 38 of their 40 years of wandering. Southwest of the wilderness of Paran, on the western slopes of the peninsula, not far from the granite mountains standing in the southern apex of the triangle, is the wilderness of Sin.<\/p>\n<p>While the region is generally desolate and barren, it is not impassable or incapable of sustaining travelers. Wells and springs dot both the western and eastern borders at reasonable distances from each other. The water table is fairly close to ground level, making the digging of wells possible (Nm 20:17; 21:16-18). The limestone rocks are also capable of holding great amounts of water (20:11). Vegetation is sparse except around the more permanent streams where vegetation and date palms flourish. The rainy season in winter is approximately 20 days. Quail (11:31-32) are known to migrate across the peninsula to Europe in the spring.<\/p>\n\n<h5>The Peoples Israel Confronted<\/h5>\n<h6>Amalekites and Canaanites (14:25, 43-45; 24:20)<\/h6>\n<p>The Amalekites were descendants of Amalek, son of Eliphaz and grandson of Esau (Gn 36:12, 16). They were generally a nomadic people. In the Sinai Peninsula they were the first to war against Israel at Rephidim (cf. Nm 24:20), perhaps the Wadi Refayid in southwest Sinai (Ex 17:8-16), before Israel reached Horeb. A year later, the Amalekites settled in the hills and valleys north of Kadesh-barnea. In league with the Canaanites, the inhabitants of Palestine, they blocked the effort of Israel to invade the land of promise from the south (Nm 14:45). Israel’s will to wage war appears to have been completely broken for years to come.<\/p>\n<h6>Edomites (20:14-21; 21:4, 10-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Edom, or Seir (24:18), is the territory south of the Dead Sea occupied by Esau’s descendants. Stretching from its northern border at the Wadi Zered (21:12), which flowed into the Dead Sea at its southern tip, 100 miles (160.9 kilometers) south to the Gulf of Aqaba, it occupied both sides of the Arabah, with Kadesh-barnea again standing on the edge of its western border (20:16), giving it a land area of approximately 4,000 square miles (10,360 square kilometers). It is a rugged mountain region with peaks rising to 3,500 feet (1,066.8 meters). The “king’s highway,” an ancient trade route from Damascus through the Transjordan to the Gulf of Aqaba, passed through its territory and major cities, Bozrah and Leman. While Edom was not fertile, it did have cultivable areas (20:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>During Israel’s march to the Transjordan region, Edom refused to let Israel journey directly east from Kadesh through its territory but forced Israel to move southeast into and up the Arabah (21:4, 11). In spite of this hostility to God’s people, Israel was forbidden to attack (Dt 2:2-8) or to hate the Edomites (23:7), and so Edom was spared from destruction during the conquest of the land. The area was later conquered by David (2 Sm 8:13-14) according to Balaam’s prophecy (Nm 24:18).<\/p>\n<h6>Arad (21:1-3)<\/h6>\n<p>Arad was a south Canaanite settlement in the Negev. Its king, after fighting against Israel and taking some captives, was later defeated at Hormah.<\/p>\n<h6>Moabites (21:11-15; 22:1–24:25)<\/h6>\n<p>Moab, occupied by the descendants of Lot (Gn 19:37), is the territory east of the Dead Sea lying primarily between the Wadi Arnon (Nm 21:13) and the Wadi Zered with a land area of approximately 1,400 square miles (3,626 square kilometers).<\/p>\n<p>In the late middle Bronze Age, the Moabites had overflowed their main plateau and had extended well to the north of the Arnon all the way to the northern end of the Dead Sea (21:20). At the time of the events recorded in Numbers, however, the Amorites occupied the area from Arnon all the way north to the Wadi Jabbok (vv 13, 21-24), having earlier taken this land from Moab (vv 26-30). The Moabite kingdom was highly organized, with agriculture and livestock, splendid buildings, distinctive pottery, and strong fortifications around her borders. Its god was Chemosh (v 29).<\/p>\n<p>Balak, king of Moab during the period of the conquest, in league with Midian, hired Balaam to curse Israel (chs 22–24). When this failed, the two heathen powers sought to neutralize Israel by luring the people of God into the worship of Chemosh and into idolatry (25:1-2). In the war that ensued, Israel defeated Midian (31:1-18), but by God’s express command (Dt 2:9-13) spared Moab. But as Balaam had prophesied earlier (Nm 24:17), David in the 11th century warred against and defeated Moab (2 Sm 8:2, 13-14).<\/p>\n<h6>Amorites (21:21-35)<\/h6>\n<p>The Amorites, the people who had occupied northern Moabite territory (Nm 21:25-30), were descendants of Canaan (Gn 10:16) who had scattered throughout the hill country on both sides of the Jordan River. Heshbon was their capital city. Both Sihon of Heshbon and Og of Bashan were Amorite kings (Dt 3:8).<\/p>\n<p>As for Bashan (Nm 21:33-35; cf. Dt 1:4; 3:1-12), it is the fertile grazing region (Nm 32:1-5) east of the Sea of Kinnereth (Galilee), whose northern border extended to Mt Hermon and whose southern border, while normally the river Yarmuk, in the Mosaic age was the Wadi Jabbok (Jos 12:4-5). Its land area covered approximately 5,000 square miles (12,950 square kilometers). Its major cities were Ashtaroth, Edrei, and Golan. After the conquest of the land, this territory fell to the half-tribe of Manasseh, with Gad occupying southern Gilead, and Reuben the region south to the Wadi Arnon.<\/p>\n<h6>Midianites (25:16-18; 31:1-54)<\/h6>\n<p>The Midianites, descendants of Abraham through the concubine Keturah (Gn 25:2), were desert dwellers in Transjordan from Moab to the region south of Edom. The elders of Moab and Midian cooperated in hiring Balaam to curse Israel (Nm 22:4-7). Later, when that effort proved fruitless, the Midianites, again with Moab, led Israel into idolatry and immorality (25:1-6, 14-15). Cozbi, the Midianite woman who was executed for her wickedness (25:8), was the daughter of Zur, one of the five Midianite kings confederate with the Amorite king Sihon (Jos 13:21) who were later killed in Israel’s holy war against Midian (Nm 31:8). This war with Midian apparently broke the back of any remaining Amorite resistance, for Joshua 13:15-23 clearly intimates that as a result the tribe of Reuben occupied this territory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>Numbers serves a twofold purpose. First, as a historical book, it contains the account of Israel’s fortunes from Mt Sinai to the plains of Moab on the eve of the conquest of Canaan—that almost-40-year period spent in the wilderness of Sinai and in Transjordan (1447–1407 <span>BC<\/span>). While recounting Israel’s many failures and God’s many faithful acts, it depicts Moses, Israel’s leader, in all of his greatness and in all of his weakness. The two army rolls (chs 2 and 26) introduce the “acts” of the main drama of its history: the first in preparation for entering the land, which failed due to Israel’s unbelief; the second, after the death of the entire generation that left Egypt, in preparation for the successful invasion of Canaan under Joshua’s leadership.<\/p>\n<p>Second, in line with Paul’s general belief that “whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope” (Rom 15:4, <span>rsv<\/span>), and in keeping with his specific teaching that “these things [that befell Israel in the wilderness] happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come” (1 Cor 10:11, <span>rsv<\/span>), Numbers serves a doctrinal, typical, and hortatory purpose (cf. v 12). Historical events are divinely invested with spiritual truths, thereby becoming object lessons for the Christian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 1<\/h5>\n<p>The Lord commanded Moses to register (Nm 1:18) the men able to go to war (vv 2-3). The total number of soldiers in Israel was 603,550 (v 46). The Levites were not numbered in this roll (vv 47-54), since they were to be set apart for special service pertaining to the tabernacle.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 2<\/h5>\n<p>The Lord instructed Moses concerning the arrangement of the tribes while encamped and on the march. With the tabernacle in the center of the camp, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, totaling 186,400 (v 9), were to camp on the east; Reuben, Simeon, and Gad, totaling 151,450 (v 16), were to camp on the south; Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin, totaling 108,100 (v 24), were to camp on the west; and Dan, Asher, and Naphtali, totaling 157,600 (v 31), were to camp on the north.<\/p>\n<p>On the march, Judah’s east group (v 9) was to set out first, followed by Reuben’s south group (v 16). The Levites with the tabernacle were to follow (v 17). Then Ephraim’s west group (v 24) was to follow the Levites, with Dan’s north group (v 31) bringing up the rear. This means that the Levites were flanked by two groups, before and behind.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 3<\/h5>\n<p>Aaron, the great-grandson of Levi through Kohath (Ex 6:16-20), and his descendants were designated to serve as priests at the tabernacle (Nm 3:2-3). The remaining descendants of Levi, from the families of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, were to serve the Aaronic line at the tabernacle (vv 5-10). The Gershonites were responsible for the tabernacle coverings, hangings, and screens (vv 25-26); the Kohathites were responsible for the “furniture” in the tabernacle (v 31); and the Merarites were responsible for the frames, bars, and foundations for the tabernacle (vv 36-37).<\/p>\n<p>God instructed Moses to number the three Levitical families. Gershon’s descendants, totaling 7,500 (v 22), were to camp on the west, between the western group of tribes and the tabernacle. Kohath’s descendants, totaling 8,600 (v 28), were to camp on the south, between the southern group of tribes and the tabernacle. Merari’s descendants, totaling 6,200 (v 34), were to camp on the north, between the northern group of tribes and the tabernacle. Moses and the Aaronic family were to camp on the east, between the eastern group of tribes and the tabernacle (v 38). Both in camp and on the march, then, the tabernacle was in the midst of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The census of Israel’s firstborn males disclosed 273 more male babies than Levites (vv 40-46), and since the Levites were a ransom for Israelite males on a one-to-one basis, the 273 additional male children had to be ransomed by atonement money (vv 46-51).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 4<\/h5>\n<p>God instructed Moses that only Levites between the ages of 30 and 50 were to serve at the tabernacle. A census disclosed that there were 2,750 Kohathites (v 36), 2,630 Gershonites (v 40), and 3,200 Merarites (v 44), making a total of 8,580 (v 48) who were eligible to serve the Aaronic priests.<\/p>\n<p>God further ordered the Aaronic priests, when the tabernacle was being dismantled for the march, to cover all the tabernacle “furniture” before the Kohathites even looked at them (v 20) lest the Kohathites, either looking at or touching them (v 15), should die (vv 15, 20).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 5<\/h5>\n<p>For ceremonial purposes, God demanded that lepers, those with a bodily discharge, and those who had touched the dead, must be put outside the camp until they were purified (vv 1-4). Furthermore, God instructed those making restitution for a wrongdoing, if the wronged person was no longer alive, to give the restitution price to a priest (vv 5-10).<\/p>\n<p>Finally, if a woman was suspected by her husband of infidelity but there was no evidence of such, the woman was to undergo a trial by water ordeal to relieve the man of his suspicions. The priest was to give her holy water with dust from the floor of the tabernacle in it to drink. If she was guilty, the water by divine direction would cause her pain, make her abdomen swell, and her thigh waste away (vv 11-31).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 6<\/h5>\n<p>Laws pertaining to the Nazirite were given next. A Nazirite was a person who determined to take a vow to separate himself wholly to the Lord. To dramatize this separation, the Nazirite was to drink no intoxicating beverage, let the hair grow long, and touch no dead body (vv 3-6). Should he defile himself, he was to follow prescribed rules for ceremonial cleansing (vv 9-12). When his vow had run its course, he was to follow prescribed rules for terminating his vow (vv 13-21). Finally, God instructed the Aaronic priesthood concerning the blessing they were to pronounce upon the Israelite worshiper (vv 22-27).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 7<\/h5>\n<p>The leaders in Israel brought six wagons and twelve oxen for use in the transfer of the tabernacle (7:3). Moses gave two wagons and four oxen to the Gershonites (v 7), and four wagons and eight oxen to the Merarites (v 8). (The Kohathites were to carry the “furniture” of the tabernacle on their shoulders, v 9.) For twelve consecutive days, to consecrate the altar after it was anointed (vv 10, 88), the tribal leaders, in the order of march (cf. ch 2), brought similar offerings. God demonstrated his pleasure with this gesture by speaking to Moses from the mercy seat (v 89).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 8<\/h5>\n<p>God granted the prerogative to light the seven-branched lampstand to the Aaronic priests (vv 1-4). Following divine instructions, Moses and Aaron consecrated the Levites to the service of the tabernacle by means of a purification ceremony (vv 5-22).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 9:1–10:10<\/h5>\n<p>For the benefit of the worshiper who was ceremonially unclean or away on a journey at the time of the Passover, God granted permission to observe the Passover a month later (vv 6-12; see also ch 27).<\/p>\n<p>God gave final instructions to the people before their departure from Sinai. They were to prepare for marching when they saw the cloud ascending from the tabernacle, and they were to stop at the place where the cloud settled down (9:15-23). The people were to assemble at the tabernacle if two silver trumpets were blown; only the leaders were to come if one was blown; and at the blast of a military alarm, the several groups of tribes were to prepare for an immediate march (10:1-10).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 10:11–14:45<\/h5>\n<p>The next section recounts the march from Sinai to Kadesh-barnea, a period of time approximately one and a half to two months in length (cf. 10:11; 13:20). Almost immediately the people began to complain as they passed through the terrible wilderness of Paran (Dt 1:19), angering the Lord at Taberah (Nm 11:1-3) and at Kibroth-hattaavah (Nm 11:4-35; Pss 78:26-31; 106:13-15). Miriam and Aaron challenged Moses’ sole right to speak for God to the people, which resulted in temporary leprosy as punishment for Miriam (doubtless the leader in the provocation). Through Moses’ intercession, the two were forgiven (Nm 12). Out of this event, however, came the remarkable description of Moses’ relationship to God as a unique means of revelation (vv 6-8).<\/p>\n<p>From Paran (Kadesh-barnea) Moses dispatched the spies to survey the land (ch 13). Deuteronomy 1:22 suggests that the plan to spy out the land originated with the people, with Moses (at God’s behest) acquiescing. At the end of 40 days, they returned. Only Caleb and Joshua urged the people to advance to the conquest; the other 10 spies spoke of foes too formidable for them to defeat. The people, greatly discouraged, attempted to stone Caleb and Joshua (Nm 14:10), and were prevented from doing so only by the sudden appearance of the glory cloud at the tabernacle. God swore in his wrath (Nm 14:21; cf. Heb 3:7–4:10) that, with the exception of Caleb and Joshua, none of that generation would enter the land of promise (Nm 14:21-35). He then struck down the 10 unbelieving spies (v 37). Presumptuously, and in spite of God’s express command to the contrary (Dt 1:42), Israel attempted to advance on the land, leaving Moses and the ark of the covenant in the camp. They were challenged by the Amalekites and Canaanites.<\/p>\n<p>Israel remained in this general area with tribal families fanning out over the wilderness and settling around springs and oases (Dt 1:46). Numbers 15:1–21:20 relates the account of the 38 years of wilderness wandering. Much of this time was probably spent around Kadesh-barnea (Dt 1:46).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 15<\/h5>\n<p>Further priestly legislation was given (Nm 15:1-21). Also, the procedure to be followed when an Israelite committed a sin deliberately and defiantly was spelled out in terms of excommunication: there was no atonement for such an attitude (vv 22-31). A Sabbath violator was executed (vv 32-36), perhaps as an illustration of the foregoing legislation. Finally, to assist them in obeying God’s laws, the Israelites were instructed to tie blue tassels to their outer garments as reminders (vv 37-41).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 16<\/h5>\n<p>Korah challenged Aaron’s high priesthood, and Dathan, Abiram, and On challenged Moses’ leadership (vv 1-14). God, at Moses’ word, opened up the earth and swallowed the offenders (Nm 16:32; cf. Dt 9:6; Ps 106:16-18). Korah is regarded in the NT (Jude 1:11) as a classic example of a rebellious malcontent.<\/p>\n<p>Numbers 26:11 states that Korah’s young children did not perish with him. Perhaps they became the ancestors of the “sons of Korah,” the sacred musicians of the temple who composed 12 Korahite psalms (Pss 42–49, 84–85, 87–88).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 17<\/h5>\n<p>God then instructed the leaders of each tribe to bring rods, 12 in all, to write the names of the tribes upon them (with Aaron’s name on Levi’s rod), and to deposit them in the tabernacle. The following day, Aaron’s rod had sprouted with blossoms and ripe almonds, thus vindicating Aaron’s special high-priestly status.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 18–19<\/h5>\n<p>Further priestly legislation was given. In 18:1-7, the full responsibility for the priestly service was given to the Aaronic priests—a very natural consequence of the preceding chapter. The Levites were to assist the Aaronic order (v 6). Since the tribe of Levi received no land inheritance, they were to be supported from the offerings of the people (vv 8-20).<\/p>\n<p>In 19:1-22 instructions concerning ceremonial impurity were given. When an Israelite became ceremonially unclean through contact with death (vv 11-16), God required that he be purified from his sin (vv 9, 17) by the sprinkling of specially prepared water upon him.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 20<\/h5>\n<p>With Israel once again at Kadesh on the southern border of the wilderness of Zin in the first month of the 40th year of wandering, Miriam died and was buried (v 1). According to the encampment list in chapter 33, 18 encampments may have occurred for Israel since the nation had last been at this site (cf. 33:18-36).<\/p>\n<p>At this time the nation complained once again because there was little water (20:2). Moses, at God’s instruction, brought forth water from a rock (vv 8-11), but because of a gross infraction by Moses and Aaron on this occasion, God announced that they would not be permitted to lead Israel in the conquest of the land (vv 12, 23-24).<\/p>\n<p>The chapter closes with Edom refusing Israel passage across its territory (vv 14-21) and Aaron dying on Mt Hor on the border of Edom (vv 22-29) in the fifth month of the 40th year (33:38). Eleazar, Aaron’s son, assumed the office of high priest.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 21<\/h5>\n<p>After a quick victory over Arad (vv 1-3), Israel started south to encircle Edom. Becoming impatient with God and with Moses, the people expressed their disgust with God’s provision of manna. The Lord sent poisonous snakes to the camp, causing many to die. But at God’s command Moses fashioned a snake out of bronze and placed it atop a standard. All who looked to the bronze snake survived (vv 4-10). The bronze snake was preserved and later was destroyed by Hezekiah, the symbol having become by his time an idol (2 Kgs 18:4). Later still, Jesus drew an analogy between these wicked sinners looking to the bronze snake and being delivered and men looking to him by faith and being saved (Jn 3:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>Leaving that fateful place, Israel journeyed into and up the Arabah, crossed the Wadi Zered in an eastern swing around Moab, finally crossing the Arnon into Amorite territory. Journeying north, they camped at Pisgah (Nm 21:10-20).<\/p>\n<p>At this point the conquest of the Transjordan begins. In quick succession Israel defeated Sihon of Heshbon (vv 21-31) and Og of Bashan (vv 33-35) and settled in the plains of Moab (22:1). This encampment was the scene for the remainder of the activities of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua 1–3. In a real sense, one can say the wilderness wanderings were now over.<\/p>\n<p>Here is the place, then, to summarize the spiritual condition of Israel on the eve of the conquest of Canaan. Numbers makes it quite evident that the entire generation that left Egypt, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb, was to die in the wilderness because of its apostasy (cf. Am 5:25), unbelief, and general failure to keep covenant with God. None of the generation of male children born in the wilderness had been circumcised (Jos 5:2-9). Psalm 90 underscores Israel as the recipient of God’s wrath in the wilderness. It is in this pitiable spiritual condition that Israel arrived on the plains of Moab.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 22–24<\/h5>\n<p>Balak, king of Moab, frightened by Israel’s presence, joined with Midian to hire Balaam, the false prophet, to curse Israel. For gain, Balaam agreed (2 Pt 2:15; Jude 1:11), but God prevented him, causing him rather to bless Israel in his four oracular utterances (Nm 23:7-10, 18-24; 24:3-9, 15-19) and to predict the destruction of Moab, Edom, Amalek (24:20), the Kenites (24:21), and Asshur (24:24). With that, Balak and Balaam separated. Balaam, in collusion with Midian, agreed to counsel Israel to commit idolatry and immorality (31:16). And so, where Balak failed to turn the Lord against Israel, Balaam succeeded (ch 25).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 25<\/h5>\n<p>Israel sinned against God by idolatrous and immoral acts with the people of Moab (vv 1-3). In carrying out the command of God to destroy the reprobate Israelites, Phinehas killed Zimri and Cozbi, the latter being a daughter of one of the five kings of Midian (vv 4-14). This event provided the occasion for God to declare a holy war against Midian (vv 16-18; cf. ch 31).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 26<\/h5>\n<p>The Lord commanded Moses to take a roll of the men of the second generation who were capable of warring against Israel’s enemies. The total number came to 601,730 (v 51), a reduction of 1,820 men from the first count. With a smaller force than the first generation, Israel conquered Canaan, clearly indicating that Israel could have spared itself the years of wandering if only the nation had obeyed God 38 years before Kadesh. The Levites totaled 23,000 males a month old and upward (vv 57-62).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 27<\/h5>\n<p>At the request of the daughters of Zelophehad (cf. 26:33) that they be granted the right to inherit their father’s possessions since he had no sons, the Lord agreed that they could, using the occasion to give further laws of inheritance (vv 1-11).<\/p>\n<p>Reminded that he would soon die in Abarim, Moses requested that God appoint his successor. God selected Joshua, and Moses commissioned him (vv 12-23).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 28–30<\/h5>\n<p>Further priestly legislation regarding offerings for various occasions was given. God also instructed Moses to inform the people concerning vows. When a man made a vow, it was inviolable (30:2), but if a woman made a vow, the man (father, husband) responsible for her could nullify it if he felt that it was rash (vv 1-16).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 31<\/h5>\n<p>The account of the holy war declared against Midian in 25:16-18 is given. With Phinehas accompanying 12,000 warriors, Israel defeated Midian, killing Balaam along with the five kings and many male adults of Midian (31:1-8). The Midianite women and children were taken captive, but Moses commanded that all the male children and the nonvirgin women be killed (vv 9-18). One must not conclude that this war meant the end of Midian as such, for Midian later proved a formidable foe of Israel in the time of the judges (Jgs 6).<\/p>\n<p>After the battle, the warriors were instructed to purify themselves, their clothing, and the booty from the war before coming into the camp (Nm 31:19-24). Furthermore, they were instructed to divide the booty in half and to contribute one-fifth of one percent of their half to the high priest (“the Lord’s tribute”). The other half was divided among the people who had remained in camp, after the Levites received a two percent contribution (vv 25-31).<\/p>\n<p>Verses 32-47 give the tally of the booty after its division into two parts and the amount that was given from each part to Eleazar and the Levites. The tally is said by some to be too high to be authentic, but there is no evidence that disputes the recorded figures.<\/p>\n<p>In thanksgiving to God because no Israelite had been killed in the war (v 49) and to make atonement for themselves (v 50), the army officers brought a special offering of gold trinkets to Moses and Eleazar, which was placed in the tabernacle as a memorial (vv 48-54).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 32<\/h5>\n<p>At their request and on the condition that they aid the other tribes in the conquest of Canaan, Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh were allotted the Transjordan region. Moses earnestly besought the Lord to change his mind about not permitting him to enter the land of promise (Dt 3:23-27). But God would not let him.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 33–34<\/h5>\n<p>At God’s command, Moses kept a written record of Israel’s itinerary from Egypt to the plains of Moab. Here is biblical evidence of the Mosaic authorship of Numbers.<\/p>\n<p>The boundaries of the Promised Land were now given. The southern boundary would run from the southern tip of the Dead Sea, south of Kadesh-barnea up to the River of Egypt (Wadi el-Arish), and on to the Mediterranean Sea (34:3-5). The western boundary would be the coastline of the Mediterranean Sea itself (v 6). The northern boundary, not realized until the times of David and Solomon (2 Sm 8:3-12; 1 Kgs 8:65), was to extend from the Mediterranean Sea east to Hamath, at the head of the Orontes River (Nm 34:7-9). The eastern boundary was to be practically on a vertical line, with the Jordan Valley running north to the northern boundary (vv 10-12). The nine and a half tribes were to divide this area among themselves (vv 13-15).<\/p>\n<p>The Lord then selected the men who were to bear the responsibility of dividing the land of Canaan among the western tribes after the conquest (vv 16-29).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 35<\/h5>\n<p>God instructed Israel to give 48 cities throughout the land on both sides of the Jordan to the Levites for a permanent possession (vv 1-8), since that tribe was not included in the land allotments to the other tribes. The number of cities each tribe was to give was to be determined by its size (v 8). Six of the Levitical cities, three on each side of the Jordan, were to be designated “cities of refuge” for the manslayer (v 6; cf. Jos 20).<\/p>\n<p>Legislation concerning the manslayer follows (vv 9-34). If the slayer committed murder, the kinsman avenger had the right to fulfill his role as executioner (vv 16-21). If, however, the killing was unintentional, the manslayer was to flee to the nearest city of refuge for a trial. If found innocent of murder, he was assigned to remain within the city of refuge until the death of the high priest. If he left the city before then, the kinsman avenger was permitted to execute him (vv 22-34).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 36<\/h5>\n<p>Basing their question on the earlier law established in chapter 27, the leaders from Manasseh asked whether an heiress should be allowed to marry outside her tribe, with the accompanying transfer of property from one tribe to another that would ensue. God directed that an heiress would have to marry within her tribe (vv 1-12).<\/p>\n<p>The last verse of the book refers to all the laws given in the plains of Moab (26:1–36:12; cf. Lv 27:34).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologicalTeaching\">Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Numbers God is revealed as the unchangingly faithful God of the covenant (Nm 23:19). This faithfulness to his covenant required that he both guide and care for his people and punish their sins against him. But no impediment was so great that God’s design to bring his people to the land of promise was thwarted (11:23).<\/p>\n<p>Both by his wrathful reaction to Israel’s sin and by the numerous priestly laws, God highlights his awesome holiness. The legislation expressly teaches that the person who approaches God must be clean. Even to look with unholy eyes upon the holiness of God meant death (4:20).<\/p>\n<p>His sovereignty over all of life is evident from the attention he displays over even the minutest aspects of life. The phrase “And the Lord said unto Moses” occurs over 50 times, and the words that follow in each case deal with all kinds of matters.<\/p>\n<p>As the God of the covenant, God’s “christological” character is also apparent. God’s blessing and faithfulness reflect the christological motif. Finally, Moses’ prophetic leadership (Acts 7:37-38) and intercessory ministry (e.g., Nm 11:2; 12:13; 14:19), in the Aaronic priesthood (e.g., ch 16), in the animal sacrifices (cf. 19:9; Heb 9:13), and in the symbols (the manna, the water, the bronze snake) foreshadow the future Christ.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel’s responses to God, the people depict all of human sinfulness and faithlessness. Israel’s wanderings illustrate the results of unbelief. The punishments of Israel prove the maxim of Numbers 32:23: “But if you fail to keep your word, then you will have sinned against the <span>Lord<\/span>, and you may be sure that your sin will find you out” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Numbers forcefully teaches that safety and blessing are to be found only in trust in the Lord. Only he is capable of bringing men and women to the place of rest (Heb 4:9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Deuteronomy, Book of; Exodus, Book of; Genesis, Book of; Leviticus, Book of; Moses; Wilderness Wanderings.<\/p>","summary_ro":"NUMBERS, Book of Fourth book of the English Bible. Its title is the English translation of the Latin Vulgate title, Numeri. The book takes this name from the fact that several rosters of various kinds are recorded in the book, specifically, the two army musters in chapters 1 and 26, the tribal camp and march arrangements in chapter 2, and the Levitical censuses in chapters 3 and 4. Preview • Author • Background • Purpose • Content • Theological Teaching Author The question of the authorship o...","summary_en":"NUMBERS, Book of Fourth book of the English Bible. Its title is the English translation of the Latin Vulgate title, Numeri. The book takes this name from the fact that several rosters of various kinds are recorded in the book, specifically, the two army musters in chapters 1 and 26, the tribal camp and march arrangements in chapter 2, and the Levitical censuses in chapters 3 and 4. Preview • Author • Background • Purpose • Content • Theological Teaching Author The question of the authorship o...","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44447,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:1","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:1–10:10<\/strong> These legal matters were to ensure the purity of the Israelites, their priesthood, and the Tabernacle. Such regulations drew constant attention to ancient Israel’s identity as a theocracy of which Moses was the primary spokesman.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:1–10:10<\/strong> These legal matters were to ensure the purity of the Israelites, their priesthood, and the Tabernacle. Such regulations drew constant attention to ancient Israel’s identity as a theocracy of which Moses was the primary spokesman.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:1–10:10 These legal matters were to ensure the purity of the Israelites, their priesthood, and the Tabernacle. Such regulations drew constant attention to ancient Israel’s identity as a theocracy of which Moses was the primary spokesman.","summary_en":"5:1–10:10 These legal matters were to ensure the purity of the Israelites, their priesthood, and the Tabernacle. Such regulations drew constant attention to ancient Israel’s identity as a theocracy of which Moses was the primary spokesman.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44448,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:1","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:1-31<\/strong> These laws concern purity, restitution, and marital faithfulness.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:1-31<\/strong> These laws concern purity, restitution, and marital faithfulness.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:1-31 These laws concern purity, restitution, and marital faithfulness.","summary_en":"5:1-31 These laws concern purity, restitution, and marital faithfulness.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44449,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:1","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:1-4<\/strong> Modern Westerners find the need for ceremonial or ritual purity difficult to understand. Westerners view skin diseases, bodily discharge, and contact with corpses as concerns of health and hygiene, but the primary issue in the Old Testament is guarding God’s holiness against ceremonial uncleanness (see Lev 11–15). The community had to safeguard the holiness of the camp so that unclean things or people did not ceremonially defile things associated with the Lord (Num 5:2-3). The community had to choose between having God in the camp or letting a defiled person remain in the camp, because both could not remain (5:3). • The importance of purity extends from Leviticus and Numbers to the book of Revelation: All that is ceremonially unclean will be forbidden to enter the New Jerusalem where God resides (see study note on Rev 21:27). In the New Testament, however, impurity is limited to what is morally impure (Acts 10:28; Eph 5:5; 1 Thes 2:3; 4:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:1-4<\/strong> Modern Westerners find the need for ceremonial or ritual purity difficult to understand. Westerners view skin diseases, bodily discharge, and contact with corpses as concerns of health and hygiene, but the primary issue in the Old Testament is guarding God’s holiness against ceremonial uncleanness (see Lev 11–15). The community had to safeguard the holiness of the camp so that unclean things or people did not ceremonially defile things associated with the Lord (Num 5:2-3). The community had to choose between having God in the camp or letting a defiled person remain in the camp, because both could not remain (5:3). • The importance of purity extends from Leviticus and Numbers to the book of Revelation: All that is ceremonially unclean will be forbidden to enter the New Jerusalem where God resides (see study note on Rev 21:27). In the New Testament, however, impurity is limited to what is morally impure (Acts 10:28; Eph 5:5; 1 Thes 2:3; 4:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:1-4 Modern Westerners find the need for ceremonial or ritual purity difficult to understand. Westerners view skin diseases, bodily discharge, and contact with corpses as concerns of health and hygiene, but the primary issue in the Old Testament is guarding God’s holiness against ceremonial uncleanness (see Lev 11–15). The community had to safeguard the holiness of the camp so that unclean things or people did not ceremonially defile things associated with the Lord (Num 5:2-3). The community...","summary_en":"5:1-4 Modern Westerners find the need for ceremonial or ritual purity difficult to understand. Westerners view skin diseases, bodily discharge, and contact with corpses as concerns of health and hygiene, but the primary issue in the Old Testament is guarding God’s holiness against ceremonial uncleanness (see Lev 11–15). The community had to safeguard the holiness of the camp so that unclean things or people did not ceremonially defile things associated with the Lord (Num 5:2-3). The community...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72073,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:1","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:1–10:10<\/strong> These legal matters were to ensure the purity of the Israelites, their priesthood, and the Tabernacle. Such regulations drew constant attention to ancient Israel’s identity as a theocracy of which Moses was the primary spokesman.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:1–10:10<\/strong> These legal matters were to ensure the purity of the Israelites, their priesthood, and the Tabernacle. Such regulations drew constant attention to ancient Israel’s identity as a theocracy of which Moses was the primary spokesman.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:1–10:10 These legal matters were to ensure the purity of the Israelites, their priesthood, and the Tabernacle. Such regulations drew constant attention to ancient Israel’s identity as a theocracy of which Moses was the primary spokesman.","summary_en":"5:1–10:10 These legal matters were to ensure the purity of the Israelites, their priesthood, and the Tabernacle. Such regulations drew constant attention to ancient Israel’s identity as a theocracy of which Moses was the primary spokesman.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72074,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:1","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:1-31<\/strong> These laws concern purity, restitution, and marital faithfulness.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:1-31<\/strong> These laws concern purity, restitution, and marital faithfulness.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:1-31 These laws concern purity, restitution, and marital faithfulness.","summary_en":"5:1-31 These laws concern purity, restitution, and marital faithfulness.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72075,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:1","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:1-4<\/strong> Modern Westerners find the need for ceremonial or ritual purity difficult to understand. Westerners view skin diseases, bodily discharge, and contact with corpses as concerns of health and hygiene, but the primary issue in the Old Testament is guarding God’s holiness against ceremonial uncleanness (see Lev 11–15). The community had to safeguard the holiness of the camp so that unclean things or people did not ceremonially defile things associated with the Lord (Num 5:2-3). The community had to choose between having God in the camp or letting a defiled person remain in the camp, because both could not remain (5:3). • The importance of purity extends from Leviticus and Numbers to the book of Revelation: All that is ceremonially unclean will be forbidden to enter the New Jerusalem where God resides (see study note on Rev 21:27). In the New Testament, however, impurity is limited to what is morally impure (Acts 10:28; Eph 5:5; 1 Thes 2:3; 4:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:1-4<\/strong> Modern Westerners find the need for ceremonial or ritual purity difficult to understand. Westerners view skin diseases, bodily discharge, and contact with corpses as concerns of health and hygiene, but the primary issue in the Old Testament is guarding God’s holiness against ceremonial uncleanness (see Lev 11–15). The community had to safeguard the holiness of the camp so that unclean things or people did not ceremonially defile things associated with the Lord (Num 5:2-3). The community had to choose between having God in the camp or letting a defiled person remain in the camp, because both could not remain (5:3). • The importance of purity extends from Leviticus and Numbers to the book of Revelation: All that is ceremonially unclean will be forbidden to enter the New Jerusalem where God resides (see study note on Rev 21:27). In the New Testament, however, impurity is limited to what is morally impure (Acts 10:28; Eph 5:5; 1 Thes 2:3; 4:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:1-4 Modern Westerners find the need for ceremonial or ritual purity difficult to understand. Westerners view skin diseases, bodily discharge, and contact with corpses as concerns of health and hygiene, but the primary issue in the Old Testament is guarding God’s holiness against ceremonial uncleanness (see Lev 11–15). The community had to safeguard the holiness of the camp so that unclean things or people did not ceremonially defile things associated with the Lord (Num 5:2-3). The community...","summary_en":"5:1-4 Modern Westerners find the need for ceremonial or ritual purity difficult to understand. Westerners view skin diseases, bodily discharge, and contact with corpses as concerns of health and hygiene, but the primary issue in the Old Testament is guarding God’s holiness against ceremonial uncleanness (see Lev 11–15). The community had to safeguard the holiness of the camp so that unclean things or people did not ceremonially defile things associated with the Lord (Num 5:2-3). The community...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99699,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:1","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:1–10:10<\/strong> These legal matters were to ensure the purity of the Israelites, their priesthood, and the Tabernacle. Such regulations drew constant attention to ancient Israel’s identity as a theocracy of which Moses was the primary spokesman.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:1–10:10<\/strong> These legal matters were to ensure the purity of the Israelites, their priesthood, and the Tabernacle. Such regulations drew constant attention to ancient Israel’s identity as a theocracy of which Moses was the primary spokesman.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:1–10:10 These legal matters were to ensure the purity of the Israelites, their priesthood, and the Tabernacle. Such regulations drew constant attention to ancient Israel’s identity as a theocracy of which Moses was the primary spokesman.","summary_en":"5:1–10:10 These legal matters were to ensure the purity of the Israelites, their priesthood, and the Tabernacle. Such regulations drew constant attention to ancient Israel’s identity as a theocracy of which Moses was the primary spokesman.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99700,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:1","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:1-31<\/strong> These laws concern purity, restitution, and marital faithfulness.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:1-31<\/strong> These laws concern purity, restitution, and marital faithfulness.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:1-31 These laws concern purity, restitution, and marital faithfulness.","summary_en":"5:1-31 These laws concern purity, restitution, and marital faithfulness.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99701,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:1","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:1-4<\/strong> Modern Westerners find the need for ceremonial or ritual purity difficult to understand. Westerners view skin diseases, bodily discharge, and contact with corpses as concerns of health and hygiene, but the primary issue in the Old Testament is guarding God’s holiness against ceremonial uncleanness (see Lev 11–15). The community had to safeguard the holiness of the camp so that unclean things or people did not ceremonially defile things associated with the Lord (Num 5:2-3). The community had to choose between having God in the camp or letting a defiled person remain in the camp, because both could not remain (5:3). • The importance of purity extends from Leviticus and Numbers to the book of Revelation: All that is ceremonially unclean will be forbidden to enter the New Jerusalem where God resides (see study note on Rev 21:27). In the New Testament, however, impurity is limited to what is morally impure (Acts 10:28; Eph 5:5; 1 Thes 2:3; 4:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:1-4<\/strong> Modern Westerners find the need for ceremonial or ritual purity difficult to understand. Westerners view skin diseases, bodily discharge, and contact with corpses as concerns of health and hygiene, but the primary issue in the Old Testament is guarding God’s holiness against ceremonial uncleanness (see Lev 11–15). The community had to safeguard the holiness of the camp so that unclean things or people did not ceremonially defile things associated with the Lord (Num 5:2-3). The community had to choose between having God in the camp or letting a defiled person remain in the camp, because both could not remain (5:3). • The importance of purity extends from Leviticus and Numbers to the book of Revelation: All that is ceremonially unclean will be forbidden to enter the New Jerusalem where God resides (see study note on Rev 21:27). In the New Testament, however, impurity is limited to what is morally impure (Acts 10:28; Eph 5:5; 1 Thes 2:3; 4:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:1-4 Modern Westerners find the need for ceremonial or ritual purity difficult to understand. Westerners view skin diseases, bodily discharge, and contact with corpses as concerns of health and hygiene, but the primary issue in the Old Testament is guarding God’s holiness against ceremonial uncleanness (see Lev 11–15). The community had to safeguard the holiness of the camp so that unclean things or people did not ceremonially defile things associated with the Lord (Num 5:2-3). The community...","summary_en":"5:1-4 Modern Westerners find the need for ceremonial or ritual purity difficult to understand. Westerners view skin diseases, bodily discharge, and contact with corpses as concerns of health and hygiene, but the primary issue in the Old Testament is guarding God’s holiness against ceremonial uncleanness (see Lev 11–15). The community had to safeguard the holiness of the camp so that unclean things or people did not ceremonially defile things associated with the Lord (Num 5:2-3). The community...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127325,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:1","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:1–10:10<\/strong> These legal matters were to ensure the purity of the Israelites, their priesthood, and the Tabernacle. Such regulations drew constant attention to ancient Israel’s identity as a theocracy of which Moses was the primary spokesman.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:1–10:10<\/strong> These legal matters were to ensure the purity of the Israelites, their priesthood, and the Tabernacle. Such regulations drew constant attention to ancient Israel’s identity as a theocracy of which Moses was the primary spokesman.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:1–10:10 These legal matters were to ensure the purity of the Israelites, their priesthood, and the Tabernacle. Such regulations drew constant attention to ancient Israel’s identity as a theocracy of which Moses was the primary spokesman.","summary_en":"5:1–10:10 These legal matters were to ensure the purity of the Israelites, their priesthood, and the Tabernacle. Such regulations drew constant attention to ancient Israel’s identity as a theocracy of which Moses was the primary spokesman.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127326,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:1","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:1-31<\/strong> These laws concern purity, restitution, and marital faithfulness.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:1-31<\/strong> These laws concern purity, restitution, and marital faithfulness.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:1-31 These laws concern purity, restitution, and marital faithfulness.","summary_en":"5:1-31 These laws concern purity, restitution, and marital faithfulness.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127327,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:1","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:1-4<\/strong> Modern Westerners find the need for ceremonial or ritual purity difficult to understand. Westerners view skin diseases, bodily discharge, and contact with corpses as concerns of health and hygiene, but the primary issue in the Old Testament is guarding God’s holiness against ceremonial uncleanness (see Lev 11–15). The community had to safeguard the holiness of the camp so that unclean things or people did not ceremonially defile things associated with the Lord (Num 5:2-3). The community had to choose between having God in the camp or letting a defiled person remain in the camp, because both could not remain (5:3). • The importance of purity extends from Leviticus and Numbers to the book of Revelation: All that is ceremonially unclean will be forbidden to enter the New Jerusalem where God resides (see study note on Rev 21:27). In the New Testament, however, impurity is limited to what is morally impure (Acts 10:28; Eph 5:5; 1 Thes 2:3; 4:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:1-4<\/strong> Modern Westerners find the need for ceremonial or ritual purity difficult to understand. Westerners view skin diseases, bodily discharge, and contact with corpses as concerns of health and hygiene, but the primary issue in the Old Testament is guarding God’s holiness against ceremonial uncleanness (see Lev 11–15). The community had to safeguard the holiness of the camp so that unclean things or people did not ceremonially defile things associated with the Lord (Num 5:2-3). The community had to choose between having God in the camp or letting a defiled person remain in the camp, because both could not remain (5:3). • The importance of purity extends from Leviticus and Numbers to the book of Revelation: All that is ceremonially unclean will be forbidden to enter the New Jerusalem where God resides (see study note on Rev 21:27). In the New Testament, however, impurity is limited to what is morally impure (Acts 10:28; Eph 5:5; 1 Thes 2:3; 4:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:1-4 Modern Westerners find the need for ceremonial or ritual purity difficult to understand. Westerners view skin diseases, bodily discharge, and contact with corpses as concerns of health and hygiene, but the primary issue in the Old Testament is guarding God’s holiness against ceremonial uncleanness (see Lev 11–15). The community had to safeguard the holiness of the camp so that unclean things or people did not ceremonially defile things associated with the Lord (Num 5:2-3). The community...","summary_en":"5:1-4 Modern Westerners find the need for ceremonial or ritual purity difficult to understand. Westerners view skin diseases, bodily discharge, and contact with corpses as concerns of health and hygiene, but the primary issue in the Old Testament is guarding God’s holiness against ceremonial uncleanness (see Lev 11–15). The community had to safeguard the holiness of the camp so that unclean things or people did not ceremonially defile things associated with the Lord (Num 5:2-3). The community...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"2":[{"id":44450,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:2","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:2<\/strong> <em>skin disease:<\/em> The Hebrew word used here describes various skin diseases that were regarded as contagious (cp. Lev 13–14). • <em>Discharge<\/em> refers to fluids associated with sexual organs (Lev 15; cp. Luke 8:43-48). • <em>touching a dead person:<\/em> See Num 6:6-11; 19:11.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:2<\/strong> <em>skin disease:<\/em> The Hebrew word used here describes various skin diseases that were regarded as contagious (cp. Lev 13–14). • <em>Discharge<\/em> refers to fluids associated with sexual organs (Lev 15; cp. Luke 8:43-48). • <em>touching a dead person:<\/em> See Num 6:6-11; 19:11.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:2 skin disease: The Hebrew word used here describes various skin diseases that were regarded as contagious (cp. Lev 13–14). • Discharge refers to fluids associated with sexual organs (Lev 15; cp. Luke 8:43-48). • touching a dead person: See Num 6:6-11; 19:11.","summary_en":"5:2 skin disease: The Hebrew word used here describes various skin diseases that were regarded as contagious (cp. Lev 13–14). • Discharge refers to fluids associated with sexual organs (Lev 15; cp. Luke 8:43-48). • touching a dead person: See Num 6:6-11; 19:11.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72076,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:2","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:2<\/strong> <em>skin disease:<\/em> The Hebrew word used here describes various skin diseases that were regarded as contagious (cp. Lev 13–14). • <em>Discharge<\/em> refers to fluids associated with sexual organs (Lev 15; cp. Luke 8:43-48). • <em>touching a dead person:<\/em> See Num 6:6-11; 19:11.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:2<\/strong> <em>skin disease:<\/em> The Hebrew word used here describes various skin diseases that were regarded as contagious (cp. Lev 13–14). • <em>Discharge<\/em> refers to fluids associated with sexual organs (Lev 15; cp. Luke 8:43-48). • <em>touching a dead person:<\/em> See Num 6:6-11; 19:11.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:2 skin disease: The Hebrew word used here describes various skin diseases that were regarded as contagious (cp. Lev 13–14). • Discharge refers to fluids associated with sexual organs (Lev 15; cp. Luke 8:43-48). • touching a dead person: See Num 6:6-11; 19:11.","summary_en":"5:2 skin disease: The Hebrew word used here describes various skin diseases that were regarded as contagious (cp. Lev 13–14). • Discharge refers to fluids associated with sexual organs (Lev 15; cp. Luke 8:43-48). • touching a dead person: See Num 6:6-11; 19:11.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99702,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:2","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:2<\/strong> <em>skin disease:<\/em> The Hebrew word used here describes various skin diseases that were regarded as contagious (cp. Lev 13–14). • <em>Discharge<\/em> refers to fluids associated with sexual organs (Lev 15; cp. Luke 8:43-48). • <em>touching a dead person:<\/em> See Num 6:6-11; 19:11.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:2<\/strong> <em>skin disease:<\/em> The Hebrew word used here describes various skin diseases that were regarded as contagious (cp. Lev 13–14). • <em>Discharge<\/em> refers to fluids associated with sexual organs (Lev 15; cp. Luke 8:43-48). • <em>touching a dead person:<\/em> See Num 6:6-11; 19:11.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:2 skin disease: The Hebrew word used here describes various skin diseases that were regarded as contagious (cp. Lev 13–14). • Discharge refers to fluids associated with sexual organs (Lev 15; cp. Luke 8:43-48). • touching a dead person: See Num 6:6-11; 19:11.","summary_en":"5:2 skin disease: The Hebrew word used here describes various skin diseases that were regarded as contagious (cp. Lev 13–14). • Discharge refers to fluids associated with sexual organs (Lev 15; cp. Luke 8:43-48). • touching a dead person: See Num 6:6-11; 19:11.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127328,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:2","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:2<\/strong> <em>skin disease:<\/em> The Hebrew word used here describes various skin diseases that were regarded as contagious (cp. Lev 13–14). • <em>Discharge<\/em> refers to fluids associated with sexual organs (Lev 15; cp. Luke 8:43-48). • <em>touching a dead person:<\/em> See Num 6:6-11; 19:11.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:2<\/strong> <em>skin disease:<\/em> The Hebrew word used here describes various skin diseases that were regarded as contagious (cp. Lev 13–14). • <em>Discharge<\/em> refers to fluids associated with sexual organs (Lev 15; cp. Luke 8:43-48). • <em>touching a dead person:<\/em> See Num 6:6-11; 19:11.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:2 skin disease: The Hebrew word used here describes various skin diseases that were regarded as contagious (cp. Lev 13–14). • Discharge refers to fluids associated with sexual organs (Lev 15; cp. Luke 8:43-48). • touching a dead person: See Num 6:6-11; 19:11.","summary_en":"5:2 skin disease: The Hebrew word used here describes various skin diseases that were regarded as contagious (cp. Lev 13–14). • Discharge refers to fluids associated with sexual organs (Lev 15; cp. Luke 8:43-48). • touching a dead person: See Num 6:6-11; 19:11.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"3":[{"id":22721,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Biblical Concept of Law","title_en":"Biblical Concept of Law","content_ro":"<h3>LAW, Biblical Concept of<\/h3>\n<p>God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>• Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>• Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>• Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalContext\">Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). However, in his exalted status as ruler over God’s creation on earth, man had to prove his loyalty to the Lord. For this purpose God set up a simple test: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man was prohibited from eating the fruit of that tree (2:17). His disobedience marked him as unfit for fellowship with the great King. He was rebellious and by nature full of treachery, as the subsequent accounts of Cain (4:1-16), the generation of the Flood (6:1-13), Ham and Canaan (9:18-26; 10:6-20), and the Tower of Babel (11:1-9) demonstrate.<\/p>\n<p>Yet in the midst of all this the Lord graciously called Abraham. He promised to bless him, his seed, and the families of the earth that would join in a common expression of faith (Gn 12:2-3; 17:4-7). Abraham responded to God in faith (15:6), willingly observed the ritual of circumcision as a sign of the covenant (17:10; cf. 21:4), and walked before God with integrity of heart (17:1). Abraham subsequently learned that God had sovereignly and graciously chosen him with the purpose that Abraham’s family might distinguish itself from the nations “by doing righteousness and justice” (18:19). The Lord was pleased with his servant Abraham, who, though he had not received detailed laws, was a man of integrity. His heart was right with God, so that he willingly did what God commanded.<\/p>\n<p>The father of faith was the father of the faithful; the Lord testified that Abraham “obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws” (Gn 26:5, <span>niv<\/span>). His faith resulted in the fruits of righteousness (Jas 2:21-24).<\/p>\n<p>However, Israel, blessed by the Lord in the increase of descendants, the exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea, and his presence, did not respond to him in faith. They murmured and complained at Mt Sinai, at Kadesh-barnea, and in the plains of Moab. They proved themselves to be a rebellious and stiff-necked people (Ex 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Dt 9:6, 13). Though they had shown their character, the Lord was faithful to Abraham by covenanting himself to them. Israel became his people, his royal priesthood, his holy nation (Ex 19:5-6; Dt 26:18-19). He gave Israel the Ten Commandments, the law, and the covenant, symbolized by the two tablets of the testimony (Ex 32:15-16). Even after Moses had broken them in anger because of the people’s idolatrous worship of the golden calf, the Lord renewed his covenant by writing again the words of the covenant (34:28). On one hand, the context in which the law was given reflects God’s grace and forbearance with Israel’s sins (vv 6-7) and his determination to use Israel in the unfolding of his plan of redemption for the world. On the other hand, the context reflects Israel’s immaturity and stubbornness. Therefore, the law in the OT has positive and negative purposes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LawintheOldTestament\">Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The OT has many words for God’s law. The most general word is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Torah<\/span><em>,<\/em> which signifies instruction of any kind: religious and secular, written and oral, divine and human. Law in Israel was God’s law, mediated through Moses (Ex 20:19; Dt 5:23-27). Because Israel rejected the direct revelation of God’s oracles, the law was mediated through Moses the servant of God (Jn 1:17).<\/p>\n<p>Synonyms for law are, in various translations, word (cf. Ex 24:3; 34:27), judgment (cf. Ex 24:3), decree (cf. Nm 30:16; Dt 4:1), ordinance (cf. Nm 9:12, 14; Dt 6:2), command(ment) (cf. Dt 6:1, 25), statutes (Lv 3:17; 10:11), precepts (a Hebrew word used only in Psalms; cf. 119:4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87, 93, 94, 100, 104, 110, 128, 134, 141, 159, 168, 173), stipulations, requirements, testimonies (cf. Dt 4:45; 6:20; 1 Kgs 2:3), precept (a Hebrew term not in the Pentateuch; cf. Ps 119:15), or simply the “way(s)” (cf. 1 Kgs 2:3; Pss 18:21; 25:9; 37:34).<\/p>\n<p>These words form a semantic field, and it is far from easy to distinguish clearly among the various forms of laws. Generally “the words” pertain to the duties of man toward God, especially the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1; 34:27). The “judgments” contain civil regulations and duties to one’s fellows and to the social environment (21:1–23:9); these are often in the form of “if . . . then. . . .” In Leviticus and in cultic formulations the word “ordinances” has the technical sense of cultic regulations—the ceremonial laws. However, in other contexts, especially in a series of synonyms for law, it signifies any expectation or regulation. The “commandments” are those regulations given by a higher authority. Though the OT has many words for law, the connotation of one word is often indistinguishable from that of other words, especially in series such as “the decrees and laws” (Dt 4:1, 5; 5:1), “the commands, decrees and laws” (6:1), “walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The motivation for keeping the divine law lies in the acts and presence of the Lord. The prologue to the Decalogue reminds us of God’s mighty acts: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex 20:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). In the historic acts of Israel’s redemption, revelation at Mt Sinai, and consecration of Israel to be his people, he involved himself with Israel as a “father.” He adopted Israel to sonship and consecrated them; that is, he declared them holy (Ex 19:6; 31:13; Lv 20:8; 22:32; cf. Rom 9:4). Sometimes the two concepts of redemption and consecration are placed together, but whether they are or not, they are inseparable: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span>, who makes you holy” (Lv 22:32b, <span>niv<\/span>). The ground of obedience can be stated simply by an appeal to God’s name: “I am Yahweh” (cf. Lv 18:6, 21, 30; 19:10, 14, 16, 18, 28, 30-31, 34, 36-37). The requisite of practical holiness is also based on the experience of God’s presence. The Lord commanded Israel to be holy because he is holy (Lv 11:44-45; 19:2). The “holy one of Israel” dwelt in the midst of his people (Ex 25:8; 29:45; Nm 5:3; 35:34).<\/p>\n<p>How could rebellious Israel grasp what God required, if it were not by precise moral, social, civil, and cultic regulations? The Lord had observed that they did not have “the heart” to serve him as a covenant-loyal people (Dt 5:29). By Israel’s very nature, it could not develop an adequate moral and cultic system to please God. Because of the people’s hardness of heart, God had to reveal (i.e., “spell out”) his will.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IsraeliteLawandtheAncientNearEast\">Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s law reflected the practices of its ancient Near Eastern context. Ancient Babylonian law codes (Eshnunna, Hammurabi) show similarities with the biblical codes. The similarities go beyond similarity of cases and include legal formulations (casuistic law). Israelite law is distinct in that it is divine law. Moses is the mediator and not the promulgator of the law, as was the practice of a king who, like Hammurabi, put into force a legal code. The Lord himself gave Israel its laws (cf. Dt 4:5-8). The laws in the ancient Near East dealt with the ordering of society. But Israel’s laws were given to regulate every aspect of life: personal, familial, social, and cultic. The laws were to teach Israel to distinguish between holy and profane, between clean and unclean, and between just and unjust.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLaws\">Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>The legal corpus of the OT is not given in one book or in one section. Moreover, the laws reflect the development from the desert context (Exodus) to the context of the land (Deuteronomy). The OT legal material is complex, full of variations and duplications. It is found in Exodus (chs 20–24; 25–31), Leviticus, Numbers (chs 3–6; 8–10; 15; 18; 19; 28–30), and Deuteronomy (chs 5–26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ten Commandments<\/h5>\n<p>The commandments are simply designated as “the words” of God (Ex 20:1). They appear in Exodus 20:1-17 and in Deuteronomy 5:6-21, but minor variations and individual commandments occur in other contexts (e.g., Ex 34:14, 17, 21; Lv 19:1-8; Dt 27:15-16). As a part of the covenant, the commandments were first addressed to Israel; they now form the basis of morality in Christianity. The abiding relevance of the moral law is clear from the NT. Our Lord established his authority as interpreter of all the commandments (Mt 5:17-48; 12:1-14; 23:23-24). He summarized the law in terms of love for God and man (cf. Mt 22:37-40; Mk 12:28-34; Lk 10:27; cf. Rom 13:8-9; Gal 5:14). Since he is also the Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath cannot be divorced from the other commandments (Mt 12:8). The apostle Paul also upheld the law, as his “ethics of the Spirit” reflects an internalization of the law of God in the hearts of believers (cf. Rom 8:1-17; 12:1–15:13; 1 Cor 2:6-16; 5:1-8; 10:23–11:1; Gal 5:13–6:10; Eph 4:17–6:9; Phil 2:1-18; Col 3:1–4:6; 1 Thes 4:1-12; 5:12-24; 2 Thes 3:6-15; 1 Tm 6:3-10; Ti 3:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The commandments were written on both sides of the two tablets by the Lord (Ex 32:15-16). It is unclear whether the tablets were duplicate copies, how the commandments were divided, and how the commandments were numbered. They were kept in the ark of the covenant as a testimony to the covenant (40:20).<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Covenant (Ex 20:23–23:19)<\/h5>\n<p>The purpose of the covenant code was to exemplify and to set into motion the legal machinery by which Israel as a nation could reflect God’s concern for justice, love, peace, and the value of life. The laws in the Book of the Covenant are mainly of the casuistic type. They regulate life in an agricultural society with servants, donkeys, bulls, oxen, sheep, and fields of grain. The regulations pertain to relations with women (including widows), aliens, orphans; to legal concerns (liability, damages, ownership); as well as to religious obligations (altar, Sabbath). Often the law requires restitution, but restitution is not the rule when human life is involved (Ex 21:12-29; 22:2-3), especially when it involves one’s family (21:15-17, 22-25). The penal code attached to the case laws makes clear the value of human life, which is protected by the <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”). The <em>lex talionis<\/em> does not point to a lack of forgiveness under the OT but rather was intended to be a legal principle giving coherence and justice to a society. The Book of the Covenant explicates by means of principles and cases how Israel must live together as a nation embracing the law of God and applying it <em>justly<\/em> (without discrimination or twisting of rights), <em>lovingly<\/em> (with a concern for the parties involved), and <em>peaceably.<\/em><\/p>\n<h5>The Priestly Law<\/h5>\n<p>God’s concern for holiness and purity comes to expression in the priestly laws (Ex 25–31; 35–40; Lv 1–27; Nm 4–10). The regulations pertain to the construction of the tabernacle, the consecration and ordination of priests, the offerings and sacrifices, rules of purity, the holy days, and vows.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was set in the middle of Israel’s camp in the wilderness. It symbolized the presence of God with his people. The priests and Levites were encamped around the tabernacle to serve and protect God’s holiness. All the tribes were situated around the tabernacle, and though the members of the tribes did not have access to all parts of the tabernacle, they had to be ritually clean to live in the camp. Anyone who was ritually defiled (Lv 13:46; Nm 5:1-3) or had sinned grievously was put outside the camp (Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36). This regulation even included objects that had become defiled (Lv 8:17; 9:11).<\/p>\n<p>By means of prescribed offerings and sacrifices (Lv 1–7; 16; Nm 15:1-31; 28), God assured Israel, individually and corporately, of forgiveness when it had unwittingly sinned. The offerings and sacrifices concretely embodied the purpose of the offerer, whether forgiveness, dedication, or fellowship.<\/p>\n<p>The priests and Levites taught the law of God (Dt 31:9-13), applied its regulations, and served in courts (17:8-13).<\/p>\n<h5>The Holiness Code (Lv 17–26)<\/h5>\n<p>The holiness code forms a significant part of the book of Leviticus. Here Moses addressed all of Israel (cf. Lv 17:2; 18:2; 19:2; 20:2; 21:24; 23:2; 24:2; 25:2; 26:46; 27:2).<\/p>\n<p>The laws are in the form of prohibitions and direct commands. They pertain to the place of sacrifice and the prohibition of eating meat with blood in it (ch 17); the prohibition of sexual relations with specified family members (ch 18); and regulations promoting godliness, holiness, justice, and love in society (ch 19). The penal code applies penalties to those who sin against the regulations (ch 20; 24:10-23). Chapters 21–24 apply the cultic regulations to the priests and to all Israelites. The institutions of the sabbatical year and the Year of Jubilee regulate the remission of debts, freedom of people, and restitution of land (ch 25).<\/p>\n<p>The holiness code spells out the qualities required of a holy people: devotion to God (offerings, sacrifices, priests) and love for man (Lv 19:18b) demonstrated in concern for justice, peace, freedom, the value of human life, and a concern for the family. Many of the laws reflect the spirit of the Decalogue (ch 19).<\/p>\n<p>Both promises and curses are attached to the holiness code (ch 26). The curses predict exile as a consequence of breaking the laws. But always underlying the laws and penalties is the grace of the Lord, who promises freely to forgive the people’s sins and to renew the broken covenant (26:44-45).<\/p>\n<h5>Laws of Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The Deuteronomic laws are explications and new applications of the Book of the Covenant in view of Israel’s new historical situation. Israel was about to enter the Promised Land when Moses outlined to them the law of God (Dt 1:5). The impersonal element of the Book of the Covenant is here transformed by personal appeal. Moses strongly appeals to Israel to be loyal to the Lord, the covenant, and the covenantal stipulations. The Deuteronomic laws envision the people in the land of promise, with a central sanctuary (12:5, 11-18; 14:23; 15:20; 16:5-7, 16, 21; 17:8; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11) and with a king (17:14-20). The blessings and the curses motivate covenant loyalty (ch 28). However, Israel is also here assured that even if it breaks God’s law, the Lord remains gracious and forgiving.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposesoftheLaw\">Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p>The law revealed at Mt Sinai was intended to lead Israel closer to God. Rebellious though they were, God used the law as his righteous instrument to teach, in a very specific way, what sin is (cf. Rom 5:20; 7:7-8) and how they should walk on a path that kept them undefiled by sin and holy to the Lord. The law was the teacher and the keeper of Israel (Gal 3:24). The detailed explications of the laws in all areas of life (work, society, family, cult, and nation) had an important place in God’s dealings with Israel. Israel was a nation in a special land, with a theocratic government, and was in need of a legislative corpus. Moreover, Israel’s condition at Mt Sinai was such that it could not receive direct revelation. The revelation had to be mediated through Moses. It had to be set forth in detail because Israel had no intuitive grasp of what the revelation of God’s holiness, justice, righteousness, love, and forebearance required of them. They had adopted Egyptian ways and had to learn the divine will by revelation. However, Moses and the prophets emphasize that the purpose of the law is not strict adherence to the law for its own sake (legalism) or for a reward (Pharisaism). Keeping the law is an act of devotion to God, for the sake of God. Our Lord confirmed the purpose of the law: to establish a dynamic way of life in which one continually seeks God’s kingdom and his righteousness (Mt 6:33).<\/p>\n<p>The law of God is his means of sanctification. He consecrated Israel by an act of grace, and he required Israel to remain holy. Jesus confirmed those uses of the law whereby one may know his sinfulness and by which he may be driven to Christ. On the cross our Lord carried the penalties of the law, fulfilled in a greater way the tabernacle\/temple presence of God, fulfilled the Father’s expectations of atonement, and demonstrated the love of the Father. He, the Son and greater than Moses, gave the essence of the law in the summary of God’s requirements: love of God and love of neighbor (Mt 23:23-24; Lk 11:42-44). Jesus taught that the purpose of obedience is not primarily to receive a reward but to serve as salt (Mt 5:13) and light (Mt 5:14-16; cf. Eph 4:17–5:20), and to bear fruit (Jn 15:1-17). The purpose of the law of God is the gradual transformation of the children of God to reflect the image of the Son (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10), to be an imitation of the Father (Eph 5:1-2), and to be filled with the Spirit of God (Gal 5:18, 22-24). For this purpose Jesus gave us the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, which summarize the intent of the teaching of Moses and the prophets (Mt 5–7).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the law is to transform regenerated believers into maturity. Spiritual maturity is not a privilege that was reserved for believers after Christ; OT saints also walked with God (Enoch, Gn 5:22-24; Noah, 6:9; Abraham, 17:1). These were mature men who lived with integrity in the presence of God (cf. Gn 17:1; Dt 18:13; Pss 15:1-2; 18:26; 101:2, 6; 119:80; Prv 11:5).<\/p>\n<p>Maturity, or integrity, is that response to God whereby the believer no longer needs to live by individual stipulations or in fear of mistakes and sins of omission, but delights in doing the Lord’s will (Pss 1:2; 112:1). Since the coming of Christ and Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has been poured out on every believer. He has come not only to internalize the law of God (Jer 31:33) but also to help us develop Christian maturity by giving the fruits of godliness in greater fullness (Gal 5:22-24). Whereas maturity and freedom were experienced by some OT saints, it is God’s gift to all his children in Christ (Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 12:13). The purpose is still the same, “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped [mature] for every good work” (2 Tm 3:17, <span>niv<\/span>), but the means to accomplish this and the status of the child of God is so much better since Pentecost.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Criminal Law and Punishment; Galatians, Letter to the; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Justification; Romans, Letter to the; Commandments, The Ten; Torah; Tradition.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LAW, Biblical Concept of<\/h3>\n<p>God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>• Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>• Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>• Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalContext\">Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). However, in his exalted status as ruler over God’s creation on earth, man had to prove his loyalty to the Lord. For this purpose God set up a simple test: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man was prohibited from eating the fruit of that tree (2:17). His disobedience marked him as unfit for fellowship with the great King. He was rebellious and by nature full of treachery, as the subsequent accounts of Cain (4:1-16), the generation of the Flood (6:1-13), Ham and Canaan (9:18-26; 10:6-20), and the Tower of Babel (11:1-9) demonstrate.<\/p>\n<p>Yet in the midst of all this the Lord graciously called Abraham. He promised to bless him, his seed, and the families of the earth that would join in a common expression of faith (Gn 12:2-3; 17:4-7). Abraham responded to God in faith (15:6), willingly observed the ritual of circumcision as a sign of the covenant (17:10; cf. 21:4), and walked before God with integrity of heart (17:1). Abraham subsequently learned that God had sovereignly and graciously chosen him with the purpose that Abraham’s family might distinguish itself from the nations “by doing righteousness and justice” (18:19). The Lord was pleased with his servant Abraham, who, though he had not received detailed laws, was a man of integrity. His heart was right with God, so that he willingly did what God commanded.<\/p>\n<p>The father of faith was the father of the faithful; the Lord testified that Abraham “obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws” (Gn 26:5, <span>niv<\/span>). His faith resulted in the fruits of righteousness (Jas 2:21-24).<\/p>\n<p>However, Israel, blessed by the Lord in the increase of descendants, the exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea, and his presence, did not respond to him in faith. They murmured and complained at Mt Sinai, at Kadesh-barnea, and in the plains of Moab. They proved themselves to be a rebellious and stiff-necked people (Ex 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Dt 9:6, 13). Though they had shown their character, the Lord was faithful to Abraham by covenanting himself to them. Israel became his people, his royal priesthood, his holy nation (Ex 19:5-6; Dt 26:18-19). He gave Israel the Ten Commandments, the law, and the covenant, symbolized by the two tablets of the testimony (Ex 32:15-16). Even after Moses had broken them in anger because of the people’s idolatrous worship of the golden calf, the Lord renewed his covenant by writing again the words of the covenant (34:28). On one hand, the context in which the law was given reflects God’s grace and forbearance with Israel’s sins (vv 6-7) and his determination to use Israel in the unfolding of his plan of redemption for the world. On the other hand, the context reflects Israel’s immaturity and stubbornness. Therefore, the law in the OT has positive and negative purposes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LawintheOldTestament\">Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The OT has many words for God’s law. The most general word is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Torah<\/span><em>,<\/em> which signifies instruction of any kind: religious and secular, written and oral, divine and human. Law in Israel was God’s law, mediated through Moses (Ex 20:19; Dt 5:23-27). Because Israel rejected the direct revelation of God’s oracles, the law was mediated through Moses the servant of God (Jn 1:17).<\/p>\n<p>Synonyms for law are, in various translations, word (cf. Ex 24:3; 34:27), judgment (cf. Ex 24:3), decree (cf. Nm 30:16; Dt 4:1), ordinance (cf. Nm 9:12, 14; Dt 6:2), command(ment) (cf. Dt 6:1, 25), statutes (Lv 3:17; 10:11), precepts (a Hebrew word used only in Psalms; cf. 119:4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87, 93, 94, 100, 104, 110, 128, 134, 141, 159, 168, 173), stipulations, requirements, testimonies (cf. Dt 4:45; 6:20; 1 Kgs 2:3), precept (a Hebrew term not in the Pentateuch; cf. Ps 119:15), or simply the “way(s)” (cf. 1 Kgs 2:3; Pss 18:21; 25:9; 37:34).<\/p>\n<p>These words form a semantic field, and it is far from easy to distinguish clearly among the various forms of laws. Generally “the words” pertain to the duties of man toward God, especially the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1; 34:27). The “judgments” contain civil regulations and duties to one’s fellows and to the social environment (21:1–23:9); these are often in the form of “if . . . then. . . .” In Leviticus and in cultic formulations the word “ordinances” has the technical sense of cultic regulations—the ceremonial laws. However, in other contexts, especially in a series of synonyms for law, it signifies any expectation or regulation. The “commandments” are those regulations given by a higher authority. Though the OT has many words for law, the connotation of one word is often indistinguishable from that of other words, especially in series such as “the decrees and laws” (Dt 4:1, 5; 5:1), “the commands, decrees and laws” (6:1), “walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The motivation for keeping the divine law lies in the acts and presence of the Lord. The prologue to the Decalogue reminds us of God’s mighty acts: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex 20:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). In the historic acts of Israel’s redemption, revelation at Mt Sinai, and consecration of Israel to be his people, he involved himself with Israel as a “father.” He adopted Israel to sonship and consecrated them; that is, he declared them holy (Ex 19:6; 31:13; Lv 20:8; 22:32; cf. Rom 9:4). Sometimes the two concepts of redemption and consecration are placed together, but whether they are or not, they are inseparable: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span>, who makes you holy” (Lv 22:32b, <span>niv<\/span>). The ground of obedience can be stated simply by an appeal to God’s name: “I am Yahweh” (cf. Lv 18:6, 21, 30; 19:10, 14, 16, 18, 28, 30-31, 34, 36-37). The requisite of practical holiness is also based on the experience of God’s presence. The Lord commanded Israel to be holy because he is holy (Lv 11:44-45; 19:2). The “holy one of Israel” dwelt in the midst of his people (Ex 25:8; 29:45; Nm 5:3; 35:34).<\/p>\n<p>How could rebellious Israel grasp what God required, if it were not by precise moral, social, civil, and cultic regulations? The Lord had observed that they did not have “the heart” to serve him as a covenant-loyal people (Dt 5:29). By Israel’s very nature, it could not develop an adequate moral and cultic system to please God. Because of the people’s hardness of heart, God had to reveal (i.e., “spell out”) his will.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IsraeliteLawandtheAncientNearEast\">Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s law reflected the practices of its ancient Near Eastern context. Ancient Babylonian law codes (Eshnunna, Hammurabi) show similarities with the biblical codes. The similarities go beyond similarity of cases and include legal formulations (casuistic law). Israelite law is distinct in that it is divine law. Moses is the mediator and not the promulgator of the law, as was the practice of a king who, like Hammurabi, put into force a legal code. The Lord himself gave Israel its laws (cf. Dt 4:5-8). The laws in the ancient Near East dealt with the ordering of society. But Israel’s laws were given to regulate every aspect of life: personal, familial, social, and cultic. The laws were to teach Israel to distinguish between holy and profane, between clean and unclean, and between just and unjust.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLaws\">Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>The legal corpus of the OT is not given in one book or in one section. Moreover, the laws reflect the development from the desert context (Exodus) to the context of the land (Deuteronomy). The OT legal material is complex, full of variations and duplications. It is found in Exodus (chs 20–24; 25–31), Leviticus, Numbers (chs 3–6; 8–10; 15; 18; 19; 28–30), and Deuteronomy (chs 5–26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ten Commandments<\/h5>\n<p>The commandments are simply designated as “the words” of God (Ex 20:1). They appear in Exodus 20:1-17 and in Deuteronomy 5:6-21, but minor variations and individual commandments occur in other contexts (e.g., Ex 34:14, 17, 21; Lv 19:1-8; Dt 27:15-16). As a part of the covenant, the commandments were first addressed to Israel; they now form the basis of morality in Christianity. The abiding relevance of the moral law is clear from the NT. Our Lord established his authority as interpreter of all the commandments (Mt 5:17-48; 12:1-14; 23:23-24). He summarized the law in terms of love for God and man (cf. Mt 22:37-40; Mk 12:28-34; Lk 10:27; cf. Rom 13:8-9; Gal 5:14). Since he is also the Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath cannot be divorced from the other commandments (Mt 12:8). The apostle Paul also upheld the law, as his “ethics of the Spirit” reflects an internalization of the law of God in the hearts of believers (cf. Rom 8:1-17; 12:1–15:13; 1 Cor 2:6-16; 5:1-8; 10:23–11:1; Gal 5:13–6:10; Eph 4:17–6:9; Phil 2:1-18; Col 3:1–4:6; 1 Thes 4:1-12; 5:12-24; 2 Thes 3:6-15; 1 Tm 6:3-10; Ti 3:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The commandments were written on both sides of the two tablets by the Lord (Ex 32:15-16). It is unclear whether the tablets were duplicate copies, how the commandments were divided, and how the commandments were numbered. They were kept in the ark of the covenant as a testimony to the covenant (40:20).<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Covenant (Ex 20:23–23:19)<\/h5>\n<p>The purpose of the covenant code was to exemplify and to set into motion the legal machinery by which Israel as a nation could reflect God’s concern for justice, love, peace, and the value of life. The laws in the Book of the Covenant are mainly of the casuistic type. They regulate life in an agricultural society with servants, donkeys, bulls, oxen, sheep, and fields of grain. The regulations pertain to relations with women (including widows), aliens, orphans; to legal concerns (liability, damages, ownership); as well as to religious obligations (altar, Sabbath). Often the law requires restitution, but restitution is not the rule when human life is involved (Ex 21:12-29; 22:2-3), especially when it involves one’s family (21:15-17, 22-25). The penal code attached to the case laws makes clear the value of human life, which is protected by the <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”). The <em>lex talionis<\/em> does not point to a lack of forgiveness under the OT but rather was intended to be a legal principle giving coherence and justice to a society. The Book of the Covenant explicates by means of principles and cases how Israel must live together as a nation embracing the law of God and applying it <em>justly<\/em> (without discrimination or twisting of rights), <em>lovingly<\/em> (with a concern for the parties involved), and <em>peaceably.<\/em><\/p>\n<h5>The Priestly Law<\/h5>\n<p>God’s concern for holiness and purity comes to expression in the priestly laws (Ex 25–31; 35–40; Lv 1–27; Nm 4–10). The regulations pertain to the construction of the tabernacle, the consecration and ordination of priests, the offerings and sacrifices, rules of purity, the holy days, and vows.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was set in the middle of Israel’s camp in the wilderness. It symbolized the presence of God with his people. The priests and Levites were encamped around the tabernacle to serve and protect God’s holiness. All the tribes were situated around the tabernacle, and though the members of the tribes did not have access to all parts of the tabernacle, they had to be ritually clean to live in the camp. Anyone who was ritually defiled (Lv 13:46; Nm 5:1-3) or had sinned grievously was put outside the camp (Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36). This regulation even included objects that had become defiled (Lv 8:17; 9:11).<\/p>\n<p>By means of prescribed offerings and sacrifices (Lv 1–7; 16; Nm 15:1-31; 28), God assured Israel, individually and corporately, of forgiveness when it had unwittingly sinned. The offerings and sacrifices concretely embodied the purpose of the offerer, whether forgiveness, dedication, or fellowship.<\/p>\n<p>The priests and Levites taught the law of God (Dt 31:9-13), applied its regulations, and served in courts (17:8-13).<\/p>\n<h5>The Holiness Code (Lv 17–26)<\/h5>\n<p>The holiness code forms a significant part of the book of Leviticus. Here Moses addressed all of Israel (cf. Lv 17:2; 18:2; 19:2; 20:2; 21:24; 23:2; 24:2; 25:2; 26:46; 27:2).<\/p>\n<p>The laws are in the form of prohibitions and direct commands. They pertain to the place of sacrifice and the prohibition of eating meat with blood in it (ch 17); the prohibition of sexual relations with specified family members (ch 18); and regulations promoting godliness, holiness, justice, and love in society (ch 19). The penal code applies penalties to those who sin against the regulations (ch 20; 24:10-23). Chapters 21–24 apply the cultic regulations to the priests and to all Israelites. The institutions of the sabbatical year and the Year of Jubilee regulate the remission of debts, freedom of people, and restitution of land (ch 25).<\/p>\n<p>The holiness code spells out the qualities required of a holy people: devotion to God (offerings, sacrifices, priests) and love for man (Lv 19:18b) demonstrated in concern for justice, peace, freedom, the value of human life, and a concern for the family. Many of the laws reflect the spirit of the Decalogue (ch 19).<\/p>\n<p>Both promises and curses are attached to the holiness code (ch 26). The curses predict exile as a consequence of breaking the laws. But always underlying the laws and penalties is the grace of the Lord, who promises freely to forgive the people’s sins and to renew the broken covenant (26:44-45).<\/p>\n<h5>Laws of Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The Deuteronomic laws are explications and new applications of the Book of the Covenant in view of Israel’s new historical situation. Israel was about to enter the Promised Land when Moses outlined to them the law of God (Dt 1:5). The impersonal element of the Book of the Covenant is here transformed by personal appeal. Moses strongly appeals to Israel to be loyal to the Lord, the covenant, and the covenantal stipulations. The Deuteronomic laws envision the people in the land of promise, with a central sanctuary (12:5, 11-18; 14:23; 15:20; 16:5-7, 16, 21; 17:8; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11) and with a king (17:14-20). The blessings and the curses motivate covenant loyalty (ch 28). However, Israel is also here assured that even if it breaks God’s law, the Lord remains gracious and forgiving.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposesoftheLaw\">Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p>The law revealed at Mt Sinai was intended to lead Israel closer to God. Rebellious though they were, God used the law as his righteous instrument to teach, in a very specific way, what sin is (cf. Rom 5:20; 7:7-8) and how they should walk on a path that kept them undefiled by sin and holy to the Lord. The law was the teacher and the keeper of Israel (Gal 3:24). The detailed explications of the laws in all areas of life (work, society, family, cult, and nation) had an important place in God’s dealings with Israel. Israel was a nation in a special land, with a theocratic government, and was in need of a legislative corpus. Moreover, Israel’s condition at Mt Sinai was such that it could not receive direct revelation. The revelation had to be mediated through Moses. It had to be set forth in detail because Israel had no intuitive grasp of what the revelation of God’s holiness, justice, righteousness, love, and forebearance required of them. They had adopted Egyptian ways and had to learn the divine will by revelation. However, Moses and the prophets emphasize that the purpose of the law is not strict adherence to the law for its own sake (legalism) or for a reward (Pharisaism). Keeping the law is an act of devotion to God, for the sake of God. Our Lord confirmed the purpose of the law: to establish a dynamic way of life in which one continually seeks God’s kingdom and his righteousness (Mt 6:33).<\/p>\n<p>The law of God is his means of sanctification. He consecrated Israel by an act of grace, and he required Israel to remain holy. Jesus confirmed those uses of the law whereby one may know his sinfulness and by which he may be driven to Christ. On the cross our Lord carried the penalties of the law, fulfilled in a greater way the tabernacle\/temple presence of God, fulfilled the Father’s expectations of atonement, and demonstrated the love of the Father. He, the Son and greater than Moses, gave the essence of the law in the summary of God’s requirements: love of God and love of neighbor (Mt 23:23-24; Lk 11:42-44). Jesus taught that the purpose of obedience is not primarily to receive a reward but to serve as salt (Mt 5:13) and light (Mt 5:14-16; cf. Eph 4:17–5:20), and to bear fruit (Jn 15:1-17). The purpose of the law of God is the gradual transformation of the children of God to reflect the image of the Son (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10), to be an imitation of the Father (Eph 5:1-2), and to be filled with the Spirit of God (Gal 5:18, 22-24). For this purpose Jesus gave us the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, which summarize the intent of the teaching of Moses and the prophets (Mt 5–7).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the law is to transform regenerated believers into maturity. Spiritual maturity is not a privilege that was reserved for believers after Christ; OT saints also walked with God (Enoch, Gn 5:22-24; Noah, 6:9; Abraham, 17:1). These were mature men who lived with integrity in the presence of God (cf. Gn 17:1; Dt 18:13; Pss 15:1-2; 18:26; 101:2, 6; 119:80; Prv 11:5).<\/p>\n<p>Maturity, or integrity, is that response to God whereby the believer no longer needs to live by individual stipulations or in fear of mistakes and sins of omission, but delights in doing the Lord’s will (Pss 1:2; 112:1). Since the coming of Christ and Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has been poured out on every believer. He has come not only to internalize the law of God (Jer 31:33) but also to help us develop Christian maturity by giving the fruits of godliness in greater fullness (Gal 5:22-24). Whereas maturity and freedom were experienced by some OT saints, it is God’s gift to all his children in Christ (Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 12:13). The purpose is still the same, “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped [mature] for every good work” (2 Tm 3:17, <span>niv<\/span>), but the means to accomplish this and the status of the child of God is so much better since Pentecost.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Criminal Law and Punishment; Galatians, Letter to the; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Justification; Romans, Letter to the; Commandments, The Ten; Torah; Tradition.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LAW, Biblical Concept of God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God. Preview • Historical Context • Law in the Old Testament • Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East • Old Testament Laws • Purposes of the Law Historical Context When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). Howe...","summary_en":"LAW, Biblical Concept of God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God. Preview • Historical Context • Law in the Old Testament • Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East • Old Testament Laws • Purposes of the Law Historical Context When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). Howe...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34784,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Shekinah*","title_en":"Shekinah*","content_ro":"<h3>SHEKINAH*<\/h3>\n<p>Transliteration of a Hebrew word meaning “the one who dwells” or “that which dwells.” The term enters Christian theology from its use in the Targums and rabbinic literature to describe the immanent presence in the world of the transcendent Deity. Although the word is not itself used in either Testament, it clearly originates in OT passages that describe God as dwelling among a people or in a particular place (Gn 9:27; Ex 25:8; 29:45-46; Nm 5:3; 1 Kgs 6:13; Pss 68:16-18; 74:2; Is 8:18; Ez 43:7-9; Jl 3:17, 21; Zec 2:10-11); God, whose dwelling is in heaven, also dwells on earth. The term is also applied to the “shekinah glory,” the visible pillar of fire and smoke that dwelled in the midst of Israel at Sinai (Ex 19:16-18), in the wilderness (40:34-38), and in the temple (1 Kgs 6:13; 8:10-13; 2 Chr 6:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>The NT frequently alludes to the concept of the shekinah, even though the term itself is not used. God’s presence in the NT is frequently associated with light and glory (Lk 2:9; 9:29; Acts 9:3-6; 22:6-11; 26:12-16; 2 Pt 1:16-18). John’s Gospel emphasizes both the concept of glory and the concept of dwelling. When the Word became flesh, he dwelt among men who beheld his glory (Jn 1:14). The Spirit of God remained on him (v 32) and would be with his followers forever (14:16). He would abide in those who abide in Jesus (15:4-10). The same themes of dwelling in Christ and of his dwelling in his people occur repeatedly also in John’s letters (1 Jn 2:6, 14, 24, 27-28; 3:6, 14-15, 24; 2 Jn 1:9).<\/p>\n<p>Paul also identifies Christ as the shekinah of God. All the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily (Col 1:19; 2:9). The dwelling of Christ in the church constitutes the saints as the people of God (1:15-23). Paul’s message was the “gospel of the glory of Christ,” for God had caused light to shine to give “knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor 4:4-6, <span>niv<\/span>). Finally, the writer of Hebrews sees Christ as “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (Heb 1:3, <span>niv<\/span>). <em>See<\/em> Glory; Pillar of Fire and Cloud; Theophany.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SHEKINAH*<\/h3>\n<p>Transliteration of a Hebrew word meaning “the one who dwells” or “that which dwells.” The term enters Christian theology from its use in the Targums and rabbinic literature to describe the immanent presence in the world of the transcendent Deity. Although the word is not itself used in either Testament, it clearly originates in OT passages that describe God as dwelling among a people or in a particular place (Gn 9:27; Ex 25:8; 29:45-46; Nm 5:3; 1 Kgs 6:13; Pss 68:16-18; 74:2; Is 8:18; Ez 43:7-9; Jl 3:17, 21; Zec 2:10-11); God, whose dwelling is in heaven, also dwells on earth. The term is also applied to the “shekinah glory,” the visible pillar of fire and smoke that dwelled in the midst of Israel at Sinai (Ex 19:16-18), in the wilderness (40:34-38), and in the temple (1 Kgs 6:13; 8:10-13; 2 Chr 6:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>The NT frequently alludes to the concept of the shekinah, even though the term itself is not used. God’s presence in the NT is frequently associated with light and glory (Lk 2:9; 9:29; Acts 9:3-6; 22:6-11; 26:12-16; 2 Pt 1:16-18). John’s Gospel emphasizes both the concept of glory and the concept of dwelling. When the Word became flesh, he dwelt among men who beheld his glory (Jn 1:14). The Spirit of God remained on him (v 32) and would be with his followers forever (14:16). He would abide in those who abide in Jesus (15:4-10). The same themes of dwelling in Christ and of his dwelling in his people occur repeatedly also in John’s letters (1 Jn 2:6, 14, 24, 27-28; 3:6, 14-15, 24; 2 Jn 1:9).<\/p>\n<p>Paul also identifies Christ as the shekinah of God. All the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily (Col 1:19; 2:9). The dwelling of Christ in the church constitutes the saints as the people of God (1:15-23). Paul’s message was the “gospel of the glory of Christ,” for God had caused light to shine to give “knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor 4:4-6, <span>niv<\/span>). Finally, the writer of Hebrews sees Christ as “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (Heb 1:3, <span>niv<\/span>). <em>See<\/em> Glory; Pillar of Fire and Cloud; Theophany.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SHEKINAH* Transliteration of a Hebrew word meaning “the one who dwells” or “that which dwells.” The term enters Christian theology from its use in the Targums and rabbinic literature to describe the immanent presence in the world of the transcendent Deity. Although the word is not itself used in either Testament, it clearly originates in OT passages that describe God as dwelling among a people or in a particular place (Gn 9:27; Ex 25:8; 29:45-46; Nm 5:3; 1 Kgs 6:13; Pss 68:16-18; 74:2; Is 8:1...","summary_en":"SHEKINAH* Transliteration of a Hebrew word meaning “the one who dwells” or “that which dwells.” The term enters Christian theology from its use in the Targums and rabbinic literature to describe the immanent presence in the world of the transcendent Deity. Although the word is not itself used in either Testament, it clearly originates in OT passages that describe God as dwelling among a people or in a particular place (Gn 9:27; Ex 25:8; 29:45-46; Nm 5:3; 1 Kgs 6:13; Pss 68:16-18; 74:2; Is 8:1...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"5":[{"id":27842,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Numbers","title_en":"Book of Numbers","content_ro":"<h3>NUMBERS, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Fourth book of the English Bible. Its title is the English translation of the Latin Vulgate title, <em>Numeri.<\/em> The book takes this name from the fact that several rosters of various kinds are recorded in the book, specifically, the two army musters in chapters 1 and 26, the tribal camp and march arrangements in chapter 2, and the Levitical censuses in chapters 3 and 4.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p>• Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The question of the authorship of Numbers is part of the larger question of the authorship of the Pentateuch. Until the appearance of the higher-critical documentary theories of the 19th century, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was almost universally held by both Jews and Christians alike. This time-honored tradition is supported by the Pentateuch itself (e.g., Ex 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Nm 33:2; Dt 31:9, 24), the rest of the OT (e.g., Jos 23:6; Jgs 3:4; Mal 4:4), as well as Jesus’ teaching (e.g., Jn 5:46-47), and the rest of the NT (e.g., Acts 28:23; Rom 10:19; 1 Cor 9:9). Although discrepancies in the Pentateuch were widely and openly acknowledged, nevertheless Moses, the 15th-century <span>BC<\/span> lawgiver, was affirmed as the primary author of the Pentateuchal literature.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<h5>Sinai Peninsula<\/h5>\n<p>The historical background of Numbers begins primarily in the geographical region of the Sinai Peninsula of the mid-second millennium <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Sinai Peninsula is in the shape of an inverted triangle with the base on the north. It is approximately 240 miles (386.2 kilometers) long from north to south and 175 miles (281.6 kilometers) wide at the northern base, with an area of approximately 22,000 square miles (56,980 square kilometers). It is bounded on the north by the Mediterranean Sea and the southern border of Canaan, on the west by the Bitter Lakes and the Gulf of Suez, and on the east by the Arabah and the Gulf of Aqaba. Beginning in the north at the Mediterranean coast and moving south, for about 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) the soil is sandy. South of this coastal plain is a high plateau (Et-Tih) of gravel and limestone (about 2,500 feet, or 762 meters, above sea level), stretching south into the peninsula for approximately 150 miles (241.4 kilometers). Rising above the plateau at this point is a granite mountain formation with peaks up to 8,000 feet (2,438.4 meters) above sea level. In this mountainous region at the apex of the peninsular triangle, Jebel Musa (7,363 feet, or 2,244.2 meters, high), the traditional site where Israel camped before Mt Sinai and Moses received the law, rises above the plain.<\/p>\n<p>The peninsula itself is comprised of five wilderness areas. In the north and immediately east of the land of Goshen is the approximately 40-mile- or 64.4-kilometer-wide wilderness of Shur, which runs past the River of Egypt (Wadi el-Arish) to the region of Kadesh-barnea and northeast to Beersheba. East of this region is the wilderness of Zin, extending east from the wilderness of Shur to the southern tip of the Dead Sea. Kadesh-barnea is located on its southern border (Nm 20:1; 33:36). South of the wilderness of Shur is the wilderness of Etham, and east of this wilderness in the east-central region of Sinai is the great wilderness of Paran (Dt 1:19). Kadesh-barnea is on the northern border of this territory (Nm 13:26). In this area the Israelites spent 38 of their 40 years of wandering. Southwest of the wilderness of Paran, on the western slopes of the peninsula, not far from the granite mountains standing in the southern apex of the triangle, is the wilderness of Sin.<\/p>\n<p>While the region is generally desolate and barren, it is not impassable or incapable of sustaining travelers. Wells and springs dot both the western and eastern borders at reasonable distances from each other. The water table is fairly close to ground level, making the digging of wells possible (Nm 20:17; 21:16-18). The limestone rocks are also capable of holding great amounts of water (20:11). Vegetation is sparse except around the more permanent streams where vegetation and date palms flourish. The rainy season in winter is approximately 20 days. Quail (11:31-32) are known to migrate across the peninsula to Europe in the spring.<\/p>\n\n<h5>The Peoples Israel Confronted<\/h5>\n<h6>Amalekites and Canaanites (14:25, 43-45; 24:20)<\/h6>\n<p>The Amalekites were descendants of Amalek, son of Eliphaz and grandson of Esau (Gn 36:12, 16). They were generally a nomadic people. In the Sinai Peninsula they were the first to war against Israel at Rephidim (cf. Nm 24:20), perhaps the Wadi Refayid in southwest Sinai (Ex 17:8-16), before Israel reached Horeb. A year later, the Amalekites settled in the hills and valleys north of Kadesh-barnea. In league with the Canaanites, the inhabitants of Palestine, they blocked the effort of Israel to invade the land of promise from the south (Nm 14:45). Israel’s will to wage war appears to have been completely broken for years to come.<\/p>\n<h6>Edomites (20:14-21; 21:4, 10-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Edom, or Seir (24:18), is the territory south of the Dead Sea occupied by Esau’s descendants. Stretching from its northern border at the Wadi Zered (21:12), which flowed into the Dead Sea at its southern tip, 100 miles (160.9 kilometers) south to the Gulf of Aqaba, it occupied both sides of the Arabah, with Kadesh-barnea again standing on the edge of its western border (20:16), giving it a land area of approximately 4,000 square miles (10,360 square kilometers). It is a rugged mountain region with peaks rising to 3,500 feet (1,066.8 meters). The “king’s highway,” an ancient trade route from Damascus through the Transjordan to the Gulf of Aqaba, passed through its territory and major cities, Bozrah and Leman. While Edom was not fertile, it did have cultivable areas (20:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>During Israel’s march to the Transjordan region, Edom refused to let Israel journey directly east from Kadesh through its territory but forced Israel to move southeast into and up the Arabah (21:4, 11). In spite of this hostility to God’s people, Israel was forbidden to attack (Dt 2:2-8) or to hate the Edomites (23:7), and so Edom was spared from destruction during the conquest of the land. The area was later conquered by David (2 Sm 8:13-14) according to Balaam’s prophecy (Nm 24:18).<\/p>\n<h6>Arad (21:1-3)<\/h6>\n<p>Arad was a south Canaanite settlement in the Negev. Its king, after fighting against Israel and taking some captives, was later defeated at Hormah.<\/p>\n<h6>Moabites (21:11-15; 22:1–24:25)<\/h6>\n<p>Moab, occupied by the descendants of Lot (Gn 19:37), is the territory east of the Dead Sea lying primarily between the Wadi Arnon (Nm 21:13) and the Wadi Zered with a land area of approximately 1,400 square miles (3,626 square kilometers).<\/p>\n<p>In the late middle Bronze Age, the Moabites had overflowed their main plateau and had extended well to the north of the Arnon all the way to the northern end of the Dead Sea (21:20). At the time of the events recorded in Numbers, however, the Amorites occupied the area from Arnon all the way north to the Wadi Jabbok (vv 13, 21-24), having earlier taken this land from Moab (vv 26-30). The Moabite kingdom was highly organized, with agriculture and livestock, splendid buildings, distinctive pottery, and strong fortifications around her borders. Its god was Chemosh (v 29).<\/p>\n<p>Balak, king of Moab during the period of the conquest, in league with Midian, hired Balaam to curse Israel (chs 22–24). When this failed, the two heathen powers sought to neutralize Israel by luring the people of God into the worship of Chemosh and into idolatry (25:1-2). In the war that ensued, Israel defeated Midian (31:1-18), but by God’s express command (Dt 2:9-13) spared Moab. But as Balaam had prophesied earlier (Nm 24:17), David in the 11th century warred against and defeated Moab (2 Sm 8:2, 13-14).<\/p>\n<h6>Amorites (21:21-35)<\/h6>\n<p>The Amorites, the people who had occupied northern Moabite territory (Nm 21:25-30), were descendants of Canaan (Gn 10:16) who had scattered throughout the hill country on both sides of the Jordan River. Heshbon was their capital city. Both Sihon of Heshbon and Og of Bashan were Amorite kings (Dt 3:8).<\/p>\n<p>As for Bashan (Nm 21:33-35; cf. Dt 1:4; 3:1-12), it is the fertile grazing region (Nm 32:1-5) east of the Sea of Kinnereth (Galilee), whose northern border extended to Mt Hermon and whose southern border, while normally the river Yarmuk, in the Mosaic age was the Wadi Jabbok (Jos 12:4-5). Its land area covered approximately 5,000 square miles (12,950 square kilometers). Its major cities were Ashtaroth, Edrei, and Golan. After the conquest of the land, this territory fell to the half-tribe of Manasseh, with Gad occupying southern Gilead, and Reuben the region south to the Wadi Arnon.<\/p>\n<h6>Midianites (25:16-18; 31:1-54)<\/h6>\n<p>The Midianites, descendants of Abraham through the concubine Keturah (Gn 25:2), were desert dwellers in Transjordan from Moab to the region south of Edom. The elders of Moab and Midian cooperated in hiring Balaam to curse Israel (Nm 22:4-7). Later, when that effort proved fruitless, the Midianites, again with Moab, led Israel into idolatry and immorality (25:1-6, 14-15). Cozbi, the Midianite woman who was executed for her wickedness (25:8), was the daughter of Zur, one of the five Midianite kings confederate with the Amorite king Sihon (Jos 13:21) who were later killed in Israel’s holy war against Midian (Nm 31:8). This war with Midian apparently broke the back of any remaining Amorite resistance, for Joshua 13:15-23 clearly intimates that as a result the tribe of Reuben occupied this territory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>Numbers serves a twofold purpose. First, as a historical book, it contains the account of Israel’s fortunes from Mt Sinai to the plains of Moab on the eve of the conquest of Canaan—that almost-40-year period spent in the wilderness of Sinai and in Transjordan (1447–1407 <span>BC<\/span>). While recounting Israel’s many failures and God’s many faithful acts, it depicts Moses, Israel’s leader, in all of his greatness and in all of his weakness. The two army rolls (chs 2 and 26) introduce the “acts” of the main drama of its history: the first in preparation for entering the land, which failed due to Israel’s unbelief; the second, after the death of the entire generation that left Egypt, in preparation for the successful invasion of Canaan under Joshua’s leadership.<\/p>\n<p>Second, in line with Paul’s general belief that “whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope” (Rom 15:4, <span>rsv<\/span>), and in keeping with his specific teaching that “these things [that befell Israel in the wilderness] happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come” (1 Cor 10:11, <span>rsv<\/span>), Numbers serves a doctrinal, typical, and hortatory purpose (cf. v 12). Historical events are divinely invested with spiritual truths, thereby becoming object lessons for the Christian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 1<\/h5>\n<p>The Lord commanded Moses to register (Nm 1:18) the men able to go to war (vv 2-3). The total number of soldiers in Israel was 603,550 (v 46). The Levites were not numbered in this roll (vv 47-54), since they were to be set apart for special service pertaining to the tabernacle.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 2<\/h5>\n<p>The Lord instructed Moses concerning the arrangement of the tribes while encamped and on the march. With the tabernacle in the center of the camp, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, totaling 186,400 (v 9), were to camp on the east; Reuben, Simeon, and Gad, totaling 151,450 (v 16), were to camp on the south; Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin, totaling 108,100 (v 24), were to camp on the west; and Dan, Asher, and Naphtali, totaling 157,600 (v 31), were to camp on the north.<\/p>\n<p>On the march, Judah’s east group (v 9) was to set out first, followed by Reuben’s south group (v 16). The Levites with the tabernacle were to follow (v 17). Then Ephraim’s west group (v 24) was to follow the Levites, with Dan’s north group (v 31) bringing up the rear. This means that the Levites were flanked by two groups, before and behind.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 3<\/h5>\n<p>Aaron, the great-grandson of Levi through Kohath (Ex 6:16-20), and his descendants were designated to serve as priests at the tabernacle (Nm 3:2-3). The remaining descendants of Levi, from the families of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, were to serve the Aaronic line at the tabernacle (vv 5-10). The Gershonites were responsible for the tabernacle coverings, hangings, and screens (vv 25-26); the Kohathites were responsible for the “furniture” in the tabernacle (v 31); and the Merarites were responsible for the frames, bars, and foundations for the tabernacle (vv 36-37).<\/p>\n<p>God instructed Moses to number the three Levitical families. Gershon’s descendants, totaling 7,500 (v 22), were to camp on the west, between the western group of tribes and the tabernacle. Kohath’s descendants, totaling 8,600 (v 28), were to camp on the south, between the southern group of tribes and the tabernacle. Merari’s descendants, totaling 6,200 (v 34), were to camp on the north, between the northern group of tribes and the tabernacle. Moses and the Aaronic family were to camp on the east, between the eastern group of tribes and the tabernacle (v 38). Both in camp and on the march, then, the tabernacle was in the midst of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The census of Israel’s firstborn males disclosed 273 more male babies than Levites (vv 40-46), and since the Levites were a ransom for Israelite males on a one-to-one basis, the 273 additional male children had to be ransomed by atonement money (vv 46-51).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 4<\/h5>\n<p>God instructed Moses that only Levites between the ages of 30 and 50 were to serve at the tabernacle. A census disclosed that there were 2,750 Kohathites (v 36), 2,630 Gershonites (v 40), and 3,200 Merarites (v 44), making a total of 8,580 (v 48) who were eligible to serve the Aaronic priests.<\/p>\n<p>God further ordered the Aaronic priests, when the tabernacle was being dismantled for the march, to cover all the tabernacle “furniture” before the Kohathites even looked at them (v 20) lest the Kohathites, either looking at or touching them (v 15), should die (vv 15, 20).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 5<\/h5>\n<p>For ceremonial purposes, God demanded that lepers, those with a bodily discharge, and those who had touched the dead, must be put outside the camp until they were purified (vv 1-4). Furthermore, God instructed those making restitution for a wrongdoing, if the wronged person was no longer alive, to give the restitution price to a priest (vv 5-10).<\/p>\n<p>Finally, if a woman was suspected by her husband of infidelity but there was no evidence of such, the woman was to undergo a trial by water ordeal to relieve the man of his suspicions. The priest was to give her holy water with dust from the floor of the tabernacle in it to drink. If she was guilty, the water by divine direction would cause her pain, make her abdomen swell, and her thigh waste away (vv 11-31).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 6<\/h5>\n<p>Laws pertaining to the Nazirite were given next. A Nazirite was a person who determined to take a vow to separate himself wholly to the Lord. To dramatize this separation, the Nazirite was to drink no intoxicating beverage, let the hair grow long, and touch no dead body (vv 3-6). Should he defile himself, he was to follow prescribed rules for ceremonial cleansing (vv 9-12). When his vow had run its course, he was to follow prescribed rules for terminating his vow (vv 13-21). Finally, God instructed the Aaronic priesthood concerning the blessing they were to pronounce upon the Israelite worshiper (vv 22-27).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 7<\/h5>\n<p>The leaders in Israel brought six wagons and twelve oxen for use in the transfer of the tabernacle (7:3). Moses gave two wagons and four oxen to the Gershonites (v 7), and four wagons and eight oxen to the Merarites (v 8). (The Kohathites were to carry the “furniture” of the tabernacle on their shoulders, v 9.) For twelve consecutive days, to consecrate the altar after it was anointed (vv 10, 88), the tribal leaders, in the order of march (cf. ch 2), brought similar offerings. God demonstrated his pleasure with this gesture by speaking to Moses from the mercy seat (v 89).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 8<\/h5>\n<p>God granted the prerogative to light the seven-branched lampstand to the Aaronic priests (vv 1-4). Following divine instructions, Moses and Aaron consecrated the Levites to the service of the tabernacle by means of a purification ceremony (vv 5-22).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 9:1–10:10<\/h5>\n<p>For the benefit of the worshiper who was ceremonially unclean or away on a journey at the time of the Passover, God granted permission to observe the Passover a month later (vv 6-12; see also ch 27).<\/p>\n<p>God gave final instructions to the people before their departure from Sinai. They were to prepare for marching when they saw the cloud ascending from the tabernacle, and they were to stop at the place where the cloud settled down (9:15-23). The people were to assemble at the tabernacle if two silver trumpets were blown; only the leaders were to come if one was blown; and at the blast of a military alarm, the several groups of tribes were to prepare for an immediate march (10:1-10).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 10:11–14:45<\/h5>\n<p>The next section recounts the march from Sinai to Kadesh-barnea, a period of time approximately one and a half to two months in length (cf. 10:11; 13:20). Almost immediately the people began to complain as they passed through the terrible wilderness of Paran (Dt 1:19), angering the Lord at Taberah (Nm 11:1-3) and at Kibroth-hattaavah (Nm 11:4-35; Pss 78:26-31; 106:13-15). Miriam and Aaron challenged Moses’ sole right to speak for God to the people, which resulted in temporary leprosy as punishment for Miriam (doubtless the leader in the provocation). Through Moses’ intercession, the two were forgiven (Nm 12). Out of this event, however, came the remarkable description of Moses’ relationship to God as a unique means of revelation (vv 6-8).<\/p>\n<p>From Paran (Kadesh-barnea) Moses dispatched the spies to survey the land (ch 13). Deuteronomy 1:22 suggests that the plan to spy out the land originated with the people, with Moses (at God’s behest) acquiescing. At the end of 40 days, they returned. Only Caleb and Joshua urged the people to advance to the conquest; the other 10 spies spoke of foes too formidable for them to defeat. The people, greatly discouraged, attempted to stone Caleb and Joshua (Nm 14:10), and were prevented from doing so only by the sudden appearance of the glory cloud at the tabernacle. God swore in his wrath (Nm 14:21; cf. Heb 3:7–4:10) that, with the exception of Caleb and Joshua, none of that generation would enter the land of promise (Nm 14:21-35). He then struck down the 10 unbelieving spies (v 37). Presumptuously, and in spite of God’s express command to the contrary (Dt 1:42), Israel attempted to advance on the land, leaving Moses and the ark of the covenant in the camp. They were challenged by the Amalekites and Canaanites.<\/p>\n<p>Israel remained in this general area with tribal families fanning out over the wilderness and settling around springs and oases (Dt 1:46). Numbers 15:1–21:20 relates the account of the 38 years of wilderness wandering. Much of this time was probably spent around Kadesh-barnea (Dt 1:46).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 15<\/h5>\n<p>Further priestly legislation was given (Nm 15:1-21). Also, the procedure to be followed when an Israelite committed a sin deliberately and defiantly was spelled out in terms of excommunication: there was no atonement for such an attitude (vv 22-31). A Sabbath violator was executed (vv 32-36), perhaps as an illustration of the foregoing legislation. Finally, to assist them in obeying God’s laws, the Israelites were instructed to tie blue tassels to their outer garments as reminders (vv 37-41).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 16<\/h5>\n<p>Korah challenged Aaron’s high priesthood, and Dathan, Abiram, and On challenged Moses’ leadership (vv 1-14). God, at Moses’ word, opened up the earth and swallowed the offenders (Nm 16:32; cf. Dt 9:6; Ps 106:16-18). Korah is regarded in the NT (Jude 1:11) as a classic example of a rebellious malcontent.<\/p>\n<p>Numbers 26:11 states that Korah’s young children did not perish with him. Perhaps they became the ancestors of the “sons of Korah,” the sacred musicians of the temple who composed 12 Korahite psalms (Pss 42–49, 84–85, 87–88).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 17<\/h5>\n<p>God then instructed the leaders of each tribe to bring rods, 12 in all, to write the names of the tribes upon them (with Aaron’s name on Levi’s rod), and to deposit them in the tabernacle. The following day, Aaron’s rod had sprouted with blossoms and ripe almonds, thus vindicating Aaron’s special high-priestly status.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 18–19<\/h5>\n<p>Further priestly legislation was given. In 18:1-7, the full responsibility for the priestly service was given to the Aaronic priests—a very natural consequence of the preceding chapter. The Levites were to assist the Aaronic order (v 6). Since the tribe of Levi received no land inheritance, they were to be supported from the offerings of the people (vv 8-20).<\/p>\n<p>In 19:1-22 instructions concerning ceremonial impurity were given. When an Israelite became ceremonially unclean through contact with death (vv 11-16), God required that he be purified from his sin (vv 9, 17) by the sprinkling of specially prepared water upon him.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 20<\/h5>\n<p>With Israel once again at Kadesh on the southern border of the wilderness of Zin in the first month of the 40th year of wandering, Miriam died and was buried (v 1). According to the encampment list in chapter 33, 18 encampments may have occurred for Israel since the nation had last been at this site (cf. 33:18-36).<\/p>\n<p>At this time the nation complained once again because there was little water (20:2). Moses, at God’s instruction, brought forth water from a rock (vv 8-11), but because of a gross infraction by Moses and Aaron on this occasion, God announced that they would not be permitted to lead Israel in the conquest of the land (vv 12, 23-24).<\/p>\n<p>The chapter closes with Edom refusing Israel passage across its territory (vv 14-21) and Aaron dying on Mt Hor on the border of Edom (vv 22-29) in the fifth month of the 40th year (33:38). Eleazar, Aaron’s son, assumed the office of high priest.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 21<\/h5>\n<p>After a quick victory over Arad (vv 1-3), Israel started south to encircle Edom. Becoming impatient with God and with Moses, the people expressed their disgust with God’s provision of manna. The Lord sent poisonous snakes to the camp, causing many to die. But at God’s command Moses fashioned a snake out of bronze and placed it atop a standard. All who looked to the bronze snake survived (vv 4-10). The bronze snake was preserved and later was destroyed by Hezekiah, the symbol having become by his time an idol (2 Kgs 18:4). Later still, Jesus drew an analogy between these wicked sinners looking to the bronze snake and being delivered and men looking to him by faith and being saved (Jn 3:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>Leaving that fateful place, Israel journeyed into and up the Arabah, crossed the Wadi Zered in an eastern swing around Moab, finally crossing the Arnon into Amorite territory. Journeying north, they camped at Pisgah (Nm 21:10-20).<\/p>\n<p>At this point the conquest of the Transjordan begins. In quick succession Israel defeated Sihon of Heshbon (vv 21-31) and Og of Bashan (vv 33-35) and settled in the plains of Moab (22:1). This encampment was the scene for the remainder of the activities of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua 1–3. In a real sense, one can say the wilderness wanderings were now over.<\/p>\n<p>Here is the place, then, to summarize the spiritual condition of Israel on the eve of the conquest of Canaan. Numbers makes it quite evident that the entire generation that left Egypt, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb, was to die in the wilderness because of its apostasy (cf. Am 5:25), unbelief, and general failure to keep covenant with God. None of the generation of male children born in the wilderness had been circumcised (Jos 5:2-9). Psalm 90 underscores Israel as the recipient of God’s wrath in the wilderness. It is in this pitiable spiritual condition that Israel arrived on the plains of Moab.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 22–24<\/h5>\n<p>Balak, king of Moab, frightened by Israel’s presence, joined with Midian to hire Balaam, the false prophet, to curse Israel. For gain, Balaam agreed (2 Pt 2:15; Jude 1:11), but God prevented him, causing him rather to bless Israel in his four oracular utterances (Nm 23:7-10, 18-24; 24:3-9, 15-19) and to predict the destruction of Moab, Edom, Amalek (24:20), the Kenites (24:21), and Asshur (24:24). With that, Balak and Balaam separated. Balaam, in collusion with Midian, agreed to counsel Israel to commit idolatry and immorality (31:16). And so, where Balak failed to turn the Lord against Israel, Balaam succeeded (ch 25).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 25<\/h5>\n<p>Israel sinned against God by idolatrous and immoral acts with the people of Moab (vv 1-3). In carrying out the command of God to destroy the reprobate Israelites, Phinehas killed Zimri and Cozbi, the latter being a daughter of one of the five kings of Midian (vv 4-14). This event provided the occasion for God to declare a holy war against Midian (vv 16-18; cf. ch 31).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 26<\/h5>\n<p>The Lord commanded Moses to take a roll of the men of the second generation who were capable of warring against Israel’s enemies. The total number came to 601,730 (v 51), a reduction of 1,820 men from the first count. With a smaller force than the first generation, Israel conquered Canaan, clearly indicating that Israel could have spared itself the years of wandering if only the nation had obeyed God 38 years before Kadesh. The Levites totaled 23,000 males a month old and upward (vv 57-62).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 27<\/h5>\n<p>At the request of the daughters of Zelophehad (cf. 26:33) that they be granted the right to inherit their father’s possessions since he had no sons, the Lord agreed that they could, using the occasion to give further laws of inheritance (vv 1-11).<\/p>\n<p>Reminded that he would soon die in Abarim, Moses requested that God appoint his successor. God selected Joshua, and Moses commissioned him (vv 12-23).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 28–30<\/h5>\n<p>Further priestly legislation regarding offerings for various occasions was given. God also instructed Moses to inform the people concerning vows. When a man made a vow, it was inviolable (30:2), but if a woman made a vow, the man (father, husband) responsible for her could nullify it if he felt that it was rash (vv 1-16).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 31<\/h5>\n<p>The account of the holy war declared against Midian in 25:16-18 is given. With Phinehas accompanying 12,000 warriors, Israel defeated Midian, killing Balaam along with the five kings and many male adults of Midian (31:1-8). The Midianite women and children were taken captive, but Moses commanded that all the male children and the nonvirgin women be killed (vv 9-18). One must not conclude that this war meant the end of Midian as such, for Midian later proved a formidable foe of Israel in the time of the judges (Jgs 6).<\/p>\n<p>After the battle, the warriors were instructed to purify themselves, their clothing, and the booty from the war before coming into the camp (Nm 31:19-24). Furthermore, they were instructed to divide the booty in half and to contribute one-fifth of one percent of their half to the high priest (“the Lord’s tribute”). The other half was divided among the people who had remained in camp, after the Levites received a two percent contribution (vv 25-31).<\/p>\n<p>Verses 32-47 give the tally of the booty after its division into two parts and the amount that was given from each part to Eleazar and the Levites. The tally is said by some to be too high to be authentic, but there is no evidence that disputes the recorded figures.<\/p>\n<p>In thanksgiving to God because no Israelite had been killed in the war (v 49) and to make atonement for themselves (v 50), the army officers brought a special offering of gold trinkets to Moses and Eleazar, which was placed in the tabernacle as a memorial (vv 48-54).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 32<\/h5>\n<p>At their request and on the condition that they aid the other tribes in the conquest of Canaan, Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh were allotted the Transjordan region. Moses earnestly besought the Lord to change his mind about not permitting him to enter the land of promise (Dt 3:23-27). But God would not let him.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 33–34<\/h5>\n<p>At God’s command, Moses kept a written record of Israel’s itinerary from Egypt to the plains of Moab. Here is biblical evidence of the Mosaic authorship of Numbers.<\/p>\n<p>The boundaries of the Promised Land were now given. The southern boundary would run from the southern tip of the Dead Sea, south of Kadesh-barnea up to the River of Egypt (Wadi el-Arish), and on to the Mediterranean Sea (34:3-5). The western boundary would be the coastline of the Mediterranean Sea itself (v 6). The northern boundary, not realized until the times of David and Solomon (2 Sm 8:3-12; 1 Kgs 8:65), was to extend from the Mediterranean Sea east to Hamath, at the head of the Orontes River (Nm 34:7-9). The eastern boundary was to be practically on a vertical line, with the Jordan Valley running north to the northern boundary (vv 10-12). The nine and a half tribes were to divide this area among themselves (vv 13-15).<\/p>\n<p>The Lord then selected the men who were to bear the responsibility of dividing the land of Canaan among the western tribes after the conquest (vv 16-29).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 35<\/h5>\n<p>God instructed Israel to give 48 cities throughout the land on both sides of the Jordan to the Levites for a permanent possession (vv 1-8), since that tribe was not included in the land allotments to the other tribes. The number of cities each tribe was to give was to be determined by its size (v 8). Six of the Levitical cities, three on each side of the Jordan, were to be designated “cities of refuge” for the manslayer (v 6; cf. Jos 20).<\/p>\n<p>Legislation concerning the manslayer follows (vv 9-34). If the slayer committed murder, the kinsman avenger had the right to fulfill his role as executioner (vv 16-21). If, however, the killing was unintentional, the manslayer was to flee to the nearest city of refuge for a trial. If found innocent of murder, he was assigned to remain within the city of refuge until the death of the high priest. If he left the city before then, the kinsman avenger was permitted to execute him (vv 22-34).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 36<\/h5>\n<p>Basing their question on the earlier law established in chapter 27, the leaders from Manasseh asked whether an heiress should be allowed to marry outside her tribe, with the accompanying transfer of property from one tribe to another that would ensue. God directed that an heiress would have to marry within her tribe (vv 1-12).<\/p>\n<p>The last verse of the book refers to all the laws given in the plains of Moab (26:1–36:12; cf. Lv 27:34).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologicalTeaching\">Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Numbers God is revealed as the unchangingly faithful God of the covenant (Nm 23:19). This faithfulness to his covenant required that he both guide and care for his people and punish their sins against him. But no impediment was so great that God’s design to bring his people to the land of promise was thwarted (11:23).<\/p>\n<p>Both by his wrathful reaction to Israel’s sin and by the numerous priestly laws, God highlights his awesome holiness. The legislation expressly teaches that the person who approaches God must be clean. Even to look with unholy eyes upon the holiness of God meant death (4:20).<\/p>\n<p>His sovereignty over all of life is evident from the attention he displays over even the minutest aspects of life. The phrase “And the Lord said unto Moses” occurs over 50 times, and the words that follow in each case deal with all kinds of matters.<\/p>\n<p>As the God of the covenant, God’s “christological” character is also apparent. God’s blessing and faithfulness reflect the christological motif. Finally, Moses’ prophetic leadership (Acts 7:37-38) and intercessory ministry (e.g., Nm 11:2; 12:13; 14:19), in the Aaronic priesthood (e.g., ch 16), in the animal sacrifices (cf. 19:9; Heb 9:13), and in the symbols (the manna, the water, the bronze snake) foreshadow the future Christ.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel’s responses to God, the people depict all of human sinfulness and faithlessness. Israel’s wanderings illustrate the results of unbelief. The punishments of Israel prove the maxim of Numbers 32:23: “But if you fail to keep your word, then you will have sinned against the <span>Lord<\/span>, and you may be sure that your sin will find you out” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Numbers forcefully teaches that safety and blessing are to be found only in trust in the Lord. Only he is capable of bringing men and women to the place of rest (Heb 4:9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Deuteronomy, Book of; Exodus, Book of; Genesis, Book of; Leviticus, Book of; Moses; Wilderness Wanderings.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NUMBERS, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Fourth book of the English Bible. Its title is the English translation of the Latin Vulgate title, <em>Numeri.<\/em> The book takes this name from the fact that several rosters of various kinds are recorded in the book, specifically, the two army musters in chapters 1 and 26, the tribal camp and march arrangements in chapter 2, and the Levitical censuses in chapters 3 and 4.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p>• Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The question of the authorship of Numbers is part of the larger question of the authorship of the Pentateuch. Until the appearance of the higher-critical documentary theories of the 19th century, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was almost universally held by both Jews and Christians alike. This time-honored tradition is supported by the Pentateuch itself (e.g., Ex 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Nm 33:2; Dt 31:9, 24), the rest of the OT (e.g., Jos 23:6; Jgs 3:4; Mal 4:4), as well as Jesus’ teaching (e.g., Jn 5:46-47), and the rest of the NT (e.g., Acts 28:23; Rom 10:19; 1 Cor 9:9). Although discrepancies in the Pentateuch were widely and openly acknowledged, nevertheless Moses, the 15th-century <span>BC<\/span> lawgiver, was affirmed as the primary author of the Pentateuchal literature.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<h5>Sinai Peninsula<\/h5>\n<p>The historical background of Numbers begins primarily in the geographical region of the Sinai Peninsula of the mid-second millennium <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Sinai Peninsula is in the shape of an inverted triangle with the base on the north. It is approximately 240 miles (386.2 kilometers) long from north to south and 175 miles (281.6 kilometers) wide at the northern base, with an area of approximately 22,000 square miles (56,980 square kilometers). It is bounded on the north by the Mediterranean Sea and the southern border of Canaan, on the west by the Bitter Lakes and the Gulf of Suez, and on the east by the Arabah and the Gulf of Aqaba. Beginning in the north at the Mediterranean coast and moving south, for about 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) the soil is sandy. South of this coastal plain is a high plateau (Et-Tih) of gravel and limestone (about 2,500 feet, or 762 meters, above sea level), stretching south into the peninsula for approximately 150 miles (241.4 kilometers). Rising above the plateau at this point is a granite mountain formation with peaks up to 8,000 feet (2,438.4 meters) above sea level. In this mountainous region at the apex of the peninsular triangle, Jebel Musa (7,363 feet, or 2,244.2 meters, high), the traditional site where Israel camped before Mt Sinai and Moses received the law, rises above the plain.<\/p>\n<p>The peninsula itself is comprised of five wilderness areas. In the north and immediately east of the land of Goshen is the approximately 40-mile- or 64.4-kilometer-wide wilderness of Shur, which runs past the River of Egypt (Wadi el-Arish) to the region of Kadesh-barnea and northeast to Beersheba. East of this region is the wilderness of Zin, extending east from the wilderness of Shur to the southern tip of the Dead Sea. Kadesh-barnea is located on its southern border (Nm 20:1; 33:36). South of the wilderness of Shur is the wilderness of Etham, and east of this wilderness in the east-central region of Sinai is the great wilderness of Paran (Dt 1:19). Kadesh-barnea is on the northern border of this territory (Nm 13:26). In this area the Israelites spent 38 of their 40 years of wandering. Southwest of the wilderness of Paran, on the western slopes of the peninsula, not far from the granite mountains standing in the southern apex of the triangle, is the wilderness of Sin.<\/p>\n<p>While the region is generally desolate and barren, it is not impassable or incapable of sustaining travelers. Wells and springs dot both the western and eastern borders at reasonable distances from each other. The water table is fairly close to ground level, making the digging of wells possible (Nm 20:17; 21:16-18). The limestone rocks are also capable of holding great amounts of water (20:11). Vegetation is sparse except around the more permanent streams where vegetation and date palms flourish. The rainy season in winter is approximately 20 days. Quail (11:31-32) are known to migrate across the peninsula to Europe in the spring.<\/p>\n\n<h5>The Peoples Israel Confronted<\/h5>\n<h6>Amalekites and Canaanites (14:25, 43-45; 24:20)<\/h6>\n<p>The Amalekites were descendants of Amalek, son of Eliphaz and grandson of Esau (Gn 36:12, 16). They were generally a nomadic people. In the Sinai Peninsula they were the first to war against Israel at Rephidim (cf. Nm 24:20), perhaps the Wadi Refayid in southwest Sinai (Ex 17:8-16), before Israel reached Horeb. A year later, the Amalekites settled in the hills and valleys north of Kadesh-barnea. In league with the Canaanites, the inhabitants of Palestine, they blocked the effort of Israel to invade the land of promise from the south (Nm 14:45). Israel’s will to wage war appears to have been completely broken for years to come.<\/p>\n<h6>Edomites (20:14-21; 21:4, 10-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Edom, or Seir (24:18), is the territory south of the Dead Sea occupied by Esau’s descendants. Stretching from its northern border at the Wadi Zered (21:12), which flowed into the Dead Sea at its southern tip, 100 miles (160.9 kilometers) south to the Gulf of Aqaba, it occupied both sides of the Arabah, with Kadesh-barnea again standing on the edge of its western border (20:16), giving it a land area of approximately 4,000 square miles (10,360 square kilometers). It is a rugged mountain region with peaks rising to 3,500 feet (1,066.8 meters). The “king’s highway,” an ancient trade route from Damascus through the Transjordan to the Gulf of Aqaba, passed through its territory and major cities, Bozrah and Leman. While Edom was not fertile, it did have cultivable areas (20:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>During Israel’s march to the Transjordan region, Edom refused to let Israel journey directly east from Kadesh through its territory but forced Israel to move southeast into and up the Arabah (21:4, 11). In spite of this hostility to God’s people, Israel was forbidden to attack (Dt 2:2-8) or to hate the Edomites (23:7), and so Edom was spared from destruction during the conquest of the land. The area was later conquered by David (2 Sm 8:13-14) according to Balaam’s prophecy (Nm 24:18).<\/p>\n<h6>Arad (21:1-3)<\/h6>\n<p>Arad was a south Canaanite settlement in the Negev. Its king, after fighting against Israel and taking some captives, was later defeated at Hormah.<\/p>\n<h6>Moabites (21:11-15; 22:1–24:25)<\/h6>\n<p>Moab, occupied by the descendants of Lot (Gn 19:37), is the territory east of the Dead Sea lying primarily between the Wadi Arnon (Nm 21:13) and the Wadi Zered with a land area of approximately 1,400 square miles (3,626 square kilometers).<\/p>\n<p>In the late middle Bronze Age, the Moabites had overflowed their main plateau and had extended well to the north of the Arnon all the way to the northern end of the Dead Sea (21:20). At the time of the events recorded in Numbers, however, the Amorites occupied the area from Arnon all the way north to the Wadi Jabbok (vv 13, 21-24), having earlier taken this land from Moab (vv 26-30). The Moabite kingdom was highly organized, with agriculture and livestock, splendid buildings, distinctive pottery, and strong fortifications around her borders. Its god was Chemosh (v 29).<\/p>\n<p>Balak, king of Moab during the period of the conquest, in league with Midian, hired Balaam to curse Israel (chs 22–24). When this failed, the two heathen powers sought to neutralize Israel by luring the people of God into the worship of Chemosh and into idolatry (25:1-2). In the war that ensued, Israel defeated Midian (31:1-18), but by God’s express command (Dt 2:9-13) spared Moab. But as Balaam had prophesied earlier (Nm 24:17), David in the 11th century warred against and defeated Moab (2 Sm 8:2, 13-14).<\/p>\n<h6>Amorites (21:21-35)<\/h6>\n<p>The Amorites, the people who had occupied northern Moabite territory (Nm 21:25-30), were descendants of Canaan (Gn 10:16) who had scattered throughout the hill country on both sides of the Jordan River. Heshbon was their capital city. Both Sihon of Heshbon and Og of Bashan were Amorite kings (Dt 3:8).<\/p>\n<p>As for Bashan (Nm 21:33-35; cf. Dt 1:4; 3:1-12), it is the fertile grazing region (Nm 32:1-5) east of the Sea of Kinnereth (Galilee), whose northern border extended to Mt Hermon and whose southern border, while normally the river Yarmuk, in the Mosaic age was the Wadi Jabbok (Jos 12:4-5). Its land area covered approximately 5,000 square miles (12,950 square kilometers). Its major cities were Ashtaroth, Edrei, and Golan. After the conquest of the land, this territory fell to the half-tribe of Manasseh, with Gad occupying southern Gilead, and Reuben the region south to the Wadi Arnon.<\/p>\n<h6>Midianites (25:16-18; 31:1-54)<\/h6>\n<p>The Midianites, descendants of Abraham through the concubine Keturah (Gn 25:2), were desert dwellers in Transjordan from Moab to the region south of Edom. The elders of Moab and Midian cooperated in hiring Balaam to curse Israel (Nm 22:4-7). Later, when that effort proved fruitless, the Midianites, again with Moab, led Israel into idolatry and immorality (25:1-6, 14-15). Cozbi, the Midianite woman who was executed for her wickedness (25:8), was the daughter of Zur, one of the five Midianite kings confederate with the Amorite king Sihon (Jos 13:21) who were later killed in Israel’s holy war against Midian (Nm 31:8). This war with Midian apparently broke the back of any remaining Amorite resistance, for Joshua 13:15-23 clearly intimates that as a result the tribe of Reuben occupied this territory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>Numbers serves a twofold purpose. First, as a historical book, it contains the account of Israel’s fortunes from Mt Sinai to the plains of Moab on the eve of the conquest of Canaan—that almost-40-year period spent in the wilderness of Sinai and in Transjordan (1447–1407 <span>BC<\/span>). While recounting Israel’s many failures and God’s many faithful acts, it depicts Moses, Israel’s leader, in all of his greatness and in all of his weakness. The two army rolls (chs 2 and 26) introduce the “acts” of the main drama of its history: the first in preparation for entering the land, which failed due to Israel’s unbelief; the second, after the death of the entire generation that left Egypt, in preparation for the successful invasion of Canaan under Joshua’s leadership.<\/p>\n<p>Second, in line with Paul’s general belief that “whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope” (Rom 15:4, <span>rsv<\/span>), and in keeping with his specific teaching that “these things [that befell Israel in the wilderness] happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come” (1 Cor 10:11, <span>rsv<\/span>), Numbers serves a doctrinal, typical, and hortatory purpose (cf. v 12). Historical events are divinely invested with spiritual truths, thereby becoming object lessons for the Christian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 1<\/h5>\n<p>The Lord commanded Moses to register (Nm 1:18) the men able to go to war (vv 2-3). The total number of soldiers in Israel was 603,550 (v 46). The Levites were not numbered in this roll (vv 47-54), since they were to be set apart for special service pertaining to the tabernacle.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 2<\/h5>\n<p>The Lord instructed Moses concerning the arrangement of the tribes while encamped and on the march. With the tabernacle in the center of the camp, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, totaling 186,400 (v 9), were to camp on the east; Reuben, Simeon, and Gad, totaling 151,450 (v 16), were to camp on the south; Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin, totaling 108,100 (v 24), were to camp on the west; and Dan, Asher, and Naphtali, totaling 157,600 (v 31), were to camp on the north.<\/p>\n<p>On the march, Judah’s east group (v 9) was to set out first, followed by Reuben’s south group (v 16). The Levites with the tabernacle were to follow (v 17). Then Ephraim’s west group (v 24) was to follow the Levites, with Dan’s north group (v 31) bringing up the rear. This means that the Levites were flanked by two groups, before and behind.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 3<\/h5>\n<p>Aaron, the great-grandson of Levi through Kohath (Ex 6:16-20), and his descendants were designated to serve as priests at the tabernacle (Nm 3:2-3). The remaining descendants of Levi, from the families of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, were to serve the Aaronic line at the tabernacle (vv 5-10). The Gershonites were responsible for the tabernacle coverings, hangings, and screens (vv 25-26); the Kohathites were responsible for the “furniture” in the tabernacle (v 31); and the Merarites were responsible for the frames, bars, and foundations for the tabernacle (vv 36-37).<\/p>\n<p>God instructed Moses to number the three Levitical families. Gershon’s descendants, totaling 7,500 (v 22), were to camp on the west, between the western group of tribes and the tabernacle. Kohath’s descendants, totaling 8,600 (v 28), were to camp on the south, between the southern group of tribes and the tabernacle. Merari’s descendants, totaling 6,200 (v 34), were to camp on the north, between the northern group of tribes and the tabernacle. Moses and the Aaronic family were to camp on the east, between the eastern group of tribes and the tabernacle (v 38). Both in camp and on the march, then, the tabernacle was in the midst of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The census of Israel’s firstborn males disclosed 273 more male babies than Levites (vv 40-46), and since the Levites were a ransom for Israelite males on a one-to-one basis, the 273 additional male children had to be ransomed by atonement money (vv 46-51).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 4<\/h5>\n<p>God instructed Moses that only Levites between the ages of 30 and 50 were to serve at the tabernacle. A census disclosed that there were 2,750 Kohathites (v 36), 2,630 Gershonites (v 40), and 3,200 Merarites (v 44), making a total of 8,580 (v 48) who were eligible to serve the Aaronic priests.<\/p>\n<p>God further ordered the Aaronic priests, when the tabernacle was being dismantled for the march, to cover all the tabernacle “furniture” before the Kohathites even looked at them (v 20) lest the Kohathites, either looking at or touching them (v 15), should die (vv 15, 20).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 5<\/h5>\n<p>For ceremonial purposes, God demanded that lepers, those with a bodily discharge, and those who had touched the dead, must be put outside the camp until they were purified (vv 1-4). Furthermore, God instructed those making restitution for a wrongdoing, if the wronged person was no longer alive, to give the restitution price to a priest (vv 5-10).<\/p>\n<p>Finally, if a woman was suspected by her husband of infidelity but there was no evidence of such, the woman was to undergo a trial by water ordeal to relieve the man of his suspicions. The priest was to give her holy water with dust from the floor of the tabernacle in it to drink. If she was guilty, the water by divine direction would cause her pain, make her abdomen swell, and her thigh waste away (vv 11-31).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 6<\/h5>\n<p>Laws pertaining to the Nazirite were given next. A Nazirite was a person who determined to take a vow to separate himself wholly to the Lord. To dramatize this separation, the Nazirite was to drink no intoxicating beverage, let the hair grow long, and touch no dead body (vv 3-6). Should he defile himself, he was to follow prescribed rules for ceremonial cleansing (vv 9-12). When his vow had run its course, he was to follow prescribed rules for terminating his vow (vv 13-21). Finally, God instructed the Aaronic priesthood concerning the blessing they were to pronounce upon the Israelite worshiper (vv 22-27).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 7<\/h5>\n<p>The leaders in Israel brought six wagons and twelve oxen for use in the transfer of the tabernacle (7:3). Moses gave two wagons and four oxen to the Gershonites (v 7), and four wagons and eight oxen to the Merarites (v 8). (The Kohathites were to carry the “furniture” of the tabernacle on their shoulders, v 9.) For twelve consecutive days, to consecrate the altar after it was anointed (vv 10, 88), the tribal leaders, in the order of march (cf. ch 2), brought similar offerings. God demonstrated his pleasure with this gesture by speaking to Moses from the mercy seat (v 89).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 8<\/h5>\n<p>God granted the prerogative to light the seven-branched lampstand to the Aaronic priests (vv 1-4). Following divine instructions, Moses and Aaron consecrated the Levites to the service of the tabernacle by means of a purification ceremony (vv 5-22).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 9:1–10:10<\/h5>\n<p>For the benefit of the worshiper who was ceremonially unclean or away on a journey at the time of the Passover, God granted permission to observe the Passover a month later (vv 6-12; see also ch 27).<\/p>\n<p>God gave final instructions to the people before their departure from Sinai. They were to prepare for marching when they saw the cloud ascending from the tabernacle, and they were to stop at the place where the cloud settled down (9:15-23). The people were to assemble at the tabernacle if two silver trumpets were blown; only the leaders were to come if one was blown; and at the blast of a military alarm, the several groups of tribes were to prepare for an immediate march (10:1-10).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 10:11–14:45<\/h5>\n<p>The next section recounts the march from Sinai to Kadesh-barnea, a period of time approximately one and a half to two months in length (cf. 10:11; 13:20). Almost immediately the people began to complain as they passed through the terrible wilderness of Paran (Dt 1:19), angering the Lord at Taberah (Nm 11:1-3) and at Kibroth-hattaavah (Nm 11:4-35; Pss 78:26-31; 106:13-15). Miriam and Aaron challenged Moses’ sole right to speak for God to the people, which resulted in temporary leprosy as punishment for Miriam (doubtless the leader in the provocation). Through Moses’ intercession, the two were forgiven (Nm 12). Out of this event, however, came the remarkable description of Moses’ relationship to God as a unique means of revelation (vv 6-8).<\/p>\n<p>From Paran (Kadesh-barnea) Moses dispatched the spies to survey the land (ch 13). Deuteronomy 1:22 suggests that the plan to spy out the land originated with the people, with Moses (at God’s behest) acquiescing. At the end of 40 days, they returned. Only Caleb and Joshua urged the people to advance to the conquest; the other 10 spies spoke of foes too formidable for them to defeat. The people, greatly discouraged, attempted to stone Caleb and Joshua (Nm 14:10), and were prevented from doing so only by the sudden appearance of the glory cloud at the tabernacle. God swore in his wrath (Nm 14:21; cf. Heb 3:7–4:10) that, with the exception of Caleb and Joshua, none of that generation would enter the land of promise (Nm 14:21-35). He then struck down the 10 unbelieving spies (v 37). Presumptuously, and in spite of God’s express command to the contrary (Dt 1:42), Israel attempted to advance on the land, leaving Moses and the ark of the covenant in the camp. They were challenged by the Amalekites and Canaanites.<\/p>\n<p>Israel remained in this general area with tribal families fanning out over the wilderness and settling around springs and oases (Dt 1:46). Numbers 15:1–21:20 relates the account of the 38 years of wilderness wandering. Much of this time was probably spent around Kadesh-barnea (Dt 1:46).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 15<\/h5>\n<p>Further priestly legislation was given (Nm 15:1-21). Also, the procedure to be followed when an Israelite committed a sin deliberately and defiantly was spelled out in terms of excommunication: there was no atonement for such an attitude (vv 22-31). A Sabbath violator was executed (vv 32-36), perhaps as an illustration of the foregoing legislation. Finally, to assist them in obeying God’s laws, the Israelites were instructed to tie blue tassels to their outer garments as reminders (vv 37-41).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 16<\/h5>\n<p>Korah challenged Aaron’s high priesthood, and Dathan, Abiram, and On challenged Moses’ leadership (vv 1-14). God, at Moses’ word, opened up the earth and swallowed the offenders (Nm 16:32; cf. Dt 9:6; Ps 106:16-18). Korah is regarded in the NT (Jude 1:11) as a classic example of a rebellious malcontent.<\/p>\n<p>Numbers 26:11 states that Korah’s young children did not perish with him. Perhaps they became the ancestors of the “sons of Korah,” the sacred musicians of the temple who composed 12 Korahite psalms (Pss 42–49, 84–85, 87–88).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 17<\/h5>\n<p>God then instructed the leaders of each tribe to bring rods, 12 in all, to write the names of the tribes upon them (with Aaron’s name on Levi’s rod), and to deposit them in the tabernacle. The following day, Aaron’s rod had sprouted with blossoms and ripe almonds, thus vindicating Aaron’s special high-priestly status.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 18–19<\/h5>\n<p>Further priestly legislation was given. In 18:1-7, the full responsibility for the priestly service was given to the Aaronic priests—a very natural consequence of the preceding chapter. The Levites were to assist the Aaronic order (v 6). Since the tribe of Levi received no land inheritance, they were to be supported from the offerings of the people (vv 8-20).<\/p>\n<p>In 19:1-22 instructions concerning ceremonial impurity were given. When an Israelite became ceremonially unclean through contact with death (vv 11-16), God required that he be purified from his sin (vv 9, 17) by the sprinkling of specially prepared water upon him.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 20<\/h5>\n<p>With Israel once again at Kadesh on the southern border of the wilderness of Zin in the first month of the 40th year of wandering, Miriam died and was buried (v 1). According to the encampment list in chapter 33, 18 encampments may have occurred for Israel since the nation had last been at this site (cf. 33:18-36).<\/p>\n<p>At this time the nation complained once again because there was little water (20:2). Moses, at God’s instruction, brought forth water from a rock (vv 8-11), but because of a gross infraction by Moses and Aaron on this occasion, God announced that they would not be permitted to lead Israel in the conquest of the land (vv 12, 23-24).<\/p>\n<p>The chapter closes with Edom refusing Israel passage across its territory (vv 14-21) and Aaron dying on Mt Hor on the border of Edom (vv 22-29) in the fifth month of the 40th year (33:38). Eleazar, Aaron’s son, assumed the office of high priest.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 21<\/h5>\n<p>After a quick victory over Arad (vv 1-3), Israel started south to encircle Edom. Becoming impatient with God and with Moses, the people expressed their disgust with God’s provision of manna. The Lord sent poisonous snakes to the camp, causing many to die. But at God’s command Moses fashioned a snake out of bronze and placed it atop a standard. All who looked to the bronze snake survived (vv 4-10). The bronze snake was preserved and later was destroyed by Hezekiah, the symbol having become by his time an idol (2 Kgs 18:4). Later still, Jesus drew an analogy between these wicked sinners looking to the bronze snake and being delivered and men looking to him by faith and being saved (Jn 3:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>Leaving that fateful place, Israel journeyed into and up the Arabah, crossed the Wadi Zered in an eastern swing around Moab, finally crossing the Arnon into Amorite territory. Journeying north, they camped at Pisgah (Nm 21:10-20).<\/p>\n<p>At this point the conquest of the Transjordan begins. In quick succession Israel defeated Sihon of Heshbon (vv 21-31) and Og of Bashan (vv 33-35) and settled in the plains of Moab (22:1). This encampment was the scene for the remainder of the activities of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua 1–3. In a real sense, one can say the wilderness wanderings were now over.<\/p>\n<p>Here is the place, then, to summarize the spiritual condition of Israel on the eve of the conquest of Canaan. Numbers makes it quite evident that the entire generation that left Egypt, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb, was to die in the wilderness because of its apostasy (cf. Am 5:25), unbelief, and general failure to keep covenant with God. None of the generation of male children born in the wilderness had been circumcised (Jos 5:2-9). Psalm 90 underscores Israel as the recipient of God’s wrath in the wilderness. It is in this pitiable spiritual condition that Israel arrived on the plains of Moab.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 22–24<\/h5>\n<p>Balak, king of Moab, frightened by Israel’s presence, joined with Midian to hire Balaam, the false prophet, to curse Israel. For gain, Balaam agreed (2 Pt 2:15; Jude 1:11), but God prevented him, causing him rather to bless Israel in his four oracular utterances (Nm 23:7-10, 18-24; 24:3-9, 15-19) and to predict the destruction of Moab, Edom, Amalek (24:20), the Kenites (24:21), and Asshur (24:24). With that, Balak and Balaam separated. Balaam, in collusion with Midian, agreed to counsel Israel to commit idolatry and immorality (31:16). And so, where Balak failed to turn the Lord against Israel, Balaam succeeded (ch 25).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 25<\/h5>\n<p>Israel sinned against God by idolatrous and immoral acts with the people of Moab (vv 1-3). In carrying out the command of God to destroy the reprobate Israelites, Phinehas killed Zimri and Cozbi, the latter being a daughter of one of the five kings of Midian (vv 4-14). This event provided the occasion for God to declare a holy war against Midian (vv 16-18; cf. ch 31).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 26<\/h5>\n<p>The Lord commanded Moses to take a roll of the men of the second generation who were capable of warring against Israel’s enemies. The total number came to 601,730 (v 51), a reduction of 1,820 men from the first count. With a smaller force than the first generation, Israel conquered Canaan, clearly indicating that Israel could have spared itself the years of wandering if only the nation had obeyed God 38 years before Kadesh. The Levites totaled 23,000 males a month old and upward (vv 57-62).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 27<\/h5>\n<p>At the request of the daughters of Zelophehad (cf. 26:33) that they be granted the right to inherit their father’s possessions since he had no sons, the Lord agreed that they could, using the occasion to give further laws of inheritance (vv 1-11).<\/p>\n<p>Reminded that he would soon die in Abarim, Moses requested that God appoint his successor. God selected Joshua, and Moses commissioned him (vv 12-23).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 28–30<\/h5>\n<p>Further priestly legislation regarding offerings for various occasions was given. God also instructed Moses to inform the people concerning vows. When a man made a vow, it was inviolable (30:2), but if a woman made a vow, the man (father, husband) responsible for her could nullify it if he felt that it was rash (vv 1-16).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 31<\/h5>\n<p>The account of the holy war declared against Midian in 25:16-18 is given. With Phinehas accompanying 12,000 warriors, Israel defeated Midian, killing Balaam along with the five kings and many male adults of Midian (31:1-8). The Midianite women and children were taken captive, but Moses commanded that all the male children and the nonvirgin women be killed (vv 9-18). One must not conclude that this war meant the end of Midian as such, for Midian later proved a formidable foe of Israel in the time of the judges (Jgs 6).<\/p>\n<p>After the battle, the warriors were instructed to purify themselves, their clothing, and the booty from the war before coming into the camp (Nm 31:19-24). Furthermore, they were instructed to divide the booty in half and to contribute one-fifth of one percent of their half to the high priest (“the Lord’s tribute”). The other half was divided among the people who had remained in camp, after the Levites received a two percent contribution (vv 25-31).<\/p>\n<p>Verses 32-47 give the tally of the booty after its division into two parts and the amount that was given from each part to Eleazar and the Levites. The tally is said by some to be too high to be authentic, but there is no evidence that disputes the recorded figures.<\/p>\n<p>In thanksgiving to God because no Israelite had been killed in the war (v 49) and to make atonement for themselves (v 50), the army officers brought a special offering of gold trinkets to Moses and Eleazar, which was placed in the tabernacle as a memorial (vv 48-54).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 32<\/h5>\n<p>At their request and on the condition that they aid the other tribes in the conquest of Canaan, Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh were allotted the Transjordan region. Moses earnestly besought the Lord to change his mind about not permitting him to enter the land of promise (Dt 3:23-27). But God would not let him.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 33–34<\/h5>\n<p>At God’s command, Moses kept a written record of Israel’s itinerary from Egypt to the plains of Moab. Here is biblical evidence of the Mosaic authorship of Numbers.<\/p>\n<p>The boundaries of the Promised Land were now given. The southern boundary would run from the southern tip of the Dead Sea, south of Kadesh-barnea up to the River of Egypt (Wadi el-Arish), and on to the Mediterranean Sea (34:3-5). The western boundary would be the coastline of the Mediterranean Sea itself (v 6). The northern boundary, not realized until the times of David and Solomon (2 Sm 8:3-12; 1 Kgs 8:65), was to extend from the Mediterranean Sea east to Hamath, at the head of the Orontes River (Nm 34:7-9). The eastern boundary was to be practically on a vertical line, with the Jordan Valley running north to the northern boundary (vv 10-12). The nine and a half tribes were to divide this area among themselves (vv 13-15).<\/p>\n<p>The Lord then selected the men who were to bear the responsibility of dividing the land of Canaan among the western tribes after the conquest (vv 16-29).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 35<\/h5>\n<p>God instructed Israel to give 48 cities throughout the land on both sides of the Jordan to the Levites for a permanent possession (vv 1-8), since that tribe was not included in the land allotments to the other tribes. The number of cities each tribe was to give was to be determined by its size (v 8). Six of the Levitical cities, three on each side of the Jordan, were to be designated “cities of refuge” for the manslayer (v 6; cf. Jos 20).<\/p>\n<p>Legislation concerning the manslayer follows (vv 9-34). If the slayer committed murder, the kinsman avenger had the right to fulfill his role as executioner (vv 16-21). If, however, the killing was unintentional, the manslayer was to flee to the nearest city of refuge for a trial. If found innocent of murder, he was assigned to remain within the city of refuge until the death of the high priest. If he left the city before then, the kinsman avenger was permitted to execute him (vv 22-34).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 36<\/h5>\n<p>Basing their question on the earlier law established in chapter 27, the leaders from Manasseh asked whether an heiress should be allowed to marry outside her tribe, with the accompanying transfer of property from one tribe to another that would ensue. God directed that an heiress would have to marry within her tribe (vv 1-12).<\/p>\n<p>The last verse of the book refers to all the laws given in the plains of Moab (26:1–36:12; cf. Lv 27:34).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologicalTeaching\">Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Numbers God is revealed as the unchangingly faithful God of the covenant (Nm 23:19). This faithfulness to his covenant required that he both guide and care for his people and punish their sins against him. But no impediment was so great that God’s design to bring his people to the land of promise was thwarted (11:23).<\/p>\n<p>Both by his wrathful reaction to Israel’s sin and by the numerous priestly laws, God highlights his awesome holiness. The legislation expressly teaches that the person who approaches God must be clean. Even to look with unholy eyes upon the holiness of God meant death (4:20).<\/p>\n<p>His sovereignty over all of life is evident from the attention he displays over even the minutest aspects of life. The phrase “And the Lord said unto Moses” occurs over 50 times, and the words that follow in each case deal with all kinds of matters.<\/p>\n<p>As the God of the covenant, God’s “christological” character is also apparent. God’s blessing and faithfulness reflect the christological motif. Finally, Moses’ prophetic leadership (Acts 7:37-38) and intercessory ministry (e.g., Nm 11:2; 12:13; 14:19), in the Aaronic priesthood (e.g., ch 16), in the animal sacrifices (cf. 19:9; Heb 9:13), and in the symbols (the manna, the water, the bronze snake) foreshadow the future Christ.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel’s responses to God, the people depict all of human sinfulness and faithlessness. Israel’s wanderings illustrate the results of unbelief. The punishments of Israel prove the maxim of Numbers 32:23: “But if you fail to keep your word, then you will have sinned against the <span>Lord<\/span>, and you may be sure that your sin will find you out” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Numbers forcefully teaches that safety and blessing are to be found only in trust in the Lord. Only he is capable of bringing men and women to the place of rest (Heb 4:9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Deuteronomy, Book of; Exodus, Book of; Genesis, Book of; Leviticus, Book of; Moses; Wilderness Wanderings.<\/p>","summary_ro":"NUMBERS, Book of Fourth book of the English Bible. Its title is the English translation of the Latin Vulgate title, Numeri. The book takes this name from the fact that several rosters of various kinds are recorded in the book, specifically, the two army musters in chapters 1 and 26, the tribal camp and march arrangements in chapter 2, and the Levitical censuses in chapters 3 and 4. Preview • Author • Background • Purpose • Content • Theological Teaching Author The question of the authorship o...","summary_en":"NUMBERS, Book of Fourth book of the English Bible. Its title is the English translation of the Latin Vulgate title, Numeri. The book takes this name from the fact that several rosters of various kinds are recorded in the book, specifically, the two army musters in chapters 1 and 26, the tribal camp and march arrangements in chapter 2, and the Levitical censuses in chapters 3 and 4. Preview • Author • Background • Purpose • Content • Theological Teaching Author The question of the authorship o...","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":28266,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Offerings and Sacrifices","title_en":"Offerings and Sacrifices","content_ro":"<h3>OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES<\/h3>\n<p>Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PerformanceandOrderofSacrifices\">Performance and Order of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial ritual is the opening section of Leviticus (Lv 1–7). It consists of two separate parts. The first (1:1–6:7) is didactic, dealing with two categories of sacrifice: those of a “pleasing odor,” namely, the burnt (1:1-17), the grain (2:1-16), and the peace offerings (3:1-17); and the expiatory sacrifices, namely, the sin (4:1–5:13) and the guilt or trespass offerings (5:14–6:7). Attention is paid to the minute details of each ritual, and they are grouped according to their logical or conceptual associations.<\/p>\n<p>The grain (or cereal) offering follows the burnt offering because it always accompanied it in actual practice (Nm 15:1-21; chs 28–29); it also went with the peace offering (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:3-4). Special emphasis is placed on burning the inward parts of a sacrifice on the altar to make a “pleasing odor to the Lord” (Lv 1:9, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 11, 16). When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor (Gn 8:21), it was a sign of divine favor; refusal indicated God’s displeasure (Lv 26:31). The officiating priest evidently knew how to read the signs and would tell the offerer whether his sacrifice had been accepted (1 Sm 26:19; cf. Am 5:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The sin and guilt offerings were expiatory (Lv 4:1–6:7, 20). The situations requiring such offerings are listed, and special emphasis is laid on the handling of the blood in the ritual.<\/p>\n<p>The second major section in this passage (Lv 6:8–7:38) stresses the administrative details for the various offerings. This section consists of a series of “instructions” for each type of offering pertaining to the distribution of the sacrificial materials. Some went to the priest(s), some went to the offerer, and others were burned on the altar or disposed of outside the camp. Those sacrifices designated as “most holy” were to be eaten only by qualified members of the priesthood (Lv 2:3, 10; 10:12-17; 14:13; Nm 18:9).<\/p>\n<p>The burnt offering is discussed first because it was entirely consumed on the altar (and thus not eaten by anyone). After it, there follow the sacrifices distributed to the officiants (Lv 6:17, 26, 29; 7:1, 6), and at the end come the peace offerings, a significant portion of which was returned to the offender.<\/p>\n<p>The order in which the sacrifices are treated in this passage also corresponds to their relative frequency in the rituals of the sacred calendar (Nm 28:19; 2 Chr 31:3; Ez 45:17). This would be particularly important for the priests and Levites on duty at the temple because they were responsible for the logistics of the daily sacrificial ritual, especially on the high holidays; management of the temple storehouse was a formidable task (1 Chr 23:28-32; 26:15, 20-22; 2 Chr 13:10-11; 30:3-19; 34:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>Each section concerning a particular offering concludes with the logistic or administrative details peculiar to it. There then follows a summary of the matters treated thus far (Lv 7:7-10), and the section concludes with a treatment of the peace offerings (vv 11-36). The latter did not play a role in the sacred calendar except during the Feast of Weeks (23:19-20); on all other occasions, with the two exceptions of the Nazirite vow and the installation of the priesthood, peace offerings were purely voluntary sacrifices and thus not subject to any fixed bookkeeping.<\/p>\n<p>In other biblical contexts, the sacrifices are listed according to the same “bookkeeping” or “administrative” order: burnt, grain, and drink; sin (or guilt); and sometimes peace offerings. An example is the roster of donations made by the tribal leaders for dedication of the altar (Nm 7). The information is organized like an everyday ledger from the temple storehouse; the summary classifies the animals as burnt, grain, sin, and peace offerings (vv 87-88) in accordance with the respective entries from each donor (vv 15-17). The Levitical scribe had two purposes for such a record: to credit the offerers and to record the treasures and food supplies coming in. Much of the foodstuffs being given as offerings was actually apportioned to the officiating priests (Nm 18:8-11; 2 Chr 31:4-19).<\/p>\n<p>When prescriptions were made as to the type and number of offerings to be brought (e.g., Nm 15:24), the “bookkeeping” order is generally followed. This was true of the calendarial sacrifices; burnt and grain offerings and libations were listed, followed by a sin offering for each of the following: New Moon (Nm 28:11-15), each day of Passover (vv 19-22), the Festival of Weeks (Lv 23:18-19; Nm 28:27-30), Trumpets (29:2-5), Day of Atonement (vv 8-11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 12-16).<\/p>\n<p>For sacrifices required in specific cases, the instructions as to what offerings to bring follow this sequence (e.g., the purification of a woman after giving birth, Lv 12:6-8). Note also the offerings given at the successful termination of a Nazirite vow; the Nazirite brought burnt, sin, and peace offerings (with some special grain offerings, Nm 6:14-15). However, the priest conducted the actual ritual according to a different order; the sin offering was made first, followed by the burnt offering and finally the peace offering (vv 16-17). In the case of an incomplete vow, the first step was to offer a sin offering and then a burnt offering to renew the vow (v 11). The reconsecration of the Nazirite required a separate guilt offering—a distinct ritual act (v 12).<\/p>\n<p>The description of the offerings made by the prince of Israel in the latter days presents the same contrast between the two orders of sacrifices. On festival holidays the prince brought burnt, grain, and drink offerings, but he offered them as sin, grain, burnt, and peace offerings (Ez 45:17). This second order of sacrifices in which the sin offering precedes the burnt offering was also followed in the rededication of the altar (43:18-27).<\/p>\n<p>The same “procedural” sequence of sacrifices appears in other instances: the purification of the leper—guilt and sin offerings (Lv 14:19), followed by a burnt offering (vv 12-20); the man with a discharge—sin and burnt offerings (15:15); likewise the woman with a discharge (v 30). The same order is followed for the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (16:3-6, 11, 15, 24).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Leviticus furnishes two examples of the proper order in which sacrifices were offered. One is the ordination of Aaron and his sons. The sin offering came first and then the burnt offering (Ex 29:10-18; Lv 8:14-21). The focal point in this ritual was the sacrifice of ordination, or literally “installation,” a special form of peace offering (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-29). The second passage is the formal inauguration of the sacrificial system at the tabernacle (Lv 9). The sacrifices for Aaron were sin and burnt offerings, followed by those for the people: sin, burnt, grain, and peace offerings (9:7-22).<\/p>\n<p>The same sequence is followed at the cleansing and restoration of the temple in Jerusalem conducted by King Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:20-36). A great sin offering was first, followed by the burnt offerings accompanied by music and song. Then the king proclaimed that the people had committed themselves to the Lord; in this new state of purity they could now share in the sacrifices of devotion (burnt offerings) and thanksgiving (peace offerings).<\/p>\n<p>The procedural order of the sacrifices embodies the OT ideology of how God may be approached. First, atonement for sin had to be made and then total consecration of self; these are symbolized by the sin and\/or guilt offerings and the burnt and grain offerings, respectively. When these conditions were met, the offerer could express his continued devotion by more burnt offerings and also take part in the fellowship sacrifices (peace offerings) in which he himself got a large portion of the slaughtered animal (to share with his friends and the poor in his community; Dt 12:17-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DescriptionofSacrifices\">Description of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The ensuing description of the different types of sacrifice will treat them in accordance with the “procedural” order, that is, as symbolic stages in one’s approach to God.<\/p>\n<h5>Expiation<\/h5>\n<p>These two offerings were required for making atonement for sins and trespasses:<\/p>\n<p>1. Sin offering (Lv 4:1–5:13; 6:24-30). Different animals were specified in accordance with the rank of the offerer. A high priest had to bring a young bull (4:3), as did the congregation as a whole (v 14), except when the matter was a ritual infraction (Nm 15:24). A ruler would bring a male goat (Lv 4:23), but a commoner could provide a female goat (v 28; Nm 15:27) or a lamb (Lv 4:32). If he was indigent, he could offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons (one of which would be a burnt offering; 5:7), or if he was extremely poor, he might even substitute a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Lv 5:11-13; cf. Heb 9:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>The offerer brought the animal to the entrance of the temple court and laid his hand on it (Lv 4:4). He did not confess his sin in this act because the animal was not being sent away (cf. the goat for Azazel, 16:21); rather, he was identifying himself with the sacrifice. The offerer had to kill the animal on the north side of the altar (4:24, 29). The animals were never slaughtered on the altar proper. The officiating priest collected the blood; when it was a bull for himself or for the congregation, he sprinkled some of the blood before the veil inside the tent of meeting and put some on the horns of the incense altar (vv 5-7, 16-18). On the Day of Atonement he brought the sacrificial blood for himself and for the people into the Holy of Holies (16:14-15). From all other animals, the blood was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering (4:25, 30, 34); the blood of fowl was sprinkled on the side of the altar (5:9). Finally, the remaining blood from any offering was poured or drained out at the base of the altar (4:7).<\/p>\n<p>The choicest of the internal organs, namely, the fatty tissue over and on the entrails, the two kidneys and their fat, and the appendage to the liver, were all offered to the Lord on the altar (Lv 4:8-10). The carcass and the other entrails were burned outside the camp when it was a bull for the priest or for the people. This was also true of the bull for the ordination of the priests (Ex 29:10-14; Lv 8:14-17). Otherwise, the priest who conducted the rites received the edible flesh as his portion. He had to eat it within the temple area, and its preparation was governed by strict rules of ritual purity (Lv 6:25-30; cf. 10:16-20). A sin offering of one male goat was presented at each of the sacred holidays: the New Moon (Nm 28:15), each day of Passover (vv 22-24), the Festival of Weeks (v 30), the Festival of Trumpets (29:5), the Day of Atonement (v 11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 16, 19). The high priest also offered a bull for himself and then sacrificed one of the two goats on the Day of Atonement. Certain purification rites required lesser sin offerings, namely, lambs or birds: childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), cleansing from leprosy (14:12-14, 19-22), and abscesses and hemorrhages (15:14-15, 29-30) or after defilement while under a vow (Nm 6:10-11).<\/p>\n<li>2. Guilt offering (Lv 5:14–6:7; 7:1-7). The guilt or trespass offering was a special kind of sin offering (cf. 5:7) required whenever someone had been denied his rightful due. Reparation of the valued amount that had been defrauded had to be made, plus a fine of one-fifth (5:16; 6:5). The animal was usually a ram (5:15, 18; 6:6). The cleansed leper and the defiled Nazirite had to bring a male lamb (Lv 14:12, 21; Nm 6:12). The offerer apparently handled the sacrifice as he would a sin offering, but the priest had to sprinkle the blood around the altar (Lv 7:2). Viscera were burned on the altar as usual (vv 3-5). Some of the blood was then applied to the tip of the cleansed leper’s right ear and to his right thumb and big toe (14:14). Again the priest received most of the animal’s flesh for food (7:6-7; 14:13). A guilt offering was required whenever another party had suffered some loss. Ritual infractions, such as eating the “holy things” without proper authorization (5:14-19; 22:14), called for payment of the sum that should have gone to the Lord plus the fine of one-fifth that went to the priest (Lv 5:16; 2 Kgs 12:16). The leper belongs in this category, since during the time of his infection he was unable to render service to God (Lv 14:12-18). The same applies to the Nazirite who had suffered defilement while he was set apart to God by the vow; thus a guilt offering was required (Nm 6:12). Violation of another person’s property rights could be expiated only by the guilt offering and its additional one-fifth. Such matters included cheating on deposits or security, robbery or oppression, failing to report the find of some lost property, or false swearing or failing to testify (Lv 6:1-5). Intercourse with a betrothed slave girl was also a violation of property rights (19:20-22). If the offended party was no longer living and had no surviving kinsmen, the payment went to the priest (Nm 5:5-10).<\/li>\n<h5>Consecration Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These rituals usually come to mind when one hears the word “offering.” They represent acts of personal commitment that must accompany the repentance expressed in the sin and guilt offerings. They were also a prerequisite for the fellowship or communal sacrifices that might follow.<\/p>\n<p>1. Burnt offering (Lv 1:3-17; 6:8-13). The burnt offering could be a bull, a sheep, or a bird. The offerer presented the animal, laid his hand on it, and killed it on the north side of the altar. The bird was simply given to the priest. The latter collected the blood, presented it before God, and then sprinkled it around the altar. When the offering was a bird, he wrung off its head and drained the blood at the side of the altar. Though the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood relates the burnt offering to the expiatory sacrifices of the previous section, the main emphasis here is on killing the animal, washing its unclean parts, and then carefully arranging all of the pieces on the altar. All of this was then consumed on the altar as a pleasing odor to the Lord. Since burnt offerings were offered morning and evening, a good supply of wood by the altar was necessary. The officiating priest, dressed in proper garments, had to keep the fire burning continuously (6:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Burnt offerings played a prominent role in the sacrifices of the ritual calendar. The continual burnt offering was made twice a day, a male lamb morning and evening (Ex 29:38-42; Nm 28:1-8). Two additional lambs were sacrificed each Sabbath (Nm 28:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>Except for these daily offerings, a sin offering of one goat was usually made along with the burnt offerings on the following holidays: For the New Moon at the beginning of each month, two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs were offered (Nm 28:11-14). The same were required for each day of the Passover festival (vv 19-24) and again on the Feast of Weeks (vv 6-29). On the Festival of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, the requirement was one bull, one ram, and seven lambs (29:2-4).<\/p>\n<p>The great Feast of Tabernacles was characterized by a series of elaborate burnt offerings, plus one goat per day as a sin offering. On the first day, 13 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male lambs were offered (Nm 29:12-16). Each successive day, the number of bulls was decreased by one until on the seventh day there were only seven (the rams and lambs remained the same; 29:17-25). On the eighth day the animals required for Trumpets and Atonement were offered, namely, one bull, one ram, and seven lambs.<\/p>\n<p>Certain rituals of purification also required burnt offerings in addition to sin offerings: after childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), abscesses (15:14-15), and discharges (vv 29-30); or after defilement while under a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:10-11). Though it is not stated that grain offerings were required in these cases, they certainly were for the cleansing from leprosy (Lv 14:10, 19-22, 31) and the completion of the Nazirite vow (Nm 6:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. Grain (Cereal) offering (Lv 2; 6:14-23). The Hebrew term referring to this particular offering means “gift,” or “offering,” including animals (Gn 4:3-5; Jgs 6:18; 1 Sm 2:17). But in the specific sacrificial context it signifies a combination of fine flour, olive oil, and frankincense that could be made up in the form of baked loaves, wafers, or morsels. The offering of firstfruits was to be crushed heads of new grain (Lv 2:14). No leaven or honey was permitted on the cakes, although those same commodities could be accepted as a firstfruit offering. They would not go to the altar but were given to the priest. The offerer had to bring the prepared loaves or wafers to the temple. The priest would burn one handful on the altar as its “memorial portion” (v 2), keeping the remainder for his own food (6:16; 7:9). But when the priest was making a grain offering on his own behalf, he burnt it all on the altar (6:22-23).<\/li>\n<p>A grain offering was usually given with every burnt offering, especially those pertaining to the sacred calendar (Nm 28–29). The amounts of flour and oil were set according to the animal being sacrificed: three-tenths of an ephah of flour and one-half a hin of oil for a bull, two-tenths ephah and one-third hin for a ram, and one-tenth ephah plus one-fourth hin for a lamb (15:2-10). Other happy occasions for a grain offering included the cleansing of a leper (Lv 14:10, 20-21, 31; unspecified quantity of grain with a bird) and the successful consummation of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Peace offerings were invariably followed by grain offerings (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:4). The priest received one of each pair of cakes or wafers. The remainder was returned to the offerer to be eaten with the flesh of the sacrificial animal at a place of his choice.<\/p>\n<p>A special case where such offering was used was the one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal required in the jealousy ritual. It was to have no oil or frankincense (Nm 5:15, 18, 25-26). A very poor individual was permitted to bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense as a sin offering (Lv 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<li>3. Drink offering (Nm 15:1-10). The standard libation was one-fourth of a hin of wine for a lamb, one-third for a ram, and one-half for a bull. The wine (Ex 29:40), also called “strong drink” (Nm 28:7), is probably an intentional substitute for the blood used by other nations (Ps 16:4). The libation was classed as a “pleasing odor” offering (Nm 15:7). As with the burnt offering, the entire drink offering was expended; nothing was given to the priest (28:7).<\/li>\n<p>Drink offerings accompanied the daily offering (Ex 29:40-41; Nm 28:7) and the Sabbath offering (Nm 28:9), as well as the New Moon festival. Reference is also made to them in connection with the second and following days of the Feast of Tabernacles (29:18, 21); for the first day their absence is probably unintentional. The same might hold true for the Passover, Firstfruits, and Feast of Trumpets (Nm 28:16–29:11; cf. Ez 45:11). A libation was required for the rites concluding a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17) but not for cleansing a leper (Lv 14:10-20).<\/p>\n<h5>Fellowship Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These sacrifices were voluntary on the part of the offerer and generally not imposed by regulations except for the Nazirite (Nm 6:17) and the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20). An offerer who had already fulfilled the ritual requirements for atonement and personal consecration was permitted to make a fellowship offering. Burnt offerings often accompanied the fellowship sacrifices as a further expression of devotion.<\/p>\n<p>1. Peace offering (Lv 3; 7:11-36; Am 5:22). This is the basic class of all fellowship or communal offerings; the others are simply subclasses of the peace offering. In terms of holiness, or restrictedness, they were not so rigidly confined as the other offerings. Animals from the herd or flock, male or female (Lv 3:1, 6, 12), were permitted. The usual stipulation of freedom from blemish was in force, except in the case of the freewill offering, in which the animal could have one limb longer than the other (22:23). Unleavened cakes were also required, at least for the thank (7:12-13) and Nazirite (Nm 6:15-19) offerings. Each of these three types of peace offerings will be discussed below, with their special features.<\/p>\n<p>The first parts of the ritual—the presentation and laying on of the hand—were identical to those of the other sacrifices. However, the animal was slaughtered at the door of the sanctuary courtyard and not on the north side of the altar (Lv 3:1-2, 7-8, 12-13; 7:29-30). The priest collected the blood and tossed it against the altar as he did with the burnt offering (3:2, 8, 13). The choice viscera were offered up as a “pleasing odor” (3:3-5, 6-11, 14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The priest also received a certain portion of the offering. He was allowed to eat it in any ritually clean place and to share it with his family (Lv 7:14, 30-36; Nm 6:20), in contrast to his portion of other sacrifices, which he had to eat somewhere in the temple compound (Nm 18:10-11). He received one of the cakes and the breast as a wave offering and the right thigh as a contribution for the offerer. This latter is the so-called “heave offering”; the technical term developed from a root signifying “to be high” and meaning “that which is lifted up.” The heave offering did not really represent a special kind of ritual ceremony.<\/p>\n<p>The ritual act of the peace offering culminated with a fellowship meal. Except for those parts on the altar or given to the priest, the body of the animal was returned to the man who offered it. He had to prepare it as a communal meal for himself, for his family, and for the Levite in his community (Dt 12:12, 18-19). This would have to be at the official sanctuary (Dt 12:6-7, 11-12, 15-19; cf. 1 Sm 1:3-4) and the participants had to observe strict rules of purity (Lv 7:19-21; 19:5-8). It may be contrasted with the ritual slaughtering of animals for a banquet that was permitted at any local altar (Dt 12:16, 20-22). The flesh of the thank offering had to be eaten on the same day of the sacrifice (Lv 7:15), while that of the votive or freewill offerings could be finished off on the following day (vv 16-18). Whatever remained then had to be burned before the time limit expired.<\/p>\n<p>Only three times is there a specific demand for a peace offering: in the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20), upon completion of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17-20), and at the installation of the priesthood (Ex 29:19-22, 28). Other public ritual occasions included the inauguration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5). Events on a national level that evoked the peace offering were the successful conclusion of a military campaign (1 Sm 11:15), the end of a famine or pestilence (2 Sm 24:25), confirmation of a candidate to the throne (1 Kgs 1:9, 19), or a time of religious revival (2 Chr 29:31-36). On the local level, they were offered at the annual family reunion (1 Sm 20:6) or other festive occasions, such as the harvest of the firstfruits (Ex 22:29-31; 1 Sm 9:11-14, 22-24; 16:4-5).<\/p>\n<li>2. Wave offering. The first portion of the peace offering was “waved” before the Lord to signify that the priest was eating it as a representative of God (the actual motion evidently resembled the wielding of a saw or a staff, Is 10:15). The same technical term, “wave offering,” was also used for other kinds of offering: precious metals donated for making the cultic artifacts (Ex 35:22; 38:29) and the guilt offering of the cleansed leper (Lv 14:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Freewill offering. These gifts, brought to the holy convocations that took place three times per year (Ex 23:16; 34:20; Dt 16:10, 16-17; 2 Chr 35:8; Ezr 3:5), were voluntary (Lv 7:16; 22:18, 21-23; 23:28; Nm 15:3; 29:39; Dt 12:6, 17). Like the voluntary offering, the freewill offering could be a burnt rather than a peace offering (Lv 22:17-24; Ez 46:12). If it was the latter, the flesh could be eaten on the second day but must be burned before the third (Lv 7:16-17). Unlike some other peace offerings, the animal being sacrificed could have one limb longer than the other (22:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Installation offering. This Hebrew term refers to the settings of precious stones (Ex 25:7; 35:9, 27; 1 Chr 29:2), so “installation” seems an appropriate translation. It had to do with “filling the hand,” a ritual act that consecrated someone to divine service (Ex 28:41; cf. 32:29) and required ritual purity and spiritual devotion (2 Chr 29:31). The details of the original ceremony at the installation of the first priest is described in two passages (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-32).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES<\/h3>\n<p>Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PerformanceandOrderofSacrifices\">Performance and Order of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial ritual is the opening section of Leviticus (Lv 1–7). It consists of two separate parts. The first (1:1–6:7) is didactic, dealing with two categories of sacrifice: those of a “pleasing odor,” namely, the burnt (1:1-17), the grain (2:1-16), and the peace offerings (3:1-17); and the expiatory sacrifices, namely, the sin (4:1–5:13) and the guilt or trespass offerings (5:14–6:7). Attention is paid to the minute details of each ritual, and they are grouped according to their logical or conceptual associations.<\/p>\n<p>The grain (or cereal) offering follows the burnt offering because it always accompanied it in actual practice (Nm 15:1-21; chs 28–29); it also went with the peace offering (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:3-4). Special emphasis is placed on burning the inward parts of a sacrifice on the altar to make a “pleasing odor to the Lord” (Lv 1:9, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 11, 16). When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor (Gn 8:21), it was a sign of divine favor; refusal indicated God’s displeasure (Lv 26:31). The officiating priest evidently knew how to read the signs and would tell the offerer whether his sacrifice had been accepted (1 Sm 26:19; cf. Am 5:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The sin and guilt offerings were expiatory (Lv 4:1–6:7, 20). The situations requiring such offerings are listed, and special emphasis is laid on the handling of the blood in the ritual.<\/p>\n<p>The second major section in this passage (Lv 6:8–7:38) stresses the administrative details for the various offerings. This section consists of a series of “instructions” for each type of offering pertaining to the distribution of the sacrificial materials. Some went to the priest(s), some went to the offerer, and others were burned on the altar or disposed of outside the camp. Those sacrifices designated as “most holy” were to be eaten only by qualified members of the priesthood (Lv 2:3, 10; 10:12-17; 14:13; Nm 18:9).<\/p>\n<p>The burnt offering is discussed first because it was entirely consumed on the altar (and thus not eaten by anyone). After it, there follow the sacrifices distributed to the officiants (Lv 6:17, 26, 29; 7:1, 6), and at the end come the peace offerings, a significant portion of which was returned to the offender.<\/p>\n<p>The order in which the sacrifices are treated in this passage also corresponds to their relative frequency in the rituals of the sacred calendar (Nm 28:19; 2 Chr 31:3; Ez 45:17). This would be particularly important for the priests and Levites on duty at the temple because they were responsible for the logistics of the daily sacrificial ritual, especially on the high holidays; management of the temple storehouse was a formidable task (1 Chr 23:28-32; 26:15, 20-22; 2 Chr 13:10-11; 30:3-19; 34:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>Each section concerning a particular offering concludes with the logistic or administrative details peculiar to it. There then follows a summary of the matters treated thus far (Lv 7:7-10), and the section concludes with a treatment of the peace offerings (vv 11-36). The latter did not play a role in the sacred calendar except during the Feast of Weeks (23:19-20); on all other occasions, with the two exceptions of the Nazirite vow and the installation of the priesthood, peace offerings were purely voluntary sacrifices and thus not subject to any fixed bookkeeping.<\/p>\n<p>In other biblical contexts, the sacrifices are listed according to the same “bookkeeping” or “administrative” order: burnt, grain, and drink; sin (or guilt); and sometimes peace offerings. An example is the roster of donations made by the tribal leaders for dedication of the altar (Nm 7). The information is organized like an everyday ledger from the temple storehouse; the summary classifies the animals as burnt, grain, sin, and peace offerings (vv 87-88) in accordance with the respective entries from each donor (vv 15-17). The Levitical scribe had two purposes for such a record: to credit the offerers and to record the treasures and food supplies coming in. Much of the foodstuffs being given as offerings was actually apportioned to the officiating priests (Nm 18:8-11; 2 Chr 31:4-19).<\/p>\n<p>When prescriptions were made as to the type and number of offerings to be brought (e.g., Nm 15:24), the “bookkeeping” order is generally followed. This was true of the calendarial sacrifices; burnt and grain offerings and libations were listed, followed by a sin offering for each of the following: New Moon (Nm 28:11-15), each day of Passover (vv 19-22), the Festival of Weeks (Lv 23:18-19; Nm 28:27-30), Trumpets (29:2-5), Day of Atonement (vv 8-11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 12-16).<\/p>\n<p>For sacrifices required in specific cases, the instructions as to what offerings to bring follow this sequence (e.g., the purification of a woman after giving birth, Lv 12:6-8). Note also the offerings given at the successful termination of a Nazirite vow; the Nazirite brought burnt, sin, and peace offerings (with some special grain offerings, Nm 6:14-15). However, the priest conducted the actual ritual according to a different order; the sin offering was made first, followed by the burnt offering and finally the peace offering (vv 16-17). In the case of an incomplete vow, the first step was to offer a sin offering and then a burnt offering to renew the vow (v 11). The reconsecration of the Nazirite required a separate guilt offering—a distinct ritual act (v 12).<\/p>\n<p>The description of the offerings made by the prince of Israel in the latter days presents the same contrast between the two orders of sacrifices. On festival holidays the prince brought burnt, grain, and drink offerings, but he offered them as sin, grain, burnt, and peace offerings (Ez 45:17). This second order of sacrifices in which the sin offering precedes the burnt offering was also followed in the rededication of the altar (43:18-27).<\/p>\n<p>The same “procedural” sequence of sacrifices appears in other instances: the purification of the leper—guilt and sin offerings (Lv 14:19), followed by a burnt offering (vv 12-20); the man with a discharge—sin and burnt offerings (15:15); likewise the woman with a discharge (v 30). The same order is followed for the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (16:3-6, 11, 15, 24).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Leviticus furnishes two examples of the proper order in which sacrifices were offered. One is the ordination of Aaron and his sons. The sin offering came first and then the burnt offering (Ex 29:10-18; Lv 8:14-21). The focal point in this ritual was the sacrifice of ordination, or literally “installation,” a special form of peace offering (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-29). The second passage is the formal inauguration of the sacrificial system at the tabernacle (Lv 9). The sacrifices for Aaron were sin and burnt offerings, followed by those for the people: sin, burnt, grain, and peace offerings (9:7-22).<\/p>\n<p>The same sequence is followed at the cleansing and restoration of the temple in Jerusalem conducted by King Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:20-36). A great sin offering was first, followed by the burnt offerings accompanied by music and song. Then the king proclaimed that the people had committed themselves to the Lord; in this new state of purity they could now share in the sacrifices of devotion (burnt offerings) and thanksgiving (peace offerings).<\/p>\n<p>The procedural order of the sacrifices embodies the OT ideology of how God may be approached. First, atonement for sin had to be made and then total consecration of self; these are symbolized by the sin and\/or guilt offerings and the burnt and grain offerings, respectively. When these conditions were met, the offerer could express his continued devotion by more burnt offerings and also take part in the fellowship sacrifices (peace offerings) in which he himself got a large portion of the slaughtered animal (to share with his friends and the poor in his community; Dt 12:17-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DescriptionofSacrifices\">Description of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The ensuing description of the different types of sacrifice will treat them in accordance with the “procedural” order, that is, as symbolic stages in one’s approach to God.<\/p>\n<h5>Expiation<\/h5>\n<p>These two offerings were required for making atonement for sins and trespasses:<\/p>\n<p>1. Sin offering (Lv 4:1–5:13; 6:24-30). Different animals were specified in accordance with the rank of the offerer. A high priest had to bring a young bull (4:3), as did the congregation as a whole (v 14), except when the matter was a ritual infraction (Nm 15:24). A ruler would bring a male goat (Lv 4:23), but a commoner could provide a female goat (v 28; Nm 15:27) or a lamb (Lv 4:32). If he was indigent, he could offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons (one of which would be a burnt offering; 5:7), or if he was extremely poor, he might even substitute a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Lv 5:11-13; cf. Heb 9:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>The offerer brought the animal to the entrance of the temple court and laid his hand on it (Lv 4:4). He did not confess his sin in this act because the animal was not being sent away (cf. the goat for Azazel, 16:21); rather, he was identifying himself with the sacrifice. The offerer had to kill the animal on the north side of the altar (4:24, 29). The animals were never slaughtered on the altar proper. The officiating priest collected the blood; when it was a bull for himself or for the congregation, he sprinkled some of the blood before the veil inside the tent of meeting and put some on the horns of the incense altar (vv 5-7, 16-18). On the Day of Atonement he brought the sacrificial blood for himself and for the people into the Holy of Holies (16:14-15). From all other animals, the blood was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering (4:25, 30, 34); the blood of fowl was sprinkled on the side of the altar (5:9). Finally, the remaining blood from any offering was poured or drained out at the base of the altar (4:7).<\/p>\n<p>The choicest of the internal organs, namely, the fatty tissue over and on the entrails, the two kidneys and their fat, and the appendage to the liver, were all offered to the Lord on the altar (Lv 4:8-10). The carcass and the other entrails were burned outside the camp when it was a bull for the priest or for the people. This was also true of the bull for the ordination of the priests (Ex 29:10-14; Lv 8:14-17). Otherwise, the priest who conducted the rites received the edible flesh as his portion. He had to eat it within the temple area, and its preparation was governed by strict rules of ritual purity (Lv 6:25-30; cf. 10:16-20). A sin offering of one male goat was presented at each of the sacred holidays: the New Moon (Nm 28:15), each day of Passover (vv 22-24), the Festival of Weeks (v 30), the Festival of Trumpets (29:5), the Day of Atonement (v 11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 16, 19). The high priest also offered a bull for himself and then sacrificed one of the two goats on the Day of Atonement. Certain purification rites required lesser sin offerings, namely, lambs or birds: childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), cleansing from leprosy (14:12-14, 19-22), and abscesses and hemorrhages (15:14-15, 29-30) or after defilement while under a vow (Nm 6:10-11).<\/p>\n<li>2. Guilt offering (Lv 5:14–6:7; 7:1-7). The guilt or trespass offering was a special kind of sin offering (cf. 5:7) required whenever someone had been denied his rightful due. Reparation of the valued amount that had been defrauded had to be made, plus a fine of one-fifth (5:16; 6:5). The animal was usually a ram (5:15, 18; 6:6). The cleansed leper and the defiled Nazirite had to bring a male lamb (Lv 14:12, 21; Nm 6:12). The offerer apparently handled the sacrifice as he would a sin offering, but the priest had to sprinkle the blood around the altar (Lv 7:2). Viscera were burned on the altar as usual (vv 3-5). Some of the blood was then applied to the tip of the cleansed leper’s right ear and to his right thumb and big toe (14:14). Again the priest received most of the animal’s flesh for food (7:6-7; 14:13). A guilt offering was required whenever another party had suffered some loss. Ritual infractions, such as eating the “holy things” without proper authorization (5:14-19; 22:14), called for payment of the sum that should have gone to the Lord plus the fine of one-fifth that went to the priest (Lv 5:16; 2 Kgs 12:16). The leper belongs in this category, since during the time of his infection he was unable to render service to God (Lv 14:12-18). The same applies to the Nazirite who had suffered defilement while he was set apart to God by the vow; thus a guilt offering was required (Nm 6:12). Violation of another person’s property rights could be expiated only by the guilt offering and its additional one-fifth. Such matters included cheating on deposits or security, robbery or oppression, failing to report the find of some lost property, or false swearing or failing to testify (Lv 6:1-5). Intercourse with a betrothed slave girl was also a violation of property rights (19:20-22). If the offended party was no longer living and had no surviving kinsmen, the payment went to the priest (Nm 5:5-10).<\/li>\n<h5>Consecration Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These rituals usually come to mind when one hears the word “offering.” They represent acts of personal commitment that must accompany the repentance expressed in the sin and guilt offerings. They were also a prerequisite for the fellowship or communal sacrifices that might follow.<\/p>\n<p>1. Burnt offering (Lv 1:3-17; 6:8-13). The burnt offering could be a bull, a sheep, or a bird. The offerer presented the animal, laid his hand on it, and killed it on the north side of the altar. The bird was simply given to the priest. The latter collected the blood, presented it before God, and then sprinkled it around the altar. When the offering was a bird, he wrung off its head and drained the blood at the side of the altar. Though the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood relates the burnt offering to the expiatory sacrifices of the previous section, the main emphasis here is on killing the animal, washing its unclean parts, and then carefully arranging all of the pieces on the altar. All of this was then consumed on the altar as a pleasing odor to the Lord. Since burnt offerings were offered morning and evening, a good supply of wood by the altar was necessary. The officiating priest, dressed in proper garments, had to keep the fire burning continuously (6:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Burnt offerings played a prominent role in the sacrifices of the ritual calendar. The continual burnt offering was made twice a day, a male lamb morning and evening (Ex 29:38-42; Nm 28:1-8). Two additional lambs were sacrificed each Sabbath (Nm 28:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>Except for these daily offerings, a sin offering of one goat was usually made along with the burnt offerings on the following holidays: For the New Moon at the beginning of each month, two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs were offered (Nm 28:11-14). The same were required for each day of the Passover festival (vv 19-24) and again on the Feast of Weeks (vv 6-29). On the Festival of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, the requirement was one bull, one ram, and seven lambs (29:2-4).<\/p>\n<p>The great Feast of Tabernacles was characterized by a series of elaborate burnt offerings, plus one goat per day as a sin offering. On the first day, 13 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male lambs were offered (Nm 29:12-16). Each successive day, the number of bulls was decreased by one until on the seventh day there were only seven (the rams and lambs remained the same; 29:17-25). On the eighth day the animals required for Trumpets and Atonement were offered, namely, one bull, one ram, and seven lambs.<\/p>\n<p>Certain rituals of purification also required burnt offerings in addition to sin offerings: after childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), abscesses (15:14-15), and discharges (vv 29-30); or after defilement while under a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:10-11). Though it is not stated that grain offerings were required in these cases, they certainly were for the cleansing from leprosy (Lv 14:10, 19-22, 31) and the completion of the Nazirite vow (Nm 6:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. Grain (Cereal) offering (Lv 2; 6:14-23). The Hebrew term referring to this particular offering means “gift,” or “offering,” including animals (Gn 4:3-5; Jgs 6:18; 1 Sm 2:17). But in the specific sacrificial context it signifies a combination of fine flour, olive oil, and frankincense that could be made up in the form of baked loaves, wafers, or morsels. The offering of firstfruits was to be crushed heads of new grain (Lv 2:14). No leaven or honey was permitted on the cakes, although those same commodities could be accepted as a firstfruit offering. They would not go to the altar but were given to the priest. The offerer had to bring the prepared loaves or wafers to the temple. The priest would burn one handful on the altar as its “memorial portion” (v 2), keeping the remainder for his own food (6:16; 7:9). But when the priest was making a grain offering on his own behalf, he burnt it all on the altar (6:22-23).<\/li>\n<p>A grain offering was usually given with every burnt offering, especially those pertaining to the sacred calendar (Nm 28–29). The amounts of flour and oil were set according to the animal being sacrificed: three-tenths of an ephah of flour and one-half a hin of oil for a bull, two-tenths ephah and one-third hin for a ram, and one-tenth ephah plus one-fourth hin for a lamb (15:2-10). Other happy occasions for a grain offering included the cleansing of a leper (Lv 14:10, 20-21, 31; unspecified quantity of grain with a bird) and the successful consummation of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Peace offerings were invariably followed by grain offerings (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:4). The priest received one of each pair of cakes or wafers. The remainder was returned to the offerer to be eaten with the flesh of the sacrificial animal at a place of his choice.<\/p>\n<p>A special case where such offering was used was the one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal required in the jealousy ritual. It was to have no oil or frankincense (Nm 5:15, 18, 25-26). A very poor individual was permitted to bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense as a sin offering (Lv 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<li>3. Drink offering (Nm 15:1-10). The standard libation was one-fourth of a hin of wine for a lamb, one-third for a ram, and one-half for a bull. The wine (Ex 29:40), also called “strong drink” (Nm 28:7), is probably an intentional substitute for the blood used by other nations (Ps 16:4). The libation was classed as a “pleasing odor” offering (Nm 15:7). As with the burnt offering, the entire drink offering was expended; nothing was given to the priest (28:7).<\/li>\n<p>Drink offerings accompanied the daily offering (Ex 29:40-41; Nm 28:7) and the Sabbath offering (Nm 28:9), as well as the New Moon festival. Reference is also made to them in connection with the second and following days of the Feast of Tabernacles (29:18, 21); for the first day their absence is probably unintentional. The same might hold true for the Passover, Firstfruits, and Feast of Trumpets (Nm 28:16–29:11; cf. Ez 45:11). A libation was required for the rites concluding a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17) but not for cleansing a leper (Lv 14:10-20).<\/p>\n<h5>Fellowship Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These sacrifices were voluntary on the part of the offerer and generally not imposed by regulations except for the Nazirite (Nm 6:17) and the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20). An offerer who had already fulfilled the ritual requirements for atonement and personal consecration was permitted to make a fellowship offering. Burnt offerings often accompanied the fellowship sacrifices as a further expression of devotion.<\/p>\n<p>1. Peace offering (Lv 3; 7:11-36; Am 5:22). This is the basic class of all fellowship or communal offerings; the others are simply subclasses of the peace offering. In terms of holiness, or restrictedness, they were not so rigidly confined as the other offerings. Animals from the herd or flock, male or female (Lv 3:1, 6, 12), were permitted. The usual stipulation of freedom from blemish was in force, except in the case of the freewill offering, in which the animal could have one limb longer than the other (22:23). Unleavened cakes were also required, at least for the thank (7:12-13) and Nazirite (Nm 6:15-19) offerings. Each of these three types of peace offerings will be discussed below, with their special features.<\/p>\n<p>The first parts of the ritual—the presentation and laying on of the hand—were identical to those of the other sacrifices. However, the animal was slaughtered at the door of the sanctuary courtyard and not on the north side of the altar (Lv 3:1-2, 7-8, 12-13; 7:29-30). The priest collected the blood and tossed it against the altar as he did with the burnt offering (3:2, 8, 13). The choice viscera were offered up as a “pleasing odor” (3:3-5, 6-11, 14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The priest also received a certain portion of the offering. He was allowed to eat it in any ritually clean place and to share it with his family (Lv 7:14, 30-36; Nm 6:20), in contrast to his portion of other sacrifices, which he had to eat somewhere in the temple compound (Nm 18:10-11). He received one of the cakes and the breast as a wave offering and the right thigh as a contribution for the offerer. This latter is the so-called “heave offering”; the technical term developed from a root signifying “to be high” and meaning “that which is lifted up.” The heave offering did not really represent a special kind of ritual ceremony.<\/p>\n<p>The ritual act of the peace offering culminated with a fellowship meal. Except for those parts on the altar or given to the priest, the body of the animal was returned to the man who offered it. He had to prepare it as a communal meal for himself, for his family, and for the Levite in his community (Dt 12:12, 18-19). This would have to be at the official sanctuary (Dt 12:6-7, 11-12, 15-19; cf. 1 Sm 1:3-4) and the participants had to observe strict rules of purity (Lv 7:19-21; 19:5-8). It may be contrasted with the ritual slaughtering of animals for a banquet that was permitted at any local altar (Dt 12:16, 20-22). The flesh of the thank offering had to be eaten on the same day of the sacrifice (Lv 7:15), while that of the votive or freewill offerings could be finished off on the following day (vv 16-18). Whatever remained then had to be burned before the time limit expired.<\/p>\n<p>Only three times is there a specific demand for a peace offering: in the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20), upon completion of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17-20), and at the installation of the priesthood (Ex 29:19-22, 28). Other public ritual occasions included the inauguration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5). Events on a national level that evoked the peace offering were the successful conclusion of a military campaign (1 Sm 11:15), the end of a famine or pestilence (2 Sm 24:25), confirmation of a candidate to the throne (1 Kgs 1:9, 19), or a time of religious revival (2 Chr 29:31-36). On the local level, they were offered at the annual family reunion (1 Sm 20:6) or other festive occasions, such as the harvest of the firstfruits (Ex 22:29-31; 1 Sm 9:11-14, 22-24; 16:4-5).<\/p>\n<li>2. Wave offering. The first portion of the peace offering was “waved” before the Lord to signify that the priest was eating it as a representative of God (the actual motion evidently resembled the wielding of a saw or a staff, Is 10:15). The same technical term, “wave offering,” was also used for other kinds of offering: precious metals donated for making the cultic artifacts (Ex 35:22; 38:29) and the guilt offering of the cleansed leper (Lv 14:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Freewill offering. These gifts, brought to the holy convocations that took place three times per year (Ex 23:16; 34:20; Dt 16:10, 16-17; 2 Chr 35:8; Ezr 3:5), were voluntary (Lv 7:16; 22:18, 21-23; 23:28; Nm 15:3; 29:39; Dt 12:6, 17). Like the voluntary offering, the freewill offering could be a burnt rather than a peace offering (Lv 22:17-24; Ez 46:12). If it was the latter, the flesh could be eaten on the second day but must be burned before the third (Lv 7:16-17). Unlike some other peace offerings, the animal being sacrificed could have one limb longer than the other (22:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Installation offering. This Hebrew term refers to the settings of precious stones (Ex 25:7; 35:9, 27; 1 Chr 29:2), so “installation” seems an appropriate translation. It had to do with “filling the hand,” a ritual act that consecrated someone to divine service (Ex 28:41; cf. 32:29) and required ritual purity and spiritual devotion (2 Chr 29:31). The details of the original ceremony at the installation of the first priest is described in two passages (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-32).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Performance and Order of Sacrifices The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial rit...","summary_en":"OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Performance and Order of Sacrifices The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial rit...","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44451,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:5","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:5-10<\/strong> Guidelines regarding confession and <em>restitution<\/em> for wrongdoing emphasize the strong Hebrew concern for morality (Lev 6:1-7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:5-10<\/strong> Guidelines regarding confession and <em>restitution<\/em> for wrongdoing emphasize the strong Hebrew concern for morality (Lev 6:1-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:5-10 Guidelines regarding confession and restitution for wrongdoing emphasize the strong Hebrew concern for morality (Lev 6:1-7).","summary_en":"5:5-10 Guidelines regarding confession and restitution for wrongdoing emphasize the strong Hebrew concern for morality (Lev 6:1-7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72077,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:5","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:5-10<\/strong> Guidelines regarding confession and <em>restitution<\/em> for wrongdoing emphasize the strong Hebrew concern for morality (Lev 6:1-7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:5-10<\/strong> Guidelines regarding confession and <em>restitution<\/em> for wrongdoing emphasize the strong Hebrew concern for morality (Lev 6:1-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:5-10 Guidelines regarding confession and restitution for wrongdoing emphasize the strong Hebrew concern for morality (Lev 6:1-7).","summary_en":"5:5-10 Guidelines regarding confession and restitution for wrongdoing emphasize the strong Hebrew concern for morality (Lev 6:1-7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99703,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:5","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:5-10<\/strong> Guidelines regarding confession and <em>restitution<\/em> for wrongdoing emphasize the strong Hebrew concern for morality (Lev 6:1-7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:5-10<\/strong> Guidelines regarding confession and <em>restitution<\/em> for wrongdoing emphasize the strong Hebrew concern for morality (Lev 6:1-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:5-10 Guidelines regarding confession and restitution for wrongdoing emphasize the strong Hebrew concern for morality (Lev 6:1-7).","summary_en":"5:5-10 Guidelines regarding confession and restitution for wrongdoing emphasize the strong Hebrew concern for morality (Lev 6:1-7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127329,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:5","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:5-10<\/strong> Guidelines regarding confession and <em>restitution<\/em> for wrongdoing emphasize the strong Hebrew concern for morality (Lev 6:1-7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:5-10<\/strong> Guidelines regarding confession and <em>restitution<\/em> for wrongdoing emphasize the strong Hebrew concern for morality (Lev 6:1-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:5-10 Guidelines regarding confession and restitution for wrongdoing emphasize the strong Hebrew concern for morality (Lev 6:1-7).","summary_en":"5:5-10 Guidelines regarding confession and restitution for wrongdoing emphasize the strong Hebrew concern for morality (Lev 6:1-7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"6":[{"id":7815,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Courts and Trials","title_en":"Courts and Trials","content_ro":"<h3>COURTS AND TRIALS<\/h3>\n<p>Legal disputes were as much a part of life in Bible times as they are today. The ways that courts operated and trials were conducted, however, were quite different. Unless those customs are understood, modern readers of the Bible, thinking of contemporary legal procedures, may misunderstand the judicial accounts contained in the Bible.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLegalProcedures\">Old Testament Legal Procedures<\/p>\n<h5>Exodus to Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy contain most of the law in the OT, plus much other information about courts and legal procedures. Those books reveal how trials were conducted before Israel had kings. Certain changes in the legal system occurring after the establishment of the monarchy (c. 1000 <span>BC<\/span>) are described in other OT books.<\/p>\n<p>The OT depicts God as supreme lawgiver and judge, with Moses and later the kings as God’s deputies. But Moses did not create the law or decide the most difficult cases, which were referred directly to God for the decision (see Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36; 27:1-11). When disputes arose between Israel’s leaders, God intervened, judging the guilty party directly (Nm 16–17). Thus law is seen in the OT as a divine revelation, not a human creation, as it was regarded in ancient Babylon.<\/p>\n<p>Usually it was not necessary to seek God’s direct guidance; precedent was sufficient. Elders were appointed in Israel to serve as judges of all but the most serious cases, relieving Moses of the burden of judging all the people himself (Ex 18:13-27). Deuteronomy 16:18 specifies that “judges” be appointed in every town; in other passages those responsible for punishing criminals are called “the elders” (Dt 19:12). The local judges were obviously nonprofessionals selected from the most respected members of each tribe or village. Difficult cases were referred to a central court of justice to be decided by the priests and, in the period of the judges, by the civil and military leader (17:8-12). Deborah and Samuel were both examples of such “judges of Israel.” Samuel even conducted a circuit court in a number of different centers (Jgs 4:4-5; 1 Sm 7:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>In Israel, as in other ancient societies, private prosecution was the norm. An individual with a grievance had to bring the case before the court. Only in situations of idolatry or other serious religious crimes were public prosecutions instituted (Dt 13; 17:2-7). Even in murder cases prosecution was left in the hands of the victim’s relatives. One relative, called the “avenger of blood,” had to pursue the alleged murderer to the nearest city of refuge, where a trial was held (Nm 35:10-34; Dt 19:1-13).<\/p>\n<p>Trials were held in a public place, such as the open space near a city gate (Dt 21:19). During the trial, the judges were seated, but the parties to the dispute and the witnesses stood. At least two witnesses were required to convict (19:15). They had to be eyewitnesses who had caught the accused red-handed. Where such clear-cut evidence was lacking (for example in disputes over ownership), the litigants could take an oath to demonstrate their honesty (Ex 22:8-13). If a husband suspected his wife of infidelity but had no proof, he could require her to undergo an ordeal of drinking “bitter water” to demonstrate her innocence (Nm 5:6-31).<\/p>\n<p>When all the evidence had been presented, the judges gave their verdict. Those who had brought the accusation had the duty of enforcing the court’s sentence. Thus, a witness of idolatry had to throw the first stone at the guilty person’s execution (Dt 17:7). Certain administrative officials may have had the job of writing down the court’s decision and seeing that it was enforced (16:18). At times it may have been difficult for people to uphold their legal rights if their opponent came from a strong and wealthy family.<\/p>\n<h5>Other Old Testament Books<\/h5>\n<p>When Israel became a kingdom, certain changes were made in its judicial system. Most obviously, the king became the supreme judge who dealt with the most difficult cases. Solomon demonstrated his great wisdom in adjudicating between two women who both claimed to be the mother of a particular baby (1 Kgs 3:16-28). Kings, who had all the power necessary to enforce their decisions, were expected to use it to help the weak members of society, such as orphans and widows (Ps 72:12).<\/p>\n<p>In practice, however, Israel’s kings did not always live up to that ideal. Absalom sowed the seeds of a revolution by telling those who came to the royal court that his father, King David, did not administer justice well (2 Sm 15:1-6). One notable trial in the OT illustrates how royal judicial powers could be completely misused by unscrupulous rulers. Naboth was put to death on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy so that King Ahab could extend his palace grounds by taking over Naboth’s vineyard. Though the charge was false, the trial followed correct legal procedures. Two scoundrels were found to give evidence that they had heard Naboth curse God and the king (1 Kgs 21:10); one witness would have been insufficient to secure conviction. Naboth was tried by the elders of the city in a public place. After being convicted he was taken outside the city and executed (vv 11-13). In other trials the prophet Jeremiah was charged with subversive activities more than once (Jer 26; 37:11–38:28).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets sometimes pictured God as taking Israel to court to answer for the nation’s misdeeds. God would list Israel’s sins and invite the people to explain their behavior. Sometimes heaven and earth, or the mountains, were called to be witnesses confirming the truth of God’s accusations. Finally judgment was pronounced (e.g., Is 1:2-26; 43; Jer 2:4-37; Mi 6).<\/p>\n<p>A theme running through the book of Job is Job’s request for a trial. Job thought that if he were given a fair hearing, his innocence would be demonstrated and God would stop causing him so much suffering (cf. Jb 13:23). Eventually God heeded Job’s request and a long cross-examination began, finally reducing Job to silence (42:1-6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentLegalProcedures\">New Testament Legal Procedures<\/p>\n<p>Numerous trials occur in the NT. Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin (the supreme Jewish religious court) and also by the Roman governor. The book of Acts mentions various court actions designed to stop the spread of Christianity. Luke, the author of Acts, presents a vivid and accurate description of how courts operated in provinces of the Roman Empire. Acts reaches a climax with Paul traveling to Rome to have his case heard by the Roman emperor Nero. Legal procedures in Roman courts were governed by complicated rules broadly resembling modern judicial technicalities. Serious crime was handled by public prosecutors, and trials were usually conducted by one judge. There were lawyers for the prosecution and lawyers for the defense.<\/p>\n<p>In Judea and other provinces of the empire, the local legal system was not suppressed. Traditional Jewish courts were allowed to try minor and religious offenses (Acts 4; 6:12–7:60) but were not permitted to handle serious cases where the death penalty might be involved. For that reason, when the Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God and the Messiah, they had to transfer the case to Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator (governor) of Judea. The Jews considered blasphemy worthy of death, but as they admitted to Pilate, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death” (Jn 18:31, <span>rsv<\/span>). The rule throughout the Roman Empire was that only governors could pronounce the death sentence. Execution of the apostle James by Jewish authorities, mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus, took place during an interregnum between two governors. The stoning of Stephen was done in haste, without the consent of Pilate (Acts 7).<\/p>\n<h5>The Trials of Jesus<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus was first tried by the Sanhedrin, presided over by the high priest. By later standards of Jewish legal practice, that trial was somewhat irregular. For example, it seems to have been held both at night and on the eve of a festival. Criminal trials were not supposed to take place at such times. It is uncertain that those rules existed in Jesus’ day, but even if they did, little can be made of that technicality since the Jewish court had no power to carry out its sentence.<\/p>\n<p>After conviction by the Sanhedrin, Jesus was taken to Pilate, whose Jerusalem residence, the old royal palace called the Praetorium, was on the western side of the city near the modern Jaffa Gate. The Romans were unlikely to sentence anyone to death in a religious matter, so the Jewish authorities presented their charges against Jesus in political language: he violated the law by “forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king” (Lk 23:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). Perhaps sensing something false about those charges (they were actually religious rather than political), Pilate sent Jesus to Herod, the ruler of Galilee, who was in Jerusalem at the time. Pilate, who did not have to send Galileans to Herod for trial, probably saw this as a means of avoiding an uncomfortable decision. Herod, however, pronounced Jesus innocent and returned him to Pilate.<\/p>\n<p>Pilate offered to give Jesus a disciplinary beating traditionally given to troublemakers as a warning to behave themselves in the future (Lk 23:16). But that did not satisfy Jesus’ accusers, who pressed the charge of insurrection, threatening to report Pilate to the emperor if he did not convict Jesus. Pilate, who had not been a very successful governor, feared official complaints about his administration, so the threat worked. He sentenced Jesus to be crucified on the charge of being king of the Jews. The heavy scourging that preceded the Crucifixion was never a punishment by itself but was a frequent accompaniment to other punishments. Another feature of Roman legal practice illustrated in the Gospels was the division of Jesus’ clothes among the soldiers; executioners were allowed to keep such personal effects as a fringe benefit.<\/p>\n<h5>The Trials of the Apostle Paul<\/h5>\n<p>Paul’s trials recorded in the book of Acts also reflect the division between Jewish and Roman authority in legal matters. When arrested, Paul had a preliminary hearing before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23). He was then transferred to the governor for a formal trial in Caesarea, the governor’s usual headquarters. There he was tried before Felix, who adjourned the case for two years until a new governor could be appointed. Luke reported that Felix (another unpopular governor) did that to please the Jews, but it was quite common for governors to leave cases to be dealt with by their successors.<\/p>\n<p>When Festus, the new governor, arrived, he suggested that Paul be tried in Jerusalem. Paul, disliking the prospect of being tried there, exercised his right as a Roman citizen to be tried in Rome before the emperor (Acts 25:1-20). The rest of the book of Acts tells how Paul eventually reached Rome and had to wait another two years before his case was heard. No details of Paul’s trial in Rome are known, but Nero, who was emperor when Paul arrived, tried very few cases himself. He appointed judges to handle appeals cases such as Paul’s, so it is unlikely that Paul was actually tried by Nero.<\/p>\n<p>The right of appeal to the emperor was not the only legal right possessed by Roman citizens. They were also protected from being beaten without a trial, a right asserted by Paul in Philippi and Jerusalem (Acts 16:37; 22:24-29).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Avenger of Blood; Cities of Refuge; Civil Law and Justice; Criminal Law and Punishment; Sanhedrin.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>COURTS AND TRIALS<\/h3>\n<p>Legal disputes were as much a part of life in Bible times as they are today. The ways that courts operated and trials were conducted, however, were quite different. Unless those customs are understood, modern readers of the Bible, thinking of contemporary legal procedures, may misunderstand the judicial accounts contained in the Bible.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLegalProcedures\">Old Testament Legal Procedures<\/p>\n<h5>Exodus to Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy contain most of the law in the OT, plus much other information about courts and legal procedures. Those books reveal how trials were conducted before Israel had kings. Certain changes in the legal system occurring after the establishment of the monarchy (c. 1000 <span>BC<\/span>) are described in other OT books.<\/p>\n<p>The OT depicts God as supreme lawgiver and judge, with Moses and later the kings as God’s deputies. But Moses did not create the law or decide the most difficult cases, which were referred directly to God for the decision (see Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36; 27:1-11). When disputes arose between Israel’s leaders, God intervened, judging the guilty party directly (Nm 16–17). Thus law is seen in the OT as a divine revelation, not a human creation, as it was regarded in ancient Babylon.<\/p>\n<p>Usually it was not necessary to seek God’s direct guidance; precedent was sufficient. Elders were appointed in Israel to serve as judges of all but the most serious cases, relieving Moses of the burden of judging all the people himself (Ex 18:13-27). Deuteronomy 16:18 specifies that “judges” be appointed in every town; in other passages those responsible for punishing criminals are called “the elders” (Dt 19:12). The local judges were obviously nonprofessionals selected from the most respected members of each tribe or village. Difficult cases were referred to a central court of justice to be decided by the priests and, in the period of the judges, by the civil and military leader (17:8-12). Deborah and Samuel were both examples of such “judges of Israel.” Samuel even conducted a circuit court in a number of different centers (Jgs 4:4-5; 1 Sm 7:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>In Israel, as in other ancient societies, private prosecution was the norm. An individual with a grievance had to bring the case before the court. Only in situations of idolatry or other serious religious crimes were public prosecutions instituted (Dt 13; 17:2-7). Even in murder cases prosecution was left in the hands of the victim’s relatives. One relative, called the “avenger of blood,” had to pursue the alleged murderer to the nearest city of refuge, where a trial was held (Nm 35:10-34; Dt 19:1-13).<\/p>\n<p>Trials were held in a public place, such as the open space near a city gate (Dt 21:19). During the trial, the judges were seated, but the parties to the dispute and the witnesses stood. At least two witnesses were required to convict (19:15). They had to be eyewitnesses who had caught the accused red-handed. Where such clear-cut evidence was lacking (for example in disputes over ownership), the litigants could take an oath to demonstrate their honesty (Ex 22:8-13). If a husband suspected his wife of infidelity but had no proof, he could require her to undergo an ordeal of drinking “bitter water” to demonstrate her innocence (Nm 5:6-31).<\/p>\n<p>When all the evidence had been presented, the judges gave their verdict. Those who had brought the accusation had the duty of enforcing the court’s sentence. Thus, a witness of idolatry had to throw the first stone at the guilty person’s execution (Dt 17:7). Certain administrative officials may have had the job of writing down the court’s decision and seeing that it was enforced (16:18). At times it may have been difficult for people to uphold their legal rights if their opponent came from a strong and wealthy family.<\/p>\n<h5>Other Old Testament Books<\/h5>\n<p>When Israel became a kingdom, certain changes were made in its judicial system. Most obviously, the king became the supreme judge who dealt with the most difficult cases. Solomon demonstrated his great wisdom in adjudicating between two women who both claimed to be the mother of a particular baby (1 Kgs 3:16-28). Kings, who had all the power necessary to enforce their decisions, were expected to use it to help the weak members of society, such as orphans and widows (Ps 72:12).<\/p>\n<p>In practice, however, Israel’s kings did not always live up to that ideal. Absalom sowed the seeds of a revolution by telling those who came to the royal court that his father, King David, did not administer justice well (2 Sm 15:1-6). One notable trial in the OT illustrates how royal judicial powers could be completely misused by unscrupulous rulers. Naboth was put to death on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy so that King Ahab could extend his palace grounds by taking over Naboth’s vineyard. Though the charge was false, the trial followed correct legal procedures. Two scoundrels were found to give evidence that they had heard Naboth curse God and the king (1 Kgs 21:10); one witness would have been insufficient to secure conviction. Naboth was tried by the elders of the city in a public place. After being convicted he was taken outside the city and executed (vv 11-13). In other trials the prophet Jeremiah was charged with subversive activities more than once (Jer 26; 37:11–38:28).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets sometimes pictured God as taking Israel to court to answer for the nation’s misdeeds. God would list Israel’s sins and invite the people to explain their behavior. Sometimes heaven and earth, or the mountains, were called to be witnesses confirming the truth of God’s accusations. Finally judgment was pronounced (e.g., Is 1:2-26; 43; Jer 2:4-37; Mi 6).<\/p>\n<p>A theme running through the book of Job is Job’s request for a trial. Job thought that if he were given a fair hearing, his innocence would be demonstrated and God would stop causing him so much suffering (cf. Jb 13:23). Eventually God heeded Job’s request and a long cross-examination began, finally reducing Job to silence (42:1-6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentLegalProcedures\">New Testament Legal Procedures<\/p>\n<p>Numerous trials occur in the NT. Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin (the supreme Jewish religious court) and also by the Roman governor. The book of Acts mentions various court actions designed to stop the spread of Christianity. Luke, the author of Acts, presents a vivid and accurate description of how courts operated in provinces of the Roman Empire. Acts reaches a climax with Paul traveling to Rome to have his case heard by the Roman emperor Nero. Legal procedures in Roman courts were governed by complicated rules broadly resembling modern judicial technicalities. Serious crime was handled by public prosecutors, and trials were usually conducted by one judge. There were lawyers for the prosecution and lawyers for the defense.<\/p>\n<p>In Judea and other provinces of the empire, the local legal system was not suppressed. Traditional Jewish courts were allowed to try minor and religious offenses (Acts 4; 6:12–7:60) but were not permitted to handle serious cases where the death penalty might be involved. For that reason, when the Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God and the Messiah, they had to transfer the case to Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator (governor) of Judea. The Jews considered blasphemy worthy of death, but as they admitted to Pilate, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death” (Jn 18:31, <span>rsv<\/span>). The rule throughout the Roman Empire was that only governors could pronounce the death sentence. Execution of the apostle James by Jewish authorities, mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus, took place during an interregnum between two governors. The stoning of Stephen was done in haste, without the consent of Pilate (Acts 7).<\/p>\n<h5>The Trials of Jesus<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus was first tried by the Sanhedrin, presided over by the high priest. By later standards of Jewish legal practice, that trial was somewhat irregular. For example, it seems to have been held both at night and on the eve of a festival. Criminal trials were not supposed to take place at such times. It is uncertain that those rules existed in Jesus’ day, but even if they did, little can be made of that technicality since the Jewish court had no power to carry out its sentence.<\/p>\n<p>After conviction by the Sanhedrin, Jesus was taken to Pilate, whose Jerusalem residence, the old royal palace called the Praetorium, was on the western side of the city near the modern Jaffa Gate. The Romans were unlikely to sentence anyone to death in a religious matter, so the Jewish authorities presented their charges against Jesus in political language: he violated the law by “forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king” (Lk 23:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). Perhaps sensing something false about those charges (they were actually religious rather than political), Pilate sent Jesus to Herod, the ruler of Galilee, who was in Jerusalem at the time. Pilate, who did not have to send Galileans to Herod for trial, probably saw this as a means of avoiding an uncomfortable decision. Herod, however, pronounced Jesus innocent and returned him to Pilate.<\/p>\n<p>Pilate offered to give Jesus a disciplinary beating traditionally given to troublemakers as a warning to behave themselves in the future (Lk 23:16). But that did not satisfy Jesus’ accusers, who pressed the charge of insurrection, threatening to report Pilate to the emperor if he did not convict Jesus. Pilate, who had not been a very successful governor, feared official complaints about his administration, so the threat worked. He sentenced Jesus to be crucified on the charge of being king of the Jews. The heavy scourging that preceded the Crucifixion was never a punishment by itself but was a frequent accompaniment to other punishments. Another feature of Roman legal practice illustrated in the Gospels was the division of Jesus’ clothes among the soldiers; executioners were allowed to keep such personal effects as a fringe benefit.<\/p>\n<h5>The Trials of the Apostle Paul<\/h5>\n<p>Paul’s trials recorded in the book of Acts also reflect the division between Jewish and Roman authority in legal matters. When arrested, Paul had a preliminary hearing before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23). He was then transferred to the governor for a formal trial in Caesarea, the governor’s usual headquarters. There he was tried before Felix, who adjourned the case for two years until a new governor could be appointed. Luke reported that Felix (another unpopular governor) did that to please the Jews, but it was quite common for governors to leave cases to be dealt with by their successors.<\/p>\n<p>When Festus, the new governor, arrived, he suggested that Paul be tried in Jerusalem. Paul, disliking the prospect of being tried there, exercised his right as a Roman citizen to be tried in Rome before the emperor (Acts 25:1-20). The rest of the book of Acts tells how Paul eventually reached Rome and had to wait another two years before his case was heard. No details of Paul’s trial in Rome are known, but Nero, who was emperor when Paul arrived, tried very few cases himself. He appointed judges to handle appeals cases such as Paul’s, so it is unlikely that Paul was actually tried by Nero.<\/p>\n<p>The right of appeal to the emperor was not the only legal right possessed by Roman citizens. They were also protected from being beaten without a trial, a right asserted by Paul in Philippi and Jerusalem (Acts 16:37; 22:24-29).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Avenger of Blood; Cities of Refuge; Civil Law and Justice; Criminal Law and Punishment; Sanhedrin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"COURTS AND TRIALS Legal disputes were as much a part of life in Bible times as they are today. The ways that courts operated and trials were conducted, however, were quite different. Unless those customs are understood, modern readers of the Bible, thinking of contemporary legal procedures, may misunderstand the judicial accounts contained in the Bible. Old Testament Legal Procedures Exodus to Deuteronomy The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy contain most of the law in the ...","summary_en":"COURTS AND TRIALS Legal disputes were as much a part of life in Bible times as they are today. The ways that courts operated and trials were conducted, however, were quite different. Unless those customs are understood, modern readers of the Bible, thinking of contemporary legal procedures, may misunderstand the judicial accounts contained in the Bible. Old Testament Legal Procedures Exodus to Deuteronomy The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy contain most of the law in the ...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44452,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:6","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:6<\/strong> Doing something wrong to another human being is the same as betraying—literally <em>breaking faith with<\/em>—the Lord (cp. 5:8). A right relationship with God produces right relationships with people; a wrong relationship with others shows a wrong relationship with the Lord.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:6<\/strong> Doing something wrong to another human being is the same as betraying—literally <em>breaking faith with<\/em>—the Lord (cp. 5:8). A right relationship with God produces right relationships with people; a wrong relationship with others shows a wrong relationship with the Lord.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:6 Doing something wrong to another human being is the same as betraying—literally breaking faith with—the Lord (cp. 5:8). A right relationship with God produces right relationships with people; a wrong relationship with others shows a wrong relationship with the Lord.","summary_en":"5:6 Doing something wrong to another human being is the same as betraying—literally breaking faith with—the Lord (cp. 5:8). A right relationship with God produces right relationships with people; a wrong relationship with others shows a wrong relationship with the Lord.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72078,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:6","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:6<\/strong> Doing something wrong to another human being is the same as betraying—literally <em>breaking faith with<\/em>—the Lord (cp. 5:8). A right relationship with God produces right relationships with people; a wrong relationship with others shows a wrong relationship with the Lord.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:6<\/strong> Doing something wrong to another human being is the same as betraying—literally <em>breaking faith with<\/em>—the Lord (cp. 5:8). A right relationship with God produces right relationships with people; a wrong relationship with others shows a wrong relationship with the Lord.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:6 Doing something wrong to another human being is the same as betraying—literally breaking faith with—the Lord (cp. 5:8). A right relationship with God produces right relationships with people; a wrong relationship with others shows a wrong relationship with the Lord.","summary_en":"5:6 Doing something wrong to another human being is the same as betraying—literally breaking faith with—the Lord (cp. 5:8). A right relationship with God produces right relationships with people; a wrong relationship with others shows a wrong relationship with the Lord.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99704,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:6","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:6<\/strong> Doing something wrong to another human being is the same as betraying—literally <em>breaking faith with<\/em>—the Lord (cp. 5:8). A right relationship with God produces right relationships with people; a wrong relationship with others shows a wrong relationship with the Lord.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:6<\/strong> Doing something wrong to another human being is the same as betraying—literally <em>breaking faith with<\/em>—the Lord (cp. 5:8). A right relationship with God produces right relationships with people; a wrong relationship with others shows a wrong relationship with the Lord.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:6 Doing something wrong to another human being is the same as betraying—literally breaking faith with—the Lord (cp. 5:8). A right relationship with God produces right relationships with people; a wrong relationship with others shows a wrong relationship with the Lord.","summary_en":"5:6 Doing something wrong to another human being is the same as betraying—literally breaking faith with—the Lord (cp. 5:8). A right relationship with God produces right relationships with people; a wrong relationship with others shows a wrong relationship with the Lord.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127330,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:6","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:6<\/strong> Doing something wrong to another human being is the same as betraying—literally <em>breaking faith with<\/em>—the Lord (cp. 5:8). A right relationship with God produces right relationships with people; a wrong relationship with others shows a wrong relationship with the Lord.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:6<\/strong> Doing something wrong to another human being is the same as betraying—literally <em>breaking faith with<\/em>—the Lord (cp. 5:8). A right relationship with God produces right relationships with people; a wrong relationship with others shows a wrong relationship with the Lord.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:6 Doing something wrong to another human being is the same as betraying—literally breaking faith with—the Lord (cp. 5:8). A right relationship with God produces right relationships with people; a wrong relationship with others shows a wrong relationship with the Lord.","summary_en":"5:6 Doing something wrong to another human being is the same as betraying—literally breaking faith with—the Lord (cp. 5:8). A right relationship with God produces right relationships with people; a wrong relationship with others shows a wrong relationship with the Lord.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"7":[{"id":44453,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:7","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:7<\/strong> This <em>restitution<\/em> and the guilt offering (see Lev 6–7) associated with the sin was intended to inculcate a heightened sense of individual responsibility to God’s holiness.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:7<\/strong> This <em>restitution<\/em> and the guilt offering (see Lev 6–7) associated with the sin was intended to inculcate a heightened sense of individual responsibility to God’s holiness.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:7 This restitution and the guilt offering (see Lev 6–7) associated with the sin was intended to inculcate a heightened sense of individual responsibility to God’s holiness.","summary_en":"5:7 This restitution and the guilt offering (see Lev 6–7) associated with the sin was intended to inculcate a heightened sense of individual responsibility to God’s holiness.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72079,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:7","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:7<\/strong> This <em>restitution<\/em> and the guilt offering (see Lev 6–7) associated with the sin was intended to inculcate a heightened sense of individual responsibility to God’s holiness.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:7<\/strong> This <em>restitution<\/em> and the guilt offering (see Lev 6–7) associated with the sin was intended to inculcate a heightened sense of individual responsibility to God’s holiness.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:7 This restitution and the guilt offering (see Lev 6–7) associated with the sin was intended to inculcate a heightened sense of individual responsibility to God’s holiness.","summary_en":"5:7 This restitution and the guilt offering (see Lev 6–7) associated with the sin was intended to inculcate a heightened sense of individual responsibility to God’s holiness.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99705,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:7","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:7<\/strong> This <em>restitution<\/em> and the guilt offering (see Lev 6–7) associated with the sin was intended to inculcate a heightened sense of individual responsibility to God’s holiness.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:7<\/strong> This <em>restitution<\/em> and the guilt offering (see Lev 6–7) associated with the sin was intended to inculcate a heightened sense of individual responsibility to God’s holiness.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:7 This restitution and the guilt offering (see Lev 6–7) associated with the sin was intended to inculcate a heightened sense of individual responsibility to God’s holiness.","summary_en":"5:7 This restitution and the guilt offering (see Lev 6–7) associated with the sin was intended to inculcate a heightened sense of individual responsibility to God’s holiness.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127331,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:7","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:7<\/strong> This <em>restitution<\/em> and the guilt offering (see Lev 6–7) associated with the sin was intended to inculcate a heightened sense of individual responsibility to God’s holiness.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:7<\/strong> This <em>restitution<\/em> and the guilt offering (see Lev 6–7) associated with the sin was intended to inculcate a heightened sense of individual responsibility to God’s holiness.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:7 This restitution and the guilt offering (see Lev 6–7) associated with the sin was intended to inculcate a heightened sense of individual responsibility to God’s holiness.","summary_en":"5:7 This restitution and the guilt offering (see Lev 6–7) associated with the sin was intended to inculcate a heightened sense of individual responsibility to God’s holiness.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"8":[{"id":44454,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:8","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:8<\/strong> Because sin is ultimately against God (5:6; Ps 51:4), the perpetrator had a moral obligation to make restitution <em>to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>,<\/em> who authorized the human victims of the sin to receive that payment; if none were living, the Lord received payment through the priest. Perpetrators also had to offer a valuable sacrifice that restored their ritual purity (Num 5:1-4) and their relationship with God. • <em>purified and made right with the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>:<\/em> See study note on Lev 1:4.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:8<\/strong> Because sin is ultimately against God (5:6; Ps 51:4), the perpetrator had a moral obligation to make restitution <em>to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>,<\/em> who authorized the human victims of the sin to receive that payment; if none were living, the Lord received payment through the priest. Perpetrators also had to offer a valuable sacrifice that restored their ritual purity (Num 5:1-4) and their relationship with God. • <em>purified and made right with the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>:<\/em> See study note on Lev 1:4.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:8 Because sin is ultimately against God (5:6; Ps 51:4), the perpetrator had a moral obligation to make restitution to the Lord, who authorized the human victims of the sin to receive that payment; if none were living, the Lord received payment through the priest. Perpetrators also had to offer a valuable sacrifice that restored their ritual purity (Num 5:1-4) and their relationship with God. • purified and made right with the Lord: See study note on Lev 1:4.","summary_en":"5:8 Because sin is ultimately against God (5:6; Ps 51:4), the perpetrator had a moral obligation to make restitution to the Lord, who authorized the human victims of the sin to receive that payment; if none were living, the Lord received payment through the priest. Perpetrators also had to offer a valuable sacrifice that restored their ritual purity (Num 5:1-4) and their relationship with God. • purified and made right with the Lord: See study note on Lev 1:4.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72080,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:8","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:8<\/strong> Because sin is ultimately against God (5:6; Ps 51:4), the perpetrator had a moral obligation to make restitution <em>to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>,<\/em> who authorized the human victims of the sin to receive that payment; if none were living, the Lord received payment through the priest. Perpetrators also had to offer a valuable sacrifice that restored their ritual purity (Num 5:1-4) and their relationship with God. • <em>purified and made right with the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>:<\/em> See study note on Lev 1:4.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:8<\/strong> Because sin is ultimately against God (5:6; Ps 51:4), the perpetrator had a moral obligation to make restitution <em>to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>,<\/em> who authorized the human victims of the sin to receive that payment; if none were living, the Lord received payment through the priest. Perpetrators also had to offer a valuable sacrifice that restored their ritual purity (Num 5:1-4) and their relationship with God. • <em>purified and made right with the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>:<\/em> See study note on Lev 1:4.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:8 Because sin is ultimately against God (5:6; Ps 51:4), the perpetrator had a moral obligation to make restitution to the Lord, who authorized the human victims of the sin to receive that payment; if none were living, the Lord received payment through the priest. Perpetrators also had to offer a valuable sacrifice that restored their ritual purity (Num 5:1-4) and their relationship with God. • purified and made right with the Lord: See study note on Lev 1:4.","summary_en":"5:8 Because sin is ultimately against God (5:6; Ps 51:4), the perpetrator had a moral obligation to make restitution to the Lord, who authorized the human victims of the sin to receive that payment; if none were living, the Lord received payment through the priest. Perpetrators also had to offer a valuable sacrifice that restored their ritual purity (Num 5:1-4) and their relationship with God. • purified and made right with the Lord: See study note on Lev 1:4.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99706,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:8","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:8<\/strong> Because sin is ultimately against God (5:6; Ps 51:4), the perpetrator had a moral obligation to make restitution <em>to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>,<\/em> who authorized the human victims of the sin to receive that payment; if none were living, the Lord received payment through the priest. Perpetrators also had to offer a valuable sacrifice that restored their ritual purity (Num 5:1-4) and their relationship with God. • <em>purified and made right with the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>:<\/em> See study note on Lev 1:4.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:8<\/strong> Because sin is ultimately against God (5:6; Ps 51:4), the perpetrator had a moral obligation to make restitution <em>to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>,<\/em> who authorized the human victims of the sin to receive that payment; if none were living, the Lord received payment through the priest. Perpetrators also had to offer a valuable sacrifice that restored their ritual purity (Num 5:1-4) and their relationship with God. • <em>purified and made right with the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>:<\/em> See study note on Lev 1:4.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:8 Because sin is ultimately against God (5:6; Ps 51:4), the perpetrator had a moral obligation to make restitution to the Lord, who authorized the human victims of the sin to receive that payment; if none were living, the Lord received payment through the priest. Perpetrators also had to offer a valuable sacrifice that restored their ritual purity (Num 5:1-4) and their relationship with God. • purified and made right with the Lord: See study note on Lev 1:4.","summary_en":"5:8 Because sin is ultimately against God (5:6; Ps 51:4), the perpetrator had a moral obligation to make restitution to the Lord, who authorized the human victims of the sin to receive that payment; if none were living, the Lord received payment through the priest. Perpetrators also had to offer a valuable sacrifice that restored their ritual purity (Num 5:1-4) and their relationship with God. • purified and made right with the Lord: See study note on Lev 1:4.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127332,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:8","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:8<\/strong> Because sin is ultimately against God (5:6; Ps 51:4), the perpetrator had a moral obligation to make restitution <em>to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>,<\/em> who authorized the human victims of the sin to receive that payment; if none were living, the Lord received payment through the priest. Perpetrators also had to offer a valuable sacrifice that restored their ritual purity (Num 5:1-4) and their relationship with God. • <em>purified and made right with the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>:<\/em> See study note on Lev 1:4.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:8<\/strong> Because sin is ultimately against God (5:6; Ps 51:4), the perpetrator had a moral obligation to make restitution <em>to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>,<\/em> who authorized the human victims of the sin to receive that payment; if none were living, the Lord received payment through the priest. Perpetrators also had to offer a valuable sacrifice that restored their ritual purity (Num 5:1-4) and their relationship with God. • <em>purified and made right with the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>:<\/em> See study note on Lev 1:4.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:8 Because sin is ultimately against God (5:6; Ps 51:4), the perpetrator had a moral obligation to make restitution to the Lord, who authorized the human victims of the sin to receive that payment; if none were living, the Lord received payment through the priest. Perpetrators also had to offer a valuable sacrifice that restored their ritual purity (Num 5:1-4) and their relationship with God. • purified and made right with the Lord: See study note on Lev 1:4.","summary_en":"5:8 Because sin is ultimately against God (5:6; Ps 51:4), the perpetrator had a moral obligation to make restitution to the Lord, who authorized the human victims of the sin to receive that payment; if none were living, the Lord received payment through the priest. Perpetrators also had to offer a valuable sacrifice that restored their ritual purity (Num 5:1-4) and their relationship with God. • purified and made right with the Lord: See study note on Lev 1:4.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"9":[{"id":44455,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:9","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:9-10<\/strong> Priests supported their families partly by receiving a share of the sacrifices. In some instances, surplus sacrifices could be sold to provide funds for the priesthood, for maintaining the sanctuary, and for other religious needs (cp. 1 Cor 8:4-13).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:9-10<\/strong> Priests supported their families partly by receiving a share of the sacrifices. In some instances, surplus sacrifices could be sold to provide funds for the priesthood, for maintaining the sanctuary, and for other religious needs (cp. 1 Cor 8:4-13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:9-10 Priests supported their families partly by receiving a share of the sacrifices. In some instances, surplus sacrifices could be sold to provide funds for the priesthood, for maintaining the sanctuary, and for other religious needs (cp. 1 Cor 8:4-13).","summary_en":"5:9-10 Priests supported their families partly by receiving a share of the sacrifices. In some instances, surplus sacrifices could be sold to provide funds for the priesthood, for maintaining the sanctuary, and for other religious needs (cp. 1 Cor 8:4-13).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72081,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:9","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:9-10<\/strong> Priests supported their families partly by receiving a share of the sacrifices. In some instances, surplus sacrifices could be sold to provide funds for the priesthood, for maintaining the sanctuary, and for other religious needs (cp. 1 Cor 8:4-13).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:9-10<\/strong> Priests supported their families partly by receiving a share of the sacrifices. In some instances, surplus sacrifices could be sold to provide funds for the priesthood, for maintaining the sanctuary, and for other religious needs (cp. 1 Cor 8:4-13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:9-10 Priests supported their families partly by receiving a share of the sacrifices. In some instances, surplus sacrifices could be sold to provide funds for the priesthood, for maintaining the sanctuary, and for other religious needs (cp. 1 Cor 8:4-13).","summary_en":"5:9-10 Priests supported their families partly by receiving a share of the sacrifices. In some instances, surplus sacrifices could be sold to provide funds for the priesthood, for maintaining the sanctuary, and for other religious needs (cp. 1 Cor 8:4-13).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99707,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:9","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:9-10<\/strong> Priests supported their families partly by receiving a share of the sacrifices. In some instances, surplus sacrifices could be sold to provide funds for the priesthood, for maintaining the sanctuary, and for other religious needs (cp. 1 Cor 8:4-13).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:9-10<\/strong> Priests supported their families partly by receiving a share of the sacrifices. In some instances, surplus sacrifices could be sold to provide funds for the priesthood, for maintaining the sanctuary, and for other religious needs (cp. 1 Cor 8:4-13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:9-10 Priests supported their families partly by receiving a share of the sacrifices. In some instances, surplus sacrifices could be sold to provide funds for the priesthood, for maintaining the sanctuary, and for other religious needs (cp. 1 Cor 8:4-13).","summary_en":"5:9-10 Priests supported their families partly by receiving a share of the sacrifices. In some instances, surplus sacrifices could be sold to provide funds for the priesthood, for maintaining the sanctuary, and for other religious needs (cp. 1 Cor 8:4-13).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127333,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:9","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:9-10<\/strong> Priests supported their families partly by receiving a share of the sacrifices. In some instances, surplus sacrifices could be sold to provide funds for the priesthood, for maintaining the sanctuary, and for other religious needs (cp. 1 Cor 8:4-13).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:9-10<\/strong> Priests supported their families partly by receiving a share of the sacrifices. In some instances, surplus sacrifices could be sold to provide funds for the priesthood, for maintaining the sanctuary, and for other religious needs (cp. 1 Cor 8:4-13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:9-10 Priests supported their families partly by receiving a share of the sacrifices. In some instances, surplus sacrifices could be sold to provide funds for the priesthood, for maintaining the sanctuary, and for other religious needs (cp. 1 Cor 8:4-13).","summary_en":"5:9-10 Priests supported their families partly by receiving a share of the sacrifices. In some instances, surplus sacrifices could be sold to provide funds for the priesthood, for maintaining the sanctuary, and for other religious needs (cp. 1 Cor 8:4-13).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"11":[{"id":693,"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":5155,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Water of Bitterness or Jealousy*","title_en":"Water of Bitterness or Jealousy*","content_ro":"<h3>BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, W<span>ater of<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verdict. The premise was that a higher power who knew the guilt or innocence of the accused would act to influence the outcome appropriately.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel, as in many other ancient societies, women had few rights. An Israelite husband could resort to the trial procedure when he had no evidence of his wife’s unfaithfulness but simply had a “spirit of jealousy” concerning her (Nm 5:11-14). Very likely a pregnant wife would be subjected to the ritual if her husband suspected the unborn child was not his own.<\/p>\n<p>The suspicious husband brought his wife to the priest with a special offering of a coarse barley meal (Nm 5:15; cf. Lv 2; 5:11). The priest would take the woman and “set her before the Lord,” mix “holy water” (probably from the tabernacle laver or basin) with dirt from the tabernacle floor, unbind the woman’s hair (perhaps as a sign of shame), and place some of the barley meal offering in her hands (Nm 5:16-18). Then the priest made her swear an oath asserting that, if she had been unfaithful, drinking the “water of bitterness” would bring a curse upon her. She gave assent by saying “Amen, Amen” (vv 19-22). Somehow, after writing out the words of the curse, the priest washed them off into the water. After making a ceremonial offering of a handful of barley meal, the priest made the woman drink the water (vv 23-26). The effect of a guilty verdict was evidenced by bitter suffering, causing the woman to become infertile (v 27).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, W<span>ater of<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verdict. The premise was that a higher power who knew the guilt or innocence of the accused would act to influence the outcome appropriately.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel, as in many other ancient societies, women had few rights. An Israelite husband could resort to the trial procedure when he had no evidence of his wife’s unfaithfulness but simply had a “spirit of jealousy” concerning her (Nm 5:11-14). Very likely a pregnant wife would be subjected to the ritual if her husband suspected the unborn child was not his own.<\/p>\n<p>The suspicious husband brought his wife to the priest with a special offering of a coarse barley meal (Nm 5:15; cf. Lv 2; 5:11). The priest would take the woman and “set her before the Lord,” mix “holy water” (probably from the tabernacle laver or basin) with dirt from the tabernacle floor, unbind the woman’s hair (perhaps as a sign of shame), and place some of the barley meal offering in her hands (Nm 5:16-18). Then the priest made her swear an oath asserting that, if she had been unfaithful, drinking the “water of bitterness” would bring a curse upon her. She gave assent by saying “Amen, Amen” (vv 19-22). Somehow, after writing out the words of the curse, the priest washed them off into the water. After making a ceremonial offering of a handful of barley meal, the priest made the woman drink the water (vv 23-26). The effect of a guilty verdict was evidenced by bitter suffering, causing the woman to become infertile (v 27).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, Water of OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verd...","summary_en":"BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, Water of OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verd...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":6797,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Regulations concerning Cleanness and Uncleanness","title_en":"and Uncleanness, Regulations concerning, Cleanness","content_ro":"<h3>CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS, Regulations Concerning<\/h3>\n<p>Aspect of Hebrew religion having physical, ceremonial, moral, and spiritual significance. Though these senses of clean and unclean can be distinguished with reference to their contexts, they also merge into and illustrate each other; the physical and ceremonial contexts point to a moral state of the worshiper and to a spiritual relationship between God and his people.<\/p>\n<p>The OT vision of a people’s relationship with God is along moral and personal lines—God’s personal nature being expressed in his giving of the law to Moses. The personal and uniquely consistent character of Israel’s Lord made him morally a completely different being from the many gods of pagan cultures. Unlike the Lord, the Baals of the Canaanites were capricious and vicious; nobody expected them to be ethically consistent. Israel’s Lord, on the other hand, could be trusted to keep his word (a verbal communication through his chosen prophets). Nobody, not even the high priest or the king, was above the law, which expressed not only God’s character but also his sovereign will for the individual and the nation. His moral consistency carried over into his miraculous interventions into history to protect his people, to judge them and their enemies, and to redeem humanity itself.<\/p>\n<p>Cleanness as defined in the book of Leviticus, therefore, was always conditioned by the presence of the personal God who gave the law. As the people sought to approach the Lord, they necessarily did so on his terms and therefore within the framework of the cultic ceremonies he had prescribed. Details of the Levitical ceremonies were designed to illustrate the moral implications of the sinner’s approach to God and God’s provision for his people to become morally clean in his sight.<\/p>\n<p>The meaning of the Levitical system was stated clearly in the psalmist’s words: “Who shall ascend the hill of the <span>Lord<\/span>? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully” (Ps 24:3-4, <span>rsv<\/span>). One’s state of cleanness depends not only on external actions but also on an internal relationship with God. As a result, the sinner’s inability to satisfy the moral demands of a holy God leads to his or her complete dependence on God and on God’s provision for satisfying his own demands. That provision was detailed in the law.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Early History<\/p>\n<p>• Levitical Prescriptions<\/p>\n<p>• Purification Rites<\/p>\n<p>• New Testament Perspective<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"EarlyHistory\">Early History<\/p>\n<h5>Gentile Religious Background<\/h5>\n<p>The gentile conscience was no doubt a strong influence on the development of ethnic notions of clean and unclean. The subjective sense of sin’s uncleanness is universally encountered in one form or another in the literature of every great religion, whatever explanation is given for it. Many religions have rites of purification based on water and washings. The Hebrews’ ritual avoidance of certain objects, some because of their holiness and others because of their unholiness, finds an analogy in the taboos of many primitive religions, including some of those with which the early Hebrews came into contact.<\/p>\n<p>The similarities between the Hebrew and other ancient religions are easily established by superficial comparison. It would be surprising if there were none. Those differences that give biblical religion its distinctive character, however, must be accounted for.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LeviticalPrescriptions\">Levitical Prescriptions<\/p>\n<h5>Ceremonial and Moral Law<\/h5>\n<p>The relationship between the external ceremonial details of the Mosaic law and the internally directed moral requirements of such parts of it as the Ten Commandments is one of the fundamental issues of OT theology. It is possible to demonstrate that, throughout the OT, uncleanness and sin are virtually synonymous. In many passages sin is described as uncleanness (e.g., Lv 16:16, 30; the ordeal of the bitter water in Nm 5:11-28; Zec 13:1).<\/p>\n<p>The relationship between ceremonial and moral cleanness can be illustrated from passages mentioning clean hands on the one hand (2 Sm 22:21; Jb 17:9; 22:30) and a clean heart on the other (Pss 24:4; 51:10; 73:13; Prv 20:9). The prophet Isaiah felt convicted of “unclean lips” when he was in God’s presence; a purifying coal, perhaps representing forgiveness and atonement, cleansed him (Is 6:5-7). In many passages cleanness represents innocence before God (Jb 11:4; 33:9; Ps 51:7-10; Prv 20:9), and uncleanness is said to come from sin (Ps 51:2; Is 1:16; 64:6).<\/p>\n<h5>Causes of Uncleanness<\/h5>\n<p>From the Mosaic law a number of causes of uncleanness can be derived.<\/p>\n<p>1. Some foods were not to be eaten. Various laws concerning animals make a “distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten” (Lv 11:47, <span>rsv<\/span>). Permitted food was what was acceptable to God (see also Dt 14:3-21; Acts 15:28-29).<\/p>\n<li>2. Diseases, especially leprosy, produced an unclean state (Lv 13–14). The story of Naaman refers to leprous defilement (2 Kgs 5:1-14). The Gospels refer often to lepers (e.g., Mt 8:1-4; 10:8; 11:5; Lk 4:27). Many swellings, sores, and rashes were included under that heading, including Hansen’s disease (modern leprosy). The defilement of disease included all things touched by a diseased person (Lv 14:33-57).<\/li>\n<li>3. Bodily discharges were unclean, and contact with them defiled a person for various periods of time. Emission of semen produced uncleanness until the evening, whether in intercourse (Lv 15:16-18) or inadvertently during the night (Dt 23:10). An unnatural discharge, since it usually indicated disease, made a person unclean for seven days after it had ceased (Lv 15:1-15). Menstruation also produced uncleanness lasting seven days after it ceased (Lv 15:19-24; 2 Sm 11:4). Sexual intercourse during that time made both partners unclean (Lv 15:19-24; 20:18). Contact with the spittle of an unclean person produced uncleanness for a day (15:8).<\/li>\n<li>4. Dead bodies, or even parts of them such as bone, caused uncleanness (Nm 19:16). Persons who touched a dead body were unclean for a month, and only after that period could they celebrate their own Passover if they had missed it (9:6-11). The high priest could not even bury his own parents because of his special ritual responsibilities (Lv 21:10-11; cf. Nm 6:6-7; Hg 2:13; Mt 23:27).<\/li>\n<li>5. Idolatry was the greatest source of spiritual defilement. The entire nation of Israel was defiled because of it (Ps 106:38; Is 30:22; Ez 36:25), as were the Gentiles (Jer 43:12). Consequently, contact with Gentiles was thought to produce defilement. The gospel’s universal appeal confronted that conviction (e.g., Jn 4:9; Acts 10:28; cf. Gal 2:11-14). Closely related to the defilement of idolatry was the defilement caused by unclean spirits (Zec 13:2; cf. Mt 10:1; Mk 1:23-27).<\/li>\n<h5>Laws about Objects<\/h5>\n<p>Certain laws illustrate the principle that uncleanness was transmitted much like a contagion. Dead bodies contaminated what they touched, as did dead insects and certain crawling things (Lv 11:29-38). It is interesting that dry grain, running springwater, and water in a cistern were expressly excluded from that law of contamination; perhaps otherwise, starvation would have resulted, dead insects and mice being found in grain and water every day in an agricultural community. Unclean pottery had to be broken, but wooden vessels merely required washing (Lv 15:12). Even uncovered pots in a house where a person had died became unclean (Nm 19:15); everyone who entered the house was unclean.<\/p>\n<p>Because of their idolatrous associations, the possessions of pagans were unclean; therefore, booty taken in war had to be cleansed by fire or washing (Nm 31:21-24). Clothing of wool, linen, or leather could contract unclean “leprosy” from diseased persons and had to be tested. If the leprous spots (greenish or reddish patches) spread after a test period, the garments had to be burned (Lv 13:47-59; 14:33-53).<\/p>\n<h5>Laws about Places<\/h5>\n<p>The land and people of Israel were holy; they could be defiled by the uncleanness of economic oppression or idolatry (Jos 22:17-19; Jer 13:27). Jerusalem was a holy city, but it could be defiled by the sins of its people (Ez 22:2-4; Lam 1:8) or by the blood of its slaughtered inhabitants (Lam 4:15).<\/p>\n<p>The temple could be defiled by unclean persons. It was necessary for Hezekiah to cleanse the temple after Ahaz’s idolatrous worship (2 Chr 29:15-19); Nehemiah had to cleanse the rooms in which Tobiah had been living (Neh 13:9). One of the functions of the Day of Atonement was removal of impurities transferred to the temple by the sins of the Israelites during the past year (Lv 16:16-19; 31-33).<\/p>\n<p>An unclean place received the pieces of a leprous house after its demolition (Lv 14:45). The valley of Hinnom became Jerusalem’s garbage dump in later years, giving rise to the visions of “Gehenna” as a place of eternal punishment in NT eschatology. Since the Israelite camp was a holy place, care was taken to bury human excrement outside its boundaries (Dt 23:12-14). The value of that simple expedient in preventing disease during military excursions can hardly be exaggerated, since plagues were a great scourge of ancient armies.<\/p>\n<h5>Laws about Food<\/h5>\n<p>Certain kinds of animals were unclean and thus could not be eaten (Lv 11; Dt 14:3-21). Animals that died of old age, disease, or injury, or had been wounded by predators, were unclean. Animals that did not both chew the cud and have a cloven hoof were unclean, a definition that included pigs, camels, badgers, and rabbits among others. Israelites could eat only those fish that had both fins and scales. Birds of prey and scavengers were unclean. All winged insects were unclean except hopping insects (locusts, grasshoppers, and crickets). A large classification of “crawling things” was prohibited, including worms, lizards, snakes, weasels, and mice. In addition to all those was the ancient prohibition against eating blood (Gn 9:4; Lv 17:14-15; Dt 12:16-23; Acts 15:28-29).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurificationRites\">Purification Rites<\/p>\n<h5>Purification by Lapse of Time<\/h5>\n<p>Secondary contamination could often be canceled simply by waiting until the evening (Lv 11:24) or for 7, 14, 40, or 80 days. Dead bodies contaminated what they touched for 7 days (Nm 19:11), as did menstruation (Lv 15:19). When a child was born, the mother’s unclean condition lasted 7 days for a boy and 14 days for a girl. An additional 33 days for a male child and 66 days for a female were required before the mother could touch any sacred thing.<\/p>\n<h5>Purification by Water<\/h5>\n<p>Contact with unclean things, such as bodily discharges, often required washing of hands and clothing, usually accompanied by the lapse of a day (Lv 15:5-11).<\/p>\n<h5>Purification by Ceremonial Substances<\/h5>\n<p>Ceremonial substances used in purification rites included the ashes of a red heifer mixed with water (Nm 19:1-10), and (in cases of leprosy) cedarwood, scarlet cloth, hyssop, and blood (Lv 14:2-9). When the altar was used in a purification ceremony, only blood was suitable, since the altar was the place of sacrifice for sin (Lv 16:18-19; Ez 43:20).<\/p>\n<h5>Purification by Sacrifice<\/h5>\n<p>Sacrifice was the ultimate source of both ritual and moral purification. All bodily discharges except sexual ones were purified by offerings of doves and pigeons (Lv 15:14-15, 29-30). Childbirth required a lamb and a bird (12:6). Poor people could offer birds in place of an animal (Lv 12:8; 14:21-32; Lk 2:24).<\/p>\n<p>In sacrifice, blood was symbolic of a life given and therefore a death experienced; the uncleanness of disease or sin was thought of as being transferred to the victim, thus removing the uncleanness (Lv 14:7). Sacrificial death, therefore, always had a substitutionary element. Only blood sacrifice could provide the moral cleansing necessary for sin itself; such sacrifice was therefore the basis of all cleansing, including that of disease.<\/p>\n<h5>Purification by Fire<\/h5>\n<p>Some contamination could be removed only by fire, such as contamination of metal pots (Nm 31:22-23). Incest was punishable not only by death but also by burning the bodies (Lv 20:14). Idolatry had to be put away by total destruction of the objects and by burning (Ex 32:20). Cities consecrated to pagan deities were to be burned.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentPerspective\">New Testament Perspective<\/p>\n<p>The NT did not reject the OT concept of clean and unclean, but rather reinterpreted it in a new context. It stressed in particular the moral sense of the concept as well as the identification of uncleanness with sin.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospels were written in the context of OT law and its Pharisaic and Sadducean accretions. Jesus obeyed the law but was often at odds with the practical casuistry (system) that had grown up around it. Jesus taught that true defilement came from the sinner’s heart and not from outside contamination (Mk 7:14-23; Lk 11:39-41). A central element in his teaching was his attack on the ceremonial externalism of the Pharisees. Thus it has been said that Jesus “internalized” the law. It would be more correct to say that he forced attention to the law’s demands on people’s inner lives.<\/p>\n<p>The intrinsic wickedness of demons is underscored by the use of the term “unclean spirit” throughout the Gospels. In fact, the word “unclean” itself always appears in the Gospels in the context of spirit, a detail that illustrates the NT shift of emphasis from ritual uncleanness to sin and its guilt.<\/p>\n<p>An important episode in the life of the early church came in Acts 10, when God taught the apostle Peter that Gentiles were not unclean in themselves and that Peter was obliged to receive them. The result was Cornelius’s conversion.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ assertion that uncleanness originates in the heart bore fruit in the apostle Paul’s doctrine of Christian freedom. Paul, a Pharisee who could say of himself that he had never broken an external law, came to see that nothing is unclean in itself (Rom 14:14-20). Throughout his epistles, cleanness is the result of obedience of the heart flowing from regeneration; it is based on the cleansing power of the Atonement (see Rom 6:19; 1 Thes 2:3-4, where uncleanness is strictly moral).<\/p>\n<p>Christ’s atonement was the final cleansing agent for sin and its moral results (Heb 9:14, 22; 1 Jn 1:7), doing in reality what the blood of bulls and goats only typified. Thus those who are washed in the blood of the Lamb (Rv 7:14) are seen as wearing clean white robes (15:6; 19:8-14). His blood, symbolizing the life given and the death died by the Son at the behest of the Father, satisfies the attributes of personal justice of the triune God. Because the personal character of a righteous Father was vindicated, the personal forgiveness of sinners is morally possible. God can be in history only what he is eternally: he is both just and the justifier of believers in Christ (Rom 3:24-26).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Baptism; Circumcision; Uncircumcision; Offerings and Sacrifices; Law, Biblical Concept of; Dietary Laws.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS, Regulations Concerning<\/h3>\n<p>Aspect of Hebrew religion having physical, ceremonial, moral, and spiritual significance. Though these senses of clean and unclean can be distinguished with reference to their contexts, they also merge into and illustrate each other; the physical and ceremonial contexts point to a moral state of the worshiper and to a spiritual relationship between God and his people.<\/p>\n<p>The OT vision of a people’s relationship with God is along moral and personal lines—God’s personal nature being expressed in his giving of the law to Moses. The personal and uniquely consistent character of Israel’s Lord made him morally a completely different being from the many gods of pagan cultures. Unlike the Lord, the Baals of the Canaanites were capricious and vicious; nobody expected them to be ethically consistent. Israel’s Lord, on the other hand, could be trusted to keep his word (a verbal communication through his chosen prophets). Nobody, not even the high priest or the king, was above the law, which expressed not only God’s character but also his sovereign will for the individual and the nation. His moral consistency carried over into his miraculous interventions into history to protect his people, to judge them and their enemies, and to redeem humanity itself.<\/p>\n<p>Cleanness as defined in the book of Leviticus, therefore, was always conditioned by the presence of the personal God who gave the law. As the people sought to approach the Lord, they necessarily did so on his terms and therefore within the framework of the cultic ceremonies he had prescribed. Details of the Levitical ceremonies were designed to illustrate the moral implications of the sinner’s approach to God and God’s provision for his people to become morally clean in his sight.<\/p>\n<p>The meaning of the Levitical system was stated clearly in the psalmist’s words: “Who shall ascend the hill of the <span>Lord<\/span>? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully” (Ps 24:3-4, <span>rsv<\/span>). One’s state of cleanness depends not only on external actions but also on an internal relationship with God. As a result, the sinner’s inability to satisfy the moral demands of a holy God leads to his or her complete dependence on God and on God’s provision for satisfying his own demands. That provision was detailed in the law.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Early History<\/p>\n<p>• Levitical Prescriptions<\/p>\n<p>• Purification Rites<\/p>\n<p>• New Testament Perspective<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"EarlyHistory\">Early History<\/p>\n<h5>Gentile Religious Background<\/h5>\n<p>The gentile conscience was no doubt a strong influence on the development of ethnic notions of clean and unclean. The subjective sense of sin’s uncleanness is universally encountered in one form or another in the literature of every great religion, whatever explanation is given for it. Many religions have rites of purification based on water and washings. The Hebrews’ ritual avoidance of certain objects, some because of their holiness and others because of their unholiness, finds an analogy in the taboos of many primitive religions, including some of those with which the early Hebrews came into contact.<\/p>\n<p>The similarities between the Hebrew and other ancient religions are easily established by superficial comparison. It would be surprising if there were none. Those differences that give biblical religion its distinctive character, however, must be accounted for.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LeviticalPrescriptions\">Levitical Prescriptions<\/p>\n<h5>Ceremonial and Moral Law<\/h5>\n<p>The relationship between the external ceremonial details of the Mosaic law and the internally directed moral requirements of such parts of it as the Ten Commandments is one of the fundamental issues of OT theology. It is possible to demonstrate that, throughout the OT, uncleanness and sin are virtually synonymous. In many passages sin is described as uncleanness (e.g., Lv 16:16, 30; the ordeal of the bitter water in Nm 5:11-28; Zec 13:1).<\/p>\n<p>The relationship between ceremonial and moral cleanness can be illustrated from passages mentioning clean hands on the one hand (2 Sm 22:21; Jb 17:9; 22:30) and a clean heart on the other (Pss 24:4; 51:10; 73:13; Prv 20:9). The prophet Isaiah felt convicted of “unclean lips” when he was in God’s presence; a purifying coal, perhaps representing forgiveness and atonement, cleansed him (Is 6:5-7). In many passages cleanness represents innocence before God (Jb 11:4; 33:9; Ps 51:7-10; Prv 20:9), and uncleanness is said to come from sin (Ps 51:2; Is 1:16; 64:6).<\/p>\n<h5>Causes of Uncleanness<\/h5>\n<p>From the Mosaic law a number of causes of uncleanness can be derived.<\/p>\n<p>1. Some foods were not to be eaten. Various laws concerning animals make a “distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten” (Lv 11:47, <span>rsv<\/span>). Permitted food was what was acceptable to God (see also Dt 14:3-21; Acts 15:28-29).<\/p>\n<li>2. Diseases, especially leprosy, produced an unclean state (Lv 13–14). The story of Naaman refers to leprous defilement (2 Kgs 5:1-14). The Gospels refer often to lepers (e.g., Mt 8:1-4; 10:8; 11:5; Lk 4:27). Many swellings, sores, and rashes were included under that heading, including Hansen’s disease (modern leprosy). The defilement of disease included all things touched by a diseased person (Lv 14:33-57).<\/li>\n<li>3. Bodily discharges were unclean, and contact with them defiled a person for various periods of time. Emission of semen produced uncleanness until the evening, whether in intercourse (Lv 15:16-18) or inadvertently during the night (Dt 23:10). An unnatural discharge, since it usually indicated disease, made a person unclean for seven days after it had ceased (Lv 15:1-15). Menstruation also produced uncleanness lasting seven days after it ceased (Lv 15:19-24; 2 Sm 11:4). Sexual intercourse during that time made both partners unclean (Lv 15:19-24; 20:18). Contact with the spittle of an unclean person produced uncleanness for a day (15:8).<\/li>\n<li>4. Dead bodies, or even parts of them such as bone, caused uncleanness (Nm 19:16). Persons who touched a dead body were unclean for a month, and only after that period could they celebrate their own Passover if they had missed it (9:6-11). The high priest could not even bury his own parents because of his special ritual responsibilities (Lv 21:10-11; cf. Nm 6:6-7; Hg 2:13; Mt 23:27).<\/li>\n<li>5. Idolatry was the greatest source of spiritual defilement. The entire nation of Israel was defiled because of it (Ps 106:38; Is 30:22; Ez 36:25), as were the Gentiles (Jer 43:12). Consequently, contact with Gentiles was thought to produce defilement. The gospel’s universal appeal confronted that conviction (e.g., Jn 4:9; Acts 10:28; cf. Gal 2:11-14). Closely related to the defilement of idolatry was the defilement caused by unclean spirits (Zec 13:2; cf. Mt 10:1; Mk 1:23-27).<\/li>\n<h5>Laws about Objects<\/h5>\n<p>Certain laws illustrate the principle that uncleanness was transmitted much like a contagion. Dead bodies contaminated what they touched, as did dead insects and certain crawling things (Lv 11:29-38). It is interesting that dry grain, running springwater, and water in a cistern were expressly excluded from that law of contamination; perhaps otherwise, starvation would have resulted, dead insects and mice being found in grain and water every day in an agricultural community. Unclean pottery had to be broken, but wooden vessels merely required washing (Lv 15:12). Even uncovered pots in a house where a person had died became unclean (Nm 19:15); everyone who entered the house was unclean.<\/p>\n<p>Because of their idolatrous associations, the possessions of pagans were unclean; therefore, booty taken in war had to be cleansed by fire or washing (Nm 31:21-24). Clothing of wool, linen, or leather could contract unclean “leprosy” from diseased persons and had to be tested. If the leprous spots (greenish or reddish patches) spread after a test period, the garments had to be burned (Lv 13:47-59; 14:33-53).<\/p>\n<h5>Laws about Places<\/h5>\n<p>The land and people of Israel were holy; they could be defiled by the uncleanness of economic oppression or idolatry (Jos 22:17-19; Jer 13:27). Jerusalem was a holy city, but it could be defiled by the sins of its people (Ez 22:2-4; Lam 1:8) or by the blood of its slaughtered inhabitants (Lam 4:15).<\/p>\n<p>The temple could be defiled by unclean persons. It was necessary for Hezekiah to cleanse the temple after Ahaz’s idolatrous worship (2 Chr 29:15-19); Nehemiah had to cleanse the rooms in which Tobiah had been living (Neh 13:9). One of the functions of the Day of Atonement was removal of impurities transferred to the temple by the sins of the Israelites during the past year (Lv 16:16-19; 31-33).<\/p>\n<p>An unclean place received the pieces of a leprous house after its demolition (Lv 14:45). The valley of Hinnom became Jerusalem’s garbage dump in later years, giving rise to the visions of “Gehenna” as a place of eternal punishment in NT eschatology. Since the Israelite camp was a holy place, care was taken to bury human excrement outside its boundaries (Dt 23:12-14). The value of that simple expedient in preventing disease during military excursions can hardly be exaggerated, since plagues were a great scourge of ancient armies.<\/p>\n<h5>Laws about Food<\/h5>\n<p>Certain kinds of animals were unclean and thus could not be eaten (Lv 11; Dt 14:3-21). Animals that died of old age, disease, or injury, or had been wounded by predators, were unclean. Animals that did not both chew the cud and have a cloven hoof were unclean, a definition that included pigs, camels, badgers, and rabbits among others. Israelites could eat only those fish that had both fins and scales. Birds of prey and scavengers were unclean. All winged insects were unclean except hopping insects (locusts, grasshoppers, and crickets). A large classification of “crawling things” was prohibited, including worms, lizards, snakes, weasels, and mice. In addition to all those was the ancient prohibition against eating blood (Gn 9:4; Lv 17:14-15; Dt 12:16-23; Acts 15:28-29).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurificationRites\">Purification Rites<\/p>\n<h5>Purification by Lapse of Time<\/h5>\n<p>Secondary contamination could often be canceled simply by waiting until the evening (Lv 11:24) or for 7, 14, 40, or 80 days. Dead bodies contaminated what they touched for 7 days (Nm 19:11), as did menstruation (Lv 15:19). When a child was born, the mother’s unclean condition lasted 7 days for a boy and 14 days for a girl. An additional 33 days for a male child and 66 days for a female were required before the mother could touch any sacred thing.<\/p>\n<h5>Purification by Water<\/h5>\n<p>Contact with unclean things, such as bodily discharges, often required washing of hands and clothing, usually accompanied by the lapse of a day (Lv 15:5-11).<\/p>\n<h5>Purification by Ceremonial Substances<\/h5>\n<p>Ceremonial substances used in purification rites included the ashes of a red heifer mixed with water (Nm 19:1-10), and (in cases of leprosy) cedarwood, scarlet cloth, hyssop, and blood (Lv 14:2-9). When the altar was used in a purification ceremony, only blood was suitable, since the altar was the place of sacrifice for sin (Lv 16:18-19; Ez 43:20).<\/p>\n<h5>Purification by Sacrifice<\/h5>\n<p>Sacrifice was the ultimate source of both ritual and moral purification. All bodily discharges except sexual ones were purified by offerings of doves and pigeons (Lv 15:14-15, 29-30). Childbirth required a lamb and a bird (12:6). Poor people could offer birds in place of an animal (Lv 12:8; 14:21-32; Lk 2:24).<\/p>\n<p>In sacrifice, blood was symbolic of a life given and therefore a death experienced; the uncleanness of disease or sin was thought of as being transferred to the victim, thus removing the uncleanness (Lv 14:7). Sacrificial death, therefore, always had a substitutionary element. Only blood sacrifice could provide the moral cleansing necessary for sin itself; such sacrifice was therefore the basis of all cleansing, including that of disease.<\/p>\n<h5>Purification by Fire<\/h5>\n<p>Some contamination could be removed only by fire, such as contamination of metal pots (Nm 31:22-23). Incest was punishable not only by death but also by burning the bodies (Lv 20:14). Idolatry had to be put away by total destruction of the objects and by burning (Ex 32:20). Cities consecrated to pagan deities were to be burned.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentPerspective\">New Testament Perspective<\/p>\n<p>The NT did not reject the OT concept of clean and unclean, but rather reinterpreted it in a new context. It stressed in particular the moral sense of the concept as well as the identification of uncleanness with sin.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospels were written in the context of OT law and its Pharisaic and Sadducean accretions. Jesus obeyed the law but was often at odds with the practical casuistry (system) that had grown up around it. Jesus taught that true defilement came from the sinner’s heart and not from outside contamination (Mk 7:14-23; Lk 11:39-41). A central element in his teaching was his attack on the ceremonial externalism of the Pharisees. Thus it has been said that Jesus “internalized” the law. It would be more correct to say that he forced attention to the law’s demands on people’s inner lives.<\/p>\n<p>The intrinsic wickedness of demons is underscored by the use of the term “unclean spirit” throughout the Gospels. In fact, the word “unclean” itself always appears in the Gospels in the context of spirit, a detail that illustrates the NT shift of emphasis from ritual uncleanness to sin and its guilt.<\/p>\n<p>An important episode in the life of the early church came in Acts 10, when God taught the apostle Peter that Gentiles were not unclean in themselves and that Peter was obliged to receive them. The result was Cornelius’s conversion.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ assertion that uncleanness originates in the heart bore fruit in the apostle Paul’s doctrine of Christian freedom. Paul, a Pharisee who could say of himself that he had never broken an external law, came to see that nothing is unclean in itself (Rom 14:14-20). Throughout his epistles, cleanness is the result of obedience of the heart flowing from regeneration; it is based on the cleansing power of the Atonement (see Rom 6:19; 1 Thes 2:3-4, where uncleanness is strictly moral).<\/p>\n<p>Christ’s atonement was the final cleansing agent for sin and its moral results (Heb 9:14, 22; 1 Jn 1:7), doing in reality what the blood of bulls and goats only typified. Thus those who are washed in the blood of the Lamb (Rv 7:14) are seen as wearing clean white robes (15:6; 19:8-14). His blood, symbolizing the life given and the death died by the Son at the behest of the Father, satisfies the attributes of personal justice of the triune God. Because the personal character of a righteous Father was vindicated, the personal forgiveness of sinners is morally possible. God can be in history only what he is eternally: he is both just and the justifier of believers in Christ (Rom 3:24-26).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Baptism; Circumcision; Uncircumcision; Offerings and Sacrifices; Law, Biblical Concept of; Dietary Laws.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS, Regulations Concerning Aspect of Hebrew religion having physical, ceremonial, moral, and spiritual significance. Though these senses of clean and unclean can be distinguished with reference to their contexts, they also merge into and illustrate each other; the physical and ceremonial contexts point to a moral state of the worshiper and to a spiritual relationship between God and his people. The OT vision of a people’s relationship with God is along moral and persona...","summary_en":"CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS, Regulations Concerning Aspect of Hebrew religion having physical, ceremonial, moral, and spiritual significance. Though these senses of clean and unclean can be distinguished with reference to their contexts, they also merge into and illustrate each other; the physical and ceremonial contexts point to a moral state of the worshiper and to a spiritual relationship between God and his people. The OT vision of a people’s relationship with God is along moral and persona...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":8319,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Cursed Curse","title_en":"Cursed Curse","content_ro":"<h3>CURSE, CURSED<\/h3>\n<p>Invocation of evil or injury against one’s enemies. As practiced in Bible times, cursing was the opposite of blessing and should not be confused with profanity in the modern sense.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PaganBeliefs\">Pagan Beliefs<\/p>\n<p>Curses and blessings were linked to the ancient pagan belief that spirits of “the gods” could be invoked to act on behalf of a person who repeated certain incantations or performed certain deeds (such as sacrifices). It was thought that a spoken curse possessed an occult power to work calamity on one’s enemies. In some pagan cultures, curses were written on clay jars that were then smashed, symbolically initiating or effecting the intended curse.<\/p>\n<p>Tombs were protected against would-be desecrators by means of curses. Royal inscriptions were protected by maledictions aimed at anyone who might alter, destroy, or defy the written decree (Ezr 6:11-12).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CursesinOldTestamentTimes\">Curses in Old Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>Among the Hebrews a curse, valid only within a covenant framework overseen by God, was spoken for the sake of justice. In the OT the curse was an integral part of a covenant relationship—between God and the community, between God and an individual, or among members of the community. To break the terms of a covenant was to merit the covenant curse or curses. A curse invoked under other conditions was powerless. “Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, a curse that is causeless does not alight” (Prv 26:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). A curse could be retracted by pronouncing a blessing (Ex 12:32; Jgs 17:1-2; 2 Sm 21:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>The Mosaic law forbade the cursing of parents (Ex 21:17; cf. Prv 20:20; Mt 15:4), the ruler (Ex 22:28), and the deaf (Lv 19:14). A man who suspected his wife of unfaithfulness could require that she submit to a test administered by the priest that would result in a curse upon her if she was guilty (Nm 5:11-31). Individuals might pronounce a curse upon themselves to show the truthfulness of their assertions or promises (Nm 5:19-22; Jb 31:7-10, 16-22; Ps 137:5-6). In the NT the apostle Peter followed the OT practice when he used a curse to deny that he knew Jesus (Mk 14:71). Certain men who wished to kill the apostle Paul proved their sincerity by such a solemn curse (Acts 23:12, 14, 21). Cursing God was punishable by death (Lv 24:10-16; cf. Ex 22:28; Is 8:21-22).<\/p>\n<p>Curses in Bible history include God’s curse on the serpent, Adam, and Eve (Gn 3:14-19); on Cain (4:11-12); on those who might curse the patriarch Abraham and his descendants (12:3); and on those who put their trust in human strength instead of in the Lord (Jer 17:5). When the people of Israel passed through Moab on their way to the Promised Land, Moab’s king, Balak, hired Balaam to curse the Israelites; he and Balaam learned, however, that they could not curse those whom God had blessed (Nm 22–24). Joshua cursed anyone who might try to rebuild Jericho (Jos 6:26; fulfilled in 1 Kgs 16:34). King Saul made a curse that almost cost his son Jonathan’s life (1 Sm 14:24, 43-45). Many other curses are mentioned in the OT (see, e.g., Gn 9:25; 49:5-7; Jos 9:22-23; Jgs 9:7-21, 57; 2 Sm 16:5-13; 1 Kgs 21:17-24; 2 Kgs 2:24; Mal 2:2; 4:6). The pronouncement of “woe” (<span>nlt<\/span> “destruction”) is also the language of curse (Is 5:8-23; cf. Mt 23:13-33, where “alas” and “woe” can be used synonymously and may be either an exclamation of sorrow or of impending doom and calamity).<\/p>\n<p>Psalm 109 contains a lengthy imprecation against the psalmist’s enemies, evidently because they had spoken some words against him falsely (see also Pss 58:6-11; 69:19-28; 143:12). The prophet Jeremiah was not averse to calling on God to punish his tormentors (Jer 11:20; 12:3; 15:15; 17:18; 18:21-22; 20:11-12) or asking God not to forgive them (18:23). Such imprecations against one’s enemies are difficult for Christians today to understand because they contrast sharply with the NT commands to “bless those who curse you” (Lk 6:28; cf. Rom 12:14). Jesus’ injunction to “love your enemies” (Mt 5:44) may be intended to point beyond the cursing practiced in the OT to a fuller understanding of God’s command to love one’s neighbor as oneself.<\/p>\n<h5>Covenant Curses<\/h5>\n<p>Protection of a contract or treaty by invoking a curse on the violator was common in OT times. Sometimes a covenant was sealed by cutting up an animal and having the covenanting individuals walk between the severed pieces; the slain animal symbolized the curse to befall the violator. God agreed to submit to such a curse on himself if he broke the covenant he made with the patriarch Abraham (Gn 15:7-21). Later, God accused the leaders and people of Israel of breaking their covenant with him and warned them of the consequences to follow (Jer 34:18-19). An essential part of the covenant God made with Israel at Mt Sinai was the promise of blessings for keeping the covenant and curses for breaking it (Dt 11:26-28; 27:15-26; 28:15-68; 30:19; cf. Lv 26:3-39). Israel suffered those curses in the time of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel; the covenant breakers, including the king, were threatened with a curse (Jer 11:3; Ez 17:11-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ban on “Devoted Things”<\/h5>\n<p>A special kind of curse was the ban or anathema. Strictly speaking, it was a vow to devote persons, animals, or objects under such a curse to God. In some cases the priests could use objects that had fallen under the ban (Nm 18:14; Ez 44:29), but that provision did not apply to living beings. All persons or animals under the ban were sacrificed or destroyed (Lv 27:28-29). The ban was commonly used in Israel’s wars against its pagan neighbors. Sometimes everything was declared anathema (Jos 6:17-19), but normally only persons and heathen images were destroyed (Dt 2:34; 3:6; 7:2, 25-26—not even the melted gold of images was to be kept). To violate the ban by preserving any part of the cursed things was to come under the ban oneself. Because Achan did not respect the ban placed upon Jericho, the terms of that curse came upon all Israel until Achan confessed and was executed (Jos 7).<\/p>\n<p>After the exile, the Jews did not practice the anathema (or ban) by putting people to death; people who violated a curse were excommunicated and put out of the congregation of Israel (Ezr 10:8). That meant that the person was no longer part of God’s people and was considered “dead.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CursesinNewTestamentTimes\">Curses in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>Jewish synagogues practiced excommunication, or anathema, in the NT period (Lk 6:22; Jn 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). Later, Christians excommunicated persons by declaring them outside of the redeemed community (Mt 18:17) or “delivered to Satan” (1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tm 1:20). Both practices stemmed from the OT ban. Unlike that curse, however, the excommunication could be removed as soon as the person repented.<\/p>\n<p>Since the anathema branded a person as “rejected” or “cursed by God,” Saul of Tarsus, before his conversion, tried to compel Christians to renounce Christ by calling him accursed (cf. Acts 26:11). Later, as an apostle, Paul (Saul) warned that no one speaking by the Spirit of God could call Jesus accursed (1 Cor 12:3). Paul pronounced anathema (destined for judgment and perdition) upon anyone who preached another gospel than the one he and the other apostles preached (Gal 1:8-9). Paul said he wished he could be accursed, cut off from salvation and the people of God, if that could lead to the salvation of his fellow Israelites (Rom 9:3). His desire reflected the love of Christ, who accepted the “curse of the law” upon himself in submitting to suffering and death on the cross in order to redeem human beings from that curse (Gal 3:8-14; cf. Dt 21:22-23). The NT promises that a time will come when “there shall no longer be any curse” (Rv 22:3, <span>nasb<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> War, Holy.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CURSE, CURSED<\/h3>\n<p>Invocation of evil or injury against one’s enemies. As practiced in Bible times, cursing was the opposite of blessing and should not be confused with profanity in the modern sense.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PaganBeliefs\">Pagan Beliefs<\/p>\n<p>Curses and blessings were linked to the ancient pagan belief that spirits of “the gods” could be invoked to act on behalf of a person who repeated certain incantations or performed certain deeds (such as sacrifices). It was thought that a spoken curse possessed an occult power to work calamity on one’s enemies. In some pagan cultures, curses were written on clay jars that were then smashed, symbolically initiating or effecting the intended curse.<\/p>\n<p>Tombs were protected against would-be desecrators by means of curses. Royal inscriptions were protected by maledictions aimed at anyone who might alter, destroy, or defy the written decree (Ezr 6:11-12).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CursesinOldTestamentTimes\">Curses in Old Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>Among the Hebrews a curse, valid only within a covenant framework overseen by God, was spoken for the sake of justice. In the OT the curse was an integral part of a covenant relationship—between God and the community, between God and an individual, or among members of the community. To break the terms of a covenant was to merit the covenant curse or curses. A curse invoked under other conditions was powerless. “Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, a curse that is causeless does not alight” (Prv 26:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). A curse could be retracted by pronouncing a blessing (Ex 12:32; Jgs 17:1-2; 2 Sm 21:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>The Mosaic law forbade the cursing of parents (Ex 21:17; cf. Prv 20:20; Mt 15:4), the ruler (Ex 22:28), and the deaf (Lv 19:14). A man who suspected his wife of unfaithfulness could require that she submit to a test administered by the priest that would result in a curse upon her if she was guilty (Nm 5:11-31). Individuals might pronounce a curse upon themselves to show the truthfulness of their assertions or promises (Nm 5:19-22; Jb 31:7-10, 16-22; Ps 137:5-6). In the NT the apostle Peter followed the OT practice when he used a curse to deny that he knew Jesus (Mk 14:71). Certain men who wished to kill the apostle Paul proved their sincerity by such a solemn curse (Acts 23:12, 14, 21). Cursing God was punishable by death (Lv 24:10-16; cf. Ex 22:28; Is 8:21-22).<\/p>\n<p>Curses in Bible history include God’s curse on the serpent, Adam, and Eve (Gn 3:14-19); on Cain (4:11-12); on those who might curse the patriarch Abraham and his descendants (12:3); and on those who put their trust in human strength instead of in the Lord (Jer 17:5). When the people of Israel passed through Moab on their way to the Promised Land, Moab’s king, Balak, hired Balaam to curse the Israelites; he and Balaam learned, however, that they could not curse those whom God had blessed (Nm 22–24). Joshua cursed anyone who might try to rebuild Jericho (Jos 6:26; fulfilled in 1 Kgs 16:34). King Saul made a curse that almost cost his son Jonathan’s life (1 Sm 14:24, 43-45). Many other curses are mentioned in the OT (see, e.g., Gn 9:25; 49:5-7; Jos 9:22-23; Jgs 9:7-21, 57; 2 Sm 16:5-13; 1 Kgs 21:17-24; 2 Kgs 2:24; Mal 2:2; 4:6). The pronouncement of “woe” (<span>nlt<\/span> “destruction”) is also the language of curse (Is 5:8-23; cf. Mt 23:13-33, where “alas” and “woe” can be used synonymously and may be either an exclamation of sorrow or of impending doom and calamity).<\/p>\n<p>Psalm 109 contains a lengthy imprecation against the psalmist’s enemies, evidently because they had spoken some words against him falsely (see also Pss 58:6-11; 69:19-28; 143:12). The prophet Jeremiah was not averse to calling on God to punish his tormentors (Jer 11:20; 12:3; 15:15; 17:18; 18:21-22; 20:11-12) or asking God not to forgive them (18:23). Such imprecations against one’s enemies are difficult for Christians today to understand because they contrast sharply with the NT commands to “bless those who curse you” (Lk 6:28; cf. Rom 12:14). Jesus’ injunction to “love your enemies” (Mt 5:44) may be intended to point beyond the cursing practiced in the OT to a fuller understanding of God’s command to love one’s neighbor as oneself.<\/p>\n<h5>Covenant Curses<\/h5>\n<p>Protection of a contract or treaty by invoking a curse on the violator was common in OT times. Sometimes a covenant was sealed by cutting up an animal and having the covenanting individuals walk between the severed pieces; the slain animal symbolized the curse to befall the violator. God agreed to submit to such a curse on himself if he broke the covenant he made with the patriarch Abraham (Gn 15:7-21). Later, God accused the leaders and people of Israel of breaking their covenant with him and warned them of the consequences to follow (Jer 34:18-19). An essential part of the covenant God made with Israel at Mt Sinai was the promise of blessings for keeping the covenant and curses for breaking it (Dt 11:26-28; 27:15-26; 28:15-68; 30:19; cf. Lv 26:3-39). Israel suffered those curses in the time of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel; the covenant breakers, including the king, were threatened with a curse (Jer 11:3; Ez 17:11-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ban on “Devoted Things”<\/h5>\n<p>A special kind of curse was the ban or anathema. Strictly speaking, it was a vow to devote persons, animals, or objects under such a curse to God. In some cases the priests could use objects that had fallen under the ban (Nm 18:14; Ez 44:29), but that provision did not apply to living beings. All persons or animals under the ban were sacrificed or destroyed (Lv 27:28-29). The ban was commonly used in Israel’s wars against its pagan neighbors. Sometimes everything was declared anathema (Jos 6:17-19), but normally only persons and heathen images were destroyed (Dt 2:34; 3:6; 7:2, 25-26—not even the melted gold of images was to be kept). To violate the ban by preserving any part of the cursed things was to come under the ban oneself. Because Achan did not respect the ban placed upon Jericho, the terms of that curse came upon all Israel until Achan confessed and was executed (Jos 7).<\/p>\n<p>After the exile, the Jews did not practice the anathema (or ban) by putting people to death; people who violated a curse were excommunicated and put out of the congregation of Israel (Ezr 10:8). That meant that the person was no longer part of God’s people and was considered “dead.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CursesinNewTestamentTimes\">Curses in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>Jewish synagogues practiced excommunication, or anathema, in the NT period (Lk 6:22; Jn 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). Later, Christians excommunicated persons by declaring them outside of the redeemed community (Mt 18:17) or “delivered to Satan” (1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tm 1:20). Both practices stemmed from the OT ban. Unlike that curse, however, the excommunication could be removed as soon as the person repented.<\/p>\n<p>Since the anathema branded a person as “rejected” or “cursed by God,” Saul of Tarsus, before his conversion, tried to compel Christians to renounce Christ by calling him accursed (cf. Acts 26:11). Later, as an apostle, Paul (Saul) warned that no one speaking by the Spirit of God could call Jesus accursed (1 Cor 12:3). Paul pronounced anathema (destined for judgment and perdition) upon anyone who preached another gospel than the one he and the other apostles preached (Gal 1:8-9). Paul said he wished he could be accursed, cut off from salvation and the people of God, if that could lead to the salvation of his fellow Israelites (Rom 9:3). His desire reflected the love of Christ, who accepted the “curse of the law” upon himself in submitting to suffering and death on the cross in order to redeem human beings from that curse (Gal 3:8-14; cf. Dt 21:22-23). The NT promises that a time will come when “there shall no longer be any curse” (Rv 22:3, <span>nasb<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> War, Holy.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CURSE, CURSED Invocation of evil or injury against one’s enemies. As practiced in Bible times, cursing was the opposite of blessing and should not be confused with profanity in the modern sense. Pagan Beliefs Curses and blessings were linked to the ancient pagan belief that spirits of “the gods” could be invoked to act on behalf of a person who repeated certain incantations or performed certain deeds (such as sacrifices). It was thought that a spoken curse possessed an occult power to work ca...","summary_en":"CURSE, CURSED Invocation of evil or injury against one’s enemies. As practiced in Bible times, cursing was the opposite of blessing and should not be confused with profanity in the modern sense. Pagan Beliefs Curses and blessings were linked to the ancient pagan belief that spirits of “the gods” could be invoked to act on behalf of a person who repeated certain incantations or performed certain deeds (such as sacrifices). It was thought that a spoken curse possessed an occult power to work ca...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":18589,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of Jealousy*, Ordeal","title_en":"of Jealousy*, Ordeal","content_ro":"<h3>JEALOUSY*, Ordeal of<\/h3>\n<p>Numbers 5:11-28 contains a provision by which a man who suspected his wife of adultery could bring her to the priest to determine her guilt or innocence. She had to appear with a grain offering, take an oath, and then drink “bitter” water mixed with dust taken from the tabernacle floor. As the woman drank the water, the priest offered the jealousy offering. If she were guilty, “her abdomen [would] swell and her thigh [would] waste away” (Nm 5:27, <span>nlt<\/span> mg), and she would be a curse among the people. If she were innocent, no ill effects would result. <em>See<\/em> Bitterness or Jealousy, Water of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JEALOUSY*, Ordeal of<\/h3>\n<p>Numbers 5:11-28 contains a provision by which a man who suspected his wife of adultery could bring her to the priest to determine her guilt or innocence. She had to appear with a grain offering, take an oath, and then drink “bitter” water mixed with dust taken from the tabernacle floor. As the woman drank the water, the priest offered the jealousy offering. If she were guilty, “her abdomen [would] swell and her thigh [would] waste away” (Nm 5:27, <span>nlt<\/span> mg), and she would be a curse among the people. If she were innocent, no ill effects would result. <em>See<\/em> Bitterness or Jealousy, Water of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JEALOUSY*, Ordeal of Numbers 5:11-28 contains a provision by which a man who suspected his wife of adultery could bring her to the priest to determine her guilt or innocence. She had to appear with a grain offering, take an oath, and then drink “bitter” water mixed with dust taken from the tabernacle floor. As the woman drank the water, the priest offered the jealousy offering. If she were guilty, “her abdomen [would] swell and her thigh [would] waste away” (Nm 5:27, nlt mg), and she would be...","summary_en":"JEALOUSY*, Ordeal of Numbers 5:11-28 contains a provision by which a man who suspected his wife of adultery could bring her to the priest to determine her guilt or innocence. She had to appear with a grain offering, take an oath, and then drink “bitter” water mixed with dust taken from the tabernacle floor. As the woman drank the water, the priest offered the jealousy offering. If she were guilty, “her abdomen [would] swell and her thigh [would] waste away” (Nm 5:27, nlt mg), and she would be...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":27843,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Numbers","title_en":"Book of Numbers","content_ro":"<h3>NUMBERS, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Fourth book of the English Bible. Its title is the English translation of the Latin Vulgate title, <em>Numeri.<\/em> The book takes this name from the fact that several rosters of various kinds are recorded in the book, specifically, the two army musters in chapters 1 and 26, the tribal camp and march arrangements in chapter 2, and the Levitical censuses in chapters 3 and 4.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p>• Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The question of the authorship of Numbers is part of the larger question of the authorship of the Pentateuch. Until the appearance of the higher-critical documentary theories of the 19th century, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was almost universally held by both Jews and Christians alike. This time-honored tradition is supported by the Pentateuch itself (e.g., Ex 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Nm 33:2; Dt 31:9, 24), the rest of the OT (e.g., Jos 23:6; Jgs 3:4; Mal 4:4), as well as Jesus’ teaching (e.g., Jn 5:46-47), and the rest of the NT (e.g., Acts 28:23; Rom 10:19; 1 Cor 9:9). Although discrepancies in the Pentateuch were widely and openly acknowledged, nevertheless Moses, the 15th-century <span>BC<\/span> lawgiver, was affirmed as the primary author of the Pentateuchal literature.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<h5>Sinai Peninsula<\/h5>\n<p>The historical background of Numbers begins primarily in the geographical region of the Sinai Peninsula of the mid-second millennium <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Sinai Peninsula is in the shape of an inverted triangle with the base on the north. It is approximately 240 miles (386.2 kilometers) long from north to south and 175 miles (281.6 kilometers) wide at the northern base, with an area of approximately 22,000 square miles (56,980 square kilometers). It is bounded on the north by the Mediterranean Sea and the southern border of Canaan, on the west by the Bitter Lakes and the Gulf of Suez, and on the east by the Arabah and the Gulf of Aqaba. Beginning in the north at the Mediterranean coast and moving south, for about 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) the soil is sandy. South of this coastal plain is a high plateau (Et-Tih) of gravel and limestone (about 2,500 feet, or 762 meters, above sea level), stretching south into the peninsula for approximately 150 miles (241.4 kilometers). Rising above the plateau at this point is a granite mountain formation with peaks up to 8,000 feet (2,438.4 meters) above sea level. In this mountainous region at the apex of the peninsular triangle, Jebel Musa (7,363 feet, or 2,244.2 meters, high), the traditional site where Israel camped before Mt Sinai and Moses received the law, rises above the plain.<\/p>\n<p>The peninsula itself is comprised of five wilderness areas. In the north and immediately east of the land of Goshen is the approximately 40-mile- or 64.4-kilometer-wide wilderness of Shur, which runs past the River of Egypt (Wadi el-Arish) to the region of Kadesh-barnea and northeast to Beersheba. East of this region is the wilderness of Zin, extending east from the wilderness of Shur to the southern tip of the Dead Sea. Kadesh-barnea is located on its southern border (Nm 20:1; 33:36). South of the wilderness of Shur is the wilderness of Etham, and east of this wilderness in the east-central region of Sinai is the great wilderness of Paran (Dt 1:19). Kadesh-barnea is on the northern border of this territory (Nm 13:26). In this area the Israelites spent 38 of their 40 years of wandering. Southwest of the wilderness of Paran, on the western slopes of the peninsula, not far from the granite mountains standing in the southern apex of the triangle, is the wilderness of Sin.<\/p>\n<p>While the region is generally desolate and barren, it is not impassable or incapable of sustaining travelers. Wells and springs dot both the western and eastern borders at reasonable distances from each other. The water table is fairly close to ground level, making the digging of wells possible (Nm 20:17; 21:16-18). The limestone rocks are also capable of holding great amounts of water (20:11). Vegetation is sparse except around the more permanent streams where vegetation and date palms flourish. The rainy season in winter is approximately 20 days. Quail (11:31-32) are known to migrate across the peninsula to Europe in the spring.<\/p>\n\n<h5>The Peoples Israel Confronted<\/h5>\n<h6>Amalekites and Canaanites (14:25, 43-45; 24:20)<\/h6>\n<p>The Amalekites were descendants of Amalek, son of Eliphaz and grandson of Esau (Gn 36:12, 16). They were generally a nomadic people. In the Sinai Peninsula they were the first to war against Israel at Rephidim (cf. Nm 24:20), perhaps the Wadi Refayid in southwest Sinai (Ex 17:8-16), before Israel reached Horeb. A year later, the Amalekites settled in the hills and valleys north of Kadesh-barnea. In league with the Canaanites, the inhabitants of Palestine, they blocked the effort of Israel to invade the land of promise from the south (Nm 14:45). Israel’s will to wage war appears to have been completely broken for years to come.<\/p>\n<h6>Edomites (20:14-21; 21:4, 10-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Edom, or Seir (24:18), is the territory south of the Dead Sea occupied by Esau’s descendants. Stretching from its northern border at the Wadi Zered (21:12), which flowed into the Dead Sea at its southern tip, 100 miles (160.9 kilometers) south to the Gulf of Aqaba, it occupied both sides of the Arabah, with Kadesh-barnea again standing on the edge of its western border (20:16), giving it a land area of approximately 4,000 square miles (10,360 square kilometers). It is a rugged mountain region with peaks rising to 3,500 feet (1,066.8 meters). The “king’s highway,” an ancient trade route from Damascus through the Transjordan to the Gulf of Aqaba, passed through its territory and major cities, Bozrah and Leman. While Edom was not fertile, it did have cultivable areas (20:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>During Israel’s march to the Transjordan region, Edom refused to let Israel journey directly east from Kadesh through its territory but forced Israel to move southeast into and up the Arabah (21:4, 11). In spite of this hostility to God’s people, Israel was forbidden to attack (Dt 2:2-8) or to hate the Edomites (23:7), and so Edom was spared from destruction during the conquest of the land. The area was later conquered by David (2 Sm 8:13-14) according to Balaam’s prophecy (Nm 24:18).<\/p>\n<h6>Arad (21:1-3)<\/h6>\n<p>Arad was a south Canaanite settlement in the Negev. Its king, after fighting against Israel and taking some captives, was later defeated at Hormah.<\/p>\n<h6>Moabites (21:11-15; 22:1–24:25)<\/h6>\n<p>Moab, occupied by the descendants of Lot (Gn 19:37), is the territory east of the Dead Sea lying primarily between the Wadi Arnon (Nm 21:13) and the Wadi Zered with a land area of approximately 1,400 square miles (3,626 square kilometers).<\/p>\n<p>In the late middle Bronze Age, the Moabites had overflowed their main plateau and had extended well to the north of the Arnon all the way to the northern end of the Dead Sea (21:20). At the time of the events recorded in Numbers, however, the Amorites occupied the area from Arnon all the way north to the Wadi Jabbok (vv 13, 21-24), having earlier taken this land from Moab (vv 26-30). The Moabite kingdom was highly organized, with agriculture and livestock, splendid buildings, distinctive pottery, and strong fortifications around her borders. Its god was Chemosh (v 29).<\/p>\n<p>Balak, king of Moab during the period of the conquest, in league with Midian, hired Balaam to curse Israel (chs 22–24). When this failed, the two heathen powers sought to neutralize Israel by luring the people of God into the worship of Chemosh and into idolatry (25:1-2). In the war that ensued, Israel defeated Midian (31:1-18), but by God’s express command (Dt 2:9-13) spared Moab. But as Balaam had prophesied earlier (Nm 24:17), David in the 11th century warred against and defeated Moab (2 Sm 8:2, 13-14).<\/p>\n<h6>Amorites (21:21-35)<\/h6>\n<p>The Amorites, the people who had occupied northern Moabite territory (Nm 21:25-30), were descendants of Canaan (Gn 10:16) who had scattered throughout the hill country on both sides of the Jordan River. Heshbon was their capital city. Both Sihon of Heshbon and Og of Bashan were Amorite kings (Dt 3:8).<\/p>\n<p>As for Bashan (Nm 21:33-35; cf. Dt 1:4; 3:1-12), it is the fertile grazing region (Nm 32:1-5) east of the Sea of Kinnereth (Galilee), whose northern border extended to Mt Hermon and whose southern border, while normally the river Yarmuk, in the Mosaic age was the Wadi Jabbok (Jos 12:4-5). Its land area covered approximately 5,000 square miles (12,950 square kilometers). Its major cities were Ashtaroth, Edrei, and Golan. After the conquest of the land, this territory fell to the half-tribe of Manasseh, with Gad occupying southern Gilead, and Reuben the region south to the Wadi Arnon.<\/p>\n<h6>Midianites (25:16-18; 31:1-54)<\/h6>\n<p>The Midianites, descendants of Abraham through the concubine Keturah (Gn 25:2), were desert dwellers in Transjordan from Moab to the region south of Edom. The elders of Moab and Midian cooperated in hiring Balaam to curse Israel (Nm 22:4-7). Later, when that effort proved fruitless, the Midianites, again with Moab, led Israel into idolatry and immorality (25:1-6, 14-15). Cozbi, the Midianite woman who was executed for her wickedness (25:8), was the daughter of Zur, one of the five Midianite kings confederate with the Amorite king Sihon (Jos 13:21) who were later killed in Israel’s holy war against Midian (Nm 31:8). This war with Midian apparently broke the back of any remaining Amorite resistance, for Joshua 13:15-23 clearly intimates that as a result the tribe of Reuben occupied this territory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>Numbers serves a twofold purpose. First, as a historical book, it contains the account of Israel’s fortunes from Mt Sinai to the plains of Moab on the eve of the conquest of Canaan—that almost-40-year period spent in the wilderness of Sinai and in Transjordan (1447–1407 <span>BC<\/span>). While recounting Israel’s many failures and God’s many faithful acts, it depicts Moses, Israel’s leader, in all of his greatness and in all of his weakness. The two army rolls (chs 2 and 26) introduce the “acts” of the main drama of its history: the first in preparation for entering the land, which failed due to Israel’s unbelief; the second, after the death of the entire generation that left Egypt, in preparation for the successful invasion of Canaan under Joshua’s leadership.<\/p>\n<p>Second, in line with Paul’s general belief that “whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope” (Rom 15:4, <span>rsv<\/span>), and in keeping with his specific teaching that “these things [that befell Israel in the wilderness] happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come” (1 Cor 10:11, <span>rsv<\/span>), Numbers serves a doctrinal, typical, and hortatory purpose (cf. v 12). Historical events are divinely invested with spiritual truths, thereby becoming object lessons for the Christian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 1<\/h5>\n<p>The Lord commanded Moses to register (Nm 1:18) the men able to go to war (vv 2-3). The total number of soldiers in Israel was 603,550 (v 46). The Levites were not numbered in this roll (vv 47-54), since they were to be set apart for special service pertaining to the tabernacle.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 2<\/h5>\n<p>The Lord instructed Moses concerning the arrangement of the tribes while encamped and on the march. With the tabernacle in the center of the camp, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, totaling 186,400 (v 9), were to camp on the east; Reuben, Simeon, and Gad, totaling 151,450 (v 16), were to camp on the south; Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin, totaling 108,100 (v 24), were to camp on the west; and Dan, Asher, and Naphtali, totaling 157,600 (v 31), were to camp on the north.<\/p>\n<p>On the march, Judah’s east group (v 9) was to set out first, followed by Reuben’s south group (v 16). The Levites with the tabernacle were to follow (v 17). Then Ephraim’s west group (v 24) was to follow the Levites, with Dan’s north group (v 31) bringing up the rear. This means that the Levites were flanked by two groups, before and behind.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 3<\/h5>\n<p>Aaron, the great-grandson of Levi through Kohath (Ex 6:16-20), and his descendants were designated to serve as priests at the tabernacle (Nm 3:2-3). The remaining descendants of Levi, from the families of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, were to serve the Aaronic line at the tabernacle (vv 5-10). The Gershonites were responsible for the tabernacle coverings, hangings, and screens (vv 25-26); the Kohathites were responsible for the “furniture” in the tabernacle (v 31); and the Merarites were responsible for the frames, bars, and foundations for the tabernacle (vv 36-37).<\/p>\n<p>God instructed Moses to number the three Levitical families. Gershon’s descendants, totaling 7,500 (v 22), were to camp on the west, between the western group of tribes and the tabernacle. Kohath’s descendants, totaling 8,600 (v 28), were to camp on the south, between the southern group of tribes and the tabernacle. Merari’s descendants, totaling 6,200 (v 34), were to camp on the north, between the northern group of tribes and the tabernacle. Moses and the Aaronic family were to camp on the east, between the eastern group of tribes and the tabernacle (v 38). Both in camp and on the march, then, the tabernacle was in the midst of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The census of Israel’s firstborn males disclosed 273 more male babies than Levites (vv 40-46), and since the Levites were a ransom for Israelite males on a one-to-one basis, the 273 additional male children had to be ransomed by atonement money (vv 46-51).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 4<\/h5>\n<p>God instructed Moses that only Levites between the ages of 30 and 50 were to serve at the tabernacle. A census disclosed that there were 2,750 Kohathites (v 36), 2,630 Gershonites (v 40), and 3,200 Merarites (v 44), making a total of 8,580 (v 48) who were eligible to serve the Aaronic priests.<\/p>\n<p>God further ordered the Aaronic priests, when the tabernacle was being dismantled for the march, to cover all the tabernacle “furniture” before the Kohathites even looked at them (v 20) lest the Kohathites, either looking at or touching them (v 15), should die (vv 15, 20).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 5<\/h5>\n<p>For ceremonial purposes, God demanded that lepers, those with a bodily discharge, and those who had touched the dead, must be put outside the camp until they were purified (vv 1-4). Furthermore, God instructed those making restitution for a wrongdoing, if the wronged person was no longer alive, to give the restitution price to a priest (vv 5-10).<\/p>\n<p>Finally, if a woman was suspected by her husband of infidelity but there was no evidence of such, the woman was to undergo a trial by water ordeal to relieve the man of his suspicions. The priest was to give her holy water with dust from the floor of the tabernacle in it to drink. If she was guilty, the water by divine direction would cause her pain, make her abdomen swell, and her thigh waste away (vv 11-31).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 6<\/h5>\n<p>Laws pertaining to the Nazirite were given next. A Nazirite was a person who determined to take a vow to separate himself wholly to the Lord. To dramatize this separation, the Nazirite was to drink no intoxicating beverage, let the hair grow long, and touch no dead body (vv 3-6). Should he defile himself, he was to follow prescribed rules for ceremonial cleansing (vv 9-12). When his vow had run its course, he was to follow prescribed rules for terminating his vow (vv 13-21). Finally, God instructed the Aaronic priesthood concerning the blessing they were to pronounce upon the Israelite worshiper (vv 22-27).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 7<\/h5>\n<p>The leaders in Israel brought six wagons and twelve oxen for use in the transfer of the tabernacle (7:3). Moses gave two wagons and four oxen to the Gershonites (v 7), and four wagons and eight oxen to the Merarites (v 8). (The Kohathites were to carry the “furniture” of the tabernacle on their shoulders, v 9.) For twelve consecutive days, to consecrate the altar after it was anointed (vv 10, 88), the tribal leaders, in the order of march (cf. ch 2), brought similar offerings. God demonstrated his pleasure with this gesture by speaking to Moses from the mercy seat (v 89).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 8<\/h5>\n<p>God granted the prerogative to light the seven-branched lampstand to the Aaronic priests (vv 1-4). Following divine instructions, Moses and Aaron consecrated the Levites to the service of the tabernacle by means of a purification ceremony (vv 5-22).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 9:1–10:10<\/h5>\n<p>For the benefit of the worshiper who was ceremonially unclean or away on a journey at the time of the Passover, God granted permission to observe the Passover a month later (vv 6-12; see also ch 27).<\/p>\n<p>God gave final instructions to the people before their departure from Sinai. They were to prepare for marching when they saw the cloud ascending from the tabernacle, and they were to stop at the place where the cloud settled down (9:15-23). The people were to assemble at the tabernacle if two silver trumpets were blown; only the leaders were to come if one was blown; and at the blast of a military alarm, the several groups of tribes were to prepare for an immediate march (10:1-10).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 10:11–14:45<\/h5>\n<p>The next section recounts the march from Sinai to Kadesh-barnea, a period of time approximately one and a half to two months in length (cf. 10:11; 13:20). Almost immediately the people began to complain as they passed through the terrible wilderness of Paran (Dt 1:19), angering the Lord at Taberah (Nm 11:1-3) and at Kibroth-hattaavah (Nm 11:4-35; Pss 78:26-31; 106:13-15). Miriam and Aaron challenged Moses’ sole right to speak for God to the people, which resulted in temporary leprosy as punishment for Miriam (doubtless the leader in the provocation). Through Moses’ intercession, the two were forgiven (Nm 12). Out of this event, however, came the remarkable description of Moses’ relationship to God as a unique means of revelation (vv 6-8).<\/p>\n<p>From Paran (Kadesh-barnea) Moses dispatched the spies to survey the land (ch 13). Deuteronomy 1:22 suggests that the plan to spy out the land originated with the people, with Moses (at God’s behest) acquiescing. At the end of 40 days, they returned. Only Caleb and Joshua urged the people to advance to the conquest; the other 10 spies spoke of foes too formidable for them to defeat. The people, greatly discouraged, attempted to stone Caleb and Joshua (Nm 14:10), and were prevented from doing so only by the sudden appearance of the glory cloud at the tabernacle. God swore in his wrath (Nm 14:21; cf. Heb 3:7–4:10) that, with the exception of Caleb and Joshua, none of that generation would enter the land of promise (Nm 14:21-35). He then struck down the 10 unbelieving spies (v 37). Presumptuously, and in spite of God’s express command to the contrary (Dt 1:42), Israel attempted to advance on the land, leaving Moses and the ark of the covenant in the camp. They were challenged by the Amalekites and Canaanites.<\/p>\n<p>Israel remained in this general area with tribal families fanning out over the wilderness and settling around springs and oases (Dt 1:46). Numbers 15:1–21:20 relates the account of the 38 years of wilderness wandering. Much of this time was probably spent around Kadesh-barnea (Dt 1:46).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 15<\/h5>\n<p>Further priestly legislation was given (Nm 15:1-21). Also, the procedure to be followed when an Israelite committed a sin deliberately and defiantly was spelled out in terms of excommunication: there was no atonement for such an attitude (vv 22-31). A Sabbath violator was executed (vv 32-36), perhaps as an illustration of the foregoing legislation. Finally, to assist them in obeying God’s laws, the Israelites were instructed to tie blue tassels to their outer garments as reminders (vv 37-41).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 16<\/h5>\n<p>Korah challenged Aaron’s high priesthood, and Dathan, Abiram, and On challenged Moses’ leadership (vv 1-14). God, at Moses’ word, opened up the earth and swallowed the offenders (Nm 16:32; cf. Dt 9:6; Ps 106:16-18). Korah is regarded in the NT (Jude 1:11) as a classic example of a rebellious malcontent.<\/p>\n<p>Numbers 26:11 states that Korah’s young children did not perish with him. Perhaps they became the ancestors of the “sons of Korah,” the sacred musicians of the temple who composed 12 Korahite psalms (Pss 42–49, 84–85, 87–88).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 17<\/h5>\n<p>God then instructed the leaders of each tribe to bring rods, 12 in all, to write the names of the tribes upon them (with Aaron’s name on Levi’s rod), and to deposit them in the tabernacle. The following day, Aaron’s rod had sprouted with blossoms and ripe almonds, thus vindicating Aaron’s special high-priestly status.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 18–19<\/h5>\n<p>Further priestly legislation was given. In 18:1-7, the full responsibility for the priestly service was given to the Aaronic priests—a very natural consequence of the preceding chapter. The Levites were to assist the Aaronic order (v 6). Since the tribe of Levi received no land inheritance, they were to be supported from the offerings of the people (vv 8-20).<\/p>\n<p>In 19:1-22 instructions concerning ceremonial impurity were given. When an Israelite became ceremonially unclean through contact with death (vv 11-16), God required that he be purified from his sin (vv 9, 17) by the sprinkling of specially prepared water upon him.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 20<\/h5>\n<p>With Israel once again at Kadesh on the southern border of the wilderness of Zin in the first month of the 40th year of wandering, Miriam died and was buried (v 1). According to the encampment list in chapter 33, 18 encampments may have occurred for Israel since the nation had last been at this site (cf. 33:18-36).<\/p>\n<p>At this time the nation complained once again because there was little water (20:2). Moses, at God’s instruction, brought forth water from a rock (vv 8-11), but because of a gross infraction by Moses and Aaron on this occasion, God announced that they would not be permitted to lead Israel in the conquest of the land (vv 12, 23-24).<\/p>\n<p>The chapter closes with Edom refusing Israel passage across its territory (vv 14-21) and Aaron dying on Mt Hor on the border of Edom (vv 22-29) in the fifth month of the 40th year (33:38). Eleazar, Aaron’s son, assumed the office of high priest.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 21<\/h5>\n<p>After a quick victory over Arad (vv 1-3), Israel started south to encircle Edom. Becoming impatient with God and with Moses, the people expressed their disgust with God’s provision of manna. The Lord sent poisonous snakes to the camp, causing many to die. But at God’s command Moses fashioned a snake out of bronze and placed it atop a standard. All who looked to the bronze snake survived (vv 4-10). The bronze snake was preserved and later was destroyed by Hezekiah, the symbol having become by his time an idol (2 Kgs 18:4). Later still, Jesus drew an analogy between these wicked sinners looking to the bronze snake and being delivered and men looking to him by faith and being saved (Jn 3:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>Leaving that fateful place, Israel journeyed into and up the Arabah, crossed the Wadi Zered in an eastern swing around Moab, finally crossing the Arnon into Amorite territory. Journeying north, they camped at Pisgah (Nm 21:10-20).<\/p>\n<p>At this point the conquest of the Transjordan begins. In quick succession Israel defeated Sihon of Heshbon (vv 21-31) and Og of Bashan (vv 33-35) and settled in the plains of Moab (22:1). This encampment was the scene for the remainder of the activities of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua 1–3. In a real sense, one can say the wilderness wanderings were now over.<\/p>\n<p>Here is the place, then, to summarize the spiritual condition of Israel on the eve of the conquest of Canaan. Numbers makes it quite evident that the entire generation that left Egypt, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb, was to die in the wilderness because of its apostasy (cf. Am 5:25), unbelief, and general failure to keep covenant with God. None of the generation of male children born in the wilderness had been circumcised (Jos 5:2-9). Psalm 90 underscores Israel as the recipient of God’s wrath in the wilderness. It is in this pitiable spiritual condition that Israel arrived on the plains of Moab.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 22–24<\/h5>\n<p>Balak, king of Moab, frightened by Israel’s presence, joined with Midian to hire Balaam, the false prophet, to curse Israel. For gain, Balaam agreed (2 Pt 2:15; Jude 1:11), but God prevented him, causing him rather to bless Israel in his four oracular utterances (Nm 23:7-10, 18-24; 24:3-9, 15-19) and to predict the destruction of Moab, Edom, Amalek (24:20), the Kenites (24:21), and Asshur (24:24). With that, Balak and Balaam separated. Balaam, in collusion with Midian, agreed to counsel Israel to commit idolatry and immorality (31:16). And so, where Balak failed to turn the Lord against Israel, Balaam succeeded (ch 25).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 25<\/h5>\n<p>Israel sinned against God by idolatrous and immoral acts with the people of Moab (vv 1-3). In carrying out the command of God to destroy the reprobate Israelites, Phinehas killed Zimri and Cozbi, the latter being a daughter of one of the five kings of Midian (vv 4-14). This event provided the occasion for God to declare a holy war against Midian (vv 16-18; cf. ch 31).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 26<\/h5>\n<p>The Lord commanded Moses to take a roll of the men of the second generation who were capable of warring against Israel’s enemies. The total number came to 601,730 (v 51), a reduction of 1,820 men from the first count. With a smaller force than the first generation, Israel conquered Canaan, clearly indicating that Israel could have spared itself the years of wandering if only the nation had obeyed God 38 years before Kadesh. The Levites totaled 23,000 males a month old and upward (vv 57-62).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 27<\/h5>\n<p>At the request of the daughters of Zelophehad (cf. 26:33) that they be granted the right to inherit their father’s possessions since he had no sons, the Lord agreed that they could, using the occasion to give further laws of inheritance (vv 1-11).<\/p>\n<p>Reminded that he would soon die in Abarim, Moses requested that God appoint his successor. God selected Joshua, and Moses commissioned him (vv 12-23).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 28–30<\/h5>\n<p>Further priestly legislation regarding offerings for various occasions was given. God also instructed Moses to inform the people concerning vows. When a man made a vow, it was inviolable (30:2), but if a woman made a vow, the man (father, husband) responsible for her could nullify it if he felt that it was rash (vv 1-16).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 31<\/h5>\n<p>The account of the holy war declared against Midian in 25:16-18 is given. With Phinehas accompanying 12,000 warriors, Israel defeated Midian, killing Balaam along with the five kings and many male adults of Midian (31:1-8). The Midianite women and children were taken captive, but Moses commanded that all the male children and the nonvirgin women be killed (vv 9-18). One must not conclude that this war meant the end of Midian as such, for Midian later proved a formidable foe of Israel in the time of the judges (Jgs 6).<\/p>\n<p>After the battle, the warriors were instructed to purify themselves, their clothing, and the booty from the war before coming into the camp (Nm 31:19-24). Furthermore, they were instructed to divide the booty in half and to contribute one-fifth of one percent of their half to the high priest (“the Lord’s tribute”). The other half was divided among the people who had remained in camp, after the Levites received a two percent contribution (vv 25-31).<\/p>\n<p>Verses 32-47 give the tally of the booty after its division into two parts and the amount that was given from each part to Eleazar and the Levites. The tally is said by some to be too high to be authentic, but there is no evidence that disputes the recorded figures.<\/p>\n<p>In thanksgiving to God because no Israelite had been killed in the war (v 49) and to make atonement for themselves (v 50), the army officers brought a special offering of gold trinkets to Moses and Eleazar, which was placed in the tabernacle as a memorial (vv 48-54).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 32<\/h5>\n<p>At their request and on the condition that they aid the other tribes in the conquest of Canaan, Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh were allotted the Transjordan region. Moses earnestly besought the Lord to change his mind about not permitting him to enter the land of promise (Dt 3:23-27). But God would not let him.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 33–34<\/h5>\n<p>At God’s command, Moses kept a written record of Israel’s itinerary from Egypt to the plains of Moab. Here is biblical evidence of the Mosaic authorship of Numbers.<\/p>\n<p>The boundaries of the Promised Land were now given. The southern boundary would run from the southern tip of the Dead Sea, south of Kadesh-barnea up to the River of Egypt (Wadi el-Arish), and on to the Mediterranean Sea (34:3-5). The western boundary would be the coastline of the Mediterranean Sea itself (v 6). The northern boundary, not realized until the times of David and Solomon (2 Sm 8:3-12; 1 Kgs 8:65), was to extend from the Mediterranean Sea east to Hamath, at the head of the Orontes River (Nm 34:7-9). The eastern boundary was to be practically on a vertical line, with the Jordan Valley running north to the northern boundary (vv 10-12). The nine and a half tribes were to divide this area among themselves (vv 13-15).<\/p>\n<p>The Lord then selected the men who were to bear the responsibility of dividing the land of Canaan among the western tribes after the conquest (vv 16-29).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 35<\/h5>\n<p>God instructed Israel to give 48 cities throughout the land on both sides of the Jordan to the Levites for a permanent possession (vv 1-8), since that tribe was not included in the land allotments to the other tribes. The number of cities each tribe was to give was to be determined by its size (v 8). Six of the Levitical cities, three on each side of the Jordan, were to be designated “cities of refuge” for the manslayer (v 6; cf. Jos 20).<\/p>\n<p>Legislation concerning the manslayer follows (vv 9-34). If the slayer committed murder, the kinsman avenger had the right to fulfill his role as executioner (vv 16-21). If, however, the killing was unintentional, the manslayer was to flee to the nearest city of refuge for a trial. If found innocent of murder, he was assigned to remain within the city of refuge until the death of the high priest. If he left the city before then, the kinsman avenger was permitted to execute him (vv 22-34).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 36<\/h5>\n<p>Basing their question on the earlier law established in chapter 27, the leaders from Manasseh asked whether an heiress should be allowed to marry outside her tribe, with the accompanying transfer of property from one tribe to another that would ensue. God directed that an heiress would have to marry within her tribe (vv 1-12).<\/p>\n<p>The last verse of the book refers to all the laws given in the plains of Moab (26:1–36:12; cf. Lv 27:34).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologicalTeaching\">Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Numbers God is revealed as the unchangingly faithful God of the covenant (Nm 23:19). This faithfulness to his covenant required that he both guide and care for his people and punish their sins against him. But no impediment was so great that God’s design to bring his people to the land of promise was thwarted (11:23).<\/p>\n<p>Both by his wrathful reaction to Israel’s sin and by the numerous priestly laws, God highlights his awesome holiness. The legislation expressly teaches that the person who approaches God must be clean. Even to look with unholy eyes upon the holiness of God meant death (4:20).<\/p>\n<p>His sovereignty over all of life is evident from the attention he displays over even the minutest aspects of life. The phrase “And the Lord said unto Moses” occurs over 50 times, and the words that follow in each case deal with all kinds of matters.<\/p>\n<p>As the God of the covenant, God’s “christological” character is also apparent. God’s blessing and faithfulness reflect the christological motif. Finally, Moses’ prophetic leadership (Acts 7:37-38) and intercessory ministry (e.g., Nm 11:2; 12:13; 14:19), in the Aaronic priesthood (e.g., ch 16), in the animal sacrifices (cf. 19:9; Heb 9:13), and in the symbols (the manna, the water, the bronze snake) foreshadow the future Christ.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel’s responses to God, the people depict all of human sinfulness and faithlessness. Israel’s wanderings illustrate the results of unbelief. The punishments of Israel prove the maxim of Numbers 32:23: “But if you fail to keep your word, then you will have sinned against the <span>Lord<\/span>, and you may be sure that your sin will find you out” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Numbers forcefully teaches that safety and blessing are to be found only in trust in the Lord. Only he is capable of bringing men and women to the place of rest (Heb 4:9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Deuteronomy, Book of; Exodus, Book of; Genesis, Book of; Leviticus, Book of; Moses; Wilderness Wanderings.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NUMBERS, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Fourth book of the English Bible. Its title is the English translation of the Latin Vulgate title, <em>Numeri.<\/em> The book takes this name from the fact that several rosters of various kinds are recorded in the book, specifically, the two army musters in chapters 1 and 26, the tribal camp and march arrangements in chapter 2, and the Levitical censuses in chapters 3 and 4.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p>• Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The question of the authorship of Numbers is part of the larger question of the authorship of the Pentateuch. Until the appearance of the higher-critical documentary theories of the 19th century, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was almost universally held by both Jews and Christians alike. This time-honored tradition is supported by the Pentateuch itself (e.g., Ex 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Nm 33:2; Dt 31:9, 24), the rest of the OT (e.g., Jos 23:6; Jgs 3:4; Mal 4:4), as well as Jesus’ teaching (e.g., Jn 5:46-47), and the rest of the NT (e.g., Acts 28:23; Rom 10:19; 1 Cor 9:9). Although discrepancies in the Pentateuch were widely and openly acknowledged, nevertheless Moses, the 15th-century <span>BC<\/span> lawgiver, was affirmed as the primary author of the Pentateuchal literature.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<h5>Sinai Peninsula<\/h5>\n<p>The historical background of Numbers begins primarily in the geographical region of the Sinai Peninsula of the mid-second millennium <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Sinai Peninsula is in the shape of an inverted triangle with the base on the north. It is approximately 240 miles (386.2 kilometers) long from north to south and 175 miles (281.6 kilometers) wide at the northern base, with an area of approximately 22,000 square miles (56,980 square kilometers). It is bounded on the north by the Mediterranean Sea and the southern border of Canaan, on the west by the Bitter Lakes and the Gulf of Suez, and on the east by the Arabah and the Gulf of Aqaba. Beginning in the north at the Mediterranean coast and moving south, for about 15 miles (24.1 kilometers) the soil is sandy. South of this coastal plain is a high plateau (Et-Tih) of gravel and limestone (about 2,500 feet, or 762 meters, above sea level), stretching south into the peninsula for approximately 150 miles (241.4 kilometers). Rising above the plateau at this point is a granite mountain formation with peaks up to 8,000 feet (2,438.4 meters) above sea level. In this mountainous region at the apex of the peninsular triangle, Jebel Musa (7,363 feet, or 2,244.2 meters, high), the traditional site where Israel camped before Mt Sinai and Moses received the law, rises above the plain.<\/p>\n<p>The peninsula itself is comprised of five wilderness areas. In the north and immediately east of the land of Goshen is the approximately 40-mile- or 64.4-kilometer-wide wilderness of Shur, which runs past the River of Egypt (Wadi el-Arish) to the region of Kadesh-barnea and northeast to Beersheba. East of this region is the wilderness of Zin, extending east from the wilderness of Shur to the southern tip of the Dead Sea. Kadesh-barnea is located on its southern border (Nm 20:1; 33:36). South of the wilderness of Shur is the wilderness of Etham, and east of this wilderness in the east-central region of Sinai is the great wilderness of Paran (Dt 1:19). Kadesh-barnea is on the northern border of this territory (Nm 13:26). In this area the Israelites spent 38 of their 40 years of wandering. Southwest of the wilderness of Paran, on the western slopes of the peninsula, not far from the granite mountains standing in the southern apex of the triangle, is the wilderness of Sin.<\/p>\n<p>While the region is generally desolate and barren, it is not impassable or incapable of sustaining travelers. Wells and springs dot both the western and eastern borders at reasonable distances from each other. The water table is fairly close to ground level, making the digging of wells possible (Nm 20:17; 21:16-18). The limestone rocks are also capable of holding great amounts of water (20:11). Vegetation is sparse except around the more permanent streams where vegetation and date palms flourish. The rainy season in winter is approximately 20 days. Quail (11:31-32) are known to migrate across the peninsula to Europe in the spring.<\/p>\n\n<h5>The Peoples Israel Confronted<\/h5>\n<h6>Amalekites and Canaanites (14:25, 43-45; 24:20)<\/h6>\n<p>The Amalekites were descendants of Amalek, son of Eliphaz and grandson of Esau (Gn 36:12, 16). They were generally a nomadic people. In the Sinai Peninsula they were the first to war against Israel at Rephidim (cf. Nm 24:20), perhaps the Wadi Refayid in southwest Sinai (Ex 17:8-16), before Israel reached Horeb. A year later, the Amalekites settled in the hills and valleys north of Kadesh-barnea. In league with the Canaanites, the inhabitants of Palestine, they blocked the effort of Israel to invade the land of promise from the south (Nm 14:45). Israel’s will to wage war appears to have been completely broken for years to come.<\/p>\n<h6>Edomites (20:14-21; 21:4, 10-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Edom, or Seir (24:18), is the territory south of the Dead Sea occupied by Esau’s descendants. Stretching from its northern border at the Wadi Zered (21:12), which flowed into the Dead Sea at its southern tip, 100 miles (160.9 kilometers) south to the Gulf of Aqaba, it occupied both sides of the Arabah, with Kadesh-barnea again standing on the edge of its western border (20:16), giving it a land area of approximately 4,000 square miles (10,360 square kilometers). It is a rugged mountain region with peaks rising to 3,500 feet (1,066.8 meters). The “king’s highway,” an ancient trade route from Damascus through the Transjordan to the Gulf of Aqaba, passed through its territory and major cities, Bozrah and Leman. While Edom was not fertile, it did have cultivable areas (20:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>During Israel’s march to the Transjordan region, Edom refused to let Israel journey directly east from Kadesh through its territory but forced Israel to move southeast into and up the Arabah (21:4, 11). In spite of this hostility to God’s people, Israel was forbidden to attack (Dt 2:2-8) or to hate the Edomites (23:7), and so Edom was spared from destruction during the conquest of the land. The area was later conquered by David (2 Sm 8:13-14) according to Balaam’s prophecy (Nm 24:18).<\/p>\n<h6>Arad (21:1-3)<\/h6>\n<p>Arad was a south Canaanite settlement in the Negev. Its king, after fighting against Israel and taking some captives, was later defeated at Hormah.<\/p>\n<h6>Moabites (21:11-15; 22:1–24:25)<\/h6>\n<p>Moab, occupied by the descendants of Lot (Gn 19:37), is the territory east of the Dead Sea lying primarily between the Wadi Arnon (Nm 21:13) and the Wadi Zered with a land area of approximately 1,400 square miles (3,626 square kilometers).<\/p>\n<p>In the late middle Bronze Age, the Moabites had overflowed their main plateau and had extended well to the north of the Arnon all the way to the northern end of the Dead Sea (21:20). At the time of the events recorded in Numbers, however, the Amorites occupied the area from Arnon all the way north to the Wadi Jabbok (vv 13, 21-24), having earlier taken this land from Moab (vv 26-30). The Moabite kingdom was highly organized, with agriculture and livestock, splendid buildings, distinctive pottery, and strong fortifications around her borders. Its god was Chemosh (v 29).<\/p>\n<p>Balak, king of Moab during the period of the conquest, in league with Midian, hired Balaam to curse Israel (chs 22–24). When this failed, the two heathen powers sought to neutralize Israel by luring the people of God into the worship of Chemosh and into idolatry (25:1-2). In the war that ensued, Israel defeated Midian (31:1-18), but by God’s express command (Dt 2:9-13) spared Moab. But as Balaam had prophesied earlier (Nm 24:17), David in the 11th century warred against and defeated Moab (2 Sm 8:2, 13-14).<\/p>\n<h6>Amorites (21:21-35)<\/h6>\n<p>The Amorites, the people who had occupied northern Moabite territory (Nm 21:25-30), were descendants of Canaan (Gn 10:16) who had scattered throughout the hill country on both sides of the Jordan River. Heshbon was their capital city. Both Sihon of Heshbon and Og of Bashan were Amorite kings (Dt 3:8).<\/p>\n<p>As for Bashan (Nm 21:33-35; cf. Dt 1:4; 3:1-12), it is the fertile grazing region (Nm 32:1-5) east of the Sea of Kinnereth (Galilee), whose northern border extended to Mt Hermon and whose southern border, while normally the river Yarmuk, in the Mosaic age was the Wadi Jabbok (Jos 12:4-5). Its land area covered approximately 5,000 square miles (12,950 square kilometers). Its major cities were Ashtaroth, Edrei, and Golan. After the conquest of the land, this territory fell to the half-tribe of Manasseh, with Gad occupying southern Gilead, and Reuben the region south to the Wadi Arnon.<\/p>\n<h6>Midianites (25:16-18; 31:1-54)<\/h6>\n<p>The Midianites, descendants of Abraham through the concubine Keturah (Gn 25:2), were desert dwellers in Transjordan from Moab to the region south of Edom. The elders of Moab and Midian cooperated in hiring Balaam to curse Israel (Nm 22:4-7). Later, when that effort proved fruitless, the Midianites, again with Moab, led Israel into idolatry and immorality (25:1-6, 14-15). Cozbi, the Midianite woman who was executed for her wickedness (25:8), was the daughter of Zur, one of the five Midianite kings confederate with the Amorite king Sihon (Jos 13:21) who were later killed in Israel’s holy war against Midian (Nm 31:8). This war with Midian apparently broke the back of any remaining Amorite resistance, for Joshua 13:15-23 clearly intimates that as a result the tribe of Reuben occupied this territory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>Numbers serves a twofold purpose. First, as a historical book, it contains the account of Israel’s fortunes from Mt Sinai to the plains of Moab on the eve of the conquest of Canaan—that almost-40-year period spent in the wilderness of Sinai and in Transjordan (1447–1407 <span>BC<\/span>). While recounting Israel’s many failures and God’s many faithful acts, it depicts Moses, Israel’s leader, in all of his greatness and in all of his weakness. The two army rolls (chs 2 and 26) introduce the “acts” of the main drama of its history: the first in preparation for entering the land, which failed due to Israel’s unbelief; the second, after the death of the entire generation that left Egypt, in preparation for the successful invasion of Canaan under Joshua’s leadership.<\/p>\n<p>Second, in line with Paul’s general belief that “whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope” (Rom 15:4, <span>rsv<\/span>), and in keeping with his specific teaching that “these things [that befell Israel in the wilderness] happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come” (1 Cor 10:11, <span>rsv<\/span>), Numbers serves a doctrinal, typical, and hortatory purpose (cf. v 12). Historical events are divinely invested with spiritual truths, thereby becoming object lessons for the Christian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 1<\/h5>\n<p>The Lord commanded Moses to register (Nm 1:18) the men able to go to war (vv 2-3). The total number of soldiers in Israel was 603,550 (v 46). The Levites were not numbered in this roll (vv 47-54), since they were to be set apart for special service pertaining to the tabernacle.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 2<\/h5>\n<p>The Lord instructed Moses concerning the arrangement of the tribes while encamped and on the march. With the tabernacle in the center of the camp, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, totaling 186,400 (v 9), were to camp on the east; Reuben, Simeon, and Gad, totaling 151,450 (v 16), were to camp on the south; Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin, totaling 108,100 (v 24), were to camp on the west; and Dan, Asher, and Naphtali, totaling 157,600 (v 31), were to camp on the north.<\/p>\n<p>On the march, Judah’s east group (v 9) was to set out first, followed by Reuben’s south group (v 16). The Levites with the tabernacle were to follow (v 17). Then Ephraim’s west group (v 24) was to follow the Levites, with Dan’s north group (v 31) bringing up the rear. This means that the Levites were flanked by two groups, before and behind.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 3<\/h5>\n<p>Aaron, the great-grandson of Levi through Kohath (Ex 6:16-20), and his descendants were designated to serve as priests at the tabernacle (Nm 3:2-3). The remaining descendants of Levi, from the families of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, were to serve the Aaronic line at the tabernacle (vv 5-10). The Gershonites were responsible for the tabernacle coverings, hangings, and screens (vv 25-26); the Kohathites were responsible for the “furniture” in the tabernacle (v 31); and the Merarites were responsible for the frames, bars, and foundations for the tabernacle (vv 36-37).<\/p>\n<p>God instructed Moses to number the three Levitical families. Gershon’s descendants, totaling 7,500 (v 22), were to camp on the west, between the western group of tribes and the tabernacle. Kohath’s descendants, totaling 8,600 (v 28), were to camp on the south, between the southern group of tribes and the tabernacle. Merari’s descendants, totaling 6,200 (v 34), were to camp on the north, between the northern group of tribes and the tabernacle. Moses and the Aaronic family were to camp on the east, between the eastern group of tribes and the tabernacle (v 38). Both in camp and on the march, then, the tabernacle was in the midst of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The census of Israel’s firstborn males disclosed 273 more male babies than Levites (vv 40-46), and since the Levites were a ransom for Israelite males on a one-to-one basis, the 273 additional male children had to be ransomed by atonement money (vv 46-51).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 4<\/h5>\n<p>God instructed Moses that only Levites between the ages of 30 and 50 were to serve at the tabernacle. A census disclosed that there were 2,750 Kohathites (v 36), 2,630 Gershonites (v 40), and 3,200 Merarites (v 44), making a total of 8,580 (v 48) who were eligible to serve the Aaronic priests.<\/p>\n<p>God further ordered the Aaronic priests, when the tabernacle was being dismantled for the march, to cover all the tabernacle “furniture” before the Kohathites even looked at them (v 20) lest the Kohathites, either looking at or touching them (v 15), should die (vv 15, 20).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 5<\/h5>\n<p>For ceremonial purposes, God demanded that lepers, those with a bodily discharge, and those who had touched the dead, must be put outside the camp until they were purified (vv 1-4). Furthermore, God instructed those making restitution for a wrongdoing, if the wronged person was no longer alive, to give the restitution price to a priest (vv 5-10).<\/p>\n<p>Finally, if a woman was suspected by her husband of infidelity but there was no evidence of such, the woman was to undergo a trial by water ordeal to relieve the man of his suspicions. The priest was to give her holy water with dust from the floor of the tabernacle in it to drink. If she was guilty, the water by divine direction would cause her pain, make her abdomen swell, and her thigh waste away (vv 11-31).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 6<\/h5>\n<p>Laws pertaining to the Nazirite were given next. A Nazirite was a person who determined to take a vow to separate himself wholly to the Lord. To dramatize this separation, the Nazirite was to drink no intoxicating beverage, let the hair grow long, and touch no dead body (vv 3-6). Should he defile himself, he was to follow prescribed rules for ceremonial cleansing (vv 9-12). When his vow had run its course, he was to follow prescribed rules for terminating his vow (vv 13-21). Finally, God instructed the Aaronic priesthood concerning the blessing they were to pronounce upon the Israelite worshiper (vv 22-27).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 7<\/h5>\n<p>The leaders in Israel brought six wagons and twelve oxen for use in the transfer of the tabernacle (7:3). Moses gave two wagons and four oxen to the Gershonites (v 7), and four wagons and eight oxen to the Merarites (v 8). (The Kohathites were to carry the “furniture” of the tabernacle on their shoulders, v 9.) For twelve consecutive days, to consecrate the altar after it was anointed (vv 10, 88), the tribal leaders, in the order of march (cf. ch 2), brought similar offerings. God demonstrated his pleasure with this gesture by speaking to Moses from the mercy seat (v 89).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 8<\/h5>\n<p>God granted the prerogative to light the seven-branched lampstand to the Aaronic priests (vv 1-4). Following divine instructions, Moses and Aaron consecrated the Levites to the service of the tabernacle by means of a purification ceremony (vv 5-22).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 9:1–10:10<\/h5>\n<p>For the benefit of the worshiper who was ceremonially unclean or away on a journey at the time of the Passover, God granted permission to observe the Passover a month later (vv 6-12; see also ch 27).<\/p>\n<p>God gave final instructions to the people before their departure from Sinai. They were to prepare for marching when they saw the cloud ascending from the tabernacle, and they were to stop at the place where the cloud settled down (9:15-23). The people were to assemble at the tabernacle if two silver trumpets were blown; only the leaders were to come if one was blown; and at the blast of a military alarm, the several groups of tribes were to prepare for an immediate march (10:1-10).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 10:11–14:45<\/h5>\n<p>The next section recounts the march from Sinai to Kadesh-barnea, a period of time approximately one and a half to two months in length (cf. 10:11; 13:20). Almost immediately the people began to complain as they passed through the terrible wilderness of Paran (Dt 1:19), angering the Lord at Taberah (Nm 11:1-3) and at Kibroth-hattaavah (Nm 11:4-35; Pss 78:26-31; 106:13-15). Miriam and Aaron challenged Moses’ sole right to speak for God to the people, which resulted in temporary leprosy as punishment for Miriam (doubtless the leader in the provocation). Through Moses’ intercession, the two were forgiven (Nm 12). Out of this event, however, came the remarkable description of Moses’ relationship to God as a unique means of revelation (vv 6-8).<\/p>\n<p>From Paran (Kadesh-barnea) Moses dispatched the spies to survey the land (ch 13). Deuteronomy 1:22 suggests that the plan to spy out the land originated with the people, with Moses (at God’s behest) acquiescing. At the end of 40 days, they returned. Only Caleb and Joshua urged the people to advance to the conquest; the other 10 spies spoke of foes too formidable for them to defeat. The people, greatly discouraged, attempted to stone Caleb and Joshua (Nm 14:10), and were prevented from doing so only by the sudden appearance of the glory cloud at the tabernacle. God swore in his wrath (Nm 14:21; cf. Heb 3:7–4:10) that, with the exception of Caleb and Joshua, none of that generation would enter the land of promise (Nm 14:21-35). He then struck down the 10 unbelieving spies (v 37). Presumptuously, and in spite of God’s express command to the contrary (Dt 1:42), Israel attempted to advance on the land, leaving Moses and the ark of the covenant in the camp. They were challenged by the Amalekites and Canaanites.<\/p>\n<p>Israel remained in this general area with tribal families fanning out over the wilderness and settling around springs and oases (Dt 1:46). Numbers 15:1–21:20 relates the account of the 38 years of wilderness wandering. Much of this time was probably spent around Kadesh-barnea (Dt 1:46).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 15<\/h5>\n<p>Further priestly legislation was given (Nm 15:1-21). Also, the procedure to be followed when an Israelite committed a sin deliberately and defiantly was spelled out in terms of excommunication: there was no atonement for such an attitude (vv 22-31). A Sabbath violator was executed (vv 32-36), perhaps as an illustration of the foregoing legislation. Finally, to assist them in obeying God’s laws, the Israelites were instructed to tie blue tassels to their outer garments as reminders (vv 37-41).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 16<\/h5>\n<p>Korah challenged Aaron’s high priesthood, and Dathan, Abiram, and On challenged Moses’ leadership (vv 1-14). God, at Moses’ word, opened up the earth and swallowed the offenders (Nm 16:32; cf. Dt 9:6; Ps 106:16-18). Korah is regarded in the NT (Jude 1:11) as a classic example of a rebellious malcontent.<\/p>\n<p>Numbers 26:11 states that Korah’s young children did not perish with him. Perhaps they became the ancestors of the “sons of Korah,” the sacred musicians of the temple who composed 12 Korahite psalms (Pss 42–49, 84–85, 87–88).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 17<\/h5>\n<p>God then instructed the leaders of each tribe to bring rods, 12 in all, to write the names of the tribes upon them (with Aaron’s name on Levi’s rod), and to deposit them in the tabernacle. The following day, Aaron’s rod had sprouted with blossoms and ripe almonds, thus vindicating Aaron’s special high-priestly status.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 18–19<\/h5>\n<p>Further priestly legislation was given. In 18:1-7, the full responsibility for the priestly service was given to the Aaronic priests—a very natural consequence of the preceding chapter. The Levites were to assist the Aaronic order (v 6). Since the tribe of Levi received no land inheritance, they were to be supported from the offerings of the people (vv 8-20).<\/p>\n<p>In 19:1-22 instructions concerning ceremonial impurity were given. When an Israelite became ceremonially unclean through contact with death (vv 11-16), God required that he be purified from his sin (vv 9, 17) by the sprinkling of specially prepared water upon him.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 20<\/h5>\n<p>With Israel once again at Kadesh on the southern border of the wilderness of Zin in the first month of the 40th year of wandering, Miriam died and was buried (v 1). According to the encampment list in chapter 33, 18 encampments may have occurred for Israel since the nation had last been at this site (cf. 33:18-36).<\/p>\n<p>At this time the nation complained once again because there was little water (20:2). Moses, at God’s instruction, brought forth water from a rock (vv 8-11), but because of a gross infraction by Moses and Aaron on this occasion, God announced that they would not be permitted to lead Israel in the conquest of the land (vv 12, 23-24).<\/p>\n<p>The chapter closes with Edom refusing Israel passage across its territory (vv 14-21) and Aaron dying on Mt Hor on the border of Edom (vv 22-29) in the fifth month of the 40th year (33:38). Eleazar, Aaron’s son, assumed the office of high priest.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 21<\/h5>\n<p>After a quick victory over Arad (vv 1-3), Israel started south to encircle Edom. Becoming impatient with God and with Moses, the people expressed their disgust with God’s provision of manna. The Lord sent poisonous snakes to the camp, causing many to die. But at God’s command Moses fashioned a snake out of bronze and placed it atop a standard. All who looked to the bronze snake survived (vv 4-10). The bronze snake was preserved and later was destroyed by Hezekiah, the symbol having become by his time an idol (2 Kgs 18:4). Later still, Jesus drew an analogy between these wicked sinners looking to the bronze snake and being delivered and men looking to him by faith and being saved (Jn 3:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>Leaving that fateful place, Israel journeyed into and up the Arabah, crossed the Wadi Zered in an eastern swing around Moab, finally crossing the Arnon into Amorite territory. Journeying north, they camped at Pisgah (Nm 21:10-20).<\/p>\n<p>At this point the conquest of the Transjordan begins. In quick succession Israel defeated Sihon of Heshbon (vv 21-31) and Og of Bashan (vv 33-35) and settled in the plains of Moab (22:1). This encampment was the scene for the remainder of the activities of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua 1–3. In a real sense, one can say the wilderness wanderings were now over.<\/p>\n<p>Here is the place, then, to summarize the spiritual condition of Israel on the eve of the conquest of Canaan. Numbers makes it quite evident that the entire generation that left Egypt, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb, was to die in the wilderness because of its apostasy (cf. Am 5:25), unbelief, and general failure to keep covenant with God. None of the generation of male children born in the wilderness had been circumcised (Jos 5:2-9). Psalm 90 underscores Israel as the recipient of God’s wrath in the wilderness. It is in this pitiable spiritual condition that Israel arrived on the plains of Moab.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 22–24<\/h5>\n<p>Balak, king of Moab, frightened by Israel’s presence, joined with Midian to hire Balaam, the false prophet, to curse Israel. For gain, Balaam agreed (2 Pt 2:15; Jude 1:11), but God prevented him, causing him rather to bless Israel in his four oracular utterances (Nm 23:7-10, 18-24; 24:3-9, 15-19) and to predict the destruction of Moab, Edom, Amalek (24:20), the Kenites (24:21), and Asshur (24:24). With that, Balak and Balaam separated. Balaam, in collusion with Midian, agreed to counsel Israel to commit idolatry and immorality (31:16). And so, where Balak failed to turn the Lord against Israel, Balaam succeeded (ch 25).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 25<\/h5>\n<p>Israel sinned against God by idolatrous and immoral acts with the people of Moab (vv 1-3). In carrying out the command of God to destroy the reprobate Israelites, Phinehas killed Zimri and Cozbi, the latter being a daughter of one of the five kings of Midian (vv 4-14). This event provided the occasion for God to declare a holy war against Midian (vv 16-18; cf. ch 31).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 26<\/h5>\n<p>The Lord commanded Moses to take a roll of the men of the second generation who were capable of warring against Israel’s enemies. The total number came to 601,730 (v 51), a reduction of 1,820 men from the first count. With a smaller force than the first generation, Israel conquered Canaan, clearly indicating that Israel could have spared itself the years of wandering if only the nation had obeyed God 38 years before Kadesh. The Levites totaled 23,000 males a month old and upward (vv 57-62).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 27<\/h5>\n<p>At the request of the daughters of Zelophehad (cf. 26:33) that they be granted the right to inherit their father’s possessions since he had no sons, the Lord agreed that they could, using the occasion to give further laws of inheritance (vv 1-11).<\/p>\n<p>Reminded that he would soon die in Abarim, Moses requested that God appoint his successor. God selected Joshua, and Moses commissioned him (vv 12-23).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 28–30<\/h5>\n<p>Further priestly legislation regarding offerings for various occasions was given. God also instructed Moses to inform the people concerning vows. When a man made a vow, it was inviolable (30:2), but if a woman made a vow, the man (father, husband) responsible for her could nullify it if he felt that it was rash (vv 1-16).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 31<\/h5>\n<p>The account of the holy war declared against Midian in 25:16-18 is given. With Phinehas accompanying 12,000 warriors, Israel defeated Midian, killing Balaam along with the five kings and many male adults of Midian (31:1-8). The Midianite women and children were taken captive, but Moses commanded that all the male children and the nonvirgin women be killed (vv 9-18). One must not conclude that this war meant the end of Midian as such, for Midian later proved a formidable foe of Israel in the time of the judges (Jgs 6).<\/p>\n<p>After the battle, the warriors were instructed to purify themselves, their clothing, and the booty from the war before coming into the camp (Nm 31:19-24). Furthermore, they were instructed to divide the booty in half and to contribute one-fifth of one percent of their half to the high priest (“the Lord’s tribute”). The other half was divided among the people who had remained in camp, after the Levites received a two percent contribution (vv 25-31).<\/p>\n<p>Verses 32-47 give the tally of the booty after its division into two parts and the amount that was given from each part to Eleazar and the Levites. The tally is said by some to be too high to be authentic, but there is no evidence that disputes the recorded figures.<\/p>\n<p>In thanksgiving to God because no Israelite had been killed in the war (v 49) and to make atonement for themselves (v 50), the army officers brought a special offering of gold trinkets to Moses and Eleazar, which was placed in the tabernacle as a memorial (vv 48-54).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 32<\/h5>\n<p>At their request and on the condition that they aid the other tribes in the conquest of Canaan, Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh were allotted the Transjordan region. Moses earnestly besought the Lord to change his mind about not permitting him to enter the land of promise (Dt 3:23-27). But God would not let him.<\/p>\n<h5>Chapters 33–34<\/h5>\n<p>At God’s command, Moses kept a written record of Israel’s itinerary from Egypt to the plains of Moab. Here is biblical evidence of the Mosaic authorship of Numbers.<\/p>\n<p>The boundaries of the Promised Land were now given. The southern boundary would run from the southern tip of the Dead Sea, south of Kadesh-barnea up to the River of Egypt (Wadi el-Arish), and on to the Mediterranean Sea (34:3-5). The western boundary would be the coastline of the Mediterranean Sea itself (v 6). The northern boundary, not realized until the times of David and Solomon (2 Sm 8:3-12; 1 Kgs 8:65), was to extend from the Mediterranean Sea east to Hamath, at the head of the Orontes River (Nm 34:7-9). The eastern boundary was to be practically on a vertical line, with the Jordan Valley running north to the northern boundary (vv 10-12). The nine and a half tribes were to divide this area among themselves (vv 13-15).<\/p>\n<p>The Lord then selected the men who were to bear the responsibility of dividing the land of Canaan among the western tribes after the conquest (vv 16-29).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 35<\/h5>\n<p>God instructed Israel to give 48 cities throughout the land on both sides of the Jordan to the Levites for a permanent possession (vv 1-8), since that tribe was not included in the land allotments to the other tribes. The number of cities each tribe was to give was to be determined by its size (v 8). Six of the Levitical cities, three on each side of the Jordan, were to be designated “cities of refuge” for the manslayer (v 6; cf. Jos 20).<\/p>\n<p>Legislation concerning the manslayer follows (vv 9-34). If the slayer committed murder, the kinsman avenger had the right to fulfill his role as executioner (vv 16-21). If, however, the killing was unintentional, the manslayer was to flee to the nearest city of refuge for a trial. If found innocent of murder, he was assigned to remain within the city of refuge until the death of the high priest. If he left the city before then, the kinsman avenger was permitted to execute him (vv 22-34).<\/p>\n<h5>Chapter 36<\/h5>\n<p>Basing their question on the earlier law established in chapter 27, the leaders from Manasseh asked whether an heiress should be allowed to marry outside her tribe, with the accompanying transfer of property from one tribe to another that would ensue. God directed that an heiress would have to marry within her tribe (vv 1-12).<\/p>\n<p>The last verse of the book refers to all the laws given in the plains of Moab (26:1–36:12; cf. Lv 27:34).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologicalTeaching\">Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Numbers God is revealed as the unchangingly faithful God of the covenant (Nm 23:19). This faithfulness to his covenant required that he both guide and care for his people and punish their sins against him. But no impediment was so great that God’s design to bring his people to the land of promise was thwarted (11:23).<\/p>\n<p>Both by his wrathful reaction to Israel’s sin and by the numerous priestly laws, God highlights his awesome holiness. The legislation expressly teaches that the person who approaches God must be clean. Even to look with unholy eyes upon the holiness of God meant death (4:20).<\/p>\n<p>His sovereignty over all of life is evident from the attention he displays over even the minutest aspects of life. The phrase “And the Lord said unto Moses” occurs over 50 times, and the words that follow in each case deal with all kinds of matters.<\/p>\n<p>As the God of the covenant, God’s “christological” character is also apparent. God’s blessing and faithfulness reflect the christological motif. Finally, Moses’ prophetic leadership (Acts 7:37-38) and intercessory ministry (e.g., Nm 11:2; 12:13; 14:19), in the Aaronic priesthood (e.g., ch 16), in the animal sacrifices (cf. 19:9; Heb 9:13), and in the symbols (the manna, the water, the bronze snake) foreshadow the future Christ.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel’s responses to God, the people depict all of human sinfulness and faithlessness. Israel’s wanderings illustrate the results of unbelief. The punishments of Israel prove the maxim of Numbers 32:23: “But if you fail to keep your word, then you will have sinned against the <span>Lord<\/span>, and you may be sure that your sin will find you out” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Numbers forcefully teaches that safety and blessing are to be found only in trust in the Lord. Only he is capable of bringing men and women to the place of rest (Heb 4:9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Deuteronomy, Book of; Exodus, Book of; Genesis, Book of; Leviticus, Book of; Moses; Wilderness Wanderings.<\/p>","summary_ro":"NUMBERS, Book of Fourth book of the English Bible. Its title is the English translation of the Latin Vulgate title, Numeri. The book takes this name from the fact that several rosters of various kinds are recorded in the book, specifically, the two army musters in chapters 1 and 26, the tribal camp and march arrangements in chapter 2, and the Levitical censuses in chapters 3 and 4. Preview • Author • Background • Purpose • Content • Theological Teaching Author The question of the authorship o...","summary_en":"NUMBERS, Book of Fourth book of the English Bible. Its title is the English translation of the Latin Vulgate title, Numeri. The book takes this name from the fact that several rosters of various kinds are recorded in the book, specifically, the two army musters in chapters 1 and 26, the tribal camp and march arrangements in chapter 2, and the Levitical censuses in chapters 3 and 4. Preview • Author • Background • Purpose • Content • Theological Teaching Author The question of the authorship o...","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":28019,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Oath","title_en":"Oath","content_ro":"<h3>OATH<\/h3>\n<p>Solemn vow or promise to fulfill a pledge. There are two terms in Hebrew that mean “oath”: <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">‘ala<\/span> and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">sebu’a<\/span><em>.<\/em> The latter, more general term in ancient times meant to enter into a solemn (even magical) relationship with the number seven, although ancient connections are lost. Even so, when Abraham and Abimelech entered into an oath at Beersheba (the well of seven, or the well of the oath), Abraham set aside seven ewe lambs as a witness to the fact that he had dug a well (Gn 21:22-31). The former term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">‘ala<\/span><em>,<\/em> often translated “oath,” properly means “curse.” At times the two terms are used together (Nm 5:21; Neh 10:29; Dn 9:11). Any breach of one’s undertaking affirmed by an oath would be attended by a curse. The Lord affirmed that he had established a covenant and a curse with Israel—that is, a breach of covenant would be followed by a curse (Dt 29:14ff.).<\/p>\n<p>An oath was taken to confirm an agreement or, in a political situation, to confirm a treaty. Both in Israel and among its neighbors, God (or the gods) would act as the guarantor(s) of the agreement and his name (or their names) was invoked for this purpose. When Jacob and Laban made an agreement, they erected a heap of stones as a witness (Gn 31:53). If either party transgressed the terms, it was a heinous sin. For this reason one of the Ten Commandments dealt with empty affirmations: “Do not misuse the name of the <span>Lord<\/span> your God. The <span>Lord<\/span> will not let you go unpunished if you misuse his name” (Ex 20:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). The people of Israel were forbidden to swear their oaths by false gods (Jer 12:16; Am 8:14). To breach an international treaty, where the oath was taken in the Lord’s name, merited death (Ez 17:16-17). It was one of the complaints of Hosea that the people of his day swore falsely when they made a covenant (Hos 10:4). Judgment would attend such wanton disregard of the solemnity of an oath. Certain civil situations in Israel called for an oath (Ex 22:10-11; Lv 5:1; 6:3; Nm 5:11-28). This practice provided a pattern for the Israelite covenantal oath of allegiance between God and his people.<\/p>\n<p>Christ taught that oaths were binding (Mt 5:33). In the kingdom of God oaths would become unnecessary (vv 34-37). At his trial before Caiaphas, Jesus heard an imprecatory oath from the high priest (26:63-65), and Paul swore by an oath on occasion (2 Cor 1:23; Gal 1:20). God himself was bound by his own oath (Heb 6:13-18) to keep his promise to the patriarchs (Gn 50:24; Pss 89:19-37, 49; 110:1-4).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Covenant; Vows.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>OATH<\/h3>\n<p>Solemn vow or promise to fulfill a pledge. There are two terms in Hebrew that mean “oath”: <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">‘ala<\/span> and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">sebu’a<\/span><em>.<\/em> The latter, more general term in ancient times meant to enter into a solemn (even magical) relationship with the number seven, although ancient connections are lost. Even so, when Abraham and Abimelech entered into an oath at Beersheba (the well of seven, or the well of the oath), Abraham set aside seven ewe lambs as a witness to the fact that he had dug a well (Gn 21:22-31). The former term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">‘ala<\/span><em>,<\/em> often translated “oath,” properly means “curse.” At times the two terms are used together (Nm 5:21; Neh 10:29; Dn 9:11). Any breach of one’s undertaking affirmed by an oath would be attended by a curse. The Lord affirmed that he had established a covenant and a curse with Israel—that is, a breach of covenant would be followed by a curse (Dt 29:14ff.).<\/p>\n<p>An oath was taken to confirm an agreement or, in a political situation, to confirm a treaty. Both in Israel and among its neighbors, God (or the gods) would act as the guarantor(s) of the agreement and his name (or their names) was invoked for this purpose. When Jacob and Laban made an agreement, they erected a heap of stones as a witness (Gn 31:53). If either party transgressed the terms, it was a heinous sin. For this reason one of the Ten Commandments dealt with empty affirmations: “Do not misuse the name of the <span>Lord<\/span> your God. The <span>Lord<\/span> will not let you go unpunished if you misuse his name” (Ex 20:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). The people of Israel were forbidden to swear their oaths by false gods (Jer 12:16; Am 8:14). To breach an international treaty, where the oath was taken in the Lord’s name, merited death (Ez 17:16-17). It was one of the complaints of Hosea that the people of his day swore falsely when they made a covenant (Hos 10:4). Judgment would attend such wanton disregard of the solemnity of an oath. Certain civil situations in Israel called for an oath (Ex 22:10-11; Lv 5:1; 6:3; Nm 5:11-28). This practice provided a pattern for the Israelite covenantal oath of allegiance between God and his people.<\/p>\n<p>Christ taught that oaths were binding (Mt 5:33). In the kingdom of God oaths would become unnecessary (vv 34-37). At his trial before Caiaphas, Jesus heard an imprecatory oath from the high priest (26:63-65), and Paul swore by an oath on occasion (2 Cor 1:23; Gal 1:20). God himself was bound by his own oath (Heb 6:13-18) to keep his promise to the patriarchs (Gn 50:24; Pss 89:19-37, 49; 110:1-4).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Covenant; Vows.<\/p>","summary_ro":"OATH Solemn vow or promise to fulfill a pledge. There are two terms in Hebrew that mean “oath”: ‘ala and sebu’a. The latter, more general term in ancient times meant to enter into a solemn (even magical) relationship with the number seven, although ancient connections are lost. Even so, when Abraham and Abimelech entered into an oath at Beersheba (the well of seven, or the well of the oath), Abraham set aside seven ewe lambs as a witness to the fact that he had dug a well (Gn 21:22-31). The f...","summary_en":"OATH Solemn vow or promise to fulfill a pledge. There are two terms in Hebrew that mean “oath”: ‘ala and sebu’a. The latter, more general term in ancient times meant to enter into a solemn (even magical) relationship with the number seven, although ancient connections are lost. Even so, when Abraham and Abimelech entered into an oath at Beersheba (the well of seven, or the well of the oath), Abraham set aside seven ewe lambs as a witness to the fact that he had dug a well (Gn 21:22-31). The f...","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44456,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:11","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:11-31<\/strong> This detailed test for adultery, a “trial by ordeal,” is the only such case found in the Old Testament, though trial by ordeal was a common procedure in the ancient Near East. God had a special interest in safeguarding marriage as the foundation of Hebrew society, and the purpose of this ordeal was to promote marital faithfulness. We cannot determine how commonly such ordeals actually occurred. This procedure appealed to God’s own intervention to ensure justice in cases lacking evidence (cp. 1 Cor 5:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:11-31<\/strong> This detailed test for adultery, a “trial by ordeal,” is the only such case found in the Old Testament, though trial by ordeal was a common procedure in the ancient Near East. God had a special interest in safeguarding marriage as the foundation of Hebrew society, and the purpose of this ordeal was to promote marital faithfulness. We cannot determine how commonly such ordeals actually occurred. This procedure appealed to God’s own intervention to ensure justice in cases lacking evidence (cp. 1 Cor 5:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:11-31 This detailed test for adultery, a “trial by ordeal,” is the only such case found in the Old Testament, though trial by ordeal was a common procedure in the ancient Near East. God had a special interest in safeguarding marriage as the foundation of Hebrew society, and the purpose of this ordeal was to promote marital faithfulness. We cannot determine how commonly such ordeals actually occurred. This procedure appealed to God’s own intervention to ensure justice in cases lacking eviden...","summary_en":"5:11-31 This detailed test for adultery, a “trial by ordeal,” is the only such case found in the Old Testament, though trial by ordeal was a common procedure in the ancient Near East. God had a special interest in safeguarding marriage as the foundation of Hebrew society, and the purpose of this ordeal was to promote marital faithfulness. We cannot determine how commonly such ordeals actually occurred. This procedure appealed to God’s own intervention to ensure justice in cases lacking eviden...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72082,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:11","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:11-31<\/strong> This detailed test for adultery, a “trial by ordeal,” is the only such case found in the Old Testament, though trial by ordeal was a common procedure in the ancient Near East. God had a special interest in safeguarding marriage as the foundation of Hebrew society, and the purpose of this ordeal was to promote marital faithfulness. We cannot determine how commonly such ordeals actually occurred. This procedure appealed to God’s own intervention to ensure justice in cases lacking evidence (cp. 1 Cor 5:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:11-31<\/strong> This detailed test for adultery, a “trial by ordeal,” is the only such case found in the Old Testament, though trial by ordeal was a common procedure in the ancient Near East. God had a special interest in safeguarding marriage as the foundation of Hebrew society, and the purpose of this ordeal was to promote marital faithfulness. We cannot determine how commonly such ordeals actually occurred. This procedure appealed to God’s own intervention to ensure justice in cases lacking evidence (cp. 1 Cor 5:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:11-31 This detailed test for adultery, a “trial by ordeal,” is the only such case found in the Old Testament, though trial by ordeal was a common procedure in the ancient Near East. God had a special interest in safeguarding marriage as the foundation of Hebrew society, and the purpose of this ordeal was to promote marital faithfulness. We cannot determine how commonly such ordeals actually occurred. This procedure appealed to God’s own intervention to ensure justice in cases lacking eviden...","summary_en":"5:11-31 This detailed test for adultery, a “trial by ordeal,” is the only such case found in the Old Testament, though trial by ordeal was a common procedure in the ancient Near East. God had a special interest in safeguarding marriage as the foundation of Hebrew society, and the purpose of this ordeal was to promote marital faithfulness. We cannot determine how commonly such ordeals actually occurred. This procedure appealed to God’s own intervention to ensure justice in cases lacking eviden...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99708,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:11","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:11-31<\/strong> This detailed test for adultery, a “trial by ordeal,” is the only such case found in the Old Testament, though trial by ordeal was a common procedure in the ancient Near East. God had a special interest in safeguarding marriage as the foundation of Hebrew society, and the purpose of this ordeal was to promote marital faithfulness. We cannot determine how commonly such ordeals actually occurred. This procedure appealed to God’s own intervention to ensure justice in cases lacking evidence (cp. 1 Cor 5:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:11-31<\/strong> This detailed test for adultery, a “trial by ordeal,” is the only such case found in the Old Testament, though trial by ordeal was a common procedure in the ancient Near East. God had a special interest in safeguarding marriage as the foundation of Hebrew society, and the purpose of this ordeal was to promote marital faithfulness. We cannot determine how commonly such ordeals actually occurred. This procedure appealed to God’s own intervention to ensure justice in cases lacking evidence (cp. 1 Cor 5:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:11-31 This detailed test for adultery, a “trial by ordeal,” is the only such case found in the Old Testament, though trial by ordeal was a common procedure in the ancient Near East. God had a special interest in safeguarding marriage as the foundation of Hebrew society, and the purpose of this ordeal was to promote marital faithfulness. We cannot determine how commonly such ordeals actually occurred. This procedure appealed to God’s own intervention to ensure justice in cases lacking eviden...","summary_en":"5:11-31 This detailed test for adultery, a “trial by ordeal,” is the only such case found in the Old Testament, though trial by ordeal was a common procedure in the ancient Near East. God had a special interest in safeguarding marriage as the foundation of Hebrew society, and the purpose of this ordeal was to promote marital faithfulness. We cannot determine how commonly such ordeals actually occurred. This procedure appealed to God’s own intervention to ensure justice in cases lacking eviden...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127334,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:11","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:11-31<\/strong> This detailed test for adultery, a “trial by ordeal,” is the only such case found in the Old Testament, though trial by ordeal was a common procedure in the ancient Near East. God had a special interest in safeguarding marriage as the foundation of Hebrew society, and the purpose of this ordeal was to promote marital faithfulness. We cannot determine how commonly such ordeals actually occurred. This procedure appealed to God’s own intervention to ensure justice in cases lacking evidence (cp. 1 Cor 5:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:11-31<\/strong> This detailed test for adultery, a “trial by ordeal,” is the only such case found in the Old Testament, though trial by ordeal was a common procedure in the ancient Near East. God had a special interest in safeguarding marriage as the foundation of Hebrew society, and the purpose of this ordeal was to promote marital faithfulness. We cannot determine how commonly such ordeals actually occurred. This procedure appealed to God’s own intervention to ensure justice in cases lacking evidence (cp. 1 Cor 5:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:11-31 This detailed test for adultery, a “trial by ordeal,” is the only such case found in the Old Testament, though trial by ordeal was a common procedure in the ancient Near East. God had a special interest in safeguarding marriage as the foundation of Hebrew society, and the purpose of this ordeal was to promote marital faithfulness. We cannot determine how commonly such ordeals actually occurred. This procedure appealed to God’s own intervention to ensure justice in cases lacking eviden...","summary_en":"5:11-31 This detailed test for adultery, a “trial by ordeal,” is the only such case found in the Old Testament, though trial by ordeal was a common procedure in the ancient Near East. God had a special interest in safeguarding marriage as the foundation of Hebrew society, and the purpose of this ordeal was to promote marital faithfulness. We cannot determine how commonly such ordeals actually occurred. This procedure appealed to God’s own intervention to ensure justice in cases lacking eviden...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"12":[{"id":8075,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Law and Punishment*, Criminal","title_en":"Law and Punishment*, Criminal","content_ro":"<h3>CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT*<\/h3>\n<p>The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, “crimes” included all punishable offenses, even religious offenses such as idolatry (worshiping a false god) or blasphemy (speaking or behaving with contempt toward God).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>• Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<p>• Punishment<\/p>\n<p>• Conclusion<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NearEasternContext\">Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>In ancient societies as in modern ones, laws were considered necessary to regulate individual behavior for the good of the community, state, or nation. Today laws are thought of as made by people for their own protection. In contrast, all ancient Near Eastern law codes were considered to have come directly from some divine source. Hebrew law, though distinct, followed the general pattern of Near Eastern law codes, as is known from those that have survived—such as the Code of Hammurabi and Assyrian and Hittite laws.<\/p>\n<p>Conclusions about the “origin” of ancient laws should be made cautiously. Although evidence indicates that Hammurabi based his legislation partially on earlier Sumerian codes, he declared that his code had been received from Shamash, god of justice. That declaration must have been intended to convey primarily that his code had the express sanction of Shamash, since at least some people would recognize it as a compilation based largely on earlier laws. Similarly, the clear biblical statements about Moses receiving the law on Mt Sinai (Ex 19–24) do not rule out the possibility that parts of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) may have existed in earlier codes. Possibly the Mosaic legislation included some social rules adapted from the period of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewCriminalLaw\">Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<h5>Laws Governing Offenses against God<\/h5>\n<p>Since Hebrew law was designed for a group of people for whom religion was of paramount importance and whose faith was endangered by the influence of the beliefs of their pagan neighbors, it is not surprising that so much of Hebrew law dealt with crimes committed against God. The prohibition against worshiping idols is stated and repeated in the Torah, or Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible): “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Ex 20:4-5, <span>rsv<\/span>). Sacrifice of infants, practiced in some pagan religions, was specifically prohibited in Israel. The penalty for that crime, as for the other forms of murder, was stoning to death (Lv 20:2).<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Leviticus, death by stoning was recorded as the appropriate punishment for blaspheming the name of God (Lv 24:11-16). False prophecy was also a criminal offense; that accusation could apply to a person making a prediction in the name of a god other than the Lord, or implying falsely that one’s prophecy resulted from a communication with God. Jeremiah, whose prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over the southern kingdom of Judah was for a time considered to be false, was almost lynched by a mob (Jer 26:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The idea of keeping the seventh day holy stemmed from the celebration of God’s work in creating the universe in six days and resting on the seventh. Keeping the Sabbath required cessation of manual work for the entire family, including farm animals (Ex 16:23; 20:8-11). People were also required to meet together on the Sabbath for worship, which at a later period in Hebrew history included the reading of Scripture, prayer, and preaching. Anyone breaking the Sabbath could be sentenced to death, as happened to a man caught gathering firewood on the Sabbath (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\n<p>Any type of premeditated crime was considered an offense against God, the giver of all law; hence, it was punishable by death (Nm 15:30-31). Hebrew law also insisted on donation of the firstfruits of harvest to the Lord without delay. That requirement was sometimes carried over to include a first child, whose life was dedicated to service in the temple (Ex 22:29-30; Dt 15:19).<\/p>\n<h5>Personal Injury<\/h5>\n<p>Murder, an offense against “God’s image,” was one of many crimes punishable by death in OT times. The book of Exodus stated unequivocally that “anyone who hits a person hard enough to cause death must be put to death” (Ex 21:12, <span>nlt<\/span>). A murderer who killed by using a weapon such as a stone, a piece of wood, or iron could be killed in revenge by a relative of the deceased. If the original death happened accidentally, the community would sometimes help to conceal the killer and encourage him to hide in a nearby city of refuge, where he would be safe as long as he remained within its gates. He had to stay in that sanctuary until the death of the high priest then in office, after which he was free to return to his own city (Nm 35:10-28). The sixth commandment enjoined, “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13). The Hebrew word referred specifically to murder, not to all forms of killing. Killing an enemy in battle and the execution of a murderer were considered necessary and were not prohibited. More than one witness was required for any conviction, particularly in a murder case (Nm 35:30; Dt 17:6; 19:15).<\/p>\n<p>In the Code of Hammurabi a man responsible for an accidental injury to another was required to pay for the services of the physician. If the victim died, a fine was payable according to the victim’s rank. In a sense the Hebrews went further by requiring payment for any loss of time suffered by the injured person (Ex 21:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Kidnapping was punishable by death in the OT. Exodus states that “Kidnappers must be killed, whether they are caught in possession of their victims or have already sold them as slaves” (Ex 21:16, <span>nlt<\/span>). Joseph’s being sold into slavery by his brothers illustrates this kind of kidnapping.<\/p>\n<h5>Laws concerning Property<\/h5>\n<p>The book of Exodus is quite specific about anyone responsible for damage to the property or crops of another. If a field caught fire and the fire spread, damaging crops in other fields, the person who started the fire, or perhaps the owner of the first field to catch fire, was responsible for the damage (Ex 22:6). Hammurabi’s code cited a similar instance of a man who neglected to keep a dike in repair and was therefore responsible for flood damage to his neighbor’s crops.<\/p>\n<p>Injuries to animals, especially oxen, or injuries to people or property caused by such animals formed an important area of Hebrew law. If an ox that had been previously good-tempered killed a man, the owner would be blameless, although the ox would be put to death—a severe financial penalty for the owner. If an ox with a history of goring killed a man because its owner failed to restrain it adequately, both ox and owner would be put to death. The owner’s life could be ransomed by payment of an agreed-upon sum. If the person an ox gored was a servant, the ox was stoned and the owner paid a fine (Ex 21:28-32). The Code of Hammurabi also recommended no punishment for a first offense by an animal, but if the owner knew that the ox was dangerous and had taken no steps to prevent harm, a fine in silver was payable—a very large fine for an upper-class victim, slightly less if the victim was a slave. However bad the circumstances and however vicious the ox, the Code of Hammurabi stopped at a fine for the offense, never imposing a death penalty on either the animal or the owner.<\/p>\n<p>Negligence causing injury to an animal was also punished in Hebrew law. If an ox or a donkey fell into a pit carelessly left uncovered, the owner of the animal was reimbursed for its loss (Ex 21:33-36).<\/p>\n<p>In ancient cultures women were generally considered chattel (personal property), much like animals or slaves. A daughter was considered to be her father’s property until her marriage, then the property of her husband. Therefore, any offense against a married woman was regarded as an offense against the property of the husband. According to the Code of Hammurabi, a child could be sold into slavery as a servant or bondsman, usually in payment of the father’s debt (cf. Ex 21:2-7; Neh 5:5-8; Is 50:1). Parental authority was so highly regarded in biblical law that a stubborn and rebellious son could be brought before the elders on the grounds of being disobedient and a glutton or a drunkard. He might then be convicted and stoned to death on the spot by the men of the city (Dt 21:18-21). Even that, however, was a protection of the child’s rights; some Near Eastern legislation allowed a parent to order the death of his offspring without reference to the elders or to anyone else. With daughters in particular being held in such low esteem, it is perhaps remarkable that a daughter could inherit property if there were no sons (Nm 27:8).<\/p>\n<p>Adultery, prohibited in the Decalogue, was another crime against a man’s property, specifically his wife. The book of Deuteronomy goes into considerable detail about cases of adultery—the punishment for both persons being death (Dt 22:22). If a man seduced a young woman who was not betrothed, he was required to pay her father the bride price (50 silver shekels); he could not divorce her but had to keep her as his wife for the rest of his life (Ex 22:16; Dt 22:28-29).<\/p>\n<p>In a situation where a wife was accused of adultery but without evidence, a trial was conducted. The husband would bring his wife to a priest and present a small offering (a tenth of a measure of barley meal, with neither oil nor frankincense on it), indicating the low esteem in which he now held his wife. The woman then stood before the Lord holding an earthen jar of “holy water.” Dust from the floor of the tabernacle was mixed with the water, and the cereal offering was placed in her hands. Her hair was loosened by the priest to show not only her grief but also to give an impression of abandonment. She was then required to take an oath. After that, the priest pronounced a curse upon her to the effect that her womb would be fertilized easily, but that she would have many miscarriages. She had to give her consent to that pronouncement. The priest then wrote the curses in a book and symbolically washed them off into the “bitter water.” The woman was required to drink the water while the priest waved the cereal offering from her hands before the Lord and burned some of it on the altar. The priest told her that if she was guilty, the water would make her thigh rot and her abdomen swell. If that happened, she would become an outcast; but if she were proved innocent, she would be free. Whatever the result, no blame for false accusation fell upon the husband (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a slave was struck by his master in such a manner as to cause instant death, the slave’s death had to be avenged. If the slave lingered, possibly for days, he did not need to be avenged, his loss being a sufficient punishment for the owner (Ex 21:20-21). It is unlikely that the Hebrews had much experience with that law, which had no parallels in Hammurabi’s code. If an owner injured his slave by causing the loss of an eye or a tooth, Hebrew law required that the slave be set free (vv 26-27). The Code of Hammurabi gave an example of a man injuring another man’s slave; the owner had to be paid half the slave’s value.<\/p>\n<p>Little emphasis was placed on burglary or larceny in the Hebrew law code. A burglar was presumed to be repentant and ready to make restitution. After return of the stolen property and payment of a small additional fine, a thief could again “approach the Lord” (Lv 6:2-7). By contrast, the Code of Hammurabi prescribed the death penalty for burglary. In Hebrew law, theft of an animal required restitution to be made in the ratio of at least two to one; if a bull or a cow had been stolen or sold, the thief had to restore the property fivefold. The Code of Hammurabi contained a similar statute: “If a man steal ox or sheep, ass or pig, or goat—if it be from a god or a palace, he shall restore thirtyfold; if it be from a freeman, he shall render tenfold. If the thief have nothing wherewith to pay, he shall be put to death.” In Hebrew law goods stolen from a home were simply to be restored without additional penalty. If the thief no longer had the goods and was unable to pay the equivalent value, he might be sold into slavery until restitution was made (Ex 22:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>General Laws<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew code as contained in Exodus and Deuteronomy included many general prohibitions. Some concerned business dealings such as the removal of boundary markers (Dt 19:14). The use of false weights and measures was condemned (Lv 19:35; Dt 25:15; Prv 11:1; 20:23; Mi 6:11). Bribery was strictly forbidden (Ex 23:8), yet no punishment was specified for those who broke that law. In the Code of Hammurabi, if a judge changed his decision and was unable to give a satisfactory explanation, particularly if bribery was suspected, the judge had to pay 12 times the amount of the penalty and lost his seat on the bench. In the Hebrew code, perjury was also dealt with, although again no punishment was specified. The Code of Hammurabi stated that for perjury in cases where the punishment was death, persons giving false testimony were to be sentenced to death themselves (cf. Ex 23:1).<\/p>\n<p>A number of Hebrew laws reflected concern for the poor. For example, poor people were not to be subjected to usury if they were in debt, or left cold at night if their coats were taken as a pledge. Widows, orphans, and strangers were also to be treated with mercy and understanding (Ex 22:21-27; 23:9; Dt 23:19; 24:17).<\/p>\n<p>Some Hebrew laws concerned family behavior, such as those previously mentioned who cursed or disobeyed their parents (Ex 21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 27:16; cf. Prv 20:20; 30:17). Family responsibilities were strong; an entire family frequently suffered punishment for the crime of one of its individual members (Jos 7:20-26; 2 Sm 3:29; 21:1-9; 2 Kgs 5:27; Lam 5:7). Over a period of time, as individual responsibility came to be recognized, parents were no longer put to death for the crimes of their children, or vice versa (cf. Jer 31:29-30).<\/p>\n<p>Sorcery and witchcraft were forbidden. The book of Exodus stated explicitly, “A sorceress must not be allowed to live” (22:18, <span>nlt<\/span>). Sexual perversions, such as intercourse with animals, were forbidden under penalty of death. Regulations prohibiting marriage with close relatives were given in detail (Lv 20:17-21).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew law no parallel existed for some interesting items in the Code of Hammurabi concerning surgery. That code mentioned veterinary surgery and even operations on the human eye. A Babylonian surgeon had to be wary, for “if a physician makes a deep incision upon a man with his bronze lancet and causes the man’s death or operates on the eye socket of a man with his bronze lancet and destroys the man’s eye, then they shall cut off his hand.” Surgery was virtually unknown among the ancient Israelites except for the ritual practice of circumcision.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Punishment\">Punishment<\/p>\n<p>Near Eastern punishments for murder and personal injury were retaliatory and often of the same nature as the offense. Other methods of punishment tended to vary with individual countries or traditions. Many kinds of punishment were inflicted on people defeated in both a full-scale war or a small insurrection.<\/p>\n<h5>Physical Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Many forms of punishment stopped short of killing but could nevertheless be quite severe.<\/p>\n<p>1. In the OT beating with rods or switches was the traditional form of discipline for children, fools, and slaves (Ex 21:20; Prv 13:24; 26:3). Scourging (also called flogging) was more severe than beating. The whip employed could be made of several strips of leather fastened at one end or of two interwoven leather strips. A whip nicknamed “scorpion” (because of the barbs in its end) was one of the cruelest instruments of punishment mentioned in the OT (1 Kgs 12:11, 14). The severity of punishment could be increased by inserting pieces of metal or bone into the leather.<\/p>\n<p>Before a scourging, the victim would be examined for physical fitness. If death resulted from the blows, no blame was attached to the person administering the punishment. The victim was stripped to the waist and tied to a pillar, his hands bound with leather thongs. The severity of a scourging depended on the crime, although the Mosaic law set an upper limit of 40 lashes (Dt 25:1-3). To guard against a miscount, that number was later lowered by one (2 Cor 11:24). Lashes might be administered both on the chest and the back. Under some law codes, scourging could be used as a private punishment; in that case, if the victim died, another life was forfeit.<\/p>\n<p>In offenses against the law, synagogue authorities administered scourgings (Mt 10:17). A husband might be scourged by the elders of the city for defamation of his wife’s character (Dt 22:18). Scourging was also used as a means of interrogating a prisoner—hence, a Roman captain’s comment that the apostle Paul should be “examined by scourging” (Acts 22:24).<\/p>\n<p>The Romans usually reserved scourging for non-Roman citizens, such as slaves or aliens, as well as for those condemned to death. Normally, criminals were scourged after they had been condemned to death; it is therefore unusual to find the scourging of Jesus taking place before his condemnation. Pilate may have hoped to soften the people’s hearts by Jesus’ suffering so that they would not demand the death penalty (Lk 23:16, 22; Jn 19:1).<\/p>\n<p>Citizens of the Roman Empire could never be beaten or scourged before sentencing (Acts 22:25). Hence, the magistrates were afraid when they heard that Paul, a Roman citizen, had been beaten under those circumstances (16:37-39).<\/p>\n<li>2. The gouging out of the eyes of prisoners and captives was a common practice in the Near East. The Philistines blinded Samson before imprisoning him (Jgs 16:21). The Babylonians did the same to King Zedekiah in 587 <span>BC<\/span> before taking him into captivity (2 Kgs 25:7). The Ammonite king Nahash was prepared to accept peace overtures from the men of the city of Jabesh on condition that all their right eyes be gouged out. Nahash’s purpose was to disgrace them and prevent them from further active participation in warfare (1 Sm 11:1-4).<\/li>\n<li>3. Several forms of mutilation served as punishments in the Near East. The Israelites considered their own bodies sacred and made in God’s image, but that did not prevent them from mutilating their enemies by cutting off their thumbs and large toes.<\/li>\n<p>The Code of Hammurabi and the Assyrian law code prescribed mutilation of the eye, nose, ear, breast, tongue, lip, hand, and finger as punishments for specific crimes. In Assyria, punishment was often inflicted by the victim of the crime under supervision of court officials. The Code of Hammurabi also contained safeguards so that criminals were not punished in excess of the law’s sentence.<\/p>\n<li>4. Stocks are mentioned as a form of punishment in the later OT period. The prophets Hanani (2 Chr 16:10) and Jeremiah (Jer 20:2-3) suffered the indignity of being placed in stocks. Both ankles, and sometimes the wrists and head as well, were placed in holes in two large pieces of wood. In Roman times, stocks were converted to a form of torture, with a prisoner’s legs stretched to holes increasingly far apart. In the NT, Paul and Silas had their feet placed in stocks by a Philippian jailer (Acts 16:24). The same Greek word, meaning “confinement,” can refer to fetters chaining a prisoner or to an iron collar like that worn by runaway Roman slaves.<\/li>\n<h5>Capital Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Capital punishment was common in many Near Eastern countries. Several methods were used.<\/p>\n<p>1. Those who offended a king were beheaded with a sword (2 Sm 16:9; 2 Kgs 6:31-32), as were idolaters and murderers (according to the Mishnah, the Jewish commentary on the law). The sword was probably used for private executions as well. Inhabitants of entire cities were sometimes “put to the sword” for their denial of the faith (Ex 32:27; Dt 13:15).<\/p>\n<li>2. Certain sexual offenses were punished with death by burning (Lv 20:14; 21:9). Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law, was accused of adultery and ordered to be burned to death outside the city (Gn 38:24). The Lord instructed that anyone whose feet touched the holy ground of Mt Sinai was to be shot with arrows or stoned (Ex 19:13).<\/li>\n<li>3. Hanging may have been a form of execution in biblical times. But many scholars think the word translated “hanging” or “hanging on a tree” actually meant impalement (Nm 25:4; Dt 21:22-23; Jos 8:29; 2 Sm 21:6, 9; Est 9:14). A spiked wooden stake was set in the ground and the victim’s body was forced onto the spike, the tip of which probably protruded from the chest or mouth. Commonly practiced by the Assyrians, that form of execution was reserved for those guilty of the worst crimes and for prisoners of war or deserters. The Persian king Darius is reputed to have impaled 3,000 men when his army entered Babylon. Impalement was the penalty Darius set for changing his edict concerning the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 6:11-12). It is not certain whether Haman was hung or impaled (see Est 7:9-10, <span>nlt<\/span> and mg notes).<\/li>\n<p>Usually “hanging” was a means of exhibiting a corpse as a warning to local inhabitants (Gn 40:19; Jos 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sm 4:12). Corpses were exhibited for only one day and were buried before nightfall. The hanging corpse was considered a defilement of the land that God had given (Dt 21:22-23). According to the Mishnah, the hands were tied together and the body hanged from the arm of a wooden gallows.<\/p>\n<li>4. Crucifixion was a punishment employed by the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167–166 <span>BC<\/span>; according to Josephus, a first-century <span>AD<\/span> Jewish historian, Jews who refused to give up their traditional faith were so executed. During the Maccabean period (167–40 <span>BC<\/span>), Alexander Janneus crucified 800 rebellious Pharisees in an attempt to reestablish his authority. Crucifixion was a widespread form of execution: it was used in most places in the Roman Empire, including India, North Africa, and Germany. Between 4 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 70, on some occasions the number of people crucified at one time reached into the thousands.<\/li>\n<p>Three types of crosses seem to have been used: a cross with the crossbar below the head of the upright bar (Latin cross); a T-shaped cross (St Anthony’s cross); and an X-shaped cross (St Andrew’s cross). Matthew records that an inscription, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews,” was placed over Jesus’ head (Mt 27:37). That indicates that for Jesus’ crucifixion a Latin cross was used, as artists have traditionally depicted it. In crucifixions the victim was most likely affixed to the cross while it was still lying flat on the ground. Then the cross was raised into position and dropped into a hole. The hands were either nailed or bound to the cross; it is uncertain whether the feet were nailed with one or two nails. The weight of the body was supported by a piece of wood at the feet and possibly by another that was like a spike between the legs.<\/p>\n<li>5. Stoning was the most common Hebrew death penalty. The first stones were thrown by the prosecution witnesses, who were then joined by spectators. Stoning was the punishment for certain religious offenses (Lv 24:16; Nm 15:32-36; Dt 13:1-10; 17:2-5), adultery (Dt 22:23-24), child sacrifice (Lv 20:2), divination of spirits (Lv 20:27), and rebellion (Dt 21:18-21). Before his conversion, the apostle Paul witnessed and consented to the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58-59). Paul himself later survived a stoning at Lystra (14:19). In Roman times, a person would occasionally be stoned as he stood on a gallows.<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew law was part of the Torah (“instruction”) given by God to make his covenant people holy. At that time the Israelites were a seminomadic band of former slaves. Although there are similarities with the Code of Hammurabi and other laws of settled Near Eastern cultures, there are also many differences. Hebrew law often had a broader view, even in its less sophisticated cultural setting, as though its purpose was more to teach godly behavior than to stabilize society. The simplicity and directness of the Ten Commandments, in particular, continue to influence jurisprudence, even in modern secular society.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible’s primary message is God’s love for his covenant people, yet it never overlooks the harsh realities of life in a fallen world. Human beings sin and they commit crimes; they suffer estrangement from God because of their sin and are punished for their crimes. Christians are constantly reminded of the realism of God’s love by the cross as the symbol of Christian faith. They see the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of OT prophecy that the Lord put our iniquity on him (Is 53:5-6). The NT conviction is that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Courts and Trials; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Law, Biblical Concept of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT*<\/h3>\n<p>The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, “crimes” included all punishable offenses, even religious offenses such as idolatry (worshiping a false god) or blasphemy (speaking or behaving with contempt toward God).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>• Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<p>• Punishment<\/p>\n<p>• Conclusion<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NearEasternContext\">Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>In ancient societies as in modern ones, laws were considered necessary to regulate individual behavior for the good of the community, state, or nation. Today laws are thought of as made by people for their own protection. In contrast, all ancient Near Eastern law codes were considered to have come directly from some divine source. Hebrew law, though distinct, followed the general pattern of Near Eastern law codes, as is known from those that have survived—such as the Code of Hammurabi and Assyrian and Hittite laws.<\/p>\n<p>Conclusions about the “origin” of ancient laws should be made cautiously. Although evidence indicates that Hammurabi based his legislation partially on earlier Sumerian codes, he declared that his code had been received from Shamash, god of justice. That declaration must have been intended to convey primarily that his code had the express sanction of Shamash, since at least some people would recognize it as a compilation based largely on earlier laws. Similarly, the clear biblical statements about Moses receiving the law on Mt Sinai (Ex 19–24) do not rule out the possibility that parts of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) may have existed in earlier codes. Possibly the Mosaic legislation included some social rules adapted from the period of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewCriminalLaw\">Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<h5>Laws Governing Offenses against God<\/h5>\n<p>Since Hebrew law was designed for a group of people for whom religion was of paramount importance and whose faith was endangered by the influence of the beliefs of their pagan neighbors, it is not surprising that so much of Hebrew law dealt with crimes committed against God. The prohibition against worshiping idols is stated and repeated in the Torah, or Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible): “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Ex 20:4-5, <span>rsv<\/span>). Sacrifice of infants, practiced in some pagan religions, was specifically prohibited in Israel. The penalty for that crime, as for the other forms of murder, was stoning to death (Lv 20:2).<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Leviticus, death by stoning was recorded as the appropriate punishment for blaspheming the name of God (Lv 24:11-16). False prophecy was also a criminal offense; that accusation could apply to a person making a prediction in the name of a god other than the Lord, or implying falsely that one’s prophecy resulted from a communication with God. Jeremiah, whose prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over the southern kingdom of Judah was for a time considered to be false, was almost lynched by a mob (Jer 26:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The idea of keeping the seventh day holy stemmed from the celebration of God’s work in creating the universe in six days and resting on the seventh. Keeping the Sabbath required cessation of manual work for the entire family, including farm animals (Ex 16:23; 20:8-11). People were also required to meet together on the Sabbath for worship, which at a later period in Hebrew history included the reading of Scripture, prayer, and preaching. Anyone breaking the Sabbath could be sentenced to death, as happened to a man caught gathering firewood on the Sabbath (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\n<p>Any type of premeditated crime was considered an offense against God, the giver of all law; hence, it was punishable by death (Nm 15:30-31). Hebrew law also insisted on donation of the firstfruits of harvest to the Lord without delay. That requirement was sometimes carried over to include a first child, whose life was dedicated to service in the temple (Ex 22:29-30; Dt 15:19).<\/p>\n<h5>Personal Injury<\/h5>\n<p>Murder, an offense against “God’s image,” was one of many crimes punishable by death in OT times. The book of Exodus stated unequivocally that “anyone who hits a person hard enough to cause death must be put to death” (Ex 21:12, <span>nlt<\/span>). A murderer who killed by using a weapon such as a stone, a piece of wood, or iron could be killed in revenge by a relative of the deceased. If the original death happened accidentally, the community would sometimes help to conceal the killer and encourage him to hide in a nearby city of refuge, where he would be safe as long as he remained within its gates. He had to stay in that sanctuary until the death of the high priest then in office, after which he was free to return to his own city (Nm 35:10-28). The sixth commandment enjoined, “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13). The Hebrew word referred specifically to murder, not to all forms of killing. Killing an enemy in battle and the execution of a murderer were considered necessary and were not prohibited. More than one witness was required for any conviction, particularly in a murder case (Nm 35:30; Dt 17:6; 19:15).<\/p>\n<p>In the Code of Hammurabi a man responsible for an accidental injury to another was required to pay for the services of the physician. If the victim died, a fine was payable according to the victim’s rank. In a sense the Hebrews went further by requiring payment for any loss of time suffered by the injured person (Ex 21:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Kidnapping was punishable by death in the OT. Exodus states that “Kidnappers must be killed, whether they are caught in possession of their victims or have already sold them as slaves” (Ex 21:16, <span>nlt<\/span>). Joseph’s being sold into slavery by his brothers illustrates this kind of kidnapping.<\/p>\n<h5>Laws concerning Property<\/h5>\n<p>The book of Exodus is quite specific about anyone responsible for damage to the property or crops of another. If a field caught fire and the fire spread, damaging crops in other fields, the person who started the fire, or perhaps the owner of the first field to catch fire, was responsible for the damage (Ex 22:6). Hammurabi’s code cited a similar instance of a man who neglected to keep a dike in repair and was therefore responsible for flood damage to his neighbor’s crops.<\/p>\n<p>Injuries to animals, especially oxen, or injuries to people or property caused by such animals formed an important area of Hebrew law. If an ox that had been previously good-tempered killed a man, the owner would be blameless, although the ox would be put to death—a severe financial penalty for the owner. If an ox with a history of goring killed a man because its owner failed to restrain it adequately, both ox and owner would be put to death. The owner’s life could be ransomed by payment of an agreed-upon sum. If the person an ox gored was a servant, the ox was stoned and the owner paid a fine (Ex 21:28-32). The Code of Hammurabi also recommended no punishment for a first offense by an animal, but if the owner knew that the ox was dangerous and had taken no steps to prevent harm, a fine in silver was payable—a very large fine for an upper-class victim, slightly less if the victim was a slave. However bad the circumstances and however vicious the ox, the Code of Hammurabi stopped at a fine for the offense, never imposing a death penalty on either the animal or the owner.<\/p>\n<p>Negligence causing injury to an animal was also punished in Hebrew law. If an ox or a donkey fell into a pit carelessly left uncovered, the owner of the animal was reimbursed for its loss (Ex 21:33-36).<\/p>\n<p>In ancient cultures women were generally considered chattel (personal property), much like animals or slaves. A daughter was considered to be her father’s property until her marriage, then the property of her husband. Therefore, any offense against a married woman was regarded as an offense against the property of the husband. According to the Code of Hammurabi, a child could be sold into slavery as a servant or bondsman, usually in payment of the father’s debt (cf. Ex 21:2-7; Neh 5:5-8; Is 50:1). Parental authority was so highly regarded in biblical law that a stubborn and rebellious son could be brought before the elders on the grounds of being disobedient and a glutton or a drunkard. He might then be convicted and stoned to death on the spot by the men of the city (Dt 21:18-21). Even that, however, was a protection of the child’s rights; some Near Eastern legislation allowed a parent to order the death of his offspring without reference to the elders or to anyone else. With daughters in particular being held in such low esteem, it is perhaps remarkable that a daughter could inherit property if there were no sons (Nm 27:8).<\/p>\n<p>Adultery, prohibited in the Decalogue, was another crime against a man’s property, specifically his wife. The book of Deuteronomy goes into considerable detail about cases of adultery—the punishment for both persons being death (Dt 22:22). If a man seduced a young woman who was not betrothed, he was required to pay her father the bride price (50 silver shekels); he could not divorce her but had to keep her as his wife for the rest of his life (Ex 22:16; Dt 22:28-29).<\/p>\n<p>In a situation where a wife was accused of adultery but without evidence, a trial was conducted. The husband would bring his wife to a priest and present a small offering (a tenth of a measure of barley meal, with neither oil nor frankincense on it), indicating the low esteem in which he now held his wife. The woman then stood before the Lord holding an earthen jar of “holy water.” Dust from the floor of the tabernacle was mixed with the water, and the cereal offering was placed in her hands. Her hair was loosened by the priest to show not only her grief but also to give an impression of abandonment. She was then required to take an oath. After that, the priest pronounced a curse upon her to the effect that her womb would be fertilized easily, but that she would have many miscarriages. She had to give her consent to that pronouncement. The priest then wrote the curses in a book and symbolically washed them off into the “bitter water.” The woman was required to drink the water while the priest waved the cereal offering from her hands before the Lord and burned some of it on the altar. The priest told her that if she was guilty, the water would make her thigh rot and her abdomen swell. If that happened, she would become an outcast; but if she were proved innocent, she would be free. Whatever the result, no blame for false accusation fell upon the husband (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a slave was struck by his master in such a manner as to cause instant death, the slave’s death had to be avenged. If the slave lingered, possibly for days, he did not need to be avenged, his loss being a sufficient punishment for the owner (Ex 21:20-21). It is unlikely that the Hebrews had much experience with that law, which had no parallels in Hammurabi’s code. If an owner injured his slave by causing the loss of an eye or a tooth, Hebrew law required that the slave be set free (vv 26-27). The Code of Hammurabi gave an example of a man injuring another man’s slave; the owner had to be paid half the slave’s value.<\/p>\n<p>Little emphasis was placed on burglary or larceny in the Hebrew law code. A burglar was presumed to be repentant and ready to make restitution. After return of the stolen property and payment of a small additional fine, a thief could again “approach the Lord” (Lv 6:2-7). By contrast, the Code of Hammurabi prescribed the death penalty for burglary. In Hebrew law, theft of an animal required restitution to be made in the ratio of at least two to one; if a bull or a cow had been stolen or sold, the thief had to restore the property fivefold. The Code of Hammurabi contained a similar statute: “If a man steal ox or sheep, ass or pig, or goat—if it be from a god or a palace, he shall restore thirtyfold; if it be from a freeman, he shall render tenfold. If the thief have nothing wherewith to pay, he shall be put to death.” In Hebrew law goods stolen from a home were simply to be restored without additional penalty. If the thief no longer had the goods and was unable to pay the equivalent value, he might be sold into slavery until restitution was made (Ex 22:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>General Laws<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew code as contained in Exodus and Deuteronomy included many general prohibitions. Some concerned business dealings such as the removal of boundary markers (Dt 19:14). The use of false weights and measures was condemned (Lv 19:35; Dt 25:15; Prv 11:1; 20:23; Mi 6:11). Bribery was strictly forbidden (Ex 23:8), yet no punishment was specified for those who broke that law. In the Code of Hammurabi, if a judge changed his decision and was unable to give a satisfactory explanation, particularly if bribery was suspected, the judge had to pay 12 times the amount of the penalty and lost his seat on the bench. In the Hebrew code, perjury was also dealt with, although again no punishment was specified. The Code of Hammurabi stated that for perjury in cases where the punishment was death, persons giving false testimony were to be sentenced to death themselves (cf. Ex 23:1).<\/p>\n<p>A number of Hebrew laws reflected concern for the poor. For example, poor people were not to be subjected to usury if they were in debt, or left cold at night if their coats were taken as a pledge. Widows, orphans, and strangers were also to be treated with mercy and understanding (Ex 22:21-27; 23:9; Dt 23:19; 24:17).<\/p>\n<p>Some Hebrew laws concerned family behavior, such as those previously mentioned who cursed or disobeyed their parents (Ex 21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 27:16; cf. Prv 20:20; 30:17). Family responsibilities were strong; an entire family frequently suffered punishment for the crime of one of its individual members (Jos 7:20-26; 2 Sm 3:29; 21:1-9; 2 Kgs 5:27; Lam 5:7). Over a period of time, as individual responsibility came to be recognized, parents were no longer put to death for the crimes of their children, or vice versa (cf. Jer 31:29-30).<\/p>\n<p>Sorcery and witchcraft were forbidden. The book of Exodus stated explicitly, “A sorceress must not be allowed to live” (22:18, <span>nlt<\/span>). Sexual perversions, such as intercourse with animals, were forbidden under penalty of death. Regulations prohibiting marriage with close relatives were given in detail (Lv 20:17-21).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew law no parallel existed for some interesting items in the Code of Hammurabi concerning surgery. That code mentioned veterinary surgery and even operations on the human eye. A Babylonian surgeon had to be wary, for “if a physician makes a deep incision upon a man with his bronze lancet and causes the man’s death or operates on the eye socket of a man with his bronze lancet and destroys the man’s eye, then they shall cut off his hand.” Surgery was virtually unknown among the ancient Israelites except for the ritual practice of circumcision.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Punishment\">Punishment<\/p>\n<p>Near Eastern punishments for murder and personal injury were retaliatory and often of the same nature as the offense. Other methods of punishment tended to vary with individual countries or traditions. Many kinds of punishment were inflicted on people defeated in both a full-scale war or a small insurrection.<\/p>\n<h5>Physical Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Many forms of punishment stopped short of killing but could nevertheless be quite severe.<\/p>\n<p>1. In the OT beating with rods or switches was the traditional form of discipline for children, fools, and slaves (Ex 21:20; Prv 13:24; 26:3). Scourging (also called flogging) was more severe than beating. The whip employed could be made of several strips of leather fastened at one end or of two interwoven leather strips. A whip nicknamed “scorpion” (because of the barbs in its end) was one of the cruelest instruments of punishment mentioned in the OT (1 Kgs 12:11, 14). The severity of punishment could be increased by inserting pieces of metal or bone into the leather.<\/p>\n<p>Before a scourging, the victim would be examined for physical fitness. If death resulted from the blows, no blame was attached to the person administering the punishment. The victim was stripped to the waist and tied to a pillar, his hands bound with leather thongs. The severity of a scourging depended on the crime, although the Mosaic law set an upper limit of 40 lashes (Dt 25:1-3). To guard against a miscount, that number was later lowered by one (2 Cor 11:24). Lashes might be administered both on the chest and the back. Under some law codes, scourging could be used as a private punishment; in that case, if the victim died, another life was forfeit.<\/p>\n<p>In offenses against the law, synagogue authorities administered scourgings (Mt 10:17). A husband might be scourged by the elders of the city for defamation of his wife’s character (Dt 22:18). Scourging was also used as a means of interrogating a prisoner—hence, a Roman captain’s comment that the apostle Paul should be “examined by scourging” (Acts 22:24).<\/p>\n<p>The Romans usually reserved scourging for non-Roman citizens, such as slaves or aliens, as well as for those condemned to death. Normally, criminals were scourged after they had been condemned to death; it is therefore unusual to find the scourging of Jesus taking place before his condemnation. Pilate may have hoped to soften the people’s hearts by Jesus’ suffering so that they would not demand the death penalty (Lk 23:16, 22; Jn 19:1).<\/p>\n<p>Citizens of the Roman Empire could never be beaten or scourged before sentencing (Acts 22:25). Hence, the magistrates were afraid when they heard that Paul, a Roman citizen, had been beaten under those circumstances (16:37-39).<\/p>\n<li>2. The gouging out of the eyes of prisoners and captives was a common practice in the Near East. The Philistines blinded Samson before imprisoning him (Jgs 16:21). The Babylonians did the same to King Zedekiah in 587 <span>BC<\/span> before taking him into captivity (2 Kgs 25:7). The Ammonite king Nahash was prepared to accept peace overtures from the men of the city of Jabesh on condition that all their right eyes be gouged out. Nahash’s purpose was to disgrace them and prevent them from further active participation in warfare (1 Sm 11:1-4).<\/li>\n<li>3. Several forms of mutilation served as punishments in the Near East. The Israelites considered their own bodies sacred and made in God’s image, but that did not prevent them from mutilating their enemies by cutting off their thumbs and large toes.<\/li>\n<p>The Code of Hammurabi and the Assyrian law code prescribed mutilation of the eye, nose, ear, breast, tongue, lip, hand, and finger as punishments for specific crimes. In Assyria, punishment was often inflicted by the victim of the crime under supervision of court officials. The Code of Hammurabi also contained safeguards so that criminals were not punished in excess of the law’s sentence.<\/p>\n<li>4. Stocks are mentioned as a form of punishment in the later OT period. The prophets Hanani (2 Chr 16:10) and Jeremiah (Jer 20:2-3) suffered the indignity of being placed in stocks. Both ankles, and sometimes the wrists and head as well, were placed in holes in two large pieces of wood. In Roman times, stocks were converted to a form of torture, with a prisoner’s legs stretched to holes increasingly far apart. In the NT, Paul and Silas had their feet placed in stocks by a Philippian jailer (Acts 16:24). The same Greek word, meaning “confinement,” can refer to fetters chaining a prisoner or to an iron collar like that worn by runaway Roman slaves.<\/li>\n<h5>Capital Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Capital punishment was common in many Near Eastern countries. Several methods were used.<\/p>\n<p>1. Those who offended a king were beheaded with a sword (2 Sm 16:9; 2 Kgs 6:31-32), as were idolaters and murderers (according to the Mishnah, the Jewish commentary on the law). The sword was probably used for private executions as well. Inhabitants of entire cities were sometimes “put to the sword” for their denial of the faith (Ex 32:27; Dt 13:15).<\/p>\n<li>2. Certain sexual offenses were punished with death by burning (Lv 20:14; 21:9). Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law, was accused of adultery and ordered to be burned to death outside the city (Gn 38:24). The Lord instructed that anyone whose feet touched the holy ground of Mt Sinai was to be shot with arrows or stoned (Ex 19:13).<\/li>\n<li>3. Hanging may have been a form of execution in biblical times. But many scholars think the word translated “hanging” or “hanging on a tree” actually meant impalement (Nm 25:4; Dt 21:22-23; Jos 8:29; 2 Sm 21:6, 9; Est 9:14). A spiked wooden stake was set in the ground and the victim’s body was forced onto the spike, the tip of which probably protruded from the chest or mouth. Commonly practiced by the Assyrians, that form of execution was reserved for those guilty of the worst crimes and for prisoners of war or deserters. The Persian king Darius is reputed to have impaled 3,000 men when his army entered Babylon. Impalement was the penalty Darius set for changing his edict concerning the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 6:11-12). It is not certain whether Haman was hung or impaled (see Est 7:9-10, <span>nlt<\/span> and mg notes).<\/li>\n<p>Usually “hanging” was a means of exhibiting a corpse as a warning to local inhabitants (Gn 40:19; Jos 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sm 4:12). Corpses were exhibited for only one day and were buried before nightfall. The hanging corpse was considered a defilement of the land that God had given (Dt 21:22-23). According to the Mishnah, the hands were tied together and the body hanged from the arm of a wooden gallows.<\/p>\n<li>4. Crucifixion was a punishment employed by the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167–166 <span>BC<\/span>; according to Josephus, a first-century <span>AD<\/span> Jewish historian, Jews who refused to give up their traditional faith were so executed. During the Maccabean period (167–40 <span>BC<\/span>), Alexander Janneus crucified 800 rebellious Pharisees in an attempt to reestablish his authority. Crucifixion was a widespread form of execution: it was used in most places in the Roman Empire, including India, North Africa, and Germany. Between 4 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 70, on some occasions the number of people crucified at one time reached into the thousands.<\/li>\n<p>Three types of crosses seem to have been used: a cross with the crossbar below the head of the upright bar (Latin cross); a T-shaped cross (St Anthony’s cross); and an X-shaped cross (St Andrew’s cross). Matthew records that an inscription, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews,” was placed over Jesus’ head (Mt 27:37). That indicates that for Jesus’ crucifixion a Latin cross was used, as artists have traditionally depicted it. In crucifixions the victim was most likely affixed to the cross while it was still lying flat on the ground. Then the cross was raised into position and dropped into a hole. The hands were either nailed or bound to the cross; it is uncertain whether the feet were nailed with one or two nails. The weight of the body was supported by a piece of wood at the feet and possibly by another that was like a spike between the legs.<\/p>\n<li>5. Stoning was the most common Hebrew death penalty. The first stones were thrown by the prosecution witnesses, who were then joined by spectators. Stoning was the punishment for certain religious offenses (Lv 24:16; Nm 15:32-36; Dt 13:1-10; 17:2-5), adultery (Dt 22:23-24), child sacrifice (Lv 20:2), divination of spirits (Lv 20:27), and rebellion (Dt 21:18-21). Before his conversion, the apostle Paul witnessed and consented to the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58-59). Paul himself later survived a stoning at Lystra (14:19). In Roman times, a person would occasionally be stoned as he stood on a gallows.<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew law was part of the Torah (“instruction”) given by God to make his covenant people holy. At that time the Israelites were a seminomadic band of former slaves. Although there are similarities with the Code of Hammurabi and other laws of settled Near Eastern cultures, there are also many differences. Hebrew law often had a broader view, even in its less sophisticated cultural setting, as though its purpose was more to teach godly behavior than to stabilize society. The simplicity and directness of the Ten Commandments, in particular, continue to influence jurisprudence, even in modern secular society.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible’s primary message is God’s love for his covenant people, yet it never overlooks the harsh realities of life in a fallen world. Human beings sin and they commit crimes; they suffer estrangement from God because of their sin and are punished for their crimes. Christians are constantly reminded of the realism of God’s love by the cross as the symbol of Christian faith. They see the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of OT prophecy that the Lord put our iniquity on him (Is 53:5-6). The NT conviction is that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Courts and Trials; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Law, Biblical Concept of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT* The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, ...","summary_en":"CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT* The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, ...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":11952,"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":24480,"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}],"14":[{"id":44457,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:14","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:14-15<\/strong> <em>The husband<\/em> presented his case before <em>the priest<\/em><em>,<\/em> and the “ritual law for dealing with suspicion” (5:29) took the husband’s jealousy and suspicion to a higher court.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:14-15<\/strong> <em>The husband<\/em> presented his case before <em>the priest<\/em><em>,<\/em> and the “ritual law for dealing with suspicion” (5:29) took the husband’s jealousy and suspicion to a higher court.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:14-15 The husband presented his case before the priest, and the “ritual law for dealing with suspicion” (5:29) took the husband’s jealousy and suspicion to a higher court.","summary_en":"5:14-15 The husband presented his case before the priest, and the “ritual law for dealing with suspicion” (5:29) took the husband’s jealousy and suspicion to a higher court.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72083,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:14","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:14-15<\/strong> <em>The husband<\/em> presented his case before <em>the priest<\/em><em>,<\/em> and the “ritual law for dealing with suspicion” (5:29) took the husband’s jealousy and suspicion to a higher court.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:14-15<\/strong> <em>The husband<\/em> presented his case before <em>the priest<\/em><em>,<\/em> and the “ritual law for dealing with suspicion” (5:29) took the husband’s jealousy and suspicion to a higher court.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:14-15 The husband presented his case before the priest, and the “ritual law for dealing with suspicion” (5:29) took the husband’s jealousy and suspicion to a higher court.","summary_en":"5:14-15 The husband presented his case before the priest, and the “ritual law for dealing with suspicion” (5:29) took the husband’s jealousy and suspicion to a higher court.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99709,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:14","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:14-15<\/strong> <em>The husband<\/em> presented his case before <em>the priest<\/em><em>,<\/em> and the “ritual law for dealing with suspicion” (5:29) took the husband’s jealousy and suspicion to a higher court.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:14-15<\/strong> <em>The husband<\/em> presented his case before <em>the priest<\/em><em>,<\/em> and the “ritual law for dealing with suspicion” (5:29) took the husband’s jealousy and suspicion to a higher court.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:14-15 The husband presented his case before the priest, and the “ritual law for dealing with suspicion” (5:29) took the husband’s jealousy and suspicion to a higher court.","summary_en":"5:14-15 The husband presented his case before the priest, and the “ritual law for dealing with suspicion” (5:29) took the husband’s jealousy and suspicion to a higher court.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127335,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:14","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:14-15<\/strong> <em>The husband<\/em> presented his case before <em>the priest<\/em><em>,<\/em> and the “ritual law for dealing with suspicion” (5:29) took the husband’s jealousy and suspicion to a higher court.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:14-15<\/strong> <em>The husband<\/em> presented his case before <em>the priest<\/em><em>,<\/em> and the “ritual law for dealing with suspicion” (5:29) took the husband’s jealousy and suspicion to a higher court.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:14-15 The husband presented his case before the priest, and the “ritual law for dealing with suspicion” (5:29) took the husband’s jealousy and suspicion to a higher court.","summary_en":"5:14-15 The husband presented his case before the priest, and the “ritual law for dealing with suspicion” (5:29) took the husband’s jealousy and suspicion to a higher court.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"15":[{"id":5156,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Water of Bitterness or Jealousy*","title_en":"Water of Bitterness or Jealousy*","content_ro":"<h3>BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, W<span>ater of<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verdict. The premise was that a higher power who knew the guilt or innocence of the accused would act to influence the outcome appropriately.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel, as in many other ancient societies, women had few rights. An Israelite husband could resort to the trial procedure when he had no evidence of his wife’s unfaithfulness but simply had a “spirit of jealousy” concerning her (Nm 5:11-14). Very likely a pregnant wife would be subjected to the ritual if her husband suspected the unborn child was not his own.<\/p>\n<p>The suspicious husband brought his wife to the priest with a special offering of a coarse barley meal (Nm 5:15; cf. Lv 2; 5:11). The priest would take the woman and “set her before the Lord,” mix “holy water” (probably from the tabernacle laver or basin) with dirt from the tabernacle floor, unbind the woman’s hair (perhaps as a sign of shame), and place some of the barley meal offering in her hands (Nm 5:16-18). Then the priest made her swear an oath asserting that, if she had been unfaithful, drinking the “water of bitterness” would bring a curse upon her. She gave assent by saying “Amen, Amen” (vv 19-22). Somehow, after writing out the words of the curse, the priest washed them off into the water. After making a ceremonial offering of a handful of barley meal, the priest made the woman drink the water (vv 23-26). The effect of a guilty verdict was evidenced by bitter suffering, causing the woman to become infertile (v 27).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, W<span>ater of<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verdict. The premise was that a higher power who knew the guilt or innocence of the accused would act to influence the outcome appropriately.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel, as in many other ancient societies, women had few rights. An Israelite husband could resort to the trial procedure when he had no evidence of his wife’s unfaithfulness but simply had a “spirit of jealousy” concerning her (Nm 5:11-14). Very likely a pregnant wife would be subjected to the ritual if her husband suspected the unborn child was not his own.<\/p>\n<p>The suspicious husband brought his wife to the priest with a special offering of a coarse barley meal (Nm 5:15; cf. Lv 2; 5:11). The priest would take the woman and “set her before the Lord,” mix “holy water” (probably from the tabernacle laver or basin) with dirt from the tabernacle floor, unbind the woman’s hair (perhaps as a sign of shame), and place some of the barley meal offering in her hands (Nm 5:16-18). Then the priest made her swear an oath asserting that, if she had been unfaithful, drinking the “water of bitterness” would bring a curse upon her. She gave assent by saying “Amen, Amen” (vv 19-22). Somehow, after writing out the words of the curse, the priest washed them off into the water. After making a ceremonial offering of a handful of barley meal, the priest made the woman drink the water (vv 23-26). The effect of a guilty verdict was evidenced by bitter suffering, causing the woman to become infertile (v 27).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, Water of OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verd...","summary_en":"BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, Water of OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verd...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":28285,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Offerings and Sacrifices","title_en":"Offerings and Sacrifices","content_ro":"<h3>OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES<\/h3>\n<p>Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PerformanceandOrderofSacrifices\">Performance and Order of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial ritual is the opening section of Leviticus (Lv 1–7). It consists of two separate parts. The first (1:1–6:7) is didactic, dealing with two categories of sacrifice: those of a “pleasing odor,” namely, the burnt (1:1-17), the grain (2:1-16), and the peace offerings (3:1-17); and the expiatory sacrifices, namely, the sin (4:1–5:13) and the guilt or trespass offerings (5:14–6:7). Attention is paid to the minute details of each ritual, and they are grouped according to their logical or conceptual associations.<\/p>\n<p>The grain (or cereal) offering follows the burnt offering because it always accompanied it in actual practice (Nm 15:1-21; chs 28–29); it also went with the peace offering (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:3-4). Special emphasis is placed on burning the inward parts of a sacrifice on the altar to make a “pleasing odor to the Lord” (Lv 1:9, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 11, 16). When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor (Gn 8:21), it was a sign of divine favor; refusal indicated God’s displeasure (Lv 26:31). The officiating priest evidently knew how to read the signs and would tell the offerer whether his sacrifice had been accepted (1 Sm 26:19; cf. Am 5:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The sin and guilt offerings were expiatory (Lv 4:1–6:7, 20). The situations requiring such offerings are listed, and special emphasis is laid on the handling of the blood in the ritual.<\/p>\n<p>The second major section in this passage (Lv 6:8–7:38) stresses the administrative details for the various offerings. This section consists of a series of “instructions” for each type of offering pertaining to the distribution of the sacrificial materials. Some went to the priest(s), some went to the offerer, and others were burned on the altar or disposed of outside the camp. Those sacrifices designated as “most holy” were to be eaten only by qualified members of the priesthood (Lv 2:3, 10; 10:12-17; 14:13; Nm 18:9).<\/p>\n<p>The burnt offering is discussed first because it was entirely consumed on the altar (and thus not eaten by anyone). After it, there follow the sacrifices distributed to the officiants (Lv 6:17, 26, 29; 7:1, 6), and at the end come the peace offerings, a significant portion of which was returned to the offender.<\/p>\n<p>The order in which the sacrifices are treated in this passage also corresponds to their relative frequency in the rituals of the sacred calendar (Nm 28:19; 2 Chr 31:3; Ez 45:17). This would be particularly important for the priests and Levites on duty at the temple because they were responsible for the logistics of the daily sacrificial ritual, especially on the high holidays; management of the temple storehouse was a formidable task (1 Chr 23:28-32; 26:15, 20-22; 2 Chr 13:10-11; 30:3-19; 34:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>Each section concerning a particular offering concludes with the logistic or administrative details peculiar to it. There then follows a summary of the matters treated thus far (Lv 7:7-10), and the section concludes with a treatment of the peace offerings (vv 11-36). The latter did not play a role in the sacred calendar except during the Feast of Weeks (23:19-20); on all other occasions, with the two exceptions of the Nazirite vow and the installation of the priesthood, peace offerings were purely voluntary sacrifices and thus not subject to any fixed bookkeeping.<\/p>\n<p>In other biblical contexts, the sacrifices are listed according to the same “bookkeeping” or “administrative” order: burnt, grain, and drink; sin (or guilt); and sometimes peace offerings. An example is the roster of donations made by the tribal leaders for dedication of the altar (Nm 7). The information is organized like an everyday ledger from the temple storehouse; the summary classifies the animals as burnt, grain, sin, and peace offerings (vv 87-88) in accordance with the respective entries from each donor (vv 15-17). The Levitical scribe had two purposes for such a record: to credit the offerers and to record the treasures and food supplies coming in. Much of the foodstuffs being given as offerings was actually apportioned to the officiating priests (Nm 18:8-11; 2 Chr 31:4-19).<\/p>\n<p>When prescriptions were made as to the type and number of offerings to be brought (e.g., Nm 15:24), the “bookkeeping” order is generally followed. This was true of the calendarial sacrifices; burnt and grain offerings and libations were listed, followed by a sin offering for each of the following: New Moon (Nm 28:11-15), each day of Passover (vv 19-22), the Festival of Weeks (Lv 23:18-19; Nm 28:27-30), Trumpets (29:2-5), Day of Atonement (vv 8-11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 12-16).<\/p>\n<p>For sacrifices required in specific cases, the instructions as to what offerings to bring follow this sequence (e.g., the purification of a woman after giving birth, Lv 12:6-8). Note also the offerings given at the successful termination of a Nazirite vow; the Nazirite brought burnt, sin, and peace offerings (with some special grain offerings, Nm 6:14-15). However, the priest conducted the actual ritual according to a different order; the sin offering was made first, followed by the burnt offering and finally the peace offering (vv 16-17). In the case of an incomplete vow, the first step was to offer a sin offering and then a burnt offering to renew the vow (v 11). The reconsecration of the Nazirite required a separate guilt offering—a distinct ritual act (v 12).<\/p>\n<p>The description of the offerings made by the prince of Israel in the latter days presents the same contrast between the two orders of sacrifices. On festival holidays the prince brought burnt, grain, and drink offerings, but he offered them as sin, grain, burnt, and peace offerings (Ez 45:17). This second order of sacrifices in which the sin offering precedes the burnt offering was also followed in the rededication of the altar (43:18-27).<\/p>\n<p>The same “procedural” sequence of sacrifices appears in other instances: the purification of the leper—guilt and sin offerings (Lv 14:19), followed by a burnt offering (vv 12-20); the man with a discharge—sin and burnt offerings (15:15); likewise the woman with a discharge (v 30). The same order is followed for the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (16:3-6, 11, 15, 24).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Leviticus furnishes two examples of the proper order in which sacrifices were offered. One is the ordination of Aaron and his sons. The sin offering came first and then the burnt offering (Ex 29:10-18; Lv 8:14-21). The focal point in this ritual was the sacrifice of ordination, or literally “installation,” a special form of peace offering (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-29). The second passage is the formal inauguration of the sacrificial system at the tabernacle (Lv 9). The sacrifices for Aaron were sin and burnt offerings, followed by those for the people: sin, burnt, grain, and peace offerings (9:7-22).<\/p>\n<p>The same sequence is followed at the cleansing and restoration of the temple in Jerusalem conducted by King Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:20-36). A great sin offering was first, followed by the burnt offerings accompanied by music and song. Then the king proclaimed that the people had committed themselves to the Lord; in this new state of purity they could now share in the sacrifices of devotion (burnt offerings) and thanksgiving (peace offerings).<\/p>\n<p>The procedural order of the sacrifices embodies the OT ideology of how God may be approached. First, atonement for sin had to be made and then total consecration of self; these are symbolized by the sin and\/or guilt offerings and the burnt and grain offerings, respectively. When these conditions were met, the offerer could express his continued devotion by more burnt offerings and also take part in the fellowship sacrifices (peace offerings) in which he himself got a large portion of the slaughtered animal (to share with his friends and the poor in his community; Dt 12:17-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DescriptionofSacrifices\">Description of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The ensuing description of the different types of sacrifice will treat them in accordance with the “procedural” order, that is, as symbolic stages in one’s approach to God.<\/p>\n<h5>Expiation<\/h5>\n<p>These two offerings were required for making atonement for sins and trespasses:<\/p>\n<p>1. Sin offering (Lv 4:1–5:13; 6:24-30). Different animals were specified in accordance with the rank of the offerer. A high priest had to bring a young bull (4:3), as did the congregation as a whole (v 14), except when the matter was a ritual infraction (Nm 15:24). A ruler would bring a male goat (Lv 4:23), but a commoner could provide a female goat (v 28; Nm 15:27) or a lamb (Lv 4:32). If he was indigent, he could offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons (one of which would be a burnt offering; 5:7), or if he was extremely poor, he might even substitute a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Lv 5:11-13; cf. Heb 9:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>The offerer brought the animal to the entrance of the temple court and laid his hand on it (Lv 4:4). He did not confess his sin in this act because the animal was not being sent away (cf. the goat for Azazel, 16:21); rather, he was identifying himself with the sacrifice. The offerer had to kill the animal on the north side of the altar (4:24, 29). The animals were never slaughtered on the altar proper. The officiating priest collected the blood; when it was a bull for himself or for the congregation, he sprinkled some of the blood before the veil inside the tent of meeting and put some on the horns of the incense altar (vv 5-7, 16-18). On the Day of Atonement he brought the sacrificial blood for himself and for the people into the Holy of Holies (16:14-15). From all other animals, the blood was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering (4:25, 30, 34); the blood of fowl was sprinkled on the side of the altar (5:9). Finally, the remaining blood from any offering was poured or drained out at the base of the altar (4:7).<\/p>\n<p>The choicest of the internal organs, namely, the fatty tissue over and on the entrails, the two kidneys and their fat, and the appendage to the liver, were all offered to the Lord on the altar (Lv 4:8-10). The carcass and the other entrails were burned outside the camp when it was a bull for the priest or for the people. This was also true of the bull for the ordination of the priests (Ex 29:10-14; Lv 8:14-17). Otherwise, the priest who conducted the rites received the edible flesh as his portion. He had to eat it within the temple area, and its preparation was governed by strict rules of ritual purity (Lv 6:25-30; cf. 10:16-20). A sin offering of one male goat was presented at each of the sacred holidays: the New Moon (Nm 28:15), each day of Passover (vv 22-24), the Festival of Weeks (v 30), the Festival of Trumpets (29:5), the Day of Atonement (v 11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 16, 19). The high priest also offered a bull for himself and then sacrificed one of the two goats on the Day of Atonement. Certain purification rites required lesser sin offerings, namely, lambs or birds: childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), cleansing from leprosy (14:12-14, 19-22), and abscesses and hemorrhages (15:14-15, 29-30) or after defilement while under a vow (Nm 6:10-11).<\/p>\n<li>2. Guilt offering (Lv 5:14–6:7; 7:1-7). The guilt or trespass offering was a special kind of sin offering (cf. 5:7) required whenever someone had been denied his rightful due. Reparation of the valued amount that had been defrauded had to be made, plus a fine of one-fifth (5:16; 6:5). The animal was usually a ram (5:15, 18; 6:6). The cleansed leper and the defiled Nazirite had to bring a male lamb (Lv 14:12, 21; Nm 6:12). The offerer apparently handled the sacrifice as he would a sin offering, but the priest had to sprinkle the blood around the altar (Lv 7:2). Viscera were burned on the altar as usual (vv 3-5). Some of the blood was then applied to the tip of the cleansed leper’s right ear and to his right thumb and big toe (14:14). Again the priest received most of the animal’s flesh for food (7:6-7; 14:13). A guilt offering was required whenever another party had suffered some loss. Ritual infractions, such as eating the “holy things” without proper authorization (5:14-19; 22:14), called for payment of the sum that should have gone to the Lord plus the fine of one-fifth that went to the priest (Lv 5:16; 2 Kgs 12:16). The leper belongs in this category, since during the time of his infection he was unable to render service to God (Lv 14:12-18). The same applies to the Nazirite who had suffered defilement while he was set apart to God by the vow; thus a guilt offering was required (Nm 6:12). Violation of another person’s property rights could be expiated only by the guilt offering and its additional one-fifth. Such matters included cheating on deposits or security, robbery or oppression, failing to report the find of some lost property, or false swearing or failing to testify (Lv 6:1-5). Intercourse with a betrothed slave girl was also a violation of property rights (19:20-22). If the offended party was no longer living and had no surviving kinsmen, the payment went to the priest (Nm 5:5-10).<\/li>\n<h5>Consecration Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These rituals usually come to mind when one hears the word “offering.” They represent acts of personal commitment that must accompany the repentance expressed in the sin and guilt offerings. They were also a prerequisite for the fellowship or communal sacrifices that might follow.<\/p>\n<p>1. Burnt offering (Lv 1:3-17; 6:8-13). The burnt offering could be a bull, a sheep, or a bird. The offerer presented the animal, laid his hand on it, and killed it on the north side of the altar. The bird was simply given to the priest. The latter collected the blood, presented it before God, and then sprinkled it around the altar. When the offering was a bird, he wrung off its head and drained the blood at the side of the altar. Though the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood relates the burnt offering to the expiatory sacrifices of the previous section, the main emphasis here is on killing the animal, washing its unclean parts, and then carefully arranging all of the pieces on the altar. All of this was then consumed on the altar as a pleasing odor to the Lord. Since burnt offerings were offered morning and evening, a good supply of wood by the altar was necessary. The officiating priest, dressed in proper garments, had to keep the fire burning continuously (6:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Burnt offerings played a prominent role in the sacrifices of the ritual calendar. The continual burnt offering was made twice a day, a male lamb morning and evening (Ex 29:38-42; Nm 28:1-8). Two additional lambs were sacrificed each Sabbath (Nm 28:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>Except for these daily offerings, a sin offering of one goat was usually made along with the burnt offerings on the following holidays: For the New Moon at the beginning of each month, two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs were offered (Nm 28:11-14). The same were required for each day of the Passover festival (vv 19-24) and again on the Feast of Weeks (vv 6-29). On the Festival of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, the requirement was one bull, one ram, and seven lambs (29:2-4).<\/p>\n<p>The great Feast of Tabernacles was characterized by a series of elaborate burnt offerings, plus one goat per day as a sin offering. On the first day, 13 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male lambs were offered (Nm 29:12-16). Each successive day, the number of bulls was decreased by one until on the seventh day there were only seven (the rams and lambs remained the same; 29:17-25). On the eighth day the animals required for Trumpets and Atonement were offered, namely, one bull, one ram, and seven lambs.<\/p>\n<p>Certain rituals of purification also required burnt offerings in addition to sin offerings: after childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), abscesses (15:14-15), and discharges (vv 29-30); or after defilement while under a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:10-11). Though it is not stated that grain offerings were required in these cases, they certainly were for the cleansing from leprosy (Lv 14:10, 19-22, 31) and the completion of the Nazirite vow (Nm 6:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. Grain (Cereal) offering (Lv 2; 6:14-23). The Hebrew term referring to this particular offering means “gift,” or “offering,” including animals (Gn 4:3-5; Jgs 6:18; 1 Sm 2:17). But in the specific sacrificial context it signifies a combination of fine flour, olive oil, and frankincense that could be made up in the form of baked loaves, wafers, or morsels. The offering of firstfruits was to be crushed heads of new grain (Lv 2:14). No leaven or honey was permitted on the cakes, although those same commodities could be accepted as a firstfruit offering. They would not go to the altar but were given to the priest. The offerer had to bring the prepared loaves or wafers to the temple. The priest would burn one handful on the altar as its “memorial portion” (v 2), keeping the remainder for his own food (6:16; 7:9). But when the priest was making a grain offering on his own behalf, he burnt it all on the altar (6:22-23).<\/li>\n<p>A grain offering was usually given with every burnt offering, especially those pertaining to the sacred calendar (Nm 28–29). The amounts of flour and oil were set according to the animal being sacrificed: three-tenths of an ephah of flour and one-half a hin of oil for a bull, two-tenths ephah and one-third hin for a ram, and one-tenth ephah plus one-fourth hin for a lamb (15:2-10). Other happy occasions for a grain offering included the cleansing of a leper (Lv 14:10, 20-21, 31; unspecified quantity of grain with a bird) and the successful consummation of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Peace offerings were invariably followed by grain offerings (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:4). The priest received one of each pair of cakes or wafers. The remainder was returned to the offerer to be eaten with the flesh of the sacrificial animal at a place of his choice.<\/p>\n<p>A special case where such offering was used was the one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal required in the jealousy ritual. It was to have no oil or frankincense (Nm 5:15, 18, 25-26). A very poor individual was permitted to bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense as a sin offering (Lv 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<li>3. Drink offering (Nm 15:1-10). The standard libation was one-fourth of a hin of wine for a lamb, one-third for a ram, and one-half for a bull. The wine (Ex 29:40), also called “strong drink” (Nm 28:7), is probably an intentional substitute for the blood used by other nations (Ps 16:4). The libation was classed as a “pleasing odor” offering (Nm 15:7). As with the burnt offering, the entire drink offering was expended; nothing was given to the priest (28:7).<\/li>\n<p>Drink offerings accompanied the daily offering (Ex 29:40-41; Nm 28:7) and the Sabbath offering (Nm 28:9), as well as the New Moon festival. Reference is also made to them in connection with the second and following days of the Feast of Tabernacles (29:18, 21); for the first day their absence is probably unintentional. The same might hold true for the Passover, Firstfruits, and Feast of Trumpets (Nm 28:16–29:11; cf. Ez 45:11). A libation was required for the rites concluding a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17) but not for cleansing a leper (Lv 14:10-20).<\/p>\n<h5>Fellowship Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These sacrifices were voluntary on the part of the offerer and generally not imposed by regulations except for the Nazirite (Nm 6:17) and the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20). An offerer who had already fulfilled the ritual requirements for atonement and personal consecration was permitted to make a fellowship offering. Burnt offerings often accompanied the fellowship sacrifices as a further expression of devotion.<\/p>\n<p>1. Peace offering (Lv 3; 7:11-36; Am 5:22). This is the basic class of all fellowship or communal offerings; the others are simply subclasses of the peace offering. In terms of holiness, or restrictedness, they were not so rigidly confined as the other offerings. Animals from the herd or flock, male or female (Lv 3:1, 6, 12), were permitted. The usual stipulation of freedom from blemish was in force, except in the case of the freewill offering, in which the animal could have one limb longer than the other (22:23). Unleavened cakes were also required, at least for the thank (7:12-13) and Nazirite (Nm 6:15-19) offerings. Each of these three types of peace offerings will be discussed below, with their special features.<\/p>\n<p>The first parts of the ritual—the presentation and laying on of the hand—were identical to those of the other sacrifices. However, the animal was slaughtered at the door of the sanctuary courtyard and not on the north side of the altar (Lv 3:1-2, 7-8, 12-13; 7:29-30). The priest collected the blood and tossed it against the altar as he did with the burnt offering (3:2, 8, 13). The choice viscera were offered up as a “pleasing odor” (3:3-5, 6-11, 14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The priest also received a certain portion of the offering. He was allowed to eat it in any ritually clean place and to share it with his family (Lv 7:14, 30-36; Nm 6:20), in contrast to his portion of other sacrifices, which he had to eat somewhere in the temple compound (Nm 18:10-11). He received one of the cakes and the breast as a wave offering and the right thigh as a contribution for the offerer. This latter is the so-called “heave offering”; the technical term developed from a root signifying “to be high” and meaning “that which is lifted up.” The heave offering did not really represent a special kind of ritual ceremony.<\/p>\n<p>The ritual act of the peace offering culminated with a fellowship meal. Except for those parts on the altar or given to the priest, the body of the animal was returned to the man who offered it. He had to prepare it as a communal meal for himself, for his family, and for the Levite in his community (Dt 12:12, 18-19). This would have to be at the official sanctuary (Dt 12:6-7, 11-12, 15-19; cf. 1 Sm 1:3-4) and the participants had to observe strict rules of purity (Lv 7:19-21; 19:5-8). It may be contrasted with the ritual slaughtering of animals for a banquet that was permitted at any local altar (Dt 12:16, 20-22). The flesh of the thank offering had to be eaten on the same day of the sacrifice (Lv 7:15), while that of the votive or freewill offerings could be finished off on the following day (vv 16-18). Whatever remained then had to be burned before the time limit expired.<\/p>\n<p>Only three times is there a specific demand for a peace offering: in the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20), upon completion of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17-20), and at the installation of the priesthood (Ex 29:19-22, 28). Other public ritual occasions included the inauguration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5). Events on a national level that evoked the peace offering were the successful conclusion of a military campaign (1 Sm 11:15), the end of a famine or pestilence (2 Sm 24:25), confirmation of a candidate to the throne (1 Kgs 1:9, 19), or a time of religious revival (2 Chr 29:31-36). On the local level, they were offered at the annual family reunion (1 Sm 20:6) or other festive occasions, such as the harvest of the firstfruits (Ex 22:29-31; 1 Sm 9:11-14, 22-24; 16:4-5).<\/p>\n<li>2. Wave offering. The first portion of the peace offering was “waved” before the Lord to signify that the priest was eating it as a representative of God (the actual motion evidently resembled the wielding of a saw or a staff, Is 10:15). The same technical term, “wave offering,” was also used for other kinds of offering: precious metals donated for making the cultic artifacts (Ex 35:22; 38:29) and the guilt offering of the cleansed leper (Lv 14:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Freewill offering. These gifts, brought to the holy convocations that took place three times per year (Ex 23:16; 34:20; Dt 16:10, 16-17; 2 Chr 35:8; Ezr 3:5), were voluntary (Lv 7:16; 22:18, 21-23; 23:28; Nm 15:3; 29:39; Dt 12:6, 17). Like the voluntary offering, the freewill offering could be a burnt rather than a peace offering (Lv 22:17-24; Ez 46:12). If it was the latter, the flesh could be eaten on the second day but must be burned before the third (Lv 7:16-17). Unlike some other peace offerings, the animal being sacrificed could have one limb longer than the other (22:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Installation offering. This Hebrew term refers to the settings of precious stones (Ex 25:7; 35:9, 27; 1 Chr 29:2), so “installation” seems an appropriate translation. It had to do with “filling the hand,” a ritual act that consecrated someone to divine service (Ex 28:41; cf. 32:29) and required ritual purity and spiritual devotion (2 Chr 29:31). The details of the original ceremony at the installation of the first priest is described in two passages (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-32).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES<\/h3>\n<p>Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PerformanceandOrderofSacrifices\">Performance and Order of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial ritual is the opening section of Leviticus (Lv 1–7). It consists of two separate parts. The first (1:1–6:7) is didactic, dealing with two categories of sacrifice: those of a “pleasing odor,” namely, the burnt (1:1-17), the grain (2:1-16), and the peace offerings (3:1-17); and the expiatory sacrifices, namely, the sin (4:1–5:13) and the guilt or trespass offerings (5:14–6:7). Attention is paid to the minute details of each ritual, and they are grouped according to their logical or conceptual associations.<\/p>\n<p>The grain (or cereal) offering follows the burnt offering because it always accompanied it in actual practice (Nm 15:1-21; chs 28–29); it also went with the peace offering (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:3-4). Special emphasis is placed on burning the inward parts of a sacrifice on the altar to make a “pleasing odor to the Lord” (Lv 1:9, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 11, 16). When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor (Gn 8:21), it was a sign of divine favor; refusal indicated God’s displeasure (Lv 26:31). The officiating priest evidently knew how to read the signs and would tell the offerer whether his sacrifice had been accepted (1 Sm 26:19; cf. Am 5:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The sin and guilt offerings were expiatory (Lv 4:1–6:7, 20). The situations requiring such offerings are listed, and special emphasis is laid on the handling of the blood in the ritual.<\/p>\n<p>The second major section in this passage (Lv 6:8–7:38) stresses the administrative details for the various offerings. This section consists of a series of “instructions” for each type of offering pertaining to the distribution of the sacrificial materials. Some went to the priest(s), some went to the offerer, and others were burned on the altar or disposed of outside the camp. Those sacrifices designated as “most holy” were to be eaten only by qualified members of the priesthood (Lv 2:3, 10; 10:12-17; 14:13; Nm 18:9).<\/p>\n<p>The burnt offering is discussed first because it was entirely consumed on the altar (and thus not eaten by anyone). After it, there follow the sacrifices distributed to the officiants (Lv 6:17, 26, 29; 7:1, 6), and at the end come the peace offerings, a significant portion of which was returned to the offender.<\/p>\n<p>The order in which the sacrifices are treated in this passage also corresponds to their relative frequency in the rituals of the sacred calendar (Nm 28:19; 2 Chr 31:3; Ez 45:17). This would be particularly important for the priests and Levites on duty at the temple because they were responsible for the logistics of the daily sacrificial ritual, especially on the high holidays; management of the temple storehouse was a formidable task (1 Chr 23:28-32; 26:15, 20-22; 2 Chr 13:10-11; 30:3-19; 34:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>Each section concerning a particular offering concludes with the logistic or administrative details peculiar to it. There then follows a summary of the matters treated thus far (Lv 7:7-10), and the section concludes with a treatment of the peace offerings (vv 11-36). The latter did not play a role in the sacred calendar except during the Feast of Weeks (23:19-20); on all other occasions, with the two exceptions of the Nazirite vow and the installation of the priesthood, peace offerings were purely voluntary sacrifices and thus not subject to any fixed bookkeeping.<\/p>\n<p>In other biblical contexts, the sacrifices are listed according to the same “bookkeeping” or “administrative” order: burnt, grain, and drink; sin (or guilt); and sometimes peace offerings. An example is the roster of donations made by the tribal leaders for dedication of the altar (Nm 7). The information is organized like an everyday ledger from the temple storehouse; the summary classifies the animals as burnt, grain, sin, and peace offerings (vv 87-88) in accordance with the respective entries from each donor (vv 15-17). The Levitical scribe had two purposes for such a record: to credit the offerers and to record the treasures and food supplies coming in. Much of the foodstuffs being given as offerings was actually apportioned to the officiating priests (Nm 18:8-11; 2 Chr 31:4-19).<\/p>\n<p>When prescriptions were made as to the type and number of offerings to be brought (e.g., Nm 15:24), the “bookkeeping” order is generally followed. This was true of the calendarial sacrifices; burnt and grain offerings and libations were listed, followed by a sin offering for each of the following: New Moon (Nm 28:11-15), each day of Passover (vv 19-22), the Festival of Weeks (Lv 23:18-19; Nm 28:27-30), Trumpets (29:2-5), Day of Atonement (vv 8-11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 12-16).<\/p>\n<p>For sacrifices required in specific cases, the instructions as to what offerings to bring follow this sequence (e.g., the purification of a woman after giving birth, Lv 12:6-8). Note also the offerings given at the successful termination of a Nazirite vow; the Nazirite brought burnt, sin, and peace offerings (with some special grain offerings, Nm 6:14-15). However, the priest conducted the actual ritual according to a different order; the sin offering was made first, followed by the burnt offering and finally the peace offering (vv 16-17). In the case of an incomplete vow, the first step was to offer a sin offering and then a burnt offering to renew the vow (v 11). The reconsecration of the Nazirite required a separate guilt offering—a distinct ritual act (v 12).<\/p>\n<p>The description of the offerings made by the prince of Israel in the latter days presents the same contrast between the two orders of sacrifices. On festival holidays the prince brought burnt, grain, and drink offerings, but he offered them as sin, grain, burnt, and peace offerings (Ez 45:17). This second order of sacrifices in which the sin offering precedes the burnt offering was also followed in the rededication of the altar (43:18-27).<\/p>\n<p>The same “procedural” sequence of sacrifices appears in other instances: the purification of the leper—guilt and sin offerings (Lv 14:19), followed by a burnt offering (vv 12-20); the man with a discharge—sin and burnt offerings (15:15); likewise the woman with a discharge (v 30). The same order is followed for the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (16:3-6, 11, 15, 24).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Leviticus furnishes two examples of the proper order in which sacrifices were offered. One is the ordination of Aaron and his sons. The sin offering came first and then the burnt offering (Ex 29:10-18; Lv 8:14-21). The focal point in this ritual was the sacrifice of ordination, or literally “installation,” a special form of peace offering (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-29). The second passage is the formal inauguration of the sacrificial system at the tabernacle (Lv 9). The sacrifices for Aaron were sin and burnt offerings, followed by those for the people: sin, burnt, grain, and peace offerings (9:7-22).<\/p>\n<p>The same sequence is followed at the cleansing and restoration of the temple in Jerusalem conducted by King Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:20-36). A great sin offering was first, followed by the burnt offerings accompanied by music and song. Then the king proclaimed that the people had committed themselves to the Lord; in this new state of purity they could now share in the sacrifices of devotion (burnt offerings) and thanksgiving (peace offerings).<\/p>\n<p>The procedural order of the sacrifices embodies the OT ideology of how God may be approached. First, atonement for sin had to be made and then total consecration of self; these are symbolized by the sin and\/or guilt offerings and the burnt and grain offerings, respectively. When these conditions were met, the offerer could express his continued devotion by more burnt offerings and also take part in the fellowship sacrifices (peace offerings) in which he himself got a large portion of the slaughtered animal (to share with his friends and the poor in his community; Dt 12:17-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DescriptionofSacrifices\">Description of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The ensuing description of the different types of sacrifice will treat them in accordance with the “procedural” order, that is, as symbolic stages in one’s approach to God.<\/p>\n<h5>Expiation<\/h5>\n<p>These two offerings were required for making atonement for sins and trespasses:<\/p>\n<p>1. Sin offering (Lv 4:1–5:13; 6:24-30). Different animals were specified in accordance with the rank of the offerer. A high priest had to bring a young bull (4:3), as did the congregation as a whole (v 14), except when the matter was a ritual infraction (Nm 15:24). A ruler would bring a male goat (Lv 4:23), but a commoner could provide a female goat (v 28; Nm 15:27) or a lamb (Lv 4:32). If he was indigent, he could offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons (one of which would be a burnt offering; 5:7), or if he was extremely poor, he might even substitute a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Lv 5:11-13; cf. Heb 9:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>The offerer brought the animal to the entrance of the temple court and laid his hand on it (Lv 4:4). He did not confess his sin in this act because the animal was not being sent away (cf. the goat for Azazel, 16:21); rather, he was identifying himself with the sacrifice. The offerer had to kill the animal on the north side of the altar (4:24, 29). The animals were never slaughtered on the altar proper. The officiating priest collected the blood; when it was a bull for himself or for the congregation, he sprinkled some of the blood before the veil inside the tent of meeting and put some on the horns of the incense altar (vv 5-7, 16-18). On the Day of Atonement he brought the sacrificial blood for himself and for the people into the Holy of Holies (16:14-15). From all other animals, the blood was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering (4:25, 30, 34); the blood of fowl was sprinkled on the side of the altar (5:9). Finally, the remaining blood from any offering was poured or drained out at the base of the altar (4:7).<\/p>\n<p>The choicest of the internal organs, namely, the fatty tissue over and on the entrails, the two kidneys and their fat, and the appendage to the liver, were all offered to the Lord on the altar (Lv 4:8-10). The carcass and the other entrails were burned outside the camp when it was a bull for the priest or for the people. This was also true of the bull for the ordination of the priests (Ex 29:10-14; Lv 8:14-17). Otherwise, the priest who conducted the rites received the edible flesh as his portion. He had to eat it within the temple area, and its preparation was governed by strict rules of ritual purity (Lv 6:25-30; cf. 10:16-20). A sin offering of one male goat was presented at each of the sacred holidays: the New Moon (Nm 28:15), each day of Passover (vv 22-24), the Festival of Weeks (v 30), the Festival of Trumpets (29:5), the Day of Atonement (v 11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 16, 19). The high priest also offered a bull for himself and then sacrificed one of the two goats on the Day of Atonement. Certain purification rites required lesser sin offerings, namely, lambs or birds: childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), cleansing from leprosy (14:12-14, 19-22), and abscesses and hemorrhages (15:14-15, 29-30) or after defilement while under a vow (Nm 6:10-11).<\/p>\n<li>2. Guilt offering (Lv 5:14–6:7; 7:1-7). The guilt or trespass offering was a special kind of sin offering (cf. 5:7) required whenever someone had been denied his rightful due. Reparation of the valued amount that had been defrauded had to be made, plus a fine of one-fifth (5:16; 6:5). The animal was usually a ram (5:15, 18; 6:6). The cleansed leper and the defiled Nazirite had to bring a male lamb (Lv 14:12, 21; Nm 6:12). The offerer apparently handled the sacrifice as he would a sin offering, but the priest had to sprinkle the blood around the altar (Lv 7:2). Viscera were burned on the altar as usual (vv 3-5). Some of the blood was then applied to the tip of the cleansed leper’s right ear and to his right thumb and big toe (14:14). Again the priest received most of the animal’s flesh for food (7:6-7; 14:13). A guilt offering was required whenever another party had suffered some loss. Ritual infractions, such as eating the “holy things” without proper authorization (5:14-19; 22:14), called for payment of the sum that should have gone to the Lord plus the fine of one-fifth that went to the priest (Lv 5:16; 2 Kgs 12:16). The leper belongs in this category, since during the time of his infection he was unable to render service to God (Lv 14:12-18). The same applies to the Nazirite who had suffered defilement while he was set apart to God by the vow; thus a guilt offering was required (Nm 6:12). Violation of another person’s property rights could be expiated only by the guilt offering and its additional one-fifth. Such matters included cheating on deposits or security, robbery or oppression, failing to report the find of some lost property, or false swearing or failing to testify (Lv 6:1-5). Intercourse with a betrothed slave girl was also a violation of property rights (19:20-22). If the offended party was no longer living and had no surviving kinsmen, the payment went to the priest (Nm 5:5-10).<\/li>\n<h5>Consecration Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These rituals usually come to mind when one hears the word “offering.” They represent acts of personal commitment that must accompany the repentance expressed in the sin and guilt offerings. They were also a prerequisite for the fellowship or communal sacrifices that might follow.<\/p>\n<p>1. Burnt offering (Lv 1:3-17; 6:8-13). The burnt offering could be a bull, a sheep, or a bird. The offerer presented the animal, laid his hand on it, and killed it on the north side of the altar. The bird was simply given to the priest. The latter collected the blood, presented it before God, and then sprinkled it around the altar. When the offering was a bird, he wrung off its head and drained the blood at the side of the altar. Though the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood relates the burnt offering to the expiatory sacrifices of the previous section, the main emphasis here is on killing the animal, washing its unclean parts, and then carefully arranging all of the pieces on the altar. All of this was then consumed on the altar as a pleasing odor to the Lord. Since burnt offerings were offered morning and evening, a good supply of wood by the altar was necessary. The officiating priest, dressed in proper garments, had to keep the fire burning continuously (6:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Burnt offerings played a prominent role in the sacrifices of the ritual calendar. The continual burnt offering was made twice a day, a male lamb morning and evening (Ex 29:38-42; Nm 28:1-8). Two additional lambs were sacrificed each Sabbath (Nm 28:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>Except for these daily offerings, a sin offering of one goat was usually made along with the burnt offerings on the following holidays: For the New Moon at the beginning of each month, two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs were offered (Nm 28:11-14). The same were required for each day of the Passover festival (vv 19-24) and again on the Feast of Weeks (vv 6-29). On the Festival of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, the requirement was one bull, one ram, and seven lambs (29:2-4).<\/p>\n<p>The great Feast of Tabernacles was characterized by a series of elaborate burnt offerings, plus one goat per day as a sin offering. On the first day, 13 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male lambs were offered (Nm 29:12-16). Each successive day, the number of bulls was decreased by one until on the seventh day there were only seven (the rams and lambs remained the same; 29:17-25). On the eighth day the animals required for Trumpets and Atonement were offered, namely, one bull, one ram, and seven lambs.<\/p>\n<p>Certain rituals of purification also required burnt offerings in addition to sin offerings: after childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), abscesses (15:14-15), and discharges (vv 29-30); or after defilement while under a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:10-11). Though it is not stated that grain offerings were required in these cases, they certainly were for the cleansing from leprosy (Lv 14:10, 19-22, 31) and the completion of the Nazirite vow (Nm 6:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. Grain (Cereal) offering (Lv 2; 6:14-23). The Hebrew term referring to this particular offering means “gift,” or “offering,” including animals (Gn 4:3-5; Jgs 6:18; 1 Sm 2:17). But in the specific sacrificial context it signifies a combination of fine flour, olive oil, and frankincense that could be made up in the form of baked loaves, wafers, or morsels. The offering of firstfruits was to be crushed heads of new grain (Lv 2:14). No leaven or honey was permitted on the cakes, although those same commodities could be accepted as a firstfruit offering. They would not go to the altar but were given to the priest. The offerer had to bring the prepared loaves or wafers to the temple. The priest would burn one handful on the altar as its “memorial portion” (v 2), keeping the remainder for his own food (6:16; 7:9). But when the priest was making a grain offering on his own behalf, he burnt it all on the altar (6:22-23).<\/li>\n<p>A grain offering was usually given with every burnt offering, especially those pertaining to the sacred calendar (Nm 28–29). The amounts of flour and oil were set according to the animal being sacrificed: three-tenths of an ephah of flour and one-half a hin of oil for a bull, two-tenths ephah and one-third hin for a ram, and one-tenth ephah plus one-fourth hin for a lamb (15:2-10). Other happy occasions for a grain offering included the cleansing of a leper (Lv 14:10, 20-21, 31; unspecified quantity of grain with a bird) and the successful consummation of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Peace offerings were invariably followed by grain offerings (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:4). The priest received one of each pair of cakes or wafers. The remainder was returned to the offerer to be eaten with the flesh of the sacrificial animal at a place of his choice.<\/p>\n<p>A special case where such offering was used was the one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal required in the jealousy ritual. It was to have no oil or frankincense (Nm 5:15, 18, 25-26). A very poor individual was permitted to bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense as a sin offering (Lv 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<li>3. Drink offering (Nm 15:1-10). The standard libation was one-fourth of a hin of wine for a lamb, one-third for a ram, and one-half for a bull. The wine (Ex 29:40), also called “strong drink” (Nm 28:7), is probably an intentional substitute for the blood used by other nations (Ps 16:4). The libation was classed as a “pleasing odor” offering (Nm 15:7). As with the burnt offering, the entire drink offering was expended; nothing was given to the priest (28:7).<\/li>\n<p>Drink offerings accompanied the daily offering (Ex 29:40-41; Nm 28:7) and the Sabbath offering (Nm 28:9), as well as the New Moon festival. Reference is also made to them in connection with the second and following days of the Feast of Tabernacles (29:18, 21); for the first day their absence is probably unintentional. The same might hold true for the Passover, Firstfruits, and Feast of Trumpets (Nm 28:16–29:11; cf. Ez 45:11). A libation was required for the rites concluding a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17) but not for cleansing a leper (Lv 14:10-20).<\/p>\n<h5>Fellowship Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These sacrifices were voluntary on the part of the offerer and generally not imposed by regulations except for the Nazirite (Nm 6:17) and the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20). An offerer who had already fulfilled the ritual requirements for atonement and personal consecration was permitted to make a fellowship offering. Burnt offerings often accompanied the fellowship sacrifices as a further expression of devotion.<\/p>\n<p>1. Peace offering (Lv 3; 7:11-36; Am 5:22). This is the basic class of all fellowship or communal offerings; the others are simply subclasses of the peace offering. In terms of holiness, or restrictedness, they were not so rigidly confined as the other offerings. Animals from the herd or flock, male or female (Lv 3:1, 6, 12), were permitted. The usual stipulation of freedom from blemish was in force, except in the case of the freewill offering, in which the animal could have one limb longer than the other (22:23). Unleavened cakes were also required, at least for the thank (7:12-13) and Nazirite (Nm 6:15-19) offerings. Each of these three types of peace offerings will be discussed below, with their special features.<\/p>\n<p>The first parts of the ritual—the presentation and laying on of the hand—were identical to those of the other sacrifices. However, the animal was slaughtered at the door of the sanctuary courtyard and not on the north side of the altar (Lv 3:1-2, 7-8, 12-13; 7:29-30). The priest collected the blood and tossed it against the altar as he did with the burnt offering (3:2, 8, 13). The choice viscera were offered up as a “pleasing odor” (3:3-5, 6-11, 14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The priest also received a certain portion of the offering. He was allowed to eat it in any ritually clean place and to share it with his family (Lv 7:14, 30-36; Nm 6:20), in contrast to his portion of other sacrifices, which he had to eat somewhere in the temple compound (Nm 18:10-11). He received one of the cakes and the breast as a wave offering and the right thigh as a contribution for the offerer. This latter is the so-called “heave offering”; the technical term developed from a root signifying “to be high” and meaning “that which is lifted up.” The heave offering did not really represent a special kind of ritual ceremony.<\/p>\n<p>The ritual act of the peace offering culminated with a fellowship meal. Except for those parts on the altar or given to the priest, the body of the animal was returned to the man who offered it. He had to prepare it as a communal meal for himself, for his family, and for the Levite in his community (Dt 12:12, 18-19). This would have to be at the official sanctuary (Dt 12:6-7, 11-12, 15-19; cf. 1 Sm 1:3-4) and the participants had to observe strict rules of purity (Lv 7:19-21; 19:5-8). It may be contrasted with the ritual slaughtering of animals for a banquet that was permitted at any local altar (Dt 12:16, 20-22). The flesh of the thank offering had to be eaten on the same day of the sacrifice (Lv 7:15), while that of the votive or freewill offerings could be finished off on the following day (vv 16-18). Whatever remained then had to be burned before the time limit expired.<\/p>\n<p>Only three times is there a specific demand for a peace offering: in the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20), upon completion of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17-20), and at the installation of the priesthood (Ex 29:19-22, 28). Other public ritual occasions included the inauguration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5). Events on a national level that evoked the peace offering were the successful conclusion of a military campaign (1 Sm 11:15), the end of a famine or pestilence (2 Sm 24:25), confirmation of a candidate to the throne (1 Kgs 1:9, 19), or a time of religious revival (2 Chr 29:31-36). On the local level, they were offered at the annual family reunion (1 Sm 20:6) or other festive occasions, such as the harvest of the firstfruits (Ex 22:29-31; 1 Sm 9:11-14, 22-24; 16:4-5).<\/p>\n<li>2. Wave offering. The first portion of the peace offering was “waved” before the Lord to signify that the priest was eating it as a representative of God (the actual motion evidently resembled the wielding of a saw or a staff, Is 10:15). The same technical term, “wave offering,” was also used for other kinds of offering: precious metals donated for making the cultic artifacts (Ex 35:22; 38:29) and the guilt offering of the cleansed leper (Lv 14:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Freewill offering. These gifts, brought to the holy convocations that took place three times per year (Ex 23:16; 34:20; Dt 16:10, 16-17; 2 Chr 35:8; Ezr 3:5), were voluntary (Lv 7:16; 22:18, 21-23; 23:28; Nm 15:3; 29:39; Dt 12:6, 17). Like the voluntary offering, the freewill offering could be a burnt rather than a peace offering (Lv 22:17-24; Ez 46:12). If it was the latter, the flesh could be eaten on the second day but must be burned before the third (Lv 7:16-17). Unlike some other peace offerings, the animal being sacrificed could have one limb longer than the other (22:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Installation offering. This Hebrew term refers to the settings of precious stones (Ex 25:7; 35:9, 27; 1 Chr 29:2), so “installation” seems an appropriate translation. It had to do with “filling the hand,” a ritual act that consecrated someone to divine service (Ex 28:41; cf. 32:29) and required ritual purity and spiritual devotion (2 Chr 29:31). The details of the original ceremony at the installation of the first priest is described in two passages (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-32).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Performance and Order of Sacrifices The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial rit...","summary_en":"OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Performance and Order of Sacrifices The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial rit...","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":28387,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Oil","title_en":"Oil","content_ro":"<h3>OIL<\/h3>\n<p>Substance most commonly produced from the olive berry, although the word could also apply to oil of myrrh (Est 2:12). Oil was used primarily in cooking, but additionally as a cosmetic for anointing the body, for medicinal purposes, as a source of light, for anointing kings and priests, and in religious offerings.<\/p>\n<p>The growth of olive trees was widespread, and the Israelites took advantage of this major crop to establish a thriving trade in oil with Tyre and Egypt. Like precious metals and animals, oil became an established medium of exchange. Solomon used it as part of the payment to Hiram for construction expenses connected with the temple (1 Kgs 5:11; Ez 27:17).<\/p>\n<p>Because oil was essential for everyday life, it was an effective and acceptable medium of barter. Oil was used in the preparation of most food (1 Kgs 17:12-16). The common cake or patty of grain, which formed the basis of the noon meal, would be cooked on a griddle with a little oil.<\/p>\n<p>As a cosmetic, oil was used for anointing the body after a bath (Ru 3:3; 2 Sm 12:20). It was frequently used on festive occasions, and at Egyptian banquets the heads of both the guests and the female entertainers were anointed. In the NT, the anointing of the sick is mentioned (Jas 5:14). Olive oil could also be taken internally as a medicine for the relief of gastric disorders. It had a soothing effect and was also used as a mild laxative. It was applied externally as an ointment for bruises, burns, cuts, and abrasions (Is 1:6; Mk 6:13; Lk 10:34).<\/p>\n<p>As soon as the sun set, the only source of light was the oil lamp. Often the small portable one could be placed easily on a shelf, but in large homes, palaces, synagogues, or temples, the lamp could rest on a tall metal base like a standard lamp. The wick of flax (Is 42:3) or hemp was placed in the oil that gave out a flame until it was extinguished or the supply of fuel ran out. Torches were used in the streets both to light the way and for additional security. They added immeasurably to the festive atmosphere of evening processions. Torches were an essential part of the wedding procession, and normally those carrying the torches brought a quantity of oil in a container in case there was a delay and their supply was exhausted. This scene is vividly portrayed in Jesus’ parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Mt 25:1-13).<\/p>\n<p>In other ceremonial events, oil had a special meaning when used for the anointing of kings (1 Sm 10:1; 1 Kgs 1:39) and priests (Ex 29:7). It was symbolic of the office and of the recognition of God’s blessing on the officeholder.<\/p>\n<p>Quantities of oil were used in the temple. It was donated as part of the firstfruit offering (Ex 22:29) and was also subject to tithing (Dt 12:17). Oil was frequently used for the ceremonial aspect of temple life or as part of the offering. The grain offering was mixed with oil (Lv 8:26; Nm 7:19), and the oil in the lamp that burned in the sanctuary constantly needed replenishing (Lv 24:2). The daily sacrifice required the use of oil (Ex 29:40), although the sin offering (Lv 5:11) and the jealousy offering (Nm 5:15) specifically did not use oil.<\/p>\n<p>A pestle and mortar, or a stone press, pressed oil from the olives (Ex 27:20). Where the latter was used, the pulp initially produced by the press was often trodden out or subjected to further extensive pressing. Stone presses were set up to process the quantities of berries available at the Mt of Olives. The word for “oil press” was <em>gatt-semen,<\/em> hence the name Gethsemane.<\/p>\n<p>Oil was symbolically associated with joy, festivity, ceremony, honor, light, and health (both spiritual and physical), while its absence spelled sorrow (Jl 1:10) and the withdrawal of all that is good in life.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Anoint; Food and Food Preparation; Medicine and Medical Practice; Ointment; Plants (Olive, Olive Tree).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>OIL<\/h3>\n<p>Substance most commonly produced from the olive berry, although the word could also apply to oil of myrrh (Est 2:12). Oil was used primarily in cooking, but additionally as a cosmetic for anointing the body, for medicinal purposes, as a source of light, for anointing kings and priests, and in religious offerings.<\/p>\n<p>The growth of olive trees was widespread, and the Israelites took advantage of this major crop to establish a thriving trade in oil with Tyre and Egypt. Like precious metals and animals, oil became an established medium of exchange. Solomon used it as part of the payment to Hiram for construction expenses connected with the temple (1 Kgs 5:11; Ez 27:17).<\/p>\n<p>Because oil was essential for everyday life, it was an effective and acceptable medium of barter. Oil was used in the preparation of most food (1 Kgs 17:12-16). The common cake or patty of grain, which formed the basis of the noon meal, would be cooked on a griddle with a little oil.<\/p>\n<p>As a cosmetic, oil was used for anointing the body after a bath (Ru 3:3; 2 Sm 12:20). It was frequently used on festive occasions, and at Egyptian banquets the heads of both the guests and the female entertainers were anointed. In the NT, the anointing of the sick is mentioned (Jas 5:14). Olive oil could also be taken internally as a medicine for the relief of gastric disorders. It had a soothing effect and was also used as a mild laxative. It was applied externally as an ointment for bruises, burns, cuts, and abrasions (Is 1:6; Mk 6:13; Lk 10:34).<\/p>\n<p>As soon as the sun set, the only source of light was the oil lamp. Often the small portable one could be placed easily on a shelf, but in large homes, palaces, synagogues, or temples, the lamp could rest on a tall metal base like a standard lamp. The wick of flax (Is 42:3) or hemp was placed in the oil that gave out a flame until it was extinguished or the supply of fuel ran out. Torches were used in the streets both to light the way and for additional security. They added immeasurably to the festive atmosphere of evening processions. Torches were an essential part of the wedding procession, and normally those carrying the torches brought a quantity of oil in a container in case there was a delay and their supply was exhausted. This scene is vividly portrayed in Jesus’ parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Mt 25:1-13).<\/p>\n<p>In other ceremonial events, oil had a special meaning when used for the anointing of kings (1 Sm 10:1; 1 Kgs 1:39) and priests (Ex 29:7). It was symbolic of the office and of the recognition of God’s blessing on the officeholder.<\/p>\n<p>Quantities of oil were used in the temple. It was donated as part of the firstfruit offering (Ex 22:29) and was also subject to tithing (Dt 12:17). Oil was frequently used for the ceremonial aspect of temple life or as part of the offering. The grain offering was mixed with oil (Lv 8:26; Nm 7:19), and the oil in the lamp that burned in the sanctuary constantly needed replenishing (Lv 24:2). The daily sacrifice required the use of oil (Ex 29:40), although the sin offering (Lv 5:11) and the jealousy offering (Nm 5:15) specifically did not use oil.<\/p>\n<p>A pestle and mortar, or a stone press, pressed oil from the olives (Ex 27:20). Where the latter was used, the pulp initially produced by the press was often trodden out or subjected to further extensive pressing. Stone presses were set up to process the quantities of berries available at the Mt of Olives. The word for “oil press” was <em>gatt-semen,<\/em> hence the name Gethsemane.<\/p>\n<p>Oil was symbolically associated with joy, festivity, ceremony, honor, light, and health (both spiritual and physical), while its absence spelled sorrow (Jl 1:10) and the withdrawal of all that is good in life.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Anoint; Food and Food Preparation; Medicine and Medical Practice; Ointment; Plants (Olive, Olive Tree).<\/p>","summary_ro":"OIL Substance most commonly produced from the olive berry, although the word could also apply to oil of myrrh (Est 2:12). Oil was used primarily in cooking, but additionally as a cosmetic for anointing the body, for medicinal purposes, as a source of light, for anointing kings and priests, and in religious offerings. The growth of olive trees was widespread, and the Israelites took advantage of this major crop to establish a thriving trade in oil with Tyre and Egypt. Like precious metals and ...","summary_en":"OIL Substance most commonly produced from the olive berry, although the word could also apply to oil of myrrh (Est 2:12). Oil was used primarily in cooking, but additionally as a cosmetic for anointing the body, for medicinal purposes, as a source of light, for anointing kings and priests, and in religious offerings. The growth of olive trees was widespread, and the Israelites took advantage of this major crop to establish a thriving trade in oil with Tyre and Egypt. Like precious metals and ...","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"16":[{"id":5159,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Water of Bitterness or Jealousy*","title_en":"Water of Bitterness or Jealousy*","content_ro":"<h3>BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, W<span>ater of<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verdict. The premise was that a higher power who knew the guilt or innocence of the accused would act to influence the outcome appropriately.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel, as in many other ancient societies, women had few rights. An Israelite husband could resort to the trial procedure when he had no evidence of his wife’s unfaithfulness but simply had a “spirit of jealousy” concerning her (Nm 5:11-14). Very likely a pregnant wife would be subjected to the ritual if her husband suspected the unborn child was not his own.<\/p>\n<p>The suspicious husband brought his wife to the priest with a special offering of a coarse barley meal (Nm 5:15; cf. Lv 2; 5:11). The priest would take the woman and “set her before the Lord,” mix “holy water” (probably from the tabernacle laver or basin) with dirt from the tabernacle floor, unbind the woman’s hair (perhaps as a sign of shame), and place some of the barley meal offering in her hands (Nm 5:16-18). Then the priest made her swear an oath asserting that, if she had been unfaithful, drinking the “water of bitterness” would bring a curse upon her. She gave assent by saying “Amen, Amen” (vv 19-22). Somehow, after writing out the words of the curse, the priest washed them off into the water. After making a ceremonial offering of a handful of barley meal, the priest made the woman drink the water (vv 23-26). The effect of a guilty verdict was evidenced by bitter suffering, causing the woman to become infertile (v 27).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, W<span>ater of<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verdict. The premise was that a higher power who knew the guilt or innocence of the accused would act to influence the outcome appropriately.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel, as in many other ancient societies, women had few rights. An Israelite husband could resort to the trial procedure when he had no evidence of his wife’s unfaithfulness but simply had a “spirit of jealousy” concerning her (Nm 5:11-14). Very likely a pregnant wife would be subjected to the ritual if her husband suspected the unborn child was not his own.<\/p>\n<p>The suspicious husband brought his wife to the priest with a special offering of a coarse barley meal (Nm 5:15; cf. Lv 2; 5:11). The priest would take the woman and “set her before the Lord,” mix “holy water” (probably from the tabernacle laver or basin) with dirt from the tabernacle floor, unbind the woman’s hair (perhaps as a sign of shame), and place some of the barley meal offering in her hands (Nm 5:16-18). Then the priest made her swear an oath asserting that, if she had been unfaithful, drinking the “water of bitterness” would bring a curse upon her. She gave assent by saying “Amen, Amen” (vv 19-22). Somehow, after writing out the words of the curse, the priest washed them off into the water. After making a ceremonial offering of a handful of barley meal, the priest made the woman drink the water (vv 23-26). The effect of a guilty verdict was evidenced by bitter suffering, causing the woman to become infertile (v 27).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, Water of OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verd...","summary_en":"BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, Water of OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verd...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"17":[{"id":44458,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:17","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:17<\/strong> The <em>holy water<\/em> and the <em>dust<\/em> were sacred because of their association with the sanctuary.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:17<\/strong> The <em>holy water<\/em> and the <em>dust<\/em> were sacred because of their association with the sanctuary.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:17 The holy water and the dust were sacred because of their association with the sanctuary.","summary_en":"5:17 The holy water and the dust were sacred because of their association with the sanctuary.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72084,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:17","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:17<\/strong> The <em>holy water<\/em> and the <em>dust<\/em> were sacred because of their association with the sanctuary.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:17<\/strong> The <em>holy water<\/em> and the <em>dust<\/em> were sacred because of their association with the sanctuary.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:17 The holy water and the dust were sacred because of their association with the sanctuary.","summary_en":"5:17 The holy water and the dust were sacred because of their association with the sanctuary.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99710,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:17","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:17<\/strong> The <em>holy water<\/em> and the <em>dust<\/em> were sacred because of their association with the sanctuary.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:17<\/strong> The <em>holy water<\/em> and the <em>dust<\/em> were sacred because of their association with the sanctuary.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:17 The holy water and the dust were sacred because of their association with the sanctuary.","summary_en":"5:17 The holy water and the dust were sacred because of their association with the sanctuary.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127336,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:17","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:17<\/strong> The <em>holy water<\/em> and the <em>dust<\/em> were sacred because of their association with the sanctuary.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:17<\/strong> The <em>holy water<\/em> and the <em>dust<\/em> were sacred because of their association with the sanctuary.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:17 The holy water and the dust were sacred because of their association with the sanctuary.","summary_en":"5:17 The holy water and the dust were sacred because of their association with the sanctuary.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"19":[{"id":5160,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Water of Bitterness or Jealousy*","title_en":"Water of Bitterness or Jealousy*","content_ro":"<h3>BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, W<span>ater of<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verdict. The premise was that a higher power who knew the guilt or innocence of the accused would act to influence the outcome appropriately.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel, as in many other ancient societies, women had few rights. An Israelite husband could resort to the trial procedure when he had no evidence of his wife’s unfaithfulness but simply had a “spirit of jealousy” concerning her (Nm 5:11-14). Very likely a pregnant wife would be subjected to the ritual if her husband suspected the unborn child was not his own.<\/p>\n<p>The suspicious husband brought his wife to the priest with a special offering of a coarse barley meal (Nm 5:15; cf. Lv 2; 5:11). The priest would take the woman and “set her before the Lord,” mix “holy water” (probably from the tabernacle laver or basin) with dirt from the tabernacle floor, unbind the woman’s hair (perhaps as a sign of shame), and place some of the barley meal offering in her hands (Nm 5:16-18). Then the priest made her swear an oath asserting that, if she had been unfaithful, drinking the “water of bitterness” would bring a curse upon her. She gave assent by saying “Amen, Amen” (vv 19-22). Somehow, after writing out the words of the curse, the priest washed them off into the water. After making a ceremonial offering of a handful of barley meal, the priest made the woman drink the water (vv 23-26). The effect of a guilty verdict was evidenced by bitter suffering, causing the woman to become infertile (v 27).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, W<span>ater of<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verdict. The premise was that a higher power who knew the guilt or innocence of the accused would act to influence the outcome appropriately.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel, as in many other ancient societies, women had few rights. An Israelite husband could resort to the trial procedure when he had no evidence of his wife’s unfaithfulness but simply had a “spirit of jealousy” concerning her (Nm 5:11-14). Very likely a pregnant wife would be subjected to the ritual if her husband suspected the unborn child was not his own.<\/p>\n<p>The suspicious husband brought his wife to the priest with a special offering of a coarse barley meal (Nm 5:15; cf. Lv 2; 5:11). The priest would take the woman and “set her before the Lord,” mix “holy water” (probably from the tabernacle laver or basin) with dirt from the tabernacle floor, unbind the woman’s hair (perhaps as a sign of shame), and place some of the barley meal offering in her hands (Nm 5:16-18). Then the priest made her swear an oath asserting that, if she had been unfaithful, drinking the “water of bitterness” would bring a curse upon her. She gave assent by saying “Amen, Amen” (vv 19-22). Somehow, after writing out the words of the curse, the priest washed them off into the water. After making a ceremonial offering of a handful of barley meal, the priest made the woman drink the water (vv 23-26). The effect of a guilty verdict was evidenced by bitter suffering, causing the woman to become infertile (v 27).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, Water of OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verd...","summary_en":"BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, Water of OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verd...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":8320,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Cursed Curse","title_en":"Cursed Curse","content_ro":"<h3>CURSE, CURSED<\/h3>\n<p>Invocation of evil or injury against one’s enemies. As practiced in Bible times, cursing was the opposite of blessing and should not be confused with profanity in the modern sense.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PaganBeliefs\">Pagan Beliefs<\/p>\n<p>Curses and blessings were linked to the ancient pagan belief that spirits of “the gods” could be invoked to act on behalf of a person who repeated certain incantations or performed certain deeds (such as sacrifices). It was thought that a spoken curse possessed an occult power to work calamity on one’s enemies. In some pagan cultures, curses were written on clay jars that were then smashed, symbolically initiating or effecting the intended curse.<\/p>\n<p>Tombs were protected against would-be desecrators by means of curses. Royal inscriptions were protected by maledictions aimed at anyone who might alter, destroy, or defy the written decree (Ezr 6:11-12).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CursesinOldTestamentTimes\">Curses in Old Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>Among the Hebrews a curse, valid only within a covenant framework overseen by God, was spoken for the sake of justice. In the OT the curse was an integral part of a covenant relationship—between God and the community, between God and an individual, or among members of the community. To break the terms of a covenant was to merit the covenant curse or curses. A curse invoked under other conditions was powerless. “Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, a curse that is causeless does not alight” (Prv 26:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). A curse could be retracted by pronouncing a blessing (Ex 12:32; Jgs 17:1-2; 2 Sm 21:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>The Mosaic law forbade the cursing of parents (Ex 21:17; cf. Prv 20:20; Mt 15:4), the ruler (Ex 22:28), and the deaf (Lv 19:14). A man who suspected his wife of unfaithfulness could require that she submit to a test administered by the priest that would result in a curse upon her if she was guilty (Nm 5:11-31). Individuals might pronounce a curse upon themselves to show the truthfulness of their assertions or promises (Nm 5:19-22; Jb 31:7-10, 16-22; Ps 137:5-6). In the NT the apostle Peter followed the OT practice when he used a curse to deny that he knew Jesus (Mk 14:71). Certain men who wished to kill the apostle Paul proved their sincerity by such a solemn curse (Acts 23:12, 14, 21). Cursing God was punishable by death (Lv 24:10-16; cf. Ex 22:28; Is 8:21-22).<\/p>\n<p>Curses in Bible history include God’s curse on the serpent, Adam, and Eve (Gn 3:14-19); on Cain (4:11-12); on those who might curse the patriarch Abraham and his descendants (12:3); and on those who put their trust in human strength instead of in the Lord (Jer 17:5). When the people of Israel passed through Moab on their way to the Promised Land, Moab’s king, Balak, hired Balaam to curse the Israelites; he and Balaam learned, however, that they could not curse those whom God had blessed (Nm 22–24). Joshua cursed anyone who might try to rebuild Jericho (Jos 6:26; fulfilled in 1 Kgs 16:34). King Saul made a curse that almost cost his son Jonathan’s life (1 Sm 14:24, 43-45). Many other curses are mentioned in the OT (see, e.g., Gn 9:25; 49:5-7; Jos 9:22-23; Jgs 9:7-21, 57; 2 Sm 16:5-13; 1 Kgs 21:17-24; 2 Kgs 2:24; Mal 2:2; 4:6). The pronouncement of “woe” (<span>nlt<\/span> “destruction”) is also the language of curse (Is 5:8-23; cf. Mt 23:13-33, where “alas” and “woe” can be used synonymously and may be either an exclamation of sorrow or of impending doom and calamity).<\/p>\n<p>Psalm 109 contains a lengthy imprecation against the psalmist’s enemies, evidently because they had spoken some words against him falsely (see also Pss 58:6-11; 69:19-28; 143:12). The prophet Jeremiah was not averse to calling on God to punish his tormentors (Jer 11:20; 12:3; 15:15; 17:18; 18:21-22; 20:11-12) or asking God not to forgive them (18:23). Such imprecations against one’s enemies are difficult for Christians today to understand because they contrast sharply with the NT commands to “bless those who curse you” (Lk 6:28; cf. Rom 12:14). Jesus’ injunction to “love your enemies” (Mt 5:44) may be intended to point beyond the cursing practiced in the OT to a fuller understanding of God’s command to love one’s neighbor as oneself.<\/p>\n<h5>Covenant Curses<\/h5>\n<p>Protection of a contract or treaty by invoking a curse on the violator was common in OT times. Sometimes a covenant was sealed by cutting up an animal and having the covenanting individuals walk between the severed pieces; the slain animal symbolized the curse to befall the violator. God agreed to submit to such a curse on himself if he broke the covenant he made with the patriarch Abraham (Gn 15:7-21). Later, God accused the leaders and people of Israel of breaking their covenant with him and warned them of the consequences to follow (Jer 34:18-19). An essential part of the covenant God made with Israel at Mt Sinai was the promise of blessings for keeping the covenant and curses for breaking it (Dt 11:26-28; 27:15-26; 28:15-68; 30:19; cf. Lv 26:3-39). Israel suffered those curses in the time of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel; the covenant breakers, including the king, were threatened with a curse (Jer 11:3; Ez 17:11-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ban on “Devoted Things”<\/h5>\n<p>A special kind of curse was the ban or anathema. Strictly speaking, it was a vow to devote persons, animals, or objects under such a curse to God. In some cases the priests could use objects that had fallen under the ban (Nm 18:14; Ez 44:29), but that provision did not apply to living beings. All persons or animals under the ban were sacrificed or destroyed (Lv 27:28-29). The ban was commonly used in Israel’s wars against its pagan neighbors. Sometimes everything was declared anathema (Jos 6:17-19), but normally only persons and heathen images were destroyed (Dt 2:34; 3:6; 7:2, 25-26—not even the melted gold of images was to be kept). To violate the ban by preserving any part of the cursed things was to come under the ban oneself. Because Achan did not respect the ban placed upon Jericho, the terms of that curse came upon all Israel until Achan confessed and was executed (Jos 7).<\/p>\n<p>After the exile, the Jews did not practice the anathema (or ban) by putting people to death; people who violated a curse were excommunicated and put out of the congregation of Israel (Ezr 10:8). That meant that the person was no longer part of God’s people and was considered “dead.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CursesinNewTestamentTimes\">Curses in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>Jewish synagogues practiced excommunication, or anathema, in the NT period (Lk 6:22; Jn 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). Later, Christians excommunicated persons by declaring them outside of the redeemed community (Mt 18:17) or “delivered to Satan” (1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tm 1:20). Both practices stemmed from the OT ban. Unlike that curse, however, the excommunication could be removed as soon as the person repented.<\/p>\n<p>Since the anathema branded a person as “rejected” or “cursed by God,” Saul of Tarsus, before his conversion, tried to compel Christians to renounce Christ by calling him accursed (cf. Acts 26:11). Later, as an apostle, Paul (Saul) warned that no one speaking by the Spirit of God could call Jesus accursed (1 Cor 12:3). Paul pronounced anathema (destined for judgment and perdition) upon anyone who preached another gospel than the one he and the other apostles preached (Gal 1:8-9). Paul said he wished he could be accursed, cut off from salvation and the people of God, if that could lead to the salvation of his fellow Israelites (Rom 9:3). His desire reflected the love of Christ, who accepted the “curse of the law” upon himself in submitting to suffering and death on the cross in order to redeem human beings from that curse (Gal 3:8-14; cf. Dt 21:22-23). The NT promises that a time will come when “there shall no longer be any curse” (Rv 22:3, <span>nasb<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> War, Holy.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CURSE, CURSED<\/h3>\n<p>Invocation of evil or injury against one’s enemies. As practiced in Bible times, cursing was the opposite of blessing and should not be confused with profanity in the modern sense.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PaganBeliefs\">Pagan Beliefs<\/p>\n<p>Curses and blessings were linked to the ancient pagan belief that spirits of “the gods” could be invoked to act on behalf of a person who repeated certain incantations or performed certain deeds (such as sacrifices). It was thought that a spoken curse possessed an occult power to work calamity on one’s enemies. In some pagan cultures, curses were written on clay jars that were then smashed, symbolically initiating or effecting the intended curse.<\/p>\n<p>Tombs were protected against would-be desecrators by means of curses. Royal inscriptions were protected by maledictions aimed at anyone who might alter, destroy, or defy the written decree (Ezr 6:11-12).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CursesinOldTestamentTimes\">Curses in Old Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>Among the Hebrews a curse, valid only within a covenant framework overseen by God, was spoken for the sake of justice. In the OT the curse was an integral part of a covenant relationship—between God and the community, between God and an individual, or among members of the community. To break the terms of a covenant was to merit the covenant curse or curses. A curse invoked under other conditions was powerless. “Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, a curse that is causeless does not alight” (Prv 26:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). A curse could be retracted by pronouncing a blessing (Ex 12:32; Jgs 17:1-2; 2 Sm 21:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>The Mosaic law forbade the cursing of parents (Ex 21:17; cf. Prv 20:20; Mt 15:4), the ruler (Ex 22:28), and the deaf (Lv 19:14). A man who suspected his wife of unfaithfulness could require that she submit to a test administered by the priest that would result in a curse upon her if she was guilty (Nm 5:11-31). Individuals might pronounce a curse upon themselves to show the truthfulness of their assertions or promises (Nm 5:19-22; Jb 31:7-10, 16-22; Ps 137:5-6). In the NT the apostle Peter followed the OT practice when he used a curse to deny that he knew Jesus (Mk 14:71). Certain men who wished to kill the apostle Paul proved their sincerity by such a solemn curse (Acts 23:12, 14, 21). Cursing God was punishable by death (Lv 24:10-16; cf. Ex 22:28; Is 8:21-22).<\/p>\n<p>Curses in Bible history include God’s curse on the serpent, Adam, and Eve (Gn 3:14-19); on Cain (4:11-12); on those who might curse the patriarch Abraham and his descendants (12:3); and on those who put their trust in human strength instead of in the Lord (Jer 17:5). When the people of Israel passed through Moab on their way to the Promised Land, Moab’s king, Balak, hired Balaam to curse the Israelites; he and Balaam learned, however, that they could not curse those whom God had blessed (Nm 22–24). Joshua cursed anyone who might try to rebuild Jericho (Jos 6:26; fulfilled in 1 Kgs 16:34). King Saul made a curse that almost cost his son Jonathan’s life (1 Sm 14:24, 43-45). Many other curses are mentioned in the OT (see, e.g., Gn 9:25; 49:5-7; Jos 9:22-23; Jgs 9:7-21, 57; 2 Sm 16:5-13; 1 Kgs 21:17-24; 2 Kgs 2:24; Mal 2:2; 4:6). The pronouncement of “woe” (<span>nlt<\/span> “destruction”) is also the language of curse (Is 5:8-23; cf. Mt 23:13-33, where “alas” and “woe” can be used synonymously and may be either an exclamation of sorrow or of impending doom and calamity).<\/p>\n<p>Psalm 109 contains a lengthy imprecation against the psalmist’s enemies, evidently because they had spoken some words against him falsely (see also Pss 58:6-11; 69:19-28; 143:12). The prophet Jeremiah was not averse to calling on God to punish his tormentors (Jer 11:20; 12:3; 15:15; 17:18; 18:21-22; 20:11-12) or asking God not to forgive them (18:23). Such imprecations against one’s enemies are difficult for Christians today to understand because they contrast sharply with the NT commands to “bless those who curse you” (Lk 6:28; cf. Rom 12:14). Jesus’ injunction to “love your enemies” (Mt 5:44) may be intended to point beyond the cursing practiced in the OT to a fuller understanding of God’s command to love one’s neighbor as oneself.<\/p>\n<h5>Covenant Curses<\/h5>\n<p>Protection of a contract or treaty by invoking a curse on the violator was common in OT times. Sometimes a covenant was sealed by cutting up an animal and having the covenanting individuals walk between the severed pieces; the slain animal symbolized the curse to befall the violator. God agreed to submit to such a curse on himself if he broke the covenant he made with the patriarch Abraham (Gn 15:7-21). Later, God accused the leaders and people of Israel of breaking their covenant with him and warned them of the consequences to follow (Jer 34:18-19). An essential part of the covenant God made with Israel at Mt Sinai was the promise of blessings for keeping the covenant and curses for breaking it (Dt 11:26-28; 27:15-26; 28:15-68; 30:19; cf. Lv 26:3-39). Israel suffered those curses in the time of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel; the covenant breakers, including the king, were threatened with a curse (Jer 11:3; Ez 17:11-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ban on “Devoted Things”<\/h5>\n<p>A special kind of curse was the ban or anathema. Strictly speaking, it was a vow to devote persons, animals, or objects under such a curse to God. In some cases the priests could use objects that had fallen under the ban (Nm 18:14; Ez 44:29), but that provision did not apply to living beings. All persons or animals under the ban were sacrificed or destroyed (Lv 27:28-29). The ban was commonly used in Israel’s wars against its pagan neighbors. Sometimes everything was declared anathema (Jos 6:17-19), but normally only persons and heathen images were destroyed (Dt 2:34; 3:6; 7:2, 25-26—not even the melted gold of images was to be kept). To violate the ban by preserving any part of the cursed things was to come under the ban oneself. Because Achan did not respect the ban placed upon Jericho, the terms of that curse came upon all Israel until Achan confessed and was executed (Jos 7).<\/p>\n<p>After the exile, the Jews did not practice the anathema (or ban) by putting people to death; people who violated a curse were excommunicated and put out of the congregation of Israel (Ezr 10:8). That meant that the person was no longer part of God’s people and was considered “dead.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CursesinNewTestamentTimes\">Curses in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>Jewish synagogues practiced excommunication, or anathema, in the NT period (Lk 6:22; Jn 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). Later, Christians excommunicated persons by declaring them outside of the redeemed community (Mt 18:17) or “delivered to Satan” (1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tm 1:20). Both practices stemmed from the OT ban. Unlike that curse, however, the excommunication could be removed as soon as the person repented.<\/p>\n<p>Since the anathema branded a person as “rejected” or “cursed by God,” Saul of Tarsus, before his conversion, tried to compel Christians to renounce Christ by calling him accursed (cf. Acts 26:11). Later, as an apostle, Paul (Saul) warned that no one speaking by the Spirit of God could call Jesus accursed (1 Cor 12:3). Paul pronounced anathema (destined for judgment and perdition) upon anyone who preached another gospel than the one he and the other apostles preached (Gal 1:8-9). Paul said he wished he could be accursed, cut off from salvation and the people of God, if that could lead to the salvation of his fellow Israelites (Rom 9:3). His desire reflected the love of Christ, who accepted the “curse of the law” upon himself in submitting to suffering and death on the cross in order to redeem human beings from that curse (Gal 3:8-14; cf. Dt 21:22-23). The NT promises that a time will come when “there shall no longer be any curse” (Rv 22:3, <span>nasb<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> War, Holy.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CURSE, CURSED Invocation of evil or injury against one’s enemies. As practiced in Bible times, cursing was the opposite of blessing and should not be confused with profanity in the modern sense. Pagan Beliefs Curses and blessings were linked to the ancient pagan belief that spirits of “the gods” could be invoked to act on behalf of a person who repeated certain incantations or performed certain deeds (such as sacrifices). It was thought that a spoken curse possessed an occult power to work ca...","summary_en":"CURSE, CURSED Invocation of evil or injury against one’s enemies. As practiced in Bible times, cursing was the opposite of blessing and should not be confused with profanity in the modern sense. Pagan Beliefs Curses and blessings were linked to the ancient pagan belief that spirits of “the gods” could be invoked to act on behalf of a person who repeated certain incantations or performed certain deeds (such as sacrifices). It was thought that a spoken curse possessed an occult power to work ca...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"21":[{"id":28006,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Oath","title_en":"Oath","content_ro":"<h3>OATH<\/h3>\n<p>Solemn vow or promise to fulfill a pledge. There are two terms in Hebrew that mean “oath”: <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">‘ala<\/span> and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">sebu’a<\/span><em>.<\/em> The latter, more general term in ancient times meant to enter into a solemn (even magical) relationship with the number seven, although ancient connections are lost. Even so, when Abraham and Abimelech entered into an oath at Beersheba (the well of seven, or the well of the oath), Abraham set aside seven ewe lambs as a witness to the fact that he had dug a well (Gn 21:22-31). The former term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">‘ala<\/span><em>,<\/em> often translated “oath,” properly means “curse.” At times the two terms are used together (Nm 5:21; Neh 10:29; Dn 9:11). Any breach of one’s undertaking affirmed by an oath would be attended by a curse. The Lord affirmed that he had established a covenant and a curse with Israel—that is, a breach of covenant would be followed by a curse (Dt 29:14ff.).<\/p>\n<p>An oath was taken to confirm an agreement or, in a political situation, to confirm a treaty. Both in Israel and among its neighbors, God (or the gods) would act as the guarantor(s) of the agreement and his name (or their names) was invoked for this purpose. When Jacob and Laban made an agreement, they erected a heap of stones as a witness (Gn 31:53). If either party transgressed the terms, it was a heinous sin. For this reason one of the Ten Commandments dealt with empty affirmations: “Do not misuse the name of the <span>Lord<\/span> your God. The <span>Lord<\/span> will not let you go unpunished if you misuse his name” (Ex 20:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). The people of Israel were forbidden to swear their oaths by false gods (Jer 12:16; Am 8:14). To breach an international treaty, where the oath was taken in the Lord’s name, merited death (Ez 17:16-17). It was one of the complaints of Hosea that the people of his day swore falsely when they made a covenant (Hos 10:4). Judgment would attend such wanton disregard of the solemnity of an oath. Certain civil situations in Israel called for an oath (Ex 22:10-11; Lv 5:1; 6:3; Nm 5:11-28). This practice provided a pattern for the Israelite covenantal oath of allegiance between God and his people.<\/p>\n<p>Christ taught that oaths were binding (Mt 5:33). In the kingdom of God oaths would become unnecessary (vv 34-37). At his trial before Caiaphas, Jesus heard an imprecatory oath from the high priest (26:63-65), and Paul swore by an oath on occasion (2 Cor 1:23; Gal 1:20). God himself was bound by his own oath (Heb 6:13-18) to keep his promise to the patriarchs (Gn 50:24; Pss 89:19-37, 49; 110:1-4).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Covenant; Vows.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>OATH<\/h3>\n<p>Solemn vow or promise to fulfill a pledge. There are two terms in Hebrew that mean “oath”: <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">‘ala<\/span> and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">sebu’a<\/span><em>.<\/em> The latter, more general term in ancient times meant to enter into a solemn (even magical) relationship with the number seven, although ancient connections are lost. Even so, when Abraham and Abimelech entered into an oath at Beersheba (the well of seven, or the well of the oath), Abraham set aside seven ewe lambs as a witness to the fact that he had dug a well (Gn 21:22-31). The former term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">‘ala<\/span><em>,<\/em> often translated “oath,” properly means “curse.” At times the two terms are used together (Nm 5:21; Neh 10:29; Dn 9:11). Any breach of one’s undertaking affirmed by an oath would be attended by a curse. The Lord affirmed that he had established a covenant and a curse with Israel—that is, a breach of covenant would be followed by a curse (Dt 29:14ff.).<\/p>\n<p>An oath was taken to confirm an agreement or, in a political situation, to confirm a treaty. Both in Israel and among its neighbors, God (or the gods) would act as the guarantor(s) of the agreement and his name (or their names) was invoked for this purpose. When Jacob and Laban made an agreement, they erected a heap of stones as a witness (Gn 31:53). If either party transgressed the terms, it was a heinous sin. For this reason one of the Ten Commandments dealt with empty affirmations: “Do not misuse the name of the <span>Lord<\/span> your God. The <span>Lord<\/span> will not let you go unpunished if you misuse his name” (Ex 20:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). The people of Israel were forbidden to swear their oaths by false gods (Jer 12:16; Am 8:14). To breach an international treaty, where the oath was taken in the Lord’s name, merited death (Ez 17:16-17). It was one of the complaints of Hosea that the people of his day swore falsely when they made a covenant (Hos 10:4). Judgment would attend such wanton disregard of the solemnity of an oath. Certain civil situations in Israel called for an oath (Ex 22:10-11; Lv 5:1; 6:3; Nm 5:11-28). This practice provided a pattern for the Israelite covenantal oath of allegiance between God and his people.<\/p>\n<p>Christ taught that oaths were binding (Mt 5:33). In the kingdom of God oaths would become unnecessary (vv 34-37). At his trial before Caiaphas, Jesus heard an imprecatory oath from the high priest (26:63-65), and Paul swore by an oath on occasion (2 Cor 1:23; Gal 1:20). God himself was bound by his own oath (Heb 6:13-18) to keep his promise to the patriarchs (Gn 50:24; Pss 89:19-37, 49; 110:1-4).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Covenant; Vows.<\/p>","summary_ro":"OATH Solemn vow or promise to fulfill a pledge. There are two terms in Hebrew that mean “oath”: ‘ala and sebu’a. The latter, more general term in ancient times meant to enter into a solemn (even magical) relationship with the number seven, although ancient connections are lost. Even so, when Abraham and Abimelech entered into an oath at Beersheba (the well of seven, or the well of the oath), Abraham set aside seven ewe lambs as a witness to the fact that he had dug a well (Gn 21:22-31). The f...","summary_en":"OATH Solemn vow or promise to fulfill a pledge. There are two terms in Hebrew that mean “oath”: ‘ala and sebu’a. The latter, more general term in ancient times meant to enter into a solemn (even magical) relationship with the number seven, although ancient connections are lost. Even so, when Abraham and Abimelech entered into an oath at Beersheba (the well of seven, or the well of the oath), Abraham set aside seven ewe lambs as a witness to the fact that he had dug a well (Gn 21:22-31). The f...","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44459,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:21","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:21<\/strong> <em>when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel:<\/em> Literally <em>when he causes your thigh to waste away.<\/em> “Thigh” is a euphemism for the reproductive organs (cp. Gen 24:2; 47:29); something would go wrong with her reproductive abilities. The punishment suited the crime as sexual immorality resulted in the inability to have children.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:21<\/strong> <em>when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel:<\/em> Literally <em>when he causes your thigh to waste away.<\/em> “Thigh” is a euphemism for the reproductive organs (cp. Gen 24:2; 47:29); something would go wrong with her reproductive abilities. The punishment suited the crime as sexual immorality resulted in the inability to have children.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:21 when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel: Literally when he causes your thigh to waste away. “Thigh” is a euphemism for the reproductive organs (cp. Gen 24:2; 47:29); something would go wrong with her reproductive abilities. The punishment suited the crime as sexual immorality resulted in the inability to have children.","summary_en":"5:21 when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel: Literally when he causes your thigh to waste away. “Thigh” is a euphemism for the reproductive organs (cp. Gen 24:2; 47:29); something would go wrong with her reproductive abilities. The punishment suited the crime as sexual immorality resulted in the inability to have children.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72085,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:21","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:21<\/strong> <em>when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel:<\/em> Literally <em>when he causes your thigh to waste away.<\/em> “Thigh” is a euphemism for the reproductive organs (cp. Gen 24:2; 47:29); something would go wrong with her reproductive abilities. The punishment suited the crime as sexual immorality resulted in the inability to have children.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:21<\/strong> <em>when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel:<\/em> Literally <em>when he causes your thigh to waste away.<\/em> “Thigh” is a euphemism for the reproductive organs (cp. Gen 24:2; 47:29); something would go wrong with her reproductive abilities. The punishment suited the crime as sexual immorality resulted in the inability to have children.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:21 when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel: Literally when he causes your thigh to waste away. “Thigh” is a euphemism for the reproductive organs (cp. Gen 24:2; 47:29); something would go wrong with her reproductive abilities. The punishment suited the crime as sexual immorality resulted in the inability to have children.","summary_en":"5:21 when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel: Literally when he causes your thigh to waste away. “Thigh” is a euphemism for the reproductive organs (cp. Gen 24:2; 47:29); something would go wrong with her reproductive abilities. The punishment suited the crime as sexual immorality resulted in the inability to have children.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99711,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:21","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:21<\/strong> <em>when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel:<\/em> Literally <em>when he causes your thigh to waste away.<\/em> “Thigh” is a euphemism for the reproductive organs (cp. Gen 24:2; 47:29); something would go wrong with her reproductive abilities. The punishment suited the crime as sexual immorality resulted in the inability to have children.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:21<\/strong> <em>when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel:<\/em> Literally <em>when he causes your thigh to waste away.<\/em> “Thigh” is a euphemism for the reproductive organs (cp. Gen 24:2; 47:29); something would go wrong with her reproductive abilities. The punishment suited the crime as sexual immorality resulted in the inability to have children.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:21 when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel: Literally when he causes your thigh to waste away. “Thigh” is a euphemism for the reproductive organs (cp. Gen 24:2; 47:29); something would go wrong with her reproductive abilities. The punishment suited the crime as sexual immorality resulted in the inability to have children.","summary_en":"5:21 when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel: Literally when he causes your thigh to waste away. “Thigh” is a euphemism for the reproductive organs (cp. Gen 24:2; 47:29); something would go wrong with her reproductive abilities. The punishment suited the crime as sexual immorality resulted in the inability to have children.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127337,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:21","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:21<\/strong> <em>when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel:<\/em> Literally <em>when he causes your thigh to waste away.<\/em> “Thigh” is a euphemism for the reproductive organs (cp. Gen 24:2; 47:29); something would go wrong with her reproductive abilities. The punishment suited the crime as sexual immorality resulted in the inability to have children.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:21<\/strong> <em>when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel:<\/em> Literally <em>when he causes your thigh to waste away.<\/em> “Thigh” is a euphemism for the reproductive organs (cp. Gen 24:2; 47:29); something would go wrong with her reproductive abilities. The punishment suited the crime as sexual immorality resulted in the inability to have children.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:21 when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel: Literally when he causes your thigh to waste away. “Thigh” is a euphemism for the reproductive organs (cp. Gen 24:2; 47:29); something would go wrong with her reproductive abilities. The punishment suited the crime as sexual immorality resulted in the inability to have children.","summary_en":"5:21 when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel: Literally when he causes your thigh to waste away. “Thigh” is a euphemism for the reproductive organs (cp. Gen 24:2; 47:29); something would go wrong with her reproductive abilities. The punishment suited the crime as sexual immorality resulted in the inability to have children.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"23":[{"id":5161,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Water of Bitterness or Jealousy*","title_en":"Water of Bitterness or Jealousy*","content_ro":"<h3>BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, W<span>ater of<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verdict. The premise was that a higher power who knew the guilt or innocence of the accused would act to influence the outcome appropriately.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel, as in many other ancient societies, women had few rights. An Israelite husband could resort to the trial procedure when he had no evidence of his wife’s unfaithfulness but simply had a “spirit of jealousy” concerning her (Nm 5:11-14). Very likely a pregnant wife would be subjected to the ritual if her husband suspected the unborn child was not his own.<\/p>\n<p>The suspicious husband brought his wife to the priest with a special offering of a coarse barley meal (Nm 5:15; cf. Lv 2; 5:11). The priest would take the woman and “set her before the Lord,” mix “holy water” (probably from the tabernacle laver or basin) with dirt from the tabernacle floor, unbind the woman’s hair (perhaps as a sign of shame), and place some of the barley meal offering in her hands (Nm 5:16-18). Then the priest made her swear an oath asserting that, if she had been unfaithful, drinking the “water of bitterness” would bring a curse upon her. She gave assent by saying “Amen, Amen” (vv 19-22). Somehow, after writing out the words of the curse, the priest washed them off into the water. After making a ceremonial offering of a handful of barley meal, the priest made the woman drink the water (vv 23-26). The effect of a guilty verdict was evidenced by bitter suffering, causing the woman to become infertile (v 27).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, W<span>ater of<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verdict. The premise was that a higher power who knew the guilt or innocence of the accused would act to influence the outcome appropriately.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel, as in many other ancient societies, women had few rights. An Israelite husband could resort to the trial procedure when he had no evidence of his wife’s unfaithfulness but simply had a “spirit of jealousy” concerning her (Nm 5:11-14). Very likely a pregnant wife would be subjected to the ritual if her husband suspected the unborn child was not his own.<\/p>\n<p>The suspicious husband brought his wife to the priest with a special offering of a coarse barley meal (Nm 5:15; cf. Lv 2; 5:11). The priest would take the woman and “set her before the Lord,” mix “holy water” (probably from the tabernacle laver or basin) with dirt from the tabernacle floor, unbind the woman’s hair (perhaps as a sign of shame), and place some of the barley meal offering in her hands (Nm 5:16-18). Then the priest made her swear an oath asserting that, if she had been unfaithful, drinking the “water of bitterness” would bring a curse upon her. She gave assent by saying “Amen, Amen” (vv 19-22). Somehow, after writing out the words of the curse, the priest washed them off into the water. After making a ceremonial offering of a handful of barley meal, the priest made the woman drink the water (vv 23-26). The effect of a guilty verdict was evidenced by bitter suffering, causing the woman to become infertile (v 27).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, Water of OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verd...","summary_en":"BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, Water of OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verd...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38813,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Writing","title_en":"Writing","content_ro":"<h3>WRITING<\/h3>\n<p>The process that goes into producing books.<\/p>\n<p>Books have been written for many centuries but have not always been produced in the familiar form in which they are known today. If a book is defined as any written record of thoughts or acts, the production of books goes back to a very early period in the history of civilization. The Sumerians produced written documents and primers on clay tablets as early as 2500 <span>BC<\/span>. The Sumerian civilization went into decline after its conquest by the Akkadians (2300 <span>BC<\/span>). In the 21st century <span>BC<\/span>, however, there occurred a revival of Sumerian culture that produced a number of important literary works, including the first known written codified system of law. Today a rich collection of Sumerian material exists. It includes legal, mythological, and commercial documents as well as written material produced in the process of training scribes. A large collection of cuneiform tablets was found in the library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal, which was established in the seventh century <span>BC<\/span>. The library contained many records of religious and scientific knowledge.<\/p>\n<p>We have many ancient manuscripts of the books of the Bible. As for the books of the Hebrew Bible, scribes used quill, ink, and leather scrolls to make copies of individual books. Some of the scrolls, made of several treated animal hides stitched together, could be as long as 35 to 40 feet (10.7 to 12.2 meters) when unrolled. As scrolls wore out, or if there was a need for copies in various synagogues, Jewish scribes would make additional copies—and they did so with painstaking care. Prior to the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries, museums housed several manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible dated between the eighth and tenth centuries. The Dead Sea Scrolls are dated between 100 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 100, which makes them a thousand years earlier than these other mauscripts. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain significant portions of the OT. Every book except Esther is represented. The largest portions come from the Pentateuch (especially Deuteronomy—25 manuscripts), the Major Prophets (especially Isaiah—18 manuscripts), and Psalms (27 manuscripts). As for the books of the NT, we have nearly 6,000 manuscripts prior to the time of the printing press (c. 1500). About 200 of these manuscripts date between the early second and late fourth century. Most of the NT manuscripts were written on papyrus or vellum, and all of the NT manuscripts were written in the codex form.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WritingMaterials\">Writing Materials<\/p>\n<h5>Clay<\/h5>\n<p>The Sumerian, Babylonian, and Assyrian clay tablets are well known. Baked clay tablets were preserved easily in almost any climate. They were suitable, however, only for a straight-line form of writing such as cuneiform, and were therefore not appropriate for the rounded Aramaic form of Hebrew script.<\/p>\n<h5>Papyrus<\/h5>\n<p>The papyrus rolls of Egypt have been used as a writing surface since the early third millennium <span>BC<\/span>. The Greeks adopted papyrus around 900 <span>BC<\/span>, and the Romans adopted its use later. The oldest extant Greek rolls of papyrus date from the fourth century <span>BC<\/span>. The inner pith of the papyrus plant was called <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">byblos<\/span><em>.<\/em> From this comes the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">biblion<\/span> (“book”) and the English word “bible.” The word “paper” is derived from “papyrus.”<\/p>\n<p>Unfortunately, papyrus is perishable, requiring a dry climate for its preservation. That is why few papyri have been discovered anywhere other than in the desert sands of Egypt. Some papyrus fragments have also been found in the caves near the Dead Sea, where the climate is likewise sufficiently dry.<\/p>\n<h5>Potsherds<\/h5>\n<p>Broken pieces of pottery furnished an inexpensive writing material because the supply was so abundant. The Samaria and Lachish ostraca are examples.<\/p>\n<h5>Wood<\/h5>\n<p>Wooden tablets covered with stucco or wax were sometimes used as a writing surface. A NT example is Luke 1:63.<\/p>\n<h5>Leather, Parchment, and Vellum<\/h5>\n<p>These are all made from animal skins. Leather (tanned skins), the forerunner of parchment, has been in use about as long as papyrus, but it was rarely used because papyrus was so abundant. The ancient Hebrews probably used leather and papyrus for writing materials. The Dead Sea Scrolls were sheets of leather sewed together with linen thread. Metal scrolls also existed (e.g., copper).<\/p>\n<p>Parchment, made in the beginning from sheep and goat skins, began to replace leather as early as the third century <span>BC<\/span>, though actual parchment codices date from the second century <span>AD<\/span>. To prepare parchment or refined leather, the hair was removed from the skins and the latter rubbed smooth. The most common form of book for OT and NT documents was evidently a roll or scroll of papyrus, leather, or parchment. The average length of a scroll was about 30 feet (9.1 meters), though the famous Harris Papyrus was 133 feet (40.5 meters) long. Scrolls were often stored in pottery jars (Jer 32:14) and were frequently sealed (Rv 5:1).<\/p>\n<p>Vellum had a finer quality than parchment and was prepared from the skins of calves, lambs, or kids. In the fourth century <span>AD<\/span>, vellum or parchment as a material and the codex as a form became the norm.<\/p>\n<h5>Paper<\/h5>\n<p>Paper, made from wood, rags, and certain grasses, began to replace vellum and parchment as early as the tenth century <span>AD<\/span> in the Western world, though it was used considerably earlier in China and Japan. By the 15th century, paper manuscripts were common.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"KindsofBooks\">Kinds of Books<\/p>\n<h5>Scroll<\/h5>\n<p>The scroll is a roll of papyrus, parchment, or leather used for writing a document or literary work. The papyrus scroll of Egypt can be traced as far back as 2500 <span>BC<\/span>. One of the most famous literary productions of ancient Egypt is the Book of the Dead. Jews used leather scrolls for writing the books of the Old Testament. Most of the scrolls discovered from the Dead Sea area were written on leather, with a few having been written on papyrus.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex<\/h5>\n<p>An important development in the evolution of book production occurred with the advent of the codex in the middle of the first century. A codex was constructed much like our modern books by folding sheets of papyrus or vellum (treated animal hide) in the middle and then sewing them together at the spine. This kind of book was advantageous because it enabled the scribe to write on both sides; it facilitated easier access to particular passages (as opposed to a scroll, which had to be unrolled); and it enabled Christians to bind together all four Gospels or all Paul’s epistles or any other such combination.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WritingUtensilsandInk\">Writing Utensils and Ink<\/p>\n<p>Different kinds of writing implements were used, depending on the writing surfaces in use at various periods of history. Metal chisels and gravers were used for inscribing stone and metal. A stylus was used for writing cuneiform (“wedge-shaped” characters) on clay tablets. For writing on ostraca (potsherds), papyrus, and parchment, a reed was split or cut to act as a brush. In Egypt rushes were used to form a brush. Later, reeds were cut to a point and split like a quill pen. Apparently this was the type of pen or “calamus” used in NT times (3 Jn 1:13).<\/p>\n<p>Ink (cf. 2 Jn 1:12) was usually a black carbon (charcoal) mixed with gum or oil for use on parchment or mixed with a metallic substance for papyrus. It was kept in an inkhorn as a dried substance, on which the scribe would dip or rub his moistened pen. It could be erased by washing (Nm 5:23) or with a penknife, which was also used for sharpening pens and trimming or cutting scrolls (Jer 36:23).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Hieroglyphics; Inscriptions; Lachish Letters; Letter Writing, Ancient; Scribe; Writer.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WRITING<\/h3>\n<p>The process that goes into producing books.<\/p>\n<p>Books have been written for many centuries but have not always been produced in the familiar form in which they are known today. If a book is defined as any written record of thoughts or acts, the production of books goes back to a very early period in the history of civilization. The Sumerians produced written documents and primers on clay tablets as early as 2500 <span>BC<\/span>. The Sumerian civilization went into decline after its conquest by the Akkadians (2300 <span>BC<\/span>). In the 21st century <span>BC<\/span>, however, there occurred a revival of Sumerian culture that produced a number of important literary works, including the first known written codified system of law. Today a rich collection of Sumerian material exists. It includes legal, mythological, and commercial documents as well as written material produced in the process of training scribes. A large collection of cuneiform tablets was found in the library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal, which was established in the seventh century <span>BC<\/span>. The library contained many records of religious and scientific knowledge.<\/p>\n<p>We have many ancient manuscripts of the books of the Bible. As for the books of the Hebrew Bible, scribes used quill, ink, and leather scrolls to make copies of individual books. Some of the scrolls, made of several treated animal hides stitched together, could be as long as 35 to 40 feet (10.7 to 12.2 meters) when unrolled. As scrolls wore out, or if there was a need for copies in various synagogues, Jewish scribes would make additional copies—and they did so with painstaking care. Prior to the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries, museums housed several manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible dated between the eighth and tenth centuries. The Dead Sea Scrolls are dated between 100 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 100, which makes them a thousand years earlier than these other mauscripts. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain significant portions of the OT. Every book except Esther is represented. The largest portions come from the Pentateuch (especially Deuteronomy—25 manuscripts), the Major Prophets (especially Isaiah—18 manuscripts), and Psalms (27 manuscripts). As for the books of the NT, we have nearly 6,000 manuscripts prior to the time of the printing press (c. 1500). About 200 of these manuscripts date between the early second and late fourth century. Most of the NT manuscripts were written on papyrus or vellum, and all of the NT manuscripts were written in the codex form.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WritingMaterials\">Writing Materials<\/p>\n<h5>Clay<\/h5>\n<p>The Sumerian, Babylonian, and Assyrian clay tablets are well known. Baked clay tablets were preserved easily in almost any climate. They were suitable, however, only for a straight-line form of writing such as cuneiform, and were therefore not appropriate for the rounded Aramaic form of Hebrew script.<\/p>\n<h5>Papyrus<\/h5>\n<p>The papyrus rolls of Egypt have been used as a writing surface since the early third millennium <span>BC<\/span>. The Greeks adopted papyrus around 900 <span>BC<\/span>, and the Romans adopted its use later. The oldest extant Greek rolls of papyrus date from the fourth century <span>BC<\/span>. The inner pith of the papyrus plant was called <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">byblos<\/span><em>.<\/em> From this comes the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">biblion<\/span> (“book”) and the English word “bible.” The word “paper” is derived from “papyrus.”<\/p>\n<p>Unfortunately, papyrus is perishable, requiring a dry climate for its preservation. That is why few papyri have been discovered anywhere other than in the desert sands of Egypt. Some papyrus fragments have also been found in the caves near the Dead Sea, where the climate is likewise sufficiently dry.<\/p>\n<h5>Potsherds<\/h5>\n<p>Broken pieces of pottery furnished an inexpensive writing material because the supply was so abundant. The Samaria and Lachish ostraca are examples.<\/p>\n<h5>Wood<\/h5>\n<p>Wooden tablets covered with stucco or wax were sometimes used as a writing surface. A NT example is Luke 1:63.<\/p>\n<h5>Leather, Parchment, and Vellum<\/h5>\n<p>These are all made from animal skins. Leather (tanned skins), the forerunner of parchment, has been in use about as long as papyrus, but it was rarely used because papyrus was so abundant. The ancient Hebrews probably used leather and papyrus for writing materials. The Dead Sea Scrolls were sheets of leather sewed together with linen thread. Metal scrolls also existed (e.g., copper).<\/p>\n<p>Parchment, made in the beginning from sheep and goat skins, began to replace leather as early as the third century <span>BC<\/span>, though actual parchment codices date from the second century <span>AD<\/span>. To prepare parchment or refined leather, the hair was removed from the skins and the latter rubbed smooth. The most common form of book for OT and NT documents was evidently a roll or scroll of papyrus, leather, or parchment. The average length of a scroll was about 30 feet (9.1 meters), though the famous Harris Papyrus was 133 feet (40.5 meters) long. Scrolls were often stored in pottery jars (Jer 32:14) and were frequently sealed (Rv 5:1).<\/p>\n<p>Vellum had a finer quality than parchment and was prepared from the skins of calves, lambs, or kids. In the fourth century <span>AD<\/span>, vellum or parchment as a material and the codex as a form became the norm.<\/p>\n<h5>Paper<\/h5>\n<p>Paper, made from wood, rags, and certain grasses, began to replace vellum and parchment as early as the tenth century <span>AD<\/span> in the Western world, though it was used considerably earlier in China and Japan. By the 15th century, paper manuscripts were common.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"KindsofBooks\">Kinds of Books<\/p>\n<h5>Scroll<\/h5>\n<p>The scroll is a roll of papyrus, parchment, or leather used for writing a document or literary work. The papyrus scroll of Egypt can be traced as far back as 2500 <span>BC<\/span>. One of the most famous literary productions of ancient Egypt is the Book of the Dead. Jews used leather scrolls for writing the books of the Old Testament. Most of the scrolls discovered from the Dead Sea area were written on leather, with a few having been written on papyrus.<\/p>\n<h5>Codex<\/h5>\n<p>An important development in the evolution of book production occurred with the advent of the codex in the middle of the first century. A codex was constructed much like our modern books by folding sheets of papyrus or vellum (treated animal hide) in the middle and then sewing them together at the spine. This kind of book was advantageous because it enabled the scribe to write on both sides; it facilitated easier access to particular passages (as opposed to a scroll, which had to be unrolled); and it enabled Christians to bind together all four Gospels or all Paul’s epistles or any other such combination.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WritingUtensilsandInk\">Writing Utensils and Ink<\/p>\n<p>Different kinds of writing implements were used, depending on the writing surfaces in use at various periods of history. Metal chisels and gravers were used for inscribing stone and metal. A stylus was used for writing cuneiform (“wedge-shaped” characters) on clay tablets. For writing on ostraca (potsherds), papyrus, and parchment, a reed was split or cut to act as a brush. In Egypt rushes were used to form a brush. Later, reeds were cut to a point and split like a quill pen. Apparently this was the type of pen or “calamus” used in NT times (3 Jn 1:13).<\/p>\n<p>Ink (cf. 2 Jn 1:12) was usually a black carbon (charcoal) mixed with gum or oil for use on parchment or mixed with a metallic substance for papyrus. It was kept in an inkhorn as a dried substance, on which the scribe would dip or rub his moistened pen. It could be erased by washing (Nm 5:23) or with a penknife, which was also used for sharpening pens and trimming or cutting scrolls (Jer 36:23).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Hieroglyphics; Inscriptions; Lachish Letters; Letter Writing, Ancient; Scribe; Writer.<\/p>","summary_ro":"WRITING The process that goes into producing books. Books have been written for many centuries but have not always been produced in the familiar form in which they are known today. If a book is defined as any written record of thoughts or acts, the production of books goes back to a very early period in the history of civilization. The Sumerians produced written documents and primers on clay tablets as early as 2500 BC. The Sumerian civilization went into decline after its conquest by the Akk...","summary_en":"WRITING The process that goes into producing books. Books have been written for many centuries but have not always been produced in the familiar form in which they are known today. If a book is defined as any written record of thoughts or acts, the production of books goes back to a very early period in the history of civilization. The Sumerians produced written documents and primers on clay tablets as early as 2500 BC. The Sumerian civilization went into decline after its conquest by the Akk...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44460,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:23","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:23","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:23-24<\/strong> The symbolism of drinking disturbing words is repeated in Ezek 2:8–3:3 and Rev 10:8-11.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:23-24<\/strong> The symbolism of drinking disturbing words is repeated in Ezek 2:8–3:3 and Rev 10:8-11.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:23-24 The symbolism of drinking disturbing words is repeated in Ezek 2:8–3:3 and Rev 10:8-11.","summary_en":"5:23-24 The symbolism of drinking disturbing words is repeated in Ezek 2:8–3:3 and Rev 10:8-11.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72086,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:23","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:23","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:23-24<\/strong> The symbolism of drinking disturbing words is repeated in Ezek 2:8–3:3 and Rev 10:8-11.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:23-24<\/strong> The symbolism of drinking disturbing words is repeated in Ezek 2:8–3:3 and Rev 10:8-11.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:23-24 The symbolism of drinking disturbing words is repeated in Ezek 2:8–3:3 and Rev 10:8-11.","summary_en":"5:23-24 The symbolism of drinking disturbing words is repeated in Ezek 2:8–3:3 and Rev 10:8-11.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99712,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:23","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:23","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:23-24<\/strong> The symbolism of drinking disturbing words is repeated in Ezek 2:8–3:3 and Rev 10:8-11.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:23-24<\/strong> The symbolism of drinking disturbing words is repeated in Ezek 2:8–3:3 and Rev 10:8-11.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:23-24 The symbolism of drinking disturbing words is repeated in Ezek 2:8–3:3 and Rev 10:8-11.","summary_en":"5:23-24 The symbolism of drinking disturbing words is repeated in Ezek 2:8–3:3 and Rev 10:8-11.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127338,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:23","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:23","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:23-24<\/strong> The symbolism of drinking disturbing words is repeated in Ezek 2:8–3:3 and Rev 10:8-11.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:23-24<\/strong> The symbolism of drinking disturbing words is repeated in Ezek 2:8–3:3 and Rev 10:8-11.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:23-24 The symbolism of drinking disturbing words is repeated in Ezek 2:8–3:3 and Rev 10:8-11.","summary_en":"5:23-24 The symbolism of drinking disturbing words is repeated in Ezek 2:8–3:3 and Rev 10:8-11.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"27":[{"id":5162,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Water of Bitterness or Jealousy*","title_en":"Water of Bitterness or Jealousy*","content_ro":"<h3>BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, W<span>ater of<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verdict. The premise was that a higher power who knew the guilt or innocence of the accused would act to influence the outcome appropriately.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel, as in many other ancient societies, women had few rights. An Israelite husband could resort to the trial procedure when he had no evidence of his wife’s unfaithfulness but simply had a “spirit of jealousy” concerning her (Nm 5:11-14). Very likely a pregnant wife would be subjected to the ritual if her husband suspected the unborn child was not his own.<\/p>\n<p>The suspicious husband brought his wife to the priest with a special offering of a coarse barley meal (Nm 5:15; cf. Lv 2; 5:11). The priest would take the woman and “set her before the Lord,” mix “holy water” (probably from the tabernacle laver or basin) with dirt from the tabernacle floor, unbind the woman’s hair (perhaps as a sign of shame), and place some of the barley meal offering in her hands (Nm 5:16-18). Then the priest made her swear an oath asserting that, if she had been unfaithful, drinking the “water of bitterness” would bring a curse upon her. She gave assent by saying “Amen, Amen” (vv 19-22). Somehow, after writing out the words of the curse, the priest washed them off into the water. After making a ceremonial offering of a handful of barley meal, the priest made the woman drink the water (vv 23-26). The effect of a guilty verdict was evidenced by bitter suffering, causing the woman to become infertile (v 27).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, W<span>ater of<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verdict. The premise was that a higher power who knew the guilt or innocence of the accused would act to influence the outcome appropriately.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel, as in many other ancient societies, women had few rights. An Israelite husband could resort to the trial procedure when he had no evidence of his wife’s unfaithfulness but simply had a “spirit of jealousy” concerning her (Nm 5:11-14). Very likely a pregnant wife would be subjected to the ritual if her husband suspected the unborn child was not his own.<\/p>\n<p>The suspicious husband brought his wife to the priest with a special offering of a coarse barley meal (Nm 5:15; cf. Lv 2; 5:11). The priest would take the woman and “set her before the Lord,” mix “holy water” (probably from the tabernacle laver or basin) with dirt from the tabernacle floor, unbind the woman’s hair (perhaps as a sign of shame), and place some of the barley meal offering in her hands (Nm 5:16-18). Then the priest made her swear an oath asserting that, if she had been unfaithful, drinking the “water of bitterness” would bring a curse upon her. She gave assent by saying “Amen, Amen” (vv 19-22). Somehow, after writing out the words of the curse, the priest washed them off into the water. After making a ceremonial offering of a handful of barley meal, the priest made the woman drink the water (vv 23-26). The effect of a guilty verdict was evidenced by bitter suffering, causing the woman to become infertile (v 27).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, Water of OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verd...","summary_en":"BITTERNESS OR JEALOUSY*, Water of OT “trial” procedure employed when a husband suspected his wife of adultery but had no evidence to support his suspicion. The ritual, described in Numbers 5:11-31, is thought by some scholars to belong to a class of procedures known as “trials by ordeal.” Such an ordeal subjected an accused woman to some physical hazard for the purpose of determining her guilt or innocence. The effect of the hazard-producing agent on the accused individual determined the verd...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":18590,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of Jealousy*, Ordeal","title_en":"of Jealousy*, Ordeal","content_ro":"<h3>JEALOUSY*, Ordeal of<\/h3>\n<p>Numbers 5:11-28 contains a provision by which a man who suspected his wife of adultery could bring her to the priest to determine her guilt or innocence. She had to appear with a grain offering, take an oath, and then drink “bitter” water mixed with dust taken from the tabernacle floor. As the woman drank the water, the priest offered the jealousy offering. If she were guilty, “her abdomen [would] swell and her thigh [would] waste away” (Nm 5:27, <span>nlt<\/span> mg), and she would be a curse among the people. If she were innocent, no ill effects would result. <em>See<\/em> Bitterness or Jealousy, Water of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JEALOUSY*, Ordeal of<\/h3>\n<p>Numbers 5:11-28 contains a provision by which a man who suspected his wife of adultery could bring her to the priest to determine her guilt or innocence. She had to appear with a grain offering, take an oath, and then drink “bitter” water mixed with dust taken from the tabernacle floor. As the woman drank the water, the priest offered the jealousy offering. If she were guilty, “her abdomen [would] swell and her thigh [would] waste away” (Nm 5:27, <span>nlt<\/span> mg), and she would be a curse among the people. If she were innocent, no ill effects would result. <em>See<\/em> Bitterness or Jealousy, Water of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JEALOUSY*, Ordeal of Numbers 5:11-28 contains a provision by which a man who suspected his wife of adultery could bring her to the priest to determine her guilt or innocence. She had to appear with a grain offering, take an oath, and then drink “bitter” water mixed with dust taken from the tabernacle floor. As the woman drank the water, the priest offered the jealousy offering. If she were guilty, “her abdomen [would] swell and her thigh [would] waste away” (Nm 5:27, nlt mg), and she would be...","summary_en":"JEALOUSY*, Ordeal of Numbers 5:11-28 contains a provision by which a man who suspected his wife of adultery could bring her to the priest to determine her guilt or innocence. She had to appear with a grain offering, take an oath, and then drink “bitter” water mixed with dust taken from the tabernacle floor. As the woman drank the water, the priest offered the jealousy offering. If she were guilty, “her abdomen [would] swell and her thigh [would] waste away” (Nm 5:27, nlt mg), and she would be...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":26064,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Miscarriage","title_en":"Miscarriage","content_ro":"<h3>MISCARRIAGE<\/h3>\n<p>Spontaneous abortion of a nonviable fetus. It occurs in both human (Jb 3:16; Hos 9:14) and animal (Gn 31:38; Jb 21:10) pregnancies. The major problem is not in being unable to conceive or to become pregnant but in carrying the pregnancy to full term. The curse of a “miscarrying womb” results in not being able to have children (Hos 9:14), while the blessing of God results in successful pregnancies and long life (Ex 23:26).<\/p>\n<p>The time factor is the key abnormality as indicated by premature delivery or “untimely birth” (Ps 58:8; Jb 3:16). While miscarriages occur for many reasons, Scripture mentions two: improper care (in animals) (Gn 31:38) and trauma to a pregnant woman (Ex 21:22).<\/p>\n<p>Numbers 5 gives the test for an unfaithful wife. If she is guilty of adultery, then “her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away” (v 27, <span>niv<\/span>). These phrases may be euphemisms for miscarriage or for sterility (see <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Paul underscores his inherent unworthiness to be an apostle by comparing his spiritual birth to an untimely physical birth (1 Cor 15:8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Barrenness.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MISCARRIAGE<\/h3>\n<p>Spontaneous abortion of a nonviable fetus. It occurs in both human (Jb 3:16; Hos 9:14) and animal (Gn 31:38; Jb 21:10) pregnancies. The major problem is not in being unable to conceive or to become pregnant but in carrying the pregnancy to full term. The curse of a “miscarrying womb” results in not being able to have children (Hos 9:14), while the blessing of God results in successful pregnancies and long life (Ex 23:26).<\/p>\n<p>The time factor is the key abnormality as indicated by premature delivery or “untimely birth” (Ps 58:8; Jb 3:16). While miscarriages occur for many reasons, Scripture mentions two: improper care (in animals) (Gn 31:38) and trauma to a pregnant woman (Ex 21:22).<\/p>\n<p>Numbers 5 gives the test for an unfaithful wife. If she is guilty of adultery, then “her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away” (v 27, <span>niv<\/span>). These phrases may be euphemisms for miscarriage or for sterility (see <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Paul underscores his inherent unworthiness to be an apostle by comparing his spiritual birth to an untimely physical birth (1 Cor 15:8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Barrenness.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MISCARRIAGE Spontaneous abortion of a nonviable fetus. It occurs in both human (Jb 3:16; Hos 9:14) and animal (Gn 31:38; Jb 21:10) pregnancies. The major problem is not in being unable to conceive or to become pregnant but in carrying the pregnancy to full term. The curse of a “miscarrying womb” results in not being able to have children (Hos 9:14), while the blessing of God results in successful pregnancies and long life (Ex 23:26). The time factor is the key abnormality as indicated by prem...","summary_en":"MISCARRIAGE Spontaneous abortion of a nonviable fetus. It occurs in both human (Jb 3:16; Hos 9:14) and animal (Gn 31:38; Jb 21:10) pregnancies. The major problem is not in being unable to conceive or to become pregnant but in carrying the pregnancy to full term. The curse of a “miscarrying womb” results in not being able to have children (Hos 9:14), while the blessing of God results in successful pregnancies and long life (Ex 23:26). The time factor is the key abnormality as indicated by prem...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"29":[{"id":44461,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:29","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:29","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:29-31<\/strong> As the trial by ordeal is summarized and justified, it is clear that a husband’s questions about his wife’s guilt or innocence did not burden him with any guilt. We might raise the question of a double standard, but it was very common for ancient laws to draw attention to the woman’s failure in the matter of adultery. However, Israel’s legal system provided for the punishment of both parties to an affair (as in Lev 20:10; Deut 22:21-22).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:29-31<\/strong> As the trial by ordeal is summarized and justified, it is clear that a husband’s questions about his wife’s guilt or innocence did not burden him with any guilt. We might raise the question of a double standard, but it was very common for ancient laws to draw attention to the woman’s failure in the matter of adultery. However, Israel’s legal system provided for the punishment of both parties to an affair (as in Lev 20:10; Deut 22:21-22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:29-31 As the trial by ordeal is summarized and justified, it is clear that a husband’s questions about his wife’s guilt or innocence did not burden him with any guilt. We might raise the question of a double standard, but it was very common for ancient laws to draw attention to the woman’s failure in the matter of adultery. However, Israel’s legal system provided for the punishment of both parties to an affair (as in Lev 20:10; Deut 22:21-22).","summary_en":"5:29-31 As the trial by ordeal is summarized and justified, it is clear that a husband’s questions about his wife’s guilt or innocence did not burden him with any guilt. We might raise the question of a double standard, but it was very common for ancient laws to draw attention to the woman’s failure in the matter of adultery. However, Israel’s legal system provided for the punishment of both parties to an affair (as in Lev 20:10; Deut 22:21-22).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72087,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:29","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:29","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:29-31<\/strong> As the trial by ordeal is summarized and justified, it is clear that a husband’s questions about his wife’s guilt or innocence did not burden him with any guilt. We might raise the question of a double standard, but it was very common for ancient laws to draw attention to the woman’s failure in the matter of adultery. However, Israel’s legal system provided for the punishment of both parties to an affair (as in Lev 20:10; Deut 22:21-22).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:29-31<\/strong> As the trial by ordeal is summarized and justified, it is clear that a husband’s questions about his wife’s guilt or innocence did not burden him with any guilt. We might raise the question of a double standard, but it was very common for ancient laws to draw attention to the woman’s failure in the matter of adultery. However, Israel’s legal system provided for the punishment of both parties to an affair (as in Lev 20:10; Deut 22:21-22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:29-31 As the trial by ordeal is summarized and justified, it is clear that a husband’s questions about his wife’s guilt or innocence did not burden him with any guilt. We might raise the question of a double standard, but it was very common for ancient laws to draw attention to the woman’s failure in the matter of adultery. However, Israel’s legal system provided for the punishment of both parties to an affair (as in Lev 20:10; Deut 22:21-22).","summary_en":"5:29-31 As the trial by ordeal is summarized and justified, it is clear that a husband’s questions about his wife’s guilt or innocence did not burden him with any guilt. We might raise the question of a double standard, but it was very common for ancient laws to draw attention to the woman’s failure in the matter of adultery. However, Israel’s legal system provided for the punishment of both parties to an affair (as in Lev 20:10; Deut 22:21-22).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99713,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:29","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:29","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:29-31<\/strong> As the trial by ordeal is summarized and justified, it is clear that a husband’s questions about his wife’s guilt or innocence did not burden him with any guilt. We might raise the question of a double standard, but it was very common for ancient laws to draw attention to the woman’s failure in the matter of adultery. However, Israel’s legal system provided for the punishment of both parties to an affair (as in Lev 20:10; Deut 22:21-22).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:29-31<\/strong> As the trial by ordeal is summarized and justified, it is clear that a husband’s questions about his wife’s guilt or innocence did not burden him with any guilt. We might raise the question of a double standard, but it was very common for ancient laws to draw attention to the woman’s failure in the matter of adultery. However, Israel’s legal system provided for the punishment of both parties to an affair (as in Lev 20:10; Deut 22:21-22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:29-31 As the trial by ordeal is summarized and justified, it is clear that a husband’s questions about his wife’s guilt or innocence did not burden him with any guilt. We might raise the question of a double standard, but it was very common for ancient laws to draw attention to the woman’s failure in the matter of adultery. However, Israel’s legal system provided for the punishment of both parties to an affair (as in Lev 20:10; Deut 22:21-22).","summary_en":"5:29-31 As the trial by ordeal is summarized and justified, it is clear that a husband’s questions about his wife’s guilt or innocence did not burden him with any guilt. We might raise the question of a double standard, but it was very common for ancient laws to draw attention to the woman’s failure in the matter of adultery. However, Israel’s legal system provided for the punishment of both parties to an affair (as in Lev 20:10; Deut 22:21-22).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127339,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Numeri 5:29","title_en":"Study Note: Numeri 5:29","content_ro":"<p><strong>5:29-31<\/strong> As the trial by ordeal is summarized and justified, it is clear that a husband’s questions about his wife’s guilt or innocence did not burden him with any guilt. We might raise the question of a double standard, but it was very common for ancient laws to draw attention to the woman’s failure in the matter of adultery. However, Israel’s legal system provided for the punishment of both parties to an affair (as in Lev 20:10; Deut 22:21-22).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>5:29-31<\/strong> As the trial by ordeal is summarized and justified, it is clear that a husband’s questions about his wife’s guilt or innocence did not burden him with any guilt. We might raise the question of a double standard, but it was very common for ancient laws to draw attention to the woman’s failure in the matter of adultery. However, Israel’s legal system provided for the punishment of both parties to an affair (as in Lev 20:10; Deut 22:21-22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:29-31 As the trial by ordeal is summarized and justified, it is clear that a husband’s questions about his wife’s guilt or innocence did not burden him with any guilt. We might raise the question of a double standard, but it was very common for ancient laws to draw attention to the woman’s failure in the matter of adultery. However, Israel’s legal system provided for the punishment of both parties to an affair (as in Lev 20:10; Deut 22:21-22).","summary_en":"5:29-31 As the trial by ordeal is summarized and justified, it is clear that a husband’s questions about his wife’s guilt or innocence did not burden him with any guilt. We might raise the question of a double standard, but it was very common for ancient laws to draw attention to the woman’s failure in the matter of adultery. However, Israel’s legal system provided for the punishment of both parties to an affair (as in Lev 20:10; Deut 22:21-22).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}]},"labels":{"article":"Articol","map":"Hartă","chart":"Diagramă","textbox":"Notă explicativă","picture":"Imagine","profile":"Profil","study_note":"Notă de studiu","theme_note":"Temă biblică"},"icons":{"article":"📖","map":"🗺️","chart":"📊","textbox":"💡","picture":"🖼️","profile":"👤","study_note":"📝","theme_note":"🎯"},"typeColors":{"article":"#d4af37","map":"#2d7d46","chart":"#3b82f6","textbox":"#8b5cf6","picture":"#ec4899","profile":"#f59e0b","study_note":"#06b6d4","theme_note":"#ef4444"}}
🔍
Niciun rezultat
Nu am găsit versete care să conțină textul căutat.
Numeri 5
📘 Info carte
Se încarcă...
📖 Resurse
Muzică de relaxareSelectează o piesă
0:00
Redare audio
0 piese
🍪 Folosim cookie-uri
Folosim cookie-uri esențiale pentru funcționarea platformei și cookie-uri de analiză pentru a îmbunătăți experiența ta.
Află mai multe
✝️
Logosasistentul Biserica Online
✝️
Bine ai venit! 👋
Sunt Logos, prietenul tău spiritual. Începe conversația — te ascult cu drag! ✨